Talk:Warren Cup

Relationship of the young man & boy depicted on the Cup
I have to disagree with the following text in the article about the relationship of the young man with the boy he is penetrating on the Cup: "... the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm.... on the Warren Cup, a mutual tenderness is represented."

This appears to be an assumption which goes well beyond the scene depicted on the Cup. It may be true that it was intended to depict mutual tenderness, and encouragement of the sex by the boy. But it is equally possible, based solely on the scene depicted, that the man is penetrating the boy without the latter's consent, encouragement, or pleasure. We simply don't know.

The young man and the boy are looking away from each other, and the man is holding the boy firmly in his grasp while he penetrates him. This is not evidence of encouragement or mutual tenderness.

The boy may be grasping the man's arm -- it is hard to tell from the photos -- but, if so, it is equally plausible, given the context, that the boy is grasping the arm in pain and to avoid screaming (to avoid punishment). We simply don't know.

So I have to say, with great respect, that the text quoted above appears to be wishful thinking rather than compelled by the evidence.

I read the author Fae's comments about pueri delicatus on this Talk page, which refer us to the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality in Ancient Rome. That text has this to say about pueri delicati, among other things: "...the Roman delicatus was in a physically and morally vulnerable position. The 'coercive and exploitative' relationship between the Roman master and the delicatus, who might be prepubescent, can be characterized as pedophilic, in contrast to Greek paiderasteia"  (quoted from  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)

This background, as set out in that other article, does not support the text quoted above, and is more consistent with the depicted scene being an abusive and exploitative sex act.

It would be rash to conclude, without further evidence, that the scene is, in fact, a depiction of abusive or exploitative sex. But the current text goes way beyond the evidence, in my respectful view.

As such, I would have to say the quoted text takes the article away from being Neutral, as used in the Good Article guidelines (although that is only my own opinion). If it was to be modified to be neutral and balanced, I would certainly agree the article is a good candidate for being a good article, thanks to the many informative, detailed, and interesting additions made by Fae in the last few months.Greg Dyer (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Greg.
 * The topic of puer delicatus is a difficult one. Personally, I would not take the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality in ancient Rome as a source to compare with, the sub-section in that article is brief and though it has some good sources it does not explore the topic well by comparing and contrasting interpretations against the most well known contemporary writings (e.g. poetry) or artworks (apart from using the Warren Cup as an illustration). In addition I would take care to stick to the more well established and cited academic writers on the subject of homosexuality in ancient Rome, preferably one publishing in the 21st century rather than the 20th century, for reasons of systemic bias which are to be expected on this topic, and even for this artefact; which Williams explains rather well in his book.
 * I would be happy to see the topic remain virtually unexplored in this article, as discussion of the evidence of pueri delicati and sexual practices in Roman period households is going to based on a relatively small sample of contemporary writings and artwork. Both Williams and Clarke in the recent sources reviewed above, are strong in their interpretation of the Warren Cup imagery intentionally representing the enjoyment of lovemaking, rather than representing a forced penetration. This article, as with the major modern publications about the cup, is not intended to provide a more general analysis of whether homosexual acts with household slaves was seen in the Roman period as exploitative, or modern views on these acts, but as accurately as possible explaining the intent of the original artist and those that would have wanted to enjoy and discuss the cup and its artwork in the 1st Century, probably over dinner parties.
 * It will be interesting to see what comes out in GA review as the Warren Cup has always been a difficult and controversial artefact. I have attempted to follow a neutral path for this article by sticking firmly to the sources, and avoiding any significant interpretation, aiming to explain the most likely contemporary interpretation of the imagery as put forward by the most established writers about this artefact.
 * By the way, Williams' book has very good close-up photographs and the detail of the figures is excellent. Photographs are available to view on the British Library website at higher quality than those available on Commons at the current time, follow the link in the infobox. From this detail it would be hard not to agree with Clarke's interpretation of the intent of the artist, as contrasted with other Roman period artworks including sexual acts, there is no sense of the penetrated being in pain, in fact as Clarke points out, the bearded penetrator is the only figure showing some discomfort due to a possibly awkward position. --Fæ (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be extra careful and perhaps attribute bits like "the boy appears to encourage the penetration" within the text - "according to Foo...". You mention Williams and Clarke, but they are not mentioned in the next ref following, some way after this point. If there are references opposing this point, as i suppose there are (if not necessarily specialists) they should also be aired at this point. If all the views found in the main sources, it is neutral even if readers have their own OR disagreement with the sources. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate Fae's comments but they are not persuasive about the accuracy of the text to which I take objection above. Fae writes "Both Williams and Clarke in the recent sources reviewed above, are strong in their interpretation of the Warren Cup imagery intentionally representing the enjoyment of lovemaking, rather than representing a forced penetration.... I have attempted to follow a neutral path for this article by sticking firmly to the sources, and avoiding any significant interpretation, aiming to explain the most likely contemporary interpretation of the imagery as put forward by the most established writers about this artefact."

