Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Approach to this issue

Let's try to piece out the issues here and distinguish what's worth considering from what's not.

First, there's the academic side. I think that the article could do a better job explaining the difference between the way sexuality was conceived in the ancient world and the modern divisions by orientation. As the Alexander the Great article states, "The ancient Greeks saw sex as an activity, not an identifier, a viewpoint shared by contemporary cultures at the time." The Oxford Classical Dictionary has a fairly decent explanation of how the Greeks (and Romans) didn't divide individuals by the gender of their sexual partners, but viewed sex as an intrinsically asymmetrical activity, and hence categorized sexual activity as acceptable or transgressive based on whether the partners were suitably unequal: therefore, heterosexual pairing was acceptable because women were inferior to men, and pederastic male-male sex was acceptable because the younger partner was inferior to the elder. Although there are examples of similarly-aged male couples, I don't think the article indicates strongly enough that this was an exception to the general (pederastic) rule. I may attempt to incorporate some of the OCD's discussion into the article later.

It's clear that the sources provided by Cretanpride (and supported by Ellinas) are either outdated (Flaceliere) or suspect (Georgiadis); however, some of the quoted passages from primary sources are probably worth note. By way of comparison, the OCD does mention (as an anomaly) Plato's treatment of pederasty and female homosexuality as "unnatural" in the Laws — I think that it would be appropriate for this article to do so as well. Similarly, although Cretanpride :misinterprets the concept of κῖναιδεία (which as I understand it has to do with violating the socially acceptable patterns of sexual activity mentioned above), there probably should be a mention and explanation of it in the article. I'm not sure that I'm qualified to write this explanation, as I haven't read much of the scholarly literature on the subject and would just be paraphrasing the OCD, but I think that it's worth including.

Next, there's the political aspect of the debate. Although Georgiadis is not academically notable, it's possible that the vocal opposition of some Greek political figures to the scholarly consensus is, if more reliable sources like the BBC article about the reaction to Alexander can be found. Similarly, it may be worth investigating whether conservative classicists like Victor Davis Hanson have written anything about the characterization of homosexual activity in ancient Greece — while I'm sure that even Hanson and his ilk wouldn't attempt denial on the scale that Cretanpride is advocating, they may provide some balance. Using sources like Hanson (and even the OCD, which I think is rather conservative on this subject) could be a good exercise in writing for the enemy, and would probably improve the article.

Finally, I feel obliged to remind all participants in this discussion of the Wikipedia policies on civility and not biting the newbies. I do understand that the patience of long-time editors of this article has been frayed by Cretanpride's POV-pushing, but that's no excuse to be less than inviting to Ellinas. Although Ellinas may meet the technical definition of a meatpuppet, he has conducted himself in accordance with Wikipedia policies and has not engaged in any edit warring. I think he deserves to be treated with respect and patience. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I like these suggestions. The article doesn't do a good job of explaining the difference between modern concepts of homosexuality and ancient Greek practice, and this is the crucial idea that the article should explain. The OCD entry is quite succinct on this point and gives us a good starting point.

As far as I'm aware Victor Davis Hanson hasn't written much about homosexuality. However, Bruce Thornton, who's been mentioned many times in this discussion already, is closely associated with Hanson: he's co-authored a book with Hanson, contributes to some of the same political websites, and teaches in the same department, Fresno State. Thornton is probably worth citing in this article for at least one reason--he's one of several scholars that argue that pederasty was limited to the aristocracy, and was not practiced by the common people.

Here's a relevant quote (Eros 195-6): "Boy-love, then, was not a private pleasure or relationship but a part of the social structure of the polis, one of its 'technologies' for controlling the powerful force of eros...Let me once more remind he reader that I am not describing the behavior or proclivities of the 'average Greek.' Pederasty in the Greek literary remains...is clearly an aristocratic institution...since the majority of the Greek population in most poleis worked the soil, pederasty was not a well-known experience to most Greeks." This quote bears superficial resemblance to Cretanpride's argument that "pederasty was not common", but note that Thornton identifies pederasty as "part of the social structure of the polis", in other words, a feature of Greek social life, worth devoting a chapter of his book to.

Thornton's position is shared by some other scholars, but the majority would agree that pederasty was practiced throughout the citizen body (e.g. Victoria Wohl, Love among the Ruins 5-7, Nick Fisher, Against Timarchos 59-60).

As far as the Laws passages, it should probably be noted in the article that this is the first known instance of an argument that homosexual intercourse is "against nature", but it should also be noted that the Laws is atypical of Plato's writing and is pretty far from representing general Greek opinion on the subject.

When I get some more time, I'll comment on some other scholarly debates that should be included and some examples of how this topic has appeared in contemporary politics. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is something interesting. When this article was nominated for deletion, one user wrote this:

Keep but needs a serious rewrite, The article is full of BS, POV, and erroneous cruft, or worse, OR erroneous POV cruf... Sappho was scandalous, and love between adult men was regarded with little more favor than in modern Iran or Saudi Arabia... The subject is worth keeping, the article as it currently stands is not. --Svartalf 1

This user is from France. Perhaps in France they teach the subject differently.Ellinas 08:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's best to let that user speak for himself, rather than interpreting his comment in the AfD. If Svartalf (talk · contribs) wants to improve the article, he's free to do so, and his edits will be considered on their own merits, like everyone else's. Besides, the clear consensus in the AfD was that the article was basically sound, but needed more citations and footnotes for its claims. Furthermore, I'd wager that the AfD participants came from many countries (and I'd expect that in general the French would be likely to follow the teachings of Michel Foucault on this subject).

Ellinas, I reworded the mention of Alexander and Hephaestion slightly, in view of your concerns above. (I debated between saying "generally regarded" and "often regarded" — can anyone think of an adverb between "often" and "generally"?) Do you have any other specific concerns about the article, or are you just unhappy with its implications? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not directly edit the article because I don't have proper access to my sources, and don't remember the exact publication titles and author names to cite them; hence, any additions of mine would be irrecevable in such a controversial issue. I remember they were scholarly (established academics) and at least some of them were fairly mainline, since I read summaries or previews in the magazine "L'Histoire", which is fairly serious (for a publication that targets the general public), receives contributions only from academics, and is not known to support controversial rewritings of history. My contribution to the AfD page summarized what I gathered from readings ranging from the late 80s to the mid 90s, so I guess Foucault was not among them, though he could have influenced the various French historians I read. I hope this advances the subject and doesn't make my position untenable. --Svartalf 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Svartalf. What you've said here certainly doesn't represent an untenable position. Could you comment a little on what aspects of the article concern you most? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What bothered me was the fact that not only did some opinions seem to reject ALL homosexual behavior in Greece (yep, Cretanpride), when consensus and historical sources clearly show that pederasty was accepted aristocratic practice, if not a near obligatory rite of passage and step in a young man's education (Maurice Sartre in his recent book Histoires Grecques treats it as pretty much of a given, and it's Maurice, professor at Tours, not the famous Jean-Paul); but others seemed to go all the way in the other direction, and assert that homosexuality between adults was regarded as acceptable as well, which appears not to be the case at all : there are cases of citizens being stripped of their rights, or worse, for "inverted and unnatural" behavior, and it seems that Sappho owes her fame as much to the fact that her openly singing love between women (the publicity of it, if not the behavior itself) was so improper and titillating, as to her talent at poetry. --Svartalf 10:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite cases of citizens being stripped of their rights, or worse, for "inverted and unnatural" behavior? Timarchos, of course, does not fall under that category, his being a case of promiscuity within pederasty. Haiduc 11:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Curse my not having the sources at hand. I hate having to rely on the web for that, but I'll look it up again. Consider my assertion provisionally retracted until I have made sure I have not mistakenly spouted Cretanpride's line, mixing it up with something I read long ago. --Svartalf 11:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Major reorganization/expansion

I've just written some new sections based on the OCD's account of the ancient Greek view of sexuality, and reorganized the article in accordance with it. (I think that Haiduc proposed putting pederasty first a while back, which makes sense since that's the form of same-sex relationship that was socially prominent and accepted.) Now, as I've said before I'm not a scholar, and it's entirely possible that I've misrepresented something, but I thought it was important to start the process.

Subjects which I haven't addressed include:

• the concept of κῖναιδεία, which I allude to as "social stigma" but which is actually more complex than that, I think
• more detail about Sappho — the OCD mentions that although many of her verses clearly allude to female-female desire and sexuality, she wasn't explicitly associated with female homosexuality in secondary sources until the first century B.C.; in the entry, David Halperin says "...either Sappho's earlier readers and auditors saw nothing homoerotic in her poems or they saw nothing remarkable in Sappho's homoeroticism."
• more on contemporary scholarly disputes; I put a line in the "Pederasty" section about how there's some disagreement among scholars about whether pederasty was widespread in all social classes or limited to the aristocracy, based on Akhilleus' earlier comments; a citation or citations for that would be great.

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe you guys are actually putting alternate theories. I'm surprised. If I may add, I think it may be possible to include how Plato and Aristotle described homosexuality, and give examples of individuals being stripped of their rights if you can find sources.

Also, Akhilleus compared Georgiadis to Adolf Hitler. I doubt he read the entire link Ellinas posted. Maybe this translation site would help. [1] Regardless, because his book is self published, even if I establish him as a scholar, his material will probably not be included. It may be important to note that similar discussions occured on the Alexander the Great talk page mentioning Georgiadis' book. A look at the Pederasty in Ancient Greece article's talk page will show people knew of the book before I pointed it out. What I'm trying to say is his book has gained popularity.

Also, I don't think we are the only two who feel this way about this topic. A user name Phallanx felt the same way. Several users also posted similar thiings on the Pederasty in Ancient Greece article's discussion page, and in the Alexander the Great discussion page. In other words, we are not alone in thinking this way. I will try not to outburst anymore since you guys are more open minded than I thought.Cretanpride 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ellinas/Cretanpride, Once you have returned from your 2-day block for ban-evading sockpuppetry, perhaps you can show me where I compared Georgiadis to Hitler. I certainly suspect that Georgiadis is a racist, based on his political affiliation and the charming websites where one can find references to his work, but that's a bit different than what you're asserting.

Furthermore, the bio of Georgiadis that you linked to doesn't establish much of anything. Certainly not that Georgiadis has a Ph.D. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Plato's Laws

I may add I have a slight problem with this:

The morality of pederasty was largely unquestioned in ancient Greece. One notable exception is Plato's Laws, in which both pederasty and female homosexuality are described as "against nature"; however, the speakers in this dialogue acknowledge that an effort to abolish pederasty would be unpopular in most Greek city-states.

If you take this quote from Plato's laws which I posted earlier it says the opposite:

In Plato’s laws the anonymous Athenian states “in the matter of love we may be able to enforce one of two things-either that no one shall venture to touch any person of the freeborn or noble class except his wedded wife, or sow the unconsecrated and bastard seed among harlots, or in barren and unnatural lusts; or at elast we may abolish altogether the connection of men with men; and as to women, if any man has to do with any but those who come into his house duly married by sacred rites, whether they be bought or acquired in any other way, and he offends publicly in the face of all mankind, we shall be right in enacting that he be deprived of civic honors and privileges, and be deemed to be, as he truly is, a stranger.” (laws 841) What this basically means is that no man shall touch a woman except his wedded wife and that love between males should be prohibited. Megistess responds “I, for my part stranger, would gladly recieve this law.” The Athenians would shortly later say “We had got about as far as the establishment of the common tabels, which in most places would be difficult, BUT IN CRETE NO ONE WOULD THINK OF INDRODUCING ANY OTHER CUSTOM.” Meaning that the Cretans would adopt the law.

What do you all think? Cretanpride 07:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some digging has presented the context of the quote you posted, from which it had been deprived by wherever you saw it. At this point in the Laws, the Athenian is specifically speaking about the generation of a good army. See the passage that preceeds it. Bare with me everyone, this is going to be long. From the translation at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.8.viiii.html which is in agreement with the Perseus translation:

In many ways Crete and Lacedaemon furnish a great help to those who make peculiar laws; but in the matter of love, as we are alone, I must confess that they are quite against us. For if any one following nature should lay down the law which existed before the days of Laius, and denounce these lusts as contrary to nature, adducing the animals as a proof that such unions were monstrous, he might prove his point, but he would be wholly at variance with the custom of your states.; Further, they are repugnant to a principle which we say that a legislator should always observe; for we are always enquiring which of our enactments tends to virtue and which not.

