Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006)

Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome

Wikipedia footnotes

tables

citation templates

Wikipedia is not...

No original research...

Manual of Style

Disambiguation

Cases of suspected sockpuppetry

CheckUser

DNS stuff

Hey, Akhilleus. Since you were a recipient of Cretanpride's lovely little email back in September, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new proposed policy under discussion at Wikipedia:Death threats. I've put in my two quadrantes, but I thought you'd like to know as well. Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts in the field of Classical Greece and Rome, for your upstanding patience and care when working with your articles, and specifically for your defense of academic consensus on the pages The Odyssey, Alexander the Great and Homosexuality in ancient Greece, I award you, Akhilleus, with this Epic Barnstar, which ironically refers both to the topic which you clearly adore and to your resiliency in the face of the 'many twists and turns' these challenges have given you. CaveatLectorTalk 06:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#historical_periods. Thanks! --Espoo 19:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted Mythical chronology of Greece on 20 October, saying "nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythical chronology of Greece". Seeing that there is no deletion debate at this link, I will undelete the article for now. I might add that I can conceive of no reason to delete this article, please explain your reasons. dab (ᛏ) 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the proper discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mythical_chronology_of_Greece_(second_nomination). However, we do need an article on Jerome's chronology. I really don't see why this had to be deleted instead of fixed, so instead of undeleting, I'll recreate the timeline at Jerome's chronology of Greek mythology. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Did you see my response to your arguments? --Espoo 10:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda maverick 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)I added a book reference to the Diogenes article. Is that what you guys want? I'm new here.[reply]

If you thinks the Greeks would not have understood the concept of child corruption, you must not have had a look at Plato's Phaedrus. Check 241c,d. Socrates himslef recognizes that a bad lover can ruin not just the body of a boy, but his mind and spirit. And what difference do you see in pedo-philia and ped-erasty? They refer to the same business - "love" of boys, making boys into "lovers" respectively. Brenda maverick 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Achilles - I am very familiar with the literature, but I confess to spending way more time studying the original material (with some knowledge of Greek) rather than reading the critics. (I have read Dover's book more than once.) I believe etymologies are helpful, actually, especially if you study the original contexts of the words without prejudice. The passage in the Phaedrus to which I directed you is a case in point. Socrates himself admits here ( and elsewhere) that having an old lover is not "necessarily " a blessing for the youngster. Europe fell into a funk for 2,000 years partly on account of the denial of observation of evidence, and worship of authority. I do not seee myself doing what you disparage as "original research" so much as pointing out what is actually IN these texts - so that we can see what is there, and quit finding stuff that is not there. I do think these discussions are useful, by the by. Brenda maverick 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see how looking at the evidence in the text constitutes "original research". As for this particular point about corruption of the young: in this speech, Socrates goes on and on about the miseries of the boy in the arms of an old ugly drunk, and the grief that comes to him from the old man's faithlessness, irritability, and jealousy. He says the old man has no goodwill towards the boy but is just satisfying his appetites (as the wolf "loves" - "agape" his food). Its after this that Socrates says that a boy in this situation is injured ("blaptw") in property, body and mind. So for you to say that the Greeks "did not/would not have understood the concept of child corruption" cannot possibly be right. Besides this, they were human beings, and very advanced people at that, so it is absurd from that point of view. Clearly, Socrates and his cronies were good with sex with boys, but so are some elements of our own culture - congress and the catholic church for examples. There is no monolith of opinion even today on the matter, and doubtless there was not then, either. So this business about concensus (for which you are praised on this talk page) inevitably misrepresents reality, then and now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

All we were talking about was your remark - that the idea of child corruption was entirely foreign to the Greeks. I haven't been interpreting the Phaedrus anywhere in my articles, just trying to make the point that your rationale for deleting my sentence does not hold up. i did read the article on POV (and the other one) and I am trying to conform to it without doing violence to the material. And I read somewhere that "Achilles" mean "the people's grief" - but this is not certain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

Mr. Achilles, Fine to leave it out, but not for the reason you give, that the idea of child sexual abuse (as we term it today) was foreign to the Greeks. Even if you don't think Socrates was guilty of it (and I personally think the historial facts concerning the life of Socrates are not only irrecoverable but also irrelevant to understanding Plato), the important thing is that Socrates himself explicitly discusses the problem. Do you deny even this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

In the Charmides, Socrates gets excited at the sight of the inwards of a child's cloak and quizzes him about sophrosne (self-control). Charmides is in the company of his "epitrophos" - a surrogate parent, caretaker (we'd say "childsitter"). In the Lysis, the boys' guardians come to walk them home after they have been playing knucklebones. Do fourteen year old boys need to be walked home? In fact, plato carefully avoids giving exact ages. Why? Because it is a grey area and a matter of judgment, and the distinction between taking advantage of a kid and having a legitimate relationship is hard to codify. Why are you so sure Plato was not at least raising an eyebrow? Why does he have Socrates trash talk man-boy love, and then feel like he needs to beg the forgiveness of Eros? Why does he even raise the spectre of abuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I suspect that Skinner's argument is circular - young men must have been under the control of a male guardian until the age of 18 BECAUSE Socrates would not have been hitting on anyone under the age of 18. What is Skinner's independent evidence that Charmides (or the boys in Lysis - Menexenus and Hippothales) was 18 and not 11 or 12? I really try NOT to speculate, but boys who need to be walked home from school must be pretty young, too young to be making decisions about which old men are appropriate sex partners. But don't mistake me - I am just saying that Plato is full of innuendo. You can't be sure beyond a doubt of how to interpret him. But to take him at face value is to neglect his own warning- that "children" cannot find hidden meanings in literature, that books fall into the wrong hands. Why does Plato express so much anxiety about the misinterpretation of literature?

And this reminds me of what protagoras says to socrates, that it is not surprising that most people think virtue IS something that can be transmitted from adults (parents and teachers) to their children. he says what would be surprising would be if it were NOT teachable. I would say the same thing about this pederasty of pedophila (which you find different but I do not - the french use the first term, we use the second) business. What would be surprising is if there were NO men taking advantage of children. Civilized people worry about such things, as Plato appears to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I am shocked that you think I am personally attacking you. What do you think I said? I have said nothing personal at all, and in fact know nothing about you personally. Maybe this is a case of mistaken identity. In fact, I had begun to think of us as wiki- friends. What did i do?! Brenda maverick 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Achilles. That little business was entirely confusing to me. There was some meddling that I could not sort out, but I am not as tech savvy as many of you guys. For the record here, I do think we have more in common than not. (So many people, unfortunately, could not care less about Plato.) So it would be a shame to let our relatively small differences sabotage the cause. A little conflict keeps things alive, but the last thing on my mind is to ruin anything. Brenda maverick 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that the Theaetetus is PLATO'S theory of knowledge? Isn't this like saying that Hamlet speaks Shakespeare's "theory" of the uselessness of living? What's the difference? Seems like sloppy thinking to paste the writer and his character together as if there were no difference between them. THIS is excatly the sort of thing you are constantly criticizing me for: unverifiable claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I do not doubt for one instant that Plato wrote the dialog. It bears all the marks of his brilliance. All I am saying is that Plato playfully disavows it (he writes here like Soren kierkegaard, under a kind of "pseudonymity"). My only point is that we ignore Plato's details at our peril. Is this OK with you? Brenda maverick 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've granted me this: that Plato is a gamester? or won't you go this far? Brenda maverick 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied to you on my own page, if you don't mind going there. I'm sorry, but I haven't slept in a few days. Brenda maverick 01:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for offering a 3rd opinion at Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and more importantly formatting the refs. Keep up the good work.-Andrew c 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

man do not delete the macedonian translation please. It's finnally time for us balkans to live in the 21st century! It won't change nothing having or not the macedonian translation. Look at other pages how much translations exist! What about giving other exept of the greek? For example why not french, german? So people can read it in there own language! Alexander has had his kingdom in all the teritory greek, macedonian, turky, indian! He is antigue one and it is really stupid if we are doing it!

Please just be friends and thinking mature! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noname real (talk • contribs).

I think it will be better if it is written, so if it is not others mk will do the same (puting the name infront of). Let it be please in the first paragraph with others names, i don't see any wrong. He has got also today's MK territory is it is right if it is written in that lang. By this way we can stop further vandalism and discussions about it. It was another user before me to put the translation and then me, and if not me it will be others by me and the story will last forever. So that way i think the discussion will end.

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noname real (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Again we have a big problem. The same way i may be blocked u may be too. I don't see any difference. It was the best if the way stay in the first paragraph and not infrond off and i had agree.

I am sorry, but this sounds like a threat to me: if not me it will be others by me and the story will last forever... I will keep reverting, u know... For reasons mentioned and explained and supported by logical arguments and scholarly opinions. and, btw, i do not agree. Hectorian 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC0

Achilles, I don't think you have reason to say there is a "concensus" that your page is better than mine. Where are you getting this idea? Mine took complaints, to be sure, but yours isn't better. You leave out most of the interesting features. Don't be like your namesake. You know Homer sings of Achilles' "menis" - his terrible, destructive pride. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).