Talk:Alexander the Great

New sections at bottom, please

Archives

• Jan 2002–Dec 2004
• Jan 2005–Apr 2005
• May 2005–Jun 2005
• July 2005–July 2006
• August 2006–September 2006
• September 14, 2006–September 30, 2006 (First RfC on category related to Alexander's sexuality)
• October 1, 2006-mid October 2006 (more Category dispute, removed "In Popular Culture" material, disputes about Robin Lane Fox)

Egyptian Names

I wasnt able to find his egyptian royal names anywhere.(I read a book about it)(I think it was Setpenre Meriamon) .New Babylon

RfC, once more

A section of this article, "Personal life", has material on Alexander's sexuality. Should a category, perhaps Category:Greek Pederasty, Category:LGBT people from Greece or Category:Greek homosexuality be in the article, so that WP readers who are interested in this topic can be guided to the article? An RfC has already been conducted on this topic, but no consensus has been reached, and editors are still fighting over whether the category should be included. 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus: the previous RfC was filled with sockpuppets, no consensus was found, and a low-grade edit war continues, so another RfC has been filed. The article already has a section on Alexander's sexuality, and mentions the possibility that he had sexual relationships with men. Two scholars, Paul Cartledge and Robin Lane Fox, are quoted above on this talk page to that effect. The current dispute is not about whether the page should contain that material. The dispute is about whether the page should contain a category to help readers interested in the topic of Greek pederasty/homosexuality to find this page.

Previously, some editors have objected to the categories LGBT people from Greece and Greek homosexuality on the grounds that they're anachronistic. It's true that the ancient Greeks didn't label people as "homosexual" or "heterosexual". Nevertheless, many scholars use the term "homosexuality" in reference to the ancient world: K.J. Dover's Greek homosexuality and David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality are just two books out of a crowded field. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment His relationship with Hephaestion is not pederastic, and needs to be categorized under Category:LGBT history; His relationship with Bagoas is pederastic and needs to be categorized under Category:Greek Pederasty. However, by Wikipedia rules subcategories take precedence and thus Category:Greek Pederasty must appear rather than the LGBT history category. That suggests that Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, which is at the same level as the Greek pederasty category, needs to be represented as well, simply to make sure that individuals doing research in either field have equal access to this information. If we are debating anachronisms, I would concede that the LGBT categories are anachronistic, but there is no ideal solution and not listing this article would be an abdication of responsibility. Haiduc 04:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As pointed by Apro's comments above, none of our ancient sources on Alexander claim he had a sexual relationship with Hephaestion and the Bagoas theory is in dispute even by modern scholars, particularly when contrarary to what the part on his personal life suggest, his sexual relationships make up no more then a few lines and none of them with any suggestion that he had sexual relationships with either man. Also placing modern sexual identies such as Category:LGBT history in this article is not accurate given those are modern identities that ancients such as Alexander did not identify with. If that's the case we might as well place Category:Heterosexual in there too and in every other biographical article there is. Mallaccaos 12 October 2006

• Comment As Mallacaos points out, the issue of categories by sexuality only seems to arise when there's a suggestion labelling a person as "homosexual", "LGBT", "gay", "pederastic", or in general non-heterosexual. There's an obvious double-standard in this thinking that reflects the general double standard of modern society. For this reason I'm somewhat against categorization by sexuality in general, and very much against applying terms like "LGBT" to ancient personages. As for categorization by the nature of a person's relationships (i.e. "pederastic"), this seems rather nonsensical-- I think this becomes more obvious when we suppose categories like "cuckolds", "virgins", "polyamourous persons", or somesuch. siafu 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with you about the purpose of the category. It's not to label Alexander as "gay" or whatever. It's to say, "if you're interested in the topic of same-sex relationships in the ancient Greek world, you might want to read this section of Alexander the Great." It's beyond obvious that there's a great deal of interest in ancient Greek sexuality; this is one of the most active research topics in classical studies.

