Talk:Symposium

message: Doesn't symposium mean "drink together" not "drink a lot"?
Zajonc 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. I got in just slightly ahead of you. The article did say "drink a lot", but I changed it yesterday. Andrew Dalby 20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of symposium 

message: *1. If we're using the latin translation of συμπόσιον why is it presented as an exclusively Greek affair? Plutarch and Macrobius discuss them, Horace and Petronius satirize them.
*2. Why conflate the flute-girls who by the late 5th C. were more likely to be professional musicians with the hetaeria? Could it be because this article falsely presents the hetaeria as background props rather than participating symposasts in order to depict the symposium as an almost entirely homosexual gathering?
*3. The remark about naked servers is, I assume, garnered from the evidence of vase painting. These are not documentary photographs. Twospoonfuls 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: *I got rid of the LGBT banner till someone can legitimately prove that Greek pederasty is directly related to modern LGBT culture. Matthew Cadrin 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't, but that is not the point. It does relate to LBGT studies from the point of view of the Symposium as a written story....but I think this article need to be edited down untill references can be proveded.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2007

message: Is it certain that the slaves were actually nude? I understood that on Athenian vase paintings slaves were frequently portrayed as nude to make it clear that they were slaves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.7.39 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Nude male slaves'

message: There seems to be a question of whether the wine servers at symposia were men or boys. The Oxford illustrated history of Greece and the Hellenistic world By John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, Oswyn Murray, on page 219, clearly delineates two complementary groups of participants (not exclusively, of course, as we all know that at times hetairae were employed). These groups are 1. the fellow drinkers, and 2. the slave boys. On that same page, the caption to the illustration tells us that "women attended only to entertain, boys to provide music or serve wine." This is in keeping with Greek aesthetics, where men would have derived pleasure from the sight of a naked boy, rather than a naked adult.
While some sources may use the term "young man" others do not, and we would do well to be consistent with ancient use as well as with the more authoritative sources. It would be hard to find a more authoritative source than Boardman and Murray, published by Oxford. I might add that one of the links that Ghreqphpur has contributed also uses the term "serving boy," and the Metropolitan Museum link specifies that "The mixture, usually three or four parts water to one part wine, was served by slave boys." So I do not see what the fuss is about, using the term "slave boys" in the article.
As for the insistent deletion of a valuable and comprehensive link in favor of links that only discuss one object, or none, I have nothing to say other than it shortchanges the reader. Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nature of the servants 

message: Two editors appear to be edit warring over the external links, as well as some wording of a paragraph in the body of the article.
While I won't comment on the edits to the paragraph ... I have looked at the external links.  From what I can see, none of them provide images that are not already either in the article itself or already available via the existing link to Wikimedia Commons.  As a result, I believe all of the links could be removed.  Some of them may be useful as refs for text - but even that appears questionable as the links appear to be more about the artwork rather than about the actual Symposium illustrated by the art. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be that all the material in the present link can be found on Wiki and could be put in a gallery in the article. If and when that takes place I would be happy to agree to the removal of any redundant material presently linked. As for the edit war, there is none. I simply have had to deal with a persistent vandal who did not respond to the talk page discussion. We all have to waste time with people mutilating articles, let's not add insult to injury. Haiduc (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over external links 

message: I came on this article while linking from another and I immediately recognized the fingerprints of the now banned editor Haiduc. The current pictures were chosen specifically by him to highlight pederasty, which has only an incidental association with this subject but which he constantly promoted within WP. The lead picture, showing the tomb of the diver, was pasted by him  here. The picture showing the 'flutist' was pasted by him here but the 'flutist' was mis-labelled by him as a 'woman' and subsequently corrected to 'beautiful boy' by an anonymous contributor here. It fills me with a mixture of rage and despair that he was able to get away with these antics for so long. I intend replacing the pictures. McZeus (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of images are you looking for? I agree that pederastic scenes are not the way to illustrate "symposium," but (and you know where I'm coming from on this, as we worked on the accursed pederasty article together) the flute-player is a good-quality image. As I glance through Commons, here are some images I find. As a woman, I of course will dislike the first one, where the men recline and the woman, probably a slave or 'courtesan,' entertains them. I don't think the Etruscan one should go at the top, as a matter of WP:UNDUE — a Greek image needs to be dominant. The last is a little idiosyncratic, as it depicts a scene with dramatic content that makes the setting incidental. I"m genuinely sorry you're still having to deal with this. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Not at all! I've been made aware of how I can, er, sound in such discussions, and I'm quite sure I was impatient and rude. Although the other article still needs work, I always think of that page as a place where two "sides" had strong feelings, but serious perspectives about the article, and therefore the blunt discussions led to improving the article. Would that this were always so. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm a little confused.  Is there something wrong with the way that the article is presented, or is this just another attempt to erase the contributions of a particular editor?  I remember quite a long and ultimately unproductive battle over one of Haiduc's other articles a few months ago.  Reading this article, I don't see anything particularly offensive or worrisome.  I note that, contrary to the implications of the above discussion, Haiduc was not banned because of his area of interest or point of view, but because of repeated edit warring and personal attacks related to same.  Just because he had trouble getting along with other editors does not mean that all of his substantial contributions are suspect or ought to be expunged.  P Aculeius (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I am a little confused. I checked the last version to which Haiduc contributed several months ago, and I see little difference between it and this version, so I'm not sure what you're talking about, P Aculeius (good to see you again). There had been changes along the way (subheads deleted for some reason), but nothing of substance that I see. I understood that "McZeus" thought the article should be illustrated with images chosen to complement its points; two of the three images appeared to have been chosen for content that could be framed as advocating pederasty in the caption. If I'd felt they were the most representative images of the symposium available, I would've argued for keeping one or both. But since the article doesn't discuss the symposium as a locus of homoerotic activity, I chose images solely on the basis of quality, relevance to the topics discussed, and variety. (I thought the debate at Pederasty in ancient Greece, if that's one of the troublesome articles you mean, was quite productive. Participants seemed satisfied that the revised article was descriptive and not advocating a lifestyle.) Cynwolfe (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions of a banned editor 

message: Regarding: "One for health, two for pleasure, three for sleep..."
There is the bowl (krator), bowl (drinking cup), and reference to a "3 krator limit". Even if there are ~12-30 people at a party who are drinking with friends, instead of drinking-to-get-drunk, are you saying three "barrels" of wine is the limit, or three "glasses"? Would it be within scientific standard to replicate a symposion in Greece by some living-history philhellene group to finally come to some empirical, fact-based truth?
3:1 wine, = 25% wine: 75% water; at 12.5% ABV, divided by 3, is 4.16% alcohol by volume.
71.165.247.91 (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowl Problem