Talk:Toga party/Archives/2014

Move of Leo Strauss info

I moved the Leo Strauss information to Anne Norton. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• No sources are sited for the Leo Strauss paragraph that was added by Jacrosse, and rumors are neither appropriate nor encyclopedic. Perhaps the information concerning Strauss should be moved into the Leo Strauss article? J. Van Meter 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

This reference is total fiction and has been spread to several articles. I invite you to note the articles and politics of the users spreading these rumors...

This page is constantly being vandalized--GregRog 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't speculate on the motives of other contributors unless if you are willing to be specific and point out clear examples of individuals conspiring to edit this (or any other page) for political motives. I can only speak for myself personally, but I have never read anything by Leo Strauss, nor am I Straussian. I am not anti-Straussian either (I don't think its fair to make that kind of assessment unless I have actually read the material). So please refrain from that kind of insinuation or say who and what you are talking about exactly . --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse appears to an avid liberal/leftist/progressive/etc...this would place him direct oppostion to Strauss. The ONLY article involving the Strauss that he bothers to work on, usually without any explanation, is this one and the Animal House article, constantly adding this rumor, wording it as fact up until now.--GregRog 16:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation

The same information appears in the Animal House article, citing Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire by Anne Norton.

Jacrosse 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)http://www.dissensus.com/archive/index.php/t-92.html

That reference is ALSO false and should not be used to make further incorrect updates --GregRog 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I edited the Leo Strauss bit some, though I'm not so sure it should be in there at all. A google search of leo strauss and homosexuality only brings up references to Allan Bloom's homosexuality. Searching toga and leo strauss doesn't bring up much either. If the only sources that can be given for this information are from Norton's book, does anyone have a problem w/ putting this piece of info in the Anne Norton article instead?--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 19:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of citation, it's still rumor and, therefore, inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry

This paragraph -

"According to the book Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire by Anne Norton, a variation on the toga party is rumored to have been practiced by many of the early followers of Leo Strauss, who reportedly held orgies among the members of his inner circle, most often designed as a homoerotic re-enactment of Plato's Symposium. Fuel was later added to these rumors by the behavior of Strauss's most famous disciple, Allan Bloom, who reportedly held these "toga parties" among his students at Cornell University."

- in spite of many, many objections and attempts to remove it, has been added repeatedly (fifteen times at last count) to this silly little toga party entry by a single user. I have watched many responsible wikipedians try to stay on top of this potentially slanderous ax-grinding by consistently deleting the paragraph.

Jacrosse, rumors, mentioned in a book, do not magically become facts, they remain rumors.

How can we put an end to this? J. Van Meter 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is this: if the only source that can be provided for the information is from one author, or furthermore, one book, then the information should only be given in reference to that one author or book (i.e. on the page discussing that book or author). Since the information does pertain to the topic of toga parties, then the author (or book) should be given as "see also" link or some other variation. But I don't think it should be outright deleted either, as it IS sourced, and presumably, true to the words in the book. So while I'm agnostic as to whether the claim is true or not true, I think the fair thing to do in this situation is that since there is only one reference, than it is a more accurate portrayal of what is stated in the book, NOT the general topic at hand. If anyone can pose a reasonable objection then by all means do so, but I don't that any action should be taken either way until the question is first resolved on the discussion page.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that this rumor is not even mention i nthe book Jacross sites! Do some research about the book and nothing like that is mentioned once --GregRog 15:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I work at a library so I was able to check out the book in question (Anne Norton - Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, isbn 0-300-10436-7) and here is a direct quotation from the book:

If Bloom's students were to be trusted, Bloom's antics gave new meaning to the term "transgression." The rumors of houseboys in sexual servitude, the evident flirtation with students, Bloom's flamboyantly queenly manner made The Closing of the American Mind read as high hypocrisy and awakened the old charge of secret teachings, now coupled with perverse practices. Once, in the dining room of the Institute of the Advanced Study at Princeton, another political theorist asked me, "Isn't the secret teaching of the Straussians homosexuality?" I laughed, in part because Bloom's Cornell had been the site of a particularly ugly scandal involving sexual harassment- of women. These acts had, however, been eclipsed by the persistent rumors of homosexual rites and rituals among the Straussians: of orgiastic toga parties and gay little reenactments of the Symposium. These rumors were enhanced by Bellow's Ravelstein. Despite the recurrent rumors -- even among Straussians and their sympathizers -- I don't believe the toga parties. (62)

