Jump to content

Talk:Pederasty/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Unsupported accusations are just incivility/personal attack. Provide proof

Haiduc. You have claimed once again that certain peer reviewed material is homophobic propaganda [1]. Where is your proof? The edits I am making are certainly not homophobic [2]. If you have no proof, then it cannot be propaganda of any sort. Either provide proof that the edits contain homophobia, or get reported for incivility. Phdarts (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're characterizing legal relationships between males as psychologically toxic and associating them with child abuse. I don't think Haiduc's charges are unfounded. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm reporting what is in the literature in a very straightforward manner. Now you are saying that it is me that is doing the characterization. So you are being uncivil also. You also provide zero proof of anything homophobic happening at all. Your uncivil accusations ring hollow. Phdarts (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Paederasty isn't limited to illegal, abusive relationships, and the literature does not contain evidence that all paederasty, including those relationships that are legal, have "a negative effect on the psychological development of a youth." You did not provide any source for this claim. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
AnotherSolipsist. You called this a smear: [3]. Would you care to make your explanations?
You also called this a gross simplification of Rind et al, then you just removed the whole lot[4]. You also claimed that the sources do not support the view. Your claims require proof. You have presented none. You have recently been in the habit of removing peer reviewed sourced information on pederasty, that is generally critical towards pederasty, or that sheds a majority oriented light on pederasty. Your edits are rather suspicious. I believe a lot of explanation from you and Haiduc is required. So will it be forthcoming, or will you simply continue to tag-team critical views out of the article? Phdarts (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Rind et al. (1998) is among the most cited studies in the field of child sexual abuse, and scientists generally accept its findings. I demonstrated this at Talk:Child_sexual_abuse/Archive_7#Notability_of_Rind_et_al._.281998.29. A summary more representative of the mainstream academic POV would read along the lines of "Rind was criticized by NARTH and Nancy Grace, while the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex defended the study." Of course, this would be almost as biased as your version. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of work regarding pederasty does not concern abusive or illegal relationships, child abuse or value laden law-enforcement ranting. Please gain a better understanding of the topic before you "[report] what is in the literature in a very straightforward manner" - as your method of doing that has some serious flaws. forestPIG 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
AnotherSolipsist and ForesticPig. You have both failed to actually deal with the material. You are both saying I am wrong, but have said nothing about anything specific at all. All I have done is present Lilienfeld, and Lilienfeld's account of the controversy. As far as I can see, the only reason people are objecting to it is because those editors do not want NAMBLA mentioned. This is an article on pederasty, NAMBLA is a pro-pederasty organization and peer reviewed articles are helpful in showing the relevant controversy. Now if you want to say that anyone is misunderstanding the subject, then find a source that contradicts Lilienfeld, and present it in the article. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I have as much knowledge and expertise as anyone else. Phdarts (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Lilienfeld's article is about the clash of legitimate social science (Rind et al. (1998)) with politics and the scientifically illiterate public (the reaction against Rind et al.). Your attempt to represent the lauding side wholly as NAMBLA is ridiculous and definitely not in line with Lilienfeld. Stop cherry-picking. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok you call it cherry picking. Provide the whole quote then. Phdarts (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty and homosexuality mutually exclusive

Hello again AnotherSolipsist. You removed this fact from the article [5]. Why? Phdarts (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quotation from the source supporting this dubious claim. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hardly dubious. Lumping child sex abusers and homosexuals is what is dubious, as well as being extremely anti-gay people and thus violating NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you start to learn something about this subject, before you write anymore nonsense? 84.150.250.199 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's try and help him instead of goading. I can send him photocopies of work relating to pederasty if he likes. Ironically, that would be straight out of a queer studies book :) forestPIG 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
ForesticPig. The studies you seem to be referring to are in the article already and I get the picture. However, the whole picture is not getting presented into the article text. The article is full of unsourced dubious statements. I am providing sources and clarifying those statements and I am using diverse sources, books, peer reviewed articles and so on. Perhaps you could also do something similar. This article needs to continue the POV fork cleanup to get it anywhere near being a reasonable Wikipedia article. Phdarts (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, are you going to provide a quote? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Its was in the article. Its interesting how some editors can treat me as if I am some sort of novice in the subject just because I don't push the "golden age of pederasty" line, yet at the same time they need to ask me for sources. Phdarts (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Views on Rind's study