At any rate, your objection seems not to be so much about putting a category in this article, but putting categories related to sexuality in any article. It seems to me, though, that if these categories are in use in articles like Pederasty in ancient Greece, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Epaminondas, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and so on, there's no good reason to make Alexander an exception. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can't help feeling, in all honesty, that we are making a mountain of a molehill. I can't understand all this passion on categories; wouldn't it be better if all this passion was spent in sourcing the article, instead of fighting futile edit-wars. Is it really so important if we have a category pointing to his pederasty or homosexuality? I honestly doubt this, and tend to agree with Siafu: there is no real need for the reader of this article to classifly by sexuality.--Aldux 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, you're probably right that we're making too big of a deal out of the category. However, the fight over the category is a proxy fight over what should be in the "personal life" section, which is a hodgepodge of different slanted views. The article also misrepresents the views of Robin Lane Fox and selectively quotes from The Search for Alexander. If we can't even get the category straight, I'm not really sure that it's going to be easy to fix the article text, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "making a big deal" out of a category, it is a matter of not politicizing an article or the project. Either we are going to have categories or we are not. They are there so that people interested in a certain topic can have a central location from which they can explore articles that touch on that topic in some fashion. Excluding non-mainstream sexualities from this aspect of the project has the effect of perpetuating the hegemony of certain factions that are invested in obscuring this aspect of history and human sexuality. A little bit of totalitarianism is not a molehill. It is totalitarianism, and its appeasement has led to the predicament which a certain western power finds itself in today. Our only saving grace here is the return to intellectual integrity. In this case the facts are clear: ancient historians have mentioned it, modern historians have mentioned it, it is an aspect of this man's biography, the fact that it is disputed by some is equally grist for this mill and does not reduce but amplifies the strength of the argument that it should be thus categorized. Again, we are not a court of law indicting, we are encyclopaedists indexing. If this does not belong in that index, nothing does. And that is no longer a mole hill. Haiduc 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Politicizing an article on the bases on ones sexuality is not encyclopedia material in my opion. I don't remember Britanic or any other encyclopedias which deal with biographical articles put much emphasis on ones sexuality unless that person played a certain roles in promoting or advocating certain sexual elements that changed history or their sexual life played significant parts in their life, two things that are not true with Alexander. His sexuality did not contribute to who he was and neither did he advocate for certain sexual elements that changed history. Placing a category to "politicize" thise article or others like it on the bases of certain modern ideolism, especially when the biographical individual did not contribute or alter historical events based on the category in question is wrong. I agree with Aldux, siafu and Mallaccaos, placing sexual caterogies on ancient biographical articles, which have been disputed and the ancient sources themselves would never identify as such, is totally misleading. I also have to agree with Siafu that these issues arise when modern society wants to place labels such "homosexual", "LGBT", "gay", "pederastic" on ancient individuals. In the case of Alexander as it was noted above, there is disputed among scholars that he even had such relationships and whatever his supposed sexual personal relationships were they had no effect or influence on his life to warrant categorizing as such. Someone who is interested in learning about Alexander would learn more about his biographical accounts of his accomplishments and not on any supposed "sexual exploits" that might or might not even be true. Also those quotes from Robine Lane Fox are take straight from his novel on Alexander, I do not see how it is selective or misrepresented given that they are Lane's own words from his biographical piece on Alexander. The pages and titles from where those quotes are taken from have been provided. Apro 12 October 2006

If you wish to keep politics out of it you will allow the information to be freely available. Suppressing information is a political act. Haiduc 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is suppressing information in the article nor is not adding this particular category suppressing information. The article talks about the different opinions and views that scholars have regarding his sexuality, that does not mean it warrants a particular caterogy based on his sexuality, in that case as someone has stated above lets also add Category:Heterosexual in there too. Alexander contributed nothing to nor did his sexuality play a major role to warrent a sexual category. Now adding the category because some see it as "suppressing information", then in my opinion, that is politicizing this article. As stated above most encyclopedia biographical articles that I have read do not put emphasis on ones sexuality unless that person was an adovace for or played certain roles in promoting sexual elements that changed history or their sexual life played significant parts in their life, things that are not true with Alexander. Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that Alexander's sexuality is not notable is refuted by its inclusion in texts on the history of sexuality, such as Louis Crompton's "Homosexuality and Civilization."

If it is notable or of any valuable sense, other then putting labels on ancient people who would never identify themselves as such, please provide major events which his sexuality played a contributing part in his accomplishments. Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that "Category:Heterosexuality" should be included is fallacious, since, unlike Greek pederasty or homosexuality, relations with the other sex are a given.

Its similar and as stated above a double standard since it pertains to ones sexuality period. So if you believe that "Category:Homosexuality" should be added then we might as well add "Category:Heterosexuality". Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that including this category puts an emphasis on his sexuality is refuted by the fact that there are twelve other categories appended to the article, many of marginal importance in his life. Thus categories do not have the effect of "emphasizing" a particular aspect, but only of indexing it.

The only two other categories that I questions in belonging there are the Mummies one and the Adoptees, all others have to do with major events in his life time and after it. His sexuality as stated did not contribute to anything important and its disputed. Apro 12 October 2006

Your contention that adding a category for his sexual life politicizes the article turns reality on its head. It is the capricious exclusion of a category on sexuality that is eggregious and raises the question, why this category and not any other should be excluded.

Adding a category just to put a label on the individual who the article is about based on what the social climate of today is wrong. As mentioned above the only other two categories that look out of place in this article are the two mentioned and should be removed. All the others pertain to major events during his life and after it. Also as it was stated many times, adding sexual categories in articles which pertain to ancient peoples adds no value and is misleading particularly when said category is disputed to begin with. Apro 12 October 2006

Unfortunately the answer is obvious, and lies in your edits: your misrepresentation of academic discussion of this topic, as well as in your falsely presenting the debate on this page as supporting your arbitrary deletion of an important structural part of the article, repeatedly and in the face of counterarguments by several editors.

