Jump to content

Talk:Pederasty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lara bran (talk | contribs)
2,516 edits
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Template:LGBTProject|class=B}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Censor}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{todo}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}}
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
|-
}}
!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
----
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|-
|maxarchivesize = 45K
|
|counter = 17
#[[Talk:Pederasty/Archive01|1 (18 June 2004 to 26 December 2005)]]
|minthreadsleft = 5
#[[Talk:Pederasty/Archive 2|2 (2006)]]
|algo = old(45d)
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
|archive = Talk:Pederasty/Archive %(counter)d
}}__TOC__


== Dictionary definition ==
The neutrality of this article needs to be looked at again. I find that the use of "" in a pejorative manner, as is done is this articel in several places and the over usage of the phrase "self proclaimed" and "so called" take away from the encyclopedic tone.{{Unsigned|Uzbek451|07:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)}}


The dictionary definition of pederasty is of the act and not confined to ancient cultures, I think that should be made clear even if the editors For this article which to keep the subject matter strictly to when the exact term has been used. [[User:Dakinijones|Dakinijones]] ([[User talk:Dakinijones|talk]]) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
== Foucauldian allegation ==


== Only Ancient Greece and Rome? ==
The following text, "However, there are many social anthropologists, like philosopher [[Michel Foucault]], who disagree and the topic, like many historical speculations in the field of anthropology, it is a matter of dispute. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7189(198824)56%3A4%3C619%3AFTFAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0]" needs to be supported with a direct quote from Foucault rather than a vague allegation and a link to a paper inaccessible to most of our readers. If it turns out that it can be properly sourced it will be a very welcome addition to the article. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


I think it's not fair to only put these two examples I think from West Asia to Africa and the Americas because life expectancy was so low it was obvious at that time pederasty was happening and also to girls since they were married off as soon as their first menstrual cycle. So we just can't say it was a specific homosexual thing but rather common due to people dying at age 35 to 40 unlike now people can even age to 100. [[User:Nlivataye|Nlivataye]] ([[User talk:Nlivataye|talk]]) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
==The "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality": reliable source??==
I happened to run across the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality on line (it is archived on a private website [http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page here]). I'm not confident that the book can be considered a reliable source: its editor describes in a statement how it was withdrawn by its publisher after it was revealed that some of its "editors" were in fact pseudonyms (including the campy "Evelyn Gottone"). The editor presents his book going out of print as an act of political censorship by "leftists and feminists" - which only increases the impression that both he and his opponents have pretty big axes to grind.


== Summary of modern view in lead ==
Not only has it been withdrawn in what was apparently a mini-melodrama, its standards of scholarship are shaky. Very like Wikipedia, some of its entries include bibliographies and some simply leave them out.


I think we should continue to summarize the "Modern view" section in the lead. {{u|Word0151}} either disagrees or thinks the summary should be changed somehow. Word, could you tell use more about your objections? Is there a way to rephrase rather than remove? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The article on pederasty ''does'' have sources, some of whom rate a mention in WP's own [[Pedophile activism]] article: [[Frits Bernard]], Theo Sandfort and so on - a pretty polemical crew whom we should not represent as neutral parties.


== Varieties of English Pronunciation - British/Commonwealth vs American ==
Can the statements sourced to the Encyclopedia at least be traced back to their origin with these fellows, so that their false appearance of encyclopedic neutrality is removed? That would go some way toward mitigating concerns about reliability and POV in this article.


I've lived in Britain all my life, and I've never heard it pronounced with an "iː" before, so I did some research. Credible sources on British English (as used)
[[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
<ref>
{{cite dictionary
| title = pederasty ''n.'' pronunciation
| dictionary = Oxford English Dictionary
| publisher = [[Oxford University Press]]
| date = July 2023
| url = https://www.oed.com/dictionary/pederasty_n?tab=pronunciation#32425229
| doi = 10.1093/OED/2984366090
| access-date = 2024-03-19}}
</ref>
<ref>
{{cite dictionary
| title = paederast
| dictionary = Cambridge Dictionary
| publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
| url = https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paederast
| access-date = 2024-03-19}}
</ref>
suggest there doesn't seem to be much difference between our pronunciation and the American one, apart from maybe a minor stress difference.


The only source I can find that uses "piːdə-" is [https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/pederasty an entry in Merriam-Webster's] (anecdotally, a poor source for Commonwealth English), and even that doesn't use the IPA.
::To expect contributors to the EoH, writing close to twenty years ago in a political climate even more corrosive and homophobic than that of today to put their academic careers on the line by writing under their own names is to not understand the dynamics of repression. And while you are entitled to your opinion, I find more reliable and authoritative that of ''Library Journal'' which asserts that: "Dynes (author of Homosexuality: A Research Guide, LJ 5/15/87) has put together a superb reference tool. The encyclopedia contains 770 articles providing a broad range of information useful to both scholar and layperson. Coverage includes historical, medical, psychological, sociological, and transcultural and transgeographical information in biographical, topical, and thematic entries." Also as far as I know, the only place where the EoH is cited here is in the opening, where there is a common-sensical description of the prevalence of pederasty in history. If you disagree with the statement why don't you come up with counterexamples? I certainly would not oppose a discussion on the topic, if you feel the statement is in error. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


(Note: I imagine this is where the error comes from, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=prev&oldid=272501377 the initial edit in 2009] also uses the exact [https://merriam-webster.com/assets/mw/enwiki/static/pdf/help/guide-to-pronunciation.pdf same non-IPA respelling system]).
::: The editor did write under his own name, even in the terrifying world of 1990 when homosexuality dared not speak its name in universities and publishing houses. He wrote some articles under his own name, and some under pseudonyms, making it seem as if the encyclopedia had more contributors - and as if the articles on lesbian topics were written by a woman rather than by a man. Either there were no lesbian academics at that distant date, or there were none who cared to write for his encyclopedia - he writes of having had some trouble with "feminist activists."


The greek root παιδε is sometimes pronounced "piːdə" in the UK for words like "Paedophile" -- I can definitely see someone making a generalisation that, therefore, every word with that root must have a separate British pronunciation.
::: Anyway, I don't think its necessary to "take a side" in this spat to see that it reflects badly on his encyclopedia as a source. I do have some concern about the way some articles simply don't cite sources at all, while those that do just give a bibliography without saying what comes from whom. This is less of a problem, of course, when all the sources express a common perspective, as the sources used for his "pederasty" article seem to.


Funnily enough, [[wiktionary:pederasty|other Wikiprojects (and Wiktionary) just list both as valid British pronunciations?]] <ref>{{cite Q|Q211354}}</ref> I don't know. I don't think there's enough evidence to warrant a separation, but there could be something I'm ignoring/that I've missed.
::: Here are a couple of articles about the withdrawal of the encyclopedia (subscription, which I don't have, needed for all but the blurbs): [http://chronicle.com/che-data/articles.dir/articles-41.dir/issue-37.dir/37a01001.htm Pseudonym or Hoax?], [http://chronicle.com/che-data/articles.dir/articles-41.dir/issue-40.dir/40a00801.htm Editor of "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality" Apologizes],


{{reflist-talk}} [[User:Titfortat-skag|Titfortat-skag]] ([[User talk:Titfortat-skag|talk]]) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
::: You are correct that the review quoted on Amazon.com is good. However, that review's statement that each of the encyclopedia's articles includes a bibliography is factually mistaken.


