Talk:Historical pederastic couples/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Dispute resolution

This article and associated topics are ripe for official arbitration. Lexicographic evidence collected below clearly indicates that the standard meaning of pederasty in our language implies the existence of sexual contact. Deviation from standard usage is prima facie evidence of a bias. As a first step in this direction, I am putting up a POV tag. Please do not remove it until the dispute is resolved.

How can in the Gods' name anything about this topic be unbiased? The hysteria in this world will turn anything about pederasty towards the dark and evil. P.c.righteous 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely it's just a matter of putting in a few caveats and "supposed"s? The list is a useful resource, much of it is about as well-attested as anything else in antiquity, and I don't know of any other word that means "erotic relationship between a man and a boy." Four out of five dictionary.com definitions say "sexual relations," which to my mind includes erotic play that isn't sexual intercourse.

On the use of adjectives homosexual and homoerotic

Merriam-Webster defines the key term as follows:

Main Entry: ped·er·as·ty Pronunciation Guide Variant(s): also paed·er·as·ty Function: noun Inflected Form(s): -es Etymology: Greek paiderastia love of boys, from paiderastes + -ia -y

anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner

To classify as "historical pederastic couples" parties not known to have had this kind of sexual contact, let alone Socrates and Plato, well known to have repudiated sexual intercourse between men, is understandable as the Homintern counterpart to the Christian fundamentalists covering All Apologies by Nirvana, by changing "Everyone is gay" to "Jesus is the Way". In the NPOV context of this encyclopedia, it is cute but dumb. I urge the interested parties to furnish documentary evidence of sexual relations in each putatively pederastic coupling cited in this article. This is meant to rule out stale hearsay peddled by sensationalistic yentas like Weekly World News or Diogenes Laertius. Larvatus 09:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

As Fulcher demonstrates below, the sphincter-based definition of pederasty in that American dictionary is not universally accepted. It may well be little more than a reflection of a puritan mentality, and we are certainly not bound by it. I will not delve into why you seem to be so focused on sexualizing what is a complex relationship, and why you repeatedly bring the discussion back to the topic of the anus. Frankly, I find it a bit out of place. If I might indulge your fascination with the mechanics of Greek sexuality, frontal intercrural sex seems to be the principal method, as depicted in the art of the period.
Regarding your demand for semen stains on dresses, forgive me but that is nonsensical. Heterosexual couples are accepted as such even when marriages are not consummated.
Regarding the question you posed about Socrates's chaste pederasty, thank you for your change of tone there at least. I will gather the evidence and set it out so as to do justice to the level of your inquiry. Haiduc 12:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Lack of universal acceptance in a given definition is an insufficient reason to favor its alternatives. As for insinuations of biases, this issue cannot be resolved by contrasting the avant-garde attitudes of NAMBLA with the reflections of a puritan mentality. The burden of proof naturally falls on the proponents of linguistic reform.
The analogy with presumpton of heterosexual couplehood in the absence of any evidence of sexual contact is flawed in at least two respects. Being that heterosexuality is the social norm, its practice is presumable far more readily than the practice of a deviance commonly forbidden by law and custom. For the same reason, the social pressures that inspire many a closeted homosexual to couple with a "beard", serve to refute your reasoning in its required generality.
As for the prevalence of frontal intercrural intercourse, we are still looking at sexual contact in the service of Aphrodite Pandemos, not Aphrodite Urania.
Larvatus 13:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
You have succeeded in sending me to my Oxford, only to dig up this: Paederasty: Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy.
Fascinating. Could have been written in 1866. Probably was. We have an obvious disconnect between the academic use of the term, and the dictionary definition. I am not sure how to address this, how to reconcile the many volumes dedicated to this topic with the dictionary definition. If only the historians had bothered to consult the dictionary they would have been spared lifetimes of needless and misbegotten labor. But I must ask you to permit me to set this debate aside for the moment: I have a project to deliver and the deadline looms. In a day or two I should be free to rejoin the fray. But to leave you with a question, what do you make of Chrm (155c-e)?
PS The spat over homoerotic vs. homosexual I think is off the mark. They are both fine, there are enough denotations to both to create a wide overlap. Haiduc 23:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Seems that these folks from the dictionary mistake (or lump together) pederasty with pedicatio..... Fulcher 23:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Haidac, stop feeding the troll. And stop flattering him by telling him he can write. (He loves that). He can't. PiCo 09:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The adversarial process - like predation in nature - is healthy for articles, this one included. Larvatus' probing and poking should result in changes in the root articles on Plato and Socrates reflecting their pederastic and homosexual comments and experiences, and, depending on what can be defended over there, I expect that we will include them again over here. Fact is, this is all vulnerable to ideological attack and only solid referencing and documentation will protect this information from this kind of authoritarian destruction. Haiduc 12:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Lavartus hasn't got much to say - he's merely pushing Webster's as the ultimate authority on defining pederasty - and he's said it, and I'm not convinced. ("An it please your Honour, my client is quite innocent of the charges, and I refer you to Webster's Dictionary...")
On the other hand, I do some some sympathy for his point about pushing too inclusive an agenda. What do we really know about the personal lives of people so far distant in time and culture as Plato? Even a more recent and more blatant case like Caravaggio is still arguable (tho not easily): an English traveller in Italy a few years after his death reported that Cecco (the model for Love Triumphant) was a boy 'who lay with Caravaggio' Case proven? Not really - to 'lie with' in 17th century English simply meant to stay with. The more people you put in this list, the less convincing it looks, and the more it looks like an attempt to push an agenda. (Tho granted the several billion people who have inhabited Planet Earth over the last few millenia, the list is actually extremely short). I'd cut down on the ancients, put the emphasis on the post-Renaissance period, and make sure that anyone who goes in is both well-known in thei own right and uncontroversially gay. The 'candidates' section that's now been added is a good idea in this direction. PiCo 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I would agree that only those people who have been identified by modern scholarship should be included here, so that we need not get into debates about our own opinions (which is why - for example - I have refrained from including Beethoven, though he seems an eminently qualified candidate). But I do not see the logic of expunging examples from one of the two major pederastic cultures this world has seen, simply because they lived two millennia ago. These examples were clearly documented at the time, and are particularly credible as they were normative and even mandatory. And we may well have more details about them than about far more recent individuals. Socrates, for example, is represented as intoxicated by the naked beauty of Charmides, and as frequenting the Athenian boy brothels (whence he rescued Phaedo of Elis). Nor should we exclude any of the Japanese, about whom McLelland says (in an excellent article), "I know of no other society which has preserved such an extensive historical record of love between men."
The "gay" litmus test I do not understand. Quite apart from the arbitrariness of the label, and its socially relativistic value, many of our protagonists "lay with" women as well, among whom both Peyrefitte and Malagnac, both pederastic icons if ever there was one. And the tradition itself is fundamentally a bisexual one, historically without a doubt, and even today (like that Michael Jackson fellow - what do we do with him?!). "Agenda"? I have only one agenda: call a thing by its name. I have recently been asked to edit a gay anthropologist's manuscript in which he at one point reminisces about showering with his high school classmates, and the feeling of being surrounded by "beautiful men." "Men"?! In high school?! My ass! Everybody is terrified of being accurate.
As for the candidates list, maybe we should send out applications. Seriously though, a "to do" list seems like a good idea. To bad you never wrote up an interview with your Parisian friend and published it. Ce n'etait pas Peyrefitte, par hasard? Haiduc 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The authority of dictionaries composed by descriprive linguists is relative to the task at hand. This task is to compose and edit a factually grounded essay illustrating the things or events denoted by the definiendum and described by the definiens in their relation to the standards of common usage. In the instant matter, Plato's representation of Socrates as intoxicated by a glimpse of Charmides' body in no way contradicts the underlying facts of the matter that foreground his deliberate avoidance of sexual intercourse with his male students and followers. As the story goes, Socrates expressed his infatuation with beautiful young men up to, and exclusively of, the point at which they were eager to reciprocate his love. Thereupon he would disappoint them by expressing his allegiance to Aphrodite Urania at the expense of repudiating earthly love that aimed at the wrong object, love that substituted bodily gratification instead of philosophical pursuits. A consistent reading of Plato must account for this narrative. There is nothing in his portrayal of Socrates to imply any transgressions of principles laid down later on in the Laws 1.636c & 8.841d.
Getting back to lexicographic matters, please bear in mind the connection of the terms at issue to criminal statutes and common law in Anglo-American jurisdictions. While our personal agenda in these matters are likely to differ, I cannot think of any useful purpose served by imputing behaviors punishable under laws of the U.S.A. and the British Commonwealth to historical characters, on evidence that fails to satisfy the standards of preponderance, let alone convince beyond reasonable doubt.
Larvatus 03:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

The legal argument is fallacious for two reasons. First, it is anachronistic to apply modern law to past events. Second, even by such standards, in many if not most instances, the youths involved were above the age of consent in many modern nations (pace, Saudi Arabia). So that we can discuss a pederastic relationship between a sixteen year old and a fifty six year old without dragging up the red herring of criminal child abuse. In the remaining instances, well, we are not here to judge. And do not presume to qualify my own views on this, since they are quite complex and defy pigeonholing. Haiduc 04:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought you read Dover. What is your understanding of the laws of hybris?
Larvatus 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, you disappoint me. First you bring up issues of modern law, and then you counter my reply with references to ancient law?! Please be consistent. And if you bring up hybris, will you in the next breath apply it to all pederastic relationships? Be careful, the Greeks themsleves did not do that. Haiduc 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You brought up the subject of judicial anachronism. Are you prepared to move past vague gestures, to deal with the history of legislation concerning pederasty? Otherwise my point stands. In view of the legal and moral stigmata preponderantly associated by civilized societies throughout history with most practices that comprise pederasty, your standard of proof is wanting. Larvatus 12:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

More food for dictionary-lovers ;-) ped-er-asty amorous or sexual relations between a man and a boy. (from Oxford's Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English by A S Hornby, Oxford University Press 1974) Fulcher 09:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that "amorous" as in a father and his son, a boy and his dog, or what? Consider moving past advanced learners. Unabridged dictionaries rule the roost. Larvatus 12:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus


Lavartus dear, do run along now, there's a good boy.

Make me. Larvatus 12:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Haiduc, Micha de Saint Something (I forget the name) was (is, unless he's drunk himself to death already) a Belgian, and an artist. At an early age young Micha showed promise of artistic genius, and his papa proved most indulgent for a Belgian banker - Micha stopped all normal schooling at the age of 15 and devoted himself to Art, living la vie de Boheme, studying, painting, drinking, smoking, fucking and being fucked in the most advanced circles in Paris. Unfortunately, he proved quite bereft of genius - talent yes, genius no. He had a ball. When I met him the party was long over, he was managing an art gallery in Essaouira, Morocco, called Atelier Desdemona, sponging off the likes of me (he got a free meal off me and many drinks), and continuing to do what he'd always done - enjoy. He was honest - if Micha said he'd known someone, he'd known them, and if he hadn't he said so. Not a name dropper, but the real thing. This was only 2000, so as I said, he's probably still there, if his liver hasn't given out. PiCo 11:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Morocco, eh? Come to think of it, is there no information on the various members of the royal family. I am sure they could write a whole encyclopaedia on this subject. Haiduc 12:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Moroccan royals have their way, there never will be any information. Rumour was that the present king (he was crown prince then) spent all his time in Italy so he could go nightclubbing anon in places that would raise eyebrows back home - he was said to have a 16 year olf Italian he was especially fond of. The citizens of Morocco were pleased and relieved when, on ascending the throne, he married and produced an heir. The royal line goes right back to the Prophet you know, and we don't want it dying out. PiCo 23:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Two people at an art exhibition:
"This artist has done alot together with Beuys."
"Yes, but also with girls!"
Fulcher 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On deleting material from this (or any) article

Deleting the reference to a pederastic coupling of Plato and Dion. No such relationships have been documented in the life of Plato. Larvatus 01:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

On the deleted Plato reference. A number of sources mention their relationship, from among whom Crompton will have to do as example, as he is a source above reproach. On p. 56 of his Homosexuality and Civilization he states, "Plato's best documented attachment, in which love, politics and philosophy mingled, was for Dion of Syracuse. Dion was the nephew of the tyrant Dionysos. .. The depth of Plato's feeling for him is clear in the epitaph he composed: "Now in your wide-wayed city, honored at last you rest, O Dion, whose love once maddened the heart within this breast." Larvatus, do you bring any opposing evidence to bear? Haiduc 02:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Let us generalize this thought. Blaise Pascal, Jules Renard, and Charles de Gaulle are credited with the statement "The better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving dogs." By the above reasoning, their preference ought to be cited in the article on bestiality. As for attributing any kind of homosexuality to Plato, see Laws 1.636c & 8.841d describing it as a barren (ἄγονα) and unnatural (παρὰ φύσιν) transgressive enormity (τόλμημα). Larvatus 06:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Larvatus, your initial argument was that No such relationships have been documented in the life of Plato. I refuted that contention by indicating a scholarly source that claims otherwise. I will not get here into a debate between the Plato of the Symposium and the Plato of the Laws, not for lack of interest but simply because original research has no place in the Wikipedia, and your incipient debate is just that. Until you produce modern scholarship refuting Crompton'e contention, Plato goes back in, appropriately referenced. Haiduc 10:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You fail to support the main qualification in the body of the article, that "all such relationships are by definition homosexual in nature". Where is the evidence that sexual desire is in any way involved in this matter? Even in the case of Socrates and Alcibiades, despite the sentiments of a would-be eromenos, Socrates makes his unconcern with carnal love clear on numerous occasions. Again, just as not all men who love animals qualify as zoophiliacs, not all men who love boys qualify as homosexuals. To claim otherwise is a clear manifestation of bias. Reference deleted. Larvatus 16:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

I am disappointed that you, a man who can so cleverly turn a phrase, and even spell "para physin," can act in such an authoritarian manner. And use such jejeune debating tactics. Do you really not know that it is not necessary to be "a homosexual" in order to have homosexual feelings, or relations? As for "the evidence," you persist in appointing yourself judge and jury in your "defense" of Plato, but in so doing you miss the point of what it means to write an encyclopaedia article, and arrogate yourself powers which are not yours to take. I write here as a reporter, reporting on what others have found and concluded. That is all. If you do not like what Crompton has to say, take it up with him. Go ahead, hide the historian's views of Plato from the readers, if that is your aim. Haiduc 23:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is an embodiment of authority. This encyclopedia embodies neutral authority. To favor tabloid style hearsay vaguely attributing approximately homoerotic sentiments eight centuries after the fact (Diogenes Laertius 3.30) over first-hand testimony by Plato condemning homosexuality in no uncertain terms, is the epitome of bias. Fortunately, in our community such biases are bound to cancel out each other. Larvatus 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

In another matter, you correctly observe that Alcibiades was a student (or a follower) of Socrates. It is also true that both of them used erotic language in speaking to, and of, each other. I trust that you understand that the object of Socratic eros (stemming from Aphrodite Urania rather than Aphrodite Pandemos) is the pursuit of truth jointly undertaken by the lover and the beloved. It is additionally true that Plato recounts a speech by Alcibiades reporting Socrates' rebuttal of his carnal advances. In view of all that, and everything else that you might bring to bear on the subject, please substantiate your claim that "their love was thought by Plato to be chaste pederasty". Larvatus 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

================================

To the anon that has been deleting entries in the list: please give reasons for your actions so we do not end up wasting time reverting each other's work. Haiduc 00:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The deleted entries:

Both cases are much too recent in my eyes to be listed under the title "Historical pederastic couples". That's one thing, the other is that don't believe these people from Pakistan are really "famous" (I mean, if they exist at all). The last sentence "Days later, the report was claimed to be a fabrication by a writer belonging to the implicated tribe" even questions the whole thing so much, that I wonder why it was mentioned at all.

The first case is more interesting. I've read this interesting article from "the Guide" in the meantime and I agree with the author that "a black, possibly queer, intergenerational couple, one of whom was named Muhammad" is like a godsent for some reactionary circles in the media. They really love the thought that the bad guy here could be a pederast. That doesn't mean they weren't having some kind of homosexual relationship, but there's just not enough information to come to this conclusion. It would be different, if one of the two would confirm these speculations (and as I said, it's still all too recent). Who knows, we may hear more about it in the future. Fulcher 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. The word "historical" has various meanings, and we are on firm ground if we use it in its inclusive connotation, as in "Based on or concerned with events in history." From that point of view, both events qualify, recent or not.
As for the sniper couple, if we accept that pederastic relationships need not be overtly sexual (and how could we not, seeing the lineage of that idea) then it is not only plausible to include these two, but bordering on undeniable, based on what was written about the intensity of the feelings between them, the obvious affection visible in photographs, and the fact that they were in a pedagogic relationship, albeit an insane one. More could be said about Jamaican homophobia spawning their destructive phallic orgy, but we are not here to psychologize. Haiduc 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You are engaging in doubletalk. There is no evidence that John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo had any kind of sexual relationship, either overt or covert. Defining pederasty to encompass every kind of relationship between a man and a boy is absurdly overreaching the dictionary definition of "anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner". (Merriam-Webster) Please curb your agenda. As currently edited, this article is way off NPOV. Larvatus 16:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Excuse me, but this definition has nothing to do with reality and it's obviously part of an agenda (I don't think they are just too dumb to know that this is not representative). Do you actually believe that BS yourself or are you just citing it to provoke?
Fulcher 07:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I am contemplating lexicographic agenda embodied in the most authoritative dictionaty of American English in connection with a pseudonymous arrogation of countermanding reality. Please cite evidence, arguments, affiliations, and credentials relevant to this issue. Larvatus 09:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
This definition is laughable and only serving a political cause. No wonder that it comes from a country, where they also call someone a "pederasts", when he raped a prepubescent girl.
Another example for a definition, this time in German (translation below):
"Unter Päderastie (von griech. paiderastia Knabenliebe) versteht man die emotionale, erotische und sexuelle Fixierung einer männlichen Person (des so genannten Päderasten) auf Knaben und männliche Jugendliche im Alter von etwa 12 bis 18 Jahren."
Pederasty (from the Greek term paiderastia - boylove) has to be understood as emotional, erotic and sexual fixations of male individuals (the so called pederasts) for boys and male teenagers beween about 12 and 18 years.
some studies about this subject:
Brongersma, Edward, Loving Boys (2 vols.), Amsterdam: GAP (1990).
Buffiere, Felix, Eros Adolescent: La pederastie dans la Grece antique, (Paris, 197?)
Burton, Richard, "Terminal Essay, Part IV, Social Conditions - Pederasty", in The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night, 10 vols., (privately printed, 1886), Vol 10, pp. 205-254
Dover, K. J., Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge, MA: Harvard (1989).
Eglinton, J. Z., Greek Love, New York: Oliver Layton Press (1964).
Flaceliere, Robert, Love in Ancient Greece, New York: Crown (1962).
Licht, Hans, Sexual Life in Ancient Greece, New York: Dorsett (1993).
Marrou, Henri I., "Pederasty in Classical Education," in A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. by George Lamb, (New York: New American Library, 1956), pp. 50-62
Meier, M.H.E., "Paderastie", Allgemeine Encyclopadie und Kunsten 167 vols, (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1837), Vol 4, pp. 149-188
Paton, W. R. (trans.) The Greek Anthology, Volume IV. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991 (Number 85 of the Loeb Classical Library. ISBN 0-674-99094-3).
Patzer, H., Die Griechische Knabenliebe, (Wiesbaden: 1982)
Percy, William A, III Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1996. (ISBN 0-252-02209-2)
Rossman, Parker Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys: Exploring the Pederast Underground. New York: Association Press, 1976. (ISBN 0-8096-1911-3)
Sandfort, Theo, Boys on Their Contacts with Men. Elmhurst, NY: GAP (1987)
Sandfort, Theo, et. al. (eds.), Male Intergeneration Intimacy, New York: Harrington Park Press (1990)
Ungaretti, John R., "Pederasty, Heroism and the Family in Classical Greece", Journal of Homosexuality 3 (1978), pp. 291-300
Vanggaard, T., Phallos: A Symbol and its History, New York: International Universities Press (1972).
Fulcher 12:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
German definitions are irrelevant to an English language encyclopedia. Around these parts, you might try the OED: pæderasty, ped- Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy.
Dover is a good resource if you want to downgrade the dictionary definition of sodomy to intercrural sex. Beyond that, what is your evidence for the practice of pederasty being understood as encompassing relationships that involve no sexual contact of any kind? That is the only circumstance that would support your expansion of the discussion by amending homosexual to homoerotic. Larvatus 12:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I never said that "pederasty is understood as encompassing relationships that involve no sexual contact of any kind" - where did you get that? I just don't believe that this definition is right, when it claims that it "usually" involves anal intercourse. They just say this to spice things up - how embarassing. Relevant studies didn't come to this cunclusion like your правда err... dictionary.
Besides that, I don't live in America, which means that I "don't have to rely" on American definitions at all, even if that page is in English.
Fulcher 13:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If you do not mean to subsume under pederasty relationships that involve no sexual contact of any kind, what is the point of changing from the more or less well-understood homosexual to the wishy-washy homoerotic? The main difficulty with your proposal is its conflation of two kinds of eros discussed in Plato's Symposium. As to whether or not the dictionary definition is "right", we are not doing prescriptive linguistics. Our brief here is to illustrate the meaning of words in their actual use prevalent in the host culture, not their wishful semantic analysis by offshore schoolmarms.
Larvatus 13:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
This is just an English language page and not some project that has to serve the US government or foolish people that claim pederasty "usually" means anal intercourse with boys. A study done by the Dutch research scientist Theo Sandfort (http://www.hivcenternyc.org/people/theosandfort.html) on pedophile and pederastic couples has clearly shown that this is not the norm. Do you want to tell me that these folks from the "most authoritative dictionaty of American English" know it better than Sandfort? 17:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
What is Sandfort's authority for refefining pederasty as a non-sexual practice? Larvatus 12:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Just how much time do you need untill you understand that this discussion is not about "sexual" or "not sexual", but about the question, whether the blatant assumption from the Webster-Dictionary is correct or not?
And the term "homoerotic" is useful to describe two kinds of relationships: clearly sexual ones and those that are chaste, but having some erotic undertones. Just to make that clear. I'm not going to repeat that over and over again... Fulcher 12:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
No undue assumptions are involved in pointing out that the unabridged Merriam-Webster and the OED II are the preeminent authorities on actual English usage. To the extent that both define pederasty as involving sex, that is the meaning that needs to be addressed in an equally authoritative encyclopedia. Consequently, your discussion of relationships that are chaste, but have some erotic undertones, belongs elsewhere. Larvatus 13:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
We are naughty enough to accept other definitions, since the one from Merriam-Webster looks more like a mixture between sensationalism, primitivness and puritanism. (and no, I'm not a member of NAMBLA - would be funny though, as I'm a son and grandson of police officers). Fulcher 19:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
You are simply refusing to deal with the lexicographic methodology of descriptive linguistics. Your beef is with predominant community standards of meaning. And yes, your argument certainly appears to sanitize pederasty in keeping with NAMBLA agenda. Larvatus 21:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Now that my project is "in remission" let me throw in some ideas. First of all Larvatus, if your only contribution to this article is to insist that pederasty is nought but buggery because the dictionary says so, I think this will go nowhere. The problem is that you are right as long as you define your field of battle as being dictionary definitions, but here we are dealing with pederasty as a cultural manifestation, one with many aspects, among which history, religion, pedagogy, etc, etc., so while you may be technically right, your rightness is not relevant to this article. However, I would be amenable to including a discussion of the paradoxical position of the dictionaries vis-a-vis the cultural reality of the practice.
As far as your surprise at "chaste pederasty," the term is not new or original. A search for the term itself returns nothing of note, but ones for "platonic homosexuality" and "platonic pederasty" show that the concept is in use, and Percy (Pederasty and Pedagogy in Ancient Greece) uses the term itself and has a lengthy discussion of non-sexual pederasty. I hope that this has laid your concerns to rest. Haiduc 22:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems that our fully americanized guest from the former Soviet Union can't stand it, when some of his heroes (Platon & Sokrates) are grouped together with sex-tourists like Gide. But that's his problem Fulcher 10:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The field is limited to dictionary definitions by the NPOV principle. Anything that goes beyond standard usage is a manifestation of a bias. Besides, citing a myriad instances of a thousand ways of calling a dog's tail a leg does not suffice to make it so. Even if you succeeded in your linguistic reform, there would remain a need for a term designating illicit sexual relationships between men and boys, bringing us back to square one. As for Percy, a casual search brings up a friendly review besmirching the book as "less a critical and scholarly history than a recapitulation of ancient hearsay on the subject." Larvatus 05:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
The Webster-definition itself is a "manifestation of a bias", comrade Larvatus. Fulcher 10:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Imputations of personal preference cannot sway conclusions drawn from proper evidence. In historical narratives, contemporaneous documentary evidence trumps anachronistic hearsay and wishful thinking alike. In descriptive linguistics, community standards comprise the baseline. Altar boy notions of bias would be better served by parochial institutions. This is nothing of the sort. Larvatus 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

My friend, you are flogging a dead horse. The field ranges far beyond dictionary definitions because that is the present state of academic discourse. The npov principle does not require us to be stupid, it requires us to be inclusive, a test failed by your reductionist agenda. Regarding a term for illicit man-boy relationships, "god" knows, there is no dearth of them. "Illicit," for one, "child abuse," "statutory rape," and so forth. I am sure that you could think up some that have not even crossed my mind. But there are a couple of terms which are less judgemental, and since (I repeat) we are not here to judge, it seems more fitting to use one of these. And the most general, and hoary, is the one in current use. Percy? Ancient hearsay? That only serves to substantiate his use of "chaste pederasty" and "pure pederasty" as being of ancient vintage, rather than some modern attempt to whitewash boy rape, suiting "a NAMBLA agenda" as you would have it. Your familiarity with, and repeated invoking of that particular bête noire are, if I might add, both perplexing and amusing. Perplexing because, based on the little I know about them, I shudder at their tactless stupidity and fail to see what it has in common with this historical compilation. Amusing because . . . well, I'll let you fill in that blank. Haiduc 11:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Far be it from me to get between another man and the object of his amusement. But the point remains unanswered, that jumping to published conclusions in matters criminalized by contemporaneous and present-day community standards is a textbook example of libel. Speaking of flogging a dead horse, your practice merits the name of queering a dead lion. It is all the more objectionable for want of recourse by the defunct beneficiary of your largess. May I suggest outing living celebrities as a more sporting venue for your rumor-mongering predilections? Surely Tom Cruise is eager for another lawsuit. Larvatus 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Larvatus, you are skating awfully close to ad hominem attacks, and I refrain from following you there though you have left yourself wide open, especially from a Freudian perspective. Lets stick to the matter at hand, shall we? Perhaps you missed my response, in which I pointed out that the relationships were not necessarily illegal, and in the 'minority of examples where they were illegal, it is not ours to judge. As for the historicity of the examples, the "libel" is not our doing here, but that of biographers. I do not understand your animosity, it seems out of place in the writing of an article. It would be better if you restricted yourself to specifics. Haiduc 22:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In matters of personal amusement, it is my heathen way to play tit for tat. In matters of substance, we've yet to settle the general principle. The field cannot range anywhere beyond dictionary definitions, because our subject matter is circumscribed by the current vernacular usage rather than the present state of academic discourse. This is a direct consequence of academic consensus repudiating linguistic prescriptivism. So unless you are arguing that the present state of academic discourse is converging on refuting the principle of non-contradiction. Till then, the range of relationships defined as sexual will not encompass the chaste variety. Larvatus 06:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Aw, come on. You don't have a heathen bone in your body! So, it has come down to this. Your argument is that anything that is not buggery is not pederasty, because it is not academic discourse that determines the field of discourse, but dictionary definitions, variable though they may be, from dictionary to dictionary and country to country. By the way, I do NOT even accept your contention that foreign language dictionaries are not relevant here. As you will see from the more developed articles on pederasty in the Wikipedia, they are talking about the same thing, thus the academic field of discourse is the same across many languages. Anyway, your argument would only carry weight if we were compiling a dictionary here, which we are not, and even then it would be very debatable indeed.
The more you flog this argument, the more I am persuaded that it is the very same tactic with which antagonistic individuals have tried to squelch academic discourse of the tradition of pederasty. It is a reductionist tactic that is a paragon of straw-man argumentation. But we have been reduced to repeating ourselves. Sad to say, the fellow who advised me to "stop feeding the troll" turns out to have been right. You, despite your intellectual caliber, turn out to be playing here the role of a troll. When and if you are ready to drop this rigid and indefensible stance and engage in academic debate on substantive matters, rather than trying to claim that there is no field of discourse, I'll be glad to respond. Not before. Haiduc 12:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Larvatus Recidivus

Citing Plato: Gorgias, 481d, Protagoras, 309a, and Symposium, 215-218 fails to support of the claim that the relationship between Socrates and Alcibiades was held by Plato as a paragon of chaste pederasty. Notably, these references appear to have been cribbed from page 75 of W.K.C. Guthrie's book on Socrates [2], where they are cited to demonstrate that Socrates' "supposed passion for Alcibiades" was "[a] particular joke between Socrates and his friends". Also see R.E. Allen's translation of and commentary on the Symposium [3], pp. 105-108, definitively and comprehensively rebutting the idea of Socrates and Alcibiades comprising a pederastic couple.
Please put an end to these stupid games forthwith. Larvatus 09:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC) larvatus

It's starting to look like the Western Front in here - artillery barrages of citations followed by bayonet charges of ad homonem attacks (yes, I know what I wrote). With a whiff of poison gas. Who's line will break first? Or will it only end when the fleet mutinies and the army in the field is being pressed back to the Rhine? (Lavartus dear, look, I've made you this playpen, where you can play with yourself all you wish. Enjoy :) PiCo 12:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Larvatus, you seem to have a particular affinity for this sulfurous lair. You are right, Socrates had no erotic attraction towards Alcibiades whatsoever, nor did he ever set foot inside a boy brothel. Haiduc 12:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Socrates no paederast

As previously established, Socrates has no place in this article. I have documented this fact online. No new data has been brought forth in support of his reincorporation herein. Please put an end to your slander forthwith. In view of contentious edit history of this article, formal dispute resolution is the only alternative to achieving factually grounded consensus on this matter. --Larvatus 01:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus

It is really curious that Larvatus simply cannot let go of this topic. He's like a doggie who has found a bone that satisfies: the dictionary says that "pederasty" means "buggery" and that settles that. Larvatus whistles right past the well-known fact that the term "pederasty" was invented by the Greeks and to them it meant "the love of boys." More than that, accoding to Dover and many other sources, Greek pederasty specifically condemned and excluded anal intercourse. The norm was intracrural intercourse.

All of this is extremely well-known.

Now, if we look at history, it is extremely obvious that Christianity declared war on pederasty and all other forms of male love. As early as Clement of Alexandria, we find the original term "pederasty" replaced by "paidophthorein" -- "the corruption of boys." Therefore, it is not really surprising to find that, under the influence of religious superstition, the word invented by the Greeks has been kidnapped by the Christians and has been given a new definition, "anal intercourse with a boy," which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the meaning given to the term by the Greeks.

Again, all of THIS is extremely well-known, You can look at Crompton or "The Crucifixion of Hyacinth" for accounts which are simply uncontroversial.

I suppose this explains how Larvatus can ignore the fact that Plato's "Symposium" has been viewed for centuries as the most important early discussion of pederasty and male love, with the term "pederasty" occuring over and over again in the Greek text. This extremely well-known dialogue includes Socrates' account of the speech of Diotima, one of the many places where "Platonic love" had its origin ( == love without sex, originally for a youth) and also includes the tale of Alcibiades trying to seduce Socrates, where Alcibiades' legendary beauty inexplicably fails to do the job.

Again, all of this is extremely well-known.

And here comes Larvatus, to tell us that Socrates has NO PLACE in an article on pederasty, because Socrates wasn't into anal intercourse with boys! "Because my dictionary says that 'pederasty' means 'anal intercourse.'!!!"

What is to be said about such breathtaking ignorance, and such bullheaded stupidity? And the fact that he goes on and on and on and on and on, and never even once apparently stops to consider the fact that he may be wrong, and is indulging in childishness ("My dictionary says so!") rather than scholarship. He even manages to overlook the obvious fact that his cherished "dictionary definition" says right out that "pederasty" derives from the Greek, where it meant "the love of boys."

By the way, all of Larvatus' problems could be solved with a word-processing task, replacing each occurrence of "pederasty" with the term "boy love." But what would really change?

As a final note, just to summarize the stupidity of "Socrates no pederast..." I recommend a quick re-reading of the opening pages of the Charmides, where Socrates is in the gymnasium and is being introduced to a legendary male beauty named Charmides. In particular 155d, where Socrates says "I saw inside his cloak and caught on fire and was quite beside myself." If there was ever a clearer description of a man being enraptured by the sexual beauty of a male youth, I am unaware of it. "But Socrates was no pederast, because we CHANGED the definition of pederast!"

To summarize the whole of Larvatus' argument: if one thinks long and hard about it, the one and only principle he upholds, at any cost, is the rather Orwellian principle that "the winners get to rewrite history."

208.147.1.1 13:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dates and ages

I have seen conflicting reports about Bucini's age, but it seems he was thirteen or fourteen when von G. first came to Taormina and appointed the boy as overseer of his villa's affairs. Haiduc 19:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More: here is a claim for the info above: http://heh.ca/wvgloeden/index.php
And here a date for his arrival in Sicily: http://www.gayart.biz/Baron_Wilhelm.htm Let me know what info you have and let's see what is accurate and what not. Haiduc 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

As you said, there are some contradictions, for example a line that says von Gloeden started talking pictures of nude youths in the 90s of the 19th century and not before. Then there is the assumption that Bucini was in his fifties during the fascist trials against von Gloedens works in 1936, so he can't be born in 1864. Fulcher 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Beckford and William Courtenay

Judging from the links, the relationship between these two seems to have involved not only gender and age transgression, but time travel as well. PiCo 22:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected.Haiduc 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. You could add Norman Douglas - he's more famous than a lot of the people you mention. (And John Wayne, who chased a friend of a friend of mine around a yacht when he - the friend - was 18: the young man had to jump overboard and swim off to the next boat at the marina).

I'd love to add him, but a quick search only turns up Pino Orioli as a candidate, he might have met Pino when the youth first went to Paris and London at nineteen in 1903, but I see nothing solid on that, and it could have been much later, in 1919. Haiduc 10:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2 boyfriends for wicked Norman, first a 12 year old called Eric who remained a friend throughout his life, the second a little wart from the slums of Naples named Ettore who latched onto the grand old sinner in his declining years and was described by Douglas' friends as 'a little tart'. All my knowledge of Douglas comes from a biography published about 15 years ago, unfortunately I forget the name of both the book and the author.

Alexander the Great

I would like to remove him from the list. I think this relationship with Bagoas does not belong here. Fulcher 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you give some reasons? Haiduc 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bagoas was an Eunuch. Fulcher 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What do the Chinese say about eunuchs? "Cut in the front and torn in the back"? Seriously, though, is it that you see him as a professional? My view of it is that he was a slave, much as Ayaz was, thirteen hundred years later, but that does not vitiate the fact that what has come down to us (Plutarch, etc.) suggests that theirs was a human, sentimental, affectionate relationship, one between an adult man and a youth. I think it fits here, though it is light-years distant from the love between il Moro and von G. Haiduc 01:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care, if he was "professional" or not, that's not my point A term like "homosexual" means same gendered, but in this case.... (I almost feel guilty, when I say this - just as if I was insulting Bagoas). My point is that a homosexual should have a relationship with somebody, who isn't "altered" there, ahem. Fulcher 03:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that takes us a ways away from any discussion about pederasty, especially considering that the genital act is not essential to the relationship (see Socrates and Alcibiades). Nor is it the exclusive domain of homosexuals, not by a long shot. I think that we should let the preponderance of historical opinion decide this one, and even discounting Mary Renault and her "Persian Boy" I think the weight of the evidence is on the side of this relationship being essentially pederastic. Haiduc 04:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Fulcher 06:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems somewhat one-sided to remove him just like that, I would have thought it better to aim for some consensus first - but it's not worth battling over the Greeks, there were so many of them. Haiduc 09:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Fulcher is confusing eunuch and transsexual? A eunuch cannot procreate, but apart from that, he is a complete man, with erections and all. Testerone is produced in many places in the body, not just the testicles. Maybe Fulcher should read up on what those eunuchs did in the seraglios. (Hint: They had sex with the ladies.)
So in short I think low sperm count in one sexual partner says nothing about the nature of a relationship, pederastic or not. So A&B goes right back in. And that is your consensus. 84.144.87.25 00:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to be arrogant. Of course, I know that Eunuchs aren't transsexuals and I also heard that some (surely not all) were able to have erections. But assumptions like "he is a complete man" are really over the top.

Just have a look at the definitions in our introdution and you'll see that this relationship does not belong here. Besides that, I'm not even convinced that Bagoas was still younger than 20 years, when Alexander became Darius' successor in that matter. Fulcher 06:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So I did some research, using the ever-reliable Google. (If I read it on the 'net, it must be true!) Here's what I came up with: This site reports the real-life experiences of a 31 year old man who had himself voluntarily castrated, for reasons I didn't much want to find out. He reports that erections and penetrative sex was/is still possible post-operatively. He also reports that hair loss stopped, but feels that the other side-effects mean this is not really a good option for anyone seeking to avoid male-pattern baldness. This onehas some interesting facts, tho I don't know how reliable (e.g. the etymology of 'eunuch' is from the Greek for 'bed-keeper' - clear enough reas0ons for that) - it also suggests that eunuchs castrated before puberty would not have any sex drive at all (note that, Mary Renault notwithstanding, we don't know when Bagoas became a eunuch). Even more interesting is a quote about eunuchs from the Book of Isaiah - apparently Yahweh thought they were especially holy: "I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." (Who says God lacks a sense of humour?) Then I looked for pieces on the effects of pre-pubertal castration. This one looks authoritative - and says that normal sexual behaviour will not develop in any organism (i.e., human, lab rat, etc) castrated before puberty. Apparently humans are slightly different from lab rats in that post-pubertal castration of rats will also remove normal sexual behaviour, but not so with humans. So, in summary, if Bagoas was castrated at or after puberty, it's possible he could have had sexual realtions. And I guess that even if he were castrated before puberty, the affective relationship could have existed in the absence of a fully reciprocal sexual one.

Oh, Bagoas' age: I believe the Classical sources say he was "in the very flower of boyhood." PiCo 07:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

About questions on whether eunuchs were able to function sexually . . . I think that the understanding of their role needs to be reversed. Haiduc 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, they were still not adolescent boys. Fulcher 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Importance in Hellenic religion and Eastern distribution

Fulcher, I disagreed only with your edits removing the religious imnportance of pederasty, and deleting mention of its integration in India and Central Asia and the Middle East (we should probably identify these more precisely in the article and include China for good measure). There is a lot of material supporting the view that pederasty was (and maybe still is, in some of these places) normative in these areas. See articles on Baccha, Tellak, Malik Ayaz, etc. Haiduc 11:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. It's like saying that pederasty was integrated in Christian countries, when you consider the fact that von Gloeden, for example, didn't seem to have any major problems with his disposition, when he lived in Sicily. There are always waves of tolerance and intolerance in every culture, just look at Afghanistan, were some Talibans wanted to exterminate these pre-islamic traditions of pederasty. I think there is just "too much credit" for this abominable religion, especially when you consider the harsh laws of many muslim countries (and their often degenerated concept of pederasty).

I share your distaste at the modern simplistic forms of Islam, really nothing but ego-centered religiosity, same as what is going on among the more primitive Christian sects in the west, the Evangelicals and so on. But there is no connection between that and the sufi tradition of nazar ill'al-murd, a cultural river that has run through Islam for over a thousand years, with literary, artistic, philosophical and mystical aspects. You cannot compare that with the chance island of safety (or shall we call it a temporary autonomy zone?) discovered by one German photographer a hundred years ago. I will try to be a bit more precise in the article, to heed your criticism. Haiduc 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred Holland Day & Khalil Gibran // Ludwig & Karl van Beethoven

I just wanted to hear your opinions, whether these two couples would fit into this list. Judging from the photographs of Fred Holland Day there seems to be a strong homoerotic element in his work (usually celebrating the beauty of an adolescent teenager). I think it's also certain that he was a mentor for the Lebanese poet Khalil Gibran. Is there any more information about them? (I mean besides the wiki-sites and this page: http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biod1/day2.html)

I also wondered about Ludwig van Beethoven, whose relationship to his nephew Karl was having some striking parallels with the one of Tchaikovsky and "Bobik": http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biob2/beet1.html

(forgot to sign the article again) Fulcher 19:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Intuitively I would say that there was something going on, especially between Beethoven and the boy, but I am afraid that this is another example of well-intentioned distortion of someone's life. As for Day, who knows? Haiduc 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You can see my page for more information: http://heh.ca/fhd/index.php I mention that there is no 'smoking gun' regarding Day and Gibran, but I believe it's fair to say, given the importance of the image of the boy in Day's work, given his association with the Children's Aid Society, given his continuous affection for boys throughout his life, that he indeed had a special relationship with Gibran. Whether this relationship was 'consummated', who can tell? Upon learning that Maeterlinck's newest book of essays entitled Wisdom and Destiny was wrapped in one of Kahlil's illustrations, Day remarked, "That is one of the pleasantest things that ever happened to me." I think that says a fair bit about Day's feelings towards Gibran.
Thank you for the link, and the informative site. I agree that Day is certainly the very archetype of man-boy besotted by boys, but he seems to have covered up his tracks very well, if ever he made any. And Khalil says Day was fond of him, but does not seem to say how he felt in return. Too bad - who knows what might have been lost in that fire. Haiduc 12:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pope Julius III & Innocenzo Ciocchi Del Monte

Added to list.

Pope Julius was a strange man: gifted and energetic while a cardinal, he fell into a life of extreme lethargy and selfishness once elected pope, thus joining others whom I despise in an affectionately amused way, such as Jacque Fersen - those who fail to deliver on their lives. Meeting him was the worst thing that ever happened to Cardinal Del Monte.PiCo 06:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

References

It is a good idea to provide references (reference section at the end of the page) to entries which are more obscure or likely to be disputed. Coming to think of it, it will make others' work easier in the future if we simply do that for all entries. Haiduc 12:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I have set up a category, [[Category:Pederastic relationships]] with two related subcategories, in case anyone wants to affix the tags to appropriate articles. Haiduc 16:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

age difference

Are those 5 years between Sakabe Gozaemon's and Tokugawa Iemitsu's age enough to count as a "pederastic relationship"? (Gozaemon was also scarcely older than a teenager himself)

Yes, for a number of reasons. The context was one of inegalitarian relationships, five years is a big difference at that age, and the Japanese were are and are particularly apt to formalize even small age differences, let alone one where the elder is almost one third older than the younger. Haiduc 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Roger Peyrefitte outs half Europe

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/guide_pey.htm

PiCo 11:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

*Potential candidates*

Cleomenes III of Sparta and Panteus
Michelangelo and Francesco ('Cecchino') de Zanobi Bracci (some say this boy had a relationship with his uncle Luigi del Riccio, others think it was indeed Michelangelo: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/michela.htm)
Hubert Languet and Sir Philip Sidney
Molière and Michel Baron
Ernst Ortlepp and Friedrich Nietzsche (http://www.virtusens.de/walther/ortlepp_vortrag_e.htm)
Mikhail Kuzmin and Yuru Yurkin (Joseph Yurkunas)
Sergei Diaghilev and Serge Lifar
opinions?
Fulcher 19:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What *did* mad Nijinski write about Diaghilev? I ask because Nijinski is far more well known than this other person you mention (and whom I've never heard of).

I once met a man who had all the gossip on these artistic-theatrical types - not Nijinski, who was before even this Mischa's time, but people like Yves St Laurent and painters (famous ones) active in Paris around the war years. He was retired when I knew him, living by selling off his collection of Picassos. (No, Picasso was not gay!) PiCo 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how old Nijinski was, when he met Diaghilev, but it seems that he was only 18 then.
Here's a picture of Lifar & Diaghilev: http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biol2/lifa1.jpg Fulcher 09:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's a fuller image, Death in Venice redux, no? [4]
It's the sort of photo that evokes an era - when the Med wasn't wall-to-wall apartment blocks and the beaches weren't covered in sunburnt Brits and Germans. Diaghelev looks like a cat with cream - an old and weary cat. Lifar looks like he's found a sugar-daddy. But he doesn't look too young to know what he's up to. PiCo 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
another candidate (a similar case like Frederick II of Prussia and Louis XIII of France): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England
I forgot to mention this Reverend James DeWeerd & James Dean. There's some speculation about them..... Fulcher 13:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The James Dean/James de Deers connection seems highly disputed - the major source seems to be a bio by Joe Hyams, who knew Dean and claims de Weerd told him this after Dean's death. Another biographer, Val Holley, calls Hyams' story into doubt - see [5]. Personally I've never shared the James Dean cult and can't get excited about him - I get the feeling that he's mostly famous for being famous. Anyway, I think the case is too thin to go on this list. PiCo 23:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I would also not include him for the list Fulcher 10:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Shall we add James I of England to the list or not? Fulcher 22:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not do up an entry, with dates, ages and references, and see if it flies? Haiduc 22:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems that neither Michael Davidson nor Maung Té-hung are very famous, since the link to Davidson leeds to a different person.