MY emphasis here. The Athenian is speaking to Megillus, who is Spartan and Clinias, who is Cretan. Now look at the passage, noting my bolded reference. The Athenian stranger (who, BTW, does not necessarily represent Plato or his beliefs) is talking about the customs of 'love' in the Hellenes and how he doesn't like them (more on that later). However, he points to Meg. and Clin. and SPECIFICALLY says that, if anyone were to try and challange the systems of 'love' in these states, they would be met with only hostility (the system of love in question being one of pederasty). This CLEARLY means that it was practiced in these Greek states. Moving on down the passage, the Athenian talks about HOW they could get a law against these practices enacted (since he stated earlier in the passage that he feels it leaves the youths too idle and rather worthless). So, he says that they should go through their MILITARY values (from Perseus):

Athenian Stranger: (...) For, in the first place, it follows the dictates of nature, and it serves to keep men from sexual rage and frenzy and all kinds of fornication, and from all excess in meats and drinks, and it ensures in husbands fondness for their own wives: other blessings also would ensue, in infinite number, if one could make sure of this law. Possibly, however, some young bystander, rash and of superabundant virility, on hearing of the passing of this law, would denounce us for making foolish and impossible rules, and fill all the place with his outcries;

Note here how the Athenian stranger acknowledges that this law he is preposing would seem outrageous to just about anyone on the street.

and it was in view of this that I made the statement that I knew of a device to secure the permanence of this law when passed which is at once the easiest of all devices and the hardest. For while it is very easy to perceive that this is possible, and how it is possible--since we affirm that this rule, when duly consecrated, will dominate all souls, and cause them to dread the laws enacted and yield them entire obedience,--yet it has now come to this, that men think that, even so, it is unlikely to come about,--just in the same way as, in the case of the institution of public meals, people refuse to believe that it is possible for the whole State to be able to continue this practice constantly; and that, too, in spite of the evidence of facts and the existence of the practice in your countries; and even there, as applied to women, the practice is regarded as non-natural. Thus it was that, because of the strength of this unbelief, I said that it is most difficult to get both these matters permanently legalized.

Meg:And you were right in that.

Athenian:Still, to show that it is not beyond the power of man, but possible, would you like me to try to state an argument which is not without some plausibility?

This is very important. Note that the Athenian stranger has set himself up as the rator in a case of rhetoric, where he has to prove a point using reasoning. Plato likes to do this quite often, and quite often he does so only to illustrate the powers of rhetoric. What follows is, therefore, not the opinion of Plato (or even the Athenian stranger) necessarily. (from the Classics library once more):

Ath. Is a man more likely to abstain from the pleasures of love and to do what he is bidden about them, when his body is in a good condition, or when he is in an ill condition, and out of training?

Cle. He will be far more temperate when he is in training.

Ath. And have we not heard of Iccus of Tarentum, who, with a view to the Olympic and other contests, in his zeal for his art, ind also because he was of a manly and temperate disposition, never had any connection with a woman or a youth during the whole time of his training? And the same is said of Crison and Astylus and Diopompus and many others; and yet, Cleinias, they were far worse educated in their minds than your and my citizens, and in their bodies far more lusty.

Cle. No doubt this fact has been often affirmed positively by the ancients of these athletes.

Ath. And had they; courage to abstain from what is ordinarilly deemed a pleasure for the sake of a victory in wrestling, running, and the like; and shall our young men be incapable of a similar endurance for the sake of a much nobler victory, which is the noblest of all, as from their youth upwards we will tell them, charming them, as we hope, into the belief of this by tales and sayings and songs?

Cle. Of what victory are you speaking?

Ath. Of the victory over pleasure, which if they win, they will live happily; or if they are conquered, the reverse of happily. And, further, may we not suppose that the fear of impiety will enable them to master that which other inferior people have mastered?

So the Athenian is setting up the situation so that victory over pleasure will equal better citizenry to serve in military victories, which is an excellent way to get states like Crete and Sparta on your side:

And since we have reached this point in our legislation, and have fallen into a difficulty by reason of the vices of mankind, I affirm that our ordinance should simply run in the following terms: Our citizens ought not to fall below the nature of birds and beasts in general, who are born in great multitudes, and yet remain until the age for procreation virgin and unmarried, but when they have reached the proper time of life are coupled, male and female, and lovingly pair together, and live the rest of their lives in holiness and innocence, abiding firmly in their original compact:-surely, we will say to them, you should be better than the animals. 'But if they are corrupted by the other Hellenes and the common practice of barbarians, and they see with their eyes and hear with their ears of the so-called free love everywhere prevailing among them, and they themselves are not able to get the better of the temptation, the guardians of the law, exercising the functions of lawgivers, shall devise a second law against them.

Note the BOLDED sentence of the passage, which clearly says that the 'rest of the Hellenes' would have a chance at corrupting the youth by doing everything the Athenian lists. That means that the Greeks practiced these customs in a widespread fashion (otherwise, why worry about corruption?) And now on to your passage:

Meg. I, for my part, Stranger, would gladly receive this law. Cleinias shall speak for himself, and tell you what is his opinion.

Cle. I will, Megillus, when an opportunity offers; at present, I think that we had better allow the Stranger to proceed with his laws.

Meg. Very good.

Note that Megillus thinks this reasoning will work but Clenias reserves judgement...and then the second half of your quote...

Ath. We had got about as far as the establishment of the common tables, which in most places would be difficult, but in Crete no one would think of introducing any other custom. There might arise a question about the manner of them-whether they shall be such as they are here in Crete, or such as they are in Lacedaemon,-or is there a third kind which may be better than either of them? The answer to this question might be easily discovered, but the discovery would do no great good, for at present they are very well ordered.

The Athenian stranger has CHANGED TOPICS to the common tables (he is no longer talking about pederastic customs, but of the common meals that were part of Cretan and Spartan culture). When Athenian says in Crete no one would think of introducing any other custom he means 'any other custom BUT THE COMMON TABLES.' This is how the relative pronouns work in the Greek. Note that this entire paragraph continues talking about the common tables. The Athenian wonders out loud what the manner of them should be, but dismissed the conversation at the end by saying something like 'well, it doesn't really matter, because they're good as they are...'. I repeat, he is NOT talking about the preposed law he was discussing earlier. He has completely switched gears, as Plato is apt to do.

