Talk:Malakia

message: Guess what word is missing from New Bibles:
NEW BIBLES Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament 26th edition l979 (Used as textbook in Roman Catholic Seminaries.)
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, not idolaters, not adulterers, not sexual perverts, …will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993
1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.
OLD BIBLES The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958
1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”
The King James Bible
1 Cor 6.9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.
This is an importance of an Encyclopaedia. So, information does not get lost. Nestle Aland is an prestigious work. It has an authority. It is used in many seminaries. Yet, where the Greek has five activities, the English only reads four.
Words are important. Lose the Word, one naturally loses the concept. It is important that this word disappears from modern culture. WHEELER 14:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisionism in the Church

message: I'm fixing up some linguistic things: giving the Greek with its classical accents, making sure the transcriptions reflect ancient and not modern Greek, etc. BTW,  is a Byzantine word for "marriage" (joining man and woman); the classical word for an effeminate man or androgynous person was . --Angr/comhrá 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The linguistic side 

message: This article should not have “(effeminacy)” in the title, as this is by no means the most accepted translation.
I was recently studying the Bible passage in 1 Corinthians 6 , and I looked up the word “malakos” (including several articles about the word, and several Greek references). None of the sources I found translated malakia as “effeminacy” — the overwhelming consensus seemed to be that the word meant: spinelessness. (Without moral force, strength, resolution, or courage. Feeble, nerveless, credulous, weak, cowardly, spiritless.)
Whether these sources are correct or not, the fact remains that “effeminacy” is not widespread, and certainly there is more than one common translation out there — which should at least be acknowledged by the article.
This article, therefore, has no right to present just one translation as being authoratitive and definitive (by using that translation in the page title). Doing so requires, at very least, justification as to why the lesser used translation has been nominated, and the mainstream one rejected.
Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malakia does not mean effeminacy 

message: Maybe would be useful to add to this article that Bulgarians use often name "Maliaka" for Greeks. Actually Greek very often use this word for them self.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maliaka 

message: What reliable source states that in Greco-Roman mythology molluscs symbolize femininity?  Cowries look like a vulva and so the Latin word concha, which applied to some shellfish was also used of the vulva.  But that is not mythology.  The source given for the origin of Aphrodite/Venus does not state that in Greco-Roman mythology molluscs symbolize femininity.  So what source does state it?  Please read WP:SYNTH.  Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molluscs  

message: Information on the English word "malacia" has been deleted with an edit summary: "Deleted irrelevant edits".  "Malacia" is the Latinized form of the Greek word μαλακία.  Surely that English form of the same word, used in medical contexts with the same meaning that the Greek word has is relevant in an article on μαλακία?  Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of the English word "malacia" 

message: Please indicate the reliable source that makes this generic statement: "Until women's enfranchisement (1920 in the USA, 1944 in France), the preferred and correct tranlation of malakos was 'effeminate'".  Is this a misunderstanding of what Dale B. Martin said about Bible translations of μαλακοί in 1 Corinthians 6:9?  Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It will not help. You will keep asking for "reliable sources" simply because you are paid for it. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to edit Wikipedia, read WP:OR and WP:AGF.  Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have indicated no source that makes the questioned statement.  I suppose it is because you can't.  Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are still maintaining in the article your claim that "Until 1920, which is the year of women's enfranchisement in the USA, the standard and correct translations of malakos and malakia were 'effeminate' and 'effeminacy' respectively."  That is merely your own unsourced idea.  Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Why is the Loeb Classical Library translation of Seneca's Letter LXVII to Lucilius, which was published in January 1920 (Seneca, Epistles 66-92) and repeatedly reprinted since then presented as if it were a 1996 translation?  Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Collins English dictionary, tranquillity is defined as "a state of calm or quietude".  Therefore, the translation "it is not tranquillity; it is merely a flat calm" is an inane tautology. It is not because the translators were idiots, but because women were enfranchised in 1918 in Britain and in 1920 in the USA. It would be absurd to enfranchise "soft-brained imbeciles", hence the political pressure on the publishers. Do not forget that all books and films in the United States are censored. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That opinion of yours doesn't justify the falsehood of presenting a translation published in 1920 as a 1996 work.  Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1920 book had one translator—Richard M. Gummere. The 1996 book had three translators—Richard Mott Gummere, Thomas H. Corcoran, and Frank Justus Miller. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

text: You know all too well for your comfort that the text in question was already in the 1920 edition. It was not a 1996 composition.  Presenting it as if it supported your unsourced generic statement about votes for women looks like falsehood, so please remove that (false, I suppose) impression.  Esoglou (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the 1920 version. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on finding it after deleting it when given by me.  Thanks for removing the falsehood.  Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indication of date of a text 

message: The article open by citing one source (and one older than a more prestigious one that says practically the same thing) about the meaning of the word as used by Latin writers.  Why is no similar source cited about the meaning of the original Greek word?  Esoglou (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a link to a Greek lexicon in the "External links" section. Since it has many scores of meanings, it is impossible to cite them all. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you did elsewhere (such as putting a completely out-of-date work under Bibliography) does not explain why you open the article citing no reliable source for the meaning of the Greek word in Greek, but only with a citation of an old source on the meaning of the word in Latin.  Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin entry included in the lead-in begins as "MĂLĂCIĂ, (μαλακία,)", which clearly indicates the Greek origin. The Latin malacia is merely a transliteration of the Greek malakia and can be used in all the meanings of the latter. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The English word τοo is of Greek origin, as any English dictionary will indicate.  English "malacia" is merely a Latinized transliteration of the Greek word μαλακία.  To say that either the Latin word or the English "can be used in all the meanings of the Greek word" is simply false.  Is either the English or the Latin word used to mean passive homosexual activity?  Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See this dictionary:  89.110.26.230 (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if this book weren't such a poor source for English usage, packing in terms not admitted to regular English dictionaries and giving definitions as questionable as saying that "malacia" means "homosexual desire" (felt by a man or a woman, to play the woman or to play the part of a man or of a woman) - but let us leave that aside: the essential thing is that it could not make up for your starting the article by talking about one secondary meaning of μαλακία (giving as basis your interpretation of an adjectival word, not of the word μαλακία itself) instead of giving a clear sourced account of what the word μαλακία really meant in Greek.  The article is titled μαλακία, not "A secondary use of the word μαλακία".  Esoglou (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarily Greek or Latin 

message: You have stated that you have put a link to an 1843 publication under "Bibliography".  You are not unaware, are you, that the 1843 publication is an altogether out-of-date edition of a work that, because of the many profound revisions it has undergone since then, making it far more complete than in 1843, now enjoys such prestige.  Were you to look with an open mind at the information a more up-to-date edition gives on the word μαλακός (as here), you would see that the Greek word does not correspond to your presentation of it.  I already put in the article what it says of the Greek word μαλακία, but you refuse to allow this to be linked to in the lead.  Why?  Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included the online lexicon in the "External links" section. It is almost identical with A Greek-English Lexicon, Harper & Brothers, 1846. But it was finished by 1925, when women had already been enfranchised: . That is why the entry "malakia" has been expurgated by censors and does not mention general effeminacy but equates malakia with κιναιδεία, which is just a particular case of effeminacy. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You misread.  Use of μαλακία as an equivalent of κιναιδεία is only one meaning of the word.  I really do not believe that you know more than the scholars who worked on that publication.  Strange that you use "expurgation" for what is the contrary of expurgation.  Has it not struck you that the "censorship" you speak of could be what was done in the past, not now?  If you are unclear about what κιναιδεία means, look up cinaedus in Wikipedia.  Expurgation of such terms is no longer as much in vogue.  For instance, the Loeb Classical Library has been revising its texts of, say, 1920, so as to give such terms in plain English instead of paraphrases such as "unnatural vice" and "effeminacy".  The original Loeb edition of Martial's Epigrams stated: "All epigrams possible of translation by the use of dashes or paraphrases have been rendered in English, the wholly impossible ones only in Italian."  The change that has occurred was of course - I speak ironically - due to female enfranchisement.  Your imaginative theory about a particular effect of female enfranchisement is at least as baseless as that.   Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How much does the government pay for your incoherent babbling? From your contributions, it follows that you have spent every single day of the past four years on spin-doctoring Wikipedia articles and wikilawyering. Oswald Spengler called such scribblers "male prostitutes". 89.110.26.230 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So, practically speaking, he called them μαλακοί, without bowdlerizing.  Did he say anything that would help you defend your unsourced claim that, "until 1920, which is the year of women's enfranchisement in the USA, the standard and correct translations of malakos and malakia were 'effeminate' and 'effeminacy' respectively"?  I notice now that it was before 1920 that Gummere translated Latin malacia as "dead calm", seeing that printing of his translation of Seneca's letters in three volumes had been completed in time for it to be published in January of that year, seven months before ratification of the 19th Amendment of the US Constitution.  And for each of the passages cited in Liddell and Scott for use of μαλακία in Greek literature there are several pre-1920 translations that do not use the word "effeminacy" for it and scarcely any that do use "effeminacy".  Yet you would make them all out to be incorrect!  Esoglou (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferring an out-of-date source 