I do not see his sexual orientation as being an important structural part of this article especially when its been disputed. If that is the case then it is also pretty obvious that misrepresentation also applies in your defense of trying to add a category that most who have responded to this whole issue agree does not belong in this article. Apro 12 October 2006

This is not a constructive way to engage either this topic or the other editors. Please desist from enforcing your view by force, when you are unable to do it by reson. Haiduc 00:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I have enforced my views on here to anyone forceably, if I did then I apologize for it, and my posts have reasoning behind them. Also not enforcing personal views onto issues and people should apply both ways. Apro 12 October 2006

Apro, I will answer you here so as not to fragment things too much. First of all, I perceive a lot of your comments as addressing an issue of questionable validity, our "labeling" Alexander the Great a homosexual or a pederast, wherefore your efforts to debunk that misapprehension. First of all, let me say that I personally do not think he was gay. He was however a man of his time, a time when men did not greatly value time spent in the company of women, nor women's affections. To run after women was considered effeminate, to be liked by them was suspicious. But men fell in love with women nonetheless, and they fell in love with other males, older or younger, as the spirit drove them. To call that "gay" is absurd. To call it pederastic, when there was a significant age difference, may be more in keeping with the time - that's where we got the term, after all. But we are not here to "label" anyone anything. When we enter a category, such as "Mummies" or "People with craters of the Moon named after them" we are simply doing a service for people interested in those subjects. So much has been said about Alexander's sexuality with males, for so long, that to veil it from those interested in those subjects is simply indefensible. "Absolute proof" is completely besides the point - it is enough that the topic has received so much play. And as for the hurdle you are placing in front of its "notability," it is contrived. It is notable not because you or I deem it notable, it is so because it has been noted by others, again and again. Haiduc 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my consensus sitll is this category does not belong in this article. Apro 13 October 2006

There is no such thing as a consensus of one. Haiduc 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"...a time when men did not greatly value time spent in the company of women, nor women's affections. To run after women was considered effeminate, to be liked by them was suspicious." This claim requires some backing up, as it flies in the face of the available evidence. siafu 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We are chatting here so the rules of evidence do not apply. A couple of years ago I came across a text (unfortunately I no longer remember which) where it was said of a man, disparagingly, that "he is the kind of man that women like." Perhaps it was about Alcibiades? Maybe someone here, better read and with a better memory, can come up with the reference. Haiduc 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can add the LGBT category when conclusion has not been reached nor a resolution in agreeing to add the Category:LGBT, especially when its still in dispute and the majority of the people who posted on here are in agreement that category does not belong in this article particularly given that its a modern ideology not applied to ancient people like Alexander who never identified with it. I also agree with siafu's comment above. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

Personally, I don't see consensus in either direction. However, I think that it's a violation of the NPOV policy to remove the category, particularly since there's a well-sourced section of the article devoted to A.'s sexuality. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is that of four other people as noted by their comments above, myself included, who view the category wrong in being added. As for the "sources" given they do not give a definate answer other then modern interpetations that they base most of their theories that he might have had on what they theorize to be the norm of the time and not on definate writings on Alexander's relationships. I think it violates Wiki policy to add a category that is still being disputed and most people who commented on it are in agreement it does not belong here particulary the Category:LGBT. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

Consensus isn't the same thing as majority rule. Consensus is when a group of people finds a mutually acceptable outcome. That's not happening here. Furthermore, editors cannot override the NPOV policy, so even if there were consensus to eliminate the category I don't think that decision would be correct.

As an ancillary matter, it could be argued that one of the participants in this debate is a single-purpose account. Because of this I'm even less inclined to think that this discussion will result in consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have not yet seen any reliable source that says that Alexander did not have a sexual relationship with Hephaistion or Bagoas. I don't see any evidence that there is a dispute about this, except for editors' personal interpretations of primary sources. I'm sure there are secondary sources that deny that A. had same-sex relationships, but no one has cited one yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Coming in late with a possible compromise

Hi. I had not been following this debate closely, but have taken a look at it at the request of Akhilleus. My view is that since there is well-referenced material in the article about Alexander's sexuality, it would be appropriate to have a category reflecting that. However, it is clear that some editors strongly oppose this idea, and the direct inclusion of Alexander in any LGBT category is controversial. Perhaps the answer is to create a category for historical figures whose sexuality is disputed. It could include Alexander and figures like Richard I of England, whose sexuality is also the subject of some academic disagreements. This proposed Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed could be a subcategory of Category:LGBT history, for the purposes of collecting subjects of interest as Akhilleus indicates, but it would avoid directly categorizing Alexander as LGBT, which I admit is problematic due to both the inconclusive historical evidence and the ambiguity over whether the term refers to behaviors or modern-day identities.

