Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 8

message: I don't know that the reluctance is nationalistic, but I have to admit to the value of your larger point.  We are an encyclopedia and should be calling it what it is.  The difficulties seem to be with the name of the category, so perhaps that's where they should be addressed - anyone uncertain as to what the category means or is about can look at an article on that category.  This article could well address the differences in how sexuality, etc was perceived then vs now.  Or perhaps there should be (or is) an article devoted to just that.  This article or that category could be linked to that article, too. --Badger151 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Homosexuality in ancient Greece addresses exactly these concerns. As I've written many times, the term "homosexuality" is used by almost every classical scholar writing on the topic of same-sex relations/relationships in ancient Greece (and Rome, for that matter). These scholars understand quite well that ancient conceptions of sex and sexuality were not the same as those of modern western society, and the differences are spelled out in Homosexuality in ancient Greece. A number of articles, including Pederasty in ancient Greece and Philosophy of Greek pederasty, are also relevant; it's not as if WP is lacking in explanations of what scholars think about this topic. However, several editors have made it quite clear that they won't accept a category that includes "homosexuality" and will only accept "same-sex" under certain conditions. In my opinion, this flies in the face of scholarship and is a violation of the NPOV policy. But this is the impasse that we've been trying to work through, and why we've come up with Sexuality in ancient Greece", which I agree is not an ideal solution. But it's about the best compromise we can get among the editors who are currently active on this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg pardon; you have mentioned this several times.  Would there be objections to adding a link to Homosexuality in ancient Greece under a "See also" section in the article?  It might fit better as a "See also" in the section on his personal life than as an association with the entire article.  Hypothetically, a short statement on the different conceptions on sex and sexuality could also be made: "See also homosexuality in ancient Greece for a discussion of ancient Greek conceptions of sex and sexuality." --Badger151 03:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badger, in case you got the impression that I was irritated with you, that isn't the case at all; I was just expressing my frustration with the current state of the debate. If you missed my posting about the use of "homosexuality" by classical scholars, I can't blame you--this debate has gone on for so long that no reasonable Wikipedian should be expected to read it all. Anyway, I think the suggestion in your last sentence is valuable, and something like that could be added at the end of the "Personal life" section, where currently reads: " It should be noted that the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist in Greco-Roman antiquity. If Alexander's love life was transgressive, it was not for his love of beautiful youths but for his persistent love of a man his own age." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on categories, because I'm tired of scrolling down. 

message: The final decision taken by mediator is: Category:Ancient Greek sexuality.
This is the best solution one can think of, it's less POV, it's more neutral, it's NPOV and has the greatest support for it. I take it as the final decision and I consider this case as closed. --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final decision taken by mediator

message: How do other encyclopedias deal with this issue? Do they mention anything? Has anyone with full access to e.g. Britannica, come up with a quote? The article entry is here and neither the table of contents to the left, nor the relevant search have shown anything of the sort. I checked all 9 results, and they are irrelevant...
Also, the same happens in Columbia. The article does not mention the term e.g. homosexual, nor does the relevant search.
Given then that other encyclopedias don't deal with the issue, despite having a huge volume of information on Great A., shouldn't we just go ahead and do the same? •NikoSilver• 20:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this doesn't even address the question at hand.  There do not seem to be any parties advocating no mention of same-sex relations in the article (and I would not constitute such a party either), but rather the method of categorization.  Other encyclopediae do not have the same categorization scheme, so there's no lead to follow. siafu 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In case it's not clear, copying the article from Brittanica is a violation of their TOS. siafu 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a major copyright violation.  WC, please don't do that again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, I didn't get that. Is it a violation to link the article here as I did? •NikoSilver• 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wissahickon Creek pasted the full text of the article, which has been reverted. --Keitei (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am, myself, confused about why you guys consider Encarta and Britannica (of all things) to be the tantamount of scholarship.  A quick search through TOCS-IN or L'Annee Philologique will yield a mountain of articles or books that have dealt with the subject in one way or another. CaveatLectorTalk 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caveatlector, Brittanica and Encarta were listed because they are encyclopedias just like wikipedia, and I was comparing wiki to those encyclopedias, but I also listed mainstream classics scholars such as Peter Green, Robin Lane Fox, and Paul Cartledge. Peter Green writes nothing about Alexander being possibly bisexual, and Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge, who seem convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that G.A was bisexual, spend less than one percent of their books dealing with his sexuality. Not to mention that no contemporary historian writes anything about it. In most biographies of Alexander, nothing is mentioned regarding his possible homosexual relationships. The point was that his sexuality does not constitute as an important part of the scholarship on Alexander. All this passion on categories could be better used in writing about the capture of Persepolis, Battle of Arbela, etc. Regardless, this is off-topic. The categories which are the least POV are "Ancient Greek Sexuality", "Eros in Ancient Greece" and "Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed." These three categories fit what is written in the article and are the most appropriate and least POV. More importantly, if we put a category "homosexuality in ancient Greece" on Alexander, then by this logic, we would have to put it on every famous ancient Greek which would give the wrong impression to non ancient Greek experts that every ancient Greek was gay!  Takidis 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this comment of Takidis, and all relevant comments of Takidis in this page. In case you were looking for a non-"single-purpose account", that is. I find this biting and accusing of WP:SOCK quite insulting, as I have noted in the relevant incident. I am confident that this is a fresh user, and urge all parties in this discussion to treat him like that unless proven otherwise. Checkuser for one thing was inconclusive. •NikoSilver• 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Encyclopedias? 

message: Removed one revision dated "20:52, 29 October 2006" from the history of this page as a copyvio. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SELDEL]] notice 

message: The parties have to come to their own consensus and they have all the support from the mediators. Please feel free to ask us and we'll try as much as we can to help you reach a consensus solution. Thank you for your cooperation. --Wissahickon Creek talk 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus