Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece/Archive 1

Disputed Material. Evidence that suggests pederasty was not common
Here is just some evidence:

In Plato’s laws the anonymous Athenian states “in the matter of love we may be able to enforce one of two things-either that no one shall venture to touch any person of the freeborn or noble class except his wedded wife, or sow the unconsecrated and bastard seed among harlots, or in barren and unnatural lusts; or at elast we may abolish altogether the connection of men with men; and as to women, if any man has to do with any but those who come into his house duly married by sacred rites, whether they be bought or acquired in any other way, and he offends publicly in the face of all mankind, we shall be right in enacting that he be deprived of civic honors and privileges, and be deemed to be, as he truly is, a stranger.” (laws 841)

What this basically means is that no man shall touch a woman except his wedded wife and that love between males should be prohibited.

Megistess responds “I, for my part stranger, would gladly recieve this law.” The Athenian would shortly later say “We had got about as far as the establishment of the common tabels, which in most places would be difficult, BUT IN CRETE NO ONE WOULD THINK OF INDRODUCING ANY OTHER CUSTOM.” Meaning that the Cretans would adopt the law.

Here are more quotes:

If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he [Lycurgus] approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connection as an abomination; and thus he caused mentors to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers :and sisters with each other. (Lacedaemonian Constitution, II. 13.)

Regarding the myth of Ganymede and Zeus, the myth is compared to

“[as in] Homer pictures us Achilles looking upon Patroclus not as the object of his passion but as a comrade, and in this spirit signally avenging his death. So we have songs telling also how Orestes, Pylades, Theseus, Peirithous, and many other illustrious demi-gods wrought glorious deeds of valor side by side, not because they shared a common bed but because of mutual admiration and respect.”(Symposium, VIII. 30 - 32.)

Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life. (Ancient Customs of the Spartans, 7. 237 - c.)

Robert Flaceliere writes

"[I]t appears extremely likely that homosexuality of any kind was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society. The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind, which seem to have been associated with a sort of snobbery. The available texts deal mainly with the leisured nobility of Athens. But they may give the impression that pederasty was practiced by the entire nation. The subject, however, of the comedy by Aristophanes entitled Lysistrata suggests that homosexuality was hardly rampant among the people at large. It would be an error to think so.

(Robert Flaceliere’s Love in Ancient Greece pg 49-50)

He also writes "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous. We have already suggested that inversion was never very prevalent except in one class of society and over quite a limited period." (pg 140)

"Whether such matters are to be regarded jestingly or seriously, I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust." (Plato's Laws 636)

"The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise, and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age."

(Contra Timarchus 12.)

Also, there is a rediculous claim in the article that the Cretans practiced pederasty as a population control. Funny. I didn't know they were overpopulated. That definitely needs to be taken out. Also read the laws at the top of this page. You all are biased and have your own agendas.Cretanpride 02:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

primary source material from to-do list

 * NOTE: Ensuing text has some useful primary source material.

Sexual Crimes in ANCIENT GREECE α. Child Abuse & Sex Offenses

<<Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων η παρανομον τι πιοηση εις τουτων τινα γραφεσθω προς τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι παθειν η αποτεισαι>>. (Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <>.

β.Pimping To those condemned for pimping freeman or slave ,child or woman the penalty of death is given.

-<<Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου -<<Υμεις Μενωνα μεν τον μυλωθρον απεκτεινατε (=execute) διοτι παιδ ελευθερον εκ Πελληνης εσχεν (=abused,raped) εν τω μυλωνι... Ευθυμαχον δε διοτι την ολυνθιαν παιδισκην εστησεν επ οικηματος (=put up in a brothel)>>. Δειναρχος ,κατα Δημοσθενους ,23

WHORING & *ΚΙΝΑΙΔΙΣΜΟΣ(=homosexuality) <<Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω. Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>. (Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52, 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed

<<τεθνατω αυθημερον>>. Ο Δημοσθενης reports the <<περι της εταιρησεως νομον >> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 21), [εταιρειν= το τους ανδρας πασχειν τα των εταιρων εταιρει μεν ουν και πορνευεται ο πασχητιων] ενω στον ιδιο λογο του (παρ. 30) μνημονευει τον σχετικο νομο του Σολωνος συμφωνα με τον οποιο ο δραστης εστερειτο το σημαντικοτερο για τον Αθηναιο πολιτη δικαιωμα το δικαιωμα του λογου ενωπιον της βουλης και της εκλησσιας αλλα και αυτο της υποβολης <<γραφων>> και <<εισαγγελιων>> δηλαδη δημοσιων μυνησεων. <<μητε λεγειν μητε γραφειν εξειναι τοις ηταιρηκοσιν>> And Λυσιας (Κατ Αλκιβιαδου Α) gives us safe information about the cruel treatment of homosexuals(κιναιδων) in Ancient Athens not only by legislation but by its "liberal" society that mocked and stigmatized this practice. Ο Αριστοφανης δε αθυροστομος τους παραδιδει σε δεινη χλευη παρουσιαζοντας τους με θηλυπρεπεις ενδυμασιες ακκιζομενους (=κουναμενους) ως εταιρες κ.λ.π. και αποκαλωντας τους με ασεμνες ονομασιες π.χ. <<Χαονες>> προκαλωντας ατελειωτους γελωτες στο κοινο.

Στους εταιριζομενους <<τους ομοτεχνους πορναις>> (Δημ.Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 58), συνεχιζει ο Δημοσθενης << οι νομοι ουκ εωσι ουδε τα εννομα τους αισχρως βεβιωκοτας νομον θειναι>> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 24), meaning <>.

Homosexuality α. Of the Athenian State <<Ει τις πεπορνευομενος η εταιρηκως εστι εξειργεσθω ειναι των ρητορων>> (Αισχινης κατα Τιμαρχ. 5,2). ( It is forbidden to whoever has given himself as prostitute or a girl or boy to be a council of the state ). Despite things told and written even in certain universities that homosexuality & pedophilia were not only sanctioned but a normal practice is PROVEN FALSE BY THE ATTIC LAWS. What impresses especially is the cruelty of the penalties to the offenders from total loss of civil rights and death (μη εξεστω αυτω λεγειν και γραφειν = απαγορευεται σε αυτον να λαβαινη το λογο στις λαικες συνελευσεις και να υποβαλλη δημοσιες καταγγελιες) the same day the verdict was pronounced by the  Ηλιαστικο δικαστηριο. Sex crimes were of the heinest type and belonged to the category of public offenses. This derives from the fact that every citizen had the right ( a moral and political obligation in Ancient Greece) to bring against them <<γραφην εταιρησεως >> according to the special <<περι φθορας νομον>>  meaning a public suit because the above offenses were public as they attackes against the state itself ( All of Athens). Beyond the harsh treatment against sex offenders the public opinion was especially hard against them. Homosexuals were called χλευαστικως <<κιναιδους>> meaning those that move shame & aversion <<κινουν την αιδω>> and bring about the punishment of NEMESIS. They were also called ανδρογυναια,γυνανδρους,ημιανδρους,πορνους,ομοτεχνους εταιραις ο δε Αριστοφανης οπως προαναφερθηκε που ηταν ιδιαιτερα καυστικος εξαπελυε εναντιον τους προκαλωντας εκρηξεις γελωτος και χλευασμων του λαου στα θεατρα επικλησεις ως χαονες και αρσενικες πορνες. Ειναι πραγματι εντυπωσιακη αυτη η σταση της Αθηναικης πολιτειας και κοινωνιας απεναντι των ατομων αυτων που εφτανε μεχρι και τον κοινωνικο αποκλεισμο τους θα ελεγε κανεις οτι η ποινη τους ηταν η οιονει capitis deminutio του ρωμαικου δικαιου δηλαδη νομικος αποκεφαλισμος μη αποκλειομενης και της παραπομπης τους στον δημιο οπως ρητωςπροβλεπονταν απο την σχετικη διαταξη. The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment from the most free and liberal state of ancient greece is the regard of such actions as ABOMINATION ΜΙΑΣΜΑ as a disgusting act that made them οιονει εναγεις, that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone. This is also proven from the fact that they had the same treatment as murderers. To remain out of any public event or sacred place and lose  all  civil rights. . Χαρακτηριστικη και διαφωτιστικη ειναι η πληροφορια που μας δινει ο Δημοσθενης (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος) και αφορα βεβαιως τους <<ανδροφονους>>  στους οποιους απαγορευονταν και η εισοδος <<εντος των περριραντηριων της αγορας>> δηλαδη του <<καθαγιασμενου δια ιερων ραντισματων χωρου της αγορας>>  ως μη εχοντων <<καθαρας τας χειρας>>. Εξ αυτου σφοδρως μπορει να πιθανολογηθη οτι επιβαλλονταν η αυτη απαγορευση και στους εταιριζομενους ως μη εχοντας <<καθαρον>> το σωμα τους.