== Message: Here is an better Improvement for the Pederasty Wikipedia Article and please accept and place my revised edits, and also a completely permanent total ban and prohibition using anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobic edits based on gay men and LGBT relationships in general and is completely unrelated to homosexuality, especially for males ==
::: [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
i am sorry if i made any mistakes, please pardon my clumsiness and i did not try to disrupt anything okay, i was trying to help fix it to be more accurate and please do not ever use homosexuality and gay men and anything related to the LGBT community in this article and never ever use them because they are very inappropriate, repulsive, disgusting, and dangerously anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobia and it is harmful to LGBT rights as a whole it will not be tolerated. END OF STORY AND DISCUSSION, NO BUTS ABOUT IT, NO MEANS NO OKAY. PPPEEERRRIIIOOODDD!!!, also here is the improved good version if you would allow it and place it in the article please, thank you and good luck.
{{Short description|Behaviors involving male adult-minor relations}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2022}}
[[File:Kiss Briseis Painter Louvre G278 full.jpg|thumb|A pederastic relationship between an adult man and a young boy being depicted on an attic greek pottery called a [[Kylix (drinking cup)|kylix]] made during the [[Classical antiquity]]. 480 BCE]]


'''Pederasty''' or '''paederasty''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|ɛ|d|ər|æ|s|t|i}}) is a practice that involves both an adult [[man]] and a young [[boy]] engaging in any form of [[sexual intercourse|sex acts]]. It was socially acknowledged as a historical concept and construct of cultural practices that were done in many civilizations and societies during the [[Classical antiquity]] between [[Ancient Greece]] and [[Ancient Rome|Rome]] within the [[Greco-Roman world]], and elsewhere in the world, such as the [[history of Japan|Pre-Meiji era of Japan]].
::::I do not see anything supporting the contention that Dynes wrote the articles by "Gettone" and if Dynes had tenure and felt free to speak that was not true of many others then, as it is not true of many even today. It is easy to be sarcastic now when you have nothing to lose, but you only have the freedom you have today because educated and principled people had the balls to do research and to publish though they had everything to lose, and some of them chose the cloak of anonymity so their lives would not be destroyed. Let's not mock people because they refused to be martyrs.
::::I agree with you, however, that we should not engage Dynes' issues any further. That being said, is there an issue with the statement in question, or should we consider the matter closed? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


In most countries today in many parts of the world. Various laws based on the [[age of consent]] in a local or nationwide level gets to determine if the person is considered legally and lawfully competent and capable to have consented to any sex acts to the other person without any harmful contact in order to classify it on whether or not it is constituted as a [[sex crime]] involving [[child sexual abuse]] or [[statutory rape]]. An [[adult]] engaging in sexual activity with a [[Minor (law)|minor]] is considered an act that is [[taboo|deemed]] a very offensive and abusive thing to do by the authorities and society in general for a wide variety of reasons, including the age of the minor and also the psychologically and physically harmful effects they have endued as well as also gravely affecting their mental health and wellbeing.
::::: Yes...I'm far too young to have known the horrors of being queer on campus in 1990 (or am I just too old to remember them? Well, never mind.)
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/112.202.60.98|112.202.60.98]] ([[User talk:112.202.60.98#top|talk]]) 09:54, 1 Nov 2024 (UTC)</small>
::::: I'll remove the reference and leave the paragraph as it is with a fact-tag. I'm sure you can quickly find another source. [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 05:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Your header is inappropriate. Please change it to something neutral.

:Please break your edit down into individual changes rather than expecting us to compare the existing text and your proposed text line by line to look for changes. Some of what I have noticed immediately is that your proposed text has introduced many grammatical errors, and it has removed a sourced section. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Since you refuse to engage the argument of whether or not the statement is correct, and only insist on imposing your opinion of a work produced by scholars evidently more qualified than you to write about such things, I will have to disagree. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:And discussing a contested edit does not mean that you post your version to the talk page and then restore it before anyone has time to comment. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

::OP blocked one month. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 21:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
You're right that I have no idea if the statement is correct or not, because I haven't seen a reliable source that either supports or refutes it.

Can you respond to my reliability concerns about your source as follows:
# The encyclopedia was withdrawn from publications due to questions of editorial ethics.
# Many of its articles do not cite sources, greatly reducing the reliability of the work as a whole.
# Those articles that do cite sources (including "pederasty") do not source particular statements, so the part you reference in the article cannot be individually traced to their origin and verified.
# The sources cited by the pederasty article are polemicists, and if their POV is significant enough to be included, should not be presented as a neutral overview of the topic (the present place of the reference in the article).

Thanks
[[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Dan, I simply do not accept your contention that academic disagreements over the ethics of anonymous publishing and the actions of a private for-profit corporation that found it in its financial interest to avoid a political battle reflect on the overall value of a work that has been as well received and highly decorated as the EoH has. In particular these concerns do not reflect on an article that is not involved in the main dispute - that of using opposite-sex pseudonyms. Furthermore, I do not see what your problem is with the statement in question, the accuracy of which is obvious to anyone with a modicum of information on historical matters. Do not make it seem as if we are to operate as virtual idiots, as citation-gathering machines.

:Unfortunately it is not ignorance of the topic that you bring to the table, but your antagonism to pederasty, which you have made amply clear in the past. But pederasty is a very mixed bag. Just as modern homosexuality is a very mixed bag too, as I am sure you are aware without my having to go into detail. Perhaps that is because human nature is a mixed bag. But let's not use these articles to pursue our likes and dislikes, shall we?

:You doubt that pederasty is the most frequent type of homosexuality? Bring proof. And please do not come here on a pedophile witchhunt, I am not interested in playing politics. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:: I'm sorry to hear your suggestion that I'm on a witch hunt. It's always easier to see other people's prejudices than one's own, so I hope you'll correct any biases in my editing.

:: Of course as you know, the idea that a statement must be proved ''not'' true before being removed from an article is the opposite of the way Wikipedia works. We ''are'' here to gather citations, mechanical though that process may sometimes feel.

:: However, you'll notice that I haven't removed any statement from the article - I have removed the unreliable source from a statement and asked you to find another.

:: If you really feel that the statement is an obvious piece of common knowledge, then it can stand without a citation. But I don't think that can be so - I'm pretty common, and it's not a piece of knowledge I possess.

:: [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==comments by Margrave1206==

This article is bias and corrupt. I find a great deal of this info to be false, and no more than a way to support someones agenda. What has gone wrong, why is so much of this article incorrect? How can unnatural be made natural without proof. As for the article it needs to be deleted. --[[User:Margrave1206|Margrave1206]] 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::Why is the article a picture gallery? Also why is the article bias? When you read it, one would think the editors would be pro-pederasrty. This needs work, please don't twist the facts.--[[User:Margrave1206|Margrave1206]] 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I thought I was the only one who made this observation. When you check the profiles of some of the people doing the writing, you notice that some of them admit to being a "pedophile" or "boy lover" in their profiles. Yes, very twisted stuff indeed. These guys want to pretend that it's the same as homosexuality, but it's not. Pedophilia is considered an [[abnormal]] and [[deviant]] [[paraphilia]] according to the [[American Psychological Association]]. Homosexuality is considered a normal and variant [[sexual orientation]]. Two men of middle age in love is not the same thing as a 40-year-old man and a near prepubescent 12-year-old boy.[[User:69.87.182.28|69.87.182.28]] 04:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

: I looked through over a year's worth of the history log of this article, and ''none'' of "the people doing the writing" has anything about being a "pedophile" or a "boy lover" on their user pages. You may have looked at ''my'' user page, but I am not one of "the people doing the writing"; I just revert vandalism and have never added anything to this article. Please read [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] and don't try to falsely discredit Wikipedia editors. [[User:Clayboy|Clayboy]] 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

=="Three main subdivisions"?==

You know what else? The (still disputed!) source for the first paragraph doesn't say anything about three subdivisions of homosexuality, just the frequency of pederasty. What is the source for this three-part organizational scheme? [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for asking. Anthropology. See the ref I just added. It is good you asked, this is an improvement. The deletion of the other reference however is capricious and "above the sandals". Inexcusable. And while I am not blaming you I find it interesting that a troll and a sock descend upon this article in a single day. Wonder of wonders. Anyway, if I come here it is to write, not to engage in internet hanky-panky. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== Sexual Orientation ==
A Pederast can be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual: See therefore th correct terminus ''Neoterophilie''
And for heterosexual/bisexual men who like young women between 14 and 21 we have for example the word ''Lolitakomplex''
[[User:212.95.119.38|212.95.119.38]] 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

== Pederasty article or what?? ==

This article needs to be deleted, not only does it use invalid sources, it is less an article, and more a way to push the same an agenda. Poor and bias I say. It is filled with personal ideas of what world history was like, instead of being fact it is a work of fiction. What is the point of the article? How much truth is in the article?? What is the article trying to say to the reader? Anyone can write a book filled with errors, yes? So is it a proper to use such as a source?

Is part of the article is outlandish! So Christ is a cheerleader of pederasty now? I am not sure how a propaganda article is allowed to be on wiki. Why don't you re-write the worlds history and make every historical personage homosexual!

"However, an episode (Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10) in the Gospels, which recounts the healing of a "beloved slave," (it is this translation that leads to this argument, alternatives are "dear" or "valuable") has been read by some as supportive of male love. The centurion's servant healed by Jesus is thought to have been his beloved, and this narrative "may be fairly read as Jesus' acceptance of, and even collaboration in a pederastic relationship,"

--[[User:Margrave1206|Margrave1206]] 05:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== References for Islamic world ==

The following paragraph has no references and is conjecture:

Islam has been another force shaping the ways in which same-sex love is understood and practiced in the Middle East. The valorization of youthful male beauty is found in the Qur'an itself: "And there shall wait on them [the Muslim men] young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls." (Qur’an 52:24; 56:17; 76:19). Islamic jurisprudence generally considers that attraction towards beautiful youths is normal and natural. In order for any sexual act to be a punishable offense four witnesses were required.

The translation of the Quranic verse is inaccurate and misleading. I quote all three references from Yusuf Ali, the most popular, and arguably the most authoritative translation, as considered by the Muslim world.

52:24: "Round about them will serve, (Devoted) to them, Youths (handsome) as Pearls Well-guarded"

{Guarded refers to the protection of pearls from "deteriorating agencies" such as "gases, vapors, or acids.")

56:17: "Round about them will (serve) Youths of perpetual (freshness)."
("freshness" as opposed to mood changes, and refers to exceptional and energetic service. Not virginity.)

76:19: "And round about them Will (serve) youths Of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, Thou wouldst think them Scattered Pearls."

Moreover, no reference is quoted for the seemingly off-handed statement: "Islamic jurisprudence generally considers that attraction towards beautiful youths is normal and natural."

Not a regular editor of wikipedia articles, so I hope I'm not writing this in the wrong space. Moreover I don't know who to address the issue to. You're help is of course solicited and I hope this misinterprtation is corrected/removed. I'd also like to emphasize that the part of the article that I'm requesting editing/removal of is one that pertains to interpretation and, even then one that is not correctly referenced (at least in my reading). I don't have a problem with the observations and activities of specific people over time as evidenced by accurate history. All of your consideration is appreciated and am withholding editing till replies to this post arrive.

[[User:Malaise|Malaise]] 17:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

:Thank you for your comments, this sort of dialog is always helpful and benefits the articles. I have used an updated quotation in place of the incorrect one, and have provided a reference to the material on the universality of the attraction (modified to fit the source better). [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

**I would also like to add that the reference material is generally weak. Moreover, taking certain quotes from the Quran out of context is simply dishonest. It suggests that Islam condones homosexual behavior and fantasy, none of which is true. You need to simply not include it in this article or come back with stronger references. It is too suggestive to go unnoticed as a deliberate attempt to mislead. [[User:MrblueX|MrblueX]] 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

==This article confuses pederasty and sodomy==
I have recently argued with Haiduc in the Leonardo and Michelangelo that he lightly applies the label of pederasty to all homosexual activity, whether real or imagined. The same applies here. The Catholic church from the time just before and after the institution of inquisition courts had a pattern of encouraging the prosecution of sodomy as immoral. The organization established in Florence prosecuted sodomy in general, of which pederasty is a subset. Homosexual activity was likely as common in the city of Florence as in Rome or other large European cities of that time. The article confuses pederasty with sodomy in that paragraph. The fact that other countries describe Italy as dandified does not prove that homosexual activity was more frequent there. German writers of the 1500-1700s often wrote strongly disparaging pieces about activities in Rome, which to them was the Sodom of the South. To them, all the catholic world was a pit of depravity.

Ultimately, I have to agree with the comments of some, that this article is often completed by editors that seem to want to find pederasty where there is none, and who despite the absence of evidence or evidence to the contrary, would make it appear commonplace. An example of the latter is the statement that Florence set up an organization to persecute sodomy. Such organizations were commonplace through all major European centers and countries. Such prosecutions were dealt against monks, crusading orders, cardinals in Rome, etc. By prosecutions, I mean prosecution of cases against homosexuals, not pederasts. Pederasty was not common in Florence, or more common than in other cities.

It could be said that pederasty did have a peak of detectable activity in Florence during the reign of Gian Gastone Medici, but he was considered a generally debauched and ineffectual ruler, the last of the Medici.

I recommend the article have extensive sections deleted. [[User:CARAVAGGISTI|CARAVAGGISTI]] 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

::The above comment is written in ignorance of material collected and documented by Michael Rocke (Forbidden Friendships, Oxford University Press, 1996, ''passim''), which is properly cited in the article. It documents pervasive, generalized pederastic practices throughout the male population of the period, as described in the article. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 12:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

: I have to say I completely agree. I think this article is tawdry and built on the looser fantasies of anti-intellectual historians who will take one line of Herotodus and build an entire civilization from it. Where is the line in Aristophanes' The Frogs where homosexuality/pederasty is aligned with Plato and considered an artsy perversion worthy only of a subset of looney outsiders? Where is the so-called proof of widespread Greek pederasty? It has never been found. It has been inferred casually from rare fragments. There has never been much left to prove how actual Greek life was. I have read the Herotodus -- imagine if one American history book was left to describe this country. What if it was Ann Coulter's? Or a President's? Or even a Yale professor with a terrible bias, whose work would later be castigated as emblematic of foolishness in the field? The whole thing is just ridiculous. You can't use fragments of literature to prove the history of a social movement or behavior. It is immoral and anti-intellectual. [[User:Mistertruffles|Mistertruffles]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

'''I am *removing* the "disputed POV" tag.''' Nothing above--in this section of debate at least--has pointed to a false citation or something without a citation. As far as Wikipedia entries go, this entry is bastioned by more scholarly references than most. As for those above who dispute the connection between "sodomy" and "pederasty", etc. ... note that this is and has been a debate in academic circles for decades, and I doubt whether any of the editors of this article (Haiduc included) is really going to satisfy all critics or solve the conundrum by way of this article. This will always be a "disputed topic", which does not suggest the same thing as an article worthy of a "disputed POV" tag. Perhaps you can busy yourselves with providing a sub-section of the entry that draws these claims into question (citing a range of real scholarship, of course). Hence, '''until someone comes up with a satisfactory and concrete complaint, I will keep removing that tag ... hourly, if need be.''' Cheers! [[User:Welland R|Welland R]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:: Pulled out: ''As for those above who dispute the connection between "sodomy" and "pederasty", etc. ... note that this is and has been a debate in academic circles for decades, and I doubt whether any of the editors of this article (Haiduc included) is really going to satisfy all critics or solve the conundrum''

::: A Wikipedia article should not solve any conundrum. However, the article as it stands gives no indication that such a "debate in academic circles" exists. That omission is what creates its great, big, giant, glaring POV slant.

::: Of course the use of the meaningless term "sodomy" is unfortunate - but then I think "pederasty" itself is similarly vague.

::: P.S. Declaring your intention to revert a particular edit hourly is not very Wikipedian of you, as I'm sure you know. [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 16:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: I will, of course, leave any "POV tag" in place if the person who creates it is able to provide "specific" scholarly reasons for adding it. Personal preferences and viewpoints and complaints about current scholarship are not sufficient for it to appear. (It is certainly easier to complain about a "point of view" than to take the time to bastion an alternative perspective. So, Camp of Those Disputing How It Now Reads, it is your obligation to supply this "alternative perspective"). [[User:Welland R|Welland R]] 13:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::: It's everybody's obligation to provide the most balanced perspective they can. And - it looks like you're a newish user - do you get what I mean about the reverting? Short of vandalism, it doesn't matter if you think an edit is unjustified or plain old insane, [[WP:3RR|Wikipedia policy forbids revert wars]]. If editors can't reach consensus they are supposed to ask for input from the wider community and if necessary from admins, not yoyo between two competing versions of an article, which makes Wikipedia look stupid. This is an easy rule to break when you are frustrated!

:::::: The fact is as Haiduc knows by now I'm the laziest editor on earth, but I'll check back here when and if I ever get myself down to the library. In the meantime, since it's you who brought up the "debate in academic circles for decades," perhaps you could add what you know of it. (See? Lazy!) [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Dan, it would be great if you could contribute a section on the debate you are referring to - I would have no problem with it whatsoever as long as it was properly referenced. Whatever different perspective you can offer, it can only improve the article. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

== "Tryst between man and youth" japanese picture ==

[[Image:Samurai kiss.jpg|right|thumb|200px|'''Tryst between a man and a youth'''<br> [[Miyagawa Isshō]], ca. 1750; Panel from a series of ten on a [[shunga]]-style painted hand scroll (kakemono-e); sumi, color and gofun on silk. Private collection.]]In this picture the "youth" is very clearly wearing female-only garb (flowery, pink, inside edge of sleeves open, very long sleeve, female haircut, female [[obi]]). I see no evidence that this is in fact supposed to be a male rather than a female. I suggest that it be swapped with an actual depiction of M/b sex in Japanese culture. [[User:Saizai|<span style="color:#006633;font-weight:bold;">Sai Emrys</span>]] [[User_talk:Saizai|<span style="color:#0066CC;font-size:0.75em;">¿?</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Saizai|<span style="color:#663300;">✍</span>]] 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

:If you go to [[Miyagawa Isshō]] you will see a number of such "females". You will also notice that the haircut is similar to that of the man, with the difference that the boy, not having come of age and received the tonsure, still has his maegame (forelocks). Also, you will see the whole Miyagawa homoerotic series elsewhere on the net, [http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Japan/Miyagawa/scroll.html here] for example. As for boys wearing flowered robes, you will see more of that in that same collection. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

== LGBT banner ==

The LGBT banner doesn't belong on this page. This isn't an article on gay rights. It's as inappropriate as someone placing a "sin" banner to indicate everything they think is immoral. [[User:72.87.188.126|72.87.188.126]] 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps the problem here is the use of the term banner. Perhaps "header" or "box" would be more appropriate, since this is not a political emblem as much as an academic tool. Pederasty is an important branch of queer studies, at least of those queer studies that extend back more than a hundred years or that address non-Western cultures. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::On one hand, this is like placing rape under heterosexual studies. On the other, having a good deal of experience with the gay "community," the ideal of pederasty does permeate it. - [[User:MSTCrow|MSTCrow]] 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There should be argument as to why the LGBT banner/header/box is here. I deny that pederasty is an important branch of queer studies. Modern LGBT history, of which was born the drive towards equality, has not focussed on the elevation of relationships between adults and adolescents or children, and it is this argument that has kept assocation of LGBT out of the sphere of NAMBLA. Whereas some gay men might form continued relationships with adolescents, this is a characteristic of those men and is as appropriate to the LGBT banner as adult men sleeping with adolescent girls would be to a heterosexual banner. That the global LGBT community how has more equality than it's had in modern history doesn't mean that pederasty naturally should expect acceptance by or equivalence within our community. Continued retention of the LGBT banner should require the assistance of the LGBT moderator. [[User:Enzedbrit|Enzedbrit]] 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using this or any page as a political soapbox. We have already been over this many times, pederasty is part of LGBT history -- as well as LGBT actuality as long as the relationships are law abiding, and vituperative attacks by some homosexuals against other homosexuals because of differences in their partner preferences and sexual behavior are pointless. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 03:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:This is a discussion page on this article. The argument that I am putting forward is to debate the inclusion of the LGBT banner and I have approached it from several angles, all of which are valid and none of which need be deemed to be from a political soapbox, even though the box as it stands is testiment to LGBT activism, which is very political. Pederasty is a practice embraced by people, a segment of whom are gay men. The LGBT banner represents a community that is characterised by attraction to the same sex, to both sexes or by being born in the gender contrary to what one should have been. Pederasty is sexual attraction to pre-adults and as such it does not fit in well with these guidelines.
:All LGBT people should have the right to a valid opinion on this matter, whether they wish that a banner that represents their community and their struggle be associated with pederasty. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated how the LGBT banner can belong here and I welcome debate on this and the involvement of the LGBT moderator to act in that capacity. [[User:Enzedbrit|Enzedbrit]] 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place for any struggle, nor for tendentious interpretations of terms. Nor is it your place - or an appropriate place - to express disapproval of gay men and youths who fall in love with each other and enter into relationships sanctioned (approved) by the law. They are wholly embraced by the LGBT community, though individuals may differ. It is LGBT life, even if it is not LGBT politics. What else would you like to expunge from the LGBT universe in Wikipedia? I could bring up a number of distasteful and repulsive and illegal aspects of LGBT life - as I could about heterosexual life. Should we clean them up too, and prettify those preferences, so as to further political goals and struggles? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think it's beneficial for you to keep twisting my argument. My argument is that the LGBT banner should have no associations with topics that are periphery to the LGBT culture or minority sexual practices within that community. The LGBT banner, as detailed, represents the a community that is united in their sexuality. The association here is with a sexual practice. I think that I'm stating this very clearly. I do not deny my disapproval of this subject, but I am not expressing it here. I would find objection of the LGBT banner to any sexual pracice. I also bring you to task on your comment that pederastic relationships are wholly embraced by the LGBt community because that statement is a lie. What I am not doing is denying that LGBT people take part in pederastic relationships. What I am saying is that it is a large leap to declare that because we are having these relationships, that this means pederasty is an integral part of the study of us as a people and of our culture. Again, it's about sexuality, not sex, and if one is a pederist, in that they are attracted to adolescents, that being continually seeking the sexual advances of pre-adult males, then that may be homosexual in nature - same gender - but is a new preference altogether and should be classified as something unique, and separate from homosexuality and heterosexuality. [[User:Enzedbrit|Enzedbrit]] 06:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Enzedbrit, I find your claims ludicrous. To suggest that pederasty has, historically, been nothing more than a set of "sexual practices" is merely to suggest that you are one of those whose knowledge-base would be best served by actually ''reading'' this Wikipedia entry. You will find that the entry reveals that pederasty has been, over a huge expanse of time and geographical space, a recognized "sexual relationship", and to claim it is merely a "practice" flies in the face of historical, aesthetic, and archaeological evidence (and a score of other areas of the humanities and social sciences besides). Pederasty has ever been (whether you wish to admit it or not) an aspect of the homosexual/homoerotic dynamic. It has also ever been an endeavor of "the current dynamic in power" (defined proverbially and a bit insultingly as the "vanilla gays") to rewrite the past ... and removing the LGBT banner would only serve to do so, for political purposes rather than accuracy (which the point I think Haiduc is trying to make). Besides, this continual "battle for the banner" has, by now, become banal (and should receive a designation as the most dim dispute to date ... god, I love alliteration!). As Shakespeare claimed, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" ... and an LGBT article without an LGBT banner would still be ... an LGBT article! [[User:Welland R|Welland R]] 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::::So you are saying that pederasty is not a sexual practice? If homosexuals are pederasts, then pederasty is a sexual practice. If they are committed pederasts, then they will continually seek their sexual fulfilment from adolescents. This is not LGBT. The political argument thus comes from you and Haiduc - you both are seeking general acceptance of pederasty through the inclusion of it into the LGBT sphere. The LGBT banner represents a very political entity, as I have stated, but I am not bringing politics into it. Nobody in the LGBT is fighting for the rights of pederasts to form pederastic relationships other than pederasts themselves. The LGBT community, that which is reflected by the banner detailing elements of our struggle, would have something to say about this. For that reason, I believe it should be opened to discussion, as I have stated. Perhaps it is this element of democracy that you find so repugnant when you criticise my 'politics'? [[User:Enzedbrit|Enzedbrit]] 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::To claim that pederasty has denoted, historically at least, a "sexual relationship" necessarily suggests that it has encompassed "sexual practices"--while, on the other hand, your desire to dismiss it as merely a "sexual practice" does not. While masturbation is clearly a "sexual practice", it would be little more than a comic line to suggestion that one had a "sexual relationship" with one's hand :-) I also question your desire to impute motive to my and Haiduc's editorial concerns for historical and cultural accuracy (especially since, as a lesbian, I am curious what I could possibly gain from a contemporary advance of a "pederastic agenda". So, it was a silly assertion on your part). Historically speaking, your desire to remove pederasty from the LGBT sphere recalls the recent German call for posthumously removing Hitler's German citizenship ... hence altering future history books to claim that he was really Austrian. Historical revisionism is one of deadliest games in the academic sphere, and almost always has political or social rather than scientific or historical pressures behind it. [[User:Welland R|Welland R]] 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Open whatever you please to whomsoever you see fit. You are the only one on the barricades here, to everyone's befuddlement. Speaking for myself, I am not seeking anything other than accuracy. Pederasty has already been widely and generally accepted, judging by the compassionate legislation which gives males almost everywhere the right to have love relationships with other males, starting in adolescence. There is nothing else to be sought by anyone, except perhaps, as Welland says, to have a certain subgroup of the gay community not distort this topic out of some self-serving zeal. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
:Removed again. On this thread, there are two people for keeping the banner: you and Welland. That hardly constitutes 'everyone'. This is not an LGBT theme. [[User:Enzedbrit|Enzedbrit]] 11:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
::And you are the solitary political warrior trying hard to sell fiction as fact. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'''Restored again''' - and here is the explanation why: I am a member of "WikiProject LGBT studies", and it should be noted that there are 12 pages in the section of the category "Pages in category 'LGBT'" (besides the 21 subcategories in the "LGBT" category). One of those 12 sections is "Pederasty". The arguments here have been thoroughly debated, over time, and a decision has been reached by the members of "WikiProject LGBT studies": this project decided to keep the category "Pederasty". Therefore, it is not those editing the "Pederasty" article who are the principal deciding factor for whether or not this should be dubbed an "LGBT" article. The decision has already been made that this *is* an "LGBT" article ... and therefore I am restoring the tag, and will continue to restore it, as any good-standing member of "WikiProject LGBT studies" should. Those of you who wish this article to be removed from among the "LGBT" categories need to address your concerns with those at "WikiProject LGBT studies" instead of continually removing the tag from this article. [[User:Welland R|Welland R]] 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh, I only just now discovered that you, Enzedbrit, recently joined "WikiProject LGBT studies". Well, perhaps you should raise the topic there. Cheers! [[User:Welland R|Welland R]] 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