This would be persuasive if the article quoted the Williams and Clarke interpretations, or summarized their arguments in more detail. But the absence of anything except conclusions is not coming across as sticking to the sources at all.

The text doesn't say "Authors Williams and Clarke believe the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm, based on the following evidence [and citing it]". Instead the text simply asserts as a fact, without mentioning Williams and Clarke's words or arguments at all, that "the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm".

Citing authors' views is a report of those views, and that is helpful. But the existing text makes no mention at that point of those authors' views at all, but merely asserts that the boy is apparently encouraging the penetration & grasps his lover's arm. (If this is Johnbod's point, I agree with him.)

Similarly the text doesn't say "Authors Williams and Clarke believe that on the Warren Cup a mutual tenderness is represented, evidenced by [cite their arguments]" but instead says "on the Warren Cup, a mutual tenderness is represented", quite a different assertion. The former would report their views and the basis for them, whereas the existing text reports no such thing, but instead asserts as a fact that mutual tenderness is represented.

That is a hugely tendentious assertion because it flies in the face of the best evidence itself -- the depiction on the Cup -- and if it is to be enough to use others' views to the contrary, they should be articulated clearly and not merely summarized in a single conclusion without evidence.

Mutual tenderness might be a possible conclusion for the obverse side (with the older men), although a single-moment snapshot of master-slave relations -- if that is what is depicted, that too is not certain -- can fail notoriously to disclose a power imbalance which renders a slave impotent to object safely, and thus appear to represent assent and comfort which are not in fact present. Many slaves or other coerced people have appeared content with their lot, even happy, when seen for a moment, yet those who got to know them better discovered they were deeply unhappy but afraid to show it.

But it is not neutral (in any usual sense of the term) to draw a conclusion of mutual tenderness about the reverse of the Cup (young man & boy), except as a mere possibility. I have never seen such a weak conclusion asserted with such firmness in a Wikipedia article.

Thanks to Fae's suggestion, I have now visited the British Museum's web site, following the link in the article (it is the British Museum's site, not the British Library's as Fae wrote -- they are close but still over a mile apart from each other), and carefully examined the photos e.g. at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=93761&objectid=410332 and the others shown there.

The conclusion, if any, of mutual tenderness on the reverse side appears to come primarily from the alleged grasping of his "lover's" (or master's) hand by the boy. That is a possible interpretation. But it is entirely possible, from the photos, that the boy is grasping his own left hand, which is otherwise not seen. If someone can say for sure that the boy is graping the man's left hand and not his own, that might be some evidence of mutuality, albeit unable to displace the presumption of a power imbalance given his depiction as a slave.

But if the boy is grasping his own left hand, and that of the man is out of sight, presumably holding the boy's body elsewhere, it is not evidence of mutuality or tenderness.

Similarly, the fact they are looking away from each other, with apparent diffidence about each other's feelings, is not supportive of mutuality, tenderness, or encouragement.

To summarize, the text to which I take objection asserts, as facts, conclusions about encouragement, mutuality, & tenderness which are not supported by an observation of the Cup, at least in the photos available here or at the British Museum's web site. And the reported conclusions of authors Williams and Clarke are not quoted or summarized with any of their arguments or details, nor even referred to in the article except as a footnote which has no such details. Anyone reading the article is led to think that somehow these assertions are correct when they are, in fact, very tendentious.

