Talk:Sergius and Bacchus/Archive 1

Untitled

I've moved most of the caption of the picture into the body of the article, deleted some irrelevant or redundant external links, added other external links, added material about churches and dates, and made some copyedits. JHCC 15:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) (MOVED FROM TALK:SAINT SERGIUS)

Non-reference

"-- This article includes material from the 9th edition (1886) of an unnamed encyclopedia."

Right. Un-huh. Why is that useful to know?--Prosfilaes 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This Makes No Sense

Under controversies, we find this sentence: The most popular evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, in the Greek language.

It makes no sense and is incomplete. Can someone who knows what this is supposed to say please fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by PaladinWriter (talk • contribs)

Fair use

I don't understand the fair use rationale for Image:SerBac.jpg. It is copyrighted, and a free equivalent image; namely, the old image of the saints. I think it should be removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't removed the part about the artist who illustrated them as a gay couple, perhaps the rational for showing one of his pictures might be a little more obvious.--Prosfilaes 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a free image of these saints available; therefore a copyrighted image can't be used here. The bit about the artist's interpretation is thoroughly non-notable; he's not a very notable artist, and his painting doesn't need to be mentioned here, lest it recieve undue weight.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, before I'm accused of something, note that I didn't remove the commentary of Dr. John Boswell, who says basically the same thing with much more authority, being a historian rather than a painter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Authority isn't everything. Popular belief and appearance are also interesting and important.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for questioning the notability of Robert Lentz? The image exists on Wikipedia, has a good fair use rationale and is discussed in the article - seems like a good case for inclusion to me. WjBscribe 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The image fair use is not based upon its merely showing the two saints, but that it depicts them as a gay couple. This is distinct from the ancient (free) image, which shows them, but not with that particular interpretation. Aleta 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lenz is a painter, and not a very notable one. His view recieves undue weight by being mentioned here as if it were representative of a major trend or line of thought, when it's actually pretty ideosyncratic. He doesn't even have an article here. The fair use claim on his image is very dubious at best: the image is only fair use if it's mentioned in the article, and it is only mentioned in the article based on the image. Perhaps an RfC is needed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is a requirement for being included in Wikipedia - I don't think you can turn that round and use the fact that someone has not yet been included to conclude that they are not notable. How much do you know about Robert Lenz? I would have described him as one of the most well known living iconographers and would certainly hope we end up having an article about him one day. WjBscribe 04:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly inclusion on Wikipedia wasn't my only concern. I believe he's not notable enough to matter in this discussion. The inclusion of him and his image here give undue weight to his interpretation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also the serious question as to whether, as stated on the Robert Lentz page, which I agree was only created today by User:Aleta, who among other things is a member of the LGBT project, whether his imagery, as is quoted on that page, may help "to serve [his] own religious sociopolitical agenda". Given the existence of that quoted statement on that page, I would myself have to say that the copyrighted image certainly cannot be used, particularly as there is another image available. Personally, I actually aesthetically like Lentz' image more, but that really doesn't matter. It isn't free use, we have an equivalent free use, and on that basis there's no just cause to include it in this article. Not saying it couldn't be included somewhere else, maybe in his article, but there's no need to use that copyrighted image here. Also, the quoted statement regarding the artist's possible lack of total objectivity might very well make mention of that matter in this article a violation of WP:Undue weight, unless someone can demonstrate that that particular image is in and of itself extraordinarily notable. John Carter 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that quote calling his work propaganda was written as the opinion of one person. I've altered the sentence qhere I make that quotation to make it clear who said that. Aleta 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So noted. Hart doesn't appear to be really notable himself, but the place where he made the comment is. I inserted a link there, hope you don't mind. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing sometehing about what contributins he made to the books, text or images or both, if that's readily available. John Carter 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind! I'm glad for the help. I *think* his contributions to the books are primarily images, but I'll have to see what I can find. Maybe I can get the books from the library, but that won't be immediately. Maybe we should continue this conversation over on Talk:Robert Lentz since it's migrated a bit from the focus of this page. :) Aleta 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We still have the topic at hand to deal with, re the image's fair use rationale and the mention of Robert Lentz. I believe, as John mentioned above, that unless this image is particularly notable in and of itself, including the material on Lentz constitutes undue weight.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Its a depiction of the subject by a notable iconographer and it illustrates the passage in question - the analysis of Sergius and Bacchus as erastai. How is that undue weight? There is no requirement that illustrations of Wikipedia illustrations must be iconic. WjBscribe 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is represented out of proportion with its importance. Lentz' image is one of only two images on the page, and mentioning it in the text gives the impression that it's very important and carries weight in the discussion of these two saints. This is aside from the fair use concern.