Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Translation policies?

I'm wondering, given the known problems that can occur with translations (with actually fairly many philosophers of language going so far as to call a translation a new work), if there is a wikipedia policy regarding if and when to consider a translation original research. It seems that something of the sort could clear this up right away. Alternatively, if there isn't, does anyone want to spend a few minutes working one up? I'd be glad to help and/or offer input! -Smahoney 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to translate this material. It has already been done, it is drawn from Aechines' "Against Timarchos," Xenophon, Demosthenes, etc. More to the point, it is not for us to translate and interpret, since that would obviously be original research. With regard to an ancient dead tongue, there is no translation without interpretation. Certainly we can mention that there were laws against certain practices, but these existed side by side with laws that promoted analogous practices. Hubris against women and boys was punished, but free men were encouraged to enagage youths in relationships while slaves were forbidden. So obviously consensual relation and interfemoral sex were not considered hubris, else we would fall from one contradiction into another. Anyway, this material should be drawn from reliable critical sources, not vanity press philippics. Haiduc 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with Haiduc, but it's clear that sometimes a translation is wrong or slanted in some way (we see some examples on this page). Sometimes we will have to argue about the merits of translations, especially if we have an editor with strong opinions. But whether a translation is original research or not seems straightforward to me: if it comes from a published source, the translation isn't OR, if it's an editor's translation it's OR. However, if an editor contributes their own translation to the Wiki commons or otherwise publishes their translation, it can then be cited by Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a translation that isn't published is OR - my question was whether there is a policy that actually states that, and if not, if anyone would be willing to participate in developing one. -Smahoney 02:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect again?

The current editwar, instigated by User:66.53.98.167, an apparent sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride, suggests that we need semi-protection back in place. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the article

I think that Robert Flaceliere's work should be added to the article. He is a qualified scholar and there should be no reason not to add his work.66.53.98.167 04:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Flaceliere is outdated; his reference to "inversion" and his inability to understand that a Greek male could have a pederastic relationship and have sex with female hetairai (not to mention have a wife) indicates he's got an old-fashioned way of approaching the subject. The current consensus is based on Dover and Foucault, and goes from there. You're better off with Thornton, Mr. Sockpuppet, but make sure you understand the difference between pederasty and "an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which ... the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships." --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Erich Bethe is included in the article and his foudings took place in the early 1900's. Is that not outdated? Also, Dover, and Focault were homosexuals striving to make a connection between homosexuality and Ancient Greece when there is no connection. In other words, there were biased. Also, have you even read Dover's book? It is rediculous. He spends 100 pages trying to interpret the prosecution of Timarchus in such a way to make it beneficial to his argument. The rest of his book is analyzing a microscopic amount of evidence to come to crazy conclusions. Bruce Thornton and Flaceliere have a more "sane" view of the whole thing. They are both qualified scholars, and there are more of them out there, and something should be included in the article.Cretanpride 07:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bethe is mentioned in the article because he was one of the first scholars to pay serious attention to Greek pederasty. However the article is based on the more recent work of Dover, Foucault, etc. If you think spending 100 pages analyzing a small amount of evidence is crazy, you don't have much familiarity with classical studies. Also, you might want to read Kenneth Dover's autobiography (Marginal Comment: A Memoir), because you clearly don't know anything about him. He wasn't gay, not that it should make a difference, but you apparently believe there's a homosexual conspiracy going on. Flaceliere isn't worth citing here, but Thornton is an appropriate source--however, you have mischaracterized many of his arguments, possibly because (like Flaceliere) you don't understand what Greek pederasty is. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all the article is called Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. I have just given evidence to show that it was not widely accepted. I think something should be said in the article that makes that clear. The article also has false material such as stating that Alexander the Great and Hephastion were a couple. That needs to be taken out. There is no evidence to suggest they were. Historian Robin Lane Fox even acknowledges that there is no evidence. Fox is the historian Oliver Stone used for the movie Alexander. There are a number of other things in the article that need to be changed. In many places alternative possibilities need to be mentioned. Also, about Kenneth Dover, I do recall reading that he had a homosexual experience while serving in the British army. Also, he is an 86 year old man. Has he ever been married? That is beside the point. The article needs to be changed. I will NEVER stop arguing against this article until it is changed. NEVER!66.53.108.59 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you at least do it under your own username, then? I'm getting tired of adding sockpuppet templates to all of your various guises. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why we loose all this time speaking with a sockpuppeter, who has already been caught acting in blatant bad faith. BTW, Robin Lane Fox says exactly the opposite regards Alexander and Hephaestion; in chapter 3 of his biog. of Alexander, he writes: "In posterior sources, A. and H. were openly described as "lovers", and their contemporaries considered this obvious. Sex was certainly part of their relationship".--Aldux 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox, when asked questions about the movie would say that if you take into account all the accomplishments of Alexander there is relatively little written about him so "our imaginations could run wild." Alexander was not bisexual. The Ancient Greeks did not accept homosexuality. This is the single most greatest injustice to history. It is also highly offensive. Not just to me, just ask the vast majority of Greeks.I have already given evidence to support what I am saying. Vast changes need to be made to this article.Cretanpride 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you a broken record? Through so much discussion in which you have time and time again been completely and utterly devestated in this debate, you still just proclaim something as if it were true? Beyond that, you reveal your prejudice and bigotry by calling acceptance of homosexuality 'highly offensive'. I don't care if this offends you. These scholars don't care of this offends you. HISTORY does not care if it offends you. And I have a feeling that the ancients themselves wouldn't give less of a damn if they offended you. I'd ask you to end your bigotted and VANDALIZING agenda on this article, but I've seen how well that has worked so far. Enough is enough. Let's call on the admin to take action. CaveatLector^Talk 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you taken into consideration the long list of quotes I have posted that show that homosexuality was not commonplace in Ancient Greece? It is common sense that homosexuality was and always has been a minority. I am not deriding homosexuals, but for the sake of historical justice, I am arguing that it was not commonplace. Utterly devastated in this debate? Just take a look at all the quotations I have posted that prove my point. Homosexuality was not commonplace. Period. End of story. Don't come on here with incoherent remarks if you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Alexander the Great was not bisexual. This is not even debatable. He married three women and had children. No evidence suggests that he was bisexual. Just read Plato's Laws, or Contra Timarchus to find out how the Ancients did not accept homosexuality. There were laws against it.Cretanpride 00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone had three wives and male lover(s), wouldn't that be exactly the kind of thing that showed he was bisexual?