β. The Spartan Laws Against child Abuse Against the commonplace mythicaly regarded as commonplace like <<δωρικους ερωτες>> an excellent source of Spartan Legislation and life, the honest Ξενοφων ο Αθηναιος  in his work <<Λακεδαιμονιων πολιτεια>> ΙΙ,13 reports the law attributed to Lycurgus according to which child abuse is condemned as an ABOMINATION  = <<Εις τις παιδος σωματος ορεγομενος φανειη αισχιστον τουτο θεις εποιησεν (ο Λυκουργος) εν Λακεδαιμονι μηδεν ηττον εραστας παιδικων απεχθεσαι>>. [The lawmaker Λυκουργος charakterized as most horrid if someone desired the body of a child and set that lovers should abstain from this (lovers of the same sex in ancient greece are Spiritual Brethren not sexual partners, remember this & please learn Ancient Greek dont read "translations" in other languages Ancient Greek cannot be translated)]. Ο Πλουταρχος also (Λακεδ. επιτηδ. 7,237 c) informs us that whoever tried to abuse someone was striped of his civil rights for life = <<Εραν των την ψυχην σπουδαιων παιδων εφειτο το δε πλησιαζειν αισχρον νενομιστο ως του σωματος ερωντας αλλ ου της ψυχης ο δε εγκληθεις ως επ αισχυνη πλησιαζων ατιμος δια βιου ην>>. Meaning = The (Λυκουργειος) law allowed admiration towards the mental gifts of the youths but any physical desire was an abomination that declared carnal and not spiritual love. Whoever by law was condemned thus was dishonoured (striped of his civil rights) for life.

γ. Of Magna Grecia (Lower Italy) Even in Magna Grecia where customs and morals where supposedly more lax CHILD ABUSE WAS PUNISHED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY MEANING DEATH THAT TOOK THE FORM OF THE HANGING OF THE OFFENDER. Particularly ο Μαξιμος ο Τυριος (20,9α) informs us=

<<Εν Λοκροις τοις Ιταλιωταις εφηβος ην καλος και νομος καλος και ερασται πονηροι εραν μεν ηναγκαζοντο υπο του καλλους ειργοντο ομως υπο του νομου κακως εραν οιστρουμενοι δε υπο του παθους προς την υβριν τον μεν εφηβον ουκ επεισαν ηξαν δε οι δυστυχεις επι βροχον παντες>>. [To those greeks that reside in Italy Λοκρους (η Επιζεφυριους) there were a handsome youth and cunning lovers but also a proper law. And the lovers where possesed by strong desire because of his physical beauty but were stopped by the law to manifest the carnal part of love but in the end by their strong passion to abuse him tried to lure him but were lead all of them to the gallows.]

And while in Greek Legislation the maximum penalty is given for the heinous crime of child abuse in the Roman it is absent as a crime (Α' βασιλειων ιδ,ιε 12 ,κβ 46, β βασιλειων κγ 7)

Liddel-Scott τομος ΙΙ σελιδα 719 Κιναιδεια,homosexuality= η παρα φυσιν ασελγεια(animal lust,abuse), Αισχινης 18,29 Δημητριος Φαληρευς 97. Κιναιδευομαι= ειμαι κιναιδος Κιναιδος,homosexual= ο καταπυγων(degenerate,One who has annal sex), ο καθολα αισχρος (all shamefull,dishonourable), κακοηθης ανθρωπος (immoral person)
 * Κιναδος δηλ. ο κινων την αιδω

on a lighter note
I really have nothing to contribute other than this article sure puts a spin on the Monty Python philosopher song lyrics "Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle". 64.173.240.130 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous complaints

 * And who posted the note, asserting that pederasty was punishable by death? --Wetman 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Aristotle and Plato's Laws unequivocably condemn homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs).


 * That is a vague and misleading formulation, since Plato in the Laws was condemning anal intercourse with boys (please quote source for Aristotle). That is not inconsistent with his support for chaste pederasty in Phaedrus and the Symposium. It is also demonstrably false, since what is currently understood by "homosexuality" and what Plato wrote about are two very different things. Haiduc 09:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked the article and noticed that some important material on opposition was removed when breaking out the article on Philosophy of Greek pederasty. I have restored the part about Plato's Laws. If you have other material that you feel needs to be quoted here please discuss. Haiduc 10:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are more homosexuals in the United States today than in all of Ancient Greece, and homosexuality was considered normal in Ancient Judaea and Jerusalem, which was the San Francisco of that time, and still is.

This subject requires attention away from personal belief systems. There are several points to make with reference to the above:

Most Greek men expressed their bisexuality through this relationship. Please note that sexual intimacy itself was not frowned upon, if it was processed in the "correct" manner. Anal penetration was stigmatised, a citizen caught in the passive act would find himself in the courts. The reason? To make yourself a passive partner and allow yourself to be penetrated was mimicing the female sexual role. In a mysoginistic society this was a cardinal sin. For metics, or any other males, it was acceptable. The ideal pederastic relationship saw the young boy receive attention from an older male, he was meant to play "hard to get" and thus test the resolve and intention of the older man. The young boy would receive instruction from his older lover, and as such importance was stressed at the suitablility of him.

True the older lover was expected to house sexual motives, but they would not involve penetration. That was the "ideal" to what extent this happened is up for debate.

One theory is that this relationship took the place of the father/son relationship as there was a large age-gap between both. If you assume the average male married when he was expected to (around 30) and add to this that his son would be looked after mostly by his mother till the age of 7 it is possible that many fathers never really bonded with their sons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scamander (talk • contribs).


 * I think in the West we are brought up in Judaeo-Christian belief system which is somewhat narrow minded when it comes to the subject of love. People fail to realize that words such as "Phila Delphia" once existed, which referred to loving someone as a brother or brotherly love.  Is it not possible that the Sacred Band of Thebes were some of the closest of friends, who became so close through their living, fighting and suffering together that they saw and loved one another as Brothers?  Where one soldier of the band would sacrifice his own life to save his Friends', so close was their bond?  Or are we supposed to mindlessly believe that they were all penetrating one another? I think the perversion of modern Western thinking has changed the actual meaning of what the Sacred Band really was and the purpose it served.  --Xenophonos 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite so. Yet most people now fall in line and obediently believe that male love in Greece was about "penetration" and about "dominance." It clearly was first and foremost about love. But, what kind of love? One based on the dogmatic denial of eros, or one honoring eros and also the bounds of moderation, as Philip Macedon implies? Carnal relations were often condemned or avoided, but that did not diminish the erotic nature of the relationship. It may have heightened it. The Thebans were subject to Greek ideals, not Judaeo-Christian ones. Haiduc 12:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seminal matters
Removed this from text: Some research has shown that ancient Greeks believed semen, more specifically sperm, to be the source of knowledge, and that these relationships served to pass wisdom on from the erastes to the eromenos within society. Didn't find any sources. Haiduc 13:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it was Bethe who mentioned that the man's arete (Αρετή) was believed to
 * be transferred to the boy via anal penetration. I don't know for sure, but this may
 * have also been the case with the ancient Persians.
 * Dan Asad 06:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of pederasty
"Greek pederasty went through a series of changes over the millennium from its entry into the historical record and its final demise as an official institution. In some areas, such as Athens, the construction of the relationship seems to have gone from greater modesty in the early days to a freer physicality and lack of restraint in classical times, followed by a return to a more spiritual form in the early fifth century. Its formal end resembled its beginning, in that it came by official decree – that of emperor Justinian, who also put an end to other institutions that sustained ancient culture, such as Plato's Academy and the Olympic Games."

