Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 4

message: Well, it seems I was fooled.  I probably should have realised that any new editor whose first contribution says "I am not a sock" is likely to be one (how else would they know the terminology?).  Perhaps I took "assume good faith" too far, or perhaps I assumed that anyone behaving the way Cretanpride had wouldn't be able to play the role of a more reasonable person.  Anyway, I apologize for scolding those who saw what I didn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up a request at WP:AN/I#User:Cretanpride and Homosexuality in ancient Greece for another admin to take a look at the situation to see what the best next step is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: Since we've had some arguments about how primary sources should be interpreted, I thought I would take a new look at Wikipedia policies regarding primary sources. I'll quote the No Original Research policy:
:Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.
The upshot of this, I think, is that editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources are original research. In our discussion here we've made plenty of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims" of disputed primary sources; instead of relying on our own opinion, we should report the views of reliable secondary sources. So, all our discussions of "laws against homosexuality" are beside the point; what matters is how Kenneth Dover, David Halperin, Nick Fisher, et al. interpret these primary sources.
I'm not saying this to scold anyone, least of all CaveatLector, who clearly spent a long time reading and thinking about Plato's Laws. Rather, I'm urging contributors here, including myself, not to get caught up in further disputes about what Plato, Aeschines, or anyone else meant--it's an easy way to get huge amounts of time sucked away. All we need to do is cite a secondary source saying that Plato's Laws don't reflect a common Greek attitude towards pederasty, and end the discussion. The same with any other passage anyone cares to bring up--our discussion of the primary sources should be based in the interpretations of reliable, scholarly sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of primary sources

message: From comments Ellinas/Cretanpride has made, it seems that the influence and reliability of K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality may not be apparent to those who aren't familiar with the academic consensus. So I thought I'd supply a few quotes from scholars currently working in the field.
Victoria Wohl, Love Among the Ruins (Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 12: "Until quite recently, the main focus of scholarship on ancient Greek sexuality has been on normativity, on what I have been calling the dominant fiction of dikaios eros. Dover was the first to explicate these norms systematically, laying out the basic 'rules' of homosexuality in Greece: the ideal of sexual dominance and the stigma against both passivity and excess; the generally positive attitude towards pederasty; the strong distinction between active (penetrating) lover and passive (penetrated) beloved. As as description of 'homosexual behaviour and sentiment' (1978.vii) in Greece, it has been refined and debated but not surpassed, and the terms of the discussion today are still Dover's."
David Cohen, "Law, Society, and Homosexuality in classical Athens," Past and Present 117 (Nov 1987), p. 3: "Recent scholarship has succeeded in greatly advancing our understanding of 'Greek homosexuality'. Kenneth Dover and Michel Foucault have argued that the modern dichotomization of sexuality as heterosexuality/homosexuality does not apply to the ancient world, and they have shown how distinctions between active and passive roles in male sexuality defined the contours of the permissible and impermissible in pederastic courtship and other forms of homoerotic behavior. Among the Greeks, we are told, active homosexuality was regarded as perfectly natural (sexual desire was not distinguished according to its object."
Bruce Thornton, Eros: the Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Westview Press 1997), p. 256: "Recent writing on homosexuality in ancient Greece is overwhelmingly influenced by K.J. Dover's Greek Homosexuality. Though an old-style empirical philologist, Dover excited the 'advocacy' scholars with his thesis that the Greeks were indifferent to same-sex relations, indeed considered them perfectly normal as long as the participants observed certain protocols and conventions..."
These quotes should illustrate that the current consensus in academia is based on Dover's groundbreaking work, which is clearly an important secondary source for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dover's ''Greek Homosexuality'': a reliable source 

message: It turns out that while I was pleading for Cretanpride to be given civil treatment, he was busy developing another sockpuppet (as confirmed again by checkuser.  Frankly, in these edits he practically confirms it himself.  I thought his behavior was improving, but this shows a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy.  I've blocked the  account indefinitely, and blocked  for a month.  If any more sockpuppets show up during September, we can block them as well and lengthen Cretanpride's block accordingly.
So much for rehabilitation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cretanpride blocked for sockpuppetry 

message: I think you are right when you said some time back that good will come out of this, Josiah.  When this article went up for AfD, it drew my attention and I noticed how much work the article needs.  Now I think it might be time to focus more.  I'd like some help dealing with a problem that all this discussion has illuminated for me.  The article treats ancient Greek society as some sort of cohesive unit that all behaved the same way.  This is terribly faulty.  I feel as though the article should be broken up into sections.  There should probably be three of these sections. One for Athens and one for Sparta (the two for which we have the most to say) and then one for information on other Greek states we are aware of.  I think this will improve the accuracy of the article greatly as well as how it reads, and the sources we have there now can be incorperated into these edits. Thoughts? CaveatLectorTalk 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pederasty in ancient Greece treats regional variation. There's also Athenian pederasty, Cretan pederasty, Spartan pederasty, etc. Is there benefit to having all these different articles, or should things be consolidated? The regional pederasty articles are fairly detailed, and so is Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards improvement