Some people are conveniently forgotten. He was a well-known and respected British foreign correspondent in the second quarter of the last century. And put out a sizzling pederastic autobiography starting thus: "This is the life history of a lover of boys." Haiduc 22:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how old Agathon was, when he and Euripides became friends. I doubt he was already 40 then, but I guess he was "too old for us" anyway. Fulcher 09:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

glbtq is usually reliable, look here. What to do about the Jackson and Chandler bit, added and then deleted by anons? Was he or wasn't he? I am no expert on Jacksoniana, but I did some checking when it was first posted and found no grounds to remove the pair, unlike his other "relationship." Haiduc 12:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
There are so many myths about Jackson and Chandler (including a book that is alledgedly written by the latter) that it's very difficult to know what was really going on. I'm not really "disappointed" that it was deleted. Only one thing is sure: there are some extremely money-greedy parents in both cases. Fulcher 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not important to prove that Jackson and Chandler did something sexual. They surely had a pederastic relationship.
how old was J. Chandler actually, when this relationship ended? photo: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/vells/COLECCIONISME/jordanchandler.jpg Fulcher 19:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There was an Australian artist called Donald Friend, quite well known in Oz for his pikchas of naked island boys. There's an article about him in Wiki. (I should know, I wrote it). No single outstanding other half for a couple - there was a sculpture student called Collin, and a quite interesting Italian called Attillio (or Atillio?) whom he met while living in Ischia. What makes Atillio so interesting is that on Ischia way back then he was a definitely looked at askance by the local respectable population, as being in charge of all sorts of rackets among the young people of the islansd, especially at pairing up visiting foreigners with local boys. Atillio got to Australia, where one day he saved two men from drowning. (They couldn't swim, he could, it seemed the obvious thing to do). It got headlines in the papers, the embassy reported it to Rome, and the Italian government made him a cavaliere in recognition of his bravery. They put him on a plane and took him back to Italy to make the big award, and whenthe plane arrived there was a huge official reception party waiting on the apron with carabiniere in plumes and officials in black suits and a brass band - and Atillio thought they'd all come to arrest him and hid in the toilet. PiCo 05:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is Donald and here is Colin too Haiduc 11:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm . . . seems Colin rejected Donald, after all: [6] Haiduc 19:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Edward Morgan Forster and Mohammed el-Adel ('Mohammed the Just' - he was just 17). http://www.emforster.info/pages/stc&desire.html

What about Philip Henry Stanhope, 4th Earl Stanhope and Kaspar Hauser? Fulcher 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC) (though it seems clear that Stanhope has only pretended to love Kaspar Hauser to fulfill his plans as secret agent) Fulcher 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures

there's a problem with the pictures, because a few of them don't really fit to our definition, when the boys in these examples look more prepubescent than adolescent. Fulcher 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell from the pictures the age of the boys, some may be older and others younger than the theoretical age, and youth in other times and cultures matured at different rates from those of today. Rimbaud is reputed to have been about 18 when that picture was taken, though he looks maybe sixteen there. They are here only to help document who these people were, who otherwise may not deserve a full article in the Wikipedia. They also may approximate what it was that attracted the lover. But there are many exceptions to that, such as the statue of Harmodius and Aristogiton. Seeking scientific precision in these articles may be a thankless task. Haiduc 21:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Related category listed for deletion

People contributing to this article may want to go to category page "Category:Historical pederastic relationships" (linked at bottom of this article) and follow the link in the box at the top of that page to the discussion on deleting that category. Haiduc 12:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

King David and Jonathan?

More of a question than a suggestion, but is this pair a pederastic candidate? There may be more examples from the Bible... perhaps they could also be listed? And of course... someone would need to highlight/create a relevance for including biblical characters, ideally beyond simply for completeness sake, lest homophobic christians set themselves against this page. Alveolate 02:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't really know how old they were, that's why we can't really say whether it's a case of pederasty or not.

This is just "original research" speculation for the talk page, but I always felt that there was something between the young David and Saul, Jonathan's' father. Saul has the "handsome" David brought to him, and immediately "loves" him. The stressed-out king then keeps asking David to his private bedchamber to soothe him by "playing his lyre" — no one else could give him relief. And when Jonathan and David get close, Saul flies into a (jealous?) rage. Make of it what you will. ntennis 09:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Michelangelo and Cavalieri

Who said that Cavalieri was "too old" for this list? Fulcher 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Derek Duncan in glbtq: "At the age of fifty-seven, Michelangelo became smitten in 1532 with the "infinitely lovely" Cavalieri, who at the age of twenty-three seemed to embody all the ideals of masculine beauty that the aging artist had searched for throughout his career." Haiduc 15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Also Saslow, in Ganymede in the Renaissance. Haiduc 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to delete Pederasty category

Editors here may be interested in the following: * Category:Pederasty LGBT Category on one of the three main forms of homosexuality, with close to one hundred and fifty articles, is seen as "serving no educational purpose" and having "no meaning." Second time this deletion is attempted. CfD log 2006 February 5

John Addington Symonds and Willie Dyer?

By my calculations, Symonds was 17 and Dyer was 15 the year they met and "engaged in a passionate but chaste love affair that lasted several years." In what sense is this relationship pederastic? ntennis 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I calculated 18 and 15, they met late in the year as I recall (after the school year started, in the fall). It certainly pushes the limits, as far as Symonds' age goes. I think it is a judgement call, in that it is a situation that could be ambiguous, and also one that evolved into a more egalitarian relationship as the two matured. My sense of it is that if he had sought an egalitarian relationship from the beginning he would not have settled on what to an 18 year old IS a little boy (remember how you used to view junior high school youths when you were in your first year of college?) Haiduc 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I never went to college — nor did we have "junior high"! But i take your point, and it does seem that there is a long-standing tradition in British public schools for boys where older students have relationships of a pederastic character with younger boys. However, according to this site, Symonds fell in love with Dyer "in March/April 1858", which would make him 17; it says Dyer was "three years younger" though it doesn't state whether he was 14 or 15 at the time. The "passionate relationship" only lasted for a year, due to their different class backgrounds, and they stayed in touch for years afterwards. If you want to include Symonds on the list, there might be a better case to be made by his relationship with schoolboy Norman Moor in 1868, after Symonds was married. ntennis 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Moor is fine by me, but do we know how old he was? By the way, "chorister" seems to be the magic word here, Byron and Eddleston were the same way, if I am not mistaken ("Among the choir a youth my notice won, Of pleasing lineaments named Eddleston.") Haiduc 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The following three comments were copied here from User talk:Ntennis, 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your edit, making Symonds 17 rather than 18 when he started up with Willie. But his birth date is October 5, 1840, making him 18 through much of tha fall of 1858. What do you make of it? Haiduc 11:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't autumn sept-oct-nov in the northern hemisphere? Did you read that they met in autumn? I only used one source, which I already linked on the talk page. I just re-read it and there may be some room for ambiguity: "soon after reading the Phaedrus in March/April 1858, he had fallen head over heels in love with Willie Dyer". I guess "soon after" could stretch for 6 months till his birthday. I think a look at Symonds' diaries would clear it up. I hope I understood your question correctly? ntennis 13:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
He met the boy at university, and one does not go there till sept/oct as a rule. Even if he met Willie a couple of days before his own 18th birthday, it seems a stretch to say he was 17 during their relationship. I think the preponderance of the evidence makes him 18 until proven otherwise. Haiduc 13:53, 18 February 2006
It may be that the source I quoted (Rictor Norton 1997) is wrong. It actually clearly states that "they first went for a walk in the spring sunlight", so I'd guess that if it's wrong, the error is actually in the year, and it should be 1859 not 1858 - which of course would make him 18, corroborating the 3-year difference, Dyer being 15, and the John Addington Symonds wikipedia page (which states that they met the year following 1858). However, the wikipedia page contradicts Norton in other ways (eg the duration of their relationship), and is not itself clearly referenced, so I'd prefer to see Symonds' diaries before making any confident claim, but I'm happy to go with whatever you think likely. What is your source for their meeting at university, the year (1858), and Dyer's age (15)? ntennis 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken I also got the info from Norton. Are you going to dig up Symond's diaries? Haiduc 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, I'm unclear why you changed Symonds age to 18, when our only source so far (Norton) clearly says Spring 1858, making Symonds 17. To me this makes even less sense without changing the year to 1859 as per discussion above. I had assumed you had a source for your claims. Do you want to make them look 'more' pederastic? I'm not offering an opinion as to whether their relationship was pederastic or not; I just want to see an accurate account of their ages. I just googled the couple and found another source, which states: "Symonds entered the Harrow School in 1854, where his homosexual awakening led to a relationship with a fellow student, Willie Dyer, in 1858. Symonds entered Balliol College, Oxford, in 1858..." Multiple other sources confirm the year as 1858; the diaries (via Norton) say they first went for a walk in the spring sunshine; and the dictionary of art historians (quoted above) suggests they met before Symonds entered college. None of this is definite, but strongly leans toward Symonds being 17 in 1858 when they met. ntennis 02:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I had skimmed over your post and obviously misread it. I too agree that we should opt for accuracy before all else. I have re-read some of our sources and this is what I come up with: :Norton claims that
  1. The boy was three years younger.
  2. They met at Bristol.
  3. Dyer was a "chorister at Bristol Cathedral"
  4. They met in 1858 soon after March/April.
The Dictionary of Art claims that
  1. Dyer was a fellow student at Harrow.
  2. They met in 1858.
There are some obviously conflicting claims here. How could Dyer have been a chorister in Bristol and a student in Greater London at the same time? We are told (I forget where) that Dyer was fifteen. Would that not make the "three year older" Symonds then 18? If they had met at Harrow in spring, how could they have maintained the relationship for a year if Symonds went to Oxford in the fall? What does "soon after" mean to Norton? Six weeks? Six months? I would postulate that from the distance of a century and a half, "soon after" could easily be half a year or more. But I agree with you that I jumped the gun, and will revert the change until we really attain consensus. Haiduc 02:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot that Norton claims (paraphrasing from Symonds' own diaries) that they fell in love in spring. So (as noted above) "soon after" could not mean six months. Secondly, the DOAH doesn't claim that Dyer was a fellow student at Harrow (London). There are no conflicting claims. Symonds' family lived in Bristol, where he met Dyer. I guess they met when Symonds was at home, between finishing school in London and starting college in Oxford. Their meeting in Bristol is confirmed by Norton, so unless you can remember where you read that they met at university, I suggest we stick with Bristol. I don't see what the Bristol boy would be doing in Oxford anyway.

Going to google for yet another source informs us that it was indeed April of 1858 that they fell in love. As for Dyer being fifteen, again, unless you remember where you read it, we don't have a source. We do know that he was "three years younger", which to me implies that he was 14, but could conceivably be 15, depending on when he had his birthday. ntennis 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, since we do not have the birthdates for them, let's leave it at 17 and fourteen so that we are at least in keeping with Norton'e three year difference. Haiduc 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


More info re. JAS:

JAS first saw/heard Willie Dyer in Bristol cathedral, during the Easter holidays, 1858. (I've always presumed that it was at the Good Friday service!) They then first "met" on 10 April 1858. JAS writes of WD in terms which leave us in no doubt that WD was both his "first love" and the most aweful love of his entire life. Although JAS was only aged 17, and, as he himself states, WD was a mere 3 years younger, JAS clearly viewed their relationship, which lasted little more than a year, as a paiderastic one. He wrote of WD that "He is such a dear little boy" [my italics]. And referred to the love between them by quoting Theokritos on the joys of a boy [i.e. WD] returning the love of a man [i.e. JAS], Memoirs, p. 105. And yet, this was a love both paiderastic and chaste for JAS states that the love was of an etheral quality, and that he dared only ever kiss WD twice.

More physical in nature was JAS's attraction to the brazen Alfred Brooke, another Bristol chorister, whom JAS first met in 1861. For info, vide Phyllis Grosskurth John Addington Symonds: a Biography (1964), pp. 58-60; and JAS Memoirs, p. 122, et seq. Ought they not to be added to the list of "Couples"?

Another of JAS's boy loves was Norman Moor, Clifton College boy, aet 17, whom JAS met in December 1868, at a party hosted by Graham Dakyns. Should they not also be added to the above-mentioned list?

Compline 17:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Compline. 05:xii:06.

Many couples listed have no indication in their articles

Nameme 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Chaste pederasty

The specific formulation "chaste pederasty" is encountered in various scholarly tracts produced within the last ten years. In regards to the period under discussion between us, a quick Google search yields:

Homosexuality in Greece and Rome

edited by Thomas K Hubbard, p9 - "The idea of a chaste pederasty gained currency in other fourth-century authors, and may have some precedent in Spartan customs... and

Xenophon's Spartan Constitution

by Michael Lipka, p.134 - The fact that X.'s 'chaste pederasty' is in fact a philosophical and more ... According to the ideal of 'chaste pederasty', love of the soul... Also, Khaled el-Rouayheb uses it in his Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World. I ahve also encountered it in other works on Sufi boy love, which I will not quote here because I have proved my point. The concept and practice of chaste pederasty of course is ancient and widely dispersed, I am sure you are not contesting that. Haiduc 11:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

These cites seem to refer to the concept rather than the practice. Like the concept of chivalric love, it may have ben confined mostly to poems. Do any of your cites discuss real-life chaste relationships? If they were chaste, what made them pederastic? -Will Beback 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I join in the question posed by Will Beback. This is not a proper venue for redefining common usage, as evidenced in dictionary definitions cited above. I am reverting the POV tag, in reference to this dispite. I repeat my request that Haiduc and other interested parties abstain from removing it until the dispute is resolved. Larvatus 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
While chivalric love may have been conceptual and confined to poems, and thus relevant only to the study of poetry, chaste pederasty belongs to the realm of historical works, and thus is relevant to history. As Hubbard mentions above, it was mandated in Sparta. As we know a number of Spartan couples, without being told specifically that they infringed their own rules we have to allow that they may well have been of a chaste nature - until proven otherwise. And while chivalric love may have been only a literary conceit in Europe, chastity in men's relations with boys was a topic of discussion, legislation and debate in the Islamic world from the 800's to the 1800's.
What is pederastic about chaste relationships? Here's a quote from Al-Rouayheb, "According to the Persian philosopher Mullah Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi, the divine purpose behind the existence of refined pederastic attraction was precisely to induce men to frequent and care for boys, thereby ensuring that the arts and sciences of civilization would be transmitted from generation to generation." "Refined" here implies those relationships which do not contravene Islamic law, which forbids "liwat," or "sodomy." Thus we have a modern scholar, and not the only one, who considers that the un-consummated attraction of a man for a boy can be "pederastic."
For another, though a bit older, example of an "all hat and no cattle" pederast usage, let me refer you to Johann Matthias Gesner's study of Socrates' love life, in which he concludes that the philosopher's desires were real but never acted upon, as a result of which he titles his work Socrates, Sanctus Paederasta. Why is Socrates a "holy pederast?" Because his pederasty is chaste.
As for Larvatus' attempt to inject "common English usage" into academic discourse, let me simply point out that the range of meaning ascribed to "pederasty" in scholarly works always extends far beyond common usage (which tends to hover at the level of invective) as well as far beyond common dictionary definitions, some of the most eggregious of which have been denounced in academia as a "homophobic hijacking" of the term. Haiduc 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not the right venue for promoting biases of any kind. For every modern scholar endorsing the concept of "chaste pederasty", there are dozens of classicists debunking the myths of ancient Greek sexuality. As regards the status of Socrates, in addition to the testimony of Bruce S. Thornton and R. E. Allen, collected here, I will cite Robert Flaceliere, "Daily Life in Greece at the Time of Pericles", Phoenix Press, 2002, pp. 110 ff. and Leo Strauss' On Plato's Symposium, The University Of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 50ff. The definitive source on the Athenian attitude towards sexual relations between men and boys remains Aeschines' speech Contra Timarchum, readily available online. Here is a representative sample of academic discourse at the furthest remove from homophobia: "there are a number of examples of fully adult long-term homoerotic relationships in the Greek texts, the standard form of Greek homosexuality seems to have consisted of relations between a man in his middle or late twenties, or older, and (at least at the onset of the relationship) a teenage boy. We call that, when it has a physical dimension, pederasty (the Greek word, for the Greek practice), and it is about as difficult to get Americans to view pederasty with anything but horror as it would be to get them to approve of infanticide." (Robert B. Louden (editor), The Greeks and Us: Essays in Honor of Arthur W.H. Adkins, The University Of Chicago Press, 1996, response to Martha Nussbaum by Richard Posner, p. 221.) These authorities will suffice to rebut the canard of "holy pederasty". As regards the charge of "homophobic hijacking" of the term pederast, the charge referenced above originates not in the academia, but on a defunct propaganda web site, www.bibliogay.com. Further, its brunt must be borne out by the totality of English speakers responsible for using the term in its current fashion. To deviate from their authority, in the direction of "chaste pederasty", amounts to slander against men like Socrates and Caesar, both of whom have denied having any part in sex with other men regardless of their age. If homophobia has no place in these pages, neither does homosexual fabrication. Larvatus 07:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
My main source for this article and related ones is Carola Reisberg's book "Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechenland", which - I think - was never translated into English. The information I gathered from there convinced me that this Merriam-Webster definition is misleading and most likely influenced by moralistic prejudice. In other words: the Merriam-Webster definition looks biased to me. Fulcher 11:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me see if I got this right. You base your wholesale indictment of English speakers on the experience of reading a single book in German? Has it ever occurred to you that our languages might be referring to disparate practices and different phenomena in their use of cognate terms? How about reading the books that I have cited to rebut your imported condescension? Larvatus 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Comrade Larvatus, everything can be improved, even the English language and its tendency to use inaccurate terms. :-)) Fulcher 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Languages develop from within. It is absurd to expect an "improvement" to be handed down to the Great Unwashed, even if the would-be dispenser of sweetness and light hails from a superior culture. Further, am I correct in inferring your refusal to consult my English-language scholarly sources, five to your one? As an aside, I cannot recall belonging to any antient sodality that would entitle you do deem yourself my "comrade". Larvatus 02:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
I said "comrade", since I guess that your dogmatic attitude has something to do with growing up in a system that told their people what they had to believe. Now, do I have to accept some definition as the ultimate truth, when I believe it's inaccurate? Sorry, but Merriam-Webster is not my pope. Fulcher 08:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to write in English, you have to defer to the authority of native speakers. Larvatus 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, you have raised anumber of points all of which will have to be addressed. I will just touch on a couple now, leaving the others for a more leisurely discussion. First, "pederasty" has seen a number of uses, and restricting it to only this or that use is not useful, it is a muzzling of the discussion. I do not question the validity of your examples. They simply do not trump mine - both are germane and part of the scholarship.
Secondly can we raise the discussion from the level of diatribe, in which you ascribe biased viewpoints to any but your own. As for the Bibliophile being a "defunct propaganda website," would someone please inform Dr. Hagius of that? He is the scholar who translates and publishes those materials, and I am sure he will appreciate the information. Let's tone down the stridency of the polemic here just a tad, shall we? Furthermore, let's not restrict this discussion to the Greeks, since much of the study on chaste pederasty comes from research into the Islamic traditions. Haiduc 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for acknowledging the existence of a controversy. Yet we remain far from home when standard dictionary usage is disparaged as biased. Unabridged versions of the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English Dictionaries are the ultimate authorities on current Anglo-American usage. There is no excuse for failing to conform the content of this article to their definientia. What happens in other languages is beyond our instant concern. Larvatus 17:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Your argument would carry more weight if we were assembling a dictionary here. We are not. Pederasty is a very old and very complex institution, which has been variously constructed by different cultures over the course of the last three or so millennia. Thousands of pages could be and have been written on the subject. To suggest that even a relatively brief encylopaedia article should restrict itself to the scope of a dictionary definition strikes me as so unresonable and against the whole purpose of constructing an encylopaedia that I don't even know how to begin to refute it. However, things get even more muddled here, because we are just barely emerging from a period in which the discourse on homosexuality was framed in scriptural terms so that mainstream dictionaries still have definitions of pederasty like "the act against nature; sodomy" (I am quoting from memory, so I can't tell you which and when but I am sure you have run into that sort of thing yourself). Or the sadly amusing "Insertion of the penis into the anus," from which we get oddities like "pederasty on women." You view Hugh Hagius' critique of such definitions as "disparagement" but your take on it does not invalidate his work. We are all free to take it as we will. If you can produce an opposing view, a scholar claiming that the dictionary definitions and only the dictionary definitions determine the scope of valid discussion of pederasty, than that too should be included here. But that does not change the fact that when academics discuss pederasty they do not, as a rule, restrict themselves to the scope of these definitions, or even the more modern definitions you provided. They address the cultural aspects of such relationships, which go beyond the dictionary definitions, and are often outside their scope. Which is as it should be, since no one expects a dictionary definition, when refering to a complex issue, to be anything more than a rough approximation.
Now in what regards the idea of chaste pederasty (by the way, I notice that in your response to Fulcher you implied he was a liar - please consider that he, like all of us, contributes his knowledge as a public service, not out of obligation, and, right or wrong, does not deserve to be insulted), we did not just dream that up yesterday. Non-sexual pederasty is something that has been discussed for a very long time, as I am sure you know even better than me since you are well versed in the Greeks. If you care to, check out this section on the Spartans, which will show various views of Spartan pederasty. To the best of my knoledge, all the forms under discussion were considered pederasty, and no other special term was employed for those instances which were not overtly sexual.
The same ethic discussed by Xenophon re-appears in medieval Islam, and there is a body of work suggesting a direct link between the two (even though it seems that texts like the Symposium and the Phaedrus were not translated into Arabic). Thus the principle of non-sexual pederastic relationships is carried over into another culture. This topic, the non-sexuality of the pederastic relationships, is a subject of research and has been discussed.
As for Fulcher's contribution, while there is such a thing as English definition, there is no such thing as "English-based world history." It would be interesing indeed to know if there is material in other languages on this topic, in German in particular since so much valuable work has been done by Germans. Anyway, I have tried to answer here the concerns you expressed in your last message, if there is material that you still feel has not been adessed,let me know. Haiduc 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
First off, I am not calling anyone a liar. Notwithstanding an occasional term of ethnic disparagement, this has been a civil and orderly debate. The task at hand is to determine the place of "chaste pederasty" in the spectrum ranging from full-fledged to ersatz oxymora, from "true lies" to "jumbo shrimp". My claim, supported by the quoted dictionary definitions, is that it stands a lot closer to the former than the latter. As for the rest of your argument, I note a fundamental disagreement that is unlikely to be resolved without formal arbitration. Namely, I interpret our task as glossing the existing English usage, not as attempting to reform or subvert it. As noted by Richard Posner, in the language we use, pederasty involves sexual contact by definition. This definition is a matter of social fact. Academic discourse is as responsible to linguistic norms as popular usage. There are places suited for contesting social facts. This is not it.
We are not tasked with writing a "world history". Our job is to support current word usage with factual record. Please indicate your willingness to conform to the existing standards of English usage. Failing that, we should prepare for formal dispute resolution. Larvatus 02:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)larvatus
I had no idea we here were merely playing a supporting role to dictionary editors. Be that as it may, if you wish to put this up to arbitration I wish you the best of luck. You have chosen for yourself by far the hardest argument. I would request that we put this off a little bit, till the end of the school year, since I am swamped with work these days and hardly have time to deal with this project more than to keep an eye out for mischievous edits. But it is up to you, obviously. Haiduc 01:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing Cocteau and Radiguet

I am removing this because there is no evidence that Cocteau and Radiguet had a sexual relationship. In his "Portrait Souvenir de Jean Cocteau" (ed. Tallandier 1989 pp 60-68), Roger Stéphane transcribes an interview given at the French Radio by Jean Cocteau in 1963 (six months before his death) where he discusses his relationship with Radiguet, who spent most of his evenings either at the appartment of Juan Gris or at the appartment of Max Jacob, where he usually slept either on the floor or on the kitchen table. Cocteau also discusses Radiguet's relationship with a fiancée who later married the French film maker Réné Clair. Cocteau does not suggest that he was interested in anything other than Radiguet's talent as a writer. Musikfabrik 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In pederasty even more than in most subjects, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There were, and are, many reasons why a man might want to keep a relationship with a boy sub rosa. Michel Larivière, in his "dictionary," Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres devotes a lengthy entry to Radiguet and his meeting with Cocteau at the age of fifteen. He claims Cocteau becomes the boy's lover and enagages him emotionally and professionally. The relationship is a stormy one, the boy, defensive, declares, "I do not wish to be addressed as Madame Cocteau." He cheats on Cocteau with pretty women and Cocteau beats him in exchange. Listed sources are François Bott, Radiguet, Flammarion, 1995; Jean Cocteau, Plain chant, Stock, 1959; Jean Cocteau, Le passé défini, notes de Pierre Chanel, Gallimard, 1983. I will restore the listing and cite the refs, please feel free to counter with any published refutation. Haiduc 00:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's all very well to make such claims, but what are Larivière's sources? It seems that they are, at best, second-hand and made by people who had agendas against Cocteau to begin with. Cocteau himself says in the sources cited above that while he respected Radiguet's talent, he had very little affection for Radiguet and saw his death as the logical outcome to his excesses. If Cocteau and Radiguet had an real relationship, it is likely that Radiguet would not have died as quickly as he did. And Radiguet's statement that he does not wish to be addressed as Madame Cocteau speaks for itself.

Is Wikipedia about knowledge or is it about gossip? And, with all due respect, a "dictionary of famous homosexuals" is not a literary nor a musicological reference. If you can provide something other than a third-hand reference (ie letters, first-hand accounts, writings by the parties concerned), I would be wiling to reconsider my position, but my first hand sources (Madeleine Milhaud, Germaine Tailleferre and others) have made it clear that this information is incorrect, as Cocteau was involved with someone else during this period. I am removing the reference, pending more substantial sources. Musikfabrik 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have these sources made this clear in private discussions with you? Is there a published record we can refer to? The matter is interesting not because I have any particular interest in retaining the entry but because the existence of a disagreement in itself is interesting and of historical significance. What are people's motives, why is Milhaud refuting this, is hers a "defense," is the suggestion of relationship an "attack," what would have been its purpose, why did Radiguet feel the need to "defend" himself (qui s'excuse s'accuse kind of thing). While I am very interested in your suggestions I am concerned about what I perceive as a slightly apologist streak - taking statements by others at face value does not always yield the most accurate interpretation. Haiduc 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither Madeleine Milhaud nor Germaine Tailleferre had any problems at all with homosexuality. Why should there be a motive, since the only thing that was said was that Cocteau and Radiguet were not lovers? No one is denying that they knew each other, but if you read what Cocteau himself has written about the relationship itself, it becomes quite clear that he did not view Radiguet as anything else but an incredibly gifted writer, who he personally did not like very much, except in terms of his artistic abilities.

In terms of the "published source" you are citing, the work in question does have an agenda. The Cocteau-Radiguet idea fits the agenda of the publication. Whether or not this agenda is valid is not the issue. The question though is whether or not the hypothesis fits the facts. I have never seen any evidence in Cocteau's writings, Poulenc's correspondence, Milhaud's book "Notes without Music", Tailleferre's materials or any other number of sources which proves this rumour, which remains just that. Just because somebody has published it using second-hand sources does not make it fact.
and actually, isn't it that much more scandalous that an openly homosexual man would spend so much time with a pretty young boy and NOT be interested in sleeping with him? Why is this not a possibility? Is this about what people say about other people (and usually because they don't like them)or is this about the truth? Please see your talk page for a suggested compromise.Musikfabrik 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence

  • For love of a Syrian boy of 15 met in 1912 at 24, Lawrence fought for Arab independence.

We are making that assertion based on the one line? Do we know that the relationship was pederastic? -Will Beback 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of material at the T. E. Lawrence article. Do you think it needs to be further developped? Haiduc 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The material there is equivocal, indicating that "S.A" was a composite character. It also indicates that the presumed designee, Selim Ahmed, hadn't been seen for two years before Lawrence began helping the Arab revolt. Lastly, the bio does not clearly state that Lawrence had a sexual relationship with anyone. -Will Beback 20:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted T.E. Lawrence from list-- no known proof. "For the love of a Syrian boy" is not a documentable reason why TEL took part in the Arab revolt and sounds fanciful. If anyone has a good reason for this entry to remain, go ahead and revert. Jaguara 04:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-removing it. It's been added back in, still unsourced. Basejumper 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Their relationship is discussed in the recent work Gay Life and Culture. I have added the reference. Haiduc 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Katte and Frederick

Regarding Hans Hermann von Katte and Frederick II of Prussia: if Frederick was 18, isn't that too old for them to be considered a pederastic couple? Or was the age of consent 21 then? Anyway, Katte wasn't that much older (only 8 years), so the relationship is more like two young men of more or less the same age, not like what most people think of as a pederastic relationship. Pais 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Great name! Pederastic relationships were (and are) not necessarily marked by great difference of age, merely by the difference in status between the partners, with one having come of age and the other not. We are told that young men who had recently come of age in ancient Greece were considered capable of taking on a boy beloved - they would have been eighteen or so, and the boy beloved presumably twelve to fourteen. As for these two, I think it is certainly a borderline relationship. It is too much to expect to achieve mathematical accuracy in the description of human relationships. The same situation obtains in the relationship between Cesar and Nicomedes. In both cases the youths were close to maturity. Were they mature? Did they see themselves as youths or as adults? Did they see their partners as equals or as mentors? I think we would have to have solid answers to these questions before deciding. They are here as likely candidates, but new information could always confirm or deny that status. Haiduc 02:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As the teeange years range from about 13 to 19 years, he was surely still young enough and 8 years are quite much, when you're young (not, if one is 53 and the other 45). Btw, A. L. Rowse claimed in his book Homosexuals In Histor that were lovers. Maybe we should add this to the references. Fulcher 12:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please add it, maybe both here and in the individual article. Does he say anything about T. E. Lawrence? By the way, Will, I am building up a database on Lawrence and Dahoum at Selim Ahmed (Dahoum)/Temp. Haiduc 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Chaste pederasty forensics

Larvatus, I do not want to blindside you in case of an eventual dispute between us on this topic, and will be filing evidence for my understanding of the topic here, as I come across it, in no particular order.

1. Alcibiades was the eromenos (paidika) of Socrates (implying obviously that Socrates was the erastes) just like Dion was Plato's, but Dion at least derived some benefit from his erastes (implying that Alcibiades did not from his). Aelian, Var. Hist. 4.21 Haiduc 04:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Whatever we may think of his means and motives, John Addington Symonds, in his A Problem in Greek Ethics flogs to death the notion of pederasty having a chaste embodiment. For example, "nor would Plato in the Phædrus have regarded an occasional breach of chastity, under the compulsion of violent passion, as a venial error." (p.45) Haiduc 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Vernon Provencal (Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity, 2005), while scoffing at philosophers who claimed the existence of "'chaste' pederasty" (presumably the Spartan) at the same time accepts that pederasty has two aspects which are not inseparable, and distinguishes "pederasty as a sexual practice" from an "idealized pederasty" which transcends sexual attraction. (pp.122-124) Haiduc 12:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Plato, Laws, 837b6-d1. "The lover would wish to remain always chaste with a beloved who is chaste."
5. Aelian again: in Var. Hist. 11.11 he tells a story about Xanthippe's jealous rage at a gift sent Socrates by Alcibiades, which she saw as a present sent by an "eromenos" to inflame his "erastes'" desire. Haiduc 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Mann wrote to Phillipp Witkop on 7/18/1911:
I am in the midst of work: a really strange thing that I brought with me from Venice, a novella, serious and pure in tone, concerning a case of pederasty in an aging artist. You say, "Hum, hum!" but it is quite respectable.
From Death in Venice, translated and edited by Clayton Koelb, Norton Critical Edition; p.93. As we all know, Aschenbach had no relations with Tadzio. Haiduc 00:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Xenophon, of course, about the chastity of Spartan men's relations with boys in the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians termed there "paidikôn erôtôn." Haiduc 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just get lost already, both you and Larvatus. Quote the historians that affirm Socrates' pederasty, and quote those historians who deny it if you must, but stop the f*ck bitching about it publicly, because you are annoying the living crap out of the rest of us. Bring me Socrates himself and maybe I'll care about your little argument, but until then stick to the no-judgemental no-original research mere quoting. This says me, and me says it because it is true. --TheOtherStephan 00:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On the notion of "chaste" paiderasty: The pamphlet Paederastia Apologia * [c. 1870s?], written, as is stated, for a readership of "us boy-lovers", both praises paiderastic affection (kissing, embracing, etc.) and at the same time decries what are euphemistically termed those "vices...we abhor". Curiously, the author is effectively calling for what amounts to a rather "high church" form of spiritual paiderasty: one which both possesses fullsome "innocent" expressions of love and maintains a firm brake on the following of the baser instincts.

Compline 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Compline. 05:xii:06.

  • ~ This pamphlet has been attributed to Oscar Browning. An attribution which, it appears to me, is based on nothing more substantial than that OB owned a copy, and that the views of paiderasty expressed therein chimed so harmoniously with OB's own; i.e. that "Boy-love was harmless and beautiful. Added to which it could lead to attachments which might bind the lovers together in a lifelong friendship." (Anstruther, p. 56)
Any sources for that pamphlet, or context? Haiduc 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

18+

With several of the couples listed, especially in the twentieth century section, the younger partner is 18. Surely that's just inter-generational rather than pederastic - nobody would describe a relationship between a 40-year-old man and an 18-year-old woman in those terms.

18 is within the teenage years, that's it.
Aren't we supposed to be talking about adolescent boys, not teenage boys? Or in other words, not young adults?
English is not my native tongue and so I looked after these terms here in wikipedia: Adolescence. I understand that gay men with, a lets say 18 years old partner don't want to be labelled with this unpopular term pederast, but that's not our fault. :-) Fulcher 14:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Caravaggio and Cecco

The article on Francesco Boneri is rather hesitant in claiming that Cecco is the same boy who posed for a series of Caravaggio's paintings - the theory is presented as having been proposed as recently as 1998 -, and that he was probably a servant and possibly a pupil. No mention is made of any love affair, and even the pupil theory is described as "attractive but unproven." Is there enough compelling evidence to include this couple on the list? - Ktai 00:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Though the original source of that edit has unfortunately not been kept, here is an article supportingthat view. Haiduc 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the cited article is a slovenly journalistic drool lacking footnotes or documentation. As I state elsewhere, there are a number of edits, here and elswhere by Haiduc that have little to no substantiation. I can not, nor do I care to edit throught the voluminous name-dropping in this article. I can cite at least three entries: Michelangelo, Caravaggio, and Leonardo which have little substantiation.

Based on this degree of error, I recommend this entire entry be deleted or significantly edited. CARAVAGGISTI 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes and sources

Haiduc, can you unify them and add the sources to the notes-sector? I think that would be better and more specific (notes for each of these Far East couples). And of course bringing on more English speaking notes in general would be useful, since I don't live in an English speaking country and can therefore contribute only here and then on this field. I see that you are working on many articles. Since this one is endangered by some hysterical guy, we should maybe quickly improve it first, before we move on to work on others.

p.s.: don't believe this East German *beep*. Everything he said about me is wrong! Fulcher 16:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Browning and George Curzon

Oscar was fired from Eton for his relationship with the sixteen year old Curzon. Does anyone have enough info to include them? Haiduc 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's some info which may be of interest:

OB had taken Curzon under his wing to protect the boy from the "immorality" which was apparently rampant in Curzon's House (a house run by the dismal Wolley-Dod). The trouble came to a head in Summer 1874. Dr. Hornby, Headmaster of Eton, had been gunning for OB, and the relationship with Curzon was the final straw. It provided Hornby with the perfect pretext to dismiss OB for what amounted to little more than a minor infraction of the rules. For more on OB's dismissal from Eton vide H.E. Wortham Oscar Browning (1927) pp. 99-112.

The relationship between Curzon and OB was viewed very highly by Lord Scarsdale (Curzon's father). Curzon and OB remained friends for life. [Sir] Ian Anstruther states re. OB's relationship with Curzon: that it was a "love affair [...] however much he [OB] tried to deny it", Oscar Browning: a Biography (1983), p. 62.

This same scenario of Etonian master being dismissed for a paiderastic relationship with a pupil was a virtual note-for-note re-run of that enacted 2 years earlier,in April 1872, when William Johnson was dismissed from his post as a result of his love-affair with Lord Esher. Both Johnson (later Cory) and Esher published "uranian" verse. Perhaps they ought to be added to the list of "Historical Paiderastic Couples"? Also, perhaps Oscar Browning and George Lawrence ought to be added? Walter Pater described GL as "the dear slim angel out of the circular Boticelli".

Compline 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Compline. 05:xii:06.

During my research I came across a very beautiful letter from Curzon's father to OB. Seems to have understood and appreciated OB's apport, which raises interesting questions about Baron Scarsdale. As for Cory (do you suppose it is short for Corydon?), I thought he was sweet on Charles Wood, later Lord Halifax. Was he not the one he dedicated his "Ionica" to? [a brief search later] - Ah, I see Esher wrote an "Ionicus." Intriguing, if you can dig up some dates and ages that would be helpful. Haiduc 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm von Plüschow & Vincenzo Galdi // Robert Hawthorn Kitson & Carlo

I stumbled on this at Wikimedia-commons: [7] User G.dallorto thinks that besides the Gloeden - Il Moro couple there were also two other pairs that were connected to this circle of photographers - Carlo is the boy in the Galdi-category, a bit more information about him can be read here: [8]

During this same period Von Gloeden was romantically recording the youthful beauty of Kitson's handsome Tarominese lover in portraits and nudes and Brangwyn is known to have painted him during his visit in 1906. Indeed, at least one rare print of Carlo, in the nude, with his arm draped over what is almost certainly a Brangwyn painting of him still exists. Nearly all others were lost when Mussolini's fascists, in intimate cooperation with agents of the Vatican, destroyed countless hundreds of prints and over 80% of Gloeden's precious glass plates thus obliterating the images forever.

Carlos's special friendship with Kitson lasted for as long as both men lived and Kitson became an additional “grandfather” to his children. Carlos's descendants live in Taormina to this day, prosperous and respected hoteliers. Fulcher 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Fulcher. Danke for your suggestions, seems like a good lead, but can you dig up some dates to back all this up? Carlo looks quite mature in the photo I saw of him (but it could be a late one). Regards, Haiduc 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lord Henry Somerset and Harry Smith

Somerset went into exile as a result of this, but information on Smith is scanty. Haiduc 03:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rupert Brooke

1. Rupert Brooke & St. John Lucas:

Whilst at Rugby, the 16-year-old RB had a relationship with 25-year-old St. John Lucas, an author and aesthete who gave a great deal of encouragement to RB, and introduced him to the 1890's poets (Wilde, Dowson, etc.).


2. RB & Charles Lascelles:

Whilst in his final year at Rugby, RB had a love-affair with Charles Lascelles (2 years his junior). Lascelles inspired RB to pen some delightful, homoerotic verses. RB and CL were the two prettiest boys at Rugby. RB, steeped in the classics, viewed this relationship as being within the paiderastic traditions of ancient Hellas; and called his beloved Antinous.


3. RB & Charles Sayle:

RB met CS (aged 42) during his first year at King's College, Cambridge. (CS was a librarian, well-known bibliographer, compulsive diarist, and minor "Uranian" poet.) RB's relationship with CS, as earlier with St. John Lucas, was a paiderastic one, but almost certainly one veering towards "chaste paiderasty" - the simpatico older man, being of an artistic temperament, able to encourage and nurture RB's nascent poetic genius, and also appreciate his ephebic beauty. RB's relationships with St. John Lucas and CS have been described by one of RB's biographers (viz Paul Delany) as showing RB's need for "an older man who could give him domestic tenderness and sympathy".


Compline 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Compline 07:12:06.

Thanks, I posted the first pair, and we may be able to post the second, but I would like to dig into this a bit more. Can you cite any sources for this? Haiduc 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reginald Brett and Charles Williamson?

Both boys at Eton, Brett older by several years. Any more info forthcoming? Haiduc 05:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cecil Castle, not

The painting by Tuke is the very well-known canvas The Bathers. Both of the scholarly books in print agree that the single model for all three boys was a Cockney lad named Walter Shilling. In fact, they both report Tuke tiring of the lad's "Cockneyisms," despite his suitability as a model. (Emmanuel Cooper, The Life and Work of Henry Scott Tuke 1858-1929 (London, 1987) and David Wainwright & Catherine Dinn, Henry Scott Tuke 1858-1929: Under Canvas (Sarema Press, 1989).) Both books, I might add, were well aware of the identity of Cecil Castle and of the fact that Rolfe photographed him in the nude. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support the caption "Cecil Castle," the reproduction of Tuke's painting should be deleted. JaafarAbuTarab 14:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Haiduc 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

More slander

Until today I did not know such an article was ever created, not that a real encyclopedia would even have this. However Louis XIII of France,Benvenuto Cellini, and Michelangelo sould be taken off of this list, why are these people being slandered?--Margrave1206 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the claims for Michelangelo and Cecchino de' Bracci and for Leonardo Da Vinci and Francesco Melzi are over-stated. I would refer anyone to the appropriate sections to see that there is either conflicting evidence or no evidence for the claims blithely stated as fact in this entry.

The inference of pederasty for these has as much validity as implying a relationship between Dante and Beatrice, because the former wrote hundreds of lines of beautiful rhyme to her. Judging from the editor of this section, there appears to be a strong bias by that person to make pederasty seem a legitimate sport of the classic intelligentsia. I vote for the whole entry to be deleted unless this can be edited by someone without that bias.CARAVAGGISTI 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur this article needs to be deleted. In no way should old slander be made fact.--Margrave1206 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Hadrian with Antinous in Egypt
Hadrian with Antinous in Egypt

I don't see what problem there would be with using this image. It depicts a "historical pederastic couple". -Will Beback · † · 17:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction also, but on further analysis I concluded it was inappropriate. It is not a depiction of the two based on any information we have from any historical source. It is however a picture from a work intended to have erotic appeal. In other words, this is a case of two historical individuals being used in an inventive way by a modern artist in order to further his creative and pecuniary goals. It is as if someone painted a picture of George and Martha Washington having a domestic fight, throwing dinner plates at each other, and placed it in an article on marriage. Yes, married couples occasionally do throw china around, but unless and until we have historical evidence of those two engaging in such activity, such a depiction does not belong in the said article.
Likewise, it is certainly true that some pederastic couples have and do engage in copulation. But nothing of the sort ever was mentioned about these two, so to include a picture of them engaged in this activity is misleading. It is even more misleading if you consider that Hadrian was known for his civilized behavior, and that copulation with a boy was condemned and seen as the act of an uncivilized and abusive man by many of the luminaries of antiquity who pronounced on this topic, such as Socrates, Xenophon, Aeschines and Plutarch. Haiduc 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A) According to the article on Antinous, after Antious' untimely death Hadrian comissioned countless statues of him and had them placed around the empire where they were worshipped. Those sculptors presumably had pecuniary and creative goals as well, and it's possible that most of them never saw their subject in person so we can't say that they are accurate depictions. So I don't see a significant difference there.
B) If we had an article on historic married couples and there was a picure of a famous couple having a fight then I don't see how that would fail to illustrate the topic just as well as photographs of individual people. There are many activities married couples engage in together, and an assortment of images ilustrating those activities would be reasonable and informative. Right now, we only have one other picture of a couple together and they are in a pose probably dictated by the photographer, and which we can't be sure they ever held before or after. (plus "Mahmud & Ayaz")
C) Furthermore, we have no evidence of the sexual practices of most of these couples, but we can assume that almost all of them had sex. While some philosophers who lived long before may have condemned anal sex, the fact that they felt the need to comment on it implies that the practice was known. By the time of Hadrian the practice was apparently reasonably common if one is to judge by works by Martial, or texts like Satyricon. So there's no particular reason to think that Hadrian would be averse for purely cultural reasons. We already know that the family has a reputation tastes that weren't "entirely correct", so the family standards weren't puritanical. See also, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity(searchable in Amazon) In modern fiction, Antinous is depicted as being on the receiving end of anal sex.[9] So we can't say that it's unlikely that the act depicted is unrealistic, or that it represents a fringe theory of Hadrian and Antinous' private relations.
D) Whether it's erotic depends on your artistic tastes and sexual orientations. But you're probably right that the artist intended it to be erotic. However we include many pictures which are more or less erotic on Wikipedia.
E) I suggest that if we can find a better picture of this couple together then we should use it but until then we should keep the best one we have. -Will Beback · † · 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have enjoyed all the material you have brought here, especially the ode. But we should make a distinction between scholarly speculation and article building. You think that Hadrian and Antinous were likely to have engaged in anal intercourse, I do not (and when time permits I intend to elaborate on that, it is a very interesting topic), all that is irrelevant to the article since we have no information on anything like that having taken place thus it is all (modern) speculation. Most of the examples you have provided are really modern projections on an ancient couple, as opposed to modern works inspired by ancient documentation. They are about as historical and informative as depictions of Leonidas fighting naked at Thermopylae. What we could say if we are to keep the picture here is just that, that it is a modern erotic interpretation of the story of their relationship. Haiduc 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Symonds and Dyer

As established above, the inclusion of couples where the junior partner is 17 or 18 (generally considered an adult today, and in many of the relevant historical periods) is based on two definitions (10-19, and 12/14-19/21, from Wikipedia's article on adolescence). I have therefore removed the couple John Addington Symonds and Willie Dyer, as both were adolescents at the time and therefore the relationship was not pederastic. (Symonds does, of course, appear elsewhere in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.249.45 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Barber & Menotti

I have removed Samuel Barber and Gian Carlo Menotti as there was just one year's difference in age between them. DuncanHill 16:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How are living people "historical"?