If Williams & Clarke's views are strong evidence in favour of the article's conclusions, despite the visual evidence to the contrary, the article would benefit greatly from having them articulated in much more detail, in order to be persuasive. So far it is not, with all due respect.Greg Dyer (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll shortly add the attribution (mainly to Clarke from my memory) as suggested. The point about the imagery of the two figures looking away from each other is explored, I think in Williams, that would be worth adding too. I believe there is no original research here, just context given by leading historians who have analysed the imagery from their experience and in comparison to other artefacts and contemporary writings. Per No original research, if I find any then I'll happily trim it. --Fæ (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

When I read the article for the first time it was obvious to me that an improvement is possible, but I hesistated. So I read the main article many times. I came to the conclusion that the sentence above "... the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm ..." refers to the side of the cup that shows the hand of the "beardless youth" on the arm of the “bearded” man. You can see it on the view of the figure in the doorway. Therefore another remark should be made about two other figures. The posture of the slave behind the door reveals his interest. But the smaller boy on the other side of the cup has his hands tightly closed on what would most naturally be his own left thumb, therefore his face could possibly represent a powerful endurance. This is in accordance with a social position that gives him no room for a free decision about these matters. After all: it is the other one who is wearing the leaf crown. Taalstraat (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This interpretation goes against the description in the sources available. Putting that aside, having another look at the image used in the article, and an alternative angle showing the puer delicatus head on, does not support the idea that both his hands are clasped together. Considering that arrangement of their two bodies shows the lover/master is using both arms to hold the delicatus in place on the lounge while fucking, if the delicatus were holding on to nothing but his own hands, and his master were not using his left hand to hold on, then any penetrative force would mean he would immediately fall off the couch. Considering the practical nature of the artwork, such as a handy gripping strap and accurate fine details on the musical instruments, the best assumption would be that the figures are arranged in practical poses that could be reproduced in real life.
 * In the modern world, it may be tempting to interpret this work as depicting a forced rape, but this is not a modern work and encyclopaedic interpretation has to be carefully limited to sources and verifiable facts.
 * I have removed the extra sentence, on the basis that it would require sources to justify adding this interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The difficulty is in the cloth between the boy and the adult. If you look at the chest of the boy you see some folds in the cloth and if the man supports him there with his arm then it is close to the center of gravity of the boy. 2. It is obvious that the artist is capable to show differences in emotions. The slave really has a posture of interest. The hand on the arm shows really some tenderness. So a fair description should do something with the gesture of the face of the boy. 3. The difference between a rape in our time and this object is that our laws are against the act between the boy and the man, but this is not our time; it is Roman time. They rule and the have their own laws and customes. 4. The hypothesis that the boy is showing tenderness looks to me as putting our way of live into another time. The cup has two sides, mutual tenderness is acceptable at the A side. It is not supported by facts on the B side. 5. So: if an explanation of a described artefact only shows the bright side of what the artist reveals of the live in his time, than its interpretations could become misleading. Taalstraat (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Taalstraat (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be a potential hypothesis, but this is not what I see as obvious in the artwork, nor apparently did any of the published art historians. Per OR, if you want to add this alternative interpretation to the article, it would be best to start by finding reliable sources that support it. The article is very well sourced, primarily because this is a controversial object and requires good sourcing to remain encyclopaedic and to minimize bias. Changes and additions should be equally well supported with sources. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I started to read this article because a book about the history of the city of Jerusalem (Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem The Biography (London, 2011) and the cup shows something of the time thirty years before the public appearance of Jesus Christ. There were a lot of tensions in that society, the situation was very complex. As for the aesthetic aspect of the cup, I own no aesthetic books about this matter, but the best source is the site of the British Museum with many photographs. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=517539001&objectid=410332 It is obvious that there is a great symetry in this peace of art. Look to the music instruments, look to the curtains, etc. So it is proper to expect a symmetry in the situations also. The face of the bearded man shows a difficult side of what is happening. If you look to view 22 (follow the link) you can see that the face of the boy has its own typical expression. Of course we can not prove his inner thoughts. But we can point out the symmetry: two acting persons on the cup have an easy time, two other persons have a more difficult time.