You still don't seem to have understood that many Athenian men that we know of were involved in pederastic relationships and had wives and children. As I keep on saying, you should at least understand what scholars mean by pederasty before you go on your rants.

And in case it isn't clear, none of the editors who contribute to this article accept your interpretations of the primary sources or find your citations of secondary literature compelling. Your edits are against a clear consensus of editors, do not conform to the neutral point of view policy, and are quite unconstructive. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not misinterpret the primary sources. I quoted directly from them. I read them in context to make sure you wouldn't use it against me. Also, your arguments keep getting more silly. You have now come to the argument that there is a consensus of editors against me. Did it ever occur to you that you all could me wrong?

Also, I said there is no evidence to suggest Alexander the Great was BISEXUAL. Yet in the article it states that he and Hephastion were lovers when that is not confirmed and never will be. As for my edits-they are 100 percent true!!! You all told me that if I found scholarly work you would be all ears, but now I can see you are all extremely biased.Cretanpride 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CON. Consensus is a pretty important thing around here. You also might want to look at WP:3RR, which you have blantantly violated tonight.

And yes, we are biased against poor scholarship, and current classical scholarship finds Flaceliere's work lacking. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Who says Flaceliere's work is lacking? Like I said Greek literature has been there for thousands of years. It has not changed since his time. Also, he says homosexuality was not prevalent. The article is called Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. How could you know he doesn't know what pederasty is if you haven't read his book?Cretanpride 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

three sockpuppets of User:Cretanpride

Just in case others care, here are two confirmed sockpuppets of User:Cretanpride:

• User:66.233.19.170
• User:66.53.98.167

And one suspected:

• User:66.53.108.59

I have also initiated a request for investigation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

More Additions to Article

I propose that we take out the whole sentence where it says Alexander the Great and Hephastion were lovers. It is unproven and debated. Further additions should be added into the article to show an alternate point of view. I cannot believe my Grandfather fought and sacrificed so much in World War II to have his history erased. I doubt 300 Spartans stood at Thermopylae to have there history altered like this. Ancient Greece is about the founding of civilization, the birth of democracy, astronomy, philosophy, science, art, math, it is not about supporting the gay agenda.Cretanpride 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Robin Lane Fox, in an interview in Archaeology magazine (Sept. 14, 2004):