message: You declare: "The entry [in later editions of Liddell and Scott] no longer mentions general effeminacy but instead equates malakia to κιναιδεία (passive pederasty)."  You have managed to pack several unsourced (and unfounded) claims into this declaration.
1. Saying that the entry "equates μαλακία with κιναιδεία" is, at best and assuming your good faith, ambiguous.  What the entry says is that μαλακία was used to mean κιναιδεία by Philo Judaeus, Plutarch, and Cassius Dio Cocceianus.  It does not say that μαλακία simply is to be equated with κιναιδεία.  It gives this use of the word by those writers as only a secondary meaning.  Esoglou (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More unsourced claims 

message: Another unsourced claim of yours is that the modern Greek word that you call maláka(s) "implies the brain's postorgasmic relaxation to a jellyfish state of blissful imbecility".  What reliable source can you present in support of that claim?  The one that you cite does not support it.  Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postorgasmic 

message: An editor using a dynamic IP in St Petersburg, Russia, who appeared for the first time on 30 April last, has in a mere ten days made hundreds of edits of this article that altered it completely, while reverting edits by the few other editors who tried to keep the article on-topic (it was originally an article on the Greek word μαλακία), accurate, and encyclopedic.  Today he has without prior discussion blanked out several sections of the article.  Guidance and help are needed.  I recognize, of course, that the pre-30 April text needed improving.  A better text to compare the present text with would be this, although this too would be better without the irrelevant section on viscerotonia.  Esoglou (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Admin note: The fluctuating IPs from St Petersburg never participate on the article Talk page (here) and they have no stable user talk where they can receive feedback. So I've semiprotected the article.  If consensus is reached the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Edit: I just looked over the article, and I want to state that I unequivocally hold that this version by Esoglou is vastly superior to the current version. The IP editor(s) clearly are familiar with the word, but seem almost schizophrenic in their attempts to convey information about it. The current version is disjointed, nonsensical and rambling. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made bold to do a general revision of the article, keeping only what is securely sourced and is related to the word malakia, and removing the superabundant material about all sorts of ideas that have no sourceable relation to the word.  Esoglou (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked over the article, and it looks a lot better. Great job. It went from a time-cube-esque schizophrenic manifesto to a decent encyclopedic article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I have renewed the semiprotection for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like the same problem is occurring again. Would you mind renewing the semiprotection once more? Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now semiprotected indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete alteration of an article by a single editor 

message: The user opening this RfC requests community comment on the extent of the alterations to this article by a single editor. 
* Comment: The article did certainly need work, but the changes go too far, are mostly unsourced, and often are of WP:NPOV- and WP:NOR-violating editorial character, not encyclopedic in tone.  That said, not all of the additions are useless.  I would suggest a good-faith attempt to restore the removed material, work in the additional material (including helping to source it) where it seems useful, and engage in dispute resolution with the editor in question.  If said party will not stop making unilateral changes, the matter can be escalated to WP:ANI. Regardless, the current state of the article is definitely unacceptable, and has the character of a personal essay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Admin note: The fluctuating IPs from St Petersburg never participate on the article Talk page (here) and they have no stable user talk where they can receive feedback. So I've semiprotected the article.  If consensus is reached the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Edit: I just looked over the article, and I want to state that I unequivocally hold that this version by Esoglou is vastly superior to the current version. The IP editor(s) clearly are familiar with the word, but seem almost schizophrenic in their attempts to convey information about it. The current version is disjointed, nonsensical and rambling. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made bold to do a general revision of the article, keeping only what is securely sourced and is related to the word malakia, and removing the superabundant material about all sorts of ideas that have no sourceable relation to the word.  Esoglou (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked over the article, and it looks a lot better. Great job. It went from a time-cube-esque schizophrenic manifesto to a decent encyclopedic article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Complete alteration of an article by a single editor

message: The editor in St Petersburg, Russia using a dynamic IP is again turning the article into a composition of his own imaginative original research.  I have removed that.  If he still refuses to discuss his proposals, it may be necessary to renew the page protection.  Esoglou (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have renewed the semiprotection for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like the same problem is occurring again. Would you mind renewing the semiprotection once more? Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now semiprotected indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the St Petersburg IP 

message: This article, as it stands, analyses primary sources, such as dictionaries, the works of Homer, Aristophanes, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas and the Bible. There are zero secondary sources cited anywhere to back up the claims made by the various editors who have contributed to the article. This constitutes original research in the most literal sense. As such the article either needs to be properly cited or deleted — Iadmc♫talk  08:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517151431/http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/20154-on-effeminancy to http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/20154-on-effeminancy
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, and not a place for original research, I have stubbed this entire article. Any investigation of how the Ancient Greeks linked effeminacy to moral weakness, and what words they may have used to do so, should proceed from reliable sources. Any contributions based on word usage or definitions should be contributed to Wiktionary instead of here.  - car chasm (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub article