Wikipedia

Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 8

< Talk:Alexander the Great
Latest comment: 18 years ago by N! in topic Pyrrhic battle needs to conclude
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Egyptian Names

I wasnt able to find his egyptian royal names anywhere.(I read a book about it)(I think it was Setpenre Meriamon) .New Babylon

RfC, once more

Latest comment: 18 years ago36 comments7 people in discussion

A section of this article, "Personal life", has material on Alexander's sexuality. Should a category, perhaps Category:Greek Pederasty, Category:LGBT people from Greece or Category:Greek homosexuality be in the article, so that WP readers who are interested in this topic can be guided to the article? An RfC has already been conducted on this topic, but no consensus has been reached, and editors are still fighting over whether the category should be included. 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus: the previous RfC was filled with sockpuppets, no consensus was found, and a low-grade edit war continues, so another RfC has been filed. The article already has a section on Alexander's sexuality, and mentions the possibility that he had sexual relationships with men. Two scholars, Paul Cartledge and Robin Lane Fox, are quoted above on this talk page to that effect. The current dispute is not about whether the page should contain that material. The dispute is about whether the page should contain a category to help readers interested in the topic of Greek pederasty/homosexuality to find this page.
Previously, some editors have objected to the categories LGBT people from Greece and Greek homosexuality on the grounds that they're anachronistic. It's true that the ancient Greeks didn't label people as "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Nevertheless, many scholars use the term "homosexuality" in reference to the ancient world: K.J. Dover's Greek homosexuality and David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality are just two books out of a crowded field. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment His relationship with Hephaestion is not pederastic, and needs to be categorized under Category:LGBT history; His relationship with Bagoas is pederastic and needs to be categorized under Category:Greek Pederasty. However, by Wikipedia rules subcategories take precedence and thus Category:Greek Pederasty must appear rather than the LGBT history category. That suggests that Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, which is at the same level as the Greek pederasty category, needs to be represented as well, simply to make sure that individuals doing research in either field have equal access to this information. If we are debating anachronisms, I would concede that the LGBT categories are anachronistic, but there is no ideal solution and not listing this article would be an abdication of responsibility. Haiduc 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As pointed by Apro's comments above, none of our ancient sources on Alexander claim he had a sexual relationship with Hephaestion and the Bagoas theory is in dispute even by modern scholars, particularly when contrarary to what the part on his personal life suggest, his sexual relationships make up no more then a few lines and none of them with any suggestion that he had sexual relationships with either man. Also placing modern sexual identies such as Category:LGBT history in this article is not accurate given those are modern identities that ancients such as Alexander did not identify with. If that's the case we might as well place Category:Heterosexual in there too and in every other biographical article there is. Mallaccaos 12 October 2006
  • Comment As Mallacaos points out, the issue of categories by sexuality only seems to arise when there's a suggestion labelling a person as "homosexual", "LGBT", "gay", "pederastic", or in general non-heterosexual. There's an obvious double-standard in this thinking that reflects the general double standard of modern society. For this reason I'm somewhat against categorization by sexuality in general, and very much against applying terms like "LGBT" to ancient personages. As for categorization by the nature of a person's relationships (i.e. "pederastic"), this seems rather nonsensical-- I think this becomes more obvious when we suppose categories like "cuckolds", "virgins", "polyamourous persons", or somesuch. siafu 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree with you about the purpose of the category. It's not to label Alexander as "gay" or whatever. It's to say, "if you're interested in the topic of same-sex relationships in the ancient Greek world, you might want to read this section of Alexander the Great." It's beyond obvious that there's a great deal of interest in ancient Greek sexuality; this is one of the most active research topics in classical studies.
At any rate, your objection seems not to be so much about putting a category in this article, but putting categories related to sexuality in any article. It seems to me, though, that if these categories are in use in articles like Pederasty in ancient Greece, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Epaminondas, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and so on, there's no good reason to make Alexander an exception. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't help feeling, in all honesty, that we are making a mountain of a molehill. I can't understand all this passion on categories; wouldn't it be better if all this passion was spent in sourcing the article, instead of fighting futile edit-wars. Is it really so important if we have a category pointing to his pederasty or homosexuality? I honestly doubt this, and tend to agree with Siafu: there is no real need for the reader of this article to classifly by sexuality.--Aldux 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Aldux, you're probably right that we're making too big of a deal out of the category. However, the fight over the category is a proxy fight over what should be in the "personal life" section, which is a hodgepodge of different slanted views. The article also misrepresents the views of Robin Lane Fox and selectively quotes from The Search for Alexander. If we can't even get the category straight, I'm not really sure that it's going to be easy to fix the article text, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "making a big deal" out of a category, it is a matter of not politicizing an article or the project. Either we are going to have categories or we are not. They are there so that people interested in a certain topic can have a central location from which they can explore articles that touch on that topic in some fashion. Excluding non-mainstream sexualities from this aspect of the project has the effect of perpetuating the hegemony of certain factions that are invested in obscuring this aspect of history and human sexuality. A little bit of totalitarianism is not a molehill. It is totalitarianism, and its appeasement has led to the predicament which a certain western power finds itself in today. Our only saving grace here is the return to intellectual integrity. In this case the facts are clear: ancient historians have mentioned it, modern historians have mentioned it, it is an aspect of this man's biography, the fact that it is disputed by some is equally grist for this mill and does not reduce but amplifies the strength of the argument that it should be thus categorized. Again, we are not a court of law indicting, we are encyclopaedists indexing. If this does not belong in that index, nothing does. And that is no longer a mole hill. Haiduc 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Politicizing an article on the bases on ones sexuality is not encyclopedia material in my opion. I don't remember Britanic or any other encyclopedias which deal with biographical articles put much emphasis on ones sexuality unless that person played a certain roles in promoting or advocating certain sexual elements that changed history or their sexual life played significant parts in their life, two things that are not true with Alexander. His sexuality did not contribute to who he was and neither did he advocate for certain sexual elements that changed history. Placing a category to "politicize" thise article or others like it on the bases of certain modern ideolism, especially when the biographical individual did not contribute or alter historical events based on the category in question is wrong. I agree with Aldux, siafu and Mallaccaos, placing sexual caterogies on ancient biographical articles, which have been disputed and the ancient sources themselves would never identify as such, is totally misleading. I also have to agree with Siafu that these issues arise when modern society wants to place labels such "homosexual", "LGBT", "gay", "pederastic" on ancient individuals. In the case of Alexander as it was noted above, there is disputed among scholars that he even had such relationships and whatever his supposed sexual personal relationships were they had no effect or influence on his life to warrant categorizing as such. Someone who is interested in learning about Alexander would learn more about his biographical accounts of his accomplishments and not on any supposed "sexual exploits" that might or might not even be true. Also those quotes from Robine Lane Fox are take straight from his novel on Alexander, I do not see how it is selective or misrepresented given that they are Lane's own words from his biographical piece on Alexander. The pages and titles from where those quotes are taken from have been provided. Apro 12 October 2006
If you wish to keep politics out of it you will allow the information to be freely available. Suppressing information is a political act. Haiduc 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is suppressing information in the article nor is not adding this particular category suppressing information. The article talks about the different opinions and views that scholars have regarding his sexuality, that does not mean it warrants a particular caterogy based on his sexuality, in that case as someone has stated above lets also add Category:Heterosexual in there too. Alexander contributed nothing to nor did his sexuality play a major role to warrent a sexual category. Now adding the category because some see it as "suppressing information", then in my opinion, that is politicizing this article. As stated above most encyclopedia biographical articles that I have read do not put emphasis on ones sexuality unless that person was an adovace for or played certain roles in promoting sexual elements that changed history or their sexual life played significant parts in their life, things that are not true with Alexander. Apro 12 October 2006
Your contention that Alexander's sexuality is not notable is refuted by its inclusion in texts on the history of sexuality, such as Louis Crompton's "Homosexuality and Civilization."
If it is notable or of any valuable sense, other then putting labels on ancient people who would never identify themselves as such, please provide major events which his sexuality played a contributing part in his accomplishments. Apro 12 October 2006
Your contention that "Category:Heterosexuality" should be included is fallacious, since, unlike Greek pederasty or homosexuality, relations with the other sex are a given.
Its similar and as stated above a double standard since it pertains to ones sexuality period. So if you believe that "Category:Homosexuality" should be added then we might as well add "Category:Heterosexuality". Apro 12 October 2006
Your contention that including this category puts an emphasis on his sexuality is refuted by the fact that there are twelve other categories appended to the article, many of marginal importance in his life. Thus categories do not have the effect of "emphasizing" a particular aspect, but only of indexing it.
The only two other categories that I questions in belonging there are the Mummies one and the Adoptees, all others have to do with major events in his life time and after it. His sexuality as stated did not contribute to anything important and its disputed. Apro 12 October 2006
Your contention that adding a category for his sexual life politicizes the article turns reality on its head. It is the capricious exclusion of a category on sexuality that is eggregious and raises the question, why this category and not any other should be excluded.
Adding a category just to put a label on the individual who the article is about based on what the social climate of today is wrong. As mentioned above the only other two categories that look out of place in this article are the two mentioned and should be removed. All the others pertain to major events during his life and after it. Also as it was stated many times, adding sexual categories in articles which pertain to ancient peoples adds no value and is misleading particularly when said category is disputed to begin with. Apro 12 October 2006
Unfortunately the answer is obvious, and lies in your edits: your misrepresentation of academic discussion of this topic, as well as in your falsely presenting the debate on this page as supporting your arbitrary deletion of an important structural part of the article, repeatedly and in the face of counterarguments by several editors.
I do not see his sexual orientation as being an important structural part of this article especially when its been disputed. If that is the case then it is also pretty obvious that misrepresentation also applies in your defense of trying to add a category that most who have responded to this whole issue agree does not belong in this article. Apro 12 October 2006
This is not a constructive way to engage either this topic or the other editors. Please desist from enforcing your view by force, when you are unable to do it by reson. Haiduc 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe I have enforced my views on here to anyone forceably, if I did then I apologize for it, and my posts have reasoning behind them. Also not enforcing personal views onto issues and people should apply both ways. Apro 12 October 2006

Apro, I will answer you here so as not to fragment things too much. First of all, I perceive a lot of your comments as addressing an issue of questionable validity, our "labeling" Alexander the Great a homosexual or a pederast, wherefore your efforts to debunk that misapprehension. First of all, let me say that I personally do not think he was gay. He was however a man of his time, a time when men did not greatly value time spent in the company of women, nor women's affections. To run after women was considered effeminate, to be liked by them was suspicious. But men fell in love with women nonetheless, and they fell in love with other males, older or younger, as the spirit drove them. To call that "gay" is absurd. To call it pederastic, when there was a significant age difference, may be more in keeping with the time - that's where we got the term, after all. But we are not here to "label" anyone anything. When we enter a category, such as "Mummies" or "People with craters of the Moon named after them" we are simply doing a service for people interested in those subjects. So much has been said about Alexander's sexuality with males, for so long, that to veil it from those interested in those subjects is simply indefensible. "Absolute proof" is completely besides the point - it is enough that the topic has received so much play. And as for the hurdle you are placing in front of its "notability," it is contrived. It is notable not because you or I deem it notable, it is so because it has been noted by others, again and again. Haiduc 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my consensus sitll is this category does not belong in this article. Apro 13 October 2006
There is no such thing as a consensus of one. Haiduc 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"...a time when men did not greatly value time spent in the company of women, nor women's affections. To run after women was considered effeminate, to be liked by them was suspicious." This claim requires some backing up, as it flies in the face of the available evidence. siafu 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
We are chatting here so the rules of evidence do not apply. A couple of years ago I came across a text (unfortunately I no longer remember which) where it was said of a man, disparagingly, that "he is the kind of man that women like." Perhaps it was about Alcibiades? Maybe someone here, better read and with a better memory, can come up with the reference. Haiduc 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how you can add the LGBT category when conclusion has not been reached nor a resolution in agreeing to add the Category:LGBT, especially when its still in dispute and the majority of the people who posted on here are in agreement that category does not belong in this article particularly given that its a modern ideology not applied to ancient people like Alexander who never identified with it. I also agree with siafu's comment above. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006
Personally, I don't see consensus in either direction. However, I think that it's a violation of the NPOV policy to remove the category, particularly since there's a well-sourced section of the article devoted to A.'s sexuality. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The consensus is that of four other people as noted by their comments above, myself included, who view the category wrong in being added. As for the "sources" given they do not give a definate answer other then modern interpetations that they base most of their theories that he might have had on what they theorize to be the norm of the time and not on definate writings on Alexander's relationships. I think it violates Wiki policy to add a category that is still being disputed and most people who commented on it are in agreement it does not belong here particulary the Category:LGBT. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006
Consensus isn't the same thing as majority rule. Consensus is when a group of people finds a mutually acceptable outcome. That's not happening here. Furthermore, editors cannot override the NPOV policy, so even if there were consensus to eliminate the category I don't think that decision would be correct.
As an ancillary matter, it could be argued that one of the participants in this debate is a single-purpose account. Because of this I'm even less inclined to think that this discussion will result in consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have not yet seen any reliable source that says that Alexander did not have a sexual relationship with Hephaistion or Bagoas. I don't see any evidence that there is a dispute about this, except for editors' personal interpretations of primary sources. I'm sure there are secondary sources that deny that A. had same-sex relationships, but no one has cited one yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late with a possible compromise

Hi. I had not been following this debate closely, but have taken a look at it at the request of Akhilleus. My view is that since there is well-referenced material in the article about Alexander's sexuality, it would be appropriate to have a category reflecting that. However, it is clear that some editors strongly oppose this idea, and the direct inclusion of Alexander in any LGBT category is controversial. Perhaps the answer is to create a category for historical figures whose sexuality is disputed. It could include Alexander and figures like Richard I of England, whose sexuality is also the subject of some academic disagreements. This proposed Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed could be a subcategory of Category:LGBT history, for the purposes of collecting subjects of interest as Akhilleus indicates, but it would avoid directly categorizing Alexander as LGBT, which I admit is problematic due to both the inconclusive historical evidence and the ambiguity over whether the term refers to behaviors or modern-day identities.