This is why it is important to read texts within their context rather than just taking a sentence out of an entire book as evidence. Plato has a HUGE body of work, and I can post some later that talks about Socrates' own sexual practices later. You have to take the whole picutre. You can't look at a pixel and proclaim a truth. CaveatLector^Talk 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

CaveatLector, thank you for that delightful discussion. If I might point out another interesting point, the passage "But if they are corrupted by the other Hellenes and the common practice of barbarians" raises another contradiction, that between the segment in Symposium 182c which suggests that the barbarians loathe pederasty, and this one, which equates it with "free love" and claims it is current among them. Curious. Haiduc 11:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

CaveatLector's exposition of Plato is correct, but it is not any more likely to convince User:Cretanpride than the earlier discussion of Laws 836c. Cretanpride has dug in his heels, and does not seem likely to be convinced by any argument. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with what I say below I'll provide a secondary source to support the text "the speakers in this dialogue acknowledge that an effort to abolish pederasty would be unpopular in most Greek city-states." As CaveatLector has already established, the quote that Cretanpride pulled from the Laws is off the mark. The passage that establishes that most Greeks would not outlaw pederasty is Laws 8.836:

If we were to follow in nature's steps and enact that law which held good before the days of Laius, declaring that it is right to refrain from indulging in the same kind of intercourse with men and boys as with women, and adducing as evidence thereof the nature of wild beasts, and pointing out how male does not touch male for this purpose, since it is unnatural,--in all this we would probably be using an argument neither convincing nor in any way consonant with your States.

About this passage Martha Nussbaum, Virginia Law Review, Virginia Law Review vol. 80, no. 7 (Oct. 1994), p. 1633, says: "Here we must note, first, that the Athenian Stranger recognizes how radically any curb on same-sex practices will clash with the customs of his culture..." On the next section of the Laws (836d-837a), Nussbaum writes: "The Athenian Stranger now asks what would follow if same-sex activity were approved, as in Sparta and Crete..." I'll put this reference in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Well, it seems I was fooled. I probably should have realised that any new editor whose first contribution says "I am not a sock" is likely to be one (how else would they know the terminology?). Perhaps I took "assume good faith" too far, or perhaps I assumed that anyone behaving the way Cretanpride had wouldn't be able to play the role of a more reasonable person. Anyway, I apologize for scolding those who saw what I didn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a request at WP:AN/I#User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece for another admin to take a look at the situation to see what the best next step is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

Since we've had some arguments about how primary sources should be interpreted, I thought I would take a new look at Wikipedia policies regarding primary sources. I'll quote the No Original Research policy:

Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

The upshot of this, I think, is that editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources are original research. In our discussion here we've made plenty of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims" of disputed primary sources; instead of relying on our own opinion, we should report the views of reliable secondary sources. So, all our discussions of "laws against homosexuality" are beside the point; what matters is how Kenneth Dover, David Halperin, Nick Fisher, et al. interpret these primary sources.

I'm not saying this to scold anyone, least of all CaveatLector, who clearly spent a long time reading and thinking about Plato's Laws. Rather, I'm urging contributors here, including myself, not to get caught up in further disputes about what Plato, Aeschines, or anyone else meant--it's an easy way to get huge amounts of time sucked away. All we need to do is cite a secondary source saying that Plato's Laws don't reflect a common Greek attitude towards pederasty, and end the discussion. The same with any other passage anyone cares to bring up--our discussion of the primary sources should be based in the interpretations of reliable, scholarly sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dover's Greek Homosexuality: a reliable source

From comments Ellinas/Cretanpride has made, it seems that the influence and reliability of K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality may not be apparent to those who aren't familiar with the academic consensus. So I thought I'd supply a few quotes from scholars currently working in the field.

Victoria Wohl, Love Among the Ruins (Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 12: "Until quite recently, the main focus of scholarship on ancient Greek sexuality has been on normativity, on what I have been calling the dominant fiction of dikaios eros. Dover was the first to explicate these norms systematically, laying out the basic 'rules' of homosexuality in Greece: the ideal of sexual dominance and the stigma against both passivity and excess; the generally positive attitude towards pederasty; the strong distinction between active (penetrating) lover and passive (penetrated) beloved. As as description of 'homosexual behaviour and sentiment' (1978.vii) in Greece, it has been refined and debated but not surpassed, and the terms of the discussion today are still Dover's."

David Cohen, "Law, Society, and Homosexuality in classical Athens," Past and Present 117 (Nov 1987), p. 3: "Recent scholarship has succeeded in greatly advancing our understanding of 'Greek homosexuality'. Kenneth Dover and Michel Foucault have argued that the modern dichotomization of sexuality as heterosexuality/homosexuality does not apply to the ancient world, and they have shown how distinctions between active and passive roles in male sexuality defined the contours of the permissible and impermissible in pederastic courtship and other forms of homoerotic behavior. Among the Greeks, we are told, active homosexuality was regarded as perfectly natural (sexual desire was not distinguished according to its object."

Bruce Thornton, Eros: the Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Westview Press 1997), p. 256: "Recent writing on homosexuality in ancient Greece is overwhelmingly influenced by K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality. Though an old-style empirical philologist, Dover excited the 'advocacy' scholars with his thesis that the Greeks were indifferent to same-sex relations, indeed considered them perfectly normal as long as the participants observed certain protocols and conventions..."