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I think you're attaching too much weight to the significance of images. I don't think the image being there gives the impression that the part of the article it illustrates is more important than any other - just that this is an image relevant to the article. I've never seen WP:UNDUE applied to images in this way - the general approach is that images relevant to articles are included. If you have a problem with the image's fair use rationale, you can of course nominate it for deletion. But I really don't think a case about undue weight is made out here. WjBscribe 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't tihink it is undue weight either. It illustrates the point being made about some people's interpretation of the lives of these two men; no more, no less. Aleta 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight certainly does apply to images; it's even discussed at the policy page (it applies "not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."). And it's not just the image; the painting is discussed in the text, making it sound like it's something much more important than it really is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the text says that the erastai interpretation is favoured by one historian and an inconographer - which is true. Its actually more popular than that, those are just what's presently verifiable. My recollection from reading about this a while ago is that there are some older historians who have also described the saints as lovers but I can't cite anything at present. Returning to the subject at hand, I didn't say UNDUE couldn't apply to images - just that I had never seen it argued in this way before. I still can't see how those short descriptions are giving undue weight - its a very brief discussion of that interpretation. WjBscribe 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that it may be more popular than is verifiable, I hope you can understand that we can't really take anyone's unsupported word regarding a given subject's popularity as a reason for inclusion of material in the article. I think undue weight may enter into this because of the amount of space the image receives, and the fact that it is currently one of only two images in the article, which gives it an effective weight in that regard of 50%. Were the article to be substantially longer than it is, that would be different. But, given its present length, undue weight could be a factor. John Carter 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So you think its undue weight because its one of two images of the saints? How many images of these long dead saints would we need for it not to be undue weight? Would 20% of the images be OK, or 10%? I am finding this a very problematic application of UNDUE - it's designed to avoid giving to much weight to "the earth is flat" theories. This is hardly comparable. Its a pretty significant depiction of the saints, worthy of inclusion. The modern noteriety of those saints is very much based on Boswell and Lentz's works. WjBscribe 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not say that, and I frankly find your statement above to be insulting and couterproductive. Raising the false question about it being "worthy of inclusion", when to the best of my knowledge no one has argued against it being worthy of conclusion, is also counterproductive. And I note that you did not address the first, most relevant, part of the statement, instead focusing on possibly intentionally restating things in a NPOV, inflammatory manner. Several earlier comments have been made by me and others to indicate that the image cannot be justifiably included in the article. To the best of my knowledge, we have not yet received sufficient argument to the contrary. If you can produce more evidence that the theory is justifiable than the statement of two writer and one artist over several hundred years, good. I would welcome seeing it. At this point, the article can definitely bear additional content. However, as one of the few people who does actively work to any degree with these biographies of saints, I can say that there are over 3500 on wikipedia already, leaving a lot of work for a very few people. I at this point cannot say that the degree of weight the article gives the theories of these two individuals is entirely in keeping with WP:Undue weight. To do that, we would have to have more information than we do on any other writings about them, their reliability, etc. We don't. Neither can I really say that it isn't, and have not in fact made the argument that the content regarding the subject should be removed. The point I had made above was simply to indicate that, in addition to the fact that no good argument has been put forward that the image needs to be included, there are also, potentially, arguments that including it in any event might be problematic. I acknowledge poor phrasing in my earlier comment, however. At this point, I think any discussion would best focus on justifying the inclusion of a non-free image in an article which already has one. I have yet to see any good argument but forward to necessitate its inclusion. I think that, the more fundamental question, still needs to be addressed. John Carter 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for inclusion is pretty obvious surely? This image is not designed to simply show what the saints look like (indeed its prob inaccurate if it were for that purpose). Were it used for that purpose it would clearly be replaceable by another image. However the image is being used because it specifically aims to depict them as lovers. As such a depiction it is not replaceable by the other image. Were there a free image that depicted them in that manner, I would prob accept that it could be replaced by that image. It is fair use because it illustrates a discussion in the article of the interpretation that the saints were lovers (which the other image could not) and that section references Lentz's work. WjBscribe 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:NFC, I do not believe the image meets requirement #8 ("Significance", that it "would significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Frankly, to me the image does not increase understanding of the subect, and may even inhibit it, as I cannot see how it in any way explicitly portrays them as lovers, which would be required if it were to be used to increase understanding. I acknowledge the significance of the clothing as worn by the two parties might be relevant in some way, but no explicit evidence that the clothing does so can be instantly inferred by everybody, and that would be required. Also, I have seen no crying need that that particular section requires an illustration, so requirement #3 ("Minimal usage"), may also be called into play. Also, as a regular reviewer of articles for A-Class and other statuses, there often is a complaint that a page can be overloaded with images. Such a complaint, on such a short article, could easily be raised here. Right now, on my viewer, I see at least part of an image on every scroll-down. So, as is, the image at least to someone not involved in LGBT issue, actually somewhat inhibits understanding, as it makes a claim about the image doing something which is it does not clearly do in my eyes, failing "Significance", and that as such is not "required" to illustrate a point it doesn't clearly illustrate in the first place, thus failing requirement #3. In fact, it's inclusion itself could be seen as being detrimental to understanding, which would mean that it's inclusion would run exactly contrary to requirement #8. If you can provide explicit evidence which would prove to anyone that the image does inherently illustrate that the two were lovers, of course, that would be welcome. John Carter 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