Does anyone know where i can find more information regarding the evolution of greek pederasty? This paragraph is all there is in the article. Thanks. (66.189.104.220 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC))


 * There is little specific material out there, rather there are different presentations at different times, from Homer (Telemachos & Pisistratos in the Oddysey, not properly addressed yet in the literature) to pseudo-Lucian's Erotes, eleven or twelve hundred years later. Read Percy and Sergent. Haiduc 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Charioteers at Chaeronea
The article asserts that the Sacred Band of Thebes at the Battle of Chaeronea consisted of 150 warriors "each assisted by his beloved charioteer". Surely war chariots had been obsolete in Greece for at least three hundred years before Chaeronea (338 BC). Nor does any description of the battle mention chariots. My impression of the Sacred Band is that they fought as hoplites, with erastes and eromenos fighting side-by-side. If they used chariots, and if the eromenoi were charioteers, this remarkable fact ought to be supported by a citation. Agemegos 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get it
I like this article very much. I think I understand what it says, but it leaves gaps which I can't reconcile with my own experience. As a parent, I've read child rearing books which emphasize the value of a male mentor for adolescent boys. Our society has recognized that the root cause of many social ills is the lack of male role models and fathers for our adolescent boys. Charity groups such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, attempt to fill this gap, so to that point, I can see how this institution served the Greeks very well. But our society has also identified the sexual abuse of children to be a root cause of many social ills. Sexually abused children grow up to have all kinds of emotional and developmental problems. The article mentions that Greek men were seen to be deficient if they did have boys as lovers. Many of these men are mentioned by name – names I recognize as prominent men and heroes, but what of the boys? Did they grow up to achieve such status? How could this have possibly been good for the boys? It seems to me that an entire generation would have grown up irreparably damaged, but of course Greek society flourished for hundreds of years, so that's what I just can't see, and that's my suggestion for improving the article. -ErinHowarth 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand your suggestion. The evidence points both ways - some boys were abused and hurt, others were loved unabusively and helped. The Greeks were quite conscious of the abuse issue. Haiduc 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The deal was not abusing little boys, the deal was to take care of their whole education including sexual education. As the article points out, the boys were courted and could choose their mate. Unlike nowadays, after 2000 years of judeo-christianism, the Greeks did not consider sexuality as a sin. But they didn't like the idea of unrestrained passion. They didn't like people unable to control their body or mind. Got it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.40.92 (talk)  18:00, 1 August 2007


 * The answer to Erin's question probably should be in a separate article that talks about how cultural views of Pederasty might or might not have an impact on the psychological experience pederasty has on boys, both historically and today. The current article is focused on history and associated analysis of that history.


 * "I like this article very much. I think I understand what it says, but it leaves gaps which I can't reconcile with my own experience. " Maybe then the issue is coming to terms with things that go beyond your own experience and accepting that not everything will fit nicely within your understanding of contemporary society and what it is. One step that might help you reconcile this issue for you is possibly by understanding that concepts of sexuality are not static nor fixed; rather, they evolve and mutate throughout history. Those child rearing books you've read are contemporary creations; you'd be surprised how far something like 'child-rearing' has changed throughout the previous four centuries. As well, your comments "How could this have possibly been good for the boys? It seems to me that an entire generation would have grown up irreparably damaged," are slightly anachronistic, given how societal values were structured differently compared to your own religious and cultural biases. Rather than seeing the boys as being "damaged" ostensibly because of their sexual relationships with men (an assumption which is arguably fueled by cultural and religious values and taboos), it may have well been considered natural or acceptable. 206.248.179.113 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, " But our society has also identified the sexual abuse of children to be a root cause of many social ills " is arguable and fallacious, considering how society itself is not a barometre from which we can gauge things. Sexual abuse of children being reprehensible notwithstanding,how has it been found to be the root cause of many societal ills? And what societal ills? The above sentence makes for a statement of facts when the point of this article, as I understand it, is to somehow impart on people that societal norms are not static, and what we consider egregious and reprehensible today may have either not been a long time or was understood differently. It is not a matter of justifying or condoning things, but merely to come to grips with the notion that concepts such as "societal ills" and god forbid "sexuality" are arguably socially constructed! 206.248.179.113 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * However, given how fraught the issue of pedophilia is today, and the ways this article will undoubtedly be read and refered to beyond its proper scope, I'd strongly suggest a prominent see-also pointing to articles that examine larger cultural aspects of abuse and/or non-abuse. In other words a clear disclaimer along the lines of "This scope of this article is limited to discussing scholarship on historical evidence for practices in ancient Greece, and on their presumed meanings to those that actually practiced them. Articles on pederasty in other cultures or historical periods, including discussions on how contemporary society views the ancient Greek practices can be found here, here, and here..."  I know that that's annoyingly meta and silly, but I think it's responsible to include it in the article in order to prevent irresponsible or out-of scope readings of it.  --Ajasen 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Solon
In the section 'Regional characteristics - Athens', it is asserted that Solon is the founder of the 'pederastic tradition' in Athens. This is unsubstantiated. Elsewhere at Wiki, the assertion is sometimes wrongly supported by citing Aeschines. This needs to be cleared up.Lucretius (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are they called boys?
Something of note is that these men were not having sex with children they would enter these relationships at the age of marriage for young woman which was around 16 they were not small children and i think it is a disgusting lie and a shame we would dishonor such an amazing ancient civilization by calling them pedophiles which they were not if the age was truly 16. 16 is the legal age of consent of many countries around the world today why do we not call them pedophiles?

In the section Social Aspects it reads,

"Boys entered into such relationships in their teens, around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.179.156 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is very true, but the fact remains that males in adolescence are by that very definition not yet men. The whole point of the regulation of Greek pederasty is that it was a regulated relationship where only males old enough but not too old could participate as beloveds. However, a relationship with an adolescent is not pedophilic in the modern sense of the word. Haiduc (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A sixteen y/o is in my eyes both: a boy and a young man. However, when such a teen later developed a real growth of beard, the erotic part of the relationship was expected to end, so it was actually a rather short time span that is relavant here. Greek homosexuality was basically a case of Ephebophilia, which is not the same phenomenom as Pedophilia. Here you can see how these youths looked like: http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Greece/indexGreece.htm Fulcher (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "boy" is not useful at all in this article nor completely accurate and leaves the reader with suggestions not encyclopedic in nature.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Depending on the polis they entered the institutionalized relationship at 12-14 . Many scholarly sources about pederasty do use the word "boy", as you can easily convince yourself with a google books search. Pcap ping  23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've been replacing boy with youth. I don't particularly mind it, but it does seem prudish given that "boy" is liberally used in scholarly sources on this topic. Pcap ping  00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The main argument I have against what you percieve is that I have easily found references to age as well being upwards of 22. As I stated the use of the term "Boy" is misleading. What defines a boy by age today may not have been so in ancient times, but the varying ages do include older young men as the attraction was the perfection of the male form not looking for the youngest trophy. That simply was not the case. When using the term boy we are communicating or modern usage unless further explained and feel the use of the term to be unencyclopedic in this sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you are making assumptions that are not based on any action so far. Prudish? Well I guess there are all levels, but I see it as not glorifying something that simply not accurate or even encyclopedic.


 * See this google book search;