What do you regular editors of the article think of this suggestion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me and I believe more accurate with what is written in the article. Thanks, Josia. Regards :)~ Mallaccaos 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Josiah, the idea of putting this in a new category has merit. I too feel that avoiding "LGBT" is a plus - "LGBT history" was the least bad alternative. However, a "disputed" category could well become a repository for contentious topics which would be better off in more precise categories. Else we may well be lumping zoophiliacs with pederasts and with heterosexuals. How about Category:History of same-sex relations instead? Haiduc 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Category:History of same-sex relations sound similar to that of "Category:LGBT history". I believe Joshua's Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed is more insync with what is written in the article particular since this is true. Plus the category Category:LGBT history would not be excluded from being categorized there and anyone interested/finding this matter on Alexander will be able to do so from there. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006
Unfortunately it is not in sync, since what is written about him is not that his sexuality is disputed, but that he had love affairs with at least two males. The modern disputatious tempest in a teapot is not notable - everything is disputed these days, if you trawl far enough. Haiduc 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is those supposed "sexual love affairs" which are disputed as it is pointed out in the article, plus the Category:History of same-sex relations sounds like just another re-wording of Category:LGBT history. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006
My understanding is that the scholarly consensus is that it is probable but not certain that the relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas were sexual, or at least romantic in nature. Perhaps we should find a way to indicate that in the category. How about Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations? That would indicate the consensus, while allowing "wiggle room" for the fact that the historical evidence indicates but does not prove that Alexander had same-sex relations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm more partial to the first one I also find Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations as an approriate alternative too. How about Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations? Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

I appreciate this attempt to find a compromise and the constructive tone of this discussion. Category:History of same-sex relations seems good to me. I can't see how Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is different than Category:History of same-sex relations, except that one is wordier than the other.

I can't agree with categorizing Alexander's sexuality as "disputed". I've seen no evidence that reliable sources dispute Alexander's sexuality; so, far, the only people disputing it are WP editors. Furthermore, I think creating a "disputed" category would be a bad precedent; it's not hard to imagine a tendentious editor insisting that other classical figures, like Sappho or Catullus, should be put into this category.----Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This argument for avoiding "disputed" makes sense to me. I agree that Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is wordy, but it does have the virtue of leaving room for the element of uncertainty which the article indicates is present in the case of Alexander. Placing Alexander in Category: History of same-sex relations to me sounds more definite than the article (at the moment) suggests the scholarly consensus is. Also, the "associated" category seems less redundant with Category:LGBT history. But that's just my take. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, I think it's fine to avoid LGBT as an anachronism. But I would like to point out (again) that those editors who object to "homosexuality" as being anachronistic are not taking into account the huge amount of scholarship that deals with sexuality in the ancient Greek (and Roman) world. Scholarship like Dover's Greek Homosexuality, Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, Craig Williams' Roman Homosexuality, T.K.Hubbard's sourcebook Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents in translation are just a few examples. I do not believe that WP editors' opinions of whether a term is anachronistic should trump standard scholarly usage, and it's obvious that scholars use the word "homosexuality" when writing about ancient Greece (and Rome). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that either one of these three, which allow room for the bases that nothing conclusive exists: Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations, are all postive alternatives. Category:History of same-sex relations just sounds like a rewording of other same-sex categories that are already in existance. As far the as the usage of terms LGBT/Homosexuality being "anachronistic", this has less to do with WP editors' opinions and more to do with the fact that not all scholars believe they should used towards ancient societies such as Greece and Rome, i.e. David Halpern, John Winkler & Bruce Thornton; there are scholars out there that do argue that it is wrong to apply/label ancient people with those terms given they are modern identities not ancients. Apro 13 October 2006
Well, Winkler isn't accessible to me at the moment. But I know for a fact that Thornton and Halperin use the term "homosexuality". Here, for instance, is Thornton (Eros: the Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p. 100):
Part of the problem is that homosexuality, contemporary as well as ancient, is no easier for us so-called moderns to understand than it was for the Greeks. One of our difficulties when reading about ancient Greece is that the most common manifestation of homosexuality in the evidence concerns pederasty, the quasi-ritualized, transient, physical and emotional relationship between an older male and a youth, an activity we now view as criminal. Very little, if any, evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males (or females) as "couples" involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which sex with women (or men) is moot and the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships. Thus the evidence from anicent Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or the precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure.
David Halperin wrote the entry on "homosexuality" for the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which reads in part:
It is not illegitimate to employ modern sexual terms and concepts when interrogating the ancient record, but particular caution must be exercised in order not to import modern, western, sexual categories and ideologies into the interpretation of the ancient evidence. Hence, students of classical antiquity need to be clear about when they intend the term 'homosexual' descriptively--i.e. to denote nothing more than same-sex sexual relations--and when they intend it substantively or normatively--i.e. to denominate a discrete kind of sexual psychology or behaviour, a positive species of sexual being, or a basic compoonent of 'human sexuality'. The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.
Halperin does say that "homosexuality" must be used with caution, and that it can be anachronistic. However, he also says that we can use it descriptively--to refer to activity, but not to identity. This corresponds perfectly to what the article says about Alexander's relationships--that he was not a "homosexual" in the modern sense of the word (and that no ancient Greek male would have thought of himself that way)--but that he also in all probability had sexual relationships with men (and women as well). In that sense, this article is pertinent to the subject of homosexuality in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Its that probability which is in question here and the little issue that there still is no conclusive evidence of it being true, therefore applying "homosexuality" here is very misleading and which is why I believe one of the two categories suggested by Josiah are more approriate. Apro) 13 October 2006

Comment: The four contemporary biographers of Alexander the Great never wrote of Alexander being physically attracted to men. The article states that. Robin Lane Fox clearly states that in his biography. Both Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge acknowledge that it is not proven Hephaestion or Bagoas were Alexander’s lovers. Carledge writes that Hephaestion was “Boyhood friend of Alex., like Harpalus, but his developing relationship was of unusual, and probably sexual, intimacy.”(Alexander the Great, The Hunt for a new past, p. 306) The keyword here is probably. Meaning that it is not proven. Regarding Bagoas Robin Lane Fox writes "Later gossip presumed that Bagoas was Alexander’s lover. This is uncertain." (The Search for Alexander ~ Little, Brown and Co. Boston, 1980, p. 67.) Keyword here is uncertain. Regarding Hephaestion, Robin Lan Fox writes "No contemporary history states this, but the facts show that the two men's friendship was exceptionally deep and close." Keywords here are No contemporary history states this Even Cartledge and Fox who, it seems, are beyond a doubt convinced Alexander was a bisexual, are not convinced enough to claim so as if it is a fact. Again it is not proven Alexander was attracted to men. Why should we speculate and add him into that category? Plus the Personal Life section is a joke. It is not even about his personal life, but instead only about his possible homosexual relationships. What about his family relationships? His father, mother? What about his relationship with women? All these would constitute as his personal life. There is practically nothing written about his relationships with women for which we are certain of!! It seems that the personal life section has been written with a great bias and some desire to see Alexander as a bisexual and pederast when you can never prove any of it. I wonder what scholars like Victor Davis Hanson or Peter Green think of this. Whatever the scholarly consensus is, that does not constitute as proof. The amount of opinions don't make something the truth, the truth is the truth. Until you can prove it, I don't see a need for adding a category like this to Alexander. Takidis 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, You might also want to consult David Cohen, "Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens" (Cambridge 1991). In chapter 7 he speaks of Athens as "a culture whose laws expressed a deep rooted anxiety about paederasty while not altogether forbidding it" (p. 201). His chapter reviews "the widely differing attitudes and conflicting norms and practices" of a "complex culture" which "should not be rationalized away" (p. 202). I'm just showing this to show that many different aspects of sexuality in antiquity are debated. By the way, please don't respond to just one of my points. Takidis 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The four contemporary biographers of Alexander did not mention either that he breathed air, but we shall not jump to conclusions and postulate he was a fish. That a masculine man would find handsome youths attractive was a given - the only question is how he would manifest that attraction. To extrapolate from these biographers that Alexander expressed modern heterosexual behaviors two and a half millennia ago is an absurdity. No one questions that he loved males, and did so intensely. To his credit, he seems to not have done so abusively, though he was abusive enough in other ways, as they all were (when was the last time you got drunk and killed a good friend?)
Another misunderstanding is the seemingly unshakeable notion among some here that we are sitting in a court of law and trying to find Alexander guilty of "X" beyond any reasonable doubt. That is nothing but a dressed up straw man argument. What we do in the Wikipedia is to index various aspects of each article for the convenience of our readers. The male loves of Alexander, including the wisps of fog which shroud them, are of interest for anyone reading up on ancient sexuality, whether or not there are doubts about their many aspects.
A further misunderstanding is that our opinions matter. We do not even have a place at the table, we are here to report on the ongoing conversation between people who are indeed qualified to have an opinion. The fact that User:Joe Blow disputes something does not make it "disputed," since squabbles between Wikipedia editors are anything but notable.
That being said, I agree with Takidis that in ancient Greece there were currents of misgiving about pederastic affairs (to say nothing about androphilic ones) and the practice ranged from mandated by law to restricted by law to forbidden by law. But that takes us a bit far afield. To return to the categorization argument, I agree with Akhilleus that a category listing his relationships as "disputed" is not appropriate. "Same-sex relations" on the other hand can include various types of relationships, including erotic ones that were not overtly sexual - as per Mr. Fox. Haiduc 00:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that his breathing air is also not mentioned is "fallacious" since that is a given, unlike the claim of his supposed "sexual relationship" with Hephaestion, if it existed, it would have been mentioned by Alexander's main contemporary biographers. The fact that not one of them ever makes mention of Alexander having such sexual relations, particularly with Hephaestion since that relationship, we are told by some who theorize was supposedly "romantic in a homosexual way" was important, is very telling, given that it is on these main contemporary writers that later authors based their work on. Not one of them ever uses the ancient terms which modern scholars associate the meaning "lover in a physical way" to describe Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion. If the two had such a relationship as some claim has existed why no mention of it and why don't our contemporaries use terms which they used with most every other individual who did participate in such relationships? Its not like they were not using these terms with others of that period but curiously enough never with Alexander and yet we are supposed to dismiss this and accept the theories of writers who lived even later then our contemporaries with closed eyes, no questions asked? Apro 13 October 2006
Ask all the questions you like. However, when the interpretation of primary sources is debated, we turn to reliable sources instead of editors' interpretations of what the primary sources say. In fact, editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources are original research, and cannot be used to determine article content. Please support your claims with some secondary sources; until you do, I'm going to stick with the opinions of Paul Cartledge and Robin Lane Fox. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm gathering, from the above, that scholars continue to debate over the nature of Alexander's relationships in terms of the nature of the feelings, emotions, and activities that they encompassed and in how to interpret them, given the millenia that have since passed. That alone seems to me to be reason for an encyclopedia, such as this, to raise this subject; if it's important enough for those who understand the subject to continue to return to it, then we should mention it. And that's probably all we should do: mention it, mention that it's debated, and move on. Regarding categorization, what is the purpose of categorizing Alexander, or not categorizing him? --Badger151 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is categorizing the article, not the man. An elementary point, but it's worth repeating, because it seems like people aren't noticing it. The point of categorizing the article is so that people who are interested in reading about a particular subject can find it. Let's say you're a person who's interested in the topic of ancient Greek sexuality, but you don't know much about Alexander; this category, whatever it ends up being, might help you find this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Wiki articles had to have correct categories applied to them and seeing that Alexander's "male relations" are still debated and not confirmed adding categories such as LGBT/Homosexuality, particularly since they are modern labels to begin with, are misleading. Having said that some of the alternative categories such as: Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations, are all possible. Apro 13 October 2006

Of the options, it looks to me as if Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations has the widest support. Does anyone object to that phrasing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't, sounds good to me. :) Apro 13 October 2006
I will support that category. It sounds like a subcategory, though, and I'd like to know where it fits in the overall category scheme. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with the "associated" tag, as well as with the length of the title. Also, if I might speak for the "other side", "relations" (even though I suggested the term) alludes to actual sexuality. What if we call it Category:History of same-sex love? That would include passionate but chaste relationships, if that is the nature of, say, his love for Bagoas. Also, against the "associated" formulations, here is a significant contribution from Stanford: "For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men."[1] More than mere association, to my eye. Haiduc 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is wordy, but I think it's the least bad alternative. To answer Akhilleus' question, I would see it as a subcategory of Category:LGBT history. The separation should help to allay the concerns of those who are concerned about applying the modern term "LGBT" to historical figures, while acknowledging that Alexander's love life has come under the academic scrutiny of scholars working in the field of LGBT history. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That Stanford statement is misleading. How can Alexander be known as having only exclusive interest in boys and other men when there accounts of his female relations? As for the Category:History of same-sex love is similar to the list of LGBT couples Same Sex Couples. The Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations that Josiah suggested fits better. Apro 13 October 2006
I'm not sure how placing this articel into any of these categories will help a person who is looking into ancient Greek sexuality and knows little about Alexander. If the point is for people who are intested in articles on LGBT subjects to find this article, then that's how the article should be categorized. If the point is to understand Alexander's relationships in the context of his time, then that's something else again, and the categorization should indicate this historical context. --Badger151 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is for the correct category to be placed in the article. Since Alexander's sexual relations are not defined and still suspect placing the LGBT category, especially since this is an article on an ancient individual and that category does not apply, is very misleading. I do agree though that Josiah's Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations sounds more reasonable and anyone who is interested in finding about any supposed "same sex" relations he might have had would still be able to since the category for LGBT will be applied to the Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations or which ever final category is used. Mallaccaos 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Badger151 raises a valid point--the category should reflect Alexander's historical context. That's why I proposed the Category "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" (see the archives). Despite the concerns that people have raised about "homosexuality" being anachronistic, most scholars who write about sexuality in ancient Greece use the term "homosexuality". The categories that we're proposing now, things like Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations could group this article with ones like Richard I of England, Philip II of France. I'd rather have a category that groups this article with other articles about ancient Greece. I still prefer "Homosexuality in ancient Greece", of course, but that went over like a lead balloon. Would people consider "Sexuality in ancient Greece"? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I can live with "Sexuality in ancient Greece". :) Apro 14 October 2006

what did caligula do with alexander the great's breastplate?