{unindent) I wonder if the size of the image would make a difference. Would it help to make it less "weighty" if we shrank the image a bit? Aleta 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Weight was only a secondary matter to begin with. Like I said above, the picture doesn't explicitly portray the two as lovers in such a way that at least one drooling bozo unfamilar with most LGBT matters, me, clearly recognizes it as such. I've seen (and actually worn) similar "matching outfits" at college sports games, where there wasn't anything remotely similar implied by me or the other members of the school wearing them. Not that I would have necessarily minded a little more "contact" with some of the girls in the film school, but... . Anyway, I still aesthetically prefer that image, but I'm far from sure that it meets the requirements of inclusion of non-free contentas it doesn't clearly indicate that the two were lovers. If there is some inherent symbolism in the way the clothes are worn and that were made clearer, or some other "proof" inherent in the picture, that'd be different, but we don't have that now. John Carter 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, I agree with John. As he says, perhaps we should deal with the fair use problem before dealing with the UNDUE/NPOV problem (though I'd like to see that resolved eventually as well). To that end, I see no necessity for including this non-free image when free ones are obviously available, and I see no pressing need for there to be an image of the saints as lovers anyway - it's only one (minor) aspect of the article. The reader gains nothing by seeing this, except the impression that the painting and its creator are more important to the subject than they really are.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have died down here; I've placed a disputed fair use disputed tag on the image. It might be best to continue further conversation at the image's talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Some further information on the Saints

"Sergios kai Bakhos": The book by Dim. Rodopoulos "Karagatsis" on the Saints:

---

In a book written by a Greek writer called Dimitrios Rodopoulos (pseudonym Karagatsis-died 1960) on the Saints, St. Sergius was presented as having been a Centurion of Italian/Roman extraction called Sergius Publius Barbatus. St. Bacchus was presented as having been an Optio (Decarchus in Greek, a NCO, something like a Senior Sgt.) of Greek extraction, in the Centuria (Company) led by Centurion Sergius Publius Barbatus. They were comrades in arms, so much is certain.

Rodopoulos' book titled "Sergios kai Bakhos" is almost certainly a work of fiction. In light of the extant historical evidence (Synaxarium) that designates both Sts. as having been Senior Cavalry Officers of the Schola Gentilum (Primicerius and Secundicerius respectively, roughly equivalent to a Brigadier General and a Colonel respectively), his (Rodopoulos') mention of the Sts. in the book as having been Infantry Officers (Centurion and Optio respectively) must have been fictitious and almost certainly fallacious.

Quoting some of the info available on the net from sites affiliated to the Greek Orthodox Church:

QUOTE

Οι Άγιοι Σέργιος και Βάκχος έζησαν και μαρτύρησαν όταν αυτοκράτορας των Ρωμαίων ήταν ο Μαξιμιανός, στο στρατό του οποίου υπηρετούσαν. Εκτιμώντας τις ικανότητες και τις αρετές του ο Μαξιμιανός έδωσε το αξίωμα του πριμικηρίου (πρώτου άρχοντα) στον Σέργιο και του σεκουνδικηρίου (δεύτερου άρχοντα) στον Βάκχο. Οι δύο άνδρες υπηρέτησαν τον αυτοκράτορα με σύνεση κι ανδρεία. Όταν όμως αυτός έμαθε πως οι δυο αξιωματικοί του ήταν χριστιανοί ταράχθηκε. Για να επιβεβαιώσει τις υποψίες του οργάνωσε ειδωλολατρική γιορτή, στην οποία κάλεσε τους δυο άνδρες. Όταν ο Σέργιος και ο Βάκχος αρνήθηκαν να θυσιάσουν στα είδωλα ο Μαξιμιανός πείσθηκε για την πίστη τους στον Χριστό και εξαγριωμένος διέταξε να τους αφαιρέσουν τα διακριτικά γνωρίσματα των αξιωμάτων του. Αφού τους διαπόμπευσαν, οι ειδωλολάτρες τους έστειλαν στον Αντίοχο, σε έναν ηγεμόνα της Ανατολής. Αυτός, αφού τους βασάνισε σκληρά, ζήτησε τον αποκεφαλισμό του Βάκχου. Τον Σέργιο, ο οποίος κάποτε είχε ευεργετήσει τον ηγεμόνα, ο Αντίοχος προσπάθησε να τον πείσει να αλλαξοπιστήσει. Όταν όμως πείσθηκε πως απέτυχε, ο ειδωλολάτρης ηγεμόνας δεν δίστασε να διατάξει να αποκεφαλίσουν και αυτόν. 

UNQUOTE

Translation:

---

Sts Sergius and Bacchus lived and were martyred when Maximianus was Emperor of the Romans, in whose Army they served. In appreciation of their abilities and virtues, the Emperor bestowed on Sergius the offcium of Primicirius and on Bacchus the officium of Secundicirius. The two men served the Emperor with valour and virtue. When the former was informed that his two Officers were Christian, he was stunned. To verify if they were Christian or not, he ordered a Pagan feast, to which he invited both men. When Sergius and Bacchus refused to offer sacrifices to the Pagan idols, Maximianus was convinced of their faith in Christ, and enraged ordered (his men) to strip the Sts. of the insignia of their offices. After the Sts. have been thus publically ridiculed, the Pagans despatched the Sts to Antiochus, an Eastern Magistrate (The Greek text says "Magnate"). Antiochus, after having them tortured, ordered St. Bacchus beheaded. Antiochus though, tried to convince Sergius to repudiate his faith in Christ because the latter had, at one time, assisted Antiochus in some matter. When, however, Antiochus was convinced of his failure (to convince St. Sergius to deny Christ) he did not hesitate to order St. Sergius beheaded as well.

---

On a side note, I am not aware of any early synaxarium that mentions the Sts. as "erastai". Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to point out which synaxarium makes this mention, and also kindly assist me to get a hold on a copy in the original Greek.

My thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartiates (talk • contribs) 06:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Boswell

I have removed an additional paragraph of evidence for a homosexual interpretation of the saints' relationship added by Contaldo80. It seems to have come from Boswell, though this can't be verified, since it was uncited. Even if cites were added, the material is still gravely flawed. First, it presents Boswell's interpretation and translation (if they are indeed Boswell's, and not that of some less reliable authority) as fact, despite the article specifically indicating that Boswell's arguments are contested by other scholars. Second, it gives far too much weight to Boswell's ideosyncratic view. My opinion is that his interpretation is overrepresented already, recieving a sizable chunk of the article and an image.

I don't want to be accused of some reactionary bias here; my recent edits were actually the result of my looking around for secondary sources demonstrating that "many modern commenters" believe the saints were lovers, as the article formerly indicated. However, I turned up nothing of the like. All I could find were Boswell and references directly back to his work, which largely consisted of reviews critical of his findings on some level or another. Nor could I find any reliable secondary sources indicating that Boswell's claims about Bacchus and Sergius had gained particular notability in popular belief, even in the gay community. Of course if anyone could find such a source, it would be quite useful for this article, but I could find nothing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure nobody there would make these insinuations about Mohamed or any muslim figure. To suggest that these saints were homossexual is pathetic and unacceptable. It offends the religion feelings of many Christians and Wikipedia must be sued for this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.242.64 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are two documents for you to study while you are blocked: WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:THREAT. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I agree. It might also allow a bit of time to think about the nature of evidence, academic discourse, and open debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I really think Boswell shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Those who are interested in his academic silliness (desperate desire to be original and say something new) should type his name in google and search for his books elsewhere, since we're not obligated to know every single trashy theory that comes out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulo victorfv (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone of course is entitled to an opinion, although personally I find yours unconvicing and short-sighted. Can I also remind you that we're working on a secular encyclopaedia rather than a religious hagiography. You might prefer to search for a hagiography in order to give you the details you might be searching for around myth and miracles. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hagiography, just in serious and unbiased accounts related to the lifes of these Saints (simply acknowledging their holiness proves that Wikipedia is not a radical secular encyclopedia, but a free one, as it says in it's logo). By the way, can I remind you that you gays and gay sympathizers don't have to keep telling us, in a condescending way, that everybody can have a opinion ? I KNOW I have the right to have an opinion, ok ? This article, giving all the importance it does to Boswell, is seriously flawed and anti-Christian. --Paulo victorfv (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You've shown yourself up haven't you by resorting to abuse. A shame really. You have a right to an opinion, but of course that doesn't mean that the opinion is right. There is nothing in this article that is remotely anti-Christian. You are entitled to point out where there is bias or inaccurate information and we would welcome that - but you haven't at all, because I suspect you're not able. You've just referred to it as "silliness" without justifying this. Believing that something offends your own personal beliefs does not, sadly, mean it isn't true or shouldn't be included. If you've got nothing useful to add to this article rather than insults then can I suggest you move on. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And Boswell sure is fringe isn't he. He was only professor of history at Yale University so what would he know about anything. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"You gays and gay sympathizers". Er, human beings is another term. I also understand that we're also known as "brothers and sisters" in Christian speak. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But I did explain what's wrong and anti-Christian is this article: the mere suggestion that these CHRISTIAN SAINTS were GAYS. This is offensive because the vast majority of the Christian world (following the Bible and the Tradtion) don't accept homosexuality as a life style or personal choice, but rather as an abomination and an offense to God. If you think homosexuality is something normal you shouldn't be bothered if I call you a gay or gay sympathizer, right ? I don't really expect this article to be fixed anymore: I have to tried to correct it but there's always a Gestapo-Wikipedia-Administrator to impose the gay point of view in a Christian article. --Paulo victorfv (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles may include material that some readers may find offensive. It is not removed on those grounds alone. If material is verifiable by reliable sources, treated neutrally in the text, and all significant viewpoints are dealt with, it may be included. The current text does this: the Boswell material is attributed to the sources, given only three colorless sentences, and criticism of his views are included. However, Wikipedia contributors are expected not to be offensive, even when dealing with controversial material (WP:CIVIL). Your remarks about "gays and gay sympathizers" were clearly intended to be disparaging, as if such people have no business editing "your" article. This is out of line and needs to stop now. Your contributions are welcome, but if they are accompanied by this continued incivility you will be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Patronage