Alexander did not have a one-way homosexual orientation, in the prevailing modern use of the term. He had sexual relations with males (including a eunuch) but also with a Persian mistress, his first wife Roxane (mother of his child) and two more Persian wives, too. In youth, his great friend was Hephaestion, and surely the sexual element (frequent between young males, or and older and younger male, in Greek city-states) developed already then. Oliver, Colin, and Jared Leto [who portrays Hephaestion] rightly concluded that sex was not the main element in this love, Alexander's greatest friendship in his lifetime. But it happened, as authors in antiquity assumed: "Patroclus" to Alexander's role as a new Achilles. Alexander was not behaving in this way in a "gay," one-way relationship or counter-culture, nor was he exceptional. The film aims to show a wider love, from boyhood, between the two, and I find it very touching. Correctly, it also shows a sexual element, this time of pure physical desire, between Alexander and the eunuch Bagoas--again, as direct and indirect evidence supports. But no viewer could also miss the sexual charge of Roxane, the woman whom Alexander marries. By avoiding a one-way male-male love-life, the film captures both the "homoerotic" flashes and a boyhood relationship--but also makes it an element, not the element, in Alexander's nature and his personal appeal.

Fox says that Alexander wasn't gay. Fox also says that Alexander had sexual relationships with males, and that it was normal for Greek men to have sexual relationships with other men. None of this is surprising to anyone who understands ancient Greek sexuality. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Take five, everybody.

I've blocked Cretanpride (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for the 3RR violation. I hope he takes the opportunity to calm down and consider his actions.

Although Cretanpride has behaved quite badly and is an obvious POV-pusher, there's a nugget of worthwhile content in among his rants: there exists a small but vocal minority which insists that the Greeks never sanctioned any sort of homosexual activity, and that all the scholarship to the contrary is the work of biased individuals promoting the "gay agenda". We probably ought to include at least a mention of that in the article — it would be disingenuous to pretend that the interpretation of the past isn't being used by partisans on both sides of modern culture wars for their own ends. My own understanding of the historical facts supports the presentation given in the main body of the article, but I think that the alternate view is probably worth a brief mention.

Now, I'm not a scholar myself and am not really au fait on the latest research, but I've taken a stab at presenting Cretanpride's sources in a way that presents their arguments and the scholarly response to them fairly, without giving it undue weight. I invite the more expert editors of this article to adjust the wording as needed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It would probably be helpful if we could cite a prominent scholar specifically refuting these arguments, to buttress the clause "Mainstream classics scholars reject these arguments as wilful misinterpretation". Your task, if you choose to accept it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a new user. I am not a sockpuppet of Cretanpride. I am however, a friend of his, and we attend the same university. He told me about this article, and I honestly thought he was exaggerating. After reading the article, I have to say, I am depressed at how the material is portrayed. I am willing to make some changes to show alternate views in as fair a way as I can. I do not think Cretanpride has gone about it the right way, but I do feel he has legitimate arguments. I have already added a section on Alexander the Great, although I feel it may be best displayed elsewhere in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellinas (talk • contribs) 02:30, August 25, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Ellinas. I think this is a very good starting point for a more reasonable and less heated discussion of this issue. It is certainly worth note that the scholarly consensus in North America and Northern Europe is not widely accepted in modern Greece. We should be careful not to stray too far from the subject of the sexual mores of ancient Greece, but we do want the article to reflect a worldwide view of the subject, and so should probably mention the strong reaction of many modern Greeks to this aspect of history. The citation of the BBC News article about Alexander is a very good start for this. Let's all work together to find a way to express this that's accurate and consistent with WP:NPOV — consider it a fresh beginning. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict but this is what I wrote, but given your reaction, I might contribute more: Reading the debate that was going on I can now see that this is going nowhere. I don't want to leave Cretanpride arguing on his own, but I don't want to waste my time on a lost cause. So I will say what I can here. I can see where Cretanpride is coming from. There are parts of the article that make claims such as "there is an abundance of evidence" as if it is undisputed, and there are other sections which I find unfair. One line states that Alexander and Hephastion were a couple. I have never heard that until the movie came out, and I thought it was debated.(I have added a section already) The first sentence lists Ancient Greeks who supposedly wrote about same sex love. Reading the debate it seems as if Plato wrote against homosexuality. I don't know if he also said positive things, but it seems debatable. Also, in the final paragraphs, I only thought Greeks were outraged at this material being taught, not anti-homosexual groups. I would just ask you all to somehow change the article in a fair way to encompass both sides of the argument. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellinas (talk • contribs) 03:05, August 25, 2006 (UTC)