What do you regular editors of the article think of this suggestion? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me and I believe more accurate with what is written in the article. Thanks, Josia. Regards :)~ Mallaccaos 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, the idea of putting this in a new category has merit. I too feel that avoiding "LGBT" is a plus - "LGBT history" was the least bad alternative. However, a "disputed" category could well become a repository for contentious topics which would be better off in more precise categories. Else we may well be lumping zoophiliacs with pederasts and with heterosexuals. How about Category:History of same-sex relations instead? Haiduc 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:History of same-sex relations sound similar to that of "Category:LGBT history". I believe Joshua's Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed is more insync with what is written in the article particular since this is true. Plus the category Category:LGBT history would not be excluded from being categorized there and anyone interested/finding this matter on Alexander will be able to do so from there. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

Unfortunately it is not in sync, since what is written about him is not that his sexuality is disputed, but that he had love affairs with at least two males. The modern disputatious tempest in a teapot is not notable - everything is disputed these days, if you trawl far enough. Haiduc 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is those supposed "sexual love affairs" which are disputed as it is pointed out in the article, plus the Category:History of same-sex relations sounds like just another re-wording of Category:LGBT history. Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

My understanding is that the scholarly consensus is that it is probable but not certain that the relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas were sexual, or at least romantic in nature. Perhaps we should find a way to indicate that in the category. How about Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations? That would indicate the consensus, while allowing "wiggle room" for the fact that the historical evidence indicates but does not prove that Alexander had same-sex relations. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm more partial to the first one I also find Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations as an approriate alternative too. How about Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations? Mallaccaos 13 October 2006

I appreciate this attempt to find a compromise and the constructive tone of this discussion. Category:History of same-sex relations seems good to me. I can't see how Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is different than Category:History of same-sex relations, except that one is wordier than the other.

I can't agree with categorizing Alexander's sexuality as "disputed". I've seen no evidence that reliable sources dispute Alexander's sexuality; so, far, the only people disputing it are WP editors. Furthermore, I think creating a "disputed" category would be a bad precedent; it's not hard to imagine a tendentious editor insisting that other classical figures, like Sappho or Catullus, should be put into this category.----Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This argument for avoiding "disputed" makes sense to me. I agree that Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is wordy, but it does have the virtue of leaving room for the element of uncertainty which the article indicates is present in the case of Alexander. Placing Alexander in Category: History of same-sex relations to me sounds more definite than the article (at the moment) suggests the scholarly consensus is. Also, the "associated" category seems less redundant with Category:LGBT history. But that's just my take. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, I think it's fine to avoid LGBT as an anachronism. But I would like to point out (again) that those editors who object to "homosexuality" as being anachronistic are not taking into account the huge amount of scholarship that deals with sexuality in the ancient Greek (and Roman) world. Scholarship like Dover's Greek Homosexuality, Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, Craig Williams' Roman Homosexuality, T.K.Hubbard's sourcebook Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents in translation are just a few examples. I do not believe that WP editors' opinions of whether a term is anachronistic should trump standard scholarly usage, and it's obvious that scholars use the word "homosexuality" when writing about ancient Greece (and Rome). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that either one of these three, which allow room for the bases that nothing conclusive exists: Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations, are all postive alternatives. Category:History of same-sex relations just sounds like a rewording of other same-sex categories that are already in existance. As far the as the usage of terms LGBT/Homosexuality being "anachronistic", this has less to do with WP editors' opinions and more to do with the fact that not all scholars believe they should used towards ancient societies such as Greece and Rome, i.e. David Halpern, John Winkler & Bruce Thornton; there are scholars out there that do argue that it is wrong to apply/label ancient people with those terms given they are modern identities not ancients. Apro 13 October 2006

Well, Winkler isn't accessible to me at the moment. But I know for a fact that Thornton and Halperin use the term "homosexuality". Here, for instance, is Thornton (Eros: the Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality, p. 100):

Part of the problem is that homosexuality, contemporary as well as ancient, is no easier for us so-called moderns to understand than it was for the Greeks. One of our difficulties when reading about ancient Greece is that the most common manifestation of homosexuality in the evidence concerns pederasty, the quasi-ritualized, transient, physical and emotional relationship between an older male and a youth, an activity we now view as criminal. Very little, if any, evidence from ancient Greece survives that shows adult males (or females) as "couples" involved in an ongoing, reciprocal sexual and emotional relationship in which sex with women (or men) is moot and the age difference is no more significant than it is in heterosexual relationships. Thus the evidence from anicent Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or the precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure.

