Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

new source on Augustan Rome

I'd like to call the attention of project members to Andrew Lintott's new book, The Romans in the Age of Augustus, available online in limited preview. I've found Lintott's other books on the Republic to be enormously valuable. This is is aimed at a non-specialist readership, and I would expect it to be highly reliable and accurate, as well as a good model for how to communicate our subject matter clearly. I've been wanting to post a little article on Lintott, but I haven't found enough info. Any potential sources for that welcome: drop me a note on my talk page. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on regarding name change for the "Julian the Apostate" article

I'm seeking comments for a consensus name change for the "Julian the Apostate" article here. If you have thoughts as to the most appropriate name for the article if it were to be changed, please let me know on the above-linked talk page. (This is not a request for a debate about such a name change but about the best possible name.) All positive ideas appreciated. -- spin^control 14:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Haiduc

Peter's account of his dealings with Haiduc (see above) - when Haiduc thought he knew better than Sommerstein - reminds me of an incident on the talk page of Greek Love. There was an argument over Mos Graecorum as defined by the author Craig Williams - Williams said it was never code for pederasty and Haiduc stupidly assumed that this meant it never referred to pederasty at all, which he was anxious to refute, so he wrote this about Greek Love in reference to Mos Graecorum (and I quote in italics):

Roman terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Way of the Greeks) predate it and have parallel significance. Though according to one modern view they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but only for a variety of other Greek practices, the term (in its plural form, More), was in use in Roman times as a pederastic reference. Cornelius Nepos applies it to the youthful indiscretions of Alcibiades, and Cicero to the pederastic relations of the Greeks in general.

Now here's the rub - all his references 1,2 and3 are to Williams i.e. he is using Williams to refute Williams (or Williams as misunderstood by Haiduc)! This was while he was working 'co-operatively' with myself and Jack-A-Roe, when he knew we were analysing his arguments closely. Imagine the misinformation this guy has peddled when he knew he wasn't being watched closely or when he was working with others he could easily fool with his empty shows of erudition. Wikipedia is creaking under the load of his contributions - most of them in other subject areas but many within the scope of this project. Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for dealing with the Haiduc legacy

I have a proposal about how best to deal with the Haiduc legacy and I hope for some input. I think we need a special project page, where we can list all the articles within the scope of this project that he has edited over the years. We can't really consider our options until we have such a list to work from - once the list is there, we might decide some articles on it are already in safe hands and we can simply ignore his edits there, and we might decide some articles should just be deleted on suspicion etc etc. But first we need the list! Haiduc has been busy here for years and I can't compile the list on my own. I'm happy to comb through his 2010 and 2009 contributions if others will volunteer to comb through the other years - one year each perhaps. Any volunteers? Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really intend to have everything hes done checked I would suggest asking someone to run a bot to identify edits to articles tagged by the project. Or at least use a tool to identify all the articles he has edited. In the mean time http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/topedits/index.php?name=Haiduc&namespace=0 gives a top 100 pages of his activity. These contain about 65% of his total edits to name space and the ones with edits in three-figures cover over a third of his name space activity between them. And namespace=0&redirects=none here is a list of pages he created.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Patricians & Patricii

Currently there are two categories referring to "Patricians": Category:Patricii and Category:Roman patricians; I think it would be nice to use one of these to contain all those who where patricians in the "Repubblican" meaning and the other those who held the title of Patricius in the Late Empire. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to edit another user's message, but fixed it so this talk page wasn't categorized in these two categories. The latter seems to include post-antiquity patricians, about which I know too little to remark. "Patricii" would then be the correct category for ancient Romans? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the opposite. According to my opinion, Category:Roman patricians should contain the Repubblican patrician (either each patrician or, far better, the patrician families), while Category:Patricii should contai the holders of the title. The reason is that some of the holders of the title are not Roman at all, such as Gregory IV of Naples and Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, so it would be strange to call them "Roman patricians". --TakenakaN (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see now. I had been puzzled at the appearance of someone named Al-Harith ibn Jabalah in either category, as this was new to me (Imperial stuff is not my thing). The Patrician (ancient Rome) article seems better on the later period, and confusing for the Republic. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with half of this: patricii is not English, and should not be used for a category at all. The holders of the office of patrician, which also include Charlemagne, should have a category of their own, however. We should not have a category of Roman patricians, because it is unmanageably large (most of the 500 years of Republican magistracies); the category of patrician families should be called that (and can have subcategories for articles on individuals: Category:Fabii and so on). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Magistri militum is not English, yet it is used in Category:Magistri militum; not all the branches of a same family were patricians, if I recall correctly. --TakenakaN (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

At least it isn't "Magister militums" (sorry, that's a reference to a war wound that only PMA may get). I see three potential categories pertaining to the content of the article Patrician (ancient Rome).

1. First (and to my mind most useful — P Aculeius, your views?) would be a category that organizes the gens pages, but I don't know how to name the category without resorting to Latin, making the name long, or committing some other fault. This would be two categories for gentes that designated each as patrician or plebeian in the Republic. The obvious problem is that some gentes had both plebeian and patrician branches. But nothing keeps an article from being placed in two categories that are at first glance mutually exclusive. If we're trying to avoid using Latin promiscuously, I suppose this category could be called something like "Patrician families of the Roman Republic". But that's long.
2. Second, the question of designating individuals by plebeian or patrician status. For me, this would be useful because so many people have mistaken ideas of what it meant to be a patrician (including Wikipedia editors). One of the best examples I can think of in the Republic is Lucius Licinius Lucullus, whose name is synonymous with elegance and luxury and cultivation, but who was a plebeian — a noble plebeian, to bring up a concept that's difficult for us. So I would find it interesting and useful to go to a category page and see the names listed as one or the other; it's actually plebeians who would constitute the more cumbersome mass. Again, this category is useful for the Republic because (except for a few individuals in adoptions) it's cut and dried: you were either a patrician, or you weren't, or you were Clodius Pulcher.
3. Third, the title patrikios as awarded in the Eastern Empire, about which I know zilch. This is clearly a different thing. I balk at locutions like "Holders of the title patrikios," so what would this category be? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Patrician (ancient Rome) already distinguishes the categories, although it needs to be extensively rewritten. I updated the list of Patrician gentes based on my notes. It includes all the gentes traditionally regarded as patrician, and notes that many of them also had plebeian members or branches. There's also a subsection with it for gentes that were probably of patrician origin, but which were generally regarded as plebeian for one reason or another. I'll be writing/revising articles on all of these eventually, but at the moment I'm in the letter "C" on the List of Roman gentes, and rather dreading the approach of the gens Claudia! I occasionally skip ahead to a gens that interests me for one reason or another, and minor patrician families tend to fit in that category.

