"

 Removal of Patroclus Image per New Information 

The image was not removed on the grounds that ""images that don't contain nudity could be read in an entirely different way, resulting in a different interpretation"" and ""only an explicit image would have the obvious homosexual associations that would necessarily tie it to the topic of the article.""  We now know that reasoning is incorrect.  We now know that even images that contain nudity ""could be read in an entirely different way"".

Josiah points out that ""the exposure of the genitals isn't necessarily a sexual cue"" and that ""there are plenty of red-figure images which depict male nudity without being sexual references"" and ""with most Greek art of the time nudity is not overtly sexual"".

This new information means that the image no longer meets Wikipedia’s threshold:  ""images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."".

Thanks for your research, Josiah.  Please remove the image.  "