User talk:Cynwolfe/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cynwolfe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

You get the esse quam videri prize again...

...if you don't consider it cursed or too dispiriting a testimony to how short-handed we left you. The sheer industry of increasing that article (which you've said you edit out of duty) to 2.5 times its size in one unassisted go impresses, and then of course it's with your customary taste and good sense. Wareh (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I actually burst into tears at this. I do recognize how such an article could be abused, and why this particular topic seems nebulous to some, but it gets about 8,000 hits a month so I feel it needs to have some real substance and context. It seems to me that a thorough and detailed scholarly armature is the best defense against misuse of the page. The aspect I enjoy researching is the unfolding of a concept over time. And while I admit to being dogged, I'm not insensate, and it really does hurt to be accused of having an agenda. I have house guests for the next week or so, so I probably won't be working on it much for that time. And I may need to take a break anyway, since it started to feel somewhat perfunctory to me in the last section I worked on. And once again I noticed we have no Ancient Greek lyric poetry when I needed a link—a far less dispiriting topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your recent work at Greek Love, it is much appreciated by this old comp lit abd. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Brightened my day! (I almost majored in comp lit in grad school, and probably should have.) Going to dust off my waffle iron now … Cynwolfe (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you did, you'd likely be working IT as I do. But I'm still at a uni, and that's a better fit for me. At least I can comment code in German. (;

Tribute and query

Hello, and respectful good wishes from a past editorial colleague (more or less).

First my acknowledgement of your stellar work on 'Greek love', especially in view of your reluctance to get involved with the same. A mark of your intellectual integrity, and selfless sense of responsibility .... or possibly curiosity (a noble attribute). This may sound sarcastic, but may be genuine.

Interested in your ref to Robin Osborne - have been unable to trace his input on 'Pederasty in Ancient Greece'.

Can you elaborate?

Best wishes

Dominique — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominique Blanc (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I have found the quote. I am tempted to say that the attention of some 'Greek love' editors might well be directed to this fundamental principle of good historical (and linguistic) scholarship, but it would probably make no more impact than the regular injunctions by others including yourself. Dominique (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from the article, but I saw your emendation and agree with it. Because editors opposed to either the article's existence or its scope seemed to reject or not understand what I saw as a necessary intellectual armature, as I refer to it above, I've felt constrained at points in ways that I think aren't helpful to the flow of the article. That is, I hesitate to provide summary connective statements that I can't more or less lift directly from a source. I've been working on related topics for over a year, in response to a notice posted to the Classical Greece & Rome project that pointed to Pederasty in ancient Greece as containing non-neutral language as a result of pederastic advocacy on the part of an editor who had been banned for it. I would be interested in reading the disciplinary proceedings for that. My impression of the editor was that, yes, he had an intense personal interest in the subject that affected his presentation of the material. In my few interactions with him, however, he was open to discussion, concerned with securing RS, and respectful of other editors. So I'm unclear what behaviors rose to the level of banning. The problem now is that much of the material he contributed was scholarly, but when an editor happens to restore any of that (not because it was there before, but because it turned up independently in RS), the editor gets attacked as having an agenda. And a very nasty one at that. Why this isn't considered gross incivility I don't know. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the great majority of editors are simply not equipped to deal with subjects requiring both judgment and scholarship. I have been trawling the archives of both GL and Pederasty, and the divide between those who can think in more than one dimension and those who are prescriptive and inflexible is clear and tangible. Good writers also love their subject or at least the challenge of dealing with it: one can sense this in the language and flow (or ‘connectivity’), in contrast to a quasi-militant over-preoccupation with non-essentials. Of course, detail arises that encourages argument, but this is a matter for debate (among the educated) rather than confrontation. Sadly, it is the way of the world to allow dogmatism to override the finer intellect. My early enquiries about GL were tentative as befits an exploration of a minefield of conflicting information, but I believe my approach was not fundamentally different from the current direction of the article. So that the Greek ‘experience’ – however one defines that – provides a necessary base or starting-point, and the interpretation by later minds and cultures can be evaluated against a definitive set of parameters.

