Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epaminondas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Epaminondas

Self nom. I've researched this extensively, and its been polished up with help from a peer review. It draws on every major ancient source and several modern ones, and I think it covers the topic as comprehensively as an encyclopedia article can. --Robth^Talk 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Lead as one paragraph probably would be best broken into at least 2 paragraphs, and websites should be properly cited. AndyZ 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• The lead: done.
• Citing websites: I've changed the format to list the source website for each of the texts. I didn't want to describe them as being from those webites first and foremost, since they're originally print format, and I was using many of them in print form, but I also wanted to provide an online option in the references, since one was available.

• Oppose. Unsourced, weasel terms, makes judgements that would be better left to the reader. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've addressed your specific requests as best I can below. As far as sourcing, there are links in the footnotes to almost every passage from a major ancient historian that deals with him--anyone perusing the footnotes is a click away from the vast majority of the material I used to write this. I tried to minimize footnote clutter by using a few notes to cover large chunks of text, but I can put more in if people think that would be appropriate.

• • It's not unsourced, I don't see many weasel words, and any judgements made don't seem POV to me; they just seem a way to write in a style that isn't so dry. We shouldn't complain about brilliant prose. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Upon reflection, I think I might have come across as rude there. I realize you wrote that about the article before several significant improvements were made, and although I disagree with your comment, I don't want to be dismissive. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article draws on a wide variety of sources, ancient and modern. The referenced web links work and provide valuable information on the subject. I see no weasel words or preemptive judgments, just a solid, scholarly effort at a balanced presentation. As I said in peer review, this is an interesting, comprehensive article that will appeal even to those with little or no knowledge of ancient Greece. Definitely FA quality. Casey Abell 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1."He revolutionized Greek warfare"

• Changed to more descriptive wording.

2."Epaminondas, perhaps one of history's greatest idealists and liberators..."

• Changed to factual statement about contemporary opinion.

3."His musical teachers were among the best in their respective disciplines, as was his dance instructor."

• This one is just a factual statement; he had the best teachers available, according to our sources.
  • Then the factual statement is: "Source A says that his musical teachers were among the best in their respective disciplines, as was his dance instructor". We cannot assume the opinion of one source as truth, no matter how highly regarded it is. We simply present to the reader and let he judge for himself. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Only if it's disputed. If the statement is sourced, and there is no conflicting source, then it's not a POV problem. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

4."Epaminondas was also noted for his physical prowess"

• Again, this is a fact, recorded by Nepos.
  • Then say: "Nepos said that Epaminondas was also noted for his physical prowess", or "Nepos praised Epaminondas for his physical prowess". Same as above. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • See comment on sources below.

5."At this hour, Epaminondas's tactical genius first manifested itself."

• This was too judgemental; I've removed it.

6."he rebuilt the ancient city of Messene on Mount Ithome, with impressive new fortifications"

• Changed to "formidable." The point I'm trying to get across is that the new Messene was one of the most strongly fortified cities of Greece.
  • Then just write it. Say that Messene was one of the most strongly fortified cities of Greece, and cite your source. Don't you think this is better than vague adjectives like "impressive" or "formidable"? JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right. Done. I didn't add a new cite, since that section is already cited to Fine, who is my source for that statement.

7."who had been imprisoned by the ambitious Alexander of Pherae"

• Removed.

8."only the grateful Messenians remained firmly loyal"

• Removed.

9."Epaminondas ranks high among the great men produced by the Greek city-states in their dynamic final century and a half of independence."

• Changed to a factual statement about contemporary opinion, as above.

10."Some sources credit this innovative thinking to his early philosophical training."

• This is a factual statement regarding sources; Victor Hanson goes on about this at great length.
  • Then say which sources. Atributing something to "some sources" makes it a weasel term. Say that "John Doe and Mary Doe credit his innovative thinking to his early philosophical training". JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Done.

11."His voluntary poverty, insusceptibility to bribery, and unquestioning generosity won him great praise."

• This is a factual statement, but I've reformulated it to make it more neutral.

12."In some ways, Epaminondas utterly altered the face of Greece during the ten years in which he was the central figure of Greek politics."

• This is factual. The breaking of the centuries old Peloponnesian League, the creation of the Arcadian League, and the refounding of Messene were all his doing. He radically altered the political map of Greece.
  • Is this opinion yours? If it is, it's original research. Please mention in the article which scholars think so. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No. Hanson, Fine, and the OCD are all in agreement on this. It also represents the broader modern historical consensus. We have to draw a line between a totally unsourced article and one where every single statement is presented in the context of its source, which would be completely dry and unreadable. See comment on sources below.