I am still unhappy that one radical user has taken a theory that has no demonstrated academic integrity and placed it on this page as if it were fact, but I'll work within this system and see if I can't dig up articles that respond or refute Flaciere's claims (although you should understand, admin, that this RARELY happens in the academic field, and the deluge of material on its opposing side is probably considered enough by most scholars. Flaciere's book was written in 1962. Dover's in the 1970's and Halperin's in the late 1980's. A search on [L'Annee Philologique] turns up 58 hits for 'homosexuality' alone, the vast majority of which are made up of articles discussing the widespread existence of homosexuality, and in particular, within the social structure of ancient Athens. I think the consensus is rather clear, but I'll endevour to spell it out for the wiki users.) CaveatLector^Talk 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see how he got mad now. Don't get offended but it seems like you are just as close minded. To be honest, I do find it depressing that this is so apparently widely accepted according to Josiah Rowe. I have family studying in Germany, Greece, and Canada and they were just as outraged over the movie "Alexander" as any other Greek. Meaning, I am not so sure they were taught this material. I don't have a problem with homosexuals, I am not "Anti Homosexual" but this article seems unfair. After reading this page, I was surprised at the depth of it, according to wikipedia, so many aspects of life were assosiated with homosexuality, and naturally I just can't accept that as true. I will look into the subject on my spare time, and I may contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellinas (talk • contribs) 03:31, August 25, 2006 (UTC)

With no current access to a library, and these articles not available online, I am not able to delve into them. I can do so when I return to Penn on Sunday. However, if anyone wants to check their local or Univ library for them, here they are:

• Reames-Zimmerman, Jeanne. - An atypical affair ? : Alexander the Great, Hephaistion Amyntoros and the nature of their relationship. Ancient History Bulletin 1999 13 (3) : 81-96.
• Halperin, David M. - The first homosexuality ? Erotic experience and sexual ethics in ancient Greece and Rome : 229-268.
• Ambrose, Z. Philip. - Ganymede in Euripides' Cyclops : a study in homosexuality and misogyny. New England Classical Newsletter 1995-1996 23 (3) : 91-95
• Ogden, Daniel. - Homosexuality and warfare in classical Greece. Battle in antiquity : 107-168. *MacDowell, Douglas M. - Athenian laws about homosexuality. Revue internationale des droits de l'Antiquite 2000 3e sér. 47 : 13-27
• Golden Mark. - Thirteen years of homosexuality (and other recent work on sex, gender, and the body in ancient Greece). Classical Views 1991 XXXV : 327-340.
• Africa T. W. - Homosexuals in Greek history. Journ. of Psychohist. (New York New York Inst. of Psychohist.) IX 1982. P. 401-420.

I will try and get as much other articles off the internet through my database access as I can. A note to Ellinas: I reacted heatedly to Cretenpride because he came onto this page screaming comments that were borderline, if not outright homophobic. If you are 'outraged' and 'depressed' at the 'IDEA' that the Greeks might have done some homosexual things, then you are a homophobe. Period. Sorry. You are having a visceral reaction to the idea that, perhaps, some ancient Greek men might have had sex with other men. Personally, the pederasty bothers me, but I do not wash things out of history because they are distasteful.

I would like to know what universities you are studying in, and if EITHER of you have EVER taken a course on ancient Greek history or culture. My professor, Jeremey McInerney, one of the leaders in the field, responded to critics of Alexander by simply saying "Get over it, he was bisexual," and pointing out the evidence. I studied under him on the SPECIFIC topic of the Hellenistic world and the rise and fall of Alexander, in which we read primary sources IN CONTEXT. I have immersed myself in this material for four solid years, and earned a degree testifying to my abilities and research in the field. All you and your friend have are Greek pride and the comments from FRINGE "scholars" (most of which aren't even scholars) who rip quotes out of context from the ancient sources to use for their own (often political) agendas that are driven by blind nationalism. Next time, go out and do some research BEFORE getting 'outraged'. When you've done your homework, please do come back and lecture me about how the article is 'unfair'. Yours, a quite frusrated CaveatLector^Talk 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ON EDIT: I should appologize for my tone here, it's a bit course, but like I said, I'm frustrated with this state of affairs. Perhaps some sleep will clear my mood more. CaveatLector^Talk 08:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, CaveatLector. After you get some sleep, please try to assume good faith with Ellinas. I know that it's difficult, especially after facing Cretanpride's onslaught for so long, but let's try not to bite the newbie. Ellinas, please understand that the information presented in this article is not an attack on ancient Greek culture or an attempt to usurp it for political purposes (as Cretanpride seemed to think), but a summary of modern scholarship on the subject.

There are some very complex issues of national identity, sexual identity and historical accuracy here. Part of the problem is that modern Greek culture is not very accepting of homosexuality, and reacts strongly against the scholarly consensus on this issue. The article should reflect the scholarship, but also acknowledge that many Greeks reject it.

The position Cretanpride was holding is an extreme one, and I certainly don't doubt the weight of scholarship against it. However the point that Ellinas raises about the reaction of modern Greeks is also noteworthy. It may take some careful negotiations to find a wording that's acceptable to all parties, especially considering the interplay of nationalism and differing cultural views of sexual morality, but I'm sure that with patience and good faith a compromise wording can be found. (It should also be fairly succinct, in order not to give undue weight to the minority viewpoint.)

The article as it stands gives a very good summary of homosexual behavior in ancient Greece, showing the forms it took and that it was widespread. However, it might be possible to present a more nuanced picture of ancient Greek society's attitudes towards same-sex sexuality, with acknowledgment that although it was widespread, generally thought unexceptional, and occasionally celebrated, it was not necessarily accepted or lauded by all in every circumstance. A reading of this talk page shows that the page's regular editors have an understanding of the subtle complexities of the issue; I challenge them to incorporate that understanding into the article more thoroughly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I gave Caveatlector the wrong idea. I am not a homophobe. I don't care if the article says "some Greeks were homosexuals" I have a problem when it says MOST of them were homosexual or bisexual. Also, I am not the only one who does not think Alexander the Great was bisexual. There is a severe lack of evidence to suggest he was. Although this debate could go back and forth. Basically, Alexander's sexuality is debated. You have to admit that. There is a sentence in the article that says he and Hephastion were a couple which I feel should be changed. Every biography that has been written on Alexander I have seen does not mention his bisexuality until very recent years. Also, I do not want to name the university I attend, but it is a CSU. I have taken a World Civilizations class which, at my university, is as close to Greek studies as it gets. One day of the class was devoted to sexuality in the ancient world. Greece, Rome, Aztecs, Mayans, Japan, etc. We were taught that all these civilizations practiced some sort of homosexuality. I protested to it slightly when he got to Greece, and the professor conceded a little by saying it is unproven and I am obviously bright and have researched this, etc. What he taught was nothing even close to as detailed as this article. The textbook I had also said something like this "little is known about the Greeks view on homosexuality." Not word for word but pretty close. Literally, only a paragraph of the textbook was devoted to Greek homosexuality. The class centered more on what the civilizations actually accomplished, not what they did in the bedroom.

Also, thank you Josiah Rowe for saying something at least must be included in the article to show Greek feelings toward this issue. That alone tells me I have not wasted my time.Ellinas 08:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, I don't think that long list of quotations was taken out of context. I think it is legitimate evidence, along with the laws in Greek city states, that homosexuality was not WIDELY ACCEPTED. One thing that bothers me about this article is that great philosophers like Plato will not be known for their teachings, but apparently that they were homosexuals and preached great things about it. I think Plato should be known as a great philosopher, someone who had a greater comprehension of the human mind and human nature than Frued. Aristotle and Plato preached morality and virtue-that is what I feel they should be famous for. I do find it depressing that they will not be known for that, but rather, that they preached homosexuality. Anyone who comes on to this page will think Ancient Greece was a haven for homosexuals. Also, you insult the scholars who argue against this, saying they had their own agendas. Don't you realize that many of the scholars who started this theory were homosexuals who possibly had their own agendas?Ellinas 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I really should get to sleep myself, but I just want to point out that this entry is far from the entirety of what Wikipedia has to say about Plato and Aristotle. Sexuality isn't even mentioned on their main page entries, except in the form of an external link on Plato about friendship and eros. This page is about homosexuality in ancient Greece, not about Plato (and it doesn't even mention Aristotle); it uses Plato and other ancient sources because they deal with the subject, but it does not suggest that it was their prime or sole concern. (That said, you should probably read Plato's Symposium if you haven't — it makes the social context of fifth-century Athens pretty clear.)

The article doesn't say that Plato or anyone else "preached homosexuality"; it says, accurately, that they explored aspects of same-sex love in their work. Again, see the Symposium: one of its primary themes is the relationship between erotic love and the love of wisdom, and most of the examples of erotic love in the dialogue are between males. It is true that there is some tension between the portrayal of same-sex love in the Symposium and in some of Plato's other work, a tension which should be reflected better in the article. But if we wish to follow Plato and be lovers of wisdom, we must also be lovers of truth — and the truth is that pederasty, both sexualized and chaste, was a widespread fact of ancient Greek life. Eros between similarly aged adult men was considered more problematic, and the laws reflect that (as should the article).