I notice there's been a bit of disagreement lately over whether S&B are regarded as patron saints of homosexuals. I think it's worth us just trying to see if we can tease this issue out. If they are venerated in the roman catholic and eastern orthodox church then there is absolutely no question that they would be viewed as patron saints of homosexuals - particularly as the line is pretty critical on same-sex relations. However, not only the pope necessarily 'creates' patron saints. Individuals and groups may also designate patron saints should they so wish. I guess it would help if we had an example of a church, group or organisation that clearly had this patronage? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. I've come across the name Sarkis before, as a surname, and never knew the origin. (I think it was some brothers named Sarkis who built some of the most famous hotels in British Southeast Asia in the early years of the C.20th - the Raffles in Singapore, the Strand in Rangoon/Yangon, and one in Penang). Anyway, I see from the article that their historicity is highly dubious - i.e., they never existed. Given that, the question of their sexuality doesn't really arise, at least as an issue for historians. That fictional saints could be venerated as patrons by real people is, of course, a separate matter.PiCo (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In terms of using their lives to draw evidence of same sex unions in a historical context then it's next to impossible. Like many saints of that period, their hagiographical details are of a mythical nature, rather than biographical in the way we would today understand it. Of more interest is their symbolism - both in the context of Boswell's controversial 'blessing' ceremonies, and to the modern day LGBT community. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Patron saint has a very specific definition in this sense. From the Oxford English Dictionary, a patron saint is "A saint chosen or regarded as a protector of or intercessor for a person, place, occupation, etc." I agree that the pope alone (or the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc) does not decide who is the patron saint of what, but it would not be right to refer to a saint being patron of something if they were not considered as such by a recognized church. Basically, we would need a reliable source indicating that Sergius and Bacchus are regarded as the patron saints of homosexuals by a a real church. Currently three of the provided sources are not reliable; one is to a blog, one to a Wikipedia mirror of an older version of this article, and one to private website for an orginization claiming to be the Ecclesia Antinoi, the Religion of Antinous The Gay God. The fourth cite looks like it might be better, but the Google Books link doesn't show anything for me and it's not otherwise cited properly so it can't be verified. At any rate I really doubt that the book indicates that Sergius and Bacchus are designated the patrons of homosexuals by a real church. Considering these sources were installed with a very acrimonious edit summary by a user who was later blocked for extremely unproductive edits, I'm not expecting much to come of this. I said above that it could be a good addition to the article if we could find reliable sources on how S&B are regarded in the LGBT community in Boswell's wake, but I haven't turned up any.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a good example would really help make the case. But I still think we're wrong to assume a patron saint has to be endorsed by a church. Take a look at this from a catholic website http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php Contaldo80 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

STOP PRESS. It would seem that the Gentle Shepherd Church based in Richmond, Virginia, USA recognises Sergius and Bacchus as patron saints with a special symbolism for homosexuals. The Church is part of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch http://www.gentleshepherdrichmond.com/Saints.htm Contaldo80 (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very interesting. However, we would still need a reliable source indicating that people are really considering S&B the patron saints of homosexuals. If some individual declared Saint Hubbins the "patron saint of quality footwear", it wouldn't matter unless other people followed him or her in such veneration. And even that wouldn't matter to Wikipedia until that veneration was reported by a reliable source. That church's website only says that they consider Sergius and Bacchus (and Felicity and Perpetua) as their own patrons and make reference to Boswell's claims; nothing on the site says that the church recognizes them as the patron saints of homosexuals. Additionally, it's just a website for a local church in Richmond Virginia, not a reliable published publication. An interesting side note, but I don't think it's encylopedic as of yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cuchullain here. It would probably be a violation of WP:SYNTH to say that the statement of one local church regarding these subjects applied more universally. And, as long as it isn't in a WP:RS, and that church's website may well not qualify as such, it would be hard to see how it would merit inclusion in the article. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've ended up in the position of defending someone else's edit. However, I think we still haven't got to the root of what constitutes a 'patron saint'. In practice it seems that they are popular in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and have been taken up by the Anglican churches. There does not seem to be a specific recognised process though for creating a patron saint (for example in the same way that there is a recognised canonisation process in the Catholic Church). The understanding seems to be that any group may adopt a patron saint should they so wish. Nor do patron saints need to be 'universal' - therefore the example of the Virginia church would not need to apply universally I don't think. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a specific process that had to be followed, but don't you think that it would reaching to imply that recognition by one church carried the same weight as their other patronages, which are objectivelly more widespread? To the passing reader it would look something like: "They are recgonized as patron saints of Syria (by the country of Syria), soldiers (by thousands of Eastern Orthodox Christians worldwide), and macrame (by one parish of the Internet Macrameeing Church of Modesto, California)". At any rate, it looks like the point is moot, since it doesn't appear that this church regards Sergius and Bacchus as patron saints of homosexuals, it only regards them as patrons of its own church (in a very loose definition of "patron saint"). As such their site, even if it were a reliable source, can't be used to verify the claim.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this point is a fair one. I'm not suggesting that we reinstate the patronage (as it looks odd) - instead it might be more appropriate to add a line to the Boswell section adding that in effect they are regarded with particular symbolism or reverance by gay and lesbian christians in some communities. And leave it at that. I'll do that. But while we're at it do we have firm sources that confirm they are regarded as patron saints of the army, syria and soldiers as is also claimed - let's be absolutely sure we have a source that gets those right to sharpen the article overall? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll look for a source for their patronages. But to reiterate what I said above, making a claim that the symbolism of S&B has been adopted by the LGBT Christian community will require a reliable, published source. I haven't been able to find any, but perhaps you'll have better luck.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understood St. Sebastian as being a more likely contender (Saint Sebastian#Saint Sebastian as an LGBT icon) for patron saint of homosexuals. Mish (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the Catholic Church I don't think there is any "official" patron saint for homosexuals (and I think if it applied, it would only apply to "chaste" homosexuals). But you're right that unofficially Saint Sebastian seems to have been adopted most generally as their patron by gay christian groups - rather than Sergius and Bacchus. I think the official line would be to pray to saints that guard against "sexual temptation" - most of which seem to be women. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but not necessarily amongst Christian LGBT groups that don't have an issue with people being LGBT rather than celibate. Mish (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There are numerous Saints regarded as patrons of LGBT people, or otherwise associated with them, depending on the country and religion (eg. Some queer sects claim St. Augustine as patron of LGBT ppl). The Enclopedia of Queer spirit lists about a dozen, and encylopedia of homosexuality also. From the former's entry on S&B (p. 301): "Since the sixth century, and continuing into the twentieth century, Sergius and Bacchus have been invoked in some Eastern European Christian congregations by those participating in ceremonies of same-sex union." No specific mention of patronage, so it supports Bosswell's assertion of association with LGBT people and also marriages, but not more. Note, it also mentions them being forced into wearing women's clothes to humiliate them, and they they may have been homoerotically inclined, but this was not the reason for their martyrdom. Hope it helps - ping me if you need more detail / cite info.YobMod 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Lentz image

