| Revision as of 04:20, 30 October 2008 editHaiduc (talk | contribs)15,071 edits →Etymology section: so we now see what you really are about← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:37, 1 November 2024 edit undoMeters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers172,812 edits →Message: Here is an better Improvement for the Pederasty Misplaced Pages Article and please accept and place my revised edits, and also a completely permanent total ban and prohibition using anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobic edits based on gay men and LGBT relationships in general and is completely unrelated to homosexuality, especially for males: OP blocked one month | ||
| (547 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{Censor}} | {{Censor}} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | ||
| {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{todo}} | |||
| {{WikiProject LGBT studies}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 45K | |maxarchivesize = 45K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 17 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
| |algo = old(45d) | |algo = old(45d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Pederasty/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Pederasty/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }}__TOC__ | ||
| {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Moved from article for proper discussion == | |||
| To avoid any edit warring, I have moved some rather contentious edits here for the purpose of discussion: | |||
| == ]: some heterosexual men like girls between 10 to 16 years == | |||
| why is the term pederasty only for men/boy relationships ? also some men look for adolescent girls between 10 and 16 (]) Why is so the term ] not also part of the term pederasty ? ] (]) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not know why, but the standard usage is restricted to males, historically as well as by definition. "Why" is an interesting question. Is it related to homophobia, is it designed to conflate the love of girls with the love of women, or is it simply not a distinction that lovers of women thought of making? ] (]) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{notaforum}} ] (]) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good point, thank you. ] (]) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting, yes, and relevant to a proper understanding of the subject which is bedevilled by the limitations and interpretations imposed upon the terminology. May I throw in this proposition: some 'heterosexual' men like boys between 10 and 16, i.e. they are (not uncommonly) heterosexual with adults, but attracted to adolescent boys even if they do not express this attraction sexually (possibly for legal reasons, or inhibition, or sublimation). Historically, the sexually versatile male is clearly identifiable: he was not restricted by definitions or identity in the same way as his modern counterpart who is expected to 'fit' a type or 'psychological profile', and as a result can suffer unnecessary conflict and self-doubt, occasionally assuaged by the convenient label, ''bisexual''. The article itself is also bedevilled and indeed (more recently) vitiated by those who seek to impose personal views and prejudices (from the 21st century) on a subject of wide application through the ages. The historical view is of course essentially amoral and non-manipulatory, and ''ipso facto'' sometimes challenging and uncomfortable, and not at all respectful of conventions. ] (]) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit questions == | |||
| I undid your (Jack-A-Roe) edits and added citation tags. There is no need to wholesale remove stuff, you can ask and wait for citations. If it doesn't happen then you can remove it. Likewise, in many edits you have done the same, why is that same edits warrant wholesale removal? | |||
| As for the link, it has historical documentary info. What is compelling to remove it? If you don't want to get to the main page for advocacy we can link to the history. ] (]) 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :According to ]: ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.'' If you want the information to stay in the article, you must provide references to support the information and its relationship to the topic of pederasty. | |||
| :The unsourced information has been in the article for years. There have been many discussions on this page indicating lack of sources, so people who are interested in finding the sources for that material have had plenty of chance to do so. If you think the information can be sourced, why don't you ]? | |||
| :Some of the information that was removed links to other articles, stating that they are part of the so-called pederastic tradition, for example ] and ]es - but neither of those articles even mentions the term, or describes any aspect of the practice. Therefore those statements are not only unreferenced in this article, they are not supported by the content of the other articles. Unless a reference is found, that information can't be used. | |||
| :Some of the information was removed because it is simply off-topic. For example, military sexual violation of children and child prostitution are not part of pederasty as described in this article, those topics are unrelated to any sort of mutual relationship between the participants that is the basis the article. | |||