13."He was celebrated throughout the ancient world as one of the greatest men of history."

• Factual. See the Cicero quote in the paper; Nepos records very positive contemporary opinion. It's also clear from various scholiasts and other minor sources that Plutarch's biography of him was very laudatory.
  • Then say so in the text. It is more informative. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The next two sentences do exactly that. One is the Cicero quote, and one is his epitath, from Pasusanias. See comment on sources below. This statement, again, reflects the modern historical consensus.

I don't think there's any "modern historical consensus" that "the ancient world" consisted mostly of Greece and Rome. Monicasdude 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

14."Beyond a doubt, the career of Epaminondas brought welcome relief to the numerous Greeks who had suffered for centuries under Spartan domination."

• Reformulated to more neutral statement, but it is factual that the Messenians nearly worshipped the man.

15."Some modern historians have suggested that Epaminondas may have planned for a united Greece composed of regional democratic federations"

• Strictly factual statement of a modern opinion (to which I personally don't subscribe).
  • Then say which historians in the text. Ascribing this opinion to "some modern historians" makes it a weasel term. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Done.

JoaoRicardo^talk 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

All interspersed bulleted responses in the sections above are mine. With regard to the wording concerns, I see where you're coming from. It has to be remembered though, that much of what I'm doing here is relaying the information we have from the sources we have, which tend to say a number of positive things about him. J.V. Fine's book gives a balanced and scholarly account, and I've modeled my approach on his in many regards. I just checked, and the Oxford Classical Dictionary describes him similarly. --Robth^Talk 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The life of Epaminondas by Cornelius Nepos, already referenced in the article, lends strong support to most of these items. It's available for inspection through the web link. I agree that the bolded adjectives could be dropped with no impact on the article. Casey Abell 03:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Robth has responded to the objections ten thousand times better than I could, because he knows ten thousand times more about ancient Greece than I do. But even a novice like me can look at the Nepos link and the other web links provided in the article and see strong support for most of the disputed assertions, not to mention the rest of the article. The ancient sources do give Epaminondas a lot of credit for his intellect, integrity and military ability. I think Robth has gone the extra mile in making some verbal changes, and I support the article even more strongly now for FA status. Casey Abell 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Casey Abell, I would like to point out that I notice a certain aggressiveness in your comments above that is verging on the personal attack side. Please respect the opinions of others who disagree with you. Thanks. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no aggression intended. I agree we should both back off from the use of loaded phrases like "weasel terms" and "weasel words." A much better way of expressing this idea would be "unnecessary qualifiers," followed by a list of specific qualifiers that could be removed. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia, not fight over the quality of articles. Anyway, I think your suggestions have been well-received by Robth and the article has benefited as a result. Casey Abell 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hummm, I wasn't aware "weasel terms" was a loaded phrase. I'm not a native speaker of English, and I came to know this term through Wikipedia. I didn't think it might sound aggressive or derogatory. I apologize if you or any other perceived my attitude as aggressive. JoaoRicardo^talk 15:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support, Outstanding article on a great, if a bit tricky to pronounce, name of Ancient military history that should be better known. Not only a brilliant tactician but a master of strategy, diplomacy and the relationship between the three. One point, though: Nowhere in this otherwise well writ and thoroughly researched work do I see mention of the fact a young prince named Philip from a, then, minor kingdom called Macedon, was Epaminondas' pupil. He was very much Phil's "Yoda" in teaching him the arts of war and statecraft, and hence argueably was Alex the Great's grandfather in a military sense. Also, and this is only a suggestion and in no way effects my support, if you could find or add an illustration showing Epami's maneuver at Leuctra, it would help. Most general readers are unfamilar with tactical terms and unable to visualize deployments, maneuvers and formations based on words alone. Some maps would be nice too. For Ancient Greece was a small, crowded, complex place full of Greek names...getting lost is easy even for those with some familarity. But still, GREAT JOB!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I thought about putting the Philip thing earlier, but decided against it at the time. The problem is that although there's been a fair amount of modern speculation on the subject (most notably by Victor Hanson), the only real ancient support for Epaminondas serving as Philip's teacher is a line in Plutarch where Plutarch states that he's merely speculating, and a rather ambiguous passage in Diodorus (who gives two completely different accounts of the matter at 15.67.3 and 16.2.2, undermining his reliability). The approach of most modern scholars has been to leave it out of their accounts (c.f. Fine and the OCD). If people think it should go in, I'll find somewhere to put it, although it'll have to be described as speculation rather than fact.
• As far as illustrations, I've put in a diagram of Leuctra, which I think does a good job of showing what happened. I also added a map that I made from the one on the Peloponnesian War article. It's less than ideal, since it uses archaic spellings for many locations, but I think it does what it needs to do. --Robth^Talk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job on both the illustrations! I was going to recommend some diagrams I found on the Spanish and Polish Wikis, but you one you made is just as good, in some ways better. As for the Phil II reference, even if he was'nt a pupil of Epami per se, he clearly studied his campaigns and had a great (no pun intended) influence upon him. The use of cavalry (which had previously been largely the bastard child of Ancient Greek warfare), the deep-Phalanx, the Oblique or Echelon order of battle....In fact all the important hallmarks of his art of war were taken from Epami. So more than just creating the circumstances for the Macedonian conquests, he provided a blueprint for the means to achieve them. So it would'nt hurt to mention him, even if it is only speculation. Again, Great job! Sapere aude--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose until thoroughly copy-edited. It's well written in many ways, but someone needs to go through it and weed out the odd turns of phrase (e.g., 'his skill as a warrior and as a general'—a general is a warrior) and ambiguities (e.g., 'disdaining the wealth he could easily have secured by using his powerful position'). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs). [1]
  • First off, sign your comments. Secondly, a general is not a warrior - a warrior is one who fights directly while a general directs others in a battle, and they require very different skills. Many generals in history were poor soldiers (warriors) and very few soldiers would make good generals. The latter comment doesn't seem all that vague, either - wealth is easily secured through holding positions of power. - Cuivienen 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose until copyedited. It's a great topic and a comprehensive article, but a strong copyeditor is needed to simplify some of the language and remove unnecessary qualifiers. --NormanEinstein 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks better now. --NormanEinstein 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I attempted to copy-edit the article, but was unable to find anything that needed changing. Quadell 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • All I can see on this issue are a few long sentences with semi-colons that could be broken into shorter units. An example would be splitting:

It seems certain that Epaminondas enjoyed the company of young men; given the fluid nature of Greek sexuality, however, drawing conclusions from this fact is difficult, and attempts to apply modern notions of sexual orientation to ancient Greek historical figures is an endeavor laden with pitfalls; only the facts as recorded may be stated with certainty.

into three (or even four) sentences at the breaks. I could go through the article and do that, if Robth wouldn't mind. But I have to admit, I like the prose as is. I'm a Henry James fan, and he wrote some long ones, too. (No sexuality implications intended.) As for the qualifiers, I'm not qualified (sorry) to decide if they're necessary or not. We're dealing with a guy who lived about 2,400 years ago, so some qualifiers would seem to be in order. Casey Abell 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Robth just split this sentence up, which is a quick response by any standard! Right now the article looks to me like a brilliant blend of shorter and longer sentences, very easy to read and always moving forward like one of those phalanxes. Casey Abell 19:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I've gone through and given the whole thing a copyedit, and I think the most confusing sections are now much clearer. Another user has contacted me on my talk page to say that they're going to look through it in a little while. Anyone who wants to go through it or who sees something awkward should feel free to change it or tell me what they want changed. And now I'm going to make myself stop working on this (for a little while) and go do some of the things I've been neglecting while this has had my attention, like, say, buying my coursebooks for this semester... --Robth^Talk 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I just noticed this article spent 14 hours on Peer Review, from 7h (PR nom) to 21h (FAC nom) yesterday. I would have made all my comments above on the PR page if only I had had the time to do so. JoaoRicardo^talk 14:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry if I jumped the gun on moving it over here. I saw that several other articles which had been on peer review for about as long had been put over here as well, so I did the same. --Robth^Talk 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 weeks is usually a good amount of time to leave an article on peer review before moving it here. That guideline isn't always followed, but it's a good idea. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support (Comments copied from Peer Review). Wow. That's some brilliant prose. I can't see anything that would prevent it from being a FA as is, although I would request that the "Battle of Mantinea" section be expanded. (It seems shorter than other sections, when considering its importance.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some legitimate concerns are being raised about comments on Epam., particularly by Nepos, that are stated in the article; however, this is something I devoted a good deal of thought to while writing the thing, and I think I have a solid reason for keeping much of it as it is.

Every single fact we list on this encyclopedia is actually the fact as stated by some source, but we don't preface every statement with "sources say." This becomes somewhat tricky when dealing with classical antiquity, since many sources are biased (Xenophon), of variable quality (Diodorus), or not primarily historians (Plutarch). However, one of the great accomplishments of classical scholarship in the 20th century was the creation of a solid consensus on how these sources are to be used. I've followed Fine and the OCD in my treatment, and they both follow the definitive scholarly works, a series of Classical Quarterly articles by a fellow by the name of G.L. Cawkwell.

I can see why you're concerned about the "good teachers" statement in particular, since calling something "good" seems to be passing down a judgement. We have to consider the seriousness of the judgement we're making, though. We use somewhat judgemental words all the time. "Decisive defeat," for example, is a judgemental statement, but we can use it so long as we're not editorializing on our own; as long as we're reflecting a sound consensus opinion, we can do it. In the new comment I made on Messene's fortifications, I refer to "strong fortifications," and I think we can agree you can say that. Why? Because the archaeologists who dug them up have looked at them and said, yup, strong fortifications alright. A balance has to be struck between strictly, literally, stating only self evident facts and writing a smooth piece.. The logical chain: 1. Nepos says his teachers were good, and 2. Consensus among historians says that Nepos can be trusted on this, so 3. The teachers were probably good is one that we don't need to write out in full. Its a small enough point that we can just say it, producing a more readable text. --Robth^Talk 18:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. One of my acid tests of FA worthiness about a subject I know next to nothing about is whether an article - assuming it is properly referenced, which this one is - makes me feel like I know a lot by the end. This one certainly does. Outstandingly written, expressing an overall NPOV in exciting but non-"potboiler" prose. An excellent article if you know nothing, something or a lot about him. Some nice pictures, which is sometimes hard for an article of this type. I agree with you about the judgements; of course Wikipedia needs to be accountable, but not at the expense of readability. If an article uses a combination of inline citations and external link sources that is fine for me. Also, writing "scholar X says" before every statement would just make articles read like academic papers. Note that even the Britannica does not do this. Anyway, overall whole-hearted support. More classical civilisations articles like this and you never know I may even take enough of an interest to start writing them! Batmanand 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is good stuff, but I suggest it spends its time on WP:PR first. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK - since this is going ahead, a few comments: Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece says that "Epaminondas who is considered the greatest warrior-statesmen of ancient Greece by many such as the Roman historian Diodorus Siculus had two male lovers. His lovers were Asopichus and Caphisodorus, the latter died with him at Mantineia in battle. They were buried together, something usually reserved for a husband and wife in Greek society" (and similar comments in Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece) - should this be mentioned and a cross-reference be made? Pagondas draws a link between his inovative tactics at the Battle of Delium and Epaminondas at Leucra which is not mentioned. Another famous and unmentioned Epaminondas is the eponymous character from Epaminondas and His Auntie by Sara Cone Bryant (gosh! redlinks!). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the Csphisodorus reference--it's from Plutarch's Moralia, which doesn't exist online and has been published only in the Loeb edition, so good catch--and added it. I've also added a line about Pagondas's deep phalanx at Delium. I threw in the children's book in the disambig header. --Robth^Talk 15:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Support -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've not enough time to give this article a thorough read-thru but I will say the following:

1. I think a pronunciation guide is necessary given the difficultly most people have with the name
   • I don't know how to make a pronunciation guide, but if anyone else does I believe the correct pronunciation is eh-pam(like the spray)-in-on-dus, with the emphasis on the pam.
2. I'm not particularly happy with the ancient references used. It is well known that both Xenophon & Plutarch's works contain serious factual errors & hence cannot be used as authoritative sources.
   • Nobody, least of all the historians who write on the period, is too happy with them. None of the sources for this period are ideal. I've used every relevant major ancient source, though, and I've followed scholarly convention in the degree to which I credit their statements. None of them are being treated as authoritative, and the article is a synthesis of the accounts from a number of different sources.
3. The lead section needs some serious work both wrt copyediting & removing the purple prose ("smashing the power of Sparta," for example, does not belong in an encyclopaedia). Mikkerpikker 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
   • I've changed that line. I'm trying to have it be interesting as well as scholarly, and I don't think any of the rest is too out there.
   • With regards to the point above: I was completely unfamiliar with this process before the past couple of days, and I put this up on FAC much too quickly. I'm fine with taking it back to peer review to get it polished up over a longer period before bringing it back here, if other people think that would be best. If that's done, should I remove this myself or is that something the administrator of this page usually does? --Robth^Talk 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
     • I think it's a lesson learned, and you should apply it in the future. But the process seems to be working here, so I don't think we'd gain much by moving it back. Quadell 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This is incredibly well written. But more importantly it strikes me as well sourced. I have only one suggestion—that when writers like Xenophon, Pausanias and Plutarch are cited, the fact that they are the sources for the assertion should be noted in the text: e.g., "Pausanias writes that"; "Xenophon asserts that"; etc. You may also wish to relocate the section on the spottiness of the ancient sources on Epaminondas: I would suggest putting it near the front, if not at the beginning, of the article's body—so that our readers know how Epaminondas' life has been reconstructed. Otherwise, though, an extraordinary article. Hydriotaphia 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as saying who says it, see my rationale on sources higher up. The idea about relocating the historical record section really appeals to me. I originally had that at the very end, but I moved it, because it was a weak note to go out on; nonetheless, I'm not quite satisfied with it at the current location. At User:Robth/sandbox I've rewritten it slightly and tried it out as the very first section. It's unorthodox, but I'm tempted. If nobody's too opposed, I think I'll put it in after a bit.
  • Now to Quadell's request earlier for more on Mantinea. He was right, but I couldn't think how to expand it for a while, until it occurred to me that Xenophon has a very quotable moment right about there, so that's in the article now. --Robth^Talk 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The work that has been done on this article is incredible: only a few days ago it was a mediocre and messy article, now it's one of the best biographies of the web. Aldux 18:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Update. I've changed the placement of the historical record section per Hydriotaphia's suggestion. Also, Jengod has given it a very thorough copyedit, so hopefully this will address the concerns of those who wanted the text cleaned up a bit. --Robth^Talk 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• (Weaker) Object. Detailed discussions of individual battles should be more compressed. To the extent such details are notable, it would clearly be better to create a distinct section discussing his military innovations. And the article manifests a Eurocentric bias (as with the "ancient world" comment noted above; it also is too free in concluding that absence of surviving records to the contrary justifies assertions that some claims were not disputed, or that the subject was the first to toemploy a particular tactic. Monicasdude 17:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've changed the "ancient world" line, and although I didn't spot anything else, I'll be happy to change anything else that shows eurocentricity. I've changed a line that indicated universal support for a claim, and I've added a citation for his tactical invention (that claim is well documented, but I should have cited it earlier). Again, I couldn't find anything else in this vein that needed to be changed, but let me know if there is. I'd like to keep the battles as they are, though, since his significance is very much bound up with his ability as a military commander, and I think it fits better into the article as part of the chronological narrative than as a separate section on his abilities as a commander. Does this address your concerns? --Robth^Talk 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Mostly, although I still think that the battle discussions are too long and don't focus enough on E's role. Still a few spots where the article isn't quite precise enough in distinguishing between "first" and "first recorded," and in referring to unanimity in histories (as opposed to surviving histories); but greatly improved on that point. Monicasdude 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Moreover, concerns about article length are, I believe, quite premature at this point. The article is only 33 KB, and of course this includes the diagrams and photographs. Hydriotaphia 11:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support – loved it. Anville 15:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Has improved greatly. Deserves to be a featured article. Gflores ^Talk 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've done a little more copy-editing to make the style less ornate and more encyclopdic, but overall it's a great article. I do think that the sections with associated main articles could be condensed more, but I'll support it even without this change; it's a matter of taste.--ragesoss 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Epaminondas has long been a hero of mine and I've done extensive research on him over the last five years. Wikipedia which back then covered half this page talking about a game, was one of my first places I learned about him from. It was one of the first articles I read on wikipedia back when I didn't even know what wikipedia was. It stayed that way for several years but I came back yesterday and wow! I just want to say that not only is this a great wikipedia article its probaly the greatest source on Epaminondas available today. Considering most ancient sources just have him in the background and even Hanson's work pretty much ignores the Theban revolution and battle of Leuctra,and the 1911 Brittanica is awfully skimy, even more so in the modern version. This is one of the greatest wiokipedia achievements I've seen only a few weeks ago it was just 1911 jibberish now its the greatest biography of Epaminondas I've yet seen having read Plutarch, Xenopohon, Hanson and numerous books and websites. The only criticism I have is that the accusations of homosexuality seem unfair, very few of the ancient sources nor Hansons seem to support it. And the love of the sacred band seems more to be the kind of love implicit in democracy and in equality than in homosexuality.After all the criticisms and recent scandals at wikipedia I think this article really renewed my faith and really shows what the wiki system can achieve. Finally I just want to say the pictures are really impressive most I have never seen before.--Gary123 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)