I'm concerned about the rate at which the 20th and 21st centuries section is lengthening. Mark Foley, Jerry Hayes, and David Le Brocq are hardly "historical" because they are still alive. I'm also concerned that the inclusion of Paul Stone and Karl Donaldson on this list may be a violation of WP:BLP, because they are known for nothing but their relationship, and it is not at all certain that they do not now consider themselves victimized. I'm going to remove the items which mention living people, and include a comment to try to keep them off the list. ←BenB4 01:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, if "Jean Cocteau and Raymond Radiguet (contested)" can't be substantially trimmed, it should be removed. We have plenty of examples and including such an uncertain listing leaves a door open which should certainly be closed. ←BenB4 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I chucked it. It was the only uncertain or contested listing. If anyone wants to try trimming it, here's the diff. ←BenB4 01:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me exactly where history begins, so I can understand your argument. As for the individuals mentioned, their names are public, so nothing is revealed that is not already known, or that is contested. As for Cocteau, why don't you put the stuff in a footnote, or in the respective articles, rather than trashing the serious work of serious people just because you happen to think it is too long. I thought that was the proper way to edit here. Haiduc 03:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP, "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.... When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." For the two sourced listings I removed, they cited just news stories. Cocteau was "contested" which would open the door to rumor an innuendo, plus it was two very long paragraphs when all the other listings are no more than a handful of sentences. ←BenB4 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered my question regarding your main contention: when does history begin? Please respond to it.
As for caution being exercised, it has been, at least by me. The cases in question have either involved important personages or have been widely reported upon. And all the individuals involved have addressed the media openly and of their own free will, something that may not be apparent at first glance, which is why I will suggest that you should familiarize yourself with the particulars of the topic and of the events, so as to be able to take appropriate and informed actions in this regard. That is how we exercise caution, and that is how we make well reasoned and well considered edits. By your actions, you seem merely to have interpreted the injunction to use caution as an outright ban, which it clearly is not what it is.
These incidents are important to this article to indicate the continuity of these relationships through history, as well as the changes in societal attitudes towards them. Finally, your understanding of the word "contested" is mistaken, in this respect. Scholarly variance of opinion is found in most fields, and if we refrained from covering such subjects where that variance exists, Wikipedia would be emptied. By erasing all traces of the event in question and about the variance of opinion which surrounds it you have effectively muzzled history - the very topic we are discussing. Haiduc 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
History begins when the BLP policy allows it to. If you have been as careful as you say, then you should be able to find "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" instead of just news stories. ←BenB4 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not reasonable to demand "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" for current events, even ones as publicly broadcast as those in question. I am sure I do not have to parade here the endless list of Wikipedia articles on current events and the media which are not based on "scholarly" sources. I have restored the material, since you have also been unable to demonstrate in what way I have not exercised caution, and have not in any material way defended your contention that the material in question is not "historical". Haiduc 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
PS Please also note that Le Broq and Hayes already have individual articles discussing the very same facts, and providing additional references. Haiduc 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The "the endless list of Wikipedia articles on current events and the media" don't have serious WP:BLP concerns. 1of3 15:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed & Aisha

Why isn't there any discussion of the Prophet Mohamed and Aisha, his child bride?

Aisha's a girl. No girls allowed here. Seriously, "pederasty" implies a man and a boy. Haiduc 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro

I will be deleting the parts of the intro without reliable, verifiable sources if they are replaced. There is no need for discussion to do so, per WP:V. Frankly I am appalled that such a biased passage was allowed for so long, and I'm not going to be arguing the merits of something that so obviously brings the project into disrepute, especially not with "boylove" apologists. Period. 1of3 16:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1of3, your edits have removed all historical context from the article. Your comment above about "boylove apologists" is defamatory and clearly shews a failure to assume good faith on the part of other editors. DuncanHill 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If we are to have "historical context" then it will be sourced. I have not said that any editors are such apologists, but if I find out any are, I will not be arguing with them. That is neither defamatory or a lack of good faith. The foundational policy WP:V clearly states that unsourced material may be removed, and that sources must be verifiable. Furthermore, Jimbo Wales has said:
I can NOT emphasize this enough.
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information....
You are most welcome to find verifiable sources with which to justify the inclusion of "historical context" and I will not be removing it if you do so. 1of3 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Self confidence is a wonderful thing, except when it leads to abusive behavior and hubristic attitudes and absolutist statements. It is also sad that you believe yourself entitled to misuse valid Wikipedia policies to pursue some personal political agenda, an agenda that is all too transparent in your declarations. You come in here with insulting insinuations, you trash carefully evolved text (even if it is text that certainly could use more references), you make grand statements about who you will and who you will not talk to... Welcome to Wikipedia, but this is not what this project is about. An encyclopedia is not built on outbursts of road rage. I will repost the text you so arbitrarily deleted, and please be so kind as to co-operate' with the other editors who attend to this article and point out what, in your opinion, needs references. It will take a little bit more time than coming in here like a feudal lord issuing fiats and pillaging and burning, but if you can do that, I am sure we can all work together, and the article will be the better for it. Regards, Haiduc 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The foundational policy WP:V and Jimbo's statements are clear: material without reliable, verifiable sources can and should be removed "aggressively." I will certainly continue to do so until such sources are added. You claim I have misused policies but fail to substantiate that baseless claim. My only agenda in this effort is to keep the project from disrepute. I seriously doubt substantial portions of the text in question are even true, and it certainly seems biased in favor of pederasty in several ways, choice of words and choice of topics foremost. I remind you to refrain from personal attacks such as "coming in here like a feudal lord issuing fiats and pillaging and burning." 1of3 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Temporary fix for BLP concerns

I have commented out the section on the 20th and 21st century, pending further discussion. I recognize not all the people are living, that some of the relationships were freely acknowledged, that a few may have been sufficiently documented and notable to be included in any event. I also realise that not all of them were in fact sexual, but including them in an article on "pederastic couples' when they many not meet that definition would seem to be itself a BLP violation. I will have no hesitation in blocking anyone who reverts this section as a while, pending the necessary discussion, & If necessary to protect, I will. Anyone who reverts a particular item should be very sure of the justification, and should discuss it on the article talk page first. I regard this as a temporary fix, not a solution. DGG (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I removed mention of all the possibly identifiable living people just prior to your commenting. 1of3 04:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick check fist--I think you may have done so for the first person listed, but not always the second, e.g. Ninetto Davoli. At that point I decided to play it safe. This is so potentially problematic an article, that the discussion can proceed more clearly in the absence of the recent portion. There is the further matter of people not named but possibly identifiable.

DGG (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a BLP concern? There is nothing shameful about being a loving couple. Has any living person expressed concern? I don't appreciate your negative overreacting, DGG. Roman Czyborra 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Because we don't know whether the people involved are shamed, defamed, or otherwise hurt by their identification in these relationships, apart from whether they should be or not. A teen or young adult can easily make decisions he later regrets -- I know I did -- and those mistakes can include talking to the press. The pertinent authority, WP:BLP, mandates a proactive standard of action, probably to correct problems before lawsuits are filed, rather than afterwards. 1of3 05:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

attempt at common sense

as an outsider to this page, I'd like to express what seems to me some common sense ideas:

  1. if the title of the page remains, a defense of pederasty is out of place--just a description of criteria
  2. including couples where any of the named or un-named parties may be alive is asking for trouble, regardless of the strength of the documentation. the wording "historic" should be take as an indication of that.
  3. including pederasts where the identity of the other member of the couple is unknown or undefined seems also contrary to the orientation of the page as "couples". It's not "list of pederasts."
  4. for articles of this sort, the common understanding of the words should be followed, which includes actual sexual activity, not merely feelings, expressed or unexpressed
  5. someone having reported something in the absence of general historic acceptance, is not sufficient evidence for this. Uncertain instances should go on the relevant biographic pages, not a summary listing. An article like this should not be intended to accumulate all possible instances. that is indeed having an agenda.

as an aside, I'm amused at the discussion of Socrates--in the most famous advocacy of homosexuality ever written, he plays a central role -- but as an example of someone supremely chaste. And unaffected by other human passions: he leaves sober, after drinking everyone else under the table. Those who remember nothing else about the Symposium, will remember that. DGG (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree - totally. 1of3 05:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To be clear, that is not, IMHO, to suggest that an article or section of an article enumerating various "defenses" of pederasty or detailing the change over time in societal sentiments with respect to pederasty should necessarily be unencyclopedic (indeed, our pederasty article and several subarticles mentioned therein well and properly address those topics) or that a List of pederasts article should necessarily be disfavored (the views of the community vis-à-vis lists, of course, seem to change daily), only that, as DGG rightly notes, those are not topics to be broadly explored in this article. Joe 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
yes, that was my meaning with both points--of course such topics are encyclopedic, as are all aspects of human sexuality. As for whether lists of people known for particular things should in general be deleted, I agree that the community view is at present unstable, unpredictable, and unsatisfactory. If it could be decided, we would know whether and how to work on them. DGG (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Claudius Aelianus unreliable

Our article on Claudius Aelianus#Varia Historia says, "He is not perfectly trustworthy in details, and his agenda is always to inculcate culturally "correct" Stoic opinions, perhaps so that his readers will not feel guilty." Is anyone seriously purporting that he meets the reliable source criteria? He is self-published, not peer-reviewed, and known to be inaccurate. If he was alive today he would be a blogger and the last source upon which we would rely. 1of3 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ANI:
True, the editors using the source need to make the readers aware of this. But that requires careful judgment, so much in fact that we should probably defer to qualified secondary sources to interpret Claudius Aelianus for us. To be clear, historical works like this should be treated with caution, but equally you will need a secondary source to back up the assertion (probably correct) that Aelianus was writing with an agenda. The concept of reliable sources is a tricky one to apply to primary historical sources. In one sense they are all unreliable unless a secondary source interprets them. In another sense they are less prone to POV interpretation by the same secondary sources. It is often best to present both the primary material and any conflicting secondary interpretations by later writers (in this case that could be any later writer from the time of Aelianus up to the present day). No-one ever said history, or writing an encyclopedia, was simple. Carcharoth 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Copied by 1of3 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"...and let the reader make their own judgment". Forgot to finish my thought in the quote above. Carcharoth 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal from this article

Some of the comments made both on this talk page and at the Admin intervention page have made it impossible for me to contribute positively to this article in any way. I shal therefore be removing it from my watchlist and have no intention of ever editing it again. DuncanHill 16:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Polishing the apple

I am thrilled that at long last people are taking an interest in this topic, and are lending a hand at improving this article. But we should probably draw a line between the constructive dialectic which is the foundation of wikipedia work, and wholesale deletions. I noticed that all relationships with minors after the end of the nineteenth century have been deleted. Instead of doing that, I suggest looking at each entry on an individual basis, and arguing its pros and cons.

Other than that I do not have much to say at the present time. The uses and abuses of power that have been displayed here in the past few days will not escape analysis and discussion, but I am not sure at the moment what would be the best time and place to address those issues. Haiduc 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Constructive dialectic" is "the foundation of wikipedia work" when reliable sources can be provided for challenged material. Otherwise such material should be removed, as Jimbo says, "aggressively." When such material appears to be biased advocacy, that's even worse. 1of3 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The 20th and 21st century sections were commented out by DGG (talk · contribs), who explained in the thread at AN/I:
Temporary fix for BLP concerns:, I have commented out the section on the 20th and 21st century, pending further discussion. I recognize not all the people are living, that some of the relationships were freely acknowledged, that a few may have been sufficiently documented and notable to be included in any event. I also realise that not all of them were in fact sexual, but including them in an article on "pederastic couples' when they many not meet that definition would seem to be itself a BLP violation. I will have no hesitation in blocking anyone who reverts this section as a while, pending the necessary discussion. Anyone who reverts a particular item should be very sure of the justification, and should discuss it on the article talk page first. I regard this as a temporary fix, not a solution.
I haven't looked through the commented-out entries to see which are well-cited and which aren't, but I don't think it would be a problem if any entries which are cited to unimpeachable sources and in which both of the individuals are deceased were restored. Items which are uncited should remain commented out until solid sources can be found, and anything which falls in the middle should be discussed on this talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine; for the couples lacking citations, their articles back them up. I would not be opposed to pruning it, but I don't think there any remaining BLP concerns. 1of3 16:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Working out the application of BLP

I would be interested in the opinions of interested parties on the problems with the following entry (deleted as of right now):

Entry: Anthony Mercieca and Mark Foley
Father Mercieca and the future US Congressman engaged in a two year relationship starting in 1967, when Foley was thirteen years old. See Mark Foley scandal
Reference: ref>MATTHEW DOIG and MAURICE TAMMAN, "Priest offers further details about his relations with Foley" in The Herald Tribune "Father Anthony Mercieca said Thursday he never had sexual intercourse with former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, but throughout the day offered more details to national media outlets about his intimate relationship with the then-Lake Worth altar boy. Mercieca told the Washington Post he and Foley once engaged in "light touching" and told CNN he fondled Foley when he was a teen, though he didn't consider the contact abuse because Foley "seemed to like it." http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061020/NEWS/610200607 </ref

It should be noted from the start that this information was universally disseminated throughout the world by means of numerous media sources. This is not news to any literate person in the civilized world. What purpose is being served by deleting it from the article? Haiduc 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, it seems to me some might object because Foley could claim it was sexual abuse and he was the victim. Yes, I had heard about it, and I have no opinion about its inclusion here, but I imagine there are well meaning Wikipedians who would object. Jeffpw 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a presumption here that there can't be sexual abuse in pederastic couples? Does the fact that one party regrets it at some point make the relationship non-pederastic? If there were outright forced rape I suppose we wouldn't call it a "couple". Otherwise I don't know how we'd draw the line. As for BLP, I don't see an issue since it was widely reported. There might be an issue with NOR if they haven't been called a "pederastic couple" by reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, Will, Foley, after being caught in the scandal with the pages, said he had been abused by a priest. I should have phrased my initial comment more carefully--the peril of quick editing. As I said, that is my recollection of a scandal from several months ago. I could be mistaken. However, if Foley alleges that it was abuse/molestation, then it might not be appropriate to list it as a pederastic relationshipJeffpw 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An article in the Herald Tribune is not "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts" per WP:BLP. Failing that, the risk is too great. The WP:BLP policy is strict because it's designed to protect the Foundation from being sued. I see no compelling reason whatsoever to accept the risk involved. 1of3 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Herald Tribune is a reliable source, 1 of 3, and one of thousands which could be used to source the item were it included. You're misreading WP:BLP. To quote fully what you cherry picked: When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. This was not a brief appearance, nor is Foley a single event. The scandal and the relationship with the priest are discussed in other articles here. WP:BLP explicitly says that sources have to be reliable, and the Herald Tribune meets that test. To me, the sourcing is not the issue, it's how the subject himself views the relationship. That there was a relationship is fact; whether it was a bona fide pederastic one is the issue. Jeffpw 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff — the issue isn't whether the source is sufficiently reliable (it is), but whether the content in the source is sufficient to characterize the two under the heading of "pederastic couples". When one party characterizes the event as a "relationship" and the other characterizes it as "abuse", it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to favor one side or the other; and I think that inclusion in this list does give the appearance of supporting the "relationship" interpretation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be thousands of news stories each with a brief mention of the relationship. But my point is that there are none of the scholarly or expert treatments to which we are supposed to afford greater weight. If the question were whether to include less potentially libelous interpretations ("pederasty" and not "abuse") under the same circumstances, I would feel differently. 1of3 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're merely being argumentative, 1 of 3. This was no brief mention. Both Foley and the priset have their own articles here, discussing the issue from various perspectives. There were in depth articles written about the issue. It is part of a very public figure's history. There is no libel issue to worry about if it were included--at least from the perspective of it having happened. Froim the perspective of it being a relationship and not abuse is another matter. If Haiduc can find sources supporting the relationship instead of abuse angle, then I would sup[port its inclusion here. Until such time, however, as Josiah said, to include a disputed relationship in this list would tend to the POV. Jeffpw 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything beyond blogs which refer to any pederastic aspect to the relationship. If a living person is being raped, an article saying he's in a mutual relationship is not factual and is grounds for a libel suit. 1of3 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This has been very helpful, since it has clarified, at least for me, what the sticking point is here. It is not BLP, it is the fact that Mark Foley has characterized the relationship as purely abusive. To any impartial observer, it may look like a pederastic relationship that at some time went sour, but in the absence of acknowledgment on Foley's part that there was a change of heart at some point, or of an impartial source describing the relationship as pederastic, we have nothing to confirm that things were as they appear from observers' descriptions, which tell of a long and close friendship between the two. I think we should set this one aside. This time I have to agree with 1in3, though I do not see how this could ever be grounds for a libel suit - who is being libeled?! I also appreciate Will Beback's point that we should not expect these relationships to be universally idyllic. As a matter we do have a number of entries in which youths murdered their lovers. I hope people are not too tired of this topic to examine some of the other deletions. Haiduc 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
What precisely is controversial about the history of pederasty, acknowledged as being one of the three main forms of homosexuality, and the principal historic one?! Haiduc 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[citation needed]