David Halperin wrote the entry on "homosexuality" for the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which reads in part:

It is not illegitimate to employ modern sexual terms and concepts when interrogating the ancient record, but particular caution must be exercised in order not to import modern, western, sexual categories and ideologies into the interpretation of the ancient evidence. Hence, students of classical antiquity need to be clear about when they intend the term 'homosexual' descriptively--i.e. to denote nothing more than same-sex sexual relations--and when they intend it substantively or normatively--i.e. to denominate a discrete kind of sexual psychology or behaviour, a positive species of sexual being, or a basic compoonent of 'human sexuality'. The application of 'homosexuality' (and 'heterosexuality') in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.

Halperin does say that "homosexuality" must be used with caution, and that it can be anachronistic. However, he also says that we can use it descriptively--to refer to activity, but not to identity. This corresponds perfectly to what the article says about Alexander's relationships--that he was not a "homosexual" in the modern sense of the word (and that no ancient Greek male would have thought of himself that way)--but that he also in all probability had sexual relationships with men (and women as well). In that sense, this article is pertinent to the subject of homosexuality in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Its that probability which is in question here and the little issue that there still is no conclusive evidence of it being true, therefore applying "homosexuality" here is very misleading and which is why I believe one of the two categories suggested by Josiah are more approriate. Apro) 13 October 2006

---

Comment: The four contemporary biographers of Alexander the Great never wrote of Alexander being physically attracted to men. The article states that. Robin Lane Fox clearly states that in his biography. Both Robin Lane Fox and Paul Cartledge acknowledge that it is not proven Hephaestion or Bagoas were Alexander’s lovers. Carledge writes that Hephaestion was “Boyhood friend of Alex., like Harpalus, but his developing relationship was of unusual, and probably sexual, intimacy.”(Alexander the Great, The Hunt for a new past, p. 306) The keyword here is probably. Meaning that it is not proven. Regarding Bagoas Robin Lane Fox writes "Later gossip presumed that Bagoas was Alexander’s lover. This is uncertain." (The Search for Alexander ~ Little, Brown and Co. Boston, 1980, p. 67.) Keyword here is uncertain. Regarding Hephaestion, Robin Lan Fox writes "No contemporary history states this, but the facts show that the two men's friendship was exceptionally deep and close." Keywords here are No contemporary history states this Even Cartledge and Fox who, it seems, are beyond a doubt convinced Alexander was a bisexual, are not convinced enough to claim so as if it is a fact. Again it is not proven Alexander was attracted to men. Why should we speculate and add him into that category? Plus the Personal Life section is a joke. It is not even about his personal life, but instead only about his possible homosexual relationships. What about his family relationships? His father, mother? What about his relationship with women? All these would constitute as his personal life. There is practically nothing written about his relationships with women for which we are certain of!! It seems that the personal life section has been written with a great bias and some desire to see Alexander as a bisexual and pederast when you can never prove any of it. I wonder what scholars like Victor Davis Hanson or Peter Green think of this. Whatever the scholarly consensus is, that does not constitute as proof. The amount of opinions don't make something the truth, the truth is the truth. Until you can prove it, I don't see a need for adding a category like this to Alexander. Takidis 00:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, You might also want to consult David Cohen, "Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens" (Cambridge 1991). In chapter 7 he speaks of Athens as "a culture whose laws expressed a deep rooted anxiety about paederasty while not altogether forbidding it" (p. 201). His chapter reviews "the widely differing attitudes and conflicting norms and practices" of a "complex culture" which "should not be rationalized away" (p. 202). I'm just showing this to show that many different aspects of sexuality in antiquity are debated. By the way, please don't respond to just one of my points. Takidis 00:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The four contemporary biographers of Alexander did not mention either that he breathed air, but we shall not jump to conclusions and postulate he was a fish. That a masculine man would find handsome youths attractive was a given - the only question is how he would manifest that attraction. To extrapolate from these biographers that Alexander expressed modern heterosexual behaviors two and a half millennia ago is an absurdity. No one questions that he loved males, and did so intensely. To his credit, he seems to not have done so abusively, though he was abusive enough in other ways, as they all were (when was the last time you got drunk and killed a good friend?)

Another misunderstanding is the seemingly unshakeable notion among some here that we are sitting in a court of law and trying to find Alexander guilty of "X" beyond any reasonable doubt. That is nothing but a dressed up straw man argument. What we do in the Wikipedia is to index various aspects of each article for the convenience of our readers. The male loves of Alexander, including the wisps of fog which shroud them, are of interest for anyone reading up on ancient sexuality, whether or not there are doubts about their many aspects.

A further misunderstanding is that our opinions matter. We do not even have a place at the table, we are here to report on the ongoing conversation between people who are indeed qualified to have an opinion. The fact that User:Joe Blow disputes something does not make it "disputed," since squabbles between Wikipedia editors are anything but notable.