Hello again AnotherSolipsist. You also removed views on Rind's study [6]. Why exactly? Phdarts (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He may have removed it because it contained unsourced generalisations and another underhand attack relating to a distant topic. You may have noticed that quite a lot of people are tiring of this approach. forestPIG 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are being unspecific. If you don't want to seem as if you are simply putting the boot in to maintain a ridiculously lopsided and spurious article, perhaps you could make an effort to deal with the material more concretely instead of vaguely criticising my editing per se. Phdarts (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You have been told already that editors here are aware you are playing a semantic game, and that it is not going to fly. How much clearer do people have to get with you? Haiduc (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
"semantic game"? What's that intended to convey? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc. When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, you and similarly inclined editors cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [7][8][9][10][11], and as can be seen clearly from the above, you make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. When material is moved here for discussion, you ignore it [12][13], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by chucking ridiculous and uncivil accusations about [14][15]. You and like-minded editors constantly refuse to assume good faith, and totally fail to address the actual facts being presented. Your protestations amount to “I don’t like it”. This is an encyclopedia that presents all relevant views. You are restricting this article to “the dreamy age of men and boys together” view of pederasty and that is totally unacceptable. You have failed to provide proof of homophobic agendas either in editing or in the literature itself. Thus you are to be reported for your uncivil disruptions. Phdarts (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The concerns of child abuse prevention organizations about pederasty

I moved this here for discussion, as there is a lot of unproductive editwarring surrounding it:

Child abuse prevention organizations assert that it is impossible for non-adults to offer "informed consent" to sexual activity - arguing that "consent" assumes certain knowledge and life experiences that a child or teenager is unlikely to have.[16]


The organization seems to me to be set up to prevent child abuse. Any other views on this? Phdarts (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC) PS, Scratch that, it looks like a pretty poor source. The line will be fine though with a few adjustment:

Those concerned about child abuse assert that it is impossible for non-adults to offer "informed consent" to sexual activity - arguing that "consent" assumes certain knowledge and life experiences that a child or teenager is unlikely to have.

Which are the more likely sources of this view? Phdarts (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I reported Haiduc and AnotherSolipsist on the Wikiquette alerts article [17] to try to improve discussion on this discussion page. Feel free to reply or add anything there. Phdarts (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are specific research and critical views on pederasty to be considered as homophobic propaganda?

This article was having no problems (for many years) until a group of like-minded editors suddenly descended on it en masse about a month ago. "Coincidence" is probably not the best word to describe the event. Their edits all aimed to depict pederasty as child abuse, and used as stratagem the fact that the word "pederasty" is polysemic. One of its meanings IS indeed "child abuse." But that meaning is well covered at the article(s) on that topic. There is a link to them in the article.

The meaning of "pederasty" that IS covered in this article is as defined here: the definition which applies to much of its history and which is used by sexologists, historians, artists, etc. It happens to include many legitimate homosexual relationships in modern times, to the extent that they take place between adolescent youths above the age of consent and post-adolescent or older males. Thus the insistent efforts to impose a child abuse model on all pederasty is, sad to say, homophobic.

One of the main arguments that this crowd has been clinging to is that they want the article to reflect "majority views." But Wikipedia is not a compendium of conventional wisdom. It is an elitist undertaking: we humble editors take the knowledge that scholars and intellectuals (the elite) have created and present it in digestible form for the use of the masses. Not the other way around.

The argument as phrased in the RfC, that all "some users" are doing is "introducing material that explains pederasty in relation to the broader pedophilic..." is nothing but a gaming of the Wikipedia system of supporting edits with proper references. The "pedophilia" advocates are indeed providing proper references. Unfortunately, they are references for studies of child abuse, not for the study of pederasty as defined in history and sexology, which is the only topic we deal with in here. Haiduc (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello. This statement I believe is in order: A Wikiquette discussion led to a suggestion by the Wikiquette editor to start an RFC on the material in question [18]. Some editors are introducing material that explains pederasty in relation to the broader pedophilic “child love” nature of “boy love”, the risk of child abuse, its mutual exclusivity from homosexuality, and its relationship with pro pederasty groups. Some other editors are saying that it is homophobic propaganda [19][20][21][22][23]. If anyone thinks that is not accurate then feel free to point out the specifics.
The pederasty article seems to have had a significant amount of questioning and disputes in the archives [24][25]. Editors aside, there has been more information presented on the nature of pederasty over the past month or two. A lot of this comes from sections of books labeled as pederasty, peer reviewed articles on pederasty, and these tend to come from academic publishers of psychology, science, sexology, history, and other relevant areas.
The allegations of homophobic propaganda have been applied by some editors to much of the above. The material tends, though not always, to be critical, or covers areas relating to pro-pederasty groups, law, and the internet. In the absence of any reliable literature calling material relating to pederasty homophobic propaganda, the accusations can be construed as incivility.
There is a line of research in the literature that covers propaganda; "Durkin, Keith F. & Clifton, D. Bryant (1999) Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles. Deviant Behavior 20,2:103-127.". This is quoted by other related sources, and covers internet “boy love” groups and their cognitive distortions regarding pederasty, and how they “justify” actual erotic contact with minors, internet contact, and the production and use of child pornography.
The literature in question does not seem to come from right-wing political parties, or from conservative religious groups. For the most part it is peer reviewed literature produced by experts in research and the field that relates directly to pederasty as is defined in both the classical and modern sense. Phdarts (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"Unrepentat pedophiles"?! What on Earth does that have to do with historical pederasty and legal legitimate homosexual relationships which happen to be of a pederastic nature??? There you go again, ignoring the complexity of the topic and smearing all pederasty with the pedophilia tar brush. Other editors have already pointed this out to you. This is your notion of dialogue??? Haiduc (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That phrase is part of a title of a paper in reliable source peer-reviewed journal, that also includes the term "pederasty" in its title - an appropriate reference for an article on... "pederasty". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, the article deals with the cognitive distortions of adults who have a ““romantic” interest in boys”. Of course, the authors quite clearly state that society and public at large tends to refer to them as child molesters and perverts. Durkin et al explain that referring to themselves as “boy lovers” will make it seem a more acceptable mode of sexuality and consequently they are able to maintain some sort of positive self-image in the face of general condemnation.
They use several methods to attempt to rationalize, justify, and otherwise normalize their deviance. These are: condemning the condemners (arguing that they are an oppressed minority, similar to homosexuals) denial of injury and the claim of legitimate benefit (the claim to the contact being educational), reference to children’s rights or children’s liberties, association with “great men” (reference to Alexander the Great, Socrates, Plato, Wilde and others) and so on, as a way to lessen the social stigma. Its an interesting line of research in itself and seems to be continuous from the 1950s onwards. Phdarts (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem I see here is a group of editors who have appeared out of nowhere in the last couple of weeks, attempting to change the focus of this article from an historical examination of Pederasty, and to impose a modern construct on the term. I note that at least one of the editors has been banned as a sockpuppet. The other editors who are attempting this radical rewritw of this article seem to be working in tandem.
The word itself has become synonymous with Pedophile in modern times, and the average reader (or editor) does not understand the distinction. That's not our problem. Wikipedia is ostensibly a scholarly resource, educating people who lack formal training in fields of interest. What is the problem here is editors who apparently have no scholarship in this field reading and interpreting scholarly articles with an imperfect grasp of what is before their eyes, and using it to further their political agenda.
One of the main contributers to this article, who has worked hard for several years to uphold the standards of legitimate scholarship, is Haiduc. I myself have no real understanding of this subject or interest. I do have an interest in seeing the standards of intellectual integrity at Wikipedia upheld. The only work I have done here is to protect it from vandalism when I have seen it under attack, both overtly and subtly.
Phdarts and his cohorts are appealing to emotions and hysteria in their attempts to alter this article, and I would urge people to read the last stable version by Haiduc and compare it to what these new editors are trying to insert before weighing in. Personally, I do see homophobia in these new edits; and worse still, an attempt by a small group to subvert scholarship with a currently politically correct and distorted version of this subject. Jeffpw (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Jeffpw. You are accusing editors of subversion. That is a personal attack.
The sources I for one, am using, are straightforward references and literature relating to pederasty. Feel free to read them for yourself. Articles no doubt evolve. It seems quite a nonsense argument to focus pederasty exclusively on the ancient or historical version of pederasty. In addition, some of the critical views on that historical literature has been objected to in this regard also. The use of the term "homophobic propaganda" label seems to have been rather inconsistently applied, and only to information that does not shed a kind light on pederasty. Again, I don't see editors trying to remove positive views of pederasty, only the less positive ones. Phdarts (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC). PS, you are not exactly an outsider here [26], and your claims seem to be quite inaccurate [27]. Making desperate accusations is no substitute for dealing with the actual material literature pertinent to the the article. Phdarts (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
First, you would be well advised to stop lecturing people on "assuming good faith." You long ago squandered any claim to that presumption through your abusive behavior. You and your bunch lose a certain amount of credibility when you keep mouthing "assume good faith, assume good faith" while forcibly imposing your willful distortions. Assuming good faith does not mean that we should be idiots here.
Kind light?! I have all along gleefully included accounts of all kinds of nasty doings by pederasts, as can be seen, for example, in the articles on historical pederastic relationships. I have also included criticisms in the more general articles, including a discussion of the Dover - Foucault - Halperin stream of thought which depicts Greek pederasty as dominance.
The problem, of course, is that pederasty is a complex human relationship that has both positive and negative manifestations. Your attempt to cherry-pick the literature on child abuse by using those texts which employ terminology useful to your cause, in other words which use "pederasty" as a synonym for child abuse rather than in the sexological and anthropological sense of the word (a word which is admittedly polysemic), is a reductionist and simplistic attempt to project a modern medical discussion onto all history. To use as analogy, it is like taking the literature on wife abuse to "prove" that marriage is inherently abusive (not that some feminists haven't tried that). 'Nuff said. Haiduc (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Haiduc. You offer lots of accusations, but no evidence. This has been the case all along. Your objections are generally towards the editing of editors who do not hold your particular point of view, who are working to provide broader views not of your own. There is some unconstructive edit warring here, and you are most definitely part of it. I have been removing parts of those wars to this article so as to improve discussion, and you have largely ignored the material facts [28] and continued your vague accusations of homophobia to all editors who do not agree with you. If you could perhaps offer something specific that you find wrong with the peer reviewed material you don’t like, then perhaps your position could improve a bit. Phdarts (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No evidence? This reads as no less than character assassination. Whoever you are, you are guilty of a brutal assault on one of the best minds among Wiki contributors. I do not know him, but it is clear to all but those who seek to destroy informed debate and sensitive perception that Haiduc is a scholar, a philosopher and - perhaps more importantly - a lover of humanity in all its diversity. Was it not Goethe - himself no pederast - who said:

"Paederasty is as old as humanity itself, and one can therefore say that it is natural, that it resides in nature, even if it proceeds against nature. What culture has won from nature will not be surrendered or given up at any price."

The article under attack is well-resourced and informative. I do not believe that in presenting historical and literary evidence, it contravenes any legal or moral boundaries. In this age of democratic fundamentalism, the subject may attract the attention of bigots and homophobes, but you must surely be intelligent enough to recognise that the authors who treat of unfashionable topics cannot be held to account for doing just that. Even Professor Dover's account of Ancient Greek practices, for example, received - if not accolades - the grudging admiration of educated readers and scholars worldwide, and this at a time when sexual emancipation of any kind was hardly a subject for nice people to think about. When one considers the real problems in the world, the above discussions appear grotesque and misguided. It is time you got out of the mid-West or provincial U.K. or wherever, and look around you at suffering humanity and the real problems they face. Domniqencore (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gothe did reveal some personal fascination for this subject, I would say (it's on the discussion-page of the German version of this article). Fulcher (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
you just love to throw around "uncivil" against anybody who dares to disagree with you, and keep harping on "assume good faith' while doing nothing of the kind in return. As was stated above, you and your lot are attacking one of the most scholarly contributers to this encyclopedia. It's people like you and your ilk here who are responsible for the dumbing down of this encyclopedia, and the dumbing down of culture in general. Why dont you go edit the Jerry Springer article. That seems a much more fitting subject for your time--it's both salacious and full of nonsense, much like most of your edits here. Jeffpw (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your wonderfully insightful and collaborative comment. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody could provide a diff or a particular line showing an alleged piece of homophobic propaganda? Because thus far, nothing specific has been presented. Phdarts (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Phdarts (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


OK, I'll start off. Is this line below considered to be homophobic, and if so, why? Phdarts (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Some studies have concluded that homosexuality and pederasty tend to be mutually exclusive (Li, West, and Woodhouse1990)."
IMO, this is neither homophobic nor propaganda. ResearchEditor (talk)
  • ::Comment: An article that presents only the modern, legal, "acceptable" version of pederasty is POV, even if the article states that it is using the narrower dfinition. The article should include the view of many that pederasty is morally wrong. If RS can be found that seem homophobic, then so be it. Wikipedia should reflect this unfortunate reality.

Exluding information from RSs on pederasty, particularly scientific literature, is simply unacceptable. (What is the point of a RfC if the article contributors are just going to swamp community views by repeating reams of debate that univolved editors can read above?)Yobmod (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a third party who has read the discussion and the article as of 18:23, 1 July 2008. I think the biggest issue in this article is one of definition. As has been said, the word is polysemic, and I do not believe this is adequately handled throughout the article. Different manifestations have been described, but how the word is intended to be interpretted in the article is never clearly defined. As I read, I could identify at least 3 significantly different possible definitions: chaste pederasty, unchaste pederasty, and "brutal" pederasty (involving castration). I recommend saying early in the article something along the lines of "for the purposes of the article pederasty will mean...", and then use more descriptive terms when talking about other forms of pederasty.

Additionally, I think the description of chaste pederasty badly needs to be expanded. Is this just a form of mentorship? What is "sexual" about it? Maybe I'm not intuitive enough but many of the words used in the introduction were too vague in my opinion.

With regards to the main debate, I'm always in favor of more (accurate) information as opposed to less. However, I think what is being described needs to be clearly defined. Using pederasty for a synonym with "child abuse" is at best sloppy english. Regardless of whether or not scholarly sources have used the word this way, for this article's purpose, since it covers modern AND historical use of the word, definitions need to be extremely carefully managed. Clarity is key.

Further, this article should not become a redundant copy of Child Abuse. There should in my opinion be a link to the page on child abuse. But filling up paragraphs with "child abuse is bad" is unnecessary as it goes without saying and is already covered fully. AzureFury (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction - problems

Some problems with the opening

"sexual relationship, whether or not consummated" I don't really see how a sexual relationship cannot be consummated. I can see an erotic one as not, and clearly sexual desire not, but a sexual relationship?

"The Western model of male adult relations is seen by researchers as a departure from this norm since it has rarely appeared as a pattern in other times and places.[citation needed] Unlike the other models, it ‘assumes that homosexuality is not merely a behavior, but something innate to a person’s real being.' In this sense, such cultures do not see the practise of pederasty as something in line with any ideological or traditional model, but rather - that the behaviour has become partially integrated into the child sexual abuse model."

This is practically incomprehensible, and is infected with social science gobbedegook.

"Later repression of male love culminating in the persecution of homosexuals during Mediaeval times and the Spanish Inquisition and Renaissance Italy[4] also stemmed from the growing Christian movements in Europe."

