Humanities desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 14

Pro-research help needed for Harry Hay

Hi again, I’ve started my final edits on possible content of Harry Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA. You can see it here.

I’ve seen only a few characterize him as being an advocate for the group, and those seem to have little or no support for their assertion. I can’t tell if the subject is too taboo for publications to deal with, too complex—as Hay seems only to talk about his experience, and theories that gay people should avoid assimilation, or something else.

Anyone have good sources that speak to him being an advocate for NAMBLA in any depth?

All help appreciated! Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

first: it is NOT OK to link toward your "possible content" without linking Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NAMBLA_content_on_Harry_Hay and Talk:Harry_Hay#Pedophile_/_NAMBLA_advocacy. The matter is extensively discussed where it should. Don't expect from the ref desk another outcome.

Obviously, the article is just choke full of good sources that speak to him being an advocate for NAMBLA. Probably too much, actually, considering he was a supporter, not a member. It seems to me you act as if good source were source telling good things; this is just not true. Because a source tell things that upsets you do not turn them into bad source.

If NAMBLA is possibly the most hated group imaginable to many LGBTQ people, obviously, Hay wasn't one of those "many LGBTQ people".

And it seems that he was unafraid to stand against any establishment, including LGBTQ's. So I am not sure he would approve of your move.

So may be you should just let it go.

Now, I am not sure that the issue needs a whole paragraph in the intro, may be a single sentence would be enough for someone who was an active supporter, not a member, and who dedicated only a small part of his activities to NAMBLA. He probably was supporter of many groups, of which NAMBLA was just one. So may be, instead, you should look for other groups he also supported.

Gem fr (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No intent to mislead was intended at all. The sourcing on the Hay article for this content currently is dismal, as is the spin on them, that is the problem. After trying to address the issue initially, I started to do a survey of what I could find. Which remains very little. He was indeed not a member and said that he was never inclined to be one. I’m not yet even seeing he was an advocate for the group as much as he was for himself. His time in talking supposedly about them was instead all about his one coming of age story. If he did something else I would report it.

If I found he was indeed an avowed advocate, I might be surprised but I would dutifully report exactly that. Ditto whatever else I find. What I have so far is there, including Hay’s reasons for doing what he did. I may not fully understand or agree with him but I feel his own thoughts as noted in RS should be included.

My concern, and the reason I’m asking for help, is that my bias might be in the way of me finding better sources, ones that spell out how he is perceived as, or actually was a true advocate for the group. Any help in getting to the facts on this is appreciated. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Man, if someone who speak on behalf of a banned group, plea to have them included, and wear banner "the group march with me" when he doesn't succeed, is not an advocate, who is? Unless you mean "true advocate" like some mean "true Scotsman"... Gem fr (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the understandable emotions generated by the subject matter here, there is a distinction between advocating that a group be included, and advocating for the views of the group. I took a glance at Harry Hay and am not sure that this distinction comes across. If he did advocate for the views of the group, then that should be called out separately and sourced. Otherwise, the claim that he was an advocate for the group needs to be qualified and explained. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy for the group Vs advocacy for the view of the group? Sound like nitpicking to me. Anyway, Hay told that gay boys, including by his own experience, longed for older man taking care of them. Gem fr (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between advocating that someone should be heard, versus advocating that someone is actually right, is not nitpicking at all. It is utterly fundamental. --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve included the facts already in my proposed content, his reasoning seems to be he’s not so invested in them being included or not, but that he felt the LGBTQ communities needed to have a discussion on the issues themselves—rather than have “the heteros” dictate who belongs—before any group who identify as lesbian or gay was banned. He might have felt there was both: interference from outside forces; and a judgement without any trial. Or that could be oversimplification.

I’m guessing the current sources on the article are there as examples, while a couple state he was but offer no reasoning beyond he protested them being banned from two high-profile community parades.

If he was engaged in pro-pedophile advocacy, or pro-NAMBLA advocacy, we should document it. But to accuse him without evidence doesn’t help, and distracts from addressing the actual cases of people who are engaged in those activities, or any child abuse.

In any case I need content to reflect the sources, and I’m hoping there is better sources out there. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nuff said from me. I repeat: The matter is extensively discussed where it should [talk page]. Don't expect from the ref desk another outcome. Gem fr (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. Getting a different result—actual sources that confirm the assertion he was an advocate—is exactly what I hope will happen here, apparently the purpose of this board. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone actually able to help with reference(s). Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When was the first time a nation became unsustainable without food imports or diaspora/colonizing?

107.242.117.53 (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

107.242.117.53 -- In ancient times, mainland Greece and its closely-associated islands had a limited amount of farmland which could only produce a limited amount of food according to ancient agricultural practices, and so had a limited carrying capacity to support a human population (of course, the limiting factor was food produced during a year of bad harvest). Greek responses to this included female infanticide, importing grain from various areas (such as the Black Sea coasts), and founding overseas colonies (emigration).