That being said, I agree with Takidis that in ancient Greece there were currents of misgiving about pederastic affairs (to say nothing about androphilic ones) and the practice ranged from mandated by law to restricted by law to forbidden by law. But that takes us a bit far afield. To return to the categorization argument, I agree with Akhilleus that a category listing his relationships as "disputed" is not appropriate. "Same-sex relations" on the other hand can include various types of relationships, including erotic ones that were not overtly sexual - as per Mr. Fox. Haiduc 00:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that his breathing air is also not mentioned is "fallacious" since that is a given, unlike the claim of his supposed "sexual relationship" with Hephaestion, if it existed, it would have been mentioned by Alexander's main contemporary biographers. The fact that not one of them ever makes mention of Alexander having such sexual relations, particularly with Hephaestion since that relationship, we are told by some who theorize was supposedly "romantic in a homosexual way" was important, is very telling, given that it is on these main contemporary writers that later authors based their work on. Not one of them ever uses the ancient terms which modern scholars associate the meaning "lover in a physical way" to describe Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion. If the two had such a relationship as some claim has existed why no mention of it and why don't our contemporaries use terms which they used with most every other individual who did participate in such relationships? Its not like they were not using these terms with others of that period but curiously enough never with Alexander and yet we are supposed to dismiss this and accept the theories of writers who lived even later then our contemporaries with closed eyes, no questions asked? Apro 13 October 2006

Ask all the questions you like. However, when the interpretation of primary sources is debated, we turn to reliable sources instead of editors' interpretations of what the primary sources say. In fact, editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources are original research, and cannot be used to determine article content. Please support your claims with some secondary sources; until you do, I'm going to stick with the opinions of Paul Cartledge and Robin Lane Fox. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm gathering, from the above, that scholars continue to debate over the nature of Alexander's relationships in terms of the nature of the feelings, emotions, and activities that they encompassed and in how to interpret them, given the millenia that have since passed. That alone seems to me to be reason for an encyclopedia, such as this, to raise this subject; if it's important enough for those who understand the subject to continue to return to it, then we should mention it. And that's probably all we should do: mention it, mention that it's debated, and move on. Regarding categorization, what is the purpose of categorizing Alexander, or not categorizing him? --Badger151 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is categorizing the article, not the man. An elementary point, but it's worth repeating, because it seems like people aren't noticing it. The point of categorizing the article is so that people who are interested in reading about a particular subject can find it. Let's say you're a person who's interested in the topic of ancient Greek sexuality, but you don't know much about Alexander; this category, whatever it ends up being, might help you find this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wiki articles had to have correct categories applied to them and seeing that Alexander's "male relations" are still debated and not confirmed adding categories such as LGBT/Homosexuality, particularly since they are modern labels to begin with, are misleading. Having said that some of the alternative categories such as: Category:Historical figures whose sexuality is disputed, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and Category:Historical figures with disputed same-sex relations, are all possible. Apro 13 October 2006

---

Of the options, it looks to me as if Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations has the widest support. Does anyone object to that phrasing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't, sounds good to me. :) Apro 13 October 2006

I will support that category. It sounds like a subcategory, though, and I'd like to know where it fits in the overall category scheme. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the "associated" tag, as well as with the length of the title. Also, if I might speak for the "other side", "relations" (even though I suggested the term) alludes to actual sexuality. What if we call it Category:History of same-sex love? That would include passionate but chaste relationships, if that is the nature of, say, his love for Bagoas. Also, against the "associated" formulations, here is a significant contribution from Stanford: "For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men."[1] More than mere association, to my eye. Haiduc 02:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is wordy, but I think it's the least bad alternative. To answer Akhilleus' question, I would see it as a subcategory of Category:LGBT history. The separation should help to allay the concerns of those who are concerned about applying the modern term "LGBT" to historical figures, while acknowledging that Alexander's love life has come under the academic scrutiny of scholars working in the field of LGBT history. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That Stanford statement is misleading. How can Alexander be known as having only exclusive interest in boys and other men when there accounts of his female relations? As for the Category:History of same-sex love is similar to the list of LGBT couples Same Sex Couples. The Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations that Josiah suggested fits better. Apro 13 October 2006

I'm not sure how placing this articel into any of these categories will help a person who is looking into ancient Greek sexuality and knows little about Alexander. If the point is for people who are intested in articles on LGBT subjects to find this article, then that's how the article should be categorized. If the point is to understand Alexander's relationships in the context of his time, then that's something else again, and the categorization should indicate this historical context. --Badger151 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is for the correct category to be placed in the article. Since Alexander's sexual relations are not defined and still suspect placing the LGBT category, especially since this is an article on an ancient individual and that category does not apply, is very misleading. I do agree though that Josiah's Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations sounds more reasonable and anyone who is interested in finding about any supposed "same sex" relations he might have had would still be able to since the category for LGBT will be applied to the Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations or which ever final category is used. Mallaccaos 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Badger151 raises a valid point--the category should reflect Alexander's historical context. That's why I proposed the Category "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" (see the archives). Despite the concerns that people have raised about "homosexuality" being anachronistic, most scholars who write about sexuality in ancient Greece use the term "homosexuality". The categories that we're proposing now, things like Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations could group this article with ones like Richard I of England, Philip II of France. I'd rather have a category that groups this article with other articles about ancient Greece. I still prefer "Homosexuality in ancient Greece", of course, but that went over like a lead balloon. Would people consider "Sexuality in ancient Greece"? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I can live with "Sexuality in ancient Greece". :) Apro 14 October 2006

what did caligula do with alexander the great's breastplate?