I'm going to try to get some sleep now, but I look forward to continuing this discussion later — I'm sure that thoughtful editors such as Akhilleus (talk · contribs) and Haiduc (talk · contribs) will have intelligent, useful and productive contributions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Cretanpride did not know this, but Adonis Georgiadis has a doctorate degree in Classics from the University of Athens. Reading the debate that has been going on he has been called "poorly educated" and an unqualified scholar. Caveotlector even questioned whether he had any degree. The fact that you have insulted him without doing research shows how unwilling you are to consider our argument a possibility. Also I doubt a "poorly educated" man can be a leader of a political party, a TV personality, owner of a magazine, and at the same time an author of various books.Ellinas 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride seems also to have forgot to mention exactly in which party's lists Georgiadis was: I'll disclose this interesting info; it's the Popular Orthodox Rally famed in Greece for its racism and antisemitism (strange you forgot to mention this, Cretanpride). As for the party's antisemitism just read this juicy statement made by the party's leader and founder: "Karatzaferis has also made statements referring to an "Auschwitz myth", and characterising Jews as "God-murderers" (θεοκτόνους), and "enemies of our nation". (25/9/01)" Other similar can be found at Georgios Karatzaferis; who, by the way, owns the tv channel where Georgadis has his show. If Georgadis is a WP:RS, we may as well say the same of the Mein Kampf.--Aldux 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of Cretanpride's quotes came from homophobic and/or racist websites, which is neither good research practice nor a way of getting accurate interpretations of texts. I'm not going to link to any of the sites, but a google search on his texts will show you what I'm talking about. I have to agree with Aldux that these aren't the kinds of sources we want for the article.

It would be nice to have some proof that Georgiadis has a degree in classics. Most of us don't read modern Greek, and there is no information on Georgiadis easily accessible in English. However, my contention that Georgiadis isn't a good source is based on what Cretanpride has said on this talk page; and regardless of what others seem to think, being a prominent politician doesn't make one a reliable source. In fact, it gives one incentive to distort the historical record. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that a google search will show proof that he has a doctoral degree in Classics from the University of Athens. Maybe you misread what I wrote. I said that he would be a qualified source based on his doctoral degree, not on him being a politician. My point was that he has been called "poorly educated" and I was trying to prove otherwise. He is relatively well known in Greece, and I have never heard of him being a rascist. I'll look into it. Also, all of Cretanpride's long list of quotes are actually authentic, even though he may have found them from an unreliable source, they actually are derived from Greek literature.

As for Georgiadis, whatever his politics are, his book has interesting details. He analyzes and interprets evidence from the primary sources, and with a little mixture of common sense he forms his conclusions. It is a more fair book than you all think. Reading Kenneth Dover's book, he analyzes mainly vase paintings and Contra Timarchus. In other words, Georgiadis' book encompasses more evidence, I think. Saying he is biased for political or personal reasons, even though he has a doctoral degree on the subject, is the same as calling others biased for being homosexuals.

Many of Cretanprides' arguments are sloppy and he seems to be learning as he goes. He also misquoted, earlier in the debate, some material from Georgiadis' book. I can't help if one of us is not the best debater in the world. I do not want to waste time back and forth arguing whether pederasty or bisexuality was common. I do want to add that there actually has been scholarly work to argue otherwise, and based on that alone, it shows that this topic is debated and at least a section must be added in the article in a fair way. Thanks.Ellinas 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A google search shows that Adonis Georgiadis is the owner of the scholarly journal Elliniki Agogi. Also, Georgiadis lacks the controversy Karaztaferis has. Also, there are other qualified scholars who agree with him on his view that homosexuality was not prevalent in Ancient Greece. For example Dr. Panayiotis Kiriakopoulos and Konstantinos Georgakopoulos. I can find more scholars, that is not a problem. What I am trying to say is that this topic is certainly debatable.Ellinas 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the disputes that have already taken place on this talk page, I think we're going to need actual links or documentation to confirm what you're saying. A google search for "Elliniki Agogi" turns up nothing useful; my modern Greek isn't great, so I'm not very good at searching in that language. If you can supply a link that would be helpful. Nevertheless, I've never heard of this journal, and can't find it in scholarly indexes such as TOCS-IN and L'Année Philologique.