These quotes should illustrate that the current consensus in academia is based on Dover's groundbreaking work, which is clearly an important secondary source for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I have made changes which I feel everyone can agree with. I tried as hard as I could to not include POV. If anyone has a problem with them, I would hope you would discuss them rather than outright delete them.Cretanpride 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Caveotlector, I would like to know which of my edits were POV. I added links to the articles on Rome, China, and Japan. I said that the relationship between Alexander and Hephastion was "possibly" of the same order. I also put that in Plato's Laws same sex love, not pederasty, was called contrary to nature. None of these are POV. I worked hard to add the links and make careful changes, and yet you still quickly reverted them. The fact that you reverted them without discussing, and justifying it by insulting me, shows that you can no longer act as if you are better, you are actually hypocritical. I question your claim that you are NPOV. It is obvious from your home page that you are a proud homosexual. There is nothing wrong with that, but claiming that all I have is "Greek pride" shows how hypocritical you are. Cretanpride 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try again to edit. Lets see what happens now.Cretanpride 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said on my edit comments, I don't see how you can plead this way while making POV edits to the article as if none of the discussion on this page has happened. Your edition in the "Comments" section is not necessary. This is an article on ancient Greece. Those other cultures don't particularly matter in this article. Nothing in the article suggests that it was 'only in Greece' that these elements of the culture existed. The 'generally regarded' statement is not POV. It's a factual statement about the scholarship. To say 'well maybe kinda-sorta' is a POV whitewashing of the facts. You're change from 'pederastai' to 'pederasty' edit was downright silly, considering you replaced an ancient Greek word that references an ancient Greek practice in an article on ancient Greece with an English cognate. Your first edit completely butchers the meaning of the sentence and the paragraph it is in, and constitutes an outright violation of WP:OR interpretation. Yes, I am proud to be gay and queer, not that that even matters in this case, and your even bringing it up as if the fact that I'm gay means I'm some sort of 'homsexual activist' who is crusading to 'make the Greeks gay' (and after all we want everyone to be as morall repugnant as us, right?) is downright offensive. I am outright tired of this absolute nonsense. You have no credible research to back up your edits and they are clearly driven by some sort of personal, POV moral quest to expunge the very idea that your beloved ancestors, the 'glorious Greeks', might have had same-sex relationships. You a nothing by a POV-pusher and a proven Sockpuppeteer. Please refrain from lecturing me on hypocrisy. CaveatLector^Talk 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My entire argument this whole time has been that homosexuality or bisexuality in Greece was a minority. Even, hypothetically, if it was an accepted aristocratic practice, saying that it was commonplace is just wrong. It is like saying everyone had a right to vote in a democracy, when in reality only ten percent of people did. You have to at least admit that the contents of the article are not proven. If a Greek scholar has an opinion on the subject are his/her opinions worthless because he/she is Greek? Regarding Alexander and Hephastion, whenever most scholars are actually asked that, they tend to respnod by saying it was "possible" given the culture. They don't say "generally regarded."

Also, I actually have given sources and scholarly opinions but they have been derided. Bruce Thornton argues that pederasty was limited to the aristocracy. Robert Flaceliere argues further, and says that they were limited to the aristocracy and over a limited period of time. Georgiadis argues that homosexuals existed as they always have, but they were a minority. There are scholars who support my opinion that it was not common.

Regarding my Greek pride, yes I am proud. I am proud that Greeks were the founders of civilization. I am proud that 300 Greeks stood at Thermopylae to save Western Civilization. I am proud of the teachings of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. I am proud that Greek troops won the first Allied victories of World War II and that Hitler and Churchill claimed that had it not been for them "the war's outcome would have taken a different turn." Yes I am proud, and I resent it when non-Greeks go on to say all these things about Greeks that are unproven as if they are a fact. I have a tough time believe 300 pedophiles could make a stand at Thermopylae. I have a tough time believing Greeks were pederastic lovers given the morality that Plato and Aristotle preached. And yes I have a problem when Achilles and Patroclus are considered a couple when any sane person who reads the Illiad will see that they weren't. Let me guess...they were a couple because Achilles avenged Patroclus' death...makes perfect sense huh? Also, what evidence is there to say Alexander was bisexual? The only thing you have is "generally regarded" and your appeal that it was the cultural norm. Cretanpride 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me as though you have just proven that your edits in this article are driven by nothing more than nationalistic fervor. The 'founders of civilization'? Are you serious? By the way, the 300 at Thermapylae were Spartans, glorious men of virtue and honour who's culture bred them specifically to be warriors who loved the man standing next to them. To give some nonsense about 'I refuse to believe they were pedophiles yada yada yada' is to clearly reveal that you haven't read any of The Constitution of the Lacedaemonians or that you have any respect for the history of Sparta. Actually, to even claim some sort of patriotic right in their name as if all the Greeks were some sort of glorious united peoples is ludicrous and downright ignorant. In fact, the enitrety of your edits reek of such ignorance (and ignorance, by the way, is an observation in this case and not a personal attack). You have demonstrated NO knowledge of the actual ancient Greeks or their culture. You have shown no respect for a scholarly consensus born out of decades of research from people who are FAR smarter and more knowledgable than either you OR me. And you have shown a blatant disregard for the rules of Wikipedia, including creating several SOCKPUPPETS in order influence a DELETION vote of THIS VERY ARTICLE. You are not interested in knowledge. You are not interested in truth. All you are OBVIOUSLY interested in is maintaining your nationalistic fantasies of a 'perfect Greece,' the father of all things good and civilized in the world'. Go read more and learn more. I, for my part, will give you no more time in this discussion other than to protect the article from your POV driven edits and to encourage the admins to put an end to your ridiculous flouting of the rules by banning you indefinitely. CaveatLector^Talk 02:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, everybody cool down. We're not talking about the contents of the article any more, we're talking about editors' personalities. Cretanpride's editing history speaks for itself, Caveat; there's no need to aggravate him further. And Cretanpride, the points you're making are either already reflected in the article (Thornton's argument, etc.) or irrelevant. Let's stay focused on what we're here to do: make an encyclopedia. Since tempers are so short, I'd suggest that any edits to the article in the next few days be small ones; let's consider each argument on its own merits. The large-scale edits that Cretanpride made tonight aren't productive, but there might have been something worthwhile in one or two of them. Let's consider them one at a time, reject the ones that have no worth and polish the ones that are based on actual scholarship. If we actually believe in WP:NPOV, we should be able to find a wording that is more-or-less acceptable to Cretanpride without doing violence to the historical truth. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One place to start might be with the Alexander link. Keeping in mind what Akhilleus pointed out about original research, we shouldn't let ourselves get caught up in debating whether Alexander did or didn't sleep with Hephaestion or Bagoas. Instead, we should try to accurately summarize the scholarly consensus on the matter. I'm not an expert, but I do think that Alexander the Great#Personal life sums up the scholarship and the debate pretty well. We don't need to go into details in this article, but we may be able to find a better way to summarize that section of the Alexander the Great article. Would changing "generally regarded" to "often regarded" be softening the language too much, CaveatLector? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, I admire your cool head and efforts to find compromise, but I think at this point it's quite appropriate for CaveatLector to point out that Cretanpride has been disruptive and dishonest in his behavior from the moment he started editing this article. We're not just talking about the fraudelent AfD or the sockpuppets; we're also talking about Cretanpride's misquotation and distortion of primary and secondary sources, which takes an enormous amount of time to track down and combat. The only valid point Cretanpride makes in his latest post, Thornton's argument that pederasty was practiced by the aristocracy, is a point that I raised after I went to the trouble of reading Thornton and posting the relevant passage on this page. Before that, Cretanpride had only misquoted and distorted Thornton's work. I see no sign that Cretanpride is interested in finding reliable sources, respecting academic consensus, reforming his editing behavior, or doing anything other than disruptive POV-pushing.