In modern times, the first major world power not to be self-sufficient in basic staple foodstuffs was probably Britain in the 19th century. This added special bitterness on the UK side to the UK-German naval rivalry of the end of the 19th century and the 20th century leading up to WW1... AnonMoos (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In the course of the second half of the eighteenth century Great Britain virtually ceased to be self-sufficient in grain...". [1] Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You skip over the Roman Empire, but it was also dependent on import of foodstuffs, particularly grains from North Africa. --Xuxl (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the city of Rome was certainly dependent on grain shipments from Egypt and the province of "Africa" (today's northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria), but I don't think that applied to the Roman empire as a whole... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The roman Empire was not a nation, it was an Empire. North Africa and Egypt were indeed Rome bread-brackets, but they were part of the Empire

From the very beginning, every city has been dependent on the countryside for food. Rome was no special in that.

"colonizing" is the normal mode of operation for living things, human included

No one could live in most of Earth without importing salt, and this predate writing and the establishment of nation. So the answer is : from day one, probably; from time immemorial for sure.

Gem fr (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you live by the sea, or near a brine spring, you can make your own salt. See Salt History - Roman Times. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes; but even in such case, you are better off buying it from people specializing in salt production because they have better condition, while you have better condition to produce something they need. Gem fr (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem_fr -- Salt is an inorganic mineral, not an agricultural staple foodstuff, so it's a somewhat different case. Humans need a much smaller amount of salt each day than of nutritional food, and salt doesn't go bad over time if stored with some degree of care. In the great majority of cases throughout world history before the rise of railroads in the 19th century, it simply wasn't cost-effective to ship grain any substantial distance by land transport (as opposed to by seas, rivers, or canals) -- but the same was not true of salt. And so on... AnonMoos (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

salt being inorganic, and required in relative low quantity, doesn't stop it to be food for humans and their herd. You don't feed on grain only, you'll need protein and fat (cheese, ham and other salted/dried meat/fish, herds that would be slaughtered near the city, oil...), and you'll want wine, beer, or whatever drinkable stuff (of which, water is NOT, unless you want to die quickly and painfully). Salt (spices, oil and wine also somewhat share these features) is universal, could travel far, high value/weight, was taxed (which left records), and hence much more known than other foodstuff, but it is a safe bet that other foodstuff, which left fewer records, shared the routes. And, then gain, this include cattle to be slaughtered. There are reasons to think that the huge, hundred or even thousand of km, cattle land transport (on foot) from the prairies to Chicago or Pampa to Buenos Aires, was practiced in Roman and Babylonian times, and even before any recording (Transhumance).Gem fr (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So this question ends up being answered by the question: what is a "nation"? Is a Greek city state a nation? Is the Roman empire a nation? Is Roman Italy a nation? Is the Latium a nation? Is the British Empire a single nation? depending on your definition, you have different answers to the original question --Lgriot (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, my answer is : from day one. Because, humans had to trade food from strangers before cities, nations (whatever definition you use), and writing. This doesn't depend on a definition of nation. Gem fr (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lgriot -- the British empire was probably self-sufficient in basic agricultural staple foodstuffs as long as it included Canada. It's the island of Britain which wasn't (and isn't) self-sufficient. AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, yeah, guys, that is exactly what I mean! if the OP considers the first city in the fertile crescent to be a nation, then that is his answer. The OP probably does not consider that city to be a nation, so he is probably looking for post-medieval "nations". But then the answer seems to be the island of Britain, but only if you consider that island to be a nation, since at the time where it lost its food-self-sufficiency, it had an empire, which could be considered part of the same nation, or not. Therefore the OP will choose his own answer depending on his own criteria of what constitutes a nation. --Lgriot (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, sorry for the misunderstanding. Gem fr (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To swear on one's genitals

I was surprised to find in our article on sexuality in ancient Rome a reference to swearing on one's genitals. I thought that was a Hebrew thing! (Cf instances of people in the Old Testatment swearing euphemistically on/under one's thighs.) I like compare/contrast stuff between Jewish and Roman ideas. Is there a name for this practice? I mean this is "a thing" in history and maybe there should be an article? Temerarius (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that article says Some ancient Mediterranean cultures swore binding oaths upon the male genitalia, and the reference given does point to examples in Genesis; it doesn't say it was a Roman thing. Etymonline asserts (without reference) that Stories that trace the use of the Latin word to some supposed swearing-in ceremony are modern and groundless.. Henry ^Flower 20:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EO has this to say about "testimony".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins (Bloomsbury 1990) concurs, and further traces Latin testis 'witness' to the reconstructed prehistoric Indo-European base *tris 'three', implying a 'third person' who could be a disinterested witness to an agreement.

As for the 'testicle' connection, the word is an English coinage of the 15th century (both Ayto and EO say) which carries the sense that the testes (Latin plural of testis) "'bear witness' to a man's virility." EO specifically dismisses the notion of a Roman swearing ceremony as a modern invention, and mentions the possible connection of testis to testa 'pot', which I believe is also the origin of French tête via Vulgar Latin slang. {The poster fomerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also A “Witness” and a “Testicle”? A Linguistic Analysis of the Latin Word “Testis” which gives some background to this theory, apparently the suggestion of classicist and linguist Joshua Katz in 1998. Alansplodge (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite swearing on them, but among my male friends when I was a lot younger it was fairly common for someone certain something would happen to say they would bet their balls on it. Can't find a precise source, but this [3] comes close. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To bet one's ass/arse is also well-known. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. Is it just an Australian thing? Or more global? Perhaps a British thing too? HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idiom is well known in North American varieties of English. --Jayron 32 15:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As documented in the film Blazing Saddles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]