What is it particularly that troubles you about that commonsensical statement? Haiduc 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's common sense that "In those cultures which embrace the practice, the relationship is generally followed by (or concurrent with, for the older partner) heterosexual marriage"? I'd like to see where it says that in a source. And once you find it, cite it. There are a million sources in this article so it shouldn't be too difficult, if it indeed is generally known. Until then, leave the fact tag. This is a controversial and uncited conclusion.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:37, 10/11/2007
What is controversial about it? And who says it is controversial? And since when is it proper form to fill an intro with footnotes? You never heard that the Greeks or the Melanesians or the Japanese married and had children even though they went through a pederastic stage in their adolescence?! Haiduc 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What I heard is inconsequential. This is an encyclopedia article. You're drawing your own conclusion based on all the specific examples you happen to know of. You can't make a generalization like that without citing a source that said it first; otherwise this is called original research.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:45, 10/11/2007
It's controversial because there is no source supporting it, and why would it be? Why is it commonsense? I haven't heard about the Greeks, Melanesians, or Japanese, and at this point I don't know what to believe. The Melanesians lived apart from others for tens of thousands of years; how do we know that these practices were consistent through their entire history? And for the Japanese we know that there was a distinct beginning and end to the practices, but so easily you state that "the Japanese" behaved that way. I would be much more comfortable if we could come closer to compliance with WP:NOR and WP:V. 1of3 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a problem. I do not think that it is possible to write or edit an article if you are not conversant with the topic. And yet you claim you have not heard about some of the most important pederastic cultures for which we have documentation. I suspect that is one of the main reasons we have knocked heads here. Unfortunately, from your position you have no choice but to request a citation for every sentence. But if you look at the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, that is not how they are written. Citations are used selectively to illustrate important points. I could go into any article in the Wikipedia, at random, and do to it what you originally tried to do here - slap a citation request on every sentence. But is that a reasonable thing to do? I am sure you are familiar with scholarly writing - if not on the topic of pederasty at least in your professional specialization. Is that what scholarly writing looks like, with footnotes at every sentence? So if the answer to those questions is "no," as I am sure you will agree, why then do it here? Haiduc 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That's completely wrong. When you write an encyclopedia article you must assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject at hand. And citations are not just used to "illustrate a point." That's just a ridiculous thing to say, unless you're actually unaware of the rules on Wikipedia, in which case I apologize. But please check out out WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:CITE. And yes, scholarly writings are filled with footnotes.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:17, 10/11/2007
Yes, the reader is allowed to know nothing. It is the editor who is not. As for filling the article with footnotes, allow me to draw your attention to one article which you seem to have taken an interest in, Subvocalization. Please note that sentence 2 in the intro claims that it is a natural process and reduces cognitive load. Inexplicably you omitted to tag those claims with a cite request. That sentence also makes other claims, but let's leave that aside. Sentence 3 claims that some people associate the term with moving one's lips. Really?! Can you back that up?
You see what I mean? You can take any Wikipedia principle and flog it into idiocy, and use it to hopelessly clog up the works of any article thus targeted. Imagine for a second what would happen if you or I went around doing just that, claiming all the while that "it is in the rules." Haiduc 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how much the editor knows; citations are still needed for all claims, because they need to be proved reliable to the reader. The subvocalization article is already tagged as needing an improvement to its references. Because of the sheer magnitude of uncited statements, the better choice was to just tag the article as a whole. Most articles lacking any inline citations are similarly tagged as a whole this way. Inline citation are still needed for every claim in that article, and without them, the article is not considered "good" yet (see WP:GA). The difference here is that there are many inline citations here already, so tagging the individual statements where a citation is still needed is a good way to call attention to them.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:57, 10/11/2007

As for the use of footnotes in introductions: it used to be common practice for introductions not to use inline citations (as long as the facts were cited inline later in the article), but it seems that the thinking on that has changed. The current thinking seems to be that all statements which could reasonably be challenged should be cited, no matter where in the article they appear. I learned that when I brought Fun Home to FA status. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Searching for approximately 2 minutes online yielded a source for the disputed sentence. Haiduc is right--this is a very basic assertion the other editors are challenging. If the editors do not understand the subject, and have no knowledge base, they should not be editing this article for content, but perhaps only for grammar or formatting. I doubt quite strongly that the community would tolerate those ignorant of the subjects challenging basic facts in an article about quantum physics or string theory. Why should this article be any different? Jeffpw 07:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a controversial subject and those aren't.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:11, 10/11/2007
So this being controversial excuses you from needing any actual knowledge of the subject before editing the article? I'm sorry, I thought this was Wikipedia, where we are busy writing an encyclopedia to rival those offline. Obviously I just logged onto Alice In Wonderlandpedia by mistake. Jeffpw 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like a serious answer feel free to restate that as a serious question. I don't respond to sarcasm.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:17, 10/11/2007
If I wanted a serious answer I would look elsewhere. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is closed. Jeffpw 07:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to spend more than two minutes, because the source you found does not meet the reliable source criteria. It appears to be self-published. 1of3 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What precisely is controversial about the history of pederasty, acknowledged as being one of the three main forms of homosexuality, and the principal historic one?! Haiduc 11:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, where's the source? How are readers expected to make sense of that it if they, like me, don't know what the other two are? Furthermore, that statement didn't appear in the version before I arrived on the scene. 1of3 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Pederasty itself is not controversial. What's controversial are the many statements within the article that seem to be written with a defense of present-day pedophilia in mind, by citing how much it took place in history and how "beneficial" it was "seen as" (these words were actually present in the article when I first arrived). If the article were limited to verified facts only, there would be no issue; but someone decided to make this into a defensive dissertation, and that has caused this large mess we're dealing with now.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:57, 10/11/2007
While trying to assume good faith, I find it odd that Equazcion and 1of3 continue to raise the bar for verifiability and reliability for this article to a higher standard than that of other articles on this encyclopedia. It is beginning to seem to me that their goal is not so much to improve the article as to frustrate editors who have been editing here in good faith. I would hope that non-involved editors and administrators would look at this situation before it escalates into something regrettable. I have not edited the article or any related to it until today, and only came to the talk page after seeing Haiduc's block, so I do not feel myself involved or that i am editing with an agenda. This post is simply a reaction to what I have witnessed in the past few days here. Take it for what you will. Jeffpw 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm reading the article and seeing that there are (were?) statements that qualify as pushing one point of view. I've removed many of them already. This article is not being held to a higher standard than any other. All claims outside of common knowledge, in any article, need to be cited -- even if those claims seem obvious to you, or even to an expert on the subject. Claims must be cited so that their reliability can be proven to everyone, readers and editors alike.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:54, 10/11/2007
I find your statements, Equazcion, very troubling. Your opposition to the mention of the positive aspects of pederasty is positive proof that you are approaching this topic with a heavy negative bias. That is a problem, for you as well as for the rest of us. It is personal emotional baggage that has no place in the writing of an article. We are called upon to be objective here, not to project our issues onto what is supposed to be a neutral body of information. Like all human endeavors, pederasty has positive (see Pericles' funeral oration, for example) and negative (Turkish boy prostitution, say) aspects. Unless you can edit with that understanding, your role here cannot fail but to be disruptive and biased. Haiduc 19:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about historic instances of pederasty. It is not an article about the positive or negative aspects of the issue. However, if there is consensus to make it as such, then I encourage you to present both sides of the argument and cite all claims on both sides. My opposition it to uncited claims, and if there were such claims to the negative, I would oppose them as well; I haven't seen any, but if you find them, I think you should similarly tag them with {{cn}}.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:29, 10/11/2007
I will accept that, sorry if I misjudged you. Haiduc 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above) It's also important that the article not give undue weight to the positive or negative aspects of pederasty in history. Doing either would make the article seem like either an endorsement of pederasty or a condemnation of it, both of which would violate WP:NPOV. Insofar as the article presents a historical context for the list of pederastic couples, it should do so reflecting scholarly consensus on the subject, and as far as possible refrain from making moral judgments one way or the other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

This article has a lead and then two sections written. The question is why is the rest of it just lists? Why not take the lists and actually write about it?

Also, most of the footnotes have no links to go to check on what it is about. In other wards, this articles seems to need a lot of major work done to it. For example; you can write about the time of Alexander the Great. This of course is just an example but there is so much in history about this that can be written about instead of just listed. The red links in my opinion are not needed since there are many to write about. Just my opinions and suggests. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement on Wikipedia (or in any scholarly work) for the footnotes or other references to be verifiable online. The only requirement is that they are verifiable. These are, if one takes the time to check the source material listed. It's as near as your local library or book store. Jeffpw 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What about all of the lists on this article? This article is different than any other I have seen. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right about that. This article makes excessive use of the list format. I've tagged the list section as such.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:08, 10/11/2007
I utterly reject that contention. How is this article different from this one?! Haiduc 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc, citing another article with the same problem that hasn't been tagged yet is not evidence of anything. There are thousands of articles with issues that have not been addressed yet. We're talking about this one. If you have an argument that this article is better suited by a list format, despite the style guidelines that discourage it, I'd be glad to hear it.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:45, 10/11/2007
It seems to me blindingly obvious that this article does not lend itself to one single style. While parts of it are better served by prose, the others work well only as lists, since in that fashion the information is clearly compartmentalized and immediately accessible. Burying all these pairs of lovers in a mountain of prose would make the information essentially inaccessible. The function of the article must take precedence over form. The example I contributed was not of an article equally deficient, but of an article that has analogous layout requirements for clarity and function. Do you really expect me to believe that you will militate to have the list of cities reworked into a prose dissertation?! You would be sabotaging that article, if you catch my meaning. Haiduc 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I would do with that article as I haven't even looked at it yet. Your assertion that a list format would be detrimental to the article is questionable though. It's an opinion that many have felt, even myself admittedly, but after seeing many lists reworked into prose I can honestly say that my view on that has changed. I still advocate lists as a smaller feature of the main article, however generally a conversion to prose makes the article better, not worse, in my experience. However, that said, I just took a look through WP:SAL, and found that this topic may meet the criteria for a standalone list, so I'm going to leave it alone for now. The only problem now is that this really isn't a standalone list -- it contains prose that stray from the mere listing of historic pederastic couples, to a description of pederasty and an examination of the practice. The article might therefore benefit from removing the prose that are basically redundant with pederasty.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:15, 10/11/2007
I would be willing to explore that, since the reader may be better served by being referred to the appropriate sections in the relevant articles. Haiduc 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, in the introductory section, I would remove the last two paragraphs and keep only the first: The first paragraph adequately introduces the reader to the concept, summarizes what the article will consist of, and points the reader to pederasty as the main source of information on the topic. I might also add a dablink at the top to pederasty. The second and third paragraphs go into the specific nature of pederastic relationships, which is something that I think we agree can be left to the main article on pederasty. (That's just the intro -- I haven't gone through the other section of prose yet)
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:43, 10/11/2007
Equazcion, do you plan on actually contributing anything constructive to the article? Or do you just plan on searching for tags to slap on it in order to make others do even more work than they have already? And is this your style on every article you "work" on? Jeffpw 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
When I see a problem with an article, I tag it accordingly to encourage a collaborative effort to correct it. If your point is that editors should never tag articles that have problems, and should either correct the problem themselves or do nothing at all, then I'd say you have a general problem with the way things work on Wikipedia that goes well beyond this particular article. If you're making a blanket statement about my general handling of articles based on this incident, then you're making an unfounded assumption. I've already fixed several problems myself in this article that were previously tagged, as well as with many other articles. Not that calling my general practices into question is relevant; this article has a problem and I've tagged it accordingly. If on the other hand you disagree that this particular tag is warranted, the constructive thing to do would be to state your reasoning.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:42, 10/11/2007

(unindent)Well, see, I don't agree that you've fixed any problems here. What I see is that you have removed content that made you personally uncomfortable, for whatever the reason. I also feel that your "improvements" have been to the detriment to this article, as you have no understanding of the subject you are editing. Your most recent tag is a stellar example: you removed substantial portions of text, then tagged it as needing prose. That looks a lot like make work for other editors to me. It would have been more constructive, in my opinion, had you changed the prose to address the concerns you had, rather than simply deleting material others had worked hard to include. Even better would be discussing your concerns here before making the changes in order to achieve consensus, and perhaps deferring to somebody who has actual knowledge of the subject. And by the way, please use edit summaries. As an established editor, I'm surprised I even need to mention that to you.Jeffpw 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In general I can say that what I removed were POV statements. If you disagree with my removals, then please tell me which particular removals you disagree with so that I can address your concerns.
I generally do use edit summaries when I make edits to articles. I forgo them often for talk page comments, because I don't feel they are all that necessary in that case; many editors feel the same way. On a talk page, I'm always replying to someone, so saying "reply" or whatnot in an edit summary doesn't really add very much.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:02, 10/11/2007

How to proceed

First of all, everybody, keep it cool. I see a lot of veiled (and not-so-veiled) accusations of bad faith from parties on both sides of the debate above. It's not helpful, and it's not in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Even if you think that other editors are acting with an agenda, that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to call them on it. That just leads to name-calling, escalation and edit warring. Instead, focus on the edits and justify your positions with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices. Don't speculate on other editors' motives, even if you think you can support your opinions: it's just not productive and damages the working environment for the article.

OK, so much for the generalities. Now on to the specifics. Whether individuals think that this article should be controversial or not, it has become so. Therefore we have to treat the article with the highest standards of verifiability, to ensure that its content is unimpeachable. Does that mean extra work? Yes, it does. That's unavoidable, but will result in a better article.

The process which has begun above is actually exactly what needs to happen: specific sentences and sections of the article need to be examined one by one, to see whether they need further sourcing and otherwise comply with Wikipedia policies. I'm sure that most of the sentences which have been challenged can be supported in one or more of the books listed in the "Sources" section. I know that may seem like make-work, but over the past few years Wikipedia has changed its expectations on sourcing, especially for controversial material. Imagine that you're preparing this article for becoming a featured article; you'd have to do the same work. The motivation is different, but the work is the same. Try to do it in a gracious manner, rather than making accusations about the motives of those who are asking for more detailed sourcing.

I would also ask those who are requesting sources to show some patience. Finding sources takes time, and placing a large number of {{cn}} tags at once can be seen as a provocative act. Try to focus on the parts of the article you think are most problematic, and examine sentences or sections one at a time. That will allow the subject experts to respond in a reasonable fashion, rather than being overwhelmed.

Passions are high on both sides of this dispute. Let's not allow them to get any higher. The course I've suggested is a slow one, and will take patience from all parties, but it's far preferable to escalation. Plus, I think it's the Wikipedia way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Josiah, for reminding us all that we are here to collaborate and not work against one another. For my part, my apologies for speaking sharply in my last post.
While I don't have any books on this subject, I would happily search the net for sources that support controversial assertions here. Since I started at Wikipedia, I have been a firm proponent of sourcing articles. It would go a long way toward assuaging concerns of mine if I saw editors who are challenging material actually searching for sources, too, rather than just adding cite tags--or (reliable source?) tags after I find a source and add it. I realize multiple web searches are tedious, especially on a subject which doesn't interest you. But it could also be argued that if the material doesn't you, you could better edit elsewhere.
In any event, I hope we can go forward keeping in mind that we are all here to spread knowledge, truly an altruistic act...if altruism can actually be said to exist. Jeffpw 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes... the paradox of an altruistic public-service institution founded by an Objectivist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Aherm, nobody accused l'il Jimmy of being altruistic. After all, he's the one making the money off the back of our free labor. That's something I never forget. Jeffpw 21:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)