Regarding your points about Alexander, I haven't done much research in this area, but I've posted a quote from Robin Lane Fox already (see above) which I believe accurately represents the views of many scholars. Fox is an old-school historian, so there's every reason to suspect he's in the majority. I would recommend staying with "generally regarded", unless someone can supply a reliable source that says otherwise. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, that (Josiah's suggestion)) seems reasonable. Certainly more so than anything preposed so far, but I must agree with Akhilleus here. While it's reasonable, there's no real reason to change it. I would like to note that I certainly believe in NPOV in principle, but in practice it has many demons (which are very evident in this edit war). NPOV should not mean undermining facts substantiated by actual scholarly research in order to pay lip service to a point of view influenced by blind nationalism (or faith, or homophobia, or racism, or sexism, or any other 'ism' and/or hangup that certain people have with factual information). Cases like these should be handled as science vs. pseudoscience would. The opinion of the fringe scholars should only be included in reference to the fact that they are fringe. I think that your edits, Josiah, in including the 'Controversy' section did that (that is the policy, isn't it? perhaps I should prepose something along the lines of WP:Academic Consensus if the case calls for it) and I thank you for this. Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I will try not to engage in these contests with Cretanpride any longer. CaveatLector^Talk 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Cretanpride has a history of being cavalier both with Wikipedia policy and with his treatment of the source material, and that should be taken into account when judging his edits. However, we should also notice that in the time Cretanpride has been on Wikipedia, his stance has softened considerably. He began by demanding the complete deletion of the article as offensive fiction (one of his sockpuppets even claimed "The whole theory was not introduced until 1907!", as if previous centuries never even noticed "the unspeakable vice of the Greeks" — did Forster make that phrase up, or was it a genuine euphamism?) But I digress. Cretanpride has moved from demanding this article's deletion, to demanding it be completely rewritten, to asking for a few changes here and there. As Akhilleus points out, Cretanpride's current position is based on Akhilleus' own interpretation of Bruce Thornton. But that's a good thing: Cretanpride has moved from a completely unreasonable position, held by no respectable scholars, to a position on the conservative side of legitimate scholarship. (The sooner he drops the attempt to insert the utterly non-notable Georgiadis into the article, the better, but that's another matter.)

CaveatLector, you're right that the standard policy for fringe views is to note them briefly and identify them as fringe. And I should stress that I don't want the article to say anything that isn't an accurate portrayal of current scholarship. However, even though American and Northern European scholarship is practically unanimous on this subject, I think that it's noteworthy that the modern Greek nation and peoples reject it with nearly as much unanimity. I'd like to find one more article to support the "Scholarship and controversy" section, but I've had limited success so far. It seems that the international dialogue on this subject is rather stunted; it looks like as a rule, Greeks and non-Greeks don't talk about ancient Greek homosexuality with each other, so as not to frighten the horses. And frankly, that's one of the reasons why I'm not ready to give up on Cretanpride completely: even if he never accepts the Western academic consensus, I think he's already gained a better understanding of the evidence and the arguments, and that can only be a good thing.

I find that I learn more from people I disagree with than from people I agree with, and I hope that people I disagree with can learn from me. It's not always easy, but I think it's worth the effort to understand each other's positions. That's a good part of what makes Wikipedia work: in fact, there's a strong through-line from Wikipedia's dispute resolution process right back to Socrates asking questions in the agora. The attempt to turn Cretanpride into a model Wikipedian may be as doomed as Plato's attempt to turn Dionysius the Younger into a philosopher-king, but I don't think Plato regretted the effort. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think the Seventh Letter is genuine, it reads like Plato was pretty unhappy about the whole thing. I've read people blaming the generally grumpy character of the Laws on Plato's experience in Sicily, too. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride blocked for sockpuppetry

It turns out that while I was pleading for Cretanpride to be given civil treatment, he was busy developing another sockpuppet (as confirmed again by checkuser. Frankly, in these edits he practically confirms it himself. I thought his behavior was improving, but this shows a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy. I've blocked the MegasAllexandros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account indefinitely, and blocked Cretanpride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for a month. If any more sockpuppets show up during September, we can block them as well and lengthen Cretanpride's block accordingly.

So much for rehabilitation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Towards improvement

I think you are right when you said some time back that good will come out of this, Josiah. When this article went up for AfD, it drew my attention and I noticed how much work the article needs. Now I think it might be time to focus more. I'd like some help dealing with a problem that all this discussion has illuminated for me. The article treats ancient Greek society as some sort of cohesive unit that all behaved the same way. This is terribly faulty. I feel as though the article should be broken up into sections. There should probably be three of these sections. One for Athens and one for Sparta (the two for which we have the most to say) and then one for information on other Greek states we are aware of. I think this will improve the accuracy of the article greatly as well as how it reads, and the sources we have there now can be incorperated into these edits. Thoughts? CaveatLector^Talk 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty in ancient Greece treats regional variation. There's also Athenian pederasty, Cretan pederasty, Spartan pederasty, etc. Is there benefit to having all these different articles, or should things be consolidated? The regional pederasty articles are fairly detailed, and so is Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Passage in Laws

See these edits.