A user has moved the line about the Robert Lentz image away from the discussion of the Boswell theory. To my mind this removes it from the context which users above have used to argue for its notability. In other words, the discussion of the Lentz painting is only useful here as an example of the "gay Sergius and Bacchus" motif, which demonstrably comes out of Boswell's ideas. It is deceptive to claim, as the article formerly did, that the gay S&B motif is particularly widespread, or has any existence independent of Boswell. No one has provided any reliable sources supporting this. In fact, the only example of the motif that I've seen, other than a handful of derivative websites repeating the same information as fact, is this image. I tried feebly to prop it up by specifically tying it to the Boswell line, but without that the image discussion has no relevance here. Certainly the given source is not at all reliable, and the image itself can't back up the statement that Lentz "advocated" the interpretation, "portraying the men as a gay couple in his religious iconography painting".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized it because its former placement was misleading and an example of pov pushing (downright fabrication). Simple as. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth clarifying why we think this is pushing a non-neutral point of view please? The argument as we have it is that Boswell promoted the theory that Sergius and Bacchus were invoked to celebrate same-sex partnership ceremonies. To illustrate that idea, Lentz has painted his icon. I don't see really that there is a big difficulty here? Besides which I think it's a good illustration which I would be loathe to lose. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there proof that Lentz, a Franciscan, has made this claim re.his icon? Also, I took exception to the untrue assertation that a single icon somehow makes Boswell's theories current and popularly held. Not so. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also; the above conversations detail these very issues, regarding undue weight and pov pushing. It's a shame (and puzzling) that this is still a contentious issue! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the icon? It is an icon painted in an overtly gay style. I would not expect an artist to explain in words what he has clearly detailed within a painting, that is the whole point of iconography. Mish (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That's a very subjective thing to say, not at all evidenced by the icon (especially considering Lintz' work within the oriental iconographic tradition). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Duh? not really - since when was lavender-pink a liturgical colour? LOL! Mish (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pink is indeed a liturgical colour; as a Franciscan, the artist is certainly aware of this dimension. You may wish to research the milieu in which he works. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We know that Lentz is gay; and even a most cursory look at the image can see that it is 'gay-themed'. In fact it's pretty eroticised. So I think we can assume a clear link between Boswell and Lentz's image. That aside, I don't think in any case that anyone is arguing that Lentz's icon validates Boswell's theory or not. It's simply there as a visual illustration of the idea that Sergius and Bacchus may have been lovers; or symbolised same-sex love. And I think we may also be over-playing the undue weight argument - as the issues around Boswell and Lentz only effectively cover one or two lines in the article. But the article as it stands now can suffice - I don't think we necessarily need to add the lines about Lentz into the main text as they're covered by the description on the picture. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all confirmed here, including an oblique linkage to Boswell ("Recent attention to early Greek manuscripts has also revealed that they were openly gay men and that they were erastai or lovers"):