I was wondring what caligula did with it, was he buried with it, or melt it?

Categories: fundamental flaw

We have been trying to fashion a category to accept Alexander, but a category of one will not fly. Who else would fit here?! Instead of the names we have been tossing around, I suggest Category:Greek love, which can accept others such as Socrates, etc. Haiduc 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations could also include pages like Richard I of England, Philip II of France, and perhaps even Abraham Lincoln (although I'm not going anywhere near that particular debate myself) — basically, historical figures for whom there is some evidence of homosexual activity, but not conclusive proof. There may also be a case for Category:Greek love, but surely such a category would also include Greeks famous for heterosexual loves as well, which sort of misses the point of the current debate. Unless you're using "Greek love" as a euphemism, which doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need a category that fits a wide range of articles, and I'd prefer a category that's specific to articles about ancient Greece and ancient Greeks. Category:Greek love sounds euphemistic to me as well. In the discussion above I just proposed Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece (could also be "ancient Greek sexuality"), which could be applied to Socrates, Alcibiades, etc. as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality in ancient Greece is of no interest whatsoever since it lumps together all kinds of unrelated toics irrelevant to each other. "Greek love" may well have been used euphemistically by some, just as "pederasty" was used disparagingly by others, but that is immaterial. It is a term with a great deal of history, it has been and continues to be used in literary and academic works, and provides us with the flexibility that we need. Equally important, it is a term that is likely to be searched for as such thus of particular utility in helping people find this information. Another objection to the "sexuality" tag is that in Alexander's case we may not be talking about sexuality but about eros - two very different things. Haiduc 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah Rowe. A new Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations would be useful for multiple figures in history who pre-date the concept of "sexual orientation". This category could be a subcategory of LGBT History and will thus help people find the historical figures they are interested in, but hopefully avoid the arguments that arise from people arguing (rightly) that identifying historical figures as "LGBT" is anachronistic, or (endlessly!) that the "evidence" is insufficient. The category proposed by Akhilleus wouldn't fit Alexander the Great, who wasn't Greek: he was Macedonian. Yonmei 21:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Josiah Rowe on the Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations and also Akhilleus' Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece or "ancient Greek sexuality" could be alternatives too, but my first choice is the one Josiah suggested for Alexander the Great, who was Greek. Apro 14 October 2006

I do not wish to be the lone holdout in this discussion, and I will not oppose whatever consensus develops. But I do want to answer a couple of the criticisms addressed at the "Greek love" category. First of all, Josiah, the term has nothing to do with heterosexual relations, in Greece or elsewhere. It refers specifically to loving erotic, or sexual, relations between males. Nor is Greek love, Yonmei, restricted to Greek people. It may be instructive to see who uses it, and in what context. Here are some recent titles: Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in 19th Century England by Louis Crompton; Greek Love Reconsidered by Thomas K. Hubbard; The Greeks and Greek Love by James Davidson; Greek Love by J. Z. Eglinton; One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love by David M. Halperin. No euphemistic use in sight - these authors are among the most outspoken classicists around. So, on topic, in use, comprehensive - including both sexual and chaste relations, and succinct. Haiduc 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was aware that the term "Greek love" was used to refer to male-male eros and sexuality. My comment about heterosexuality was meant to be tongue-in-cheek — I'm sorry my humorous intent didn't come across clearly.

My understanding of the term "Greek love" was that it originated (in the 19th century?) as a euphemism similar to "the love that dare not speak its name". I find it curious that you would suggest here that the term is not euphemistic, while only two days ago you restored the word "euphemism" to the term's Wikipedia page. (Incidentally, "Greek love" was described as a euphemism in the page's original stub form.) Do the modern scholars you mention above use the term in their texts, or merely in titles? Do they use it in direct reference to the sexual/erotic/romantic relationships practiced in the ancient world, or do they use it with an ironic touch to refer to the attitudes taken towards those relationships, and towards homosexuality in general, by individuals in the Romantic era and since? I don't have any citations, but when I hear the term "Greek love" I think first of 19th century Romantics like Byron and Wilde, and of Alexander or Alcibiades mainly as they were viewed through that Romantic lens.