I do not believe I am misreading this material. Cretanpride appears to have gotten the quote from the Georgiadis book. However there's no indication that he is aware of the context, in which the Athenian is talking about the character of laws in the other speakers' states. He's making the same point that Phaedrus makes in the Symposium when he says

"In Ionia and other places, and generally in countries which are subject to the barbarians, the custom is held to be dishonourable; loves of youths share the evil repute in which philosophy and gymnastics are held because they are inimical to tyranny; for the interests of rulers require that their subjects should be poor in spirit and that there should be no strong bond of friendship or society among them."

I don't see an OR issue in saying that other states were not so tolerant of SSL as Athens, or at least that Plato did not believe them to be, based on these passages. Gazpacho 22:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you can make a quantitative statement of that nature (about cities other than Athens being less tolerant) since you are overlooking all those cities other than Athens and outside of Ionia that did promote pederastic traditions. Haiduc 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Haiduc here. For corroboration you can look up other passages of Plato's Laws, quoted on this talk page (maybe in the archives now), that imply that pederasty was common in Sparta and Crete. I quote Martha Nussbaum above to support this interpretation.

In my opinion, anyone who wants to assert that a particular passage of Plato means something needs to cite secondary literature, since the meaning of just about anything Plato said is disputed. And I'm not just talking about homosexuality either; I also mean metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Plato is not a straightforward author. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Achilles and Patroclus

My sources say that Achilles and Patroclus were represented in the Iliad simply as friends, and that homosexuality didn't exist in Mycenaean Greece neither by Homer's time. Homosexuality was a "trend" of the late Archaic and Classic age, and all homosexual interpretations on the duo stem from that period. Yet this article clearly promotes misinterpreted, homocentric views on the authentic source of those characters (the Iliad). Viva NPOV. Miskin 11:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest R.B. Koehl's "Ephoros and Ritualized Homosexuality in Bronze Age Greece" for a study of early homosexual practices, Sergent for a study of homosexuality as an early Indo-European tradition, and Percy's "Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece" for Homeric matters, including Achilles and Patroclus. I also suggest less flag-waving. Haiduc 12:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. So how does this justify the misinterpretation of the Iliad? I don't see how assuming that homosexuality existed in Mycenean Greece is relevant to Homer's words, interpreted in the article as the "first recorded boy love". Miskin 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I went to look for your quote in the article and it does not exist. And any indication that same-sex relations existed prior to archaic times is supportive of interpretations that identify suggested same-sex relation in Homer, such as the love between A and P and other passages. Haiduc 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what exactly you're objecting to in the article, Miskin. The article says that the love between Achilles and Patroclus as depicted in Homer was non-sexual, and that later (in the Classical and Hellenistic periods) it was reinterpreted in a pederastic context. (Achilles and Patroclus goes into more detail.) Are you objecting to the use of the word "love"? Putting aside the question of sexuality, I don't see how anyone can read the Iliad and deny that Achilles loves Patroclus. The nature of that love is debatable, but its existence is not.

Perhaps if you named your "sources" that might clarify things. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"The first recorded appearance of love between adult men, albeit in a non-sexual form, was in the Iliad (800 BC). The intentions of the Iliad have been a subject of much debate."

Are you expecting me to believe that this sentence was compliled by a completely neutral person? I don't think so. Despite what Haiduc says, Homer has no "love" nor "sexual" implications between the two heros, and I'll be back with a citation. Miskin 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a useful citation, from Manuel Morales and Gabriel L. Mariscal, "The Relationship between Achilles and Patroclus according to Chariton of Aphrodisias," Classical Quarterly 53.1 (2003) p. 292: "From the fifth century B.C., the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus as presented by Homer was a matter for discussion among writers and scholars in antiquity: was it a relationship of homosexual love or was it simple friendship? Out of this debate came discussion of a more specific question as well: whether, assuming a homosexual relationship, Achlles took the part of the lover (erastes) or of the beloved (eromenos). At no point does Homer make explicitly clear the nature of the relationship between the heroes, as noted already by Aeschines in his speech Against Timarchus 1.142. This uncertainty brought about the controversy, but the view that they were lovers prevailed."

I'd say in general that classicsts would agree with Morales and Mariscal that Homer doesn't portray the relationship as pederastic, but doesn't rule out the possibility either. However, there are some (e.g. Bruce Thornton) who insist that Homer portrays them as "heterosexual", and others (M. Clarke) who say that Homer portrays them as lovers. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Here's a sentence from the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which I found for the Achilles and Patroclus article:

Homer, to be sure, does not portray Achilles and Patroclus as lovers (although some Classical Athenians thought he implied as much (Aeschylus fragments 135, 136 Radt; Plato Symposium 179e–180b; Aeschines Against Timarchus 133, 141–50) ), but he also did little to rule out such an interpretation.

— Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, eds.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 721. ISBN 0-19-866172-X.

Now, I tend to think that it's entirely possible for two men to love each other without being lovers, and I think I can find a scholarly source to back that up; however, if you find the word "love" problematic in that sentence, Miskin, perhaps you could suggest an alternate wording? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A further clarification: if you have a problem with the use of the word "love" in this context, you'll have to find an alternative way to indicate that Patroclus is presented as the most important person in Achilles' affections. See Gregory Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans:

For Achilles ... in his own ascending scale of affection as dramatized by the entire composition of the Iliad, the highest place must belong to Patroklos.... In fact Patroklos is for Achilles the πολὺ φίλτατος ... ἑταῖρος — the ‘hetaîros who is the most phílos by far’ (XVII 411, 655).

— Gregory Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans, second edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999. p. 105. ISBN 0-8018-6015-6.

Nagy goes on to quote Iliad XVIII 80–81; I won't bother to type all the polytonic Greek (because frankly it's a pain), but his translation is:

But what pleasure is there for me in these things? For my phílos hetaîros has perished,
Patroklos, to whom I gave more tĩmḗ than all the other hetaîroi.

As Nagy explains, citing E. Benveniste, philos is a much broader concept than the English "friend"; it incorporates "a complex network of associations, some with the institutions of hospitality, others with usages of the home, still others with emotional behavior" (Nagy, 103, quoting Benveniste).