Most of what Jacrosse has written is accurate, although there are no references in the book (at least according to the index) that Leo Strauss himself was gay, much less "openly gay", and furthermore, it was the Straussians who are alleged to hold the orgies, not Strauss. The information in its original form was also not written in an encyclopedic manner (e.g. "very gay disciple" and "bizarre variation") Also, any references to this work here, or as per my suggestion - on a page for Anne Norton or the book, should point out that she doesn't believe the rumors, although they still exist (presumably). --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that belongs on the article for the book, not about toga parties in general.--GregRog 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are other sources which attest to Strauss' own sexuality, and I believe there are some references in the early part of the Norton book, see the discussion of his liaison with Hannah Arendt. But the point is that nothing that I wrote contradicts what Norton herself wrote.

Jacrosse 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is still quite slanderous and fairly irrelevant to the article in question, pelase stop adding it. It seems to overstate what Norton says.Additionally, you keep adding the VERY slanderous version of this statement to the Animal House article--GregRog 02:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing that I say which contradicts citation, nor is it slanderous but by the most arbitrary definition. It will stand!

Jacrosse 22:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You keep trying to portray Strauss as some sort of sexual deviant when in fact the rumors, as stated by the direct quote from the text by Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society, only point to Bloom. A rumor that appears in one book that even the author disregards is not suitable for encyclopedic fact, especially in articles that have nothing to do with such rumors.--GregRog 13:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read the passage in the Norton book it makes clear that the practice originated with Strauss and not with Bloom.

Jacrosse 15:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society has already proved that wrong.--GregRog 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand

In almost every post I made on this talk page I asked for opposing views to my plan and you neglected to respond every single time. Since you have decided to start using the talk page in addition to reverting the article ad nauseum, perhaps you will finally defend your position.

Here is what I want to know:

1. Why should the information on Strauss be explicitly stated here, rather than on a page discussing both the author and the book, which is the ONLY source thus far that has been presented to verify the existence of a rumor?
2. And a subquestion to that one: If you think the information should be on the Anne Norton page AND the toga party an animal house articles, then why? Do we really need multiple pages to contain the exact same information?
3. How is such topic-specific information relevant to pages meant to discuss toga parties and animal house in a general sense?
4. If you were to look up something random on wikipedia, say Lava Lamp for example, and in that article it contained a passage that amounted to something like "According to 'Noam Chomsky: The Hidden Truth' by Ann Coulter, in the 1970's Noam Chomsky was rumored to have conducted numerous orgies with his female students (some of whom were underage) that often ended in Chomsky sexually assualting the participating girls with a heated lava lamp. Although Ann Coulter dismisses these claims, the rumor continues to persist", how would you judge this placement? If you agree with me that this example would be out of place as not only the topic at hand is not lava lamps, but rather Coulter's book, Noam Chomsky's hypocrisy in proclaiming to be a supporter of women's rights, etc., than what distinguishes it from the information you have been insisting on reverting to? If you think this information should be in the lava lamp article if it were true, then please explain why.
5. Wikipedia aims to be like an encyclopedia- a tool to find information. What is the likelihood of somebody looking for information on toga parties or animal house to find that info useful? And vice versa: what about someone trying to find information on the topic of your info? The toga party isn't even a major topic of the passage quoted above, at least no more than Plato's Symposium (which you haven't tried to add the info to AFAIK). It would be more conducive to the reader (the ultimate purpose of wikipedia, after all, is to be read) doing research on the topic to put the passage on the most relevant page to the subject of it. In this case the most relevant page is the one for Anne Norton. We can talk about the possibility that the rumors themselves even existed (much less whether the rumors were true) only in regards to her because she is the only source cited thus far. It would also be acceptable to put it on the page for Allan Bloom if someone can put it into the article coherently-- and not haphazardly placed as it currently is in both animal house and toga party. Is this a good reason?
6. Finally: why is this info so important to you? Is it because you don't like the Straussians? Personally, from what I have seen of your edits (esp. regarding democratic socialist parties) it seems like our political views are very similar, however, I don't think that Wikipedia is the right forum for politically-motivated edits (nor is it an effective one). I'd really like to know why you feel this info needs to be here and why you have gone through the trouble to make sure of it.