A few logical fallacies here. Suggesting (1) that pederasty was a social norm everywhere until a certain phase of historical developement (2) strongly implying a causal connection between Christianity and persection that was absent in other cultures. There is no persecution in Islamic culture, perhaps? At least, has to be well-sourced. Hinnibilis (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur that all of those statements are unusable and unsupported in their current forms and need to be changed or removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are they unsupported? See below.Domniqencore (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The lack of citation referred to above by one, 'Jack-A-Roe', is due to deliberate removal of a numbered reference on 24 May 2008, by - guess who? - the self-same Jack-A-Roe. There is obviously a personal agenda going on here, which is more than mere vandalism: the deliberate undermining of serious work by responsible editors. This should not be tolerated by the Wiki administrators. Domniqencore (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
That reference was removed because it is a self-published, off-topic, unreliable source. Another editor also found it unreliable and posted a talk page section about it: #Reference #3/"Mygenes". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we can get working on seperating issues without even needing sources. Seperating the various issues into the correct paragraphs will help. Also, making sure Wikipedia is not making particular conclusions will help. Phdarts (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Pederasty in the modern world>>into>>Pederasty (part 2)

Proposed: Pederasty in the modern world to be merged with this article, Pederasty, for the following reasons:

  • There is no significant cultural pederasty practiced in the modern world
  • Most of the split-off article is original research
  • Most of the split-off article does not address the modern world and rather discusses historical events of the the past century or two
  • Much of the text in the split-off article duplicates content that applies more to this article

Note: these two articles were merged in late May 2008 according to consensus on this page. The merge was reverted [29] [30] by one editor without prior discussion.

Regarding the length of this article, most of the content from the other article was already merged. When the merge is re-done, the length of this page will not increase much. See also: discussion above at #excessive duplication with other articles.

Links to other sections on this page where the merge was discussed:

Comments entered in the above linked sections are still current, entered less than a month ago. Please enter additional comments here to centralize the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure Jack. The merge can be conducted whilst keeping specific issues seperate and in good logical or sequential order. All relevant views, majority and minority, in reasonable proportion. Phdarts (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Hinnibilis (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

what is this article about? Let's start there

There is a clear fallacy built into this article, which is one of the fallacies of definition, i.e. redefine the word you are talking about (in this case pederasty does not necessarily involve sexual connection) and then say how it is not a crime, not harmful &c, which may be perfectly true under the redefinition. But of course most people will not spot this and will assume the word has its ordinary meaning. This is a classic pro-paedo manouevre. It happens under our very eyes at the beginning, where 'Pederasty' is said not to require consummation, even though described as a 'sexual relationship'. Yet the next para says that the dictionary definition is somehow wrong - "dictionary definitions of the practice reduce it to anal intercourse, ranging from moralistic ones based on the Christian discourse on homosexuality". If a 1971 dictionary says that is what the word means, it is safe to assume that's what it does mean. In any case, we have to be clear what the article attached to this word actually is about? Why is the Greek section there, given that the Greeks, in particular Plato, had quite a moralistic view of man-boy relationships in general?

So what is the article about? Someone tell me. Hinnibilis (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have re-written the introduction to conform with standard dictionary definitions, i.e. an explicitly sexual practice involving post-adolescent males and adolescent boys. Under this definition, actually much of the article can now be deleted, since the Greek practices do not conform to the modern definition. Perhaps there should be an article about the Greek variety, but not here. Hinnibilis (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think thats fine. I added a set of definitions in a specific definition and classification section as there may be subtle differences from various majority points of view. Minority POV we can deal with later. The majority of law, social studies, and psychology, consider pederasty in terms of sexuality, so yes the sexual aspect is priority. Phdarts (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding where to put the Plato info, there are already at least a six articles on Greek pederasty, there might be more, I've not done a full search. There's a list in the section above at #excessive duplication with other articles. That set of overlapping articles seem to be a distinction in search of a difference. A positive approach would be to merge them into one in-depth article on Greek pederasty with whatever information can be properly sourced, and a summary style paragraph and link from this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to know how to divide this material. There is the pederasty/paedophilia distinction, which is partly one of age (under age of consent but pubescent, under age of consent but pre-pubescent); partly one of gender (pederasty is specifically boys - interesting as far as I can see that there are no articles concerning the ancient institutionalised practice of older men marrying young girls). Partly one of the supposed acceptance of pederasty in old but non-Greek cultures (very little actual evidence for that I think) and finally the institutionalisation of pederasty in classical Greek culture. All these should be handled differently. Hinnibilis (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-styled "pedophilia police" and sockpuppet abuse of article

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the sacking of this article over the course of the last month and a half has been executed by (at least some) socks of banned users. I have reverted their damage.