Bear in mind what the NPOV policy says: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." None of the people you've named so far is a prominent scholar, and it's not even clear that Georgiadis is a prominent politician, since ΛΑ.Ο.Σ is a minority party in Greece. So, please find some prominent scholars who argue that pederasty/bisexuality was uncommon. Until then, please stop wasting our time. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time? You choose to be on wikipedia. I feel that I should be the one who is mad. Before, you were saying that being a prominent politician does not qualify someone, and now you say "it's not even clear that Georgiadis is a prominent politician." I thought you said that didn't matter. Anyways, Georgiadis does have a doctoral in classics in ancient Greece and he has recieved several awards for his Greek studies. You all said that we need to find qualified scholars and we've done that. I can find more. Here is one link I found. If you can't read Greek find a Greek English translation site to view it. [1]Ellinas 00:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that you are viewed here as a waste of time, you seem to be civil and reasonable; Akhilleus is probably burned out from dealing with that other fellow. As for Georgiades, his credentials earn him a place in the "Alternative theories" section, since qualified though he may be his views are simply not represented in the mainstream of academic thought, and never have been. Haiduc 01:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I strongly disagree here; Robert Flaceliere is a decent if outdated author, and can be used for showing alternative theories; but Georgadis is not an accademic, only a pubblicist of the Greek extreme right, that is, fringy even in Greece. Not all theories are valid enough to be reported, and wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Aldux 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Having done a brief search only to find that Georgiades is absolutely non-notable in the English language, and his self-published book was only sold on a now-defunct website I have to concur with Aldux that we should not become a mouthpiece for this man's notions. Haiduc 02:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, like I said Georgiadis has a doctoral in classics from the University of Athens. He has written other books on Greece. Check the link above. I am only asking that the separate section of Alternate Theories be kept, improved, and fair. That is all.

I am actually starting to find all this pointless since noone seems willing to listen. I'll be busy and without internet access next several days. I think I'll allow Cretanpride to argue on his own since I've already gone as far as I'll ever go on this issue. Ellinas 02:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellinas, thank you for the link, but as far as I can tell this page only says that Georgiadis is a graduate of the History and Archaeology program at Panepistimiou; it looks like he has the equivalent of a B.A., not a Ph.D. Big difference. More importantly, as Haiduc pointed out, his book is self-published, which makes it a fairly dubious source. Since he does not seem to have made any notable academic contribution, and is a not a notable political figure either, there's no good reason to include his views in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Case

Since I am blocked, I will be forced to write anonymously. I already posted something similar on Aldux's page. There is a difference between using the same computer and being the same user. Cretanpride has been blocked so many times he ran out of computers and used mine. Notice the IP address. He is a user of Clearwire. I am a user of SBC. Check into that if you care. Also, I put down "I am not a sockpuppet of Cretanpride" because he told me that if I didn't I would be blocked. Also if you go to "edit this page" you will see a different style of editing. On the AFD discussion page Cretanpride did not bother to distinguish between the styles of his sockpuppets and his own. I also did not know how to sign my name until I believe my fourth edit. Although I suppose this is all a lie to you all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.120.147 (talk • contribs) .

None of this matters, Wikipedia is about content and ideas, not about personalities. Valid content will be integrated even if Pol Pot submitted it, and even Mother Theresa will be reverted if writing nonsense. If the block is off the mark, once it's over just join in and forget about it. Haiduc 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether Ellinas' block will expire or not. The standard treatment for a sockpuppet account is an indefinite block, but if Ellinas is a different individual (and hence merely a meatpuppet) there may be a case for lifting the block (and possibly extending the block on the Cretanpride account, for more block evasion). The question is being discussed at AN/I now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One last message

Check this website out to check the IP addresses. His addresses start with 66.53-Clearwire. Check mine. Also, it is not a single purpose account if I get blocked and have no chance to edit anything else. [2]

Don't bother even lifting the ban. Considering the lack of support, I won't edit on this article anymore anyway. That interpretation of Plato's laws goes against how I was taught in any of my philosophy classes.(I'm a philosophy major) We analyzed Plato's dialogues, and specifically Plato's laws in detail. My copy of Plato's dialogues has side notes interpreting the text. The quote Cretanpride used is interpreted like this "No man shall venture to touch any other woman other than his wedded wife. Agreement reached on on prohibition of male love" Word for word.