About the icon: [1], [2], [3]

Similar themes by same artist: [4], [5], [6] (part of series including this one under "Images that Challenge")

Mish (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All this faffing says nothing to the theory's popularity. So Lentz is a gay artist and enjoys working gay themes into his iconography. That's lovely, but has no bearing on Boswell's theorizing nor the objective identities of Sergius and Bacchus as established by mainstream scholarly criticism. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it makes it look more like we're claiming that the "gay S&B" motif has gained popular traction when we don't link the image directly to Boswell's ideas - it seems like it's just a given. On the image itself, while I do think that the image obviously employs the "gay Sergius and Bacchus" imagery, I don't think it's fair to say that the image itself explicitly identifies the two as a "gay couple". What I see is a fairly homoerotic, but rather tame, image of two men standing together. Lentz himself has produced similar work that is much more explicit, such as this and this. This image actually references Boswell's interpretation of the "same-sex union" of Adelphopoiesis directly, something that can't be said of the S&B image. As such, we'll need a reliable source if we're going to discuss the image. Of course, this brings back up the issue of the image itself from several years ago, as several editors were arguing that the image's fair use rationale was provided by it being mentioned in the text... I suppose if it becomes an issue again we can discuss it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I was one of the ones arguing against discussing and including the image above, so this clearly isn't a matter of POV-pushing, it's a matter of compromise and collaboration.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey again; what's the point of not giving Boswell's theories proper emphasis? His theorizing on the same-sex coupling (a sexual dimension) of these saints is not only divergent from traditional understandings, but generally innovative. It deserves its own section. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussion of Boswell's idea "same-sex union" idea only gets three sentences (including one about scholars who have criticized it), that's hardly enough for its own section. The "paired saints" issue is separate, not specific to Boswell, and not really controversial. There are tons of "paired saints".--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that a section on Boswell makes sense - if only to mark it out from traditional views. Perhaps it would be better as a 'recent perspectives' or something - if somebody can be bothered, I am sure that Bp. Spong or Bp. Robinson have commented somewhere (I recall Robinson speaking about Boswell when he spoke in London). That would add more weight to the section. Mish (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that his one statement about "paired saints" is more or less the traditional view. If we separate out the controversial same-sex union, we'd have a whole section with only three sentences. And it doesn't need more than three sentences, because I haven't seen any (a) peer reviews that supported his arguement from a scholarly viewpoint and (b) any reliable evidence that the view is particularly widespread.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since 1994, there are 201 references in Google Scholar for "Sergius and Bacchus", of which 29 refer to "homosexuality" - 15% of academic sources discuss Sergius and Bacchus in relation to homosexuality. That seems significant, and that the debate goes further than Boswell's book alone. Mish (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT History category

I categorized this article in LGBT history in Syria so it would show up in the LGBT history category. Schrandit removed the categorization since he found it "highly contestable". I just put it back. In my mind, the fact that almost all of this talk page is about their sexuality, and (as noted above) a tenth of the references in academic sources are about their sexuality, they most definitely are a subject of LGBT history. The student of LGBT history going through the Category: LGBT History would find the perceptions of the saints both in their own time and ours of interest, so the categorization seems to be serving exactly the purpose for which categories were created. I avoided categorizing them as LGBT people specifically because I agree that categorization would be "highly contestable", especially for people whose very existence can be considered highly contestable. Markwiki (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary section

Is it really helpful for us to be taking such a legalistic approach in the summary section? "Some modern commentators" is a broad enough term to mean either a hundred people or just one. To change it to say "John Boswell argues..." would end up promoting one individual source at the expense of the article theme and sits odd in an introductory summary. The relevant section further on goes on to explain the issues adequately. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it helpful to be as accurate to the source as possible. "Some modern commentators" IMO is too broad. It obviously means more than 1, since "commentators" is plural. At least I think it reasonable to assume the average reader would read it that way. And I suspect that the ONLY commentator is in fact Boswell. I have requested in good faith a quote be placed on the talk page: please don't remove the tag again. Lionelt (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "some commentators" is weasel wordage. I changed it to "historian John Boswell". That should end it. I've found some further references that discuss the "lovers" imagery re Sergius and Bacchus, but the discussion in these works invariably goes directly Boswell. (cf this and this.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)