| :The external link to androphile.org was removed because that website is self-published, ad-supported, does not reveal the names of the authors of the material, and does not state any of its references. You yourself have removed extensive numbers of external links, often without any explanation at all other than that there were "too many" for your taste. In this case, unlike those many that you have removed, there is a solid list of specific reasons that link can't be used. --] (]) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh look, yet again we're in revert/rinse/repeat mode here. And again, I restate my clarion call: Why don't we start fresh, and build up this article a little at a time, based on consensus-only edits? We've certainly got a critical mass of involved editors here now. Supports/opposes? Clear concise explanations for why this is a bad idea? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? - <font color="black">]</font> 06:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I strongly support your proposed method. But I should note that my time availability will be unpredictable over the next few months so I don't want to give the impression I can put in a lot of time on it. I would be willing to keep it watchlisted and help when I can. Aside from how much I can do, on a procedural basis, I think your idea to rebuild the article more directly based on sources, with step-by-step consensus would be an excellent approach. --] (]) 08:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Support. ] (]) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oppose. ] (]) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I don't see the need for this, and what's more, I see far more eagerness to remove material from the article than to build it up. I worry that if we went down to a stub, we'd stay there forever. ] (]) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I do understand why you'd have formed that opinion, and can only offer my best intentions. I'm open to hearing proposals that provide checks and balances... Some form of sunset clause, for example, where if the article doesn't come up to scratch after xx weeks following "reset" then it goes back to today's version? Just throwing out ideas here...<br/><font color="black">]</font> 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for verification of source == | |||
| The following sentence does not seem supported by the reference, so I've removed it from the article and request verification of the source: | |||
| <blockquote>While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women, and others rejecting relations with boys.</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote> J.K. Dover, '''Greek Homosexuality'', by Kenneth J. Dover; New York; Vintage Books, 1978. ISBN 0674362616</blockquote> | |||
| Google finds this excerpt about "pederasty" in the book: | |||
| <blockquote>...unwillingness to recognize behavioral disctinctions which were of great importance within that culture generates statements to the effect that 'homosexuality' ''tout court'' or 'pederasty' was forbidden by law in most Greek citites (Flaceliere, Marrou).</blockquote> | |||
| That appears not to support. Does anyone have a page number and quote from the book to show how it supports the text? --] (]) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this section demonstrates well a tendency among some of the editors here that I find very frustrating. The first quote that Jack-A-Roe has taken out is uncontroversial for anyone who has a basic knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality; if it appeared in a scholarly source, I'm not even sure it would require citation, because it's part of common knowledge about the topic. Since this is Misplaced Pages, there probably should be a citation, but this is hardly the kind of thing that needs to be removed from the article pending confirmation. | |||
| :Furthermore, it's not that surprising that the word "pederasty" isn't used that much in Dover's ''Greek Homosexuality", because he's using "homosexuality" in preference to "pederasty" (many classical scholars follow suit). Nevertheless, the Greeks themselves called it ''paiderasteia'', and nearly everything Dover talks about is applicable to this article. | |||
| :The second quote is not well cited, but again is a point commonly made. Again, I don't see the urgent need to remove the text from the article and take it to the talk page. I would urge the editor who made these removals to, in his own words, "do some research". I suppose it's easier to take things out than to try and build up the article. ] (]) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, let's simplify and just look at the facts. You state it is ''" uncontroversial for anyone who has a basic knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality"'' that... ''"most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys,"'' | |||
| ::Since it is uncontroversial, there must be many easily located references that would support that text. Would you please provide one? With proper sourcing, I would remove my objection without delay. | |||