In any case, I think that between the List of Roman gentes, which doesn't distinguish between patrician and plebeian gentes, and the article on Patricians in general, there isn't an urgent need for any separate categories. But if we want to have them, I would suggest "Patrician Families" and "Plebeian Families" as categories, or possibly "Roman Patrician Families" etc. although I prefer the former. An alternative would be "Patrician gentes" and "Plebeian gentes". I don't see any need to designate individual people as patricians or plebeians, especially when it isn't always clear to which category someone belonged. If it is apparent, one can say that "he was descended from the patrician house of the Sempronii Atratini" (linking to Sempronia (gens)), or if it's relevant to the article, mention that he was a patrician or a plebeian.

As for the late Imperial title of Patricius, I think that category (which probably should include people granted the title under the Byzantine emperors) should be titled something like "Patricius" or "Patricius (imperial title)" or "Patricius (late Roman title)". I would make Patrikios redirect to Patricius, under whatever format is chosen. P Aculeius (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: The title of patricius was conferred also in the Western Empire. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said it wasn't. P Aculeius (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong: "Third, the title patrikios as awarded in the Eastern Empire," --TakenakaN (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All he said was he wanted to discuss that topic. He never suggested that the title wasn't used in the west. P Aculeius (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But said it wrongly. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no: in the Greek-speaking East, patrikios I assumed to be a transliteration from Greek; patricius would be accurate for the Latin-speaking West where it originated. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

P Ac: Could you distinguish a little more clearly between the coverage of this topic in the article, and what categories you think ought to exist? That is, could you list what categories you think ought to be in use pertaining to Roman patricians? Of course that's also an invitation to anyone else to offer some options. TakenakaN, do you think for instance that Patricii ought to be a category only for those who were granted the title under the (later?) Empire? And what distinction would you make (if any) to categorize hereditary patricians during the Republic? . Cynwolfe (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a category for people who were members of patrician gentes would be particularly useful or practical. A category for individuals with the title of "Patricius" (or Patrikios) probably is a good idea, provided it clearly explains that it refers to the late imperial title, and not to members of patrician gentes. The title was only granted from the fourth century onwards, by which time it's difficult even to distinguish individual gentes, and no practical distinction between patricians and plebeians in the classical sense. Which, of course, is why it became a personal honor. It wasn't inherited and didn't belong to entire gentes, so the number of people with this title will be quite small compared with the number of patricians in the original sense of the word.

I don't think there's any need to create categories for patrician and plebeian gentes. The article on Patricians already provides a list of the known patrician gentes, and while it probably includes most, if not all patrician families, we can't even hope to arrive at a substantially complete list of plebeian ones. It's simpler just to say that any gens that wasn't patrician was, by definition, plebeian. If these categories already exist, it's not a serious problem to update them. But they don't need to be created if they haven't been already. P Aculeius (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a sheaf of categories, one for each patrician gens, as one way (I don't see any other) to reduce the Category:Republican patricians to manageable size. I don't think it's useful as a mass of several thousand articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

@Aculeius: the article on the Roman consul list all of the Roman consuls, should we delete the Category:Imperial Roman consuls? No, because a list does not remove the need for a category. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I thought I made it clear that there was no need to delete existing categories. I simply stated that there was no need to create new ones for topics that were already covered (or which eventually would be covered) in other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we should keep a coherent approach. If the lists make the categories useless, all the categories covered by a list should be removed; otherwise the existence of a list, even the most complete one, is not a reason to bar the creation of a category. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with T — that's kinda what I was getting at with my question above. I guess there is an overlap at times between the purpose of a category and the purpose of a list — or, to put it another way, I am sometimes unclear about the purpose of categories. I thought the purpose of a category was so a researcher could go to the category page (perhaps by clicking at the bottom of an article page) and find related articles or topics. Therefore, while List of Roman gentes makes a useful article page, I wouldn't propose an article listing individual patricians (of either Republican or Imperial stripe), because that would be tedious to create, not to mention an endless task. I would find it useful, however, to go to a self-generating category page to see what individuals have been categorized as "Patricians of the Roman Republic" or "Plebeians of the Roman Republic." (Not that I'm arguing for that; I'm just working through the question.) The Septentrionalian point about the potential size of such a category is recognized, but I guess I'm not seeing what's wrong with a large category if it's clearly and usefully defined. Category:Dog breeds is a huge category, but if I were researching dog breeds, that's what I'd want: an index of all the "Dog breeds" that have Wikipedia articles. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with a huge category? It's impossible to navigate. See how long it takes you to see what the subcats for Category:Dog breeds are - and then think about someone with a slower connection. (I don't care how slow you are; the fact you contributed a paragraph shows that many are slower.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following this. There are subcategories for "Dog breeds," but how do I know all the breeds have even been placed in a subcat? Categorization can be capricious, because sometimes you have to read the article carefully to see all the potential fits. A large and simple-to-define category like "Dog breeds" has an alphabetical index in addition to subcats. Or subdogs. But it may be, as I said above, that I don't understand the purpose of categories. Perhaps my use of categories when I'm looking for stuff is idiosyncratic. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what's the deal? Which category shall we keep for the holders of the title? Personally, I am in favour of Patricii, both to be in line with other late Roman offices/titles categories, and because it omits the "Roman" avoiding any problems with the Byzantine patricians. Constantine ✍ 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my opinion, too.--TakenakaN (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone opposing the use of the category "Patricii" for holders of the Late Roman Empire title? --TakenakaN (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a real distinction that is currently elided:

• Category:Roman patricians is the counterpart to Category:Ancient Roman plebeians, both of which should be subcategories of Category:Social classes in ancient Rome. This refers to the patrician/plebeian status of gentes in the Republic and early Empire.
• Category:Patricii should refer to holders of the title found in numerous articles under its Greek transliteration patrikios, and should be a subcategory of Category:Ancient Roman titles. This pertains to the later Empire and is a title bestowed on individuals. The category now insists on being empty and diverts to the former. Clearly Late Imperial people with Greek names ≠ Romans (as in actually from Rome) of patrician descent in the Republic. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be any objection on this issue, let's go ahead. "Roman patricians" for the patrician class, and "Patricii" for the office-holders. Constantine ✍ 13:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, there is a number of medieval "patricians of the Romans", like Alberic I of Spoleto or, more famously, Charlemagne. Should a new category be created for them? Constantine ✍ 13:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, but it sounds like a tricky question as to where to draw the line from late antiquity to early medieval. And also seems to have to do with claims to be carrying on the "Roman empire." The categories as discussed above will need notes at the top making a clear and easy-to-follow distinction, with each pointing to the other. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, Charlemagne was the first to claim or be given the title of patricius not by the Emperor, but by some other authority, and this was at the close of the 8th century, so the line is rather clear. Most of these "patricians of the Romans" were named either by the Pope or by the Roman urban assemblies. So perhaps a category "Medieval patricians of Rome" would be OK? We could also further disambiguate things by moving the gentes category to "Ancient Roman patricians"? These are just suggestions... Constantine ✍ 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Roman exiles

I usually stay away from categorization, but I created a new one that I wanted to call attention to: Category:Ancient Roman exiles. It's now one of the many subcategories for Category:Exiles by nationality. Ovid, for instance, had formerly been categorized generally as "Exiles", and Cicero hadn't been in the "Exiles" category at all. It has only seven pages at present, and there should be many more; the only Augustan exile in it is Ovid. If this rings any bells for you because of biographical articles you've worked on, I just wanted to encourage adding pages to the category, which is a fairly major feature of Roman political culture. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

excellent idea. Just to pick some low-hanging fruit, I added Titus Annius Milo to the category. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fans of I, Claudius can probably come up with several in a blink. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

These are mostly internal exiles, like Ovid. Are the Russians sent to Siberia under the comparable cat?

Why Tiberius, for Heaven's sake? Retirement (even suggested retirement, which is conjecture) is not exile. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge of how the concept of exile is used in Russia, but it's irrelevant to exilium and relegatio in ancient Rome. Both of these were legal penalties, and I don't think we need to distinguish between the two for general purposes, since scholars regularly translate both as "exile" unless they need to make a technical distinction. A Roman not allowed by law to live in Rome (or the specified radius around Rome) most certainly considered himself an exile; he was considered an exile by other Romans, and is considered an exile in modern scholarship. So I'm missing your point. Technically, Ovid's sentence was relegatio, which I think (without looking it up) meant his wife got to maintain his property and his children their citizenship; exilium meant you lost your property too, and maybe the third-generation rule applied as with proscriptions (sons and grandsons stripped of rights). Not sure.

If you're going to try to argue that Ovid wasn't in exile, you're swimming upstream. The burden would be on you to produce some evidence, since the "mystery" of Ovid's exile is one of the great tropes of Roman literary history. (Thibault even called his book The Mystery of Ovid's Exile, but uses the English "relegation" throughout for scholarly precision.)

Self-imposed exile as a result of proscriptions surely counts as exile in Roman terms, since during the Republic capital punishment regularly (that is, other than times of civil war and proscription) took the form of exile for those of senatorial and equestrian rank. Sertorius was proscribed, not exiled, so in a sense his exile was self-imposed — but he is regularly referred to as in exile, particularly during the time when he was deprived of his base in Spain and yet couldn't return to Rome. It would be a distinction without a meaningful difference to exclude the proscribed who remained abroad from the category of exiles.

As for TIberius, yes, that would be a question of self-imposed "exile," and I don't know the material well enough to judge whether the scholarship calls his withdrawal from the political scene "exile." If the word is wrong in the article, you should of course correct it, which would then lead logically to removing the page from the category.

My sense is that the modern categories at times use "exile" as a synonym for "expatriate." I'm not well informed enough to judge. "Exiles by nationality" has many subcategories, and you may wish to examine them one-by-one for rationales of inclusion. At any rate, it's irrelevant to exile in ancient Rome.

What I forgot to mention is that exile/banishment is of course also a feature of criminal justice and political life in ancient Greece. A category "Greek exiles" exists, not specifically "ancient Greek," but that isn't something I can pursue intelligently.

Incidentally, the Celts had something that seems kinda like banishment but more like excommunication, according to Caesar, who notes it in the famous passage about the druidry in Book 6 of the BG. I don't think the Greco-Roman sources preserve any specific instances that would illuminate the Celtic practice, but it's an interesting reminder of the fine line between religion and criminal justice in general in archaic law — the concept of the homo sacer (an article that needs attention) can be seen as a sort of archaic antecedent to proscription. As Cicero whines incessantly, exile is a form of civic death; the ancient Greeks and Romans responded to forced separation from their patria much differently from the way we rootless individuals might today, and that's why exile was used as a substitute for execution in capital crimes. We might think it a mild substitute; they didn't, though obviously preferable to death.

So I don't understand the grounds for challenging the validity of the category; in the Republic, "Ancient Roman exiles" are people who were condemned to exilium or relegatio or who were proscribed and chose to exile themselves, substituting exile for execution as was traditional (hence scholars call them exiles). The process changes when an emperor starts doing the banishing, but a citizen whose rights were curtailed and who was not allowed by the emperor to return to metropolitan Rome was in exile, whether he was confined to some rock in the Mediterranean or wallowing in sumptuous digs in Anatolia (in the manner of Caepio during the late Republic). Exile in ancient Rome meant exclusion from a perimeter around Rome (and/or confinement to a specific place outside that perimeter), not expulsion outside any nebulous "borders" around the Empire. Some articles might identify "exile" too loosely and without proper citation, and these should be edited. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, instead of going off the top of my head, I should've pointed here, where it is explained that in fact all exile was voluntary and self-imposed, a traditionally accepted means of avoiding execution for a capital crime, which includes the proscribed who remained abroad. A person facing trial could choose exile even before a conviction. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ovid, like Dostoyevsky, who was sent to Siberia (as a commutation of execution, gruesomely underlined), could not safely go back to the capital. Tiberius could; as far as the evidence goes, he was just living abroad, like Atticus. Therefore Ovid and Dostoyevsky should be treated alike - and I don't really care which way as long as we are consistent; and Tiberius should not be included in the same cat tree as either of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you should edit Tiberius if you find the sourcing suspect for the remark about exile; I'm not going to, because I don't have an interest in Tiberius. You'd have to explain to me what you mean by Ovid and Dostoyevsky should be 'treated alike.' The exiled person is categorized by his nationality, and I doubt that the conditions of 'exile' are defined in the same way for all 60 national categories that exist. Ovid belongs in the same category as Cicero, even though the one is relegatio and the other interdictio aquae et ignis. They're both "Ancient Roman exiles," as exile is defined in relation to ancient Rome, not somewhere else. Cynwolfe 01:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't have to; whatever there was is no longer in the text, so I removed the cat as unsupported. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiduc's exile