::::You know, Enzedbrit, I am sorry you keep on trying to accomplish by force what should be decided by reason. If you'll let me, I'd like to point out that much of the problem may spring from your own associations with the colloquial sense of the word, i.e. child sexual abuse. But clearly pederasty, in the academic sense, is far more than that, and that is the sense in which it falls under the LGBT purview. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

==Pederasty in Ottomans==

I dont doubt that same sex relationships was not rare in many circles of the society in the ottomans but the current version of it in the article include some broad generalizations and non-existing silly dichotomies, such as:
"The sexual doings of the Turks came under frequent criticism by their Christian neighbors."

it is not up to the religion and definitely not up to the ethnicity that pedastry do exist. I guess there is no need to mention that pedastry practiced by christians as well. In its current form this section doent look like a serious encyclopedical entry..And since it doesnt have a reference, i suggest the removal of the above cited sentence and rewriting some other parts of it, which are again quite over-generalizing..
--[[User:Laertes d|laertes d]] 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you. I cleaned up the section further. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 00:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

== Proverbs and ditties ==

This material would be better placed in [[Wikiquote]]. While it may be illustrative of the topic, Wikipedia is not a collection of quotations or source material. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:How do you reconcile that with all the lists on "the ten thousand things", as the Chinese would say? :And, on a separate tack, what if the proverbs were worked into their respective sections, and at the same time a separate article was created, "List of ...."? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 02:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::The issue, I suppose, is that this isn't a list of things, it's the things themselves. We may have a list of Sheryl Crowe songs, but we don't include the lyrics to the songs. We may have a list of important speeches, but we don't include the text of the speeches. So if you wanted to simply list the ditties and proverbs somewhere, that'd be different (though I doubt such a list would last long because they aren't particularly notable). Is there a problem with Wikiquote? It's a part of the overall project. We routinely move sets of quotes over there, even from famous people. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 06:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Wikiquote is fine, my concern here is losing this additional perspective on a complex and controversial topic. The more angles you illuminate it from, the more you can see. How about folding in what can be placed in the respective sections, while also creating the wikiquote article you mentioned? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not enthusiastic because the article is already long. The article is just as long and has just as much content if the material is lumped together or spread out. It's not just a length issue though. Quotes, and even material like this, is very hard to make NPOV. (A side issue which may not matter is that modern translations of old ditties are probably copyrighted.)
::::For one of my earliest entries to Wikipedia was I did good primary research on the platform of a minor 19th century political party, which I added to the article verbatim. I was chagrined when another editor moved my entry and sent it over to [[Wikisource]]. But he was right. While the verbatim copy gave the exact flavor of the document, it was still a primary source and had a different place in the Wikimedia project. The point of Wikipedia is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Quoting sources verbatim can be original research.
::::The general rule of thumb on biographies is that nobody raises objections to five quotations but more than that are excessive. Could we move the entire list to Wikiquote/source, and also leave up to five representative entries here? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] · [[User talk:Will Beback|†]] · 10:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::That seems like a more than reasonable compromise. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

== Pederasty 'is the primary form that male homosexuality has taken throughout human history' ==

I removed that sentence because it is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. The given source is only concerned with ancient Greece, and the one sentence that supports the claim is quoted out of context. Furthermore, the source is of unclear provenience: yes, it's on the web site of one of the most respected universities in Germany, but where is it from? From a scientific journal? Or is it just a student's paper? What about its peer-review status? [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
:What do you find extraordinary about the claim, and why? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
:: - I've never heard it before
:: - it isn't true today
:: - it wasn't true throughout the twentieth century when homosexuality started to come into the open in the western world
:: - I've never seen evidence that it is true for earlier times when homosexuality was less visible
:: - it would imply that homosexuals are very different from heterosexuals, who predominantly choose mates their own age
:: Pederasty may have been the primary form of male homosexuality in ancient Greece - but in other times and places? I see no reason to believe that. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will answer them in sequence:
#Not a reflection on the topic
#Article sets out a historical view
#Idem
#What evidence do you have that egalitarian relations were prevalent worldwide before the 20th c?
#Personal interpretation, debatable and not encyclopedic
#Ancient Greece, Middle East, Europe up to 100 years ago, Japan, Korea, China, Central Asia.
#The provenance of the quote is [http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/BEGIN.HTM#Contents legitimate], and its author authoritative. The sense of the sentence is clearly as originally interpreted, since the sentence shifts from the Greeks to the moderns, and since your interpretation would make the sentence redundant. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's my rebuttal:
# I say the claim is extraordinary. You say it isn't. That's the topic. If the claim was 'ordinary', I probably would have heard it before. I haven't. That's an indication that it's 'not ordinary'.
# If someone claims that ''X'' was true 'throughout history', but I can show that ''X'' is not true today, the claim loses some of its credibility.
# If someone claims that ''X'' was true 'throughout history', but I can show that ''X'' was not true throughout a considerable period of time, the claim loses some of its credibility.
# The burden of evidence is on you, not on me. You are making a claim, I simply doubt that claim. So the question is: What evidence do you have that pederastic relations were prevalent worldwide before the 20th century? See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.''
# Where's the personal interpretation? That heterosexuals predominantly choose mates their own age and have done so throughout history? That's pretty obvious, I would say. If homosexuals have predominantly chosen mates of a very different age, there's a big difference between homo- and heterosexuals. But I admit that this is not the strongest of my points. It might be called 'original research'.
# ''Ancient Greece, Middle East, Europe up to 100 years ago, Japan, Korea, China, Central Asia.'' - With the appropriate sources, a sentence like 'pederasty was/is a common form of male homesexuality in many times and cultures' could probably be defended. But your sentence made a much, much stronger claim.
# The source calls itself 'a free electronic encyclopedia', which is usually not a reliable source. It is based on a book though, and if the article in question was contained in the book, things may be different. The author of the particular article about ancient Greece, William A. Percy, is indeed ''a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field'' (quoting [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]), so he could probably be considered a reliable source even if the article was self-published. So, yes, I would say the source is reliable. But...
# ...but I just realized that the quote from the article is irrelevant to the point we are discussing here. Your claim was: ''[Pederasty] is the primary form that male homosexuality has taken throughout human history.'' Percy writes: ''A proper understanding of Greek history should help to discredit homophobia as such and even the especially virulent hatred of homosexual pederasty, its most persecuted but historically most prevalent variation.'' What does that sentence really mean? He is saying is that '''homosexual pederasty''' (as opposed to heterosexual pederasty) was the historically most prevalent (and most persecuted) '''variation of pederasty'''. He does '''not''' say that pederasty was the historically most prevalent '''variation of homosexuality'''.
So it doesn't even matter if the source is reliable or not. If you find other sources, I wouldn't mind a resonable sentence about the prevalence of pederasty in male homosexuality throughout history. But the original sentence is much too strong. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the sentence ''Before the 20th century, relationships with a more or less pederastic element were the usual pattern of male same-sex love''. It is a very broad claim as well and not backed by a reliable source. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

::Chrisahn, I have replaced the content you have recently deleted since our discussion here is not concluded and it seems in appropriate to act as if you have prevailed in your argument, which you have not.
::As for your repetition of your claims, let me simply say that your position is groundless for a variety of reasons. You are claiming that your ignorance of the subject is a basis for challenging properly sourced material. You are also challenging a text that is supported by an eminent scholar (Haeberle, the current editor of the encyclopedia), written by another eminent scholar, and hosted on the website of an eminent university. Finally, you have taken a simple English text and have misunderstood its obvious and clear meaning.
::None of these is a valid premise for Wikipedia work. Please restore the material which you inappropriately deleted. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 11:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

::: The sentence about ''Before the 20th century...'' basically makes the same claim as the other one, and it lacks sources as well. I also note that it contained the word 'possibly' when it was originally written by you, but later you removed that word, without giving a reason. But I'll grant you that I probably shouldn't have deleted the sentence before we finish this discussion.