--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentions of Homosexuality in Modern History
The section on modern scholarship implies that no mention was made of homosexual relationships of classical times in history books until the twentieth century, which is untrue. Edward Gibbon makes quite unequivocal (if euphemistic) reference to it on a number of occasions, in both footnotes to and the main text of Decline and Fall. It would be more accurate to say that references to homosexuality were suppressed in the nineteenth century. Tolken (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technicaly the term Homosexuality did not exist untill the 19th century so depending on what's being discussed here, it may be well to remember the differences between homosexuality and the practice same-sex in ancient times.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. This is explained by Hubbard on page 1 of his book for instance . Pcap ping  23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of removal of content
For the sake of consistency, quotes from the article will be taken from this version, dated 15th March 2010, before I began editing. One example is already given in the above section. I will present first what I have removed from the article, the reference given, what the ancient source cited actually says, and the reason for the removal of content.
 * "Pederasty was constructed in various ways. In some areas, such as Boeotia, the two were formally joined together and lived as a couple. In other areas, such as Elis, the youth were persuaded by means of gifts, and in a few, such as Ionia, such relations were forbidden altogether." Plato, Symposium, 182A. Relevant bits: "Even in the passion for boys you may note the way of those who are under the single incitement of this Love: they love boys only when they begin to acquire some mind – a growth associated with that of down on their chins… For in Elis and Boeotia and where there is no skill in speech they have simply and ordinance that it is seemly to gratify lovers, and no one whether young or old will call it shameful, in order, I suppose, to save themselves the trouble of trying what speech can do to persuade the youths; for they have no ability for speaking. But in Ionia and many other regions where they live under foreign sway, it is counted a disgrace." There is nothing in the source about gifts, being formally joined, and it is not stated that Ionia is in the minority. While the information was based on fact, it seems to have been stretched beyond what the source said to the point of requiring another source.
 * "According to popular sentiment, and as expressed in Pausanias' speech in Plato's Symposium, pederastic couples were also said to be fundamental to democracy and feared by tyrants, because the bond between the friends was stronger than that of obedience to a despotic ruler." Clifford Hindley, "Debate: Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens" in Past and Present, No. 133 (Nov., 1991), p.167N4; Plato, Symposium, 182c. From Hindley: "Plato no doubt reflects popular sentiment when he makes Pausanias suggest that pederastic love was hateful to dictators and favourable to democracy". From Plato: "Foreigners hold this thing, and all training in philosophy and sports, to be disgraceful, because of their despotic government; since, I presume, it is not to the interest of their princes to have lofty notions engendered in their subjects, or any strong friendships and communions; all of which Love is pre-eminently apt to create. It is a lesson that our despots learnt by experience; for Aristogeiton's love and Harmodius's friendship grew to be so steadfast that it wreaked their power." Ostensibly, there doesn't seem much wrong here, however again the sources have been stretched beyond what they said; Hindley suggests that pederastic love was favourable to democracy, not fundamental.
 * "However, once Ionia was annexed by the Persiavs, the practice was outlawed. This was regarded as reflecting moral weakness. On one hand it revealed the rulers' greed for power — thus their suppression of customs likely to lead to strong friendships and inquisitive minds, the product of love. On the other, it revealed the cowardice of the subjects." Plato, Symposium, 182c-d. Source doesn't appear to mention the above event.
 * "Socrates, as represented in Plato's writings, appears to have favored chaste pederastic relationships, marked by a balance between desire and self-control. By setting aside the sexual consummation of the relationship, Socrates essentialized the friendship and love between the partners. He pointedly criticized purely physical infatuations, for example by mocking Critias' lust for Euthydemus by comparing his behavior towards the boy to that of "a piglet scratching itself against a rock"." Xenophon, Memorabilia 1.2.29-30. "…when he found that Critias loved Euthydemus and wanted to lead him astray, he tried to retrain him by saying that it was mean and unbecoming in a gentleman to sue like a beggar to the object of his affection… As Critias paid no heed whatever to this protest, Socrates, it is said, exclaimed in the presence of Euthydemus and many others, "Critias seems to have the feelings of a pig: he can no more keep away from Euthydemus than pigs can help rubbing themselves against stones."" The source does not make the claim that Socrates favoured "chaste pederastic relationships", and to make such a claim is original research. There's also nothing about Socrates "essentialized the friendship and love between the partners".
 * " Socrates frequented boy brothels, from which he bought and freed his future friend and student, Phaedo". Plato, Charmides 155c-e. The source refers to the subsequent sentence, and says absolutely nothing about Socrates going to brothels of any sort, or of Phaedo.
 * The content of the preceding edit is too long to reproduce here, but it was removed for a variety of reasons: the first two bullet points seem tangential to pederasty; the third and fourth bullet points are unsourced; and the final point is original research. That leaves points five and six, which are odd tidbits of information in what was essentially a trivia section.
 * "Other writers, often under the guise of "debates" between lovers of boys and lovers of women, have recorded other arguments used for and against pederasty. Some, like the charge that the practice was "unnatural" and not to be found among "the lions and the bears," applied to all relationships between men and youths. Others' charges do not involve traditional pederasty, but practices devised for the sexual satisfaction of the strong at the expense of the weak. Chief among these is denouncement of the castration of captive slave boys. As Lucian has it, "Effrontery and tyrannical violence have gone as far as to mutilate nature with a sacrilegious steel, finding, by ripping from males their very manhood, a way to prolong their use." Pseudo-Lucian, Erotes. In this instance, the reference refers only to the quote. The source does not make the same points as made in the article.
 * "One of the first cities after Sparta to be associated with the custom of athletic nudity, Megara was home to the runner Orsippus who was famed as the first to run the footrace naked at the Olympic games and "first of all Greeks to be crowned victor naked"." W. Sweet, Sport and Recreation in Ancient Greece, 1987; p.125; Pausanias, 1.44.1. Although the reference to the Sweet book is to the section on nudity in Greek athletics, there is no mention of Sparta or pederasty. Also, the text in the article did not make a link with pederasty so seems irrelevant. Pausanias is given in Sweet, but again only mentions nudity, not pederasty.
 * Hi Nev1 - I think you've done a great job reviewing this article! However I don't agree with all your decisions. I re-instated the Megara stuff because it included mention of Theognis and Theocritus, both of whom are relevant to the issue of pederasty. Megara's pederast connection with Sparta is unreferenced but it looks fairly uncontroversial to me and probably came from Haiduc's general reading. I hope this is OK with you. If not, please feel free to delete again! Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just done a bit of quick researching and the Spartan model of institutionalized pederasty, as an influence on Megara, is supported by William Percy's book Pederasty and Pedagogy in Ancient Greece, Illinois Press (1996) page 123 here, The same book deals with Theognis and Theocritus - pages 130-133. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, every time I have examined a source, it has proven to be misused. In light of this, I am considering taking this article to AfD. I do not have access to all the sources, but I am not optimistic that the article is salvageable in its current form. Nev1 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work in removing all that original research clearly intended to promote a certain POV. If the AfD does not delete the article, I favor further drastic pruning. Nonsense such as Socrates said that he "caught fire" when he saw inside the cloak of Charmides should just be removed (it's nonsense because it's under the heading "Philosophical discourses" rather than "List of anything that can be found that is vaguely related to pederasty"). Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article still needs much more revision. A controversial topic like this should never be developed from primary sources. It should be a summary of conventional arguments made by one of two major secondary sources, with other support added where appropriate. My suggestion is first identify the appropriate secondary sources for this article and then start from there. This is not my kind of research and I hope somebody else will do that. Otherwise, I'm in favour of cutting this article back to a stub. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. As you know, the reason secondary sources are required is that people can find extracts from written works (primary sources) to support any POV. In a quick scan of the article, I cannot see justification even for the caption in the lead image ("Pederastic courtship scene..."). Is there a secondary source supporting the "up-and-down" gesture waffle, or any evidence that pederasty is involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a footnote that lists 2 secondary sources. The second, "Dover supra n. 55; p. 94ff." is puzzling, because this is the first note in the article, so there's no supra, but since so much stuff has been taken out of this article, maybe there was something supra before. Anyway, even without the secondary sources, it should be clear that this image has something to do with ancient Greek pederasty; it's a black figure vase, with two male figures, one bearded (adult), one beardless (youth), and the man is fondling the youth's genitalia. Being skeptical is fine, but it's not productive to take it to an extreme. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnote cites an article by Beazley that's not online, but there's a more recent article by Alan Shapiro ("Courtship Scenes in Attic Vase-Painting," American Journal of Archaeology 85 (1991)) that cites Beazley on pp. 133-34: "One of the finest of all courtship scenes, on an amphora in Würzburg attributed to the Phrynos Painter, includes all the essential features of group alpha. The pair stand opposite each other, the erastes, or lover, on the left, his beloved, the eromenos on the right. The erastes stands with knees bent and arms in what Beazley dubbed the "up and down" position: with his left hand he chucks the boy's chin, a kind of diversionary tactic while the lowered right hand zeroes in on its target." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I agree that the picture appears to represent a man with a youth, but wanted to be confident that the cited reference supports the caption (and your reply provides the confidence that it is verifiable). Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dover pp. 94-96 discusses this type of scene, so the footnote (aside from the anomalous supra) looks fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually two 'up-and-down' pictures in this article. My suggestion for a second caption is: Hey, once is never enough for those who like this kind of thing! Yes, scepticism is proper. Amphitryoniades (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a stub

 * I've restored some material because it wasn't all bad. Example - the section on modern scholarship covers the outline of the modern debate, as far as I understand it. Yes, Haiduc left out some page numbers, but this is not the kind of material he misrepresented - though I think Halperin gets trashed somewhat. Until somebody steps forward and volunteers to rewrite this article from scratch, it's better to retain some Haiduc edits than retain some of the mangled edits that followed. My first preference is still to cut this article back to a stub to encourage rewriting, but I need some strong expressions of support for that step. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I, of course, support reducing the article to a stub and starting again to encourage rewriting. Short of going out and buying all the books referenced, I think it's the only way to be sure there's no misinformation in the article. Nev1 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A stub would be a powerful incentive for rewriting the article and it's an important topic that needs proper editing. I think we still need a couple more supporters to do this - it's a big step. Let's see who else turns up before we wipe the page. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. The parts I've looked at don't misrepresent the sources; this includes some of the material that Nev1 removed recently. I have not read the entire article carefully, and it's clear that some parts needed to be removed, as Amphitryoniades did here. But this nuke and pave approach won't do; legitimate material is being removed, because of unfamiliarity with the subject. To check the references, you don't have to buy the books; there are libraries, you know! Get a copy of Dover's Greek Homosexuality, or Marilyn Skinner's book Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, or something similar. If I ever have time, I'll try to rewrite the article, but I'm afraid that's not going to be in the next few months. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Material can always be reinstated when it's verified - clearing the page allows us to know exactly where we are in that process. And it concentrates the mind wonderfully. Why shackle editors to the choices made by a banned editor? I don't doubt there are better ways to write it - e.g. it needs a section on pederasty in poetry. Here is Haiduc's last edit  for easy retrieval of material. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it can be improved. But until someone does so, it's better to retain a page that contains valid information, as the current page does--you yourself just restored a bunch of material on Theognis and modern scholarship that you thought was ok. On the other hand, if you want to start the work of writing a new article, please do. A section on "pederasty in poetry" sounds like a great place to start. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I am sure you will know if you have ever used one, libraries do not stock every book in the known world! My local library does not, for instance, have many of the books cited in the article. As no one else has come forward with the sources – yourself included – it seems unlikely that we will be able to verify what is written in the article. I do not pretend to be an expert, I may indeed have removed information that was true but not sourced. Perhaps not ideal, but within policy. Stating that it's unacceptable is not especially helpful; if it is, it should be pretty easy for you to find a source. If you are so disinterested as to not be bothered with rewriting this article for several months, please allow others to do so. If that means it is reduced to a stub for a while, then so be it. In the absence of specialist knowledge, we will have to rely on reliable sources; anything unsourced should be removed per WP:V and I still have strong concerns per the above section over information that appears to be sourced. Nev1 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a lack of interest, it's having other commitments. If you reduce this to a stub, you will be removing valid information from the encyclopedia. How is that an improvement? I'm sorry you don't have access to good sources, but the fact that you personally cannot verify the information in this article is not a justification for reducing the article to a stub. I don't mean to be rude, but you've acknowledged that you don't know much about this subject, so you don't know whether some of the information you removed was valid--but you want to stub the article anyway. What is this but allowing ignorance to dominate the article?
 * As I've already said, if others want to rewrite the article, I'm all in favor of it! But if no one is going to do so in the near future, the article should not be stubbed, because even in its current form, it will give readers useful information about the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This encyclopaedia is not written for experts; as such, readers cannot be expected to know what is and what is not valid information. Hence wikipedia's policy of providing inline sources so readers can see where the information has come from. By making the article a stub, some good information may be lost, but I'm also certain that some crap will be got rid of as well. If no one is able to firmly separate one from the other, both must go. But the great thing about valid information, is that someone can find a source and re-add it. You have still not provided any sources. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, Wikipedia isn't written for experts. But when non-experts edit, it's often the case that they know little to nothing about the subject--as you have already said is the case with you. Therefore, how can you render judgments as to what's valid information and what isn't in this article?
 * "You have still not provided any sources." This is wrong--I've mentioned sources on this talk page, and I've checked some sources in the article already. However, it is absolutely unreasonable to demand that someone suddenly source every single thing in the article, or you're going to stub the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly think it unreasonable when the article was written by a banned editor with a track record of original research and misrepresenting sources that goes beyond this article. Nev1 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well here's a suggestion - let's try the article as a stub for two months. If it's still hardly more than a stub after that, you can restore the current edit. I think that's fair. The current edit includes such a tangle of incoherent and poorly sourced arguments that it really isn't worth keeping except as a memorial to a banned editor. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a topic that interests me, but the deletion of properly sourced and cited material does bother me. I've seen a number of arguments going back and forth by the same group of people who've made numerous revisions to this article since Haiduc's last revision on October 25, and according to the other people concerned here that hasn't really made the article a whole lot better.  It seems to me that the "dishaiducking" of Wikipedia has been taken to extremes here.
 * My suggestion is for one editor who hasn't been directly involved in that process would go through the article as it stood on October 25, and evaluate each change made since then to determine whether it was justified, and harmonizing the changes that were reasonable and necessary with the base article. It sounds to me as if, even though Haiduc has been banned, his article had merit and was well-written.  What needs to be removed or changed is inappropriate bias or emphasis on connections that may not really be important to the article.  That sort of revision is typical of all kinds of articles, not just Haiduc's, and it seems to me that the only reason why it's become such a mess is because the article concerned sexual themes.
 * Hence, my recommendation is that it be re-revised by a sensible, moderate editor such as Cynwolfe, who's tried to maintain a neutral ground as far as the viewpoint of the material, but who is willing to acknowledge the value of content even when the contributor is unpopular. Content shouldn't be deleted because you don't know what the original source says or whether it's fairly represented, and that's what reducing the article to a stub would effectively do.  Except when the material is obviously inaccurate, it should be presumed valid until demonstrated otherwise.  The facts that Haiduc has been banned and that some of his assertions are allegedly biased in favor of certain positions are not really enough to overcome that presumption.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Verification of sources and removal of original research
I've inserted a new section heading here after the next few paragraphs were already posted, because this is an important discussion and the prior section heading was too narrow. Although there are some editors who support a reboot of the article as a stub, that is not the only option and it's not likely there will be consensus for that. There is a continuum of options for handling the issues of the text and sourcing in this article, not just a choice of stubbing or not stubbing. The text continues here as it was, with only the new section heading inserted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of text that is not supported by sources verified by current editors. Usually that is not necessary and citation requests can stand for a while as articles are sourced.  But in this situation it's needed.  So much of the article was written by a banned user who is widely known to have misused sources that editors-at-large cannot know which of the sources in the text have been confirmed by any editor in good standing and which may be completely incorrect.


 * We also have to be careful with ancient sources that require interpretation by an expert to be used. Since this topic is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, there must be secondary sources that can be found and used - after all, coverage by reliable sources is the definition of notability.  Other than very simple and clear facts requiring no interpretation, information supported only by ancient sources should be removed until secondary sources can be found.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose reducing this article to a stub. There are a number of secondary sources already cited. What usually happens in writing an article on some aspect of antiquity is that your secondary sources will cite a number of primary sources; standard practice is to cite both, not necessarily in the same footnote. For instance, you might cite a passage in Plato directly for its details, and then footnote the secondary source for an overview or interpretational remark. This article is well sourced, though it has some organizational and POV problems, and could benefit from additional secondary sources. I don't see any reason to start from scratch, as there is very good material here. It needs editing, not deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That kind of sourcing is acceptable in an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. I'm not saying primary sources should not be used, I'm saying secondary sources should be used more. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're not going to *find* any, you're just going to demand that other people do so, *right now*, or you're going to remove most of the article's content. Right? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that I have been trying to find sources. Nev1 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An editor doesn't find his own primary sources, and then make of them what he will. Your secondary sources tell you what primary sources are relevant; most G&R articles cite many primary sources, but in most cases it's evident that the person putting together the article hasn't compiled these himself. For instance when I'm writing a biographical article, I include the primary sources as noted by my secondary sources; many footnotes, however, will show only primary sources that pertain to the particular point, and primary sources will be quoted: see example here. I try to check primary sources when possible, because sometimes citations have numerical typos or refer to editions less available online. In the field of classical studies, interpretations change; the primary sources themselves are constant. They're the bedrock of the discipline. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia article on a subject from antiquity that didn't cite primary sources? The classics such as Smith's and the 1911 Britannica cite them copiously (not to mention the grandaddy of them all, PW). So too surveys such as the Cambridge Ancient History series, which are essentially expanded encyclopedia articles. You are making a false distinction between "essay" (which this article emphatically is not) and "encyclopedia article," as if it has something to do with the use of primary and secondary sources, rather than mode of discourse. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, but there is one very important difference between wikipedia and something like the CAH. They have been professionally produced, whereas wikipedia is written by anonymous people. Perhaps I should use scare quotes when describing wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. As explained above, much of the of the information removed was attributed to just ancient sources; though it may have been referenced by a modern work, it wasn't any longer. Both need to be given. The reason secondary sources are required is because we are anonymous; obviously they're essential to ancient history, but there's no guarantee that any of us are qualified to make judgements on the sources, so we rely on secondary sources which do that for us. Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

To Nev1 and others re accessibility of books. I don't know if there are any accessible academic libraries near you, but if book availability is really the obstacle it's worth using Worldcat, at least to get a listing of the nearest libraries owning a given book. Also, especially if it's a question of checking a particular reference, Amazon and Google often have book previews from which a lot can be extracted. For example, Dover's Greek Homosexuality can be previewed both at Google Books and at Amazon.

As far as the more general dispute goes, I dislike deletionism and would prefer that primary and secondary sources be shown to be used in a WP:POV way before they are removed or altered. The fact is that multiple knowledgeable and unbiased editors are obviously watching this page and looking through the article, so I think the idea that there's lots of untrustworthy material in here needing emergency excision is exaggerated. There's every reason to believe in a gradual improvement. Meanwhile, anyone who wants to replace a section with a better-crafted one that will command consensus is free to do so. Wareh (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On using Google Books: while it can be frustrating (lots of interruptus), I'm always surprised at how much is available. At worst, you can find out whether a book is useful enough to track down. Sometimes, if you're both crafty and lucky, you can sometimes coax missing pages out of Amazon. Sometimes publishers offer sample chapters, which tend to be introductions or first chapters useful for overview-seeking encyclopedists. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stubbing doesn't mean we lose material - I've already earmarked the old article as last edited by Haiduc (see above): the material is still available for retrieval once it's been properly sourced and cited. Otherwise how will you know which citations have been verified and which have not? Or maybe some of you think the article won't quickly recover from stubbing. Stub it and see what happens - if it still resembles a stub in two months, I myself will restore the current edit. I'm certain it will develop quickly from a stub - people will reintroduce some of Haiduc's material after verifying it, and they will also use it as a guide, but they will also be creative and come up with new ways to approach the subject. The current edit discourages people getting involved - nobody really wants to spend time repairing someone else's mess. Add this also - a stubb gets people thinking about the future instead of the past. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course material is lost. Supposedly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing free information to anyone with an internet connection. Most of the people who read Wikipedia don't edit it. According to http://stats.grok.se/ this article has been accessed 13982 times in March 2010 . People are reading this article, and even in its current state they're still getting some information out of it. If the article is stubbed, those readers can see far less information. Most of them will have no idea that this talk page exists, or how to use the history tab, so for them this article effectively disappears. And no matter what people say now about rewriting the article, the likelihood that the article will actually be rewritten in the near future is low. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a poor argument for keeping information that is likely to include deliberate mistakes. That's 13,982 times someone has read this article and taken away a mixture of good and bad information without the prerequisite knowledge to sift the crap out themselves, especially if they're taking the sourcing at face value. That's too many, but you don't seem too bothered by that. If you want to talk about what's best for readers, think about deliberately spreading misinformation and how to justify the continuation of it. This is quite frankly ridiculous. Nev1 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "likely to include deliberate mistakes"--you assert this, but you haven't shown it. Your list above never shows that deliberate misinformation was put in the article. You've already said you don't have much background knowledge on this subject; if you had, you would have realized that some of the material you removed is uncontroversial--it's just not adequately referenced. Amphitryoniades has already restored some material you erroneously removed. I don't think this article is very good, but I haven't seen anything yet that is actively misleading. Thus, it's better to present readers with some information, rather than no information. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The topic itself really is outside my scope and (up to a point) my interest, but I find this a worrying development. I'm very much against the deletion of cited content simply because it was contributed by an editor with an agenda. As far as I know, we judge material on its own merits; yes, there a bias in some parts of the article, but re-expression and a balanced interpretation will achieve more than a wholesale gutting. If someone wants to redevelop it, why not on a user-page? Better to have a fully referenced article with problems than a stub, with no problems at all because it has next to no content. As someone has said elsewhere, this might be uncomfortable reading, and it needs careful attention but it's not toxic.Haploidavey (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A stub isn't toxic either. It's a temporary loss - it's the kind of interruption that goes on in the real world all the time, when supermarkets close for renovations, when roads are blocked to allow for new work, when tv programs go off air at the end of the season so a new series can be produced etc. It's normal and it's as healthy as sleep. Trying to patch this article together from such a ruined fabric is a waste of effort and it won't result in anything worth consulting. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not toxic, it's virtually absent. Wikipedia has a whole heap of stubs awaiting development, and far worse articles than this one; as far as I know, none of those have been shut down for servicing. As far as I can tell (which I admit is often not much) they're either entirely deleted or intensively repaired, with or without an "underconstruction" tag. Despite its faults, I feel this one is worth consulting. Haploidavey (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Haploidavey's comments. This article does have a giant "original research" warning at the top, which goes a good way towards answering the naive-readers objection, and I don't believe anyone here is objecting to a WP:BOLD move that will replace an old section with a new section of equivalent bulk but better quality. If the supermarket-renovation argument really holds, prefabricate the new supermarket, and then bulldoze the old one & set down the new one all in one swoop. Wareh (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub proposal
Amphytrionades, in the interest of judging your stub proposal fairly, could you create what you're envisioning on a user page and give us a link here? (Under another heading I plan to ask some questions under the assumption that the current content will be preserved.) Perhaps that's asking a lot, but on the other hand it's mainly a matter of copying the text of the article, pasting it in, and stripping out everything you think should go. That way we're not all just going on and on about hypotheticals. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what a stub looks like, Cynwolfe - it's a bare minimum of info, hardly more than a paragraph, without sections or even pictures. I don't expect it to remain a stub for more than a few days. Some people will soon start restoring Haiduc's material - after they have sourced it properly, which could be as easy as locating page numbers, though a lot of it will require finding secondary sources. Others will start introducing new material. Somebody will then emerge as the main editor. The article then begins to have a real future, with everyone confident that the foundations are good. Or do you think Wikipedia lacks the human resources to manage this? New articles are created all the time. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know what a stub looks like; I wanted to know which content would remain for the stub you proposed, and what would be deleted. So if you didn't want to create the stub yourself, how was it supposed to come into existence? I honestly don't understand what you want. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm happy to create the stub. The current introduction will suffice with minor changes in the text - everything else in the article can be deleted, including the OR tag at the top of the article. My expectation is that some editors will almost immediately reinstate those parts of Haiduc's last edit that are already adequately sourced or that can be sourced easily. My hope is they won't reinstate many passages that rely only on primary sources, though some of course could be reintroduced as 'common knowledge'. I myself will reinstate some things if nobody else does. What do I want out of this process? I want an article that is properly sourced. I want people like Nev1 and others to feel confident in the legitimacy of the article - I include myself among those people. That won't happen until everything is pulled out for cleaning and verifying. When things are cleaned and verified, they can be restored. And hopefully new material will be added. I mean it shouldn't be difficult to understand this. I could say like Lear Oh reason not the need. The need is felt by a lot of people. If you are like Lear's daughters, that won't work, so how about this - how else are we to know which material has been verified and which hasn't, unless everything is removed and checked before it is returned? Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * People feel a lot of needs around here. Those who act upon their feelings, against policy and the good of the encyclopedia, are vandals; temporising with vandals on a rampage is rarely good practice. As for the final question, feel free to tag any text where you feel Nev1 and his fellow crusaders have a point.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes people do feel a lot of needs. Your need is to play His Majesty with other people's suggestions. Who gave you that authority, Your Majesty? You want to ban 'Amadscientist and his allies', Your Majesty? They are what you get when a propagandist like Haiduc has been left to run amok for five years. It's you staring back at you, Your Majesty. You want citation tags? Where do I even begin to put them? Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Start by restoring the missing text and reading it; you have Nev1's complaints above to guide you. Some of them are unjustified, but even those indicate spots that could be improved.


 * Wikipedia is not a battleground; Haiduc is gone. It is far past time for those who conquered him to "declare victory and go home". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If only it were true that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Given what Amphitryoniades said in his response above, I don't see why he won't accept my suggestion and create the proposed stub on a user page, so that we could achieve a yea or nay consensus on whether this was worth doing. Given that he said he would immediately restore some of the deleted information, or be in favor of others doing it, what's the point in taking it out in the first place? Again, editing, not deletion, is the way to go. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dishaiducking
This diff shows what has been removed since Haiduc's last edit, if I read the history correctly. It appears to be extensive information, based on the best available authorities; as far as I am able to judge at a distance from a library (as I am today) it appears to be both accurate and even fairly balanced (as the present dismembered text, with its random mention of Foucault as one of the items of history, is not).

This is appalling. Amadscientist and his disruptive allies should be banned; I am tempted to simply revert, keeping the OR tag. I do not see how stubbing can possibly help the situation; but if Amphy presents a draft, I will consider it.

If I can find the time, I will go through, paragraph by paragraph, restoring what has been removed.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you look over this talk page before posting the above? If not, please do. If you did, please refer to the previous discussions and indicate any problems that you see. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nev1 has found a few instances of over-reading, and of careless sourcing. Nevertheless, most of the statements he objects to are quite correct; for example, most of the classical Greek states did have paederasty as part of the culture (Dover should have been used as a secondary source). Chaste paederastic relationships are the first stage of the Socratic ascent; but the proper citation is from the Republic, not from Xenophon - although Xenophon justifies chaste, which is only implicit in Plato. The proper treatment of these was fixing, or at least dubious tags, not removal - especially since Haiduc cannot come back and explain himself.


 * In at least one case, Nev1 appears to be hasty and careless himself: The sentence on Olympic nudity appears  to be quite correct and I believe correctly sourced; the objection - not clearly stated - appears to be that it is off-topic, which seems specious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the sentence in the intro seems far-ranging in bringing together artistic and athletic nudity, symposia, and the 'social seclusion' (which sounds like an oxymoron) of women, but in fact it's all part of the big picture in which pederasty makes sense in its Greek setting. The fashionable word for this is "homosociality"; if that article weren't so limp and misleading, it would be worth using the word in the intro and linking to it. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of the relation of secondary to primary sources
Our article here is intellectually (and hence structurally) sloppy, but not as far as I can see fundamentally wrong or misleading. The fact that Dover's over-emphasis on "active/passive" roles and their meaning has been usefully undermined in the scholarship doesn't mean that Dover shouldn't be well represented here, because that isn't all his work is about (I read it, but many years ago), and his book was a landmark in the subject.

An example of what I mean by "intellectually sloppy": the intro specifies Archaic Greece as the period in which pederasty was a most characteristic social institution — and then most if not all of the primary sources discussed are Classical. The lyric poets of the Archaic period, such as Theognis addressing Kyrnos, are not here. The article on Theognis of Megara notes that the Musa Paedica is inauthentic, but then doesn't address the question of this relationship in the authentic poems, which is hardly surprising since we're in Britannica 1911 territory. A more recent scholar notes: The Theognidean corpus embodies the ideology of an aristocratic group — probably that of Athens rather than Megara, though Theognis identifies himself as a Megarian (1.23). Its most striking characteristics are a rather repellent and self-satisfied snobbery and an enthusiasm for pederasty that, by comparison with Theognis's chilling elitist pronouncements, is at least attractive for its human warmth. … The relationship between Kyrnos and the speaker is curiously difficult to define. In antiquity, he seems to have been taken for Theognis's eromenos (beloved), a superficially likely assumption, and The Suda makes it explicit — but none of the specifically erotic poems is addressed to him by name, and the observations on the joys and sorrows of pederasty the poet shares with Kyrnos (2.1353–56) seem more properly addressed to a fellow erastes (lover, pederast), perhaps a fellow banqueter, than to an eromenos. The relationship, in any case, is left vague. This is the kind of nuance and contextual understanding required for this article: not the discarding of primary source material, but the addition of secondary scholarship to frame it.

The role of eros in Xenophon, given his military and moral preoccupations, is also extremely interesting, beyond cherry-picking remarks; see, for instance, Clifford Hindley, "Eros and Military Command in Xenophon," Classical Quarterly 44 (1994) 347–366, where the emphasis (as with Plutarch's much later remarks on Solon's sexual conduct) is on how one manages one's passions in regard to the performance of duty, while acknowledging the turbulent reality of erotic attraction. In discussing, for instance, Xenophon's disapproval of a specific instance of sexual conduct, Hindley concludes: It was not, I suggest, based upon a moralistic condemnation of pederastic love, but on the perceived duties of a commander in chief, who must avoid rendering himself open to improper pleasure. The morality involved is a morality of military and political duty, not a morality of sexual acts per se. … The opportunities for homoerotic pleasure available to Greek armies and their commanders in the field must have been many, and the resulting relationships complex. … Xenophon recognised that such relationships might well be honourable, and motivate men to valour in battle. But experience also taught him that situations could well arise where to indulge in eros was fraught with military or political danger. In such situations, he had no doubt that the welfare of the city should take precedence over individual impulse, and for him the ability to resist erotic desire where necessary ranked high among the qualities required by a military leader. (pp. 365–366) Again, the emphasis is on how the moral questions would've been framed in their historical context, not in our own legal or moral terms. The point is, all the primary sources presented here are relevant to the topic. Anyone who feels that a particular passage has been taken out of context or otherwise presented misleadingly should "adopt" that passage by spending a day or two or week researching the secondary scholarship on it, then digesting that scholarship and presenting it in the article. Deletion is not the answer. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement would be highly appropriate if applied to many other topics, but it does not address the issue here. First, it is a fact that a small number of people have used Wikipedia to promote a positive outlook on pederasty (I do not follow the topic yet I have noticed two such editors get instantly banned when discovered; I imagine that such an approach comes from the Wikimedia Foundation). Second, it is policy that "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and it is simply unacceptable in such a contentious area for editors to extract tidbits from primary sources to illustrate some POV. The normal there is no deadline approach is not applicable to this article since we know that it contains OR from someone wanting to promote a certain outlook. Only material based on secondary sources, as verified by editors in good standing, should be in this article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "since we know that it contains OR from someone wanting to promote a certain outlook." No. This has been repeatedly asserted, but never demonstrated in this article. Nev1's list above contains no serious examples of OR; it shows that the article was inadequately referenced, but not that it misrepresented the sources or the subject. This is the kind of thing that happens when an editor doesn't have any background knowledge of the subject and doesn't know the secondary sources. The article has now been looked at by several editors who do have the background knowledge (me, Wareh, Cynwolfe, Pmanderson) and we don't think the problems with the article merit stubbing. The normal process for suspected OR, which is all we have here, is to tag problematic statements and wait for other editors to provide sources. There's no reason to do anything different here. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of specious nonsense is coming out of the CGR project, such as this by PMAnderson (above): Haiduc is gone. It is far past time for those who conquered him to "declare victory and go home". Translation: Haiduc is a victim of other people and they don't belong here. Elsewhere Arb.com has been blamed. The fact is that Haiduc is the victim of his own propagandistic edits. So long as influential figures in the CGR project continue to ignore or even deny that fact, and so long as they continue to resist revisions of Haiduc articles like this, more and more conscientious editors are going to undertake extreme measures of their own - 'Amadscientist and his allies' are the product of CGR nonsense. The stub proposal is a sensible one. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So what exactly are the "propagandistic edits" in this article? Be specific, please. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? Look just at the intro, for example - it introduces us to pederasty 'as idealized by the Greeks'. So we start straight off with an idealized account. It says that erastes and eronemos were not from the same family, thus obviously trying to distance pederasty from incest (what about Solon and Pisistratus - relatives and that's family to most people). It says: It was integral to Greek military training, and thus a factor in the deployment of troops - that's a sweeping generalization (promoting the view that boys don't become less manly just because adult males have sexual relations with them). It's true that idealized accounts from a few ancient authors do depict pederasty as part of a military ethic for some societies at times in their history, and I have no doubt that it has some validity, but I want leading scholars to define the full extent of it, not Haiduc in the introduction to an article that sets the tone for what follows. And it's like that throughout the article, sometimes in obvious ways and sometimes in much more subtle ways, reflecting choices based on his personal views and not on the research of scholars. It's Haiduc's gospel of pederasty. A complete rewrite is needed, including a restructure and a different set of priorities. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you surprised that the idealized form was first? Would not the Wikipedia article on marriage in the United States start off with a description of idealized marriage, before talking about men who beat their wives? And older versions of the article say that the boy was outside the _immediate_ family, and Pisistratos was indeed outside Solon's immediate family, not a son, not a little brother. And did the Greeks not talk about if it was a good idea or not to post lovers next to lovers, some saying that they fought better that way, and others saying that a good fighter fought better no matter what? You are very vehement, but thin on substance. It is like you are punching at wisps of fog thinking they are demons.Cindywallenstein (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Cindy, you're a new name to me; welcome. Yes, it was my impression that paiderastia was expressly not a relationship between blood relatives. And yet I agree with Amphitryoniades about the intro to an extent. It's what I meant by being intellectually sloppy. That is, some of the right bits are there, but it's badly written. The ideal of the pederastic relationship is not the same as the reality, but there certainly was an ideal. "Courtly love" as a topic of scholarship is not the same as studying adulterous relationships in the Aquitanian court in a particular period. The failure to make this distinction seems to be one of the problems blocking the proper development of this article.