More interesting than the exile of Ovid, Tiberius et al. is Haiduc's exile from Wikipedia - banned indefinitely. He edited a lot of Rome/Greece articles with a view to promoting pederasty as a beautiful lifestyle. His warrant for this came largely from the dubious authority of ancient scholars (a bit like relying on communists for an interpretation of the proletariat's role in history) and he is now known to have a record of misrepresenting sources. This is a major problem for this project. Haiduc's citations need to be reviewed in all articles where he has been busiest and even many where he has made small contributions. Yet the problem is so large, the temptation is to ignore it and just hope it goes away. It won't. Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we're full of ideological factions. The professional gays are no worse that the professional Greeks, Turks, Persians, Orthodox, neopagans, or Muslims, or for that matter, the professional anti-communists. All of them lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Amphitryoniades, do you have particular articles you'd suggest people take a look at? Given my heterosexual-female interest in what the lit-crit folk call "Roman masculinities," I've rashly entered into Wiki-discussions related to pederasty in the ancient world, and one feels a bit recruited to support a particular POV. On the other hand, isn't it OK to represent what the ancient sources say about various sexualities, even if these conflict with our contemporary morality? I happen to find Catullus's jocular attitude in Carmen 56 repulsive, and elsewhere I wonder whether his beloved Juventius was really in a position to consent, but he says what he says. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty is an historical phenomenon and it should be studied as such. I have no problems contemplating the subject in those terms. It was also part of the aesthetic experience of the ancients, as per Catullus, and I have no problems engaging emotionally with the subject on those terms either. However, the practise of pederasty is a human rights abuse, same as slavery, and I resent any attempt to revive it. My responses to pederasty are a complex juggling act. That's one of the challenges of studying this stuff. Unfortunately some people are not capable of that complexity. That includes children and apparently old scholars who are happy to take a tired attitude to the whole issue. An obvious propagandist like Haiduc has been allowed to edit without close observation for too long. His citations are regularly wrong everytime I have encountered them. We all make mistakes but his were habitual. I suspect some of you put up with him because occasionally he came up with fascinating bits of information that the project might not otherwise collect - but the cost has been terrible in the alienation of other contributors and in the proliferation of misinformation. I suggest everyone should check the articles within their own area of specialty for citations put there by Haiduc. There is a very good chance the citation is wrong or misleading. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion, and what you say about the fine line between study and advocacy in such areas for some people. Maybe if you find troubled articles within this discipline, and would like further input, you could list some of the articles by name here. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not appreciate his passion. What ever happened to not editing articles with which one is emotionally involred? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The two places where I can remember encountering Haiduc are Greek love of which Amphitryoniades is well aware and Talk:Troilus#Odd_sentence and the following thread where Haiduc considers an expert on Greek theatre to be homophobic because he describes Achilles as a "sexual predator" in the context of Servius' version of the story of Troilus. I don't knwo whether anyoen wants to disappear this accusation.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the question is, how does it illuminate either Mycenaean or Homeric culture to describe Achilles as a "sexual predator"? Does such a comment inform us, as an encyclopedia should, about historical attitudes toward sexuality? The Greek-theatre scholar's remark should be presented as a modern counterbalance, not in lieu of describing Greek warrior mores. I say this because I too participated briefly in discussion at Greek love. (And again, if it's necessary, let me assert that as a monogamous heterosexual woman, I have no dog in this fight.) Some time ago, when I was contributing to an article that led to the "love of boys" theme in Republican and Augustan poetry, I stumbled onto the article Greek love and pointed out that in trying to explain the concept, what was missing was the Roman testimonia. The Romans had that famous love-hate thing for Greek culture, and Greek eros in its various forms is part of it. Whatever the social realities, the love of boys was a theme in Roman poetry that explored Philhellenism as a lifestyle; it was an aspect of self-consciously 'greekified' elite literary culture. I mean, Fabius Maximus criticized Scipio Africanus for his "Greek" lifestyle — such a criticism may or may not have included boys, depending on the individual.

The homoerotic element (which was very much thought of as "Greek love," and was always directed at boys, pueri, not one's coevals, which remained a very private matter) seems to have been introduced into Latin poetry by none other than Quintus Lutatius Catulus, grand optimate and consul with Marius in 102 BC. I've mentioned our more familiar Catullus (Gaius Valerius double-L, that is) and Juventius already. The point is, the article asserted that "Greek love" was a modern concept; when I pointed out that no, this was certainly a theme in Latin literature, Amphitryoniades seemed determined to suppress any presentation of this, despite sources. I didn't pursue the matter, because I was only looking for a link while contributing to the section on Lutatius Catulus's poetry. But Courtney, the editor of Fragmentary Latin Poets, notes: "The willingness of a member of the highest Roman aristocracy to toss off imitations of Hellenistic sentimental erotic poetry (homosexual at that) is a new phenomenon in Roman culture at this time."

Now, to me this is of historical interest, but it became apparent on the "Greek love" talk page that there was no presenting this as historical phenomenon: the pro-pederasty camp would seize on it as 'evidence' that our contemporary prohibitions on sex with minors is unnatural and hypocritical (about which I wish to say, "'Greek love' as conceived by the Roman elite was utterly artificial and 'socially constructed'," and also "I love hypocrisy, without which civilization is impossible"); the anti-pederasty camp, with whom I am in moral accord, nevertheless seemed completely unable to detach and view the Roman phenomenon objectively in its social context, instead trying to wish it away by quibbling over exact words. To me this is intellectual censorship, the threat of which generally makes me behave quite insanely, to the extent of having sabotaged two careers through rabid adherence to it, but I pick my battles and so I departed the field of "Greek love." So while I feel certain that Haiduc deserved his banishment, and it's the height of absurdity to offer precedents from antiquity for what's right or wrong now, the proper response is not to pretend that ancient Greeks and Romans didn't sanction the sexual use of boys; the Romans prided themselves on their Greek-like sophistication for doing so. I might also reference Bernard Sergent, L'homosexualité initiatique dans l'Europe ancienne (Paris, 1986), just to implicate the Germani et Celtae as habitual pederasts too, under elaborate ritual justification. But moral condemnation of practices from 2,000 years ago strikes me as somewhat belated, and not purposeful in an encyclopedia. I prefer to reserve my horror for U.S. senators in the 2000s of the Christian era. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the reference to Achilles as a sexual predator refers not to Mycenean or Homeric times but to the story as told by Servius in the Roman Imperial era and to its presumed precedents in archaic and classical Greece when parents were most definitely aware of the possibility of their sons falling to sexual predators. (Hence the institution of the pedagogue.)

Greek love as a topic can certainly be treated in an encyclopedic manner. But it requires the use of sources which discuss things objectively and trace the development of the idea through the ages. Greek love is after all not about what the Greeks did but about how people in other cultures have chosen to interpret the Greek practice either as a model they want to emulate or as a euphemism for things they dare not name explicitly. ISTR that at one point the main source for the article was a pamphlet from the early days of the "paedophile" movement before that coinage had been adopted by the tabloid press. (I can remember one of my classics teachers being seemingly as annoyed by the abuse of the Greek language as by the practice being advocated.)--Peter cohen (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would call Achilles a sexual predator. Regarding Greek Love, Peter, it requires original research - there is no scholarly overview of the subject (it's a HUGE subject). Maybe you should try publishing something about it. In that case, I'd be happy to use it to edit GL. Till then, GL is beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia and it should be nominated for deletion on that basis. Incidentally, you dealt with Haiduc very deftly. I'll post here regarding any Haiduc articles I need help with, though it's hard to know exactly where members of this project sit sometimes. Thanks. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a point of view; it is a point of view about one version of the Achilles myth, which is not Honer. Now that Haiduc is no longer expanding the list of ossues here, would all of you with axes to grind please back off, and let classicists see what the secondary sources actually say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiduc....Haiduc?....headache!

First let me just say...ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Yes....something must be done to correct the mass of POV, OR and just plane crap the "Person" added to wiki in many history articles.

My encounters with him have lead me to worry abit about the backlash from project LGBT studies. Such is what i have encountered before when dealing with the Haiduc article.....and I am a long standing member of that project as well. There is also another member who has worked extenslively with the member with a very similar agenda. Now that Haiduc is gone I feel much weight off the both this and the Rome Project.

here is just a small quick list of articles that may need to be attended to from the influence of haiduc and his personal pederasty project;

Greek love (of course)

Platonic love

Pederasty in ancient Greece

Harmodius and Aristogeiton

Alcibiades the Schoolboy

Hubris

Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity Deleted

Symposium

Harmodius and Aristogeiton (sculpture) (This or the other article should be merged together)

Hoop rolling (I am disgusted by this persons contributions. PLEASE help remove the obvious and completely inappropriate sexuality of this article.)

Narcissus (mythology)

Ganymede (mythology)

Amores (Lucian)

Spartan pederasty Has been merged

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a list. Glancing at Narcissus (mythology) and its talk page, I do have a concern that we not confuse pederasty, a sorta useful term for certain sexual behaviors in ancient Greece, and pedophilia, a modern psychological term that labels both the desire and behavior as abnormal, morally wrong, etc. We do have to be clear that in ancient Greece and Rome, it was considered natural to find pubescents of both sexes attractive ("the flower of youth" as a trope meant tweens and teens). And the "Greeks" (always a problematic word) differed from the Romans. Immoderate sexual behaviors were condemned in antiquity, but this had to do with self-mastery and decorum and managing your time and resources wisely; getting addled over boys is universally condemned, but not (I regret to say) using a boy sexually. This fact seems to disturb some people, as if historical accuracy is a form of advocacy.

I take a stand (which is what I would prefer over the dark and ambiguous 'where members of this project sit' above) against the sexual abuse of minors in the here and now. This does not require intellectual dishonesty about the historical record. Or let me put it another way: if I write an article about a religious festival in antiquity, and that festival features the sacrifice of a puppy, am I advocating animal cruelty if I include that? Am I supposed to suppress that piece of information, just omit it? Am I supposed to display my personal piety by labeling it animal cruelty? "This festival included animal cruelty in the form of the sacrifice of a puppy." That would be an injection of non-neutral POV on my part. Was it considered animal cruelty in antiquity? How does one understand blood sacrifice? Trying to answer that question (via the scholarship) is infinitely more useful in providing a perspective on ancient life than simply placing an easy modern label on it.

But as far as I can see, neither pederasty nor pedophilia has anything to do with the Narcissus myth. What concerns me is that on the Narcissus talk page, there also seems to be a confusion about or resistance to the idea that the myth has a homoerotic element. Narcissus's relation to eros is very much at issue, and even Ovid, unusually heterosexual among classical Latin poets, emphasizes that Narcissus resists both hetero- and homosexual entanglement; his rejection of all eros is his "sin." There's a huge difficulty here: gay men today must constantly fight against a perception among a significant number of straight people that pedophilia is an inherent part of homosexuality. It's homophobic in modern society to assume that gay men are after your sons. The matter is much trickier in antiquity, where as far as we can determine most same-sex relationships or "hook ups" were not between coevals. Certainly as depicted in Latin literature, most "positive" sex between males occurred between an older man and a boy (by "positive," I mean happy, delightful, fun from the POV of the older man who writes the poem); the nastier, threatening kind involved anal or oral aggression against an equal you wanted to insult.

What's most wrong with the Narcissus article is its un-scholarly, storytelling tone, which does indeed try to convey the message that "Narcissus was wrong to reject his male lovers." (In fact, the myth of Narcissus has to be understood first in a religious context, specifically the mystery religions; the literary treatments are shaped by the themes of the individual authors.) I guess what I'm trying to say is that neutrality is the only cure; advocacy from either side will say more about us than the "them" of antiquity, and won't produce a good encyclopedia article. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support all of the above. Paul August ☎ 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really up for this project, but out of curiosity I have looked at some of the lists of this guy's contributions and and specifically at the article on hoop rolling (I was puzzled why it was in a list of articles mainly of a sexual nature, and even more puzzled when I found that he'd made scores of separate edits to just the one article). But the mention of pederasty in the context of hoop rolling in Ancient Greece consists of a single sentence, and when I checked on Google Books I found that the source cited (a history of the Ancient Olympics) indeed discusses pederastic courtship on the page in question and mentions gifts of hoops to boys, just as indicated by the article on hoop rolling. A full preview of that page was not available, but I was able to get the gist of it by searching for several related terms and finding some of them on that page.

Having not read the entire book, I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it doesn't look like an advocacy book. On Amazon.com, the publisher's information included several statements praising the book by major newspapers and magazines, although one of the two reviews did suggest that the book dwelt unnecessarily on nakedness and/or sexuality in the Ancient Olympics. Nonetheless, the assertion being challenged here is supported by something that appears to be a scholarly source. It looks reasonable and its importance to the article doesn't seem to have been exaggerated.

Obviously the contributions of someone with such an obsessive interest in sexual practices that many of us find distasteful ought to be carefully scrutinized. But at the same time these contributions need to be evaluated in context and not simply excised because they're distasteful. To the extent that they're supported by scholarly sources and not refuted by better sources, not exaggerated or presented with an obvious editorial bias, they ought not to be removed. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

P Aculeius, yes! I forgot that about hoop rolling (which also puzzled me, but I got sidetracked before I checked it out). It comes to mind now that there are depictions on vase paintings with hoops, and that sometimes roosters are involved too. (Seriously.) Cynwolfe (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I wasn't particularly interested in the connection between hoop rolling and pederasty... I just looked at the article because I was surprised to find it on the list of his major contributions. As distasteful as I find the subject (pederasty, not hoop rolling), its significance didn't seem to be overstated in the article, and it was supported by a source which, until proven otherwise, appears to be reliable. It might be mentioned, however, that from what I could make out, the book says that wooden hoops were one of several types of gifts typically given to boys by older men in the course of pederastic courtship (I believe furry little animals were also mentioned). There was nothing special about hoops; they were just something that boys liked to play with. P Aculeius (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The hoop rolling article simply needed to be checked for accuracy and possible agenda driven editing. If it is indeed fine then don't feel obligated to edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not about an uncomfortable subject

As a member of LBGT studies I recognise the importance of not editing out just what makes you feel uncomfortable. The subjects don't need to be purged but simply double checked when time permits. Haiduc is not coming back so there is no rush to clean-up, but clean-up is exactly what I suggest and nothing more.

I have found references to many of these articles that are not supportive of the claims in the article, are self published and are fring theory not accepted by mainstream science. that doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned, just not written as accepted fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I feel it's important to look closely at references as I have also found references that are not only unacceptable as a citation on wiki but are hidden advertising for getaways to locations that have "Boys town" theme in locations notoriuos for pedophelia activity. So in a way, it is to make sure that pederasty and pedophelia are not being blurred into a single meaning to promote a sexual activity not recognised by any community as legitmate lifestyle...or even legal.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that there are some references that are unacceptable because of non english source and at least one that did not support a claim that a hoop was a regular pederastic gift. Seemed to be pushing an idea not substantiated by english sources. The article may have been a push to link the childrens toy in a sexual way that is not valid. Yes there are depictions from ancient Greece but these are depicting gods and demigods and not , for example, a mortal human. --Amadscientist (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed this article in the last couple of days, I'm concerned that the dozen edits you made to it today do not improve it at all. You removed illustrations that appeared quite appropriate to the discussion in which they appeared, stating that they did not; you removed a quotation and the source it came from because the source was written by a Frenchman. That is not an appropriate reason for excising material from an article.

Your assertion that "at least one source did not support the claim that a hoop was a regular pederastic gift" concerns me for several reasons. First, it seems to misstate the assertion in the article, that gifts of hoops (amongst other items) were given by older men to children with whom they were involved in such a relationship. The gift itself was not claimed to be pederastic, but a token of affection. Second, the tone of the language did not appear to be "pushing" anything. Third, the source for the claim was an English source, "The ancient Olympics By Nigel Jonathan Spivey; p48"; and it does appear to support that claim, as I previously posted in this discussion. The distinction between mortals and demigods in Greek art may be splitting hairs; I'll let someone else address that. And lastly, the fact that some sources do not contain the same information is not itself grounds for removing information properly cited to other sources.

In my opinion, most if not all of today's edits to this article do not improve it, are not supported by good editorial practice, and should be reverted. P Aculeius (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the attempt to distinguish divinities from humans is questionable given that the picture of Ganymede is of a then mortal boy with love gifts customary in the artist's era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs)

Let me chime in here to agree with P Aculeius against Amadscientist on an important point: non-English sources are in no way per se illegitimate for WP:RS purposes! Yes, it can be a headache for those who don't know the language, and, yes, Wikipedia guidelines therefore say it's preferable to find a source in the encyclopedia's language, but the important scholarship in Classics is spread out in many languages and not always duplicated in English. Can you imagine if other languages' Wikipedias never cited English sources! Certainly language of cited source must not, by itself, be a reason for deleting content. Wareh (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 20:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Amadscientist's point is that French is unacceptable coming from Haiduc. I think that is a highly valid point - somebody would have to verify Haiduc's French before I would be willing to accept it. If someone else cited a French source, that's not a problem. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree. French is not an obscure language, and most of the relevant secondary sources (and almost all the primary sources) have been translated into English anyway. If he misrepresents his source, correct it, as with sources in English. (It would be useful for our readers to cite English versions, but that's a secondary point.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak French. Can you verify the cited source for us? I've spent years cleaning up Haiduc's loaded edits and I don't want to chase down yet another one if I can help it. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The citations in question have nothing to do with Greece or with pederasty; The longer one is in fact a direct quotation of the PD English version of Chateaubriand, as a moment's work at Google Books would have shown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the citation has nothing to do with Greece or pederasty. No problems with that one. However, the section on ancient Greece looks very much like a Haiduc edit and I quote: hoop driving is an attribute of Ganymede, often depicted on Greek vase paintings from the fifth c. BCE. These are usually in the context of ancient Greek pederastic traditons.<ref:The ancient Olympics By Nigel Jonathan Spivey; p48:ref> Now that is loaded - clink on the pederasty link and treat yourself to some pederastic porn. Pederasty is connected to hoops via Ganymede and then Spivey's book is cited in support of what exactly? Haiduc often clutched at straws to link every article he could to his nest of pederasty articles, often twisting the meaning. Here is the article as he first set it up: [1] It's pretty plain that his intention all along was to make pederasty a key feature of the article through Ganymede. He then gradually builds the article to make it more relevant to children. What kind of mind works like that? Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what the article said before being revised:

The hoop is also found in Greek mythological contexts. A bronze hoop was one of the toys of the infant Dionysus,[6] and hoop driving is an attribute of Ganymede or other male adolescent figures, often depicted on Greek vase paintings from the fifth c. BCE. These are usually in the context of pederastic courtship, as gifts of hoops were conventional tokens of affection from an erastes to an eromenos.[7]

That doesn't sound like an advertisement for anything. It doesn't seem to be pushing a point of view. Whether hoops in Greek vase paintings are usually in the context of pederastic courtship may well be debated, but the rest of the sentence seems to be supported by the source cited. The edits made this morning, apart from removing a perfectly useful and relevant illustration, also de-emphasize what seemed to be a reasonable assertion, without actually demonstrating that it was wrong or given undue significance. I think that the article as it stood on February 3 was fine. P Aculeius (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You left out the links (I have re-inserted them for you) - all three link to the same pornographic picture. I guess that's why Amadscientist removed them. I don't advocate deleting this article - it can be saved with a bit of re-editing of the Ancient Greece section. Each of the articles Haiduc created has to be treated on its merits. Some are beyond rescue. All were set up for the same purpose. Also, you say the "the sentence seems to be supported by the source cited." The problem is indeed seems. Has he got the right text, the right page number, and does it really support what he says? Haiduc had no interest in accuracy. I don't have the cited text, otherwise I'd check it myself. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether the linked articles need to be re-evaluated or changed is a separate issue. But the links don't lead to a "pornographic picture". They lead to an article that contains several examples of what are interpreted as pederastic courtship in Greek vase art. Describing the article (or even the pictures contained therein) as "pornographic" is a significant exaggeration, and appears to constitute a value judgment about both the article and the illustrations. This appears to be contrary to Wikipedia's policy about maintaining a neutral point of view.

As for the source cited above, there is a preview on Google Books, and while the full text of page 48 is not available, you can see enough of it to figure out what it says by searching the book for key words. It's the correct book, the correct page number, and the text on the page seems to say what the article claims. P Aculeius (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the image. I replaced it with a similar image from another Greek vase (so that the history of the hoop in ancient Greece would be preserved) but the image of Ganymede was a Haiduc lean towards the pederastic legend of Zeus and Ganymede that I found unnecessary for this article. The myth did not fit when vases also depicted actual youths at play. The quote about the vases in context to pederastic traditions was preserved as well. I simply took away the slant to which I felt the mentions gloryfied the relationship instead of simply noting or discussing the information in an encyclopedic nature.

There are many people that feel strongly about the deletion of references in a foreign language. I do not when it is on an English Wiki. It is a good guideline to follow on certain article and where cvertain editors are known for agenda editing and hiding social/politiical messages or ideology through editing. I am suspicious of any reference I cannot read. That alone does not warrent it's removal....but as another editor has stated, Haiduc as well as some editors use non english sources because they have to really stretch to find anything. If other editors feel strongly about returning the sources, I would object, but would be willing to allow them to stand if they can be varyfied. As for the other source, it was removed because it did not support the whole claim as many of Haiduc's references stretch out the cited claim into observation or speculation and appeared to be pushing an agenda.

I am glad to see so many people with varying opinions and doing so in such a civil manner. We don't have to agree. We just have to work together. I have made the changes I feel were justifyed. Another may well see things that can be saved or altered and stay within subject and remain accurate to history.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be no disagreements about the nature of Haiduc's activities here - he has been banned indefinitely by a community that is incredibly tolerant. Regarding the 'pornography' of this picture, Aculeius, I'll quote from my Concise Ox. Dictionary: Explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity in literature, films etc, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings. That vase painting is not a work of art but a record of a sexual gesture familiar to pederasts. It is a confronting picture for someone who is researching children's toys. One of the issues raised by the Haiduc legacy is the lack of thematic structure in this encyclopaedia. There should be a 'sanitized' non-confronting article about Greek pederasty to which articles can be linked without offense to most readers and it should include links to other more detailed and explicit material for those who want to enquire further. That is something that this project should be aiming for. I am waiting for some leadership from senior members of this project but all I see is a community in denial. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "Santizing" is the best approach on Wiki. However I understand what is being said and I agree with another member that suggested that the Hoop rolling article may represent two seperate articles. An article on the modern reference and a "see also" article on the History non Ancient hoop bowling.

I would also disagree with the suggestion (respectfuly) that the vase images from Ancient greece were ever vreated as erotic art. Indeed the main emphasis of the Greeks is less sexual and more love of the idea of beauty. It sounds convoluted, but the traditions of these ancients cannot be seen with modern eyes in a sexaul context so broadly painted. That is to say the sexuality of the image is a perspective to the individual today and how they see the naked form. But why does an article that well be used in K through 12 grades have to have all these ancient details about the sexual activity of an ancient god in an ancient myth? Why is the article Symposium centered around the writings of Plato? There are different uses not just different definitions and seperate articles would be the most sensible thing to do with a disimbaguation page if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure sanitizing is not the best approach on Wikipedia, and that is policy. Those who wish a Bowdlerized encyclopaedia should feel free to write one - elsewhere and among others.

As for the rest of this, I suspect both of you go beyond the evidence - we do not know, and I see no way we could know; we have the vase, and no evidence of how it was used or who used it. Nor is it isolated; many vases were not exhibited in the 19th century; I particularly recall one displaying satyrs with free-floating members. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been substantially revised and three of the six illustrations that were there on February 3 have been removed. One of them has been replaced, but I fail to see any advantage to substituting [[File:Eromenos hoop Staatliche Antikensammlungen 2674 n2.jpg|thumb|left|230px|A greek youth depicted playing with a hoop]] for [[File:Berlin Painter Ganymedes Louvre G175.jpg|thumb|left|230px|Ganymede holding a hoop]], apart from trying to "sanitize" the article so that relevant information is harder to find.

The pictures [[Image:Dræggenstablå.jpg|thumb|150px|Boys rolling metal hoops]] and [[File:The advantage of taking a shortcut through a court Punch 6-4-1859.gif|thumb|300px|left|Caricature of children interfering with a pedestrian]] were also deleted from the article, although they seemed like perfectly good illustrations that improved the article.

As for whether the vase art is "pornographic", you rely on the definition, Explicit description or exhibition of sexual activity in literature, films etc, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings. In order to show that the art fits this definition, you must make a subjective judgment about the intention of the artist. I don't think it would be possible to develop a consensus that these paintings were not aesthetic. But they also don't explicitly depict or exhibit sexual activity. In some of the art the men are clearly gesturing toward the boys' genitals. That just doesn't constitute explicit depiction or exhibition of sexual activity.

Moreover, as the topic in which those pictures appear is about sexual relationships, it makes absolutely no sense to remove illustrations merely because they imply sexual relationships between the figures pictured. Just to be clear, the article in which the pictures you've challenged as "pornographic" appear is not the article on hoop rolling, although the discussion of hoop rolling in the context of pederastic relationships in ancient Greece does link to that article.

I really think that the changes made to the article on hoop rolling, particularly the removal of illustrations, should be reviewed by someone else with no stake in the outcome of this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:DUE. Is the fact that hoops may have been one of the gifts given by ancient pederasts to youths they fancied of sufficient relevance ot the subject of hoops to merit inclusion in an article of that size. I strongly doubt that it is. So it isnt sanitising to remove the mention. (Do the articles on doves and cocks also mention that they were pederastic love gifts. I suspect not.) The flip side of this question is whether the fact that ancient Greek pictures of children playing with hoops are likely to show them naked mean that we should not include such pictures in the article. To that I reply WP:NOTCENSORED.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

An introductory article to Greek and Roman pederasty is needed for articles like Hoop rolling, where the reader of an article like that will not be confronted by pederasty in the raw. This is not Bowdlerizing the encyclopaedia. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can say that Aculeius feels strongly about his view. However, much of his claims have little merit, as we all have the right and the need to continue to work on these articles. Nothing is set in stone and no article is ever "completed". I am communticating my concerns and I don't see how making this a bitter argument and telling others to edit elsewhere is constructive.

Look....there are SEVERAL depictions of hoop rolling at Wikicommons. It becomes a simple matter of which is the correct image to use. Why do you object to the change and can you justify the inclusion of the ganymede legend to the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with what Amphitryoniades said last here, and also a remark by Mad Scientist, with a slight qualification. I too agree that the innocent Hoop rolling, which a very young student might well look at for research on the everyday life of children in a bygone era, doesn't need to be burdened by pederasty. This I don't consider censorship, but common-sense protocol. (I may seem to contradict myself here, but if we all start out with a position and never alter it, the notion of achieving consensus means nothing.) The pederastic element is not essential to the main article on hoop rolling, and I actually don't think it's ever wrong to take into consideration who might be reading the article and why, because that's the key to understanding what content needs to be there, and what's superfluous.

I do, however, think the alien cultural element is interesting and encyclopedic. The solution here might be a cross-reference to a little article on Hoop rolling in Greece and Rome, or Hoop rolling in anitquity, which fits well in Category:Ancient Greek and Roman leisure. (The Romans seem to have thought hoop rolling was kinda greeky and not what a real Roman guy should do, no doubt because of its homoerotic connotations and because it didn't help you learn how to beat up on other people.) We seem to have only a few articles on Greek and Roman games and sports as played by everyday people in everyday life. The pederastic theme (which as far as I can see is beyond contesting) would then belong there, not in a general article on hoop rolling. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree the subject should not be censored and that the pederastic element is genuine and historicaly accurate. I feel we may be gaining a consensus to split the article and create a seperate page. I feel no need to merge any information after the split to existing articles and that the subjects can be expanded and allow both, an unsantized article that fully explores the history of the object and game as well as an appropriate article for the contemporary use that has no sexual background.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the tone of the discourse declines when you feel the need to say things like "much of his claims have little merit, as we all have the right and the need to continue to work on these articles." Not only is it insulting (and ungrammatical), but your right to edit articles does not mean you should delete valid and relevant content willy-nilly. I still haven't heard any explanation for the deletion of the other two pictures, neither of which had any sexual connotations, and both of which seemed useful to the article. The quotation which was removed because it was from a French author (writing in English) still has not been restored.

All of these changes were made by a single editor, who previously voiced strong opinions about Haiduc, who was responsible for much of the existing article, even though the reason for those opinions (the assumption that Haiduc's articles promoted pederasty) did not appear to have much bearing on the article about hoop rolling. I assume that we're all agreed that edits should not be motivated by antipathy towards other editors; since some of the edits in this article have proven controversial, I think it would be worth greater scrutiny. This whole lengthy debate started with a request for other editors to review these articles; shouldn't that be done with this one? P Aculeius (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the discourse delcines when the discussion becomes little more than an argument of what should or shouldn't be done to a page. However I don't have to explain every edit I made on a page to you here when there are edit summaries.

What I am hearing mostly from you sir is that you do not like the changes i made and now want me to justify them to you. That could be a better discussion on the article talk page if it is even needed at all. I may well not like the edits others make or feel that thier grammer or spelling is lacking, but simply stating that it "Doesn't improve" the article is no argument against edits and i am sure you are aware of that. Look, I am not trying to hide any of my edits and I am not the one who brought this up. I just pointed to just a few of the last pages the member in question edited. I was pretty sure Hoop rolling had an unneccesary slant not only to pederasty but to an overly sexualization of the article. I tried not to make this a witch hunt but asked people to look at it. I was disgusted by the article in the form I found it as did many others.

What do you feel the images deleted added to the article. I deleted them but if you think they should be re-added I believe by policy you would need to justify returning them. Even if I don't agree I do try to see if the summary is legitimate and if I can live with the explanation and logic. I will look to see what my reasons were and if there is another possible way to see the situation. That's all I could ask of others.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. You need no justification to delete accurate, relevant, or useful content from an article; removing it doesn't even have to improve the article. But anyone who disagrees with the deletion of content had better be prepared to justify that opinion, and merely asserting that the content was accurate, relevant, or useful to the reader fails to satisfy that burden. I give up. Do whatever you want to the article. There's no point in arguing with that kind of logic. P Aculeius (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone should be justifying their edits in the "Edit Summary" box as I have done, but even that is not a hard set rule but a guideline for members to follow in order to communicate what they do. Anyone who disagrees with an edit can make a revert, but guidelines state;

Explain reverts

It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor.

In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether – or not – they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.

I am not trying to get you to give up. I encourage you to contribute and work with editors to expand on the references and information and form a consensus. Just saying that I am going to do what I want is not an argument. We all do what we want, if what we want, we strongly feel is right. This is a community effort and there will be others who may or may not agree with either of us.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost all this debate belongs on the talk page in question, not here. This page is used to alert others to what is happening in articles within the scope of this project (and you have done that), and it is used to discuss broader issues. The strategic issues raised by the Haiduc legacy and now getting buried under the kind of tactical skirmishing that is part of that legacy. We all have to take some responsibility for letting Haiduc run free for so long. We need to see if agreement is possible about how best to deal with the articles he has messed with. Above all, we need to create some systemic measures to ensure another Haiduc doesn't get away with it for so long. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)