It is to be hoped that the future evolution of this article will come not as a barrage of edits from a gang of militants acting in cahoots with each other but through a process of measured discussion and debate.

One of the (few) positive things to have arisen from the recent mayhem is the elaboration of recent work on the dominance model of Greek pederasty. More work needs to be done on it. For those who see this article as tilted to an overly positive view of pederasty and its history, it should come as much-needed balance. Haiduc (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]I have begun to recover some of the other useful additions from the last six weeks. More work remains to be done, as time allows. Haiduc (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of the recent edits as well as your choice of words used to describe other editors with different opinions. The majority view of pederasty is not a positive one. Discussion and debate is needed on the article, but not the large deletion of material from it without consensus. ResearchEditor (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The majority view of the government in the 1950s reflected McCarthyism in its most egregious form. People of good reputation were smeared and harmed by hysterics who pursued their agendas without an ounce of qualm as to the moral implications of their actions on our society. Thank God it was soon shown to be the hysteria of a population influenced by a neo-fascist cult leader. One hopes that this will prevail, here, as well. For you to argue that the majority view here should prevail reminds me of Joseph Welch's question to Mr. McCarthy, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?'". Do not accuse me again of lacking good faith. you have shown yourselves unworthy of that. I reiterate Mr. Welch's last question: HAVE YOU NO SHAME? Jeffpw (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion and debate are very necessary, but the recent crowd (which presumably will soon reappear in some new costume or other) engaged in neither and did not respond to such when it was offered. Instead they tried to shove a subset of pederasty (abusive and/or illegal relationships) down the throats of previous editors, insisting it was the "true" version.
As for "non-positive" aspects of pederasty, there are plenty, both in the article and in history, going back to the time of the Greeks and the Persians. You are welcome to document them, but not to toy with bona fide sexological definitions. Haiduc (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use the modern definition of pedastery simply because it's popular at the moment, but it is painfully clear to me that definition is a huge issue in this article. If the word is used inconsistently, then it can be said that the whole article violates WP:VERIFY since each sentence with the word "pedastery" could have multiple meanings. I don't think excessive deletion needs to take place, though the section on Greek Pedastery should only be a few paragraphs long since there are indeed multiple articles devoted to it. AzureFury (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should be able to be consistent as long as we keep in mind the very real difference between the use of the word as a slur or a synonym for pedophilia, and its historical and cultural sense.
On a separate note, I think we need to address the question of how to deal with all the material imported from the currently defunct article on Pederasty in the modern world. The reason given for it demise was that it was all "POV," but to be perfectly honest, I never understood the logic behind that accusation, all the more so as a large proportion of the material in that article was subsequently imported into this article. Now that we can all debate the matter at leisure and in a civilized fashion, I would be grateful if someone (ResearchEditor?) can make some kind of a case for that action, namely redirecting the "Modern" article into this one (from which it was originally broken out for reasons of size a couple of years ago).
Jeffpw, I think that the worst offenders have moved on to happier hunting grounds, and any editors who are left can probably be part of whatever constructive dialog we can muster here. By the way, welcome back. Haiduc (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I was not one of the editors that was involved in the redirect edits. Perhaps one of the editors involved will notice these posts and answer your query. I do believe that we should define pederasty according to how the reliable journal and media sources define it. Whether there is or isn't a concurrence amongst sources in terms of its definition, this should be proportionally reflected in the page itself somehow, though this may be difficult to do so smoothly. ResearchEditor (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable suggestion until you consider that it is impossible to reconcile tabloid and mass media views with scholarly journals, and that mass media outweighs the academic publications 100 to 1. So I hope you will forgive me if I accept the first part of your advice but not the second, and edit here based on what reliable journals have to say about pederasty as defined by historians and anthropologists, and leave the media to its own devices. Haiduc (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pederasty/Archive_9&oldid=236371440"