As far as ‘pederasty’ is concerned, the morality of this phenomenon as a sexual practice has been far too dominant in the discussion. For me, the important aspect is the concomitant attributes - educative, military, athletic, literary and aesthetic - which underlie the glorification through the ages of Ancient Greece and its legacy to the world (Percy, admittedly an avowed apologist, is clear on this point). Agreed, surely by now, that ‘Love in the manner of the (Antient) Greeks’ was an element which is relevant to any assessment of the legacy of a unique and tested ancient culture.

Male intergenerational bonding is an historical fact, unpalatable as it may be viewed from the perspective of a later and more fractured world. But let us clarify that such restrictions – in terms of ages of consent – do not negate the reality (if not desirability) of intimacies between younger and older males being legal in our time.

The banning of any dedicated contributor is an act of last resort, especially if the editor/contributor is seen by many as knowledgeable, scholarly and – contrary to reports from obvious antagonists – cooperative and open to discussion. Any subject of interest which has a literary or artistic dimension represented or valued within a culture with which we can (in other respects) identify, should allow broader scope for appreciation of its worth or uniqueness in terms of aesthetic rather than moral criteria. One can respond intuitively to a Greek pederastic vase or a Caravaggio portrayal of a licentious youth without damaging one’s reputation. As we see from many published sources, writers, scholars and anthropologists can evaluate with neutrality but frequently also with undisguised enthusiasm for their subject. In the case you mention, there appears to have been no open discussion with the ‘offending’ editor that I am aware of, and it could be that he had no opportunity to engage with the banning authorities whoever they are. A ban without warning and without discussion smacks of injustice, and I am sure it has raised questions in the minds of those who admired the extent and quality of his work over many years, even if the mono-thematic nature of his enquiries – even from varying perspectives – attracted unusual scrutiny. I shall certainly give the matter some further thought – I have already accessed some references - and will be pleased to share any information which throws some light on this troubling matter. Dominique (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I gathered that some of the articles in question—which (I emphasize) dealt with sexual behaviors that are not only immoral but illegal in the modern West—linked to web sites which neither met standards for RS nor disguised their advocacy. The impropriety of these was real, but I don't know who provided the links. So I can't deny that my reaction to the banning was rather along the lines of "yikes, I've been listening to Wagner with a cultivated Nazi." But I don't like censorship, and the complaint that censorship or decorum keeps us from fully understanding those who hold values opposed to our own in this area of sexual morality is at least as old as Shelley, as the article now indicates. With the banned editor, it would've been hard for me to "prove" that his more emotive descriptions weren't simply channeling the ardor of the Greek sources. I got into this hornet's nest because there were attempts to suppress quotations from ancient Greek sources demonstrating their own attitudes. That was just too anti-intellectual for me to accept. To me, the difference between classical secular morality and religious obedience is choice: if you don't actively choose to be moral, then you aren't; if you can act morally only by being shielded from the activities and morals of others, then you aren't a fully formed human being. As the mother of a 14-year-old, I find that information, a matter-of-fact attitude, and an emphasis on disciplining oneself toward a long-term goal are much better ways to get good behavior than ignorance and fear. (In regard to me and this set of articles, my personal long-term goal is to understand the ancient Greeks and Romans as well as I can.) I also object to the double standard here: I'm sure I've said this before somewhere, but the attempt to suppress this topic would be as if I tried to minimize The Rape of the Sabine Women, opposing the inclusion of its Nachleben in Western art, because it presents an image of rape as something potentially productive and even civilizing, and might provoke rape fantasies. It's been observed that Livy seems embarrassed by all this violent sexuality in Rome's early history, and at pains to reimagine it as purposeful. The ways in which the ancient Greeks dealt with adolescent sexuality and adult responses to it are not our own, but they did indeed strive to create codes of behavior that rendered feelings and behaviors into something productive and non-damaging. In our own day we've chosen other routes toward achieving this. Again, we choose what forms our civilization will take. Let them be informed choices.

I wouldn't soapbox so long on this except (as you must know from reading the archives) there is the repeated insinuation that anyone who contributes to the article is interested only in creating a "playground for pedophiles." As I indicated above, this is quite possibly the worst piece of incivility ever directed at me on Wikipedia (and others working on the article might well agree). It compels me to be clear about my motives, interests, and personal frame of reference in ways I don't find necessary in other articles. I'm actively working on the formerly abysmal and outdated Prostitution in ancient Rome; does this make me a prostitute? Well, I'm also hosting a draft of an article on ancient Roman priesthoods on a user page; no doubt this makes me a pagan priest.

I've looked a couple of times for a record of the proceedings that led to the banning of the editor, not because I wanted to oppose the ban (though I have to wonder), but because I wanted to understand the issues better toward the goal of editing the articles in accordance with WP guidelines and general good sense. I'm also aware of accusations that the banned editor is still operating a sock. Frankly, if the issue is "I don't think Wikipedia should have articles on this topic because it's uniquely reprehensible," I would rather have that stated than deal with the cognitive dissonance of claiming the topic doesn't exist. At any rate, the best thing that could happen to Greek love is to have a number of editors contributing sober, impeccably sourced content to fill out the gaps. It's vital that we get into what's currently represented by a statement from Blanshard in the last section, and which Davidson's essay also gets at, which is why "Greek love" becomes more than a costume and instead a morally divisive issue for gay intellectuals. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To avoid cluttering up your talk page with another lengthy screed, I have replied on my own talk page. Regards Dominique (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

unrelated to the above

Thanks Lotje ツ (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Cynwolfe, thank you for the baklava! Unfortunately I can only have one piece, since my girlfriend, sister and cats say that I'm getting skinnyguyheavy. My parents, of course, think I look healthy. Please help yourself to the other two pieces. And thank you for your taking a few minutes to offer assorted comments during the my fawnlegged first few hours—the policy links, especially the boldness one, since the pages that I'm looking at are hardly touched these days, are very helpful. Yours, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your question

Sorry for the delay.

I did not fully understand your question when I first got your message.

Yes the image of the liver is wrong in a peculiar way I imagine it can only be the result of faulty electronic reproduction.

As for the readings: Nancy De Grummond claims to reproduce Maggiani's but this does not look to correspond to what is related by Capdeville at p. 299 of his article. After comparing the readings with the reproductions I see some doubts cannot be overcome as for case 4 Maggiani's reading TINS ΘHE: ΘHE looks unikely. Either of the letters may be misread, methinks the H. Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

personal attack

I took the liberty of removing a personal attack on your talk page, just wanted you to know in case you would rather I not have done it myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone vandalized my user page earlier today. I should go back to writing little articles about obscure Roman deities of interest to 62 users a month. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Could be worse, which is why I haven't gotten very far with the Greek Love article. I'll be needing a break from the balkans soon tho, and I have Davidson in plain and accusatory view on the bookshelf across the living room. ;) --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Looks like a place that needs a calm head like yours. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You should see what's in the archive for both the article and the mediation, it's been going on for well over a year and a half. But I'm learning a lot, and that's why I'm here. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I have posted some further comment on my talk-page, which may be of interest. Dominique (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Pluto (mythology) -- Pluto and Orpheus: section

You version works for me! Should the title of this section be "Pluto and Orpheus (and Protesilaus):"? Maybe not. -- Who R you? (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say not necessary, because the Protesilaus story in relation to Pluto is a variation of the better-known theme of Orpheus's return. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't know why Category:Epithets of Hades had been deleted; I"m assuming I did it by accident when another was added/deleted. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BTDT -- Who R you? (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Head of Feronia (cropped).jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Head of Feronia (cropped).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mythical beasts

Just had to drop by to say I got a good chuckle from your comment!! Unfortunately, where I live, they are thriving creatures. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yum. Didn't think I was going to get dessert tonight. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Moneyer

I replied to you on talk:moneyer.--Taylornate (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Diocletianic Persecution

Hope you don't mind - I moved your comment to the article's discussion page. I also edited my previous comments to clarify what I was saying in case it wasn't clear. And I listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. I'm not sure there's necessarily a right answer to this one, but would like to see what other people think. Adam sk (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your bit of advice. I do have some anger problems that I am working on that I try to keep in check. But I also notice some overt issues here that have directly to do with women's issues. I know logically the best way to combat that is to start creating articles with a wealth of sources and information, but sometimes I react emotionally. So, it's something I'm working on and trying my best to control. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rudolf Pfeiffer

Hi Cynwolfe. I've just created my first article in a bit of a manic spree. I know that you've created a goodly few of these scholar pages—could you take a quick look when you get the chance to make sure that I haven't careened off the proper wikiroad? Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)