Maybe there is no mutually satisfying way to determine the relevance of the information, and if you disagree with everything I have said then I have one final request: since you are the only person out of four who has expressed support for the information to remain in its present place, would you consider the compromise I have presented (or present your own) in the spirit of cooperation, if nothing else? Conflicts like these can only hurt the Wikipedia project in the long run. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society

First, someone else put the information on the Anne Norton page, I was very much against that. But I don't think its inappropriate as such, and all of the proper qualifiers have been added over time. I've gone through the trouble half out of stubbornness and the other half I guess just as an Animal House fan.

Jacrosse 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, "Head of..." for taking the time to list every aspect of this issue. You've exactly hit on all the reasons why several of us here have been objecting to the Strauss/Bloom/Cornell paragraph. (And your lava lamp example is brilliant.)

The talk page is now four times longer than the article itself, and this has been going on for months. What's next to do -- add a heading to that paragraph entitled "Rumors which reference Toga Parties (but are not appropriate for an encyclopedia)" or can this conflict can be taken to an administrator for review?-- J. Van Meter 11:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society! I'd love for this to be taken to an admin for review. It has gone on long enough.--GregRog 14:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be a very good idea. Unfortunately, I just moved back to New Orleans and post-Katrina its seemingly impossible to get an internet hookup at my house so I am limited in the amount of time I have to create the request for review. If someone else is able to create the actual request I would be able to contribute, however. I just don't really have access to the internet long enough at any one point to fill out the template on the RFA page.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 18:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacrosse does not even list this rumor in his Anne Norton article. I've tried adding it there, where it would be appropriate, only to have him delete it. I feel this indicates his intentions.--GregRog 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

OK, I've just listed this article on the Request for mediation page. Not sure exactly what the procedure is, but hopefully someone will get back to us via this page. I wrote a very brief summary of the situation, as I think this talk page and the edit history page are self-explanatory. But anyone that would like to elaborate on my request there, feel free. J. Van Meter 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take this case. So, from what I gather, this is a content dispute between the version of Jacrosse, which includes the paragraph about the gay toga parties, and the other version, which excludes this paragraph. I think the dispute centres around two issues here:

• The truth of the statements, which should be backed up by verifiable sources (this has been done to an extent, AFAIK)
• The suitability of the statements - that is, should they be included in this article, even if they are true? I think both sides should debate more openly as to why this inclusion would or would not be suitable.

So, to start off with the first point. Are there any doubts that any user here has over the truth of Jacrosse's inclusions? I think this is the first point we need to settle. This talk page is already long, but it's better to go over the entire issue from the start, including the part with sources. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as the truth of the statements, here is the relevant quotation from the book (isbn #0-300-10436-7)I listed above:

"If Bloom's students were to be trusted, Bloom's antics gave new meaning to the term "transgression." The rumors of houseboys in sexual servitude, the evident flirtation with students, Bloom's flamboyantly queenly manner made The Closing of the American Mind read as high hypocrisy and awakened the old charge of secret teachings, now coupled with perverse practices. Once, in the dining room of the Institute of the Advanced Study at Princeton, another political theorist asked me, "Isn't the secret teaching of the Straussians homosexuality?" I laughed, in part because Bloom's Cornell had been the site of a particularly ugly scandal involving sexual harassment- of women. These acts had, however, been eclipsed by the persistent rumors of homosexual rites and rituals among the Straussians: of orgiastic toga parties and gay little reenactments of the Symposium. These rumors were enhanced by Bellow's Ravelstein. Despite the recurrent rumors -- even among Straussians and their sympathizers -- I don't believe the toga parties. (62)"

