Talk:Pederasty

Archives
1 (18 June 2004 to 26 December 2005) 2 (2006)

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.

Foucauldian allegation

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. [1]" 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. Haiduc 00:20, 21 January 2007 (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 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 I'm not confident that the book can be considered a reliable source: its editor describes in a statement how it was withdrawn by its publisher after it was revealed that some of its "editors" were in fact pseudonyms (including the campy "Evelyn Gottone").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.

Not only has it been withdrawn in what was apparently a mini-melodrama, its standards of scholarship are shaky.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.

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.

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.

DanB†DanD 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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. Haiduc 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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."

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.

Here are a couple of articles about the withdrawal of the encyclopedia (subscription, which I don't have, needed for all but the blurbs): Pseudonym or Hoax?, Editor of "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality" Apologizes,

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.

DanB†DanD 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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? Haiduc 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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.)

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. DanB†DanD 05:16, 23 January 2007 (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. Haiduc 05:25, 23 January 2007 (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:

1. The encyclopedia was withdrawn from publications due to questions of editorial ethics.
2. Many of its articles do not cite sources, greatly reducing the reliability of the work as a whole.
3. 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.
4. 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 DanB†DanD 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. 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.

DanB†DanD 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. --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.--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.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. 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? DanB†DanD 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. 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 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,"

--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.

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). Haiduc 22:41, 19 February 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. 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. 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. 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! 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. DanB†DanD 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"). 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, 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!) DanB†DanD 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. Haiduc 02:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Tryst between man and youth" japanese picture

Tryst between a man and a youth
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. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 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, here for example. As for boys wearing flowered robes, you will see more of that in that same collection. Haiduc 01:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)