I was wondring what caligula did with it, was he buried with it, or melt it?

Categories: fundamental flaw

Latest comment: 18 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

We have been trying to fashion a category to accept Alexander, but a category of one will not fly. Who else would fit here?! Instead of the names we have been tossing around, I suggest Category:Greek love, which can accept others such as Socrates, etc. Haiduc 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations could also include pages like Richard I of England, Philip II of France, and perhaps even Abraham Lincoln (although I'm not going anywhere near that particular debate myself) — basically, historical figures for whom there is some evidence of homosexual activity, but not conclusive proof. There may also be a case for Category:Greek love, but surely such a category would also include Greeks famous for heterosexual loves as well, which sort of misses the point of the current debate. Unless you're using "Greek love" as a euphemism, which doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we need a category that fits a wide range of articles, and I'd prefer a category that's specific to articles about ancient Greece and ancient Greeks. Category:Greek love sounds euphemistic to me as well. In the discussion above I just proposed Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece (could also be "ancient Greek sexuality"), which could be applied to Socrates, Alcibiades, etc. as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Sexuality in ancient Greece is of no interest whatsoever since it lumps together all kinds of unrelated toics irrelevant to each other. "Greek love" may well have been used euphemistically by some, just as "pederasty" was used disparagingly by others, but that is immaterial. It is a term with a great deal of history, it has been and continues to be used in literary and academic works, and provides us with the flexibility that we need. Equally important, it is a term that is likely to be searched for as such thus of particular utility in helping people find this information. Another objection to the "sexuality" tag is that in Alexander's case we may not be talking about sexuality but about eros - two very different things. Haiduc 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Josiah Rowe. A new Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations would be useful for multiple figures in history who pre-date the concept of "sexual orientation". This category could be a subcategory of LGBT History and will thus help people find the historical figures they are interested in, but hopefully avoid the arguments that arise from people arguing (rightly) that identifying historical figures as "LGBT" is anachronistic, or (endlessly!) that the "evidence" is insufficient. The category proposed by Akhilleus wouldn't fit Alexander the Great, who wasn't Greek: he was Macedonian. Yonmei 21:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Josiah Rowe on the Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and also Akhilleus' Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece or "ancient Greek sexuality" could be alternatives too, but my first choice is the one Josiah suggested for Alexander the Great, who was Greek. Apro 14 October 2006
I do not wish to be the lone holdout in this discussion, and I will not oppose whatever consensus develops. But I do want to answer a couple of the criticisms addressed at the "Greek love" category. First of all, Josiah, the term has nothing to do with heterosexual relations, in Greece or elsewhere. It refers specifically to loving erotic, or sexual, relations between males. Nor is Greek love, Yonmei, restricted to Greek people. It may be instructive to see who uses it, and in what context. Here are some recent titles: Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in 19th Century England by Louis Crompton; Greek Love Reconsidered by Thomas K. Hubbard; The Greeks and Greek Love by James Davidson; Greek Love by J. Z. Eglinton; One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love by David M. Halperin. No euphemistic use in sight - these authors are among the most outspoken classicists around. So, on topic, in use, comprehensive - including both sexual and chaste relations, and succinct. Haiduc 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I was aware that the term "Greek love" was used to refer to male-male eros and sexuality. My comment about heterosexuality was meant to be tongue-in-cheek — I'm sorry my humorous intent didn't come across clearly.
My understanding of the term "Greek love" was that it originated (in the 19th century?) as a euphemism similar to "the love that dare not speak its name". I find it curious that you would suggest here that the term is not euphemistic, while only two days ago you restored the word "euphemism" to the term's Wikipedia page. (Incidentally, "Greek love" was described as a euphemism in the page's original stub form.) Do the modern scholars you mention above use the term in their texts, or merely in titles? Do they use it in direct reference to the sexual/erotic/romantic relationships practiced in the ancient world, or do they use it with an ironic touch to refer to the attitudes taken towards those relationships, and towards homosexuality in general, by individuals in the Romantic era and since? I don't have any citations, but when I hear the term "Greek love" I think first of 19th century Romantics like Byron and Wilde, and of Alexander or Alcibiades mainly as they were viewed through that Romantic lens.
I should also say that I think that the use of "Greek love" to refer to homosexuality may be needlessly provocative towards actual Greeks. You know from our work together on Homosexuality in ancient Greece that I'm not one to hide the historical truth on this subject, or to yield to homophobic or nationalistic demands. But I think that advocating this definition of "Greek love" as a category, especially in this article, is akin to poking a hornet's nest. If we can find a name for the category that reflects the scholarship accurately, is acceptable to a consensus of editors, and avoids provoking knee-jerk reactions, I think we should use it, even if it's unwieldy.
I'm not committed to Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations — I just haven't seen any other suggestion that appears acceptable to both sides of this debate. That said, if a consensus develops around Category:Greek love, I'll support it, despite my quibbles above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It is amusing that "Greek love" should be indicted on suspicion of being a euphemism, since one of my main objections to the proposed title (besides its wordiness) is just that. What is this "associated with"?! The man was clearly IN love with males. As for my edit to the Greek love article, yes, the term has been used euphemistically - but that was in a time when the options were few, and widely condemned. This is a century later, and now the term is in wide use to refer to the whole gamut of same-sex relations and affections - and indeed to differentiate it from "homosexuality". It's advantage is that it harbors under one roof chaste love / ideal love - including its philosophical underpinnings - and sexual love. It also brings together pederasty and androphilia, and places the focus (accurately, to my mind) not on the physical but on the emotional aspect of the relationship. Finally, it sidesteps the debate on orientation.
On the ethnic side, one never knows what will get someone's goat, but I could hardly think of a more complementary and elegant reference to what is undeniably one of contributions of ancient Greeks to modern society - and we should not run in fear of bigots. As for the authors I mentioned, they are all in earnest, so to speak. Haiduc 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is important to be in earnest. ;)
Alexander "clearly in love with males"? While I agree that it seems clear to me, the scholarship doesn't give us anything more than "probable" and "likely". Which is the reason I suggested "associated with" — he's associated by reputable scholars with same-sex love. I'll refrain from further judgment on "Greek love" until others have a chance to chime in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the category which Josiah came up with Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is the more approriate one to place on Alexander the Great, who was Greek. Mallaccaos 15 October 2006
I still don't think "Greek love" is our best option here. I associate the phrase much more strongly with 19th century England than ancient Greece, and I would expect to see Oscar Wilde in such a category more than I would expect Anacreon. Despite the examples of titles that Haiduc has turned up, I think Josiah's right that the term gets used in titles but not in the main text of Halperin et al., or that "Greek love" occurs in scare quotes, because it's perceived as a euphemism. Here's a relevant quote from David Halperin, "How to Do The History of Male Homosexuality" GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6.1 (2000) p. 94: "The nineteenth-century sexologists who systematically elaborated the distinction between pederasty ("Greek love") and passivity ("contrary sexual feeling" or "inversion of the sexual instinct") based it on an even more fundamental distinction between perversity and perversion,..."
I strongly prefer a category that applies to ancient Greece; after all, the whole reason "LGBT history" was objectionable is because it was felt to be alien to Greek conceptions of sexual identity. A category like "Historical figures associated with same-sex relations", which could include the article Abraham Lincoln, seems to have the exact same problem. I'll say again that I think the best option is "Homosexuality in ancient Greece", but since that's gotten such strong objection, I'm sticking with "ancient Greek sexuality". I'm happy to consider other options, but I want the category to be specific to the ancient world. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I hear your argument, Akhilleus, and I'm OK with Category:Ancient Greek sexuality (or Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece — whichever wording people support). Such a category could be placed in the parent category Category:History of human sexuality, and could include articles like Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. I'm not sure whether or not it would be appropriate to place it under Category:LGBT history, but we can figure that out later, I suppose. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's try a systematic approach. "Greek love" is out for various reasons. "Associated with" is out likewise. Anything that is not specifically related to relations between people of the same gender is likewise inappropriate since that is our topic. And as per Akhilleus, we need to be somewhat specific about time period. How about Category:Same-sex desire in antiquity? Haiduc 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Akhilleus and Josiah's proposal: I also feel that Category:Ancient Greek sexuality could be the best solution.--Aldux 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Akhilleus, Josiah and Aldux that Category:Ancient Greek sexuality or Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece are the best solutions. Mallaccaos 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Akhilleus, Josiah, Aldux and Mallaccaos on Category:Ancient Greek sexuality, I also agree that Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece is another solution. Apro 16 October 2006
Nothing wrong with this category, it just does not address the issues we have been discussing. Haiduc 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
But it does. Not as directly as "Greek homosexuality" or "LGBT history" do, but it places a category tag on the article indicating that it has content relating to Alexander's sexuality, and placing it in the context of how the ancient Greeks viewed sexual, erotic and romantic relationships. That context includes the nuanced views of homosexual and pederastic relationships addressed in other articles, which could also be placed in Category:Ancient Greek sexuality. What we want is to place Alexander in the context of his day, a context in which sexual relations between males was unremarkable (if bound by complex social rules). I think that "Ancient Greek sexuality" does that. No, it doesn't explicitly say "Alexander was male-oriented", but the article addresses that question. I think this is a fair compromise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Josiah, were Dover's book titled "Greek Sexuality", were Crompton's work titled "Sexuality and Civilization", were Hubbard's sourcebook titled "Sexuality in Greece and Rome" and were Verstraete and Provencal's anthology titled "Desire and Love in Graeco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West" I might well withdraw and consider my monomania a matter strictly between me and my doctor. But the fact is that none of those works are so dubbed, that what we are discussing in particular are same-sex attractions that in any reputable venue are indicated to be specifically that.
You could conceivably argue that is no less correct - only less precise - to file it under some over-arching vague category so as to avoid stepping on the sensibilities of those who for nationalistic reasons are uncomfortable with the more accurate indexing. It is however a circumlocution. It is also a terrible precedent. None of the authors I noted above elected to paper over the nature of the relationships studied, none saw fit to claim, with a wink and a nod, that - well - the Greeks saw it all as part of sexuality so why shouldn't we do the same?! So forgive me if I decline to put my name to this proposal. Haiduc 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Josiah's statement above and since there are scholars out there such as Bruce Thornton who do title their books Ancient Greek Sexuality I don't see how the arguement that the Category:Ancient Greek sexuality is not an approriate category for this article. Mallaccaos 18 October 2006

There's a quote from Thornton on this talk page that shows that he uses the words "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" in the text of his book. None of the editors who oppose using the word "homosexuality" have ever offered a secondary source that supports their position, whereas ample evidence has been provided that scholars use the term as a matter of course. This is exactly why I say there's an NPOV problem here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thornton might use words like "homosexuality" but he also uses words like "heterosexual", he also specifically goes into great detail to explain Eros the way the ancient Greeks saw it and makes the distinction of terms like "homosexuality" and "heterosexual" are modern identities and not terms ancient Greeks/Peoples would be familiar with. "What we notice about these few examples is that even a beautiful nature is the scene of fatal encounters for humans with the numinous inhuman powers filled with cosmos- and one of the most potent and destructive of those powers is sex. We must not, then think of "nature" in our terms but in the Greeks', in which nature is the collection of chaotic forces and processes in the teeth of which humans create their orders of identity."[2] Thorton goes into great detail on the subject matter:[3] Apro 18 October 2006
I do not find your quote relevant. However, I do agree with your argument that the term "homosexual" is a bit loaded, which is why I suggested we use the term "same-sex desire." Not "love," because love was not always a factor, and not "relations" because that implies a physicality that was also not always a factor. But I don't think you can argue that there was ever in these relationships an absence of desire. Haiduc 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've read Thornton's book, so I have a pretty good idea of what he's arguing. I quoted him above--here's part of what he says: "Thus the evidence from anicent Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or the precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure." Thornton calls pederasty a type of homosexuality. He calls kinaidoi "passive homosexuals". As Apro points out, Thornton also uses the term "heterosexual". Why is Thornton's book an example of why we can't use the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" to describe the ancient world, when he does so himself? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Because Thornton does not use terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" as labels for his ancient subjects and goes into great lenght to differentiate those terms, which are sexual identities in today's society, with that of what the ancient Greeks saw as Eros. In conclusion I have to say that I agree with both Josiah and Mallaccaos that Ancient Greek Sexuality is the most approriate category. Apro 18 October 2006
Well then, you're basically saying that Thornton uses "homosexual", "homosexuality", and "heterosexual" descriptively, rather than normatively--basically, you're saying that he does what Halperin recommends. Why shouldn't we do the same? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Because Thornton quite clearly tells us that modern terms such as "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" were not part of ancient Greek identity, that Eros to the ancient Greeks was a form of "nature": "one of the most potent and destructive of those powers is sex. We must not, then think of "nature" in our terms but in the Greeks"; We are also told: "A second view of nature was that it was an assemblage of destructive forces overthrowing reason and law. It was savage and monstrous and inhuman. In these terms eros is a natural energy flowing out from humans onto ANY object — same-sex paramour, child, relative or beast. There is no qualitatively distinct category of "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because by definition eros is indiscriminate. Thus a Greek would not categorize as homosexual a man who has penetrated another. Any limitations of eros arise not from the inherent nature of sexual activity that directs itself toward one object or another, but from the literally unnatural — the codes, laws, customs and institutions of society that define the proper and im proper objects and occasions of sexual activity.". Apro 18 October 2006
Yes, I've read that part of the book also. Nevertheless, Thornton uses the terms "homosexual" throughout his book as a descriptive term, as the passages I've quoted demonstrate. You still haven't answered the question: why can't we use the terms "homosexual", "homosexuality", and "heterosexual" in the way that Thornton and Halperin do? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Because no matter how it is spinned it will be applying modern terms to ancient peoples who did not identify nor associate themselves with as Thornton clearly states above: "There is no qualitatively distinct category of "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because by definition eros is indiscriminate. Thus a Greek would not categorize as homosexual a man who has penetrated another." Apro 18 October 2006
This argument doesn't fly. What you're doing is using a quotation from Thornton to argue against what Thornton actually does; Thornton uses the terms "homosexual", "homosexuality", and "heterosexual" throughout his book. Furthermore, it's clear that Halperin, Dover, Hubbard, Crompton, Wohl and many others who are prominent scholars of classical antiquity use these terms. Why should your personal opinion count for more than these scholars', especially when you have not provided a single source that supports your views? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because these terms are used in his book does not mean they would be correct to categorize ancient Greeks under them, that is not my "opinion" since Thornton strongly argues as much through out his works. Nor does he categorize any ancient Greeks under these terms. Thornton clearly differentiate between what we use as modern terms to mean "homosexual" and "heterosexual" from that of what the ancient Greeks associate such activities with. He goes on to further state: "If we look at male homosexuality as we understand it today, there are two adult partners. In Greece, the kinaidos is the passive homosexual whose inability to control his appetite, his itch for sexual pleasure, induces him to forsake his masculinity and submit to anal penetration. In either concept of nature, the kinaidos is condemned: The kinaidos become the emblem of unrestrained compulsive sexual appetite, or surrender to the chaos of natural passion that threatens civilized order, a traitor to his sex, a particularly offensive manifestation of eros’s power over the masculine mind that is responsible for creating and maintaining that order in the face of nature’s chaos." And its not just a quotation from Thornton but what he is argues in all his work. Also I was under the impression that a category was suppose to be reached which was in consensus to all and seeing as to how this article is not about Homosexuality but Alexander's biography, just a portion of it that talks about his "relationships" which have been in dispute, I don't see how applying the term "homosexuality" in the article still applies. Apro 18 October 2006
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. You acknowledge that Thornton uses "homosexuality", "homosexual" and "heterosexuality", and that's ok because he makes it clear that there's a difference between modern concepts and ancient concepts. Yet you're argue that Wikipedia cannot do the same thing. Yet we have an article, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, which explains the differences between the modern concept and what the ancient Greeks did (and even cites Thornton). This is reflected in the Alexander article by the sentence "It should be noted that the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist in Greco-Roman antiquity."
You ask why I'm still arguing with you. It's a good question, because it seems futile. However, I'm still writing about this because I feel that our consensus was reached without proper regard for scholarship, and because, as Haiduc indicated, whatever category gets created can/should be used in other articles. If the compromise of Category:ancient Greek sexuality gets used as a stealthy way to eliminate mention of homosexuality from other classical articles, I'll regard it as a failure. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thornoton might use such terms but he never titled his works as such. Also this article is not about "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece" but the biography of Alexander the Great, now some people want to add a category on his supposed sexuality because a portion of the article makes mention of of suppode such relations. Well that's fine but using a category such as "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece", a term which has its bases in modern ideology and in essence a labeler of sexual identifier towards ancient individuals who never identified themselves as such, and at least we know some scholars are in agreement with that much, does not make sense. Apro 18 October 2006
Of course Thornton didn't title his book Eros: the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece, for the simple reason that his book attempts to cover all aspects of Greek sexuality--most of it is about love between men and women.
Let's say, just for a moment, that you're right about Thornton. There's still the fact that Dover, Halperin, Wohl, Crompton, Hubbard, and plenty of other scholars write about homosexuality in ancient Greece. To privilege the view of one scholar over the others is to give undue weight to a minority opinion. Add in the fact that your reading of Thornton is off the mark, since he uses "homosexuality" throughout his work, and I don't think you have much of an argument here. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The argument is valid given that the subject who's biography this article is based on would never identify with such activities given "homosexuality" is a total modern and foreing concept to ancient Greeks, a fact most scholars acknowledge, so labeling them as such is as stated not approriate. Apro 18 October 2006
Just to be completely clear, then, you don't think that we can follow the lead of Dover, Halperin, Hubbard, et al. and speak of "homosexuality in ancient Greece"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

More on categories, because I'm tired of scrolling down.

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know that the reluctance is nationalistic, but I have to admit to the value of your larger point. We are an encyclopedia and should be calling it what it is. The difficulties seem to be with the name of the category, so perhaps that's where they should be addressed - anyone uncertain as to what the category means or is about can look at an article on that category. This article could well address the differences in how sexuality, etc was perceived then vs now. Or perhaps there should be (or is) an article devoted to just that. This article or that category could be linked to that article, too. --Badger151 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Homosexuality in ancient Greece addresses exactly these concerns. As I've written many times, the term "homosexuality" is used by almost every classical scholar writing on the topic of same-sex relations/relationships in ancient Greece (and Rome, for that matter). These scholars understand quite well that ancient conceptions of sex and sexuality were not the same as those of modern western society, and the differences are spelled out in Homosexuality in ancient Greece. A number of articles, including Pederasty in ancient Greece and Philosophy of Greek pederasty, are also relevant; it's not as if WP is lacking in explanations of what scholars think about this topic. However, several editors have made it quite clear that they won't accept a category that includes "homosexuality" and will only accept "same-sex" under certain conditions. In my opinion, this flies in the face of scholarship and is a violation of the NPOV policy. But this is the impasse that we've been trying to work through, and why we've come up with Sexuality in ancient Greece", which I agree is not an ideal solution. But it's about the best compromise we can get among the editors who are currently active on this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I beg pardon; you have mentioned this several times. Would there be objections to adding a link to Homosexuality in ancient Greece under a "See also" section in the article? It might fit better as a "See also" in the section on his personal life than as an association with the entire article. Hypothetically, a short statement on the different conceptions on sex and sexuality could also be made: "See also homosexuality in ancient Greece for a discussion of ancient Greek conceptions of sex and sexuality." --Badger151 03:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Badger, in case you got the impression that I was irritated with you, that isn't the case at all; I was just expressing my frustration with the current state of the debate. If you missed my posting about the use of "homosexuality" by classical scholars, I can't blame you--this debate has gone on for so long that no reasonable Wikipedian should be expected to read it all. Anyway, I think the suggestion in your last sentence is valuable, and something like that could be added at the end of the "Personal life" section, where currently reads: " It should be noted that the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist in Greco-Roman antiquity. If Alexander's love life was transgressive, it was not for his love of beautiful youths but for his persistent love of a man his own age." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New RfC on WP:RFC/BIO

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The previous RfCs were on the "History and Geography" RfC page, but I probably should have put them on the "Biography" page. I listed an RfC there also. I think we have a compromise that most of us can live with, but it can't hurt to have more input. Here's what the RfC says:

    • I take exception to the description of the situation. Consensus has not been reached. We have simply slid towards the last and worse recourse, appeasement. The suggested category is absolutely unacceptable since it is a mask for the fact that what is being discussed is the predilection of Alexander to enter into love relationships with other males. This category is blatantly biased and "flies in the face of scholarship and is a violation of the NPOV policy," as another editor so aptly put it above. Haiduc 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, if you think there's no consensus, feel free to edit the RfC. I think I've made it clear, at great length, that I'm not pleased with how we reached this point; after all, I wrote the words that you quote.
In an attempt to get some new voices involved, I have also requested the involvement of the mediation cabal; any other suggestions on how we can get additional input would be welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Akhilleus, I know you were the one who wrote that. The fact is that when two editors who have contributed as much as you and I have both feel that a formulation that a number of other editors like is POV, there is NO consensus. There is good will, but that is a different matter. Haiduc 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the text of the RfC. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Mediation started.--Wissahickon Creek talk 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Who will support this category: [[Category:Ancient Greek sexuality]]? --Wissahickon Creek talk 19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Though it was offered in good faith by an editor I respect, its unintentional effect is to appear as a dishonest circumlocution. We are charged to call a thing by its name, and to be precise and accurate. Haiduc 22:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This solution has been accepted by almost all editors, and I find it a good compromise, that has been accepted by editors as different as Apro and Akhilleus.--Aldux 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Other editors will certainly speak for themselves, but when two editors here maintain that this title is 1. blatantly POV and 2. goes against current usage in the scholarship, it is a far leap to claim that it has been "accepted by almost all editors." Haiduc 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not happy with this category, even though I proposed it and have argued for it. Like Haiduc, I think we should be precise and accurate, and let's not pretend that we're trying to steer readers towards Alexander's marriage with Roxane with this category. Nevertheless, I could support it, depending on where it fits in the overall category scheme.
I am grateful to Wissahickon Creek for accepting the request to mediate. However, I requested this mediation because I believe that the refusal to consider categories like "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" or "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" is a violation of the NPOV policy. I would appreciate some discussion of this topic, hopefully with some new voices involved. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Comment/ Qualified Support. Although I respect Haiduc's position on this matter, I disagree that "Ancient Greek sexuality" is circumlocutive or dishonest, especially in the case of Alexander, whom the historic record links credibly with both males and females. "Ancient Greek sexuality" incorporates behavior accurately described as homosexual and heterosexual. In 1969, Mary Renault wrote:
The sexual mores of Alexander have been much discussed, his detractors tending to claim he was homosexual, his admirers to rebut it with indignation. Neither side has much considered how far Alexander himself would have thought it a dishonor. In a society which accepted bisexuality as a norm, his three state marriages qualified him for normality.
The sexual politics have changed somewhat since Renault's day, but I think her point stands: we should consider not only the perspective held by scholars, but the position which would be appropriate to Alexander. I do not feel that "Ancient Greek sexuality" disguises or hides any truth of Alexander's life — if anything, it incorporates a broader truth than "Ancient Greek homosexuality" would. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You are absolutely right, but I do not think that this is what the argument is about. There is no question that Alexander's sexuality is not exclusively homosexual, nor is it exclusively pederastic. [This almost makes me wonder whether we have been talking at cross purposes all along.] Just as Alexander is noteworthy for having been a king, though he played many other roles in his life, likewise is he noteworthy for his relations with males, though he certainly had relations with females. However, since gender studies looks at relations in gendered fashion, it is helpful to researchers to have a way to separate this aspect of the history of sexuality from the others. Thus indexing this article in a hypothetical Category:Same-sex desire in antiquity does not preclude it's simultaneous listing under, say, Category:Marriage in antiquity, but is of great help to anyone who is looking to study the history of same sex relations. Haiduc 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Ah — you're right, I think we have been talking at cross purposes. Given that, I'll adjust my position slightly: although I still think that "Ancient Greek sexuality" may be the best we can realistically manage and is a reasonable compromise, the point about the value of a category indicating specifically male-male eros is taken. I'll say that I give "Category:Ancient Greek sexuality" qualified support — qualified insofar as we should recognize that the conversation about how best to indicate the specifically homosexual element of Alexander's erotic history is not over. Perhaps we should consider "Ancient Greek sexuality" as a cease-fire for purposes of ongoing negotiations, rather than as a final peace treaty? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I initially proposed "Category:ancient Greek sexuality" as the kind of cease-fire that Josiah suggests. However, maybe I can review some things I think our discussion has achieved:
1) There's consensus that the article should have a category that indexes the "personal life" section. And, if we're honest, we're talking about the sections on A.'s relationships with Hephaistion and Bagoas. As Josiah just said, the conversation is about "how best to indicate the 'specifically homosexual' element of Alexander's erotic history".
2) Categories that project modern sexual identities into antiquity are undesirable; therefore the acronym "LGBT" should be avoided.
On the other hand, there's still no good consensus on what to call the (new?) category. The basic problem is that some editors strongly resist categories involving the words "homosexuality" or "same-sex desire". As far as I can tell, the reason is that some editors believe "homosexuality" is anachronistic, and I'm actually not sure what the problem is with "same-sex desire", except that it's too much like "homosexuality". Nevertheless, it's been (in my opinion) amply demonstrated that classical scholars, including Alexander scholars, use the term "homosexuality" when speaking about the type of relationship that Alexander might have had with Hephastion. In other words, I belive that categories like "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" and "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" reflect the practice of most experts in ancient Greek culture and history. To insist that we cannot use these categories is to give undue weight to a minority view--and that minority view belongs to Wikipedia editors, not to experts, because so far, the editors who think that "homosexuality" is anachronistic haven't provided any scholarship that supports their view.
So, I think we need to discuss whether there's an NPOV violation here. If there's no policy violation, then I say, let's declare the cease-fire and go home. On the other hand, if the only reason we can't use the categories "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" or "homosexuality in ancient Greece" is the personal opinions of a few editors, then I think we need to keep the discussion going. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think the case can be very simply solved by accepting the NPOV category: [[Category:Ancient Greek sexuality]] I would definitely incline towards this one. However, I don't like POV pushers. I take it as agreed that this one will be used. --Wissahickon Creek talk 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support I am little late coming into this mediation but I too support the Category:Ancient Greek sexuality. Mallaccaos 23 October 2006
OK --Wissahickon Creek talk 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As I think has been mentioned above, this category naturally lends itself to the discussion of differences between how sexuality was understood in ancient Greece and how we understand it now (all of that, of course, based on our current understanding of things). --Badger151 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Final decision taken by mediator

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The final decision taken by mediator is: Category:Ancient Greek sexuality.

This is the best solution one can think of, it's less POV, it's more neutral, it's NPOV and has the greatest support for it. I take it as the final decision and I consider this case as closed. --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing medition. --Wissahickon Creek talk 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

List of classical scholars who use the term "homosexuality"

Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Hi everyone, after some discussion with our mediator I'm putting together a list of scholars who use the term "homosexuality" in relation to the ancient world, so we can demonstrate that this term is accepted by many prominent scholars. I'd rather not clutter up the talk page with this list, so I'm putting it at User:Akhilleus/List of classical scholars who use the term "homosexuality". Hopefully this will be a clear illustration that there's no anachronism in using the category "Homosexuality in ancient Greece", and that if we do so, we will be following the lead of many experts.

Editors with knowledge of the subject are encouraged to contribute. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: How about making a "Homosexual English Wikipedia"? Miskin 22:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Miskin, please remain civil and assume good faith. Akhilleus is working to ensure that the article reflects the consensus of current scholarship. Insinuations of a homosexual agenda are not helpful to the dialogue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I just can't take your word over my own judgement. I'm not going to call it a 'homosexual agenda', but I'm objecting to the fact that undue weight on homosexuality is being injected in Greco-Roman related articles for no reason. This practice is against WP:NPOV, and telling me that I'm not being civil because I mentioned the word "homosexual" is not enough to shut me up. According to WP:NPA, what I said was by no means a personal attack, hence removing it is only a restriction on my freedom of speech. Miskin 16:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment restored. I didn't find Miskin's comment very constructive, but I'd rather have it present than have him feel he's being silenced. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the restoration of this comment; although I did find the comment needlessly sarcastic and hostile, W.C. removing it was not helpful to the discussion either. I stand by my earlier comment, however.
Miskin, the discussion at hand is about how to categorize the Alexander the Great page, in order to reflect the extensive scholarship on his relations with males. How does this constitute placing undue weight on homosexuality? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Even so, please take into account the decision taken by mediator. This decision is not a zero-sum game: one loose one wins, here everybody wins since the most neutral and NPOV formulation was found. Wissahickon Creek talk 12:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood what the Mediation Cabal was about, but I thought their purpose was to "provide a friendly hand in resolving disputes". The dispute here is whether the decision not to use categories like "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" or "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" is a violation of the NPOV policy. To simply say "the most neutral and NPOV formulation was found" isn't a productive way of addressing this concern, especially when you don't seem to have fully investigated the dispute. Perhaps you could expand on your reasoning a bit. Why is "ancient Greek sexuality" the most NPOV formulation? Do you think that the secondary sources I've cited don't support "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" or "Homosexuality in ancient Greece"? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Akhilleus, though I enjoy so much to talk with you, you have to understand that a decision was made. I know you have hard feelings about this issue and for you your formulation is less POV, I can assure you that the final decision was taken taking into account all the issues. Perhaps the fact that I let you more to debate was misinterpreted as not sufficient involvement. But I like to see first how things evolve. You presented your point of view very well, I admire it but there is a difference between POV and NPOV, and I would like you to know that your version is blatantly POV. Yes, saying "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" is blatantly POV. That’s why, I as mediator for your case, decided what is best taking into account all the aspects that have been said so far. I don't like POV pushers at all. Many thanks! --Wissahickon Creek talk 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not pretend to be an expert, but surely, if some scholars think something, it's not a minority view, and it is verifiable, then it could be included in the article, even in a little note, if that's all it is. NPOV isn't so much about "telling it from a neutral point of view" as "representing all points of view fairly and equally, giving each due attention". I get the impression, Wissahickon, that you've not actually read WP:NPOV through thouroughly. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Keitei (talk · contribs), one of the co-ordinators of the Mediation Cabal, has expressed concern over the behavior of Wissahickon Creek in this matter, and asked him no longer to mediate this case. See here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A new mediator is welcome to assist me, in this way there will be 2 mediators. I'm still in charge here and a NPOV compromise solution will be finally accepted by all. --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Er... no. Mediation is not the same as being "in charge", and the authority of your position as mediator has been legitimately challenged. WC, each comment you make is weakining your position. Even if you dismiss the opinions of the editors of this page, I would hope that you would respect the opinions of the other Mediation Cabal members. The more baldly you assert your authority, the less credible it becomes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
~Kylu (u|t) Has now opened the case back up and asked for a senior mediator to take the case with WC acting as assistant editor. CaveatLectorTalk 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My view of the debate thus far

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

I usually find it helpful to mediation to sum up that which we're arguing over, so I'm going to try to summarize what I view as being under debate. Feel free to correct me or to add to it or whatever you like. Also, if you find this highly unhelpful, let me know.

  • Alexander the Great may be associated with the idea of homosexuality in ancient Greece in some way. Because of this, it may be useful to categorize him such that people interested in this subject may find this article.
  • However, homosexuality is an anachronism and an inappropriate label for who he was.
    • Except that many/several scholars use this term, and further clarify that it is the act that is homosexual, not the person.
  • Category names which are sufficiently neutral and clear are very long and it is difficult to shorten them such that all parties are satisfied.
  • Furthermore, should this category be included with LGBT history which is also an anachronism?
    • Extending this, where would the category be placed?

I'm probably missing some stuff, but this seems to be what has been discussed thus far (forgive me for not reading the archives, please tell me if that would further inform this assessment and I will try to make time for it).

Since the goal of categorization is to make articles easily accessible to the reader/researcher, I'd suggest starting out by discussing where someone searching for this topic would start and how to lead them here. For example, let's say I'm looking for the concept of love in ancient Greece especially as it is applied to persons of note. I start with Ancient Greece. From there, I get sort of stuck. There's nothing in the "Way of life" section, only prostitution in the see also section, and there's a template at the bottom with "Pedarasty" in ancient Greece. I decide to go to Category:Ancient Greece at the bottom. There I see Homosexuality in ancient Greece, so I go there (I also see Greek Homosexuality, which is confusing). Here I find some examples, none of whom are Alexander the Great (and homosexuality is still not their view of love, but oh well).

So perhaps a category of Category:Concept of love in ancient Greece under Category:Ancient Greece, which could contain articles like Eros (love), Homosexuality in ancient Greece, and categories like Category:Ancient Greeks . . . (to be decided).

Just a very long suggestion and example as to how one could approach the naming and categorizing of such a thing. If the goal is to be useful to reader/researcher, one has to see it from their point of view and name and place it where they would be looking for it. Unless of course the debate is whether Alexander was homosexual or if he just had homosexual relations. :] Let me know what you think... --Keitei (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a useful place to begin the discussion anew. The only piece of the puzzle that I can think of that is missing is the complicating factor that most of Alexander's biographers say that it is likely that his relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas were sexual, but not proven or definite. Some editors of this page feel that any category denoting homosexual or same-sex eros is therefore inappropriate.
I hope that after the recent detour, all editors can try to make a fresh start on this matter, in a way that will lead us all to a conclusion that both reflects current scholarship accurately and follows the NPOV policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I still see the category Category:Ancient Greek sexuality as the most approriate so far, Keitei suggestion of Category:Concept of love in ancient Greece I could contemplate. What about Category:Eros in Ancient Greece? After all Eros is the approriate idealogy of what the ancient Greeks associated their relationships with[4]. Plus no matter what Alexander's relationship was with Hephaestion and Bagoas, Eros being both agape or philia, it does identifies with all, and it does solves the issue of their relationship being either romantically sexual or platonic and it is a concept which would be familiar to ancient Greeks.  :) Apro 24 October 2006

A proper index must serve the needs of individuals interested in any the major aspects of a topic. Alexander's love relations with other males have been the focus of historians' attention for over two thousand years now. Thus this article should be among those that appear when a reader turns to the Wikipedia to investigate homosexuality in ancient Greece. That is what we have been talking about all along, not sexuality, not love, not cabbages. Any title that fails to indicate that we are talking about same-sex relations in antiquity is an abdication of editorial responsibility. Haiduc 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander's love relations with other males have been the focus of historians' attention for over two thousand years now. Can you provide any evidence that this is in fact the case? From my experience, it hasn't been the focus of attention except in the last century, and was generally only mentioned in passing prior to that. siafu 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not misinterpret my words. The incidents in which he evinced desire for other males were considered noteworthy enough to be recorded and preserved for over two millennia. The same cannot be said of all Greeks, Pericles for example. The moderns find him likewise noteworthy. Either would be sufficient. Together they are persuasive. Haiduc 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Many things were considered noteworth enough to merit recording and preservation for millenia that do not merit categorization. Pericles was not as prominent a figure as Alexander; few, if any, were, and less is recorded about him period. This is not a convincing argument. siafu 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The incidents which we are talking about barely make up a paragraph, and in both cases its not even conclusive such relationships existed. I agree with siafu its only been in the last century that his "supposed" sexual relationships with males has gone into so much detail. Mallaccaos 25 October 2006
I think this is taking the discussion off-track. There's information on Alexander's sexuality in the article; it's notable and verifiable. Furthermore, there's a consensus that there ought to be a category that directs Wikipedia readers to that information. This discussion is about which category we should use. If you don't think the information should be in the article, or if you think there shouldn't be a category for it, it might be best to start a new discussion, under a new section heading. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel it's off-track to point out that there are "facts" being presented which are not true, and arguments being used which are fallacious. siafu 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks to Keitei for mediating and reframing the debate; I think that summary is accurate and helpful. I especially like the focus on how a reader might locate this article, since one of the things I've said many times in this discussion is that categories exist to help readers find information.

In my view, this category should direct readers who are interested in ancient Greek homosexuality to the part of this article about the possible relationships between Alexander, Bagoas, and Hephaistion. Said category will also help readers find similar material in other articles. It's clear that ancient homosexuality, same-sex desire, or whatever you'd like to call it is a focus of academic research. It's also clear that Alexander is relevant to this topic, and has generated both scholarly and popular interest in this particular respect. The reader I'm thinking of is someone who knows a little bit about Greece, and is interested in Greek sexuality, particularly male-male eros. (Maybe they're writing a paper in their Gender in Greco-Roman Antiquity class, and searching for a topic.) This person knows nothing about Alexander, but clicks on the category, sees Alexander the Great in the list, and then finds the "Personal Life" section. I think many Wikipedia readers will be helped by such a category; the gigantic body of scholarship on the topic of Homosexuality in ancient Greece suggests there's plenty of interest out there, and so does the intensity and longevity of our discussion.

However, to put things very bluntly, I think we should acknowledge that the core of our dispute is whether to use a category that contains something like "homosexuality", "same-sex", or "pederasty". The page history records persistent edit wars about this, and no one tries to add a category like "love in ancient Greece" or "sexuality in ancient Greece"; the categories in dispute relate specifically to male-male eros. For instance, on February 12, there's a category "Pederastic lovers" (the category no longer exists); a more recent edit war starts on September 23, over categories like "LGBT history", "LGBT people from Greece" and "Greek pederasty".

This is why I say there's an NPOV dispute here. We all acknowledge that we're indexing the section about Alexander, Hephaistion, and Bagoas. Some editors want a category that specifically refers to same-sex relationships, others don't. If this was just about our personal opinions, I'd say we should go with a neutrally-worded compromise like "love in ancient greece". But we're talking about a type of relationship that scholars discuss as homosexuality, pederasty, or same-sex desire. Not a minority of scholars, but a majority of prominent scholars, including some quoted in the article.

I'd note further that I don't think it matters that these relationships are only "possible" or "almost certain" but not proven. The category is for the article, not the man. If the text read "Some ancient historians implied that Alexander had a sexual relationship with Bagoas, but we can be nearly certain this is not the case," the category would be justified, because that would still be relevant to the history of same-sex desire. As it is, the article records Fox and Cartledge's belief that these were sexual relationships, so in my opinion a category that relates specifically to same-sex eros is justified. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keitei suggestion of Category:Concept of love in ancient Greece sounds appropriate but if someone is interested in Ancient Greek Sexuality, I believe they sould be learning the proper content in which ancient Greeks viewed it. In which case I see Apro's Category:Eros in Ancient Greece fit this content correctly and even better then Ancient Greek Sexuality. This category also fits whatever Alexander's relationships with Hephaistion and Bagoas might have been. Trying to fit them into a category which is a modern identifier is misleading. Plus Eros is the term used quite often among scholars when refering to ancient Greek relationships. This is somewhat similar of an issue some where having in a discussion where categorizing Americans with multiple ethnic backgrounds(meaning more then just two) was considered wrong even when we had quotes from those same Americans admiting they identified themselves from those backgrounds in the articles; so how can it be wrong to categorize modern people who are quoted in the articles that they come from several different backgrounds as such but to categorize ancient persons who never identified themselves with a specific category which is not even in content to anything they were familiar with or believed in as correct? Mallaccaos 25 October 2006
Except for some troll phrases from above, that started again and again a debate that was partly agreed to a compromise solution, I would like to point out the great support for Mediator's solution: Category:Ancient Greek sexuality as a very NPOV category here. I still don't understand why this neutral compromise solution wasn't accepted by two users. Even if with other words they accepted before the NPOV solution, they seem not to like the tact and diplomacy of mediation process. I'm willing to see what exactly is their NPOV solution to be a compromise for all, not just reiterate their POV.Wissahickon Creek talk 11:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wissahickon Creek, mediators never choose sides in a debate. Please don't call people trolls, don't force your opinion on others, and don't stir up what was a fairly civil debate, or we're going to have to ask you to recuse yourself as assisting mediator as well. --Keitei (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you making a mockery of the mediation process consciously or otherwise? Haiduc 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't troll. Stick to the subject and bring arguments why shouldn't have we a compromise solution. Thanks! --Wissahickon Creek talk 12:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That, my dear WC, was the straw that broke the camels back. You just called two HIGHLY respected editors 'trolls' merely because they do not 'agree' with your 'proclamation' of neutrality. It is clear that you shouldn't have taken this case, and the reputation of the cabal is suffering for it. So, I want to propose something to all the other editors of this page (NONE of which have come out in support for your methods of mediation). WP:MedCab, as we know, is a completely voluntary, informal, and non-binding process. I ask the other editors if we might dismiss WC as the mediator here and either continue the discussion without him (or without him as mediator) and either pursue other means of resolution or contact another member of the Cabal privately to help us with the situation. Otherwise, it seems we are going nowhere. This is drastic, but after several days of this mockery of a mediation, I feel that such a drastic measure might be necessary. CaveatLectorTalk 13:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support this dismissal; Keitei is clearly an experienced mediator, and her contributions are helpful to the discussion. WC's... are not. Shall we agree to proceed with Keitei's mediation, and ignore comments by WC? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This process needs a mediator that doesn't take sides to close this issue once and for all with no further doubts. I find Keitei very impartial in this. Sorry WC, but I cannot support a mediator that takes sides. Even mine. •NikoSilver• 14:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether to explicitly state "homosexuality"

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

The debate at hand now seems to be that siafu asserts it is fallacious to categorize this article with homosexuality. Is a compromise on the terms going to help any, or is this a denial of any association whatsoever? That is to say, what must be procured (i.e. sources) or negotiated so that we can move forward? --Keitei (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be overestimating the importance of my POV, and I was asserting that it's fallacious to argue that this article should be categorized with homosexuality because it was notable enough to be recorded by historians. There may well exist a reason to categorize this article as such, but that is not it. That's all. siafu 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe Category:Eros in Ancient Greece fit the content of whatever Alexander's relationships with Hephaistion and/or Bagoas might have been; also placing the Category:Homosexuality in Ancient Greece in the Category:Eros in Ancient Greece would lead any person interested in learning about said subject since Category:Homosexuality in Ancient Greece would lead them to said article and no matter what, as shown with the countless debates on Alexander from nationality to sexuality to leader or killer, someone sees his name listed in such a category...first first I might also add given the alphabetical order, will definately click on the article out of curiousity if nothing else. I also quite doubt that anyone nowadays is not aware of the controversal issues Alexander is associated with...and I am not only talking about his supposed sexuality. ;) Plus Eros is the term used quite often among scholars when refering to ancient Greek "romanic" relationships and its in content with what ancient Greeks refered such relationships as. Mallaccaos 25 October 2006
I approach this article as a reader, not a scholar in any sense of the word, so I thought I'd share that viewpoint of the categories thusfar proposed:
  • Eros in Ancient Greece: seems to make sense and to fit Alexander well, but I'm forced to admit that prior to following this discussion, I had at best a hazy view of what eros meant. Is it possible to expand out the category title to define or suggest at the meaning of eros, for those who are unfamiliar with the term? Perhaps Eros and Sexuality in Ancient Greece, or something similar?
  • Sexuality in Ancient Greece: seems to fit this article and topic well because of the extensive discussion (both here and in scholarly literature) about sexuality in Ancient Greece that Alexander's relations have prompted. If I was reasearching sexuality in Ancient Greece, a link to this article might be helpful for its own discussion, but even more because of its links and bibliography - it would lead me to other articles of use. If eros can be somehow defined in the category title, though, Eros in Ancient Greece would be better.
  • Homosexuality (or Same-sex Love) in Ancient Greece: If I was reasearching homosexuality or same-sex love in Ancient Greece, knowing what I know now (due to this debate) I'd be certain to look at the literature regarding Alexander. Prior to reading this, I don't know that I would have, so I think there should be a clear link from some sort of same-sex love category to Alexander. I understand that the exact nature of Alexander's realtions continues to be debated, but the article will inform the reader of that; the category is important to alert the uninitiated of the unresolved question regarding Alexander. A parent category of Homosexuality in History, or some thing similar, would be useful for those who are not focussing specifically on Ancient Greece. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece would probably also work as a subcategory under Eros or Sexuality in Ancient Greece, if a sub-category can belong to more than one parent category.
  • Possible (or Disputed) Homosexuals in Ancient Greece (or in History): I think someone mentioned this category sometime back. From the point of view of a reader doing research, I think this category would be just as valid as Homosexuality in Ancient Greece (or in history). From a scholarly standpoint I'm not qualified to comment.
The only other comments I'll make are that I would anticipate readers to approach this subject from two directions - from LGBTA studies (and yes, LGBTA is an anachronism here) and from Ancient Greek studies. Categories for both connections will be important. Sorry to be so verbose. --Badger151 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Eros and Sexuality in Ancient Greece makes sense and I agree with Badger151 that it also fits Alexander well. An informative and detailed wiki article on what the Eros concept was in ancient Greece would be a great idea to have to educate the public on its meaning back then also; unless there already is an article on this subject matter and I've missed it. I also agree in adding Homosexuals in Ancient Greece as part of the categories on the Eros and Sexuality in Ancient Greece to help with any studies an individual might have on that category. Apro 26 October 2006

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will reiterate why "Same-sex desire in antiquity" merits consideration. 1. "Same-sex" circumvents the mistaken association with modern homosexuality that untutored readers may make. 2. "desire" skirts the issue of whether or not AtG ever went to bed with his beloveds (it is not significant in that chaste homosexual desire was a recognized foundation for love relationships). 3. "antiquity" expands the range of the category so that we do not fall into the trap of having a category of one or two or three, which will invariably result in its being deleted, depositing us all at the starting line another time. This category will also be useful for all those instances which do not neatly fall under existing headings (maybe even for Akhilles and Patroclus, though I would not remove presently existing categories). Haiduc 23:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe we all run the risk of sounding like broken records, as I said in my post above Category:Eros in Ancient Greece would resolve the issue given it is the approriate ideology with what the ancient Greeks associated such relationships as. Mallaccaos 25 October 2006

About Category:Ancient Greek sexuality I think that this is the best solution one can think of, it's less POV, it's more neutral, it's NPOV and has the greatest support for it. What does the other mediator think of? --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't have an opinion on the matter. Let the parties come to their own consensus. --Keitei (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So this is what I'm seeing so far:

  • Eros and sexuality in ancient Greece
    • Homosexuality in ancient Greece
    • Homosexuals in ancient Greece
    • Possible/Disputed homosexuals in ancient Greece
    • Same-sex love/desire in ancient Greece
  • Same-sex desire in antiquity
    • Same-sex desire in ancient Greece?

Are there any more which would fit? Any of these on second thought actually shouldn't be considered? Any I've missed? --Keitei (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(As a note, the * bullet point is intended as a higher category and the ** bullet points as subcategories; i.e. "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" proposed for inclusion on this article as a subcategory of "Eros and sexuality in ancient Greece" (intentionally vague as a category which encompasses more). The / is an indication of either/or. "Possible homosexuals in ancient Greece" or "Disputed homosexuals in ancient Greece", it seemed too similar to create different bullets for. Hope that clarifies what was intended by the formatting above, this isn't to do with the content. --Keitei (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC) )
  • Comments below.
    • Greek Pederasty Appropriate but too limiting because it describes only his relationship with Bagoas.
    • Eros and sexuality in ancient Greece Unacceptable. Way too vague and obscuring the point. Deceptive, actually.
    • Homosexuality in ancient Greece Acceptable but perhaps misleading for reasons already discussed. Would have to be qualified.
    • Homosexuals in ancient Greece Even worse than the previous one - too suggestive of orientation.
    • Possible/Disputed homosexuals in ancient Greece Unacceptable for giving undue importance to a marginal polemic.
    • Same-sex love/desire in ancient Greece Unacceptable, too verbose.
    • Same-sex desire in antiquity Better because inclusive of related cultures, thus more useful.
    • Same-sex desire in ancient Greece? Acceptable, though more limiting. Haiduc 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a huge misconception here: A homosexual is one who has sexual relationships with the same sex. G.A. didn't have relationships only with the same sex. Categorizing him in homosexuals or same-sex would be as POV as categorizing him under Category:Heterosexuals! Maybe you should find a new category for bisexuals, but only homosexual is false information. •NikoSilver• 21:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, do you know the meaning of the word "compromise?" The category Ancient Greek Sexuality was agreed upon earlier in this discussion by almost everyone involved. Now, you and Akhilleus want the word “homosexual” in there. You even striked off Possible/Disputed homosexuals in ancient Greece by claiming it would give undue weight to a minority polemic. First off, even if all scholars and all people came to a consensus that Alexander was bisexual-that is still not enough to strike it out because there is no concrete evidence that Alexander had homosexual relationships. For example we can all come to a consensus that extraterrestrials exist, but we cannot say they do just because everyone agrees. Furthermore, as I wrote below, Alexander’s sexuality does not constitute as an important part of the scholarship of Alexander since most biographies on Alexander mention nothing about his possible love affairs with Hephaestion or Bagoas. No contemporary historian writes it, Peter Green doesn’t write it, even Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge who feel certain he had such relationships spend less than one percent of their books dealing with his sexuality. Encarta and Brittanica and all other encyclopedias mention nothing of Alexander being bisexual. If there is such little scholarship on his sexuality then why the passion for categories? Regardless, the category Ancient Greek Sexuality or Eros in Ancient Greece or Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed would fit best. Historical Figures whose sexuality is disputed would be the most appropriate given that his sexuality is disputed, and can never be proven. It would also be interesting to find out which other historical figures’ sexuality is disputed. Takidis 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
As they say, "Many hold the thyrsus, but few are the mystics." Many things are "disputed" but the real question is, who are those doing the disputing. I too have offered many compromises, none of which compromise the validity of the information. Haiduc 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is not a mystic? Britannica? Columbia? Do they have an anti-gay cabal of some sort? I feel your proposals definitely compromise the validity of information because:

  • It is not mentioned in detailed works about him
  • Some of these relationships are disputed
  • Even so, he wasn't only homosexual.

By the way, isn't it WP:OR to call someone homosexual if he hasn't been called as such by verifiable, independent, reliable sources before? •NikoSilver• 00:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Niko, thank you for your comments, but I urge you to look over the talk page a bit more, because you're raising points that we've discussed many times. The point of the category is not to label Alexander as "gay", or to sum up the nature of his sexuality in one word. The category is like an entry in an index. If you're interested in Greek generals, you might want to read this article. If you're interested in mummies, perhaps you'd like to read about Alexander. If you're curious about polygamists, there might be something in this article worth looking at. If you're want to learn more about adoptees, read Alexander the Great (and Nelson Mandela, too--I didn't know that before). Also, if you're interested in same-sex relationships in ancient Greece, perhaps you should read this article: the material on Hephaistion and Bagoas might be interesting. (I eagerly await a furious debate on the anachronism of the categories "polygamists", "mummies", and "adoptees", and how classifying Alexander as a "polygamist" doesn't capture the full range of his relationships.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You realise ofcourse that this is a very tedious process (Hah! almost sounds like a threat: "Check the archives!" :-)) I think those brief points constitute very good arguments, and sincerely feel that they can't be possibly adequately countered. In case you disagree, please prove me wrong. •NikoSilver• 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it would be very tedious to go through the archives. It's been tedious to make most of these comments. Nevertheless, you are going over old ground, and the point I'm making about the purpose of the category (and categories in general) has been made several times; just start from the beginning of the mediation (Talk:Alexander the Great#My view of the debate thus far. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Response below. •NikoSilver• 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Akhilleus, you have not responded to any of our concerns. In fact you have ignored mine completely when I brought up valid points. If you don’t respond then you concede the point. The categories “Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed” or “Ancient Greek Sexuality” or “Eros in Ancient Greece” would all match what is written in the Bagoas and Hephaestion section of this article and are the least POV.
Furthermore, most of the evidence pertaining to Alexander’s alleged bisexuality is based on the assumption that homosexual behaviour was accepted in ancient Greece, which can be very much debatable. I have started a discussion on Homosexuality in Ancient Greece pointing out the biases and inaccuracies in that article. I welcome others to join that discussion. Takidis 05:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
I second that comment of Takidis, and expect an answer myself, as a non-"single-purpose-account". See my comment in the section below. •NikoSilver• 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Akhilleus

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Response to Akhilleus from above: Ok, I managed to go through all of that discussion. Here's what I made of it:


Argument Response Counter-Response
It is not mentioned in detailed works about him Curtius implies it, Cartledge and Fox suppose it. All doubt it as well, nobody proves it. Peter Green, Encarta, Britannica and Columbia don't even mention it.
These relationships are disputed It doesn't matter, the debate must be accessible to those interested through the category I strongly disagree, "alleged bisexual" would be the case, or for now, "people with unresolved sexual orientation"
Even so, he wasn't only homosexual, he would be bisexual Homosexuality is an act, not a person Correct, same goes for heterosexuality, the only thing proven by the sources. I see no such category
Mallaccaos: It was defined differently back then It is an act See above

To sum up, I see no convincing responses, and I am very reluctant in assigning definitive labels for uncertain and unverified acts. On a lighter note, but valid as an example, I am a vegetarian too: Some historian supposed that I ate vegetables along with my T-bone yesterday. :-) •NikoSilver• 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Niko, thanks for taking the time to go through all of that, and for making the table. I split this into a separate section, so people can find it more easily; I hope you don't mind.
I think we're still not seeing eye-to-eye on the purpose of the category. By saying that "people with unresolved sexual orientation" is the appropriate category, it sounds like you think that we're trying to assign a sexual orientation to Alexander. But, as I've said over and over again, we're not trying to label him. We all know quite well that the ancient Greeks didn't even have a concept of sexual orientation. What we're trying to say is that the article pertains to certain subjects: Greek history, ancient military history, mummies, craters of the moon. And it's self-evident that the material about Hephaistion and Bagoas is of interest to people studying ancient Greek homosexuality or same-sex desire, or whatever you want to call it. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heading, helps editing faster too. I responded to that above. See line number 3. I added some stuff in line 1 also. Those people's interest about homosexuality or same-sex desire, if so keen, can safely lead them to trace this article by my proposal for "unresolved sexual orientation". That latter is a huge compromise from my part, given the fact that there is no proof of anything else but heterosexual relationships (you know, sons and all). Which reminds me that in my vegetarian example above, vegeterianism is an action to which I have been supposedly reported to indulge, but the receit from the restaurant clearly states "T-Bone". The article does not 'pertain' to homosexuality. It partly and quite disputedly pertains to "unresolved sexual orientation". •NikoSilver• 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about sexual orientation. We've said repeatedly that the ancient Greeks didn't have a concept of hetero/homosexual orientation. If we were trying to come up with a label that covered all of Alexander's sexual/love relationships, then we'd probably be going for "eros in ancient Greece" or something. But we all know that we're talking about a particular part of the article, which does pertain to the history of homosexuality. Fox and Cartledge discuss Alexander's possible relationships to Hephaistion and Bagoas in exactly those terms.
You say that Alexander's sexuality is "disputed". I don't agree. "unproven" I'll buy, but for "disputed" we'd need a citation of someone who says that Alexander did not have an intimate relationship with Hephaistion or Bagoas. So far that hasn't happened. Instead, we have Cartledge and Fox saying there were probably, likely, almost certainly sexual relationships--and that it was expected for men to have same-sex relationships in ancient Greece. The only people who are disputing this are Wikipedia editors.
The heart of this dispute is whether we can use a category that actually says "homosexual" or "same-sex" or similar. And really, I think all the objections to this category boil down to "you can't call Alexander gay". But no one is trying to.
I don't find your vegetarianism analogy illuminating. Most people would assume that if you ordered a steak at a restaurant, it would come with potatoes and some other vegetables, or mushrooms or something--most people who eat meat are assumed to eat things that aren't meat. On the other hand, in the modern world, we generally think of heterosexual and homosexual as mutally exclusive things--if you're one, you can't be the other. But this isn't the sense in which "homosexuality" is used in the study of the ancient world. I've provided several examples. However, if we want to avoid the word "homosexuality", an alternative that's been proposed is "same-sex desire in antiquity". What's wrong with that? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Akhilleus, let's not play with words. "Unproven" implies a "dispute". Even so, I didn't ask for "disputed", I asked for "unresolved". And yes, you can't call G.A. gay, or anybody else for that matter, without solid proof, and nobody buys that categorizing him under homosexuality doesn't in fact call him that. I also apparently disagree that "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" are mutually exclusive, even today. There are those "bisexuals" in the middle. Finally, I repeat and you haven't responded: The only thing we know for a fact is that he was heterosexual. He had children, and test-tube babies hadn't been invented yet. I don't see anybody pushing for a "heterosexual" category though. How silly would it be to categorize him under both? Like a carnivorous vegetarian I suppose... •NikoSilver• 20:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. A "dispute" is when two or more parties disagree, and have opposing arguments. As far as I've seen, no one's provided a reliable source that disagrees what Fox and Cartledge say; the only ones who argue against them are Wikipedians. If there's really a dispute, it shouldn't be hard to name prominent adherents of a different view. Unless you want to claim, as someone already has in this dispute, that Fox argues against himself...
To address your other points: the concept of "bisexual" exists because "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are thought to be incompatible, insofar as they are sexual identities. If you mean that homosexual and heterosexual behavior aren't mutually exclusive, I agree completely. There could be categories for both aspects--as has already been pointed out, a category like "same-sex desire in ancient Greece" wouldn't prevent the inclusion of a category like "ancient Greek heterosexuality" or "marriage in ancient Greece" or "opposite-sex relations in ancient Greece", because there's material about A.'s marriage to Roxana and (possible) affair with Barsine. In that sense, I don't think it's absurd at all to have categories about same-sex and opposite-sex behavior in the same article, because we have evidence that ancient Greeks engaged in both types of relationships. Note, however, that we cannot say that Alexander was a "heterosexual", because there was no such thing in ancient Greece. We can say, though, that he had heterosexual relationships.
The fact that nothing is "proven" is immaterial. Secondary scholarship gives us notable and verifiable information about this topic, such that we have some paragraphs in the article about it. (Or are you saying we should remove Hephaistion and Bagoas from the article, since nothing is certain?) Many contributors so far have agreed that this material would be interesting to a Wikipedia reader interested in the topic of homosexuality in antiquity; I have no doubt that there are such readers, since there's so much scholarship devoted to the topic.
But I don't like the notion of a category including "unresolved". We're not trying to resolve anything, we're trying to guide people to some stuff they might like to read. I am also opposed to category names like "unresolved", "disputed", or anything similar, because there are people who want to dispute any implication that any ancient Greek man had sex with another man, and I'm not interested in giving them a tool to do so.
But maybe we can come up with a category that both acknowledges that we're talking about same-sex relationships and avoids the impression that we're calling Alexander gay. Something like "history of same-sex desire in antiquity". This would say that the material on Hephaistion and Bagoas fits into that history, without saying anything definite about how it fits into that history. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but it seems we are going in circles. It is proven he was heterosexual ("occasionally" or "primarily" you would add), so we can have a Category:Heterosexual on him. Then the reader will be encountered with a heterosexual plus homosexual guy (no, a guy engaging in both of these actions you would say). I strongly feel that this constitutes a paradox in the sense of carnivorous vegetarian. Plus, again, what we know for a fact is his ("occasional"/"predominant" you would say) heterosexuality. We do not know for a fact his homosexuality. We have very few sources assuming it, and contesting it at the same time. I read the segments in the article and this is quite evident to the reader.
So we come to the second argument for the need of such a category, which is to direct the reader interested in same-sex relationships in finding the article. And why should we misinform by doing that? His homosexual relationships are assumed, repeat assumed. So your category should be assumed or alleged same-sex relationships. You didn't respond why a reader keen in finding information about that won't just click the unresolved ones either.
And now let me give you another argument: When a single side of a story is considered POV, then we add the other side too to make it NPOV. This is the only way to balance out any suspected POV. Same-sex is a POV. Different-Sex is another one (you would say). So adding those two together, you get an "eros etc" cat, which entails both. This would be especially applicable in our case, where the homosexuality of G.A. is merely assumed, again: assumed, one more time: assumed. •NikoSilver• 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Encyclopedias?

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

How do other encyclopedias deal with this issue? Do they mention anything? Has anyone with full access to e.g. Britannica, come up with a quote? The article entry is here and neither the table of contents to the left, nor the relevant search have shown anything of the sort. I checked all 9 results, and they are irrelevant...

Also, the same happens in Columbia. The article does not mention the term e.g. homosexual, nor does the relevant search.

Given then that other encyclopedias don't deal with the issue, despite having a huge volume of information on Great A., shouldn't we just go ahead and do the same? •NikoSilver• 20:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't even address the question at hand. There do not seem to be any parties advocating no mention of same-sex relations in the article (and I would not constitute such a party either), but rather the method of categorization. Other encyclopediae do not have the same categorization scheme, so there's no lead to follow. siafu 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In case it's not clear, copying the article from Brittanica is a violation of their TOS. siafu 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a major copyright violation. WC, please don't do that again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I didn't get that. Is it a violation to link the article here as I did? •NikoSilver• 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Wissahickon Creek pasted the full text of the article, which has been reverted. --Keitei (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Ah, ok, hadn't noticed. I am glad great minds meet! :-) Also, thanks siafu. I've been observing the sea of this debate from the start, but not too close as it seems. I was just wondering, why are we making such a big discussion about the issue, since nobody else seems to deal with it in related articles? They don't even mention it! If there were similar categorization schemes, I suppose they wouldn't include it either, since they have absolutely no word about it. I don't want to say that several gay fellow editors here may be over-zealous in this, but the way we're going, we're gonna be having a new Category:Heterosexual added to the ...exceptions! So, in that case, you may take my comment as an attempt to support the least gay category. I am not homophobic or anything, nor do I see this as an attempt to mess with the Greeks. Actually I wouldn't care if my (possible) great80th-grandfathers were or were not gay. I just don't like things being elaborated disproportionately and unduely. •NikoSilver• 21:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Nikosilver. Alexander’s sexuality does not constitute as an important part of the scholarship of Alexander since most biographies on Alexander mention nothing about his possible love affairs with Hephaestion or Bagoas. No contemporary historian writes it, Peter Green doesn’t write it, even Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge who feel certain he had such relationships spend less than one percent of their books dealing with his sexuality. Encarta and Brittanica and all other encyclopedias mention nothing of Alexander being bisexual. If there is such little scholarship on his sexuality then why the passion for categories? Couldn’t this passion be better used to write about the capture of Persepolis or the Battle of Arbela? Also, why is there almost no mention of his love affairs with women in the Personal Life section? We know that he loved women, why so much emphasis and undue weight on his possible homosexual relationships? Takidis 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

I am, myself, confused about why you guys consider Encarta and Britannica (of all things) to be the tantamount of scholarship. A quick search through TOCS-IN or L'Annee Philologique will yield a mountain of articles or books that have dealt with the subject in one way or another. CaveatLectorTalk 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Caveatlector, Brittanica and Encarta were listed because they are encyclopedias just like wikipedia, and I was comparing wiki to those encyclopedias, but I also listed mainstream classics scholars such as Peter Green, Robin Lane Fox, and Paul Cartledge. Peter Green writes nothing about Alexander being possibly bisexual, and Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge, who seem convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that G.A was bisexual, spend less than one percent of their books dealing with his sexuality. Not to mention that no contemporary historian writes anything about it. In most biographies of Alexander, nothing is mentioned regarding his possible homosexual relationships. The point was that his sexuality does not constitute as an important part of the scholarship on Alexander. All this passion on categories could be better used in writing about the capture of Persepolis, Battle of Arbela, etc. Regardless, this is off-topic. The categories which are the least POV are "Ancient Greek Sexuality", "Eros in Ancient Greece" and "Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed." These three categories fit what is written in the article and are the most appropriate and least POV. More importantly, if we put a category "homosexuality in ancient Greece" on Alexander, then by this logic, we would have to put it on every famous ancient Greek which would give the wrong impression to non ancient Greek experts that every ancient Greek was gay! Takidis 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
I second this comment of Takidis, and all relevant comments of Takidis in this page. In case you were looking for a non-"single-purpose account", that is. I find this biting and accusing of WP:SOCK quite insulting, as I have noted in the relevant incident. I am confident that this is a fresh user, and urge all parties in this discussion to treat him like that unless proven otherwise. Checkuser for one thing was inconclusive. •NikoSilver• 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SELDEL notice

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed one revision dated "20:52, 29 October 2006" from the history of this page as a copyvio. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The parties have to come to their own consensus and they have all the support from the mediators. Please feel free to ask us and we'll try as much as we can to help you reach a consensus solution. Thank you for your cooperation. --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pyrrhic battle needs to conclude

Latest comment: 18 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

The fact is that those who are opposed to properly formulating this aspect of Alexander's life have succeded in depriving readers of the service we owe them - the proper indexing of this article. That is indefensible since, regardless of what you or I may think of Alexander, scholars in gender studies have included him in discussion of Greek homosexuality and pederasty. We are really not interested in the opinions - or disputes - of Wikipedia editors. If you wish to dispute this aspect of Alexander's life get a PhD and publish. Until then all you can do is report on the literature. And the literature places Alexander squarely under homosexuality.