I wouldn't say that anyone really disputes the "truth" per se of the statement, I think the concern is really more over their relevance to the topic at hand and the POV way they were presented. In addition, a large part of the frustation is that the author at least seems to be inserting the statement for politically motivated reasons and his(her?)persistent ignoring of requests regarding a justification for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo (talk • contribs)

OK, so I think we agree that the truth of the statements isn't really an issue, but rather their suitability for inclusion is under question. I think the best thing at the moment would be clear and concise statement from Jacrosse as to why he/she thinks that it would be suitable to include the paragraph into the article. Ronline ✉ 10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. As you can see from the history log, Jacrosse has put his paragraph back into the article, without explanation, twice (and counting) just since you took up the case. J. Van Meter 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

User:J._Van_Meter, Im not even sure the rumor, which appears in a single book, and is openly doubted by the author, is even appropriate or needed here--GregRog 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it is appropriate or needed. I was just curious, since we aren't getting a direct reply from Jacrosse (nor are the people at the Animal House page where he is pulling the same stunt), about exactly which part of his paragraph is so important to him. I took half of it out merely to see whether the Jacrosse antics would continue. Feel free to delete the rest of it. J. Van Meter 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm not trying to be the token cynic, but if Jacrosse isn't going to even reply to the request for mediation, then its really just an exercise in futility. Where do we go from here?--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 19:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking about asking for arbitration. See the talk page over at Animal House. Hydriotaphia 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions, dear mediator? I tried out a reduced version of the paragraph in question here: [1] in an attempt to omit the most blatantly irrelevant portions, but Jacrosse immediately reverted it. In my opinion, Jacrosse's actions (here and at Animal House) constitute vandalism. Is there a Plan B?

J. Van Meter 14:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation is beyond mediation at this point. I'm going to request this for arbitration; Jacrosse hasn't responded to the request for mediation since it was posted over a week ago, even though he has been consistently reverting this page multiple times a day.--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

Oh man. Whered it go?--GregRog 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit removed it: "(rm fair use image without proper rationale)". I uploaded the image originally and tagged it as a screen shot. was unaware that i needed to include a rationale. it can still be found at [Image:Togapartyanimalhouse.jpg] --if you know what the proper protocol is to use it, feel free to re-post. J. Van Meter 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain more fully. A fair use screenshot is "fair use" only in that copyright law allows it to be used without permission when being used to illustrate or parody the film itself, as part of a description of the film. There was no rationale for how that image in this article is fair use, and I don't think it would qualify. Dmcdevit·t 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now we need to find a new image--GregRog 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the second image labeled ""Togas" worn to parties by women are much more revealing than true togas." and then cited from a passage about prostitution? The information about togas and prostitutes looks like something for the Toga page. I think it is more relevant to comment on the fact that women wear 'togas' instead of 'stolas' to a Toga Party. (Or that men wear much more revealing costumes than the ancient version as well. These are college parties!) Cls97 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Largest?

This article states that "the largest outdoor Toga party takes place yearly at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada." Can anyone find a source for this?

I say this because I am a first year student at that university. I checked this article a couple of days before the toga party (I can't remember the date, but it was early September). I do not remember this line being there. I checked the article the day after the toga party, and the line was there. It seems possible that someone with a lot of school spirit decided to add it in. The toga party is pretty big (several thousand at the peak, probably), but I'm not really sure how you could verify if it is the largest.

So, again, does anyone have a source of this statement? Smooth Nick 10:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just traced the IP address to a UWaterloo computer, I agree that it seems likely that it was added by someone at your school with a lot of school spirit. This doesn't meant that it isn't true, but I expect that you would see a lot of hype about it at your school if that were the case (i.e. posters stating "The Biggest Outdoor Toga Party!!!!!"). I can't exactly do any fact checking, but I feel the fact is questionable. 129.64.141.43 19:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Romans

The Romans probably had Toga parties. When I improve my Latin, I'll consult the original sources to confirm this. Rintrah 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Stub

This article is short enough to be a stub, but there isn't enough information to make it longer. It should probably be merged into "Toga". Thhhh (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to Roman attire

I remember this article used to have a section discussing the garments used in "Toga parties" with actual Roman attire. Where did it go? That was interesting. --GenkiNeko (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)