::: Actually, you have taken a not very simple English text and have misunderstood its not very obvious or clear meaning. Let's take it apart word by word. The relevant part is ''its ... historically most prevalent variation''. What does the word 'it' refer to? The main sentence is ''A proper understanding of Greek history should help to discredit homophobia as such and even the especially virulent hatred of homosexual pederasty''. The 'it' could refer to ''homophobia'', ''hatred'', or ''pederasty''. It wouldn't make sense if 'it' referred to ''homophobia'' or ''hatred'', so it can only refer to ''pederasty''. In other words, Percy writes about ''...homosexual pederasty, pederasty's historically most prevalent variation''. Percy simply does not talk about homosexuality in general here. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Percy starts out by speaking about homophobia in general and then focuses in on that aspect of homophobia which targets homosexual pederasty. Thus we are here talking about modern homophobia, since we are in the present tense and the understanding he recommends is a modern day understanding. So we are no longer talking about the Greeks, as you originally indicated.
::::Percy has no need to put pederasty in a heterosexual context since 1. it does not exist and 2. he is only discussing homosexuality, thus the meaning as originally interpreted is the only one that makes sense.
::::Since you are the one challenging a common sense interpretation of a historically sensible declaration, the burden of proof should be upon you to contact Percy and ask him to clarify to you the meaning of his words. But if you will not, I will. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

::::: I've already started to write an email to Percy, I hope I'll find the time to finish it today.

::::: As for the burden of proof, again: see [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.''

::::: Heterosexual pederasty does not exist? The article on pederasty of a well-known online encyclopedia does not say so. :-) It just says 'generally between males'. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::If you will be so kind as to copy the exchange here, that will be fine. Let's hope he answers. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 11:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added the question to Dr. Percy's talk page: [[User_talk:William_percy#Pederasty.2C_Greeks.2C_Homosexuality]]. I also sent him an email since he does not seem to use his Wikipedia account regularly. I'm looking forward to his answer. [[User:Chrisahn|Chrisahn]] 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Links ==

*''Rendered as 'age-structured homosexuality', it is, along with [Two-Spirit|gender-structured relations] and [gay community|egalitarian relations], regarded as one of the three main subdivisions of [[homosexuality]] proposed by anthropologists.[Theo Sandfort e.a. (eds) ''Lesbian and Gay Studies,'' London/NY, Routledge, 2000[http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/gl/queerant.html] ]''
I just reverted an edit which restored these wikilinks. "Two-Spirit" is not a synonym for "gender-structured relations", and "gay community" isn't a synonym for "egalitarian relations". If we want to link to those articles let's do so more openly. "Easter egg" links, which take readers to surprising articles, are misleading and don't help readers. See [[Wikipedia:Piped link]]. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 02:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:I will have to look for better links for those two (the present ones are not quite it either) but all that aside, please restore the LGBT banner. We do not need to wade into that bit of politics again. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

== Pederasty applies to both genders? ==

Someone told me that pederasty can apply to women, but all other definitions say otherwise. What's the term for pederastic women? (heterosexual or homosexual)

</wtf> [[User:The velociraptor|Mr. Raptor]] 05:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:You might try "sapphic" though there is no consensus. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 10:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

== Small POV Issue ==

I might be making a big deal of out nothing, a lot of this article is very well written from an objective standpoint, but there is one bit that sort of sticks out to me as oddly less-than-objectively written.

"Presently, no society is openly making use of liminal same-sex love — relations with young people on the threshold of becoming adults — to further social goals, despite their lawful status in countries granting erotic emancipation to adolescents in their mid-teens.”

"Despite?" Does pederasty being lawfully available mean that societies ''should'' be "making use" of it, as this statement seems to imply? ''Must'' pederastic relationships be "used" by societies simply because they're legal? I don't see anything encyclopedic about this sort of wording. Perhaps it should be looked at more carefully? The lack of pederasty as a social mechanism today isn't "despite" of anything. It is simply no longer a social mechanism.

:I looked at that again and I see no implication that societies ''should'' do anything. The implication is simply that the territory is open but remains unoccupied, the same way one might talk about the seacoast of a country that was once inhabited but presently is deserted. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Hey Haiduc: "[http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su07/love-deresiewicz.html Eros in the true sense is at the heart of the pedagogical relationship]" writes some guy in The American Scholar. [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Dare I suggest that the 'pedagogical eros' is still alive (if not entirely 'well') in British independent (read:public) boys' schools in England? '[[Greek love]]' survives - if somewhat battered or confused - as our erstwhile enquiry now pursues. [[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

::::I should apologize - I was misusing the talk page and being flip.
::::However, the [[Greek love]] article is looking ''so much better'' than when I last looked at it. [[User:DanB_DanD|<font color = "darkpurple">Dan</font><font color = "black">'''B'''</font>†<font color = "blue">Dan</font><font color = "darkblue">'''D'''</font>]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::::I do not know that we need to be so very correct. I actually enjoyed the article, it brought back memories. So, thank you for the link. There was a recent play (and movie), "The History Boys", that expressed a similar - if more eroticized - notion, to the dismay and confusion of reviewers. 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:::That is encouraging. Do say more (on the GL talk page) if you have time to look at the detail - with two major (independent) expansions, there is some overlapping, overweighting and a small hint of conflicting agendas. Interesting times ahead, I venture! [[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

:: I agree with the original commentator. The sentence in question is a very odd one which suggests that the reader might naturally have expected societies to be "making use" of "liminal same-sex love" where such love is legal. If you don't see why this sentence is either non-NPOV or irrelevant to the article, consider what it would read like if it was about foot fetishism rather than pederasty. [[User:81.168.47.122|81.168.47.122]] 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

== confused... ==

Is pederasty relations between an adult fe/male and a child/youth OR relations between persons of significant age difference - I suppose what I am asking is whether or not the younger of the two has to be under 18 for it to be considered pederasty?? Is it the same as paedophilia?
The article is extremely confusing.

:It seems pretty clear that we are talking about same-sex relations. Secondly, it is not so much the magnitude of the age difference that is significant but spanning of the boundary between adolescence and adulthood. Thus a relationship between a thirty year old and a seventy year old would not be, strictly speaking, pederastic (though it may have elements of it) but a relationship between a sixteen year old and a twenty year old quite likely would. It is not the same as paedophilia in the clinical sense of the term, since the current DSM definition of paedophilia entails protracted sexual contact with a person thirteen or under, while pederastic relations typically involve youths from their early to their late teens. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 08:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
::Says who? This is the sane as paedophilia. Just as a 21-year-old heterosexual man who has sex with a a girl under the age of 17 is considered statutory rape. Paedophilia is a mental illness, it's not the same as homosexual between two concenting ADULTS. [[User:Jeeny|- Jeeny]]&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|Talk]]</sup></small> 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

:::"Says who?" well thats a nice way to deal with an opinion you don't happen to agree with. A 21yr old man having sex with a 17yr old girl, would be considered to be totally legal in many countries. Don't assume that having sex with a 15,16 or 17yr old is illegal, it might be in your nation/city/trailer park but the law and attitude towards teenage sex, is very different in many many nations. (excuse the trailer park comment, I just couldn't help myself)[[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen goroshi]] 13:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== Images ==