| ::I don't question that many ancient Greeks engaged in homosexual behavior; but I wouldn't write that in Misplaced Pages without a reference, and the word "most" makes it a much stronger claim - especially when the supporting footnote says that it was illegal in "most cities". It's one thing to leave unsourced material when it does not state the opposite of the footnote, but when the reference and the text disagree, the text should be removed until it can be sourced. --] (]) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Note that ] reverted the edit I brought here for discussion, with no edit summary or other explanation: . He's welcome to disagree, but a blanket revert with no discussion is not a helpful form of collaboration. --] (]) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please read the footnote (by which I assume you mean the second quote) more carefully. It does ''not'' state that homosexuality was illegal in most cities--it states that uninformed views about the nature of ancient Greek sexuality generate erroneous statements that homosexuality was illegal. There's no contradiction. | |||
| :::As far as "easily located", this is a relative statement. For me, this requires a trip to the library, which is both time-consuming and inconvenient. May I ask why ''you'' aren't performing some of this research yourself? If you have a university library available, I suggest you get a copy of Dover's ''Greek Homosexuality''. ] (]) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The quoted statement does not include the word "erroneous". But granted, it's a partial statement and it's hard to tell from the fragment what it means. I am not arguing that the text is wrong, only that it is questionable at this time. If it's uncontroversial, it must be in more than just that one book. If only one book makes the statement and no others support it, that's getting into the realm of controversial. ] specifies that the ] is on the editor who ''adds or restores material'', and specifies inclusion of page numbers when citing from books, so I requested verification of the source.. --] (]) 03:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, this is a spot where knowledge of the subject helps; there's really no doubt about what the footnote means. Furthermore, if the "one book" that says something is Dover, that wouldn't fall into the realm of controversial; Dover is the standard work on ancient Greek homosexuality. (A web search can establish this last fact easily.) ] (]) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Since the prior comment I've done some reading on this. I found that it's much more complex than the way it's stated in that sentence in the text, and that while Dover's work certainly occupies a central position, there are multiple interpretations and reviews of it and they don't all agree. I don't question that male same-sex relations were not unusual in ancient Greece or that they thought about those relations differently than in modern times; but for the qualifier "most", I've not yet found sources supporting that. If I had, I'd report them, I have nothing against the statement if it's accurate. But there is so much unsourced material in the dozen or so pederasty-related articles, it's necessary to start somewhere in making improvements. --] (]) 03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Most" is supportable, from Dover himself, and other sources. There are a few scholars, among them T.K.Hubbard and Giulia Sissa, who argue that the eromenos/erastes relationship was common only among the aristocracy. But this is a minority viewpoint (perhaps prominent that it's worth reporting in this article, and definitely should be mentioned in ]. ] (]) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Reprotected === | |||
| I've protected the article again. I'll continue to do so whenever I see the cycle of reversions starting over. - <font color="black">]</font> 03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's fine, but just to be clear - I've made some edits, but none of them were reverts, and I had no intention to revert. --] (]) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) PS. Actually, for transparency, after reviewing my edits, I think I did one revert yesterday and discussed it on the talk page - regarding a different part of the article and with a different editor. Anyway, I don't have any problem with the protection; I concur with slowing the process on this article so we can work in a more collaborative way. --] (]) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you've made substantial edits to this article. Should you be the one to do the protection? (I am not questioning whether the article should be protected.) ] (]) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: That's a fair question. I'll give my round-a-bout answer, and if there is consensus here that I ''shouldn't'' be doing it I'll hand off to another administrator. | |||
| ::* I don't think there would be disagreement that they way we've been proceding has been slow and painful. I've proposed (as an editor) another way forward. | |||
| ::* Recently as an adminstrator, when I've seen (via my watchlist) sub-optimal editing w/o commensurate discussion, I've been protecting the article. I've not looked at what state the article is in when doing so. Use of +sysop rights to "win" content disputes is of course a ]. Now that I look, I see that I've locked the article in Haiduc's version... So I'm feeling somewhat safe that I've not done the wrong thing w.r.t. that. I've also chosen not to edit the article at all since I protected it, only using the talk page.{{fact}} | |||
| ::* I want the best thing for this article, as we all do. I believe that adminstrator attention is needed to get it. The advantage is that I'm ''here'', another mop will probably not give the love and attention to this article that it needs. | |||
| :: All that being said, I'm nothing if not open to input. Thank you Akhilleus for the opportunity to respond, now it's over to the crowd to decide. | |||
| ::<font color="black">]</font> 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't even know the article had been unprotected before it was reprotected, otherwise I would have readded the sentence about Wilde's short story which was deleted a week or more ago for unintelligable reasons. The problem is that we do not get ''useful'' discussion on this page, for the simple reason that some editors do not seem primarily interested in ''improving'' the article but in simply deleting whatever they can. If we could develop genuine debate about how sections on ancient Greece, the Renaissance etc should be properly presented, then we could come up with stable and probably well sourced, informative text. ] (]) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Paul Barlow is absolutely right in his comment about "editors" here deleting whatever they possibly can delete. It is blindingly obvious that the purpose is not to inform but too obscure, and that the article is being gutted. These well intentioned editors have gone as far (if not here then in related articles) as to delete discussions of pederastic rape with the nonsensical rationalization that it "does not fit the definition." I cannot imagine a more blatant example of using the letter of the law to pervert the spirit of the law. The whole exercise has descended to the level of an orgy of know-nothing prissiness that serves only as en ego-prop for the editors that have hijacked Misplaced Pages for their own personal satisfaction. If they did this to any other topic they would be out on their ear by now. ] (]) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Haiduc, I must complement you. Your turn of phrase ''" an orgy of know-nothing prissiness"'' is one of the funniest insults I've ever seen, congratulations! | |||
| However... leaving aside the contentious tone of your comment, and addressing the content, I don't understand what you mean by ''"delete discussions of pederastic rape with the nonsensical rationalization that it 'does not fit the definition.' "'' - according to the article, pederasty is a mutually affectionate relationship; or at least, mutually beneficial, in terms of status and mentorship. If that's the definition, then a military victor raping a boy is not "pederasty", it's just rape. Similarly, the purchase of the prostitution services of a youth is not "pederasty", it's just "child prostitution", or simply "prostitution", depending on the age of the prostitute. If "pederastic rape" is included in the definition of "pederasty", then the definition would need to be expanded beyond consensuality. Previously, you've indicated that's not your idea of the definition and that the mutual aspect is central. So, please clarify - what is the definition, as you see it? Thank you. --] (]) 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Jack, that is sophistry. A topic includes elements which are antinominal to it. A discussion of marriage is incomplete without a look at domestic violence, even though that is certainly not part of the definition of the custom. Likewise, we would not exclude cases of domestic violence merely because they were in the context of cohabiting couples. So let's not use protestations of orthodoxy as a cover for the opinion-driven demolition of an article. ] (]) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == PoMo > CSA criticism == | |||
| We should be looking to remove the assertion that the CSA angle is supported by PoMo theories of power. Such theories (Foucault included) tend to subvert top-down approaches such as CSA. ]] 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Pederasty Among Primitives == | |||
| For the references section. The correct link should be: | |||
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2086628 ]] 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Etymology section == | |||
| The "Etymology" section had a number of serious problems that I have corrected. | |||
| First, there was a quote attributed to the Concise OED that, as near as I can tell, was at best in error or at worst fabricated. I corrected the definition. | |||
| Second, the section was presented backwards, first presenting definitions from specialist sources and only then presenting the general definitions later. I reversed the order. | |||
| == Dictionary definition == | |||
| Thirdly, the text surrounding all of these definitions was not even remotely written from a neutral point of view; it seemed to promote some of the fringe definitions and denigrate the dictionary definitions. I tried to make the text more neutral. | |||
| The dictionary definition of pederasty is of the act and not confined to ancient cultures, I think that should be made clear even if the editors For this article which to keep the subject matter strictly to when the exact term has been used. ] (]) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Lastly, one of the sources, William Percy's ''Encyclopedia of Homosexuality'', is generally speaking not an acceptable academic source, being tainted by its association with a fraud scandal. There ''is'' a second edition of the encyclopedia that does not suffer from this taint, and it's likely that it has a similar definition. I did not touch this for now, but we should work to replace the fraud-tainted source with a reference to a source with an unstained reputation. ] (]) 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Only Ancient Greece and Rome? == | |||
| :Your aggressive logos here notwithstanding, the version as amended now approaches a neutral tone and is provisionally acceptable. The OED quote was simply what was there when last I checked. ] (]) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think it's not fair to only put these two examples I think from West Asia to Africa and the Americas because life expectancy was so low it was obvious at that time pederasty was happening and also to girls since they were married off as soon as their first menstrual cycle. So we just can't say it was a specific homosexual thing but rather common due to people dying at age 35 to 40 unlike now people can even age to 100. ] (]) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Your edit to say the OED offers two definitions is incorrect; that is a single definition with two explanatory clauses. When the OED provides different definitions, it numbers / enumerates them separately, or else joins them with a connector, such as "also." | |||
| :: "Restrictive", regarding the concise OED, smacks of a value judgement, and is thus not NPOV. I suggest "terse" as a better term than either "restrictive" or "direct". ] (]) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::We can always say that the OED indicates two uses, one general and the other specific. I disagree with "terse," we can leave the text to speak for itself. ] (]) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The OED is perfectly capable of enumerating uses when they intend to. Why in the world would we fabricate a second definition when they chose to provide only one? Regarding the other issue, "Terse" is a descriptive attribute of a sentence. "Restrictive" is a comment on the semantics and meaning of the definition. My $0.02. Anyone else want to chime in? ] (]) 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The makes it quite clear that describing these as two different definitions is a misrepresentation: | |||
| <blockquote>While the headword section of an entry defines the form of a headword, the sense section explains the headword's meaning. The sense section consists of one or more definitions, '''each''' with its paragraph of illustrative quotations, arranged chronologically. Some words, especially those that have existed for centuries, have acquired many meanings. Because of this, the sense section for some entries is quite extensive. | |||
| ... | |||
| Senses, or meanings, are ordered according to a structure resembling a family tree, so that the development of one meaning from another can be plotted. '''The individual meanings are numbered within this structure for ease of reference.''' | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| (emphasis added). ] (]) 12:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Summary of modern view in lead == | |||
| :::::Yes, the OED is perfectly capable of enumerating usages, and they do. Why, however, are you so quick to allege "fabricated quotes" without even bothering to check properly. It's a tactic that creates a wholly offensive atmosphere. The quotation you removed was "Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy"; since that's a rather negative characterisation, I can't imagine why Haiduc - the implicit subject of your accusation - would have "fabricated" it, can you? However, for your infornmation, here is the full 1989 version of the definition, which they have since revised. The revised version can also be accessed from the OED website. ] (]) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think we should continue to summarize the "Modern view" section in the lead. {{u|Word0151}} either disagrees or thinks the summary should be changed somehow. Word, could you tell use more about your objections? Is there a way to rephrase rather than remove? ] (] / ]) 16:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : What is "fabricated" in context, above, was Haiduc's suggestion that the OED definition is in fact "two definitions". On this talk page I indicated that I wasn't sure whether the concise OED definition was fabricated or not. I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell because the reference was incorrect, leading to a completely different definition. This sort of thing has happened innumerable times: I check a reference, and it says something ''completely different'' from what it is purported to say. I'm beyond trying to guess whether it's on purpose or not. ] (]) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Regarding your "why" question, I can't speculate, but it's worth noting that our text introducing that quote was "Some borrow the terminology of religious discourse...", which, frankly, seems like an egregious violation of both ] and ]. ] (]) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Varieties of English Pronunciation - British/Commonwealth vs American == | |||
| ::Are you suggesting that the two formulations offered by the OED are synonymous? ] (]) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've lived in Britain all my life, and I've never heard it pronounced with an "iː" before, so I did some research. Credible sources on British English (as used) | |||
| ::: I'm stating that if the OED intended that entry to contain two definitions, it would contain two definitions instead of one. Your argument isn't with me. It's with Oxford. Good luck with that. ] (]) 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <ref> | |||
| {{cite dictionary | |||
| | title = pederasty ''n.'' pronunciation | |||
| | dictionary = Oxford English Dictionary | |||
| | publisher = ] | |||
| | date = July 2023 | |||
| | url = https://www.oed.com/dictionary/pederasty_n?tab=pronunciation#32425229 | |||
| | doi = 10.1093/OED/2984366090 | |||
| | access-date = 2024-03-19}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| <ref> | |||
| {{cite dictionary | |||
| | title = paederast | |||
| | dictionary = Cambridge Dictionary | |||
| | publisher = ] | |||
| | url = https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paederast | |||
| | access-date = 2024-03-19}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| suggest there doesn't seem to be much difference between our pronunciation and the American one, apart from maybe a minor stress difference. | |||
| The only source I can find that uses "piːdə-" is (anecdotally, a poor source for Commonwealth English), and even that doesn't use the IPA. | |||
| ::::Answer the question, instead of forcefully inserting your false statement into the article. ] (]) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Sorry, I refuse to tell you ]. If you have a problem with the OED's guide on how to read an entry, which I linked to earlier, take it up with them. There is simply no ambiguity here. If the OED wanted to provide two definitions, ''they would have provided two definitions''. When the OED provides multiple definitions, ''they are numbered''. Always. Without fail. If you want to argue that in this one case, for some reason, they went against their conventions, you are sailing against the wind ] (]) 03:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (Note: I imagine this is where the error comes from, also uses the exact ). | |||
| ::::::'''Our edits overlapped. Nevertheless, now we see who it is who is really fabricating a fantasy and shoving it down the throats of our readers as well as other editors. So you will presume to bring in here this text: "Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner" and then you will claim that there is only one definition in those two very different descriptions. But that is only because you are gaming the word "definition." Your argument is pure sophistry. It does not matter whether we say that there are two definitions, two formulations or two views represented here. The main point is that this dictionary holds that there are two separate things that can be represented by the word "pederasty," and one of the forms described is strictly copulative, while the other is far more general and does not restrict the relationship to any particular form of sexuality. | |||
| ::::::'''But you cannot admit that, because it blows your argument at Nicolo Giraud out of the water. So what we now discover is that, far from wanting to see accurate sourcing for the articles on pederasty, what you really want is to set an artificially high bar for pederasty so that as few articles as possible will discuss the topic. How do you have the nerve to waste our time with your political agenda, especially one which has degraded this encyclopedia and deprived readers of valuable information?''' ] (]) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The greek root παιδε is sometimes pronounced "piːdə" in the UK for words like "Paedophile" -- I can definitely see someone making a generalisation that, therefore, every word with that root must have a separate British pronunciation. | |||
| ::::So, instead of acknowledging that there are two formulations, with two very separate meanings, you refuse to discuss it and resort to edit warring, and to falsely claiming that you are making the edits on the basis of "consensus." But you are the ONLY one to hold that view - that consensus exists only in your head. So what we are seeing now is the face of Nandesukapedia, a project in which the paramount good is for Nandesuka to win an argument, at any cost to the integrity of the encyclopedia or to the form in which we resolve our differences. What a wonderful thing it must be to be an administrator with friends in all the right places, so you can say and do what you want and revert edits as many times as you want, with complete immunity. Considering the amount of time you spend here, you must be getting a lot out of it, it must be a profoundly satisfying and self-affirming experience for you. How nice. ] (]) 04:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Funnily enough, ] <ref>{{cite Q|Q211354}}</ref> I don't know. I don't think there's enough evidence to warrant a separation, but there could be something I'm ignoring/that I've missed. | |||
| Nandesuka, you are correct about the OED, but I can't say that you're addressing this situation cooperatively. You could explain why the two parts of the OED definition are synonymous, rather than being snarky. | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Haiduc: this is one definition. When the OED says "homosexual relations between a man and a boy", it means sexual relations specifically; the clause "homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner" is meant to be synonymous with the first clause. ] (]) 04:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Message: Here is an better Improvement for the Pederasty Misplaced Pages Article and please accept and place my revised edits, and also a completely permanent total ban and prohibition using anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobic edits based on gay men and LGBT relationships in general and is completely unrelated to homosexuality, especially for males == | |||
| ===OED definitions in full (1989 ed)=== | |||
| i am sorry if i made any mistakes, please pardon my clumsiness and i did not try to disrupt anything okay, i was trying to help fix it to be more accurate and please do not ever use homosexuality and gay men and anything related to the LGBT community in this article and never ever use them because they are very inappropriate, repulsive, disgusting, and dangerously anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobia and it is harmful to LGBT rights as a whole it will not be tolerated. END OF STORY AND DISCUSSION, NO BUTS ABOUT IT, NO MEANS NO OKAY. PPPEEERRRIIIOOODDD!!!, also here is the improved good version if you would allow it and place it in the article please, thank you and good luck. | |||
| Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy. | |||
| {{Short description|Behaviors involving male adult-minor relations}} | |||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2022}} | |||
| ] made during the ]. 480 BCE]] | |||
| '''Pederasty''' or '''paederasty''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|p|ɛ|d|ər|æ|s|t|i}}) is a practice that involves both an adult ] and a young ] engaging in any form of ]. It was socially acknowledged as a historical concept and construct of cultural practices that were done in many civilizations and societies during the ] between ] and ] within the ], and elsewhere in the world, such as the ]. | |||
| 1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage (1614) 293 He telleth of their Pæderastie, that they buy Boyes at an hundred or two hundred duckats, and mew them vp for their filthie lust. 1752 HUME Ess. & Treat. (1777) II. 382 Solon's law forbid pæderasty to slaves. 1788 GIBBON Decl. & F. (1846) IV. 233 The same penalties were inflicted on the passive and active guilt of paederasty. 1869 RAWLINSON Anc. Hist. 529 Hence the laws against infanticide, against adultery, against pæderasty. | |||
| So pæderast , pæderastist, a sodomite; pæderastic a. , pertaining to or practising sodomy; hence pæderastically adv. | |||
| In most countries today in many parts of the world. Various laws based on the ] in a local or nationwide level gets to determine if the person is considered legally and lawfully competent and capable to have consented to any sex acts to the other person without any harmful contact in order to classify it on whether or not it is constituted as a ] involving ] or ]. An ] engaging in sexual activity with a ] is considered an act that is ] a very offensive and abusive thing to do by the authorities and society in general for a wide variety of reasons, including the age of the minor and also the psychologically and physically harmful effects they have endued as well as also gravely affecting their mental health and wellbeing. | |||
| 1730-6 BAILEY (folio), *Pederast.., a Sodomite, a buggerer. 1738 WARBURTON Div. Legat. I. 171 As the detestable Pæderasts of after Ages scandalized the godlike Socrates. 1925 R. FRY Let. 7 Sept. (1972) II. 581 We had a long talk on the tyranny of the Paederasts and Sapphists. 1935 E. E. CUMMINGS Let. 2 Jan. (1969) 131 Scientists are of course pederasts, as we neither know nor care; & unnaturally enough this natural history museum is a temple or cathedral of the scientific spirit. 1963 A. HERON Towards Quaker View of Sex 69 Socially the paederast is the most isolated of homosexuals. 1969 Listener 14 Aug. 205/3 A divorced woman on the throne of the House of Windsor would be a pretty big feather in the cap of that bunch of rootless intellectuals, alien Jews and international pederasts who call themselves the Labour Party. 1971 P. QUENNELL Marcel Proust 11 The sense of his own separateness, as a paederast who loved women,..and a sick man..intensified his gift of observation. | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:54, 1 Nov 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| :Your header is inappropriate. Please change it to something neutral. | |||
| of Pederastice, a kinde of harlatry, not to be recited.] | |||
| :Please break your edit down into individual changes rather than expecting us to compare the existing text and your proposed text line by line to look for changes. Some of what I have noticed immediately is that your proposed text has introduced many grammatical errors, and it has removed a sourced section. ] (]) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| :And discussing a contested edit does not mean that you post your version to the talk page and then restore it before anyone has time to comment. ] (]) 18:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 1704 SWIFT T. Tub Pref., There is first the *pæderastic school with French and Italian masters. 1864 tr. Gaspar's Hand-bk. Forensic Med. III. 333 note, Dohrn..has observed this appearance in his old pæderastic hospitallers. | |||
| ::OP blocked one month. ] (]) 21:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| Ibid. 332 A boy alleged to have been abused *pæderastically. | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| 1684 T. GODDARD Plato's Demon 29 The little respect which he had for that Sex, and great love for the other, which made him so great a *Pæderastist | |||
Latest revision as of 21:37, 1 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pederasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 45 days  |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Dictionary definition
The dictionary definition of pederasty is of the act and not confined to ancient cultures, I think that should be made clear even if the editors For this article which to keep the subject matter strictly to when the exact term has been used. Dakinijones (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Only Ancient Greece and Rome?