Having looked at A's stub, I find it too radically pruned. Since the intro is so flawed, A, why is it all you've retained? I was hoping to see you express positively how you think the topic should be approached. I have some sense of what you don't want in there, and no picture of what you do.

I have to assert also that to somehow exclude primary sources is to misunderstand the study of antiquity; as I said above, the primary sources are the unchanging bedrock that outlasts the relevance of Foucault (though not the importance of including Foucault in the historical consideration of how the topic's been treated). To repeat myself, please show me an encyclopedia article on this topic or a similar topic that doesn't cite or discuss any primary sources, that doesn't name an ancient Greek writer and mention his views. Secondary sources are subject to intellectual fashion; their interpretations are always treated as provisional, that is, the best we can come up with at the moment, given that we can never retrieve what was actually inside the minds of the Greeks (the primary sources are not transparent; on that we all agree). Our contemporary biases and proclivities always shape even the most objective attempts. That's why we present something of the primary sources (or at least enough that an interested party can pursue them further), and then offer secondary interpretations from various POVs: the reader can then judge for herself the validity of these.

To Johnuniq: I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. You say you want secondary sources; you say this after I have provided two examples of balanced, non-politicized approaches from recent scholarship, and when I've condemned cherry-picking Xenophon. You say this material isn't "appropriate" for this article. Why not? I can assure you that Classical Quarterly is just the kind of "reliable, published" source you're requesting, and not a front for recruiting pedophiles. I've read Dover, as well as some of Bernard Sergent's interesting work; I had Hindley's article on file, and Koehl's article on the Chieftain Cup (re: Cretan pederasty) because I've researched some aspects of the topic in the past (pederasty as an aspect of initiation rites, not paiderastia per se). But these sources are meaningless and incomprehensible without also giving readers some direct glimpses of the primary materials, both art and literature. This article is about how the ancient Greeks represented the pederastic relationship. If you think otherwise, please say what you think it should be about.

I must say, I'm losing patience for people saying what they don't want in the article, without making concrete suggestions about what they do want in it. Whatever the noble intention, it's coming across at this point as an attempt to block coverage of the topic at all. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please show that you understand the issue that is being discussed (a highly contentious topic that is known to be a target for activists wanting to promote the concept of pederasty as being a great way of life, and an article that has been devotedly edited by a now-banned user). If this were some other topic of antiquity, I may defer to your expertise, despite the fact that it is not my wanting secondary sources that is important: an analysis by secondary sources is required on Wikipedia to avoid cherry-picking by anonymous editors. Sure, primary sources are ok, but only when backed by an analysis in a reliable source. One reason I am sensitive about that point is my interest in evolution where periodically someone will drop in and quote things like an extract from a work written 150 years ago by Charles Darwin – an extract chosen to support some anti-science or anti-Darwin POV (Darwin often started a chapter with some hook such as despairing over how evolution could have produced an eye, before then spending 50 pages explaining how that can in fact occur). You may be able to judge that such-and-such a primary source is not being misconstrued in this article, but given the background, that is not adequate. I am sympathetic how, for example, an editor who is a physicist can be irritated when asked by passers-by to provide sources for perfectly obvious (to a physicist) statements. Yet, when controversy erupts, Wikipedia has to fall back on suitable sources because we cannot and should not evaluate editors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, most of Haiduc's text was both correct and supported by his sources.


 * Secondly, demanding proof of expertise is inappropriate and un-wiki; this is not Citzendium - and a good thing too. (As it happens, I have two FA stars, one historical and one classical; but what matters is the strength of argument. Cynwolfe's credentials are his discussion and citations above, which are far more to the point.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you are not intending this reply for me? I had intended to explain that the expertise of an editor is not considered when assessing an edit – the exact opposite of what you seem to suggest I said. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way have I not understood the issue being discussed? Show me what I don't understand. If this article were handled like every other article on an aspect of antiquity, there would be no problem. The problem arises when people try to use it to promote causes.

Look, although evidently we're supposed to pretend we're bots and not people, you have asked me to demonstrate my understanding of how this subject relates to a pedophilic agenda. First of all, I doubt pedophiles are ever created from reading Plato; precious few philosopher kings are created from reading Plato. There are, of course, intellectualized pedophiles who would like to say that if it was OK for the Greeks, it's OK for us. This is an utterly specious argument. The implication of such an argument is that pedophilic impulses are "natural," and that the Greeks found a socially affirming way to channel them; even if these impulses were natural, however, it is irrelevant to our own construction of morality. It's "natural" to kill and rape; civilization is about controlling natural impulses. It's natural to sleep with everyone you find attractive; some people do this, or try to, for part of their lives, and then make a conscious moral choice to cultivate the more difficult and disciplined benefits of monogamy. As a society, we have made a moral choice to protect young people from sexual predators, and to manage the sexuality of minors within clearly defined legal limits. I am extremely sensitive to the issues of pubescent sexuality, because I'm the parent of a 13-year-old. I know very well how fraught and vulnerable this time of life is. My daughter has posters of Edward and Bella and that werewolf guy without his shirt next to a shelf of pink bunnies and teddy bears and fairy figurines; it's a liminal age, and over the millennia cultures have developed various rites of passage to deal with this transition. The warehousing called "Middle School" is the rite available to my daughter. I find this not altogether satisfactory, but infinitely preferable to selling her off as a "bride" to some 40-year-old pervert, as still occurs in at least a few societies today.

Closing one's eyes and intellectual censorship are never the way to deal with anything, let alone an encyclopedia article on the specifics of a social custom from more than two thousand years ago. If you're so worried about the sexual hazards our children face, go do something about it; to find out what, contact your political representatives or humanitarian agencies who deal with such real problems as child brides in Yemen or the trafficking of boys in the here and now. But please do not imagine that your justified moral outrage has anything to do with the scholarly presentation of pederasty in ancient Greece. You would correctly oppose deletions to an article on evolution made by religionists without regard to contemporary scientific principles that are fundamental to the subject. Likewise, the much-vilified voices from the Greece&Rome project oppose deletions that are contrary to the scholarly principles of the study of antiquity. In both cases, it's fact (even if contrary to what Wikipedia likes to pretend) that you have to know what those underlying principles are before you can apply them.

I could go to Slope (mathematics) and delete the entire article, because none of it is footnoted; I could justify this by saying "there are no footnotes." (I happen to think that the article doesn't require footnotes, but ought to have some sources listed at the bottom.) Editors who know something about mathematics would surely pounce on me and say that these are fundamental principles as demonstrated by the graphics and equations. I could then allege that these equations represent OR, when of course there's nothing "original" about them; this is analogous to the use of primary sources in classical studies. Why would I want to go around deleting great swathes of mathematics articles, when I don't have the knowledge basis to know whether or not they're right and useful? I can instead leave a tag. One of pro-deletion editors involved in this discussion (under another name that he acknowledges) deleted from the Julius Caesar article the list of works written by Caesar, each of which was bluelinked to its respective article. Exactly what was accomplished by that? Did this person not know that Julius Caesar wrote commentaries on both the Gallic Wars and the Civil War of the 40s? If not, did he bother to find out whether the information was correct before deleting it? This would've been extremely easy to do. How could anything ever get done on Wikipedia if all articles were constantly under this kind of nihilistic attack?

On other occasions, I have had disagreements on specific matters of content with nearly every G&R person with whom I agree on this talk page. These debates took place with an understanding of the methodology of classical studies, and in the end were productive. I don't see how anything constructive can come out of a dialogue in which one side takes the view that "I don't know as much about this subject as those immoral geeks from the G&R Project, but my views ought to prevail anyway, because — " well, it's the "because" I'm not understanding. Because you think you're fighting evil by deleting quotations by Greek philosophers from an article on ancient Greece? 16:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)