As for the discussion above. The main thing is that it would be a mistake if the Wikiarticle suggests that the image with the boy supports the quote about the mutuality or tenderness. The discussion 2014 shows that this errancy is lightly made. (It is better to distinguish between three things: 1. What you can see on the cup 2. What people write about the cup. 3. What people write about corresponding situations in that time.)

I would be very glad if a native speaker would be so kind to examine whether the current representation in the main text adequately prevents this error. Taalstraat (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be wrong to presume I am not a native speaker of English, however I have no issue with third opinions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Taalstraat. Indeed, it is because it is better that other people will look to the same issue too and I am not a native speaker.(talk) 08:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Authenticity “controversy”
Okay, I’m pretty extensively read in the ancient history of sexuality, especially in ancient Greece and Rome, and have read a fair bit on the Warren cup. I have only rarely encountered anyone seriously questioning its authenticity or taking this supposed controversy seriously. Originally, this article cited exactly two scholars questioning its authenticity, and only by citing the work in which they question it. That scholar count is now down to one sole scholar. One scholar hardly constitutes a controversy. This all seems highly fringe to me, especially in light of the hard scientific data supporting the cup’s authenticity. So I question to what extent, if any, this should be covered anywhere in this article. At the very least, the material needs to be reduced and generalized. Certainly nothing here rises to the level of the sort of “prominent controversy” deserving any mention in the lead.

I would also advise, if this is going to continue to be covered, that we base ourselves not on the work produced by individual scholars—or an individual scholar, as things now stand—but on the representation of this matter by third-party scholars commenting on it. Again, one scholar crying in the wilderness cannot constitute a “controversy,” let alone one possessing the notability and prominence to be mentioned here. As the material now stands, how is this not fringe? Antinoos69 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" is your word - it does not appear in the article, so I don't know why you keep "quoting" it!  All this fuss is over "... though doubts have been raised about its authenticity." in the lead.  There is a fairly long section lower down on "Dating and authenticity" with two paras on the latter. The dating is covered in the lead, and so should the authenticity question be. Although the question concerns only a single piece of metalwork, it was sufficiently important to generate a public event discussing it in 2014, which attracted national press coverage.  That is as prominent as it gets in this normally highly obscure field.  There are a number of references to the question in scholarly works:, , , with varying attitudes. As the last of these said, printed questioning was proceeded by decades of private suspicions by several experts.  I don't know why the brief neutral reference in the lead arouses such strong feelings. It is clearly right that it is there. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, a “prominent” scholarly matter is not one that is prominent in the media but one that is prominent in the scholarship. See below for my main reply. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Along the lines of Johnbod's reasoning. For decades the Cup has been notable for having its provenance disputed and this is a significant part of the article. Lead texts are a germane summary of the whole article, and should not only focus on the most recent status. The BM itself pumped up the apparent controversy over provenance, and encouraged debates about it. Whether we should believe the Cup is still controversial is something I suggest leaving to reliable sources rather than our opinion. P.s. checking Lexisnexis for UK newspapers shows 'controversy' and 'Warren Cup' only matches an article from 10 years ago in The Sunday Times, while 'sex' and 'Warren Cup' gives several matches last year; I guess the word 'controversy' may be less relevant in recent sources than 'erotic' or 'LGBT history'. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, though WC + "authenticity" gets lots from 2014 - scholarly stuff takes longer to reach print, & we will know in a few years if the matter is generally regarded as settled or not. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I can’t believe I would have to explain this to Johnbod, but here we are. The term “prominent controversies” comes directly from WP:LEAD, which Johnbod threw in my face in his edit summaries. While I’m at it, let me throw out WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:DUE WEIGHT, for good measure. A few tidbits: “Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight” (Fringe). WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear that “scholarship” refers to “reliable, published sources” (second quoted term taken from lead of policy article). “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a ‘see also’ to an article about those specific views” (Due Weight). (The published work of exactly one scholar certainly qualifies as a “tiny minority,” wouldn’t you say?)

Now, the three sources provided by Johnbod, two of which sit on my shelves, make clear (rightly or wrongly, as I would have expected a few more) that there is now only one published scholar questioning the cup’s authenticity. Per policy, we don’t care about what scholars informally say among themselves. We care about what the scholarship says, the published studies and investigations. There is good reason for this. Scholars don’t generally subject their informal thoughts and impressions to the same rigor and investigation they do their published work, nor are their informal opinions subjected to the same review that their published work is.

So, I again put to you that the controversy is the fringe theory of apparently one scholar, whom no one else seems willing or able to back up in print. The article needs to be edited accordingly, per policy. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of scholars who write about the authenticity of the cup, because its provenance and authenticity has been under debate for decades. The most recent article against authenticity a simple search of <"warren cup" authenticity> limited to the last 10 years on JSTOR shows is The Warren Chalice in the Imagination of its Creator and as a Reflection of his Time (Moevs, 2013). However, articles which include evidence for authenticity are also evidence of the same debate; so if we are going to insist that a list of academics "against" is required, well a list of academics "for" must equally support the debate itself being notable enough to mention. As has already been said, though I limited to examining quite literally the last 10 years, the lead text is a summary of the article, including notable debate on authenticity and provenance ever since people started writing about the "chalice", not just the most recent academics like Pollini, Clarke and Moevs. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I must admit that what you are trying to communicate here is not entirely clear to me. You may have to try again. In any case, to the extent I believe I understand you, the question isn’t whether or how many “scholars . . . write about the authenticity of the cup,” but how many scholars publish detailed studies arguing against the cup’s authenticity (and perhaps how many scholars make some meaningful argument agreeing with her or them). Nor are scholars who merely “include evidence for authenticity . . . also evidence of the same debate.” Just about any general discussion of or introduction of the cup into a broader discussion is going to discuss its date and provenance, perhaps presenting some evidence. This is standard scholarly practice. Doing so, in and of itself, simply has nothing to do with even the existence of any debates of any kind.


 * Now, Craig Williams, in the first, 1999 edition of his standard reference (Johnbod’s source 3 linked to above), explicitly states that, as of his time of writing, no one had expressed any doubts about the cup’s authenticity in print. I also performed your search, <"warren cup" authenticity>, in JSTOR, with no apparent limitations. The search yielded exactly six results, going as far back as 1993. The relevance of three of them cannot be immediately determined, but they don’t look particularly promising. Two of them are well known sources supporting authenticity and already appearing in the article, and the remaining source is the one by Moevs that you cited. That’s the same Moevs currently mentioned in the article as the apparently sole opponent of authenticity—crying yet again in the wilderness, as appears to be her wont. So, yet again, we have one sole scholar opposing authenticity—quite the “tiny minority,” per policy.


 * Of course, if you can provide additional scholars arguing in reasonably detailed studies against authenticity, do by all means provide a few of them, as I remain quite ignorant of them. That would settle this matter quickly. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to have a look at the second edition of C. Williams’ work (2010). In note 154 to Chapter 2 (p. 352), directly appended to a reference to Clarke’s 2003 work (Roman Sex: 100 BC to AD 250 [New York: Harry N. Abrams].), is the parenthetical, “dispelling earlier unpublished doubts about its [i.e., the cup’s] authenticity.” Apparently, then, we can take Williams as standing for the proposition that, as of some time in 2003, no doubts about the cup’s authenticity had been expressed in print. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I repeat that all this is about having "... though doubts have been raised about its authenticity." in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you reread my posts here, you’ll see that my beef is absolutely not just about “having ‘... though doubts have been raised about its authenticity.’ in the lead.” Here is how I would edit the article, assuming Fae unearths nothing of consequence:
 * No mention of the “debate” in the lead (the current state of things).
 * The discussion of opposition to authenticity reduced to one simple sentence indicating that Moevs has opposed authenticity “on iconographic grounds,”
 * With an endnote appended to that sentence citing the work in which she has done so, for the benefit of interested readers,
 * And with one explanatory note also appended to the sentence explaining very simply that Giuliani once also opposed authenticity on iconographic grounds, but has since recanted after reviewing the silver testing results, complete with citations to his work on both sides. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no problem with you reshaping the article with regard to the 'controversy', be bold by all means. Keep in mind that for any academic to make claims that notable ancient artefacts in museums are forgeries is a difficult and potentially career limiting thing to be known for; such stuff can damage future funding opportunities... Consequently it is not a surprise that only Moevs and Giuliani are notable for making assertions doubting authenticity in print. We should also keep in mind that it was only after the BM acquired the cup in 1999 that academics had good/reliable free access for research. Hence searches for peer reviewed publications that scrutinize provenance or analyse the materials and design, only date back to 2003, is no surprise.
 * At discussion over breakfast with my pet historian, a comparison to how the authenticity 'controversy' for the Artemidorus papyrus was suggested. I do not think that Wikipedia handles the counter example especially well as the related article really needs tarting up, but in terms of the 'footprint' in academic publications, it probably is interesting to examine at the same time. Ah, I realize that we were looking at the German Wikipedia version, which is a lot better. We could do with inheriting those sources for the papyrus article in English, if someone fancies a little interwiki side journey de:Artemidor von Ephesos.
 * Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Antinoos69, I can see how the scheme you outline (not that it is massively different from what we had before) aligns with your personal views. What I can't see is how it matches WP guidelines. That the matter is "prominent", relative to the subject, has been effectively shown. So it should be covered in the article, and briefly trailed in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, to begin with, you disagree with Marabini Moevs herself, who writes in this excerpt (“estratto,” possibly from an abstract) from her 2008 article, “Scholars agree on these basic points: its authenticity, dating to the early Roman imperial period, anthropological significance and exceptional artistic value.” Need we really belabor this point further? See, also, my two citations of Craig Williams above.


 * I cannot for the life of me imagine how you could consider the views of precisely one scholar contrary to her own representation of prevailing consensus anything other than WP:FRINGE. Perhaps you will enlighten me. (Apparently, then, the unpublished doubters alluded to by Williams constituted some annoyingly murmuring minority.) Perhaps you will also explain to me WP:DUE WEIGHT’s, “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.” I was actually being quite generous to your personal preference by including the opposing view in my scheme at all. For, as the aforementioned policy continues to explain, “Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.” How much tinier can a minority of one in the scholarship be, precisely? In light of the relative youth of the supposed debate, however, I am feeling well disposed toward generosity.


 * Absent earth-shaking developments, I’ll be editing in a couple days or so. Should I find a way to include these indications of consensus by Williams and Marabini Moevs, perhaps with a very brief sentence combined with a citation-oriented endnote? Antinoos69 (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve only just now, as in minutes ago, managed to obtain a copy of Marabini Moevs’ seemingly hard-to-obtain 2008 article (in the English-speaking world, at least). It seems that my link to her article above may be to an abstract or summary provided and written by the editors of the journal, in English. Apologies for the confusion. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have trouble finding articles, it may be worth requesting them here. Some relevant sources may be published in non-digitized journals that few libraries will have.
 * Sometimes the BM database and the researchers in the BM can be quite helpful. The BM has a number of private libraries maintained by the curators. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I have online access to extensive journal databases, including JSTOR, Project MUSE, SAGE, and others—none of which was helpful with Marabini Moevs 2008, though. I could have gone ILL, but decided to request a PDF copy from the editors of the journal directly. They were very accommodating and prompt.


 * Note to interested readers: I was told there are still copyright issues preventing easier access to this article. We have no legal right to expect otherwise at this time. So, if you choose to email the editors yourself instead of going through ILL services at your university or public library, be very deferential, sprinkling please and polite formality throughout your humble request. Keep it reasonably brief, and include a set-off, complete citation of the article. Mention but don’t insist on a PDF, let alone a free one. Explicitly provide the editors with the option of merely explaining how you might obtain some copy. And, should the editors be gracious enough to accommodate you, too, be sure to send them a prompt, short, and very grateful email in thanks. Manners matter here. And, yes, clear and direct English will do; we are dealing with modern academia, after all. Anyone needing further assistance with this need only say so here. However, given the copyright issues, I will not be able to provide you with a copy myself. It is important that anyone lucky enough to receive a copy not pass that copy on to others; otherwise, at the very least, the journal editors may take offense and rescind their policy of generosity in this matter. More generally, some universities these days are providing their alumni with pretty extensive free access to their libraries’ electronic resources, especially where journals are concerned. You may wish to look into that at your alma mater’s library website. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)