I think it's not fair to only put these two examples I think from West Asia to Africa and the Americas because life expectancy was so low it was obvious at that time pederasty was happening and also to girls since they were married off as soon as their first menstrual cycle. So we just can't say it was a specific homosexual thing but rather common due to people dying at age 35 to 40 unlike now people can even age to 100. Nlivataye (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Summary of modern view in lead
I think we should continue to summarize the "Modern view" section in the lead. Word0151 either disagrees or thinks the summary should be changed somehow. Word, could you tell use more about your objections? Is there a way to rephrase rather than remove? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Varieties of English Pronunciation - British/Commonwealth vs American
I've lived in Britain all my life, and I've never heard it pronounced with an "iː" before, so I did some research. Credible sources on British English (as used) suggest there doesn't seem to be much difference between our pronunciation and the American one, apart from maybe a minor stress difference.
The only source I can find that uses "piːdə-" is an entry in Merriam-Webster's (anecdotally, a poor source for Commonwealth English), and even that doesn't use the IPA.
(Note: I imagine this is where the error comes from, the initial edit in 2009 also uses the exact same non-IPA respelling system).
The greek root παιδε is sometimes pronounced "piːdə" in the UK for words like "Paedophile" -- I can definitely see someone making a generalisation that, therefore, every word with that root must have a separate British pronunciation.
Funnily enough, other Wikiprojects (and Wiktionary) just list both as valid British pronunciations? I don't know. I don't think there's enough evidence to warrant a separation, but there could be something I'm ignoring/that I've missed.
References
- "pederasty n. pronunciation". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. July 2023. doi:10.1093/OED/2984366090. Retrieved 19 March 2024.
- "paederast". Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 19 March 2024.
- Pederasty, Wikidata Q211354
Titfortat-skag (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Message: Here is an better Improvement for the Pederasty Misplaced Pages Article and please accept and place my revised edits, and also a completely permanent total ban and prohibition using anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobic edits based on gay men and LGBT relationships in general and is completely unrelated to homosexuality, especially for males
i am sorry if i made any mistakes, please pardon my clumsiness and i did not try to disrupt anything okay, i was trying to help fix it to be more accurate and please do not ever use homosexuality and gay men and anything related to the LGBT community in this article and never ever use them because they are very inappropriate, repulsive, disgusting, and dangerously anti-LGBT, anti-Gay and pro-Homophobia and it is harmful to LGBT rights as a whole it will not be tolerated. END OF STORY AND DISCUSSION, NO BUTS ABOUT IT, NO MEANS NO OKAY. PPPEEERRRIIIOOODDD!!!, also here is the improved good version if you would allow it and place it in the article please, thank you and good luck.
Behaviors involving male adult-minor relations
Pederasty or paederasty (/ˈpɛdəræsti/) is a practice that involves both an adult man and a young boy engaging in any form of sex acts. It was socially acknowledged as a historical concept and construct of cultural practices that were done in many civilizations and societies during the Classical antiquity between Ancient Greece and Rome within the Greco-Roman world, and elsewhere in the world, such as the Pre-Meiji era of Japan.
In most countries today in many parts of the world. Various laws based on the age of consent in a local or nationwide level gets to determine if the person is considered legally and lawfully competent and capable to have consented to any sex acts to the other person without any harmful contact in order to classify it on whether or not it is constituted as a sex crime involving child sexual abuse or statutory rape. An adult engaging in sexual activity with a minor is considered an act that is deemed a very offensive and abusive thing to do by the authorities and society in general for a wide variety of reasons, including the age of the minor and also the psychologically and physically harmful effects they have endued as well as also gravely affecting their mental health and wellbeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.60.98 (talk) 09:54, 1 Nov 2024 (UTC)
- Your header is inappropriate. Please change it to something neutral.
- Please break your edit down into individual changes rather than expecting us to compare the existing text and your proposed text line by line to look for changes. Some of what I have noticed immediately is that your proposed text has introduced many grammatical errors, and it has removed a sourced section. Meters (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- And discussing a contested edit does not mean that you post your version to the talk page and then restore it before anyone has time to comment. Meters (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- OP blocked one month. Meters (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)