To Akhilleus, it was Aldux who compared Georgiadis' book to Mein Kampf. Cretanpride was mistaken. If you would read the biography you will see how minimal involvement he actually has in the political party. Throughout this discussion he has been called unqualified, rascist, politically driven, and poorly educated. In the about the author section of his book it says he has a doctoral degree from University of Athens and graduated in 1992. In the bio page you will see that he lost his parents in 1993, and long story short, through hard work and determination accomplished everything he has. It seems that if anyone questions your beliefs you will try to insult them so much so they become uncredible.

How about your scholars? Michael Focault, I believe once said that heterosexuality "is modern invention with devastating consenquences." This goes against the teachings of science. Like your scholars are not ideologically driven.

If we were to rally support for our side of the argument, the new users would be called sockpuppets and would be banned. Ever since I entered this discussion I was told that all I have is Greek pride. In other words, it was an insult to my intelligence. Caveotlector, after calling me that, then tried to ESTABLISH HIMSELF AS A SCHOLAR by saying that he studied this under a respectable professor and therefore must know better. I have also been called a sockpuppet, been blocked, and never taken seriously. All I have is Greek pride? Take a look at the home pages of the editors of this article and look at their contributions. Many of them try to find a homosexual meaning in just about everything.

Other users are of the same opinion. Here is what one user posted on Cretanpride's talk page.

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything I could add to this debate that I have not already tried to express with the editor Haiduc. Nor do I have the patience. As you can see from your own experiences so far, the editors of the homosexuality/pederasty articles don't like being challenged. And instead of actually considering whether or not the articles are NPOV, they immediately deny any bias and question why the tag was placed at all. It seems to be a lost cause on Wikipedia, unless you want to spend all your time fighting this battle. But I am afraid it will come down to a simple popularity contest. They have more editors on their side so they will always be able to remove/delete/change any edits you or I would make. They want to revise and make-up history to fit their image of what life was like. Wikipedia allows them to do this, and that is unfortunate. I may try engaging them in debate again, but I don't know. I don't want to get banned like you though :). Ajz123 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

So you see, people are of the same opinion and are scared to edit on this article. 4.245.121.227 20:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If such people have the courage of their convictions, they should come here and argue their cases in accordance with Wikipedia policies. If they can provide reliable sources for their positions, those positions should be included in the article. If all they have is bigotry and closed-mindedness, then they won't get very far.

I hope that I, for one, have shown a willingness to listen to alternate viewpoints. Although I am a supporter of gay rights (and say so on my user page), I have tried to look at the evidence presented here in a dispassionate manner, and even went to the trouble of finding a universally respected source (the Oxford Classical Dictionary) and expanding the article in accordance with what I found there. I hope that the article now indicates that it would probably be an error to say that a typical fifth-century Greek man was either "straight" or "gay", since those concepts as such did not exist. It's wrong to say that people were gay in ancient Greece, but it's also wrong to say that there was no homosexual behavior. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. You can argue, if you like, that pederasty was limited to the aristocracy (who had time to do things like write philosophical dialogues and commission artistic vases), but you can't argue that it didn't happen or wasn't important to the people who ruled and controlled the society.

As for the passage in the Laws, I think you're missing the point. Your annotated edition is correct in its summary of the Athenian's argument; however, what we're pointing to is the comments from the Athenian and the other speakers which acknowledge that the position being advocated (an abolition of all sexual intercourse betwen males) would be highly unpopular in any Greek city-state: see Laws 839b–d, where the Athenian has to go to great pains to explain how instituting such a law would conceivably be possible. I wager that upon your return to UCWherever, if you speak to the professor who taught the class on the Laws he would concur with the interpretation being offered here: Plato does propose a law against homosexual behavior in the Laws, but acknowledges that it would be unpopular.

Of course, Akhilleus is correct when he says above that what you, or I, or any of us think about the Laws is immaterial for Wikipedia's purposes: what's relevant is the interpretation of reliable sources. (And a self-published book really isn't a reliable source, even if its author does have a doctorate.)

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to reply, given the tone of your "goodbye speech". I suppose I just wanted to try to get through to you one last time. Perhaps it's a wasted effort. Ah, well — nothing ventured, nothing gained. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

There's something strange going on with the footnotes. Right now I'm seeing all the references listed twice, except for the OCD entry. And the actual footnotes appearing in the text are numbered according to the second listing in the "Notes" section, so that the first footnote in the article is #13. Does anyone know what we're doing wrong, or if there's something wrong with the cite.php system? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind: I found a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mysterious problem involving footnotes and citation templates. The solution is to add ?action=purge at the end of the URL and reload the page. I presume that the underlying cause is being dealt with. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)