Should the image Amor Vincit Omnia (Love Conquers All) be removed? It does feature nudity. [[User:128.122.89.86|128.122.89.86]] 05:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think there's any systemic objection to nudity in Wikipedia. As long as no laws are broken, editors can make use of nude images. Also, this one is purely artistic, widely available, well known, and of a certain age so we no longer have to be concerned about what the boy would think of the exposure. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== lead section ==

Why template in lead section? Please see [[WP:LEAD]], image is preferred, and not template. There cant be special exemptions for specific wikiproject. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 04:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:Please point me to a specific section of WP:LEAD which says the template needs to be moved. I cannot seem to find it. Until such time, please discuss the changes you wish to make and not simply repeatedly make them without discussing them. The LGBT template is very useful, shows that the article is part of a series of core articles related to our project. Many readers don't understand that, and the template helps to clarify. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 04:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::There is no mention of template in WP:LEAD, only image is mentioned. That is a navigation template and its place is at bottom, in "See also" section [[WP:NAV]]. Also how a policy is project specific, i simply cant understand. It is very obvious, no need of discussion in talk page at all. Thanks. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Many project pages have the template. This is one of them. Part of the LBGT project. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::I have left template at top for now, but moved image up. Its nothing to do with projects, it should be in policy to keep navigation template in lead. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 04:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Your whims about policy and what actual policy is, are two different things, Lara. Once again, please point me to the section of [[WP:LEAD]] which says an image needs to be in the lead. I am well acquainted with that page and do not recall it. It seems as if you're simply throwing a WP page out in hopes that you will not be challenged. Until you can show actual policy supporting you, I am forced to believe it is just your personal preference. In any event, WP:LEAD is a guideline, and not actual policy. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Also to show a different project's article see [[Sexism|here]]. The project decides where the template should be. Join the project and discuss changes there. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::This article has sufficient no. of images, unlike you pointed article, but please spare me i dont go through wikiprojects. You include such things in policy or guidelines, then i will sure follow. See [[WP:NAV]], navigation templates should be placed in see also section or at bottommost. Thanks. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Lara, you continue to point people to other pages which do not support what you are trying to do. Perhaps you should spend time actually reading policy pages (and WP:NAV is not a policy page) before you disrupt various articles with your edits. I have already warned you on your talk page about this. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::(ec) Lara, since you mentioned that this article has many images, that's all reason there does not need to be one in the lead. That is not part of the criteria. Now, you say you are not into Wikiprojects, that's fine. But don't mess with articles that have a clear [[WP:Consensus|consensus]] with individual projects, and how to lay them out. Please listen to those involved, and know the project more than you do. I've had issues such as yours, but I listened to others and did more research of the project. I also objected to the template being in the article at all. But, with feedback from those in the project helped me understand. I hope you choose to co-operate, rather than make things the way ''you'' think they should, or want, them to be. Cheers. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 05:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::See guideline for lead section images, [[Wp:mos#Images]]. Quoted policy:"Start the article with a right-aligned image." "Use common sense" is a policy, i just cant think anything other than "navigation should be at bottom" is a common sense. When there is consensus for policy, individual article consensus doesn't matter, since its just matter of time more editors will see this article. Thanks. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 05:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, "use common sense" is the clincher. This template is not a navigation template ''pe se'', even though it does have links, it '''is''', though, a '''project''' template, and is on the right side of the article. This article belongs to the project. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 05:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::You did not reply to my WP:MOS quote. There is nothing called "project template", its a navigation template. You can put a portalpar, if it 'belongs' to project. Such a nice image we have, that suits very well in lead. Thanks. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::OK, the very first sentence in that "general guideline" says; "''Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to''. This can be, and I believe is, one those "compelling reasons", as it is part of a project. But, since you are not interested in "projects" then please be considerate to those who work very hard on the projects and that project's guidelines. Thanks. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(Unindent) There is a portal bar, Lara. The template was designed by our project and is our project template. We have others, but this is definitely one. Further, you seem confused on the difference between style and guidelines. Please familiarize yourself before continuing this disruptive discussion and wikilawyering. Lastly, your message to me on my talk page indicates you plan to continue edit warring this after a period of 24 hours. I strongly advise against it, as you will be blocked. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:I understood your warning in my talk page, and i know you wont hesitate to maximum possible as you mentioned in my talk page, and so i do. But image in lead is very essential in this article. Thanks. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 05:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::I respectfully disagree that a lead image is essential to this article. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 05:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Unreasoned comments like above have no value in wikipedia. I am openminded but please dont use wikipedia to "advertise" your interests. Please give due weightage to things. Thanks. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 06:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I have no idea what you are trying to say here. One thing though, I do not use Wikipedia to "advertise" anything. I don't even like this subject. So there. "Weightage" is not a word. I guess you mean undue weight? [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::The template in the main [[Homosexuality]] article was at the top, the last time Ilooked. That seems to be the general rule. We should do here what is done everywhere else. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::"That seems to be the general rule", joke. I will wait for at least one more editor on my side, those who tried to remove template instead of moving it down. So many nice images in the article, but no image in lead looks reasonable only under ego considerations of a wikiproject to me and nothing else. Also i am too irritated by exessive crossposting, maybe even irc chat canvassing, which i feel is a sin, by "your" wikiproject, bye for now. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== Precision before all else ==

I have no idea where you got the idea that erotic means "sexually expressed". But to make a long story short, see [http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pederasty.html here]: "Pederasty (or Greek Paederasteia) is the erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection."

You might also look at [[Eroticism]] which discusses a''feeling'' and not necessarily an ''action.'' [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 04:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

*I do wish editors would look in the talk pages (including archives) before they make changes to material that has been hammered out long ago. Below see some relevent quotes on this one word subject, taken from the archives:

''The very word pederasty traces its root back to the two ancient Greek words "paid" and "eros," meaning "boy" and "erotic love."''

''By pederasty we mean what the Greeks meant: a consensual, homoerotic relationship between adolescent and adult males''. <sm>Vernon Provencal's "Glukus Himeros: Pederastic Influence on the Myth of Ganymede," in Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, ed. B. C. Verstraete and V. Provencal, Harrington Park Press, 2005, N1 p.128<sm/>

This word change has also been discussed on Haiduc's talk page by several editors, among them me last year. I had removed the word erotic in 2006, but after discussion with Haiduc to its reinsertion. I have thus reinserted it now. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with that decision. The editor who started this topic up again[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=&oldid=] with the removal of the word "erotic" had it wrong as well anyway...since pederasty usually does not mean pedophilia. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

::The introductory sentence, however, might still be improved: there is a suggestion of 'speculation' in the use of the word "can", and the phrase "wide range of erotic practices" seems premature i.e. in advance of a clear definition of the term. The section 'Etymology and Usage' offers such a definition which may possibly inspire a more encyclopedic opening for this excellent and informative article. The difficulty of shaping the opening is not assisted by the following (perhaps required) formulaic statement about "age-structured relations" and the three anthropogical "categories", which is of course rational in itself, but imposes a kind of retrospective restraint on the language of the introduction. [[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

:After doing more research, I see that 'erotic' is correct, and I also agree with Dominique. [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Jeeny|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::'''Dominique''', you have a way with words. Reminds me of someone in my family. I definitely feel that you should write the introductory sentence of this article, if not the entire lead. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the vote of confidence. I shall give the matter further thought, but in the meantime, it would be helpful to have some feedback from those who have made substantial contributions to the article e.g. Haiduc, who has both literary expertise and an overview of the subject. [[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 23:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::::You are very kind. I am like that folktale ferryman, who can't wait to put the oars in another's hands. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 00:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I am preparing a draft. Meanwhile, I am glad to see Hyacinthe has been resurrected.[[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

==Revision of Introduction==

As discussed, I have provided an alternative introduction to the article, which is really a different approach rather than an improvement on the immediately preceding one. First of all, it is longer: I felt that an article of such substance and complexity deserves a more extended introduction, which has in fact turned out to be something resembling an ‘abstract’.
This could be useful for those readers new to the subject since they will have a summary perspective on the detail to follow: historical, philosophical and contemporary. I have retained the reference to homosexual ‘subdivisions’ but have stressed the limitations of this formula. I note that there has been some previous disquiet in the talk pages about this approach, and indeed about the LGBT banner, but I believe this introduction maintains neutrality despite discreetly raising some questions which may accord to some extent with the thinking of those uncomfortable with the previous unelaborated version. I believe it is right to set out problems and controversies in treating of such a topic at the beginning (while avoiding POV), which may help in retaining the (qualified) tolerance of sceptical readers.

The initial sentence is a simple statement of meaning amplified by what follows.
Comments and criticisms are expected and welcome. Links and supporting references can be added.

[[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:Very well done, Dominique. I think it's well written, NPOV, and certainly summarizes the article. If I could make one small criticism, it's that the opening needs some references to support the assertions. This article seems to attract people who wish to revert every addition that is not multiply sourced (OK, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but you get my point). If you could add some inline citations, it would go a long way to assuaging those concerns. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for your supportive comment. Of course the ink is not quite dry on the page, but I take the point about sourcing without too much delay. The essential points are covered in the body of the article, and I had thought simply to redirect the reader to specific locations where references are already established (as already with Etymology ), but it may be better to duplicate. One or two points in any case need reinforcing e.g. sexual 'identity' and the dominant form of male love reference. Please do add any further thoughts. [[User:Dominique Blanc|Dominique]] 23:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I figured that was the main reason you added the "see ''Etymology'' and ''usage'' below" part to the lead of this article. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] 01:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I could not resist kneading the dough of the first paragraph. Here are my various ratinales:
#"Widespread" - I would hate to claim, especially in the intro, that the approval was universal and absolute. Rather it was qualified and selective.
#"Erotic" - While some modern observers have described the relationship in terms of a crude sexual bargain, that is not supported by the original texts and is a view certainly not held by many important students of the phenomenon (James Davidson, Hubbard, Percy, etc.) After all, why all the bother to court a boy if it was not reciprocity that was sought - had it been simply a tit for tat, they would surely have held auctions!
#"Anti-homosexual" - I do not think you can make an argument that AoC laws have been relaxed. With one or two exceptions, they have never been stricter. It is just that now boys, as well as girls, are covered by them.
#"Often criticized" - While the previous formulation would certainly hold true of most American states, the same is not necessarily true in other countries: witness the UK tv show "Queers as Folk" which included a fifteen year old boy among the protagonists.

As for the second paragraph, I would challenge your use of "homosexual" since the term in no way presumes orientation. It is as if you were fighting a nonexistent opponent. There are other issues which come to mind, but I think it would be worthwhile to discuss the previous points first, if you are so inclined. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 23:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Unencyclopedic description in lead by a newbie. [[Etymology]] is different from [[definition]]. This rather hides proper info from the reader. Also he messed up all things in a single edit, which should have been split into many edits. Also images being deleted which looks like a conspiracy, by somebody, since it is in commons, we cant trace who nominated for deletion. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 08:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::And I have reverted you, Lara_Bran, as the intro is being written with consensus. No less than 4 contributers to this article have stated that the intro, while not yet complete, is in good shape and getting better. Your "contributions" to this article have done nothing to improve it, and have made a lot of extra work for others. Please discuss further changes here before you implement them. Further, a quick check of the history shows Zeus_abducting_Ganymede_-_Roman_Mosaic.jpg was deleted from commons by admin [[User:Majorly|Majorly]] due to a copyright violation. If you have further questions, please take them up with him. I see from your talk page that you are taking a wikibreak at the moment. I hope you use the time to contemplate what you have been doing here up until now, and perhaps rethink the direction that your editing will take in the future. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] 08:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::It is definitely against our policy. Pederasty is not limited to greek, as of now, so reverting back to old definition is correct to follow. Also another image i had given source 2 days before deletion, but still deleted as lack of source which is clear conspiracy. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 08:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::OH NO! this new user changed image name and i thought image was deleted. So im reverting to version before him and add back lead that already got so called consensus. [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::GOTCHA! [[User:Dominique Blanc]] had [[sneak]]ily vandalized 2 cited urls(maybe to remove sentences later as uncited) while saying he is expanding lead section. He was issued warning, and if he does not respond, all his edits to wikipedia should be reverted. I caught this while i thought an image got deleted. Waiting for that user's reply [[User:Lara_bran|Lara_bran]] 09:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:37, 1 November 2024

Dictionary definition

[edit]

The dictionary definition of pederasty is of the act and not confined to ancient cultures, I think that should be made clear even if the editors For this article which to keep the subject matter strictly to when the exact term has been used. Dakinijones (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only Ancient Greece and Rome?

[edit]

I think it's not fair to only put these two examples I think from West Asia to Africa and the Americas because life expectancy was so low it was obvious at that time pederasty was happening and also to girls since they were married off as soon as their first menstrual cycle. So we just can't say it was a specific homosexual thing but rather common due to people dying at age 35 to 40 unlike now people can even age to 100. Nlivataye (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of modern view in lead

[edit]

I think we should continue to summarize the "Modern view" section in the lead. Word0151 either disagrees or thinks the summary should be changed somehow. Word, could you tell use more about your objections? Is there a way to rephrase rather than remove? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties of English Pronunciation - British/Commonwealth vs American

[edit]

I've lived in Britain all my life, and I've never heard it pronounced with an "iː" before, so I did some research. Credible sources on British English (as used) [1] [2] suggest there doesn't seem to be much difference between our pronunciation and the American one, apart from maybe a minor stress difference.

The only source I can find that uses "piːdə-" is an entry in Merriam-Webster's (anecdotally, a poor source for Commonwealth English), and even that doesn't use the IPA.

(Note: I imagine this is where the error comes from, the initial edit in 2009 also uses the exact same non-IPA respelling system).

The greek root παιδε is sometimes pronounced "piːdə" in the UK for words like "Paedophile" -- I can definitely see someone making a generalisation that, therefore, every word with that root must have a separate British pronunciation.

Funnily enough, other Wikiprojects (and Wiktionary) just list both as valid British pronunciations? [3] I don't know. I don't think there's enough evidence to warrant a separation, but there could be something I'm ignoring/that I've missed.

References

  1. ^ "pederasty n. pronunciation". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. July 2023. doi:10.1093/OED/2984366090. Retrieved 19 March 2024.
  2. ^ "paederast". Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 19 March 2024.
  3. ^ Pederasty, Wikidata Q211354

Titfortat-skag (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message: Here is an better Improvement for the Pederasty Wikipedia Article and please accept and place my revised edits, and also a completely permanent total ban and prohibition using anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobic edits based on gay men and LGBT relationships in general and is completely unrelated to homosexuality, especially for males

[edit]

i am sorry if i made any mistakes, please pardon my clumsiness and i did not try to disrupt anything okay, i was trying to help fix it to be more accurate and please do not ever use homosexuality and gay men and anything related to the LGBT community in this article and never ever use them because they are very inappropriate, repulsive, disgusting, and dangerously anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobia and it is harmful to LGBT rights as a whole it will not be tolerated. END OF STORY AND DISCUSSION, NO BUTS ABOUT IT, NO MEANS NO OKAY. PPPEEERRRIIIOOODDD!!!, also here is the improved good version if you would allow it and place it in the article please, thank you and good luck.

A pederastic relationship between an adult man and a young boy being depicted on an attic greek pottery called a kylix made during the Classical antiquity. 480 BCE

Pederasty or paederasty (/ˈpɛdəræsti/) is a practice that involves both an adult man and a young boy engaging in any form of sex acts. It was socially acknowledged as a historical concept and construct of cultural practices that were done in many civilizations and societies during the Classical antiquity between Ancient Greece and Rome within the Greco-Roman world, and elsewhere in the world, such as the Pre-Meiji era of Japan.

In most countries today in many parts of the world. Various laws based on the age of consent in a local or nationwide level gets to determine if the person is considered legally and lawfully competent and capable to have consented to any sex acts to the other person without any harmful contact in order to classify it on whether or not it is constituted as a sex crime involving child sexual abuse or statutory rape. An adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor is considered an act that is deemed a very offensive and abusive thing to do by the authorities and society in general for a wide variety of reasons, including the age of the minor and also the psychologically and physically harmful effects they have endued as well as also gravely affecting their mental health and wellbeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.60.98 (talk) 09:54, 1 Nov 2024 (UTC)

Your header is inappropriate. Please change it to something neutral.
Please break your edit down into individual changes rather than expecting us to compare the existing text and your proposed text line by line to look for changes. Some of what I have noticed immediately is that your proposed text has introduced many grammatical errors, and it has removed a sourced section. Meters (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And discussing a contested edit does not mean that you post your version to the talk page and then restore it before anyone has time to comment. Meters (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked one month. Meters (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pederasty&oldid=1254824963"