So the problem here really is not so much what was Alexander's sexuality, but how to deal with a group of users who are imposing an unscholarly opinion on our readers. Things have gone quite past the point where reason and persuasion can function as a tool. At which point do we resort to formal arbitration? Haiduc 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee would probably view this as a content dispute, unless they can be convinced there's serious user misconduct. The mediation we've tried so far is purely informal, and there's a more formal process at Requests for Mediation, if you want to try that. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, you represent the issue as if we were debating whether to mention Alexander's same-sex relations at all, which we are not. Categorization by information is not the same as inclusion of information. siafu 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'd love to see where this ladder may lead. Be my guest. •NikoSilver• 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As a note: Wissahickon Creek has been asked to recuse himself altogether from this case. At this point I agree that this is more of a content dispute than a behavior dispute. The Mediation Committee takes a long time and is fairly inactive. I would suggest for the purpose of reaching a compromise, we assume we are going to mention his relations in some way and not go down the road of denying their being included. --Keitei (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An additional note--I think it's quite clear that some misconduct has been going on here: Takidis has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the banned user Cretanpride. Add in Wissahickon Creek's, um, unproductive attempt at being a mediator and I think this process has been, shall we say, sub-optimal. (No offense, Keitei, I think you've been very helpful.) Whether that should lead to another attempt at mediation, or something else, I'll let someone else decide.
I should say, though, that I'm glad we've got some new participants; siafu and NikoSilver have brought some fresh air into the proceedings. And I think siafu makes a good point that categorization is a different beast than article content. The category is in a sense a small thing, but I think the activities and desires of our sockpuppet show that there are bigger issues involved. If you check into his history, one of the first things he did on WP is put the article Homosexuality in ancient Greece up for deletion, and in general I'd say one of his goals is to suppress the mention of ancient homosexuality wherever he can. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference between the importance of proper content and proper indexing. They are both necessary for ready access to the information. I am sorry if I seem impatient, but we have all been taken advantage of over here, by a series of malicious players proven as such. So I may be forgiven if at this late stage I point out that we all have lives to live and articles to edit, and we have reached the point of diminishing returns over here. All the arguments have been made, the evidence has been adduced, and at this point we need to either come up with a proper formulation for indexing Alexander's same-sex attractions or call for arbitration.

And I too am glad that we have a couple of new and respectable users involved, why don't we make one last attempt to reach agreement, now that at least one joker is out of the way. Is there anyone here adamantly opposed to "fingering" AtG's same-sex attractions as such? Haiduc 02:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a very large difference between the importance of proper content and proper indexing. While it's simply true that proper content is much more broad than proper categorization, it's also true that there exist many traits for which categorization is simply inappropriate, for numerous reasons. Do not equate the two; make your argument in favor of the position you are advocating and do not pound away at straw men. siafu 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a moot comment, Siafu, since Alexander's interest in males is clearly indexable under homosexuality, having been included in a number of major studies of homosexuality. Even the Stanford has him under "homosexuality."[5] Haiduc 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be moot if your argument were relevant. Again, you are merely commenting on content-- your point would indicate that wikipedia should mention Alexander in homosexuality (he's not, though he is mentioned in Pederasty in ancient Greece); the Stanford article you reference also mentions Alexander precisely once, and I would say erroneously. It is agreed that Alexander's same-sex relations should be mentioned (and described to the best of scholarship's ability) in the article. It is not agreed that this is something by which this article should be categorized. My own objections above are about categorizing by sexuality in the first, particularly when applying modern ideas of sexuality to personages from antiquity, but even setting that aside I think it's obvious that if this were not such a "borderline" case there would not be such intense debate. siafu 04:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Siafu, with all due respect, you have no standing to make any such claims. Nor do I for that matter. Our betters, the scholars in the field, have already made their determination, and it behooves us to respect their judgement and categoriza the article in accordance with their categorizations. If others scholars disagree, that too gets noted, but only further confirms the placement of the topic in that category. What else is there to be said?! Haiduc 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
What else there is to be said is something that is relevant to categorization and not merely content. As to whether or not you or I are able to make any such claims, in this case in particular we most certainly are. The quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia is:

For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men.

Since it's also verifiably recorded that Alexander had a strong interest in women (and fathered illegitimate children, beyond those needed simply to ensure succession), this statement seems misplaced. It might not be wrong per se, as Alexander may have been noted to have had an "exclusive interest" by some historians, but it is erroneous as such exclusivity does not seem to have been the case at all. So yes, we should comment when something is clearly out of place. But, as I mentioned in the first sentence of this response, this is neither here nor there. You, and others, have already established what is obvious: that modern scholars have written about Alexander's same-sex relationships. Many things are written about Alexander, both in antiquity and now, so let me put the issue plainly: why is this particular thing something for which Alexander should be categorized? siafu 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple: I know nothing about same sex relations in ancient Greece, I am doing a paper on it for my class, and I fall into the Wikipedia and find out that there is a category that lists, say, Solon and Alcibiades and Peisistratus and Socrates and Epaminondas. If Alexander is not there too, So I can find out about his tastes in males as well as about those few who claim they were exagerated, I have been cheated. We are not here to second-guess the scholars. And you well know that it is not just the Stanford that categorizes him in homosexuality. Haiduc 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"you know well..." Well, actually, I don't know any such thing as all the encyclopedias presented so far have failed to categorize Alexander by homosexuality (the Stanford does not do this, it mentions him in the article on homosexuality-- wikipedia already does something quite similar). I'm not second-guessing scholars, merely posing a direct question about the relation of this issue to categorization. We don't have a category of "People in antiquity who fought against the Persians", for example, something for which Alexander is much more notable, and a category which would have a significant population. I ask again: why is this particular thing something for which Alexander should be categorized? siafu 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a good question, clearly and sharply asked. The flippant answer is that the following categories are already in the article: "Polygamists", "People with craters of the Moon named after them", and "Cause of death disputed". If we want to index that, why not "homosexuality"? Or, why aren't people up in arms about the "craters" category, since that's manifestly trivial?
The serious answer is that the study of sexuality is a very active field of research in classics, as can perhaps be seen from the bibliography to Thomas Hubbard's collection Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents in translation. You can also gauge interest in this topic by noting the presence of courses like "gender and sexuality in the ancient world" at just about any college/university in the US (see, e.g., this syllabus from a recent course at Macalester College). Homosexuality in antiquity is one of the major topics in this field. Alexander is one possible subject of research in this area; it's clear, I hope, that classical scholars discuss his relationships with Hephaistion and Bagoas under the rubric of "homosexuality" (see sources here). In my view, the existence of a category such as "same-sex relationships in ancient Greece" is justified because it's a topic that there's lots of secondary sources on; if that category exists, Alexander is one of the articles that should be tagged with it.
I would also note that Alexander and Hephaistion have been viewed as a model couple at various points in history. Claude J. Summers discusses this in his article "Homosexuality and Renaissance Literature, or the Anxieties of Anachronism," South Central Review 9.1 (1992) p. 8-9: "Hylas and Hercules, Patroclus and Achilles, Hephaestion and Alexander: this is a veritable roster of famous homosexual lovers, who are often evoked in defense of homoeroticism, as in Marlowe's Edward II." Closer to our own time, Alexander and Hephaistion are mentioned in Robert F. Aldrich, Garry Wotherspoon, Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day, and Alexander is ranked pretty high in Paul Russell, The Gay 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Gay Men and Lesbians, Past and Present, pp. 56-59. (We know, of course, that we cannot call Alexander or any ancient Greek "gay" without being anachronistic.) These citations indicate that there's interest in A.'s same-sex relationships outside academia, something which is also clear from some reactions to the Oliver Stone movie. (Never saw it, myself.) Notice that Bagoas loses out in these treatments, but that's the fate of a eunuch, I suppose.
In a nutshell, the argument for including the category is because it reflects how scholarship deals with this topic, and it deals with a topic that attracts great interest. The hypothetical category "People in antiquity who fought against the Persians" accurately describes part of Alexander's life, but it doesn't reflect the way scholarship has categorized things--there's books on the history of same-sex relationships in the ancient world, but no books about the topic "people who fought the Persians". Personally, I have a hard time imagining people searching for that particular topic--I would think they'd start with the Persian Wars or a general article about ancient Greek history, and find more specific things from there. My general point is that categories should help people find articles, and I think a category such as "history of same-sex relationships in antiquity" would do that. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for welcoming me in this talk. After reading, again, the lengthy posts above, I feel that the issues I have raised have not been addressed:

I would also like to raise an issue which is pertinent to all NPOV disputes in which I am more than frequently involved in WP: That of "partisan sources". For example, in a debate between Greeks and Turks, Greek and Turkish sources are not taken into account. The consensus is always reached using only independent sources. In this case, we should exclude all sources that come from both homophobic, and homosexual scholars. I am not aware who may fall in that category yet, and would like to ask for your contribution in pointing them out. I think, however, that it is fair to assume that Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia are collective works that may be considered third-party. •NikoSilver• 11:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To Siafu: Your question was already answered, the ball is in your court. Niko, I am sorry but yours is original research. 1. The modern construct of hetrosexuality, ie. the rejection of masculine beauty as an object of attraction, is not confirmed by anyone. 2. When the preponderance of scholarship groups him with homosexuality, it is not for you to claim them to be "partisan." As of right now we only hear that from Wikipedia editors with ethnic connections to Greece and Macedonia. What is your standing in this regard? Haiduc 11:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I still have not received answers. 1.Your definition of heterosexuality is wrong (check the article). 2.I see no 'preponderance' in confirming G.A.'s homosexuality; only assumptions. 3.A browse in my userpage will suffice for answering: Greek and straight, but I am not a scholar, I just cite them. BTW what is yours? •NikoSilver• 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On 1. - not germane to the issue - I do not matter here. On 2. - again, original research. On 3. - non-Greek; I could not care less about the impact of this, pro or con, on this national icon. Haiduc 12:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1. Assumptions. 2. No confirmation, also see WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position for your position. 3. Couldn't care about nationality. I asked what is your sexual orientation, not your ethnicity, since I can imagine Greek gays supporting you as well. Or this debate could be done in another notable guy's page from e.g. Venezuela. If you try to imply bias for another user, better have your side clean first. So what is yours? •NikoSilver• 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
2. There is not "synthesis," the context of ancient homosexuality is the one in which Alexander is mentioned again and again. We have no right to remove him. With every statement of yours you are miring yourself deeper and deeper in OR and groundless suppositions. 3. I do not subscribe to the gay/straight dichotomy so your inquiry is off the mark - I discussed the ethnic issue since you had first brought it up, and found it amusing that you were laying the grounds for your own recusal - which I neither suggest nor expect. Haiduc 12:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual assumptions for someone with proven heterosexual activity. I didn't bring up an ethnic issue, and as I said: Greek gays are expected to support you. This is a clear case of homosexual bias vs homophobic bias. In that regard, I think your contributions provide significant evidence for your standing and interest in pederastic and homosexual issues. I confess I've enjoyed the social interaction with gay people, so that makes me more impartial than you in that regard, since I am not homophobic, to the contrary I might add. However, I am assuming good faith and request we get back to the issue at hand in discussing arguments, not users. My comment above was for scholars. Do you know if any of them are partisan? It would also help if we could clear some other things out too: Do you dispute the following, even if you consider them out of topic:

Any luck we can have some answers on these, which I and obviously many more users here find important? We can discuss their relativity later. •NikoSilver• 13:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the third point; a person's own sexual orientation should not be considered a necessary source of bias. I also slightly disagree with the second point; it's not a far conclusion to say that every adult male of sufficient social standing in anicent Greece (i.e., of this time period) had experienced a same-sex "activity" either as erastes or eromenos. The first point is obvious; as for the last, this suggested category makes the same mistake of applying modern notions of "sexual orientation" to the ancient world and is as inapprioprate as Category:LGBT people. siafu 13:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Glad you all (I presume) agree on the first.
  • For the second, the words "it's not a far conclusion" constitute a violation of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
  • The third point is also argued the same way by Greeks and Turks when Greek or Turkish sources are cited. Although not necessarily disagreeable, can you explain why this is different?
  • I can't see the relationship, since the term homosexual was also coined quite recently, in 1869 AD.

In any case, if not Category:Unresolved sexual orientation what would be your suggestion? Also, please observe what I said exactly: Interested readers may safely locate the article if indexed like that. Do you disagree with this? It was presented as an argument that interested users will not be able to locate it. Do you agree with that? •NikoSilver• 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_the_Great/Archive_8&oldid=1136290005"