Nagy also compares Achilles' grief for Patroclus with Andromache's grief for Hector, which uses much of the same language and the same lamentations (for example, both Achilles and Andromache wish that they had never been conceived, that their parents had never met). And then there's the story of Meleager and Kleopatra (note the name)... and so forth. The point is that Patroclus is presented as the key person in Achilles' affections, and if you don't want to call that "love" then you'll have to find another way to express it retaining that concept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think the word "love" is problematic in this context, simply because in English "love" is strongly associated with romantic and familial relationships, and not as much with friendship. It's better to show how intense Achilles' feelings are through quoting the Iliad, as Josiah has just done--but perhaps there's not space in this article? Surely the quotes should be included in Achilles and Patroclus, though.

In general, I'm a bit unhappy with the article's use of "love"--phrases like "same-sex love" and "love between men" seem euphemistic and unencyclopedic. On the other hand, "same-sex sexual relationship" is stylistically problematic because of the repetition. Not sure what a good alternative would be. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, to put some of these quotes in Achilles and Patroclus; I've just done a bit of that. As for "love", I agree that there are some circumstances in which it's a problematic word, but I don't think that the example of Achilles and Patroclus is one of them, really. The larger issue that you raise is worth considering, though; the problem is that the topic of sexuality has a considerable overlap with love, and an effort to distinguish the two is going to be problematic. Should we perhaps shift to discussion of ἔρως, φιλία, etc.? That might be more accurate, but it makes the text less accessible to non-scholars, even if we attempt an explanation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

With the possibility that I be POV myself (though I have no chips in homosexuality issues, being most definitely straight), is there any reason to believe that the Achilleus/Patroklos relationship was non sexual, and substantially different from the love we regard as normal between man and woman? The similarity of language used when Achilleus laments over Patroklos and in Andromache mourning of Hector, as well as various modern interpretations have long ago led me to believe so. Some views might even lead to conclude that the love between Akhilleus and Patroklos was greater than what any Greek man could feel for a woman, as Greek misogynistic mindset made it impossible for a man to harbor such deep feelings for a woman... but I guess this is going too far. --Svartalf 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Classical sources argue over whether they were lovers or not — Plato and Aeschylus say yes, Xenophon says no. Looking at Homer alone, I personally have trouble seeing that relationship as anything but love. Whether they were having sex or not is almost immaterial — Patroklos is the most important person in Achilles' life, full stop.

But that's my own reading of the text, and not really relevant to the issue of how the matter should be discussed in our articles here on Wikipedia. What matters as far as Wikipedia is concerned is how the scholars regard it. I think that both this page and Achilles and Patroclus are fair accounts of the scholarly views.

(Oh, and if we're declaring our biases, I guess I'll point out that I'm straight too, but have gay and lesbian friends and relatives. It shouldn't matter, but I suppose it's better to put our potential biases in the open than let them be speculated on by insinuation.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfair POV in article and Bruce Thornton's Argument

(removed edits by sock of Cretanpride; control userpage, and edits, this is an obvious case--Aldux 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)).

If, as you say, you've been following the discussion here, you'll understand why I'm submitting you to Checkuser. Apologies in advance if you are not Cretanpride, but given the sockpuppetry problems we've been having here, I feel it's best to err on the side of suspicion.

Whoever you are, we've already established that Georgiadis' book is not peer reviewed, and therefore not a reliable source. Flaceliere predates Dover and is not a good representative of modern scholarly opinion. Thornton is a current scholar and is currently cited in the article as a minority opinion. The alleged personal communication from Thornton is not verifiable, and not appropriate for use in Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Thornton isn't cited in the article at the moment, but Flaciere is. Akhilleus, didn't you say you were reading Thornton's book? Could you perhaps provide a short (one sentence or so) summary and place it in the "Scholarship and controversy" section? I think it would be good if we could replace the citation of the outdated Flaciere with the more recent Thornton.

Cretanpride's POV-pushing and sockpuppetry aside, he seems to be convinced that the article is saying that all, or most, ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality. The article says no such thing. It makes no claims about exactly how widespread homosexuality and/or pederasty were. It only says that pederasty was an important social institution, with elements appearing in multiple aspects of society (such as the military, philosophy and the arts). How do we convince our would-be Greek warrior that he's fighting his own shadow? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I thought Thornton had been included; I'll put in something suitable.

As far as convincing our POV-pusher of anything, I don't think it's possible, and I don't think we should bother trying. Let's simply continue improving the article as we see fit, and take no heed of people who act in bad faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I added a little something. I'd like to say that I find Thornton's work fairly mediocre, and though I haven't had time to consult them yet, David Cohen and Thomas Hubbard might be better sources to use for the "pederasty was an elite practice" argument--places to look are Cohen's Athenian Nation and a 1998 article by Hubbard in Arion. I'll try to get these myself, but I can't promise getting to it anytime soon. If I can get these references, it might be worth devoting a discrete section of the article to this academic argument.

If anyone feels that I have been unfair to Thornton's argument, please edit as you see fit. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Akhilleus. It looks good to me. One small question: "insulting directed at passive homosexuals"? Is there a word missing there ("insulting comments", perhaps?) or did you mean "insults"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"insults". Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Polishing up

This article has been much improved by the recent edits, and I hope that my attempt to polish things up did not interfere with anyone's recent work. A few more items need attention, perhaps too much weight is given to the OCD, for example. Haiduc 11:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, Haiduc. I made a few minor tweaks; the only significant concern I had was with the attribution of the loss of Sappho's poems to deliberate Christian efforts. Sappho#Transmission and loss of Sappho's works says this is historically unfounded; I don't know much about it myself, but if the evidence is unclear we probably shouldn't be blaming the Christians in this article.

I'll take the blame if there's too much emphasis on the OCD — I cited it extensively mainly because it was the reference work I had at hand, and because its credibility is fairly unimpeachable. I know that it probably doesn't reflect the nuances of the latest scholarship, but it's about the best single source we're going to find to prove the general scholarly consensus. Ultimately, the article should reflect and identify both the general scholarly view (which I take the OCD to represent) and the more detailed work of specialists (which you and Akhilleus have provided nicely). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that all the space given to the OCD should be maintained; first of all, because the OCD is often judged as a sort of non plus ultra on what is mainstream in scholarship, so the OCD view can be quite frequently considered the dominant view, and as such has a write to preeminence.--Aldux 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)