I should also say that I think that the use of "Greek love" to refer to homosexuality may be needlessly provocative towards actual Greeks. You know from our work together on Homosexuality in ancient Greece that I'm not one to hide the historical truth on this subject, or to yield to homophobic or nationalistic demands. But I think that advocating this definition of "Greek love" as a category, especially in this article, is akin to poking a hornet's nest. If we can find a name for the category that reflects the scholarship accurately, is acceptable to a consensus of editors, and avoids provoking knee-jerk reactions, I think we should use it, even if it's unwieldy.

I'm not committed to Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations — I just haven't seen any other suggestion that appears acceptable to both sides of this debate. That said, if a consensus develops around Category:Greek love, I'll support it, despite my quibbles above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is amusing that "Greek love" should be indicted on suspicion of being a euphemism, since one of my main objections to the proposed title (besides its wordiness) is just that. What is this "associated with"?! The man was clearly IN love with males. As for my edit to the Greek love article, yes, the term has been used euphemistically - but that was in a time when the options were few, and widely condemned. This is a century later, and now the term is in wide use to refer to the whole gamut of same-sex relations and affections - and indeed to differentiate it from "homosexuality". It's advantage is that it harbors under one roof chaste love / ideal love - including its philosophical underpinnings - and sexual love. It also brings together pederasty and androphilia, and places the focus (accurately, to my mind) not on the physical but on the emotional aspect of the relationship. Finally, it sidesteps the debate on orientation.

On the ethnic side, one never knows what will get someone's goat, but I could hardly think of a more complementary and elegant reference to what is undeniably one of contributions of ancient Greeks to modern society - and we should not run in fear of bigots. As for the authors I mentioned, they are all in earnest, so to speak. Haiduc 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is important to be in earnest. ;)

Alexander "clearly in love with males"? While I agree that it seems clear to me, the scholarship doesn't give us anything more than "probable" and "likely". Which is the reason I suggested "associated with" — he's associated by reputable scholars with same-sex love. I'll refrain from further judgment on "Greek love" until others have a chance to chime in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the category which Josiah came up with Category:Historical figures associated with same-sex relations is the more approriate one to place on Alexander the Great, who was Greek. Mallaccaos 15 October 2006

I still don't think "Greek love" is our best option here. I associate the phrase much more strongly with 19th century England than ancient Greece, and I would expect to see Oscar Wilde in such a category more than I would expect Anacreon. Despite the examples of titles that Haiduc has turned up, I think Josiah's right that the term gets used in titles but not in the main text of Halperin et al., or that "Greek love" occurs in scare quotes, because it's perceived as a euphemism. Here's a relevant quote from David Halperin, "How to Do The History of Male Homosexuality" GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6.1 (2000) p. 94: "The nineteenth-century sexologists who systematically elaborated the distinction between pederasty ("Greek love") and passivity ("contrary sexual feeling" or "inversion of the sexual instinct") based it on an even more fundamental distinction between perversity and perversion,..."

I strongly prefer a category that applies to ancient Greece; after all, the whole reason "LGBT history" was objectionable is because it was felt to be alien to Greek conceptions of sexual identity. A category like "Historical figures associated with same-sex relations", which could include the article Abraham Lincoln, seems to have the exact same problem. I'll say again that I think the best option is "Homosexuality in ancient Greece", but since that's gotten such strong objection, I'm sticking with "ancient Greek sexuality". I'm happy to consider other options, but I want the category to be specific to the ancient world. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear your argument, Akhilleus, and I'm OK with Category:Ancient Greek sexuality (or Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece — whichever wording people support). Such a category could be placed in the parent category Category:History of human sexuality, and could include articles like Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. I'm not sure whether or not it would be appropriate to place it under Category:LGBT history, but we can figure that out later, I suppose. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's try a systematic approach. "Greek love" is out for various reasons. "Associated with" is out likewise. Anything that is not specifically related to relations between people of the same gender is likewise inappropriate since that is our topic. And as per Akhilleus, we need to be somewhat specific about time period. How about Category:Same-sex desire in antiquity? Haiduc 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus and Josiah's proposal: I also feel that Category:Ancient Greek sexuality could be the best solution.--Aldux 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus, Josiah and Aldux that Category:Ancient Greek sexuality or Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece are the best solutions. Mallaccaos 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Akhilleus, Josiah, Aldux and Mallaccaos on Category:Ancient Greek sexuality, I also agree that Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece is another solution. Apro 16 October 2006

Nothing wrong with this category, it just does not address the issues we have been discussing. Haiduc 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But it does. Not as directly as "Greek homosexuality" or "LGBT history" do, but it places a category tag on the article indicating that it has content relating to Alexander's sexuality, and placing it in the context of how the ancient Greeks viewed sexual, erotic and romantic relationships. That context includes the nuanced views of homosexual and pederastic relationships addressed in other articles, which could also be placed in Category:Ancient Greek sexuality. What we want is to place Alexander in the context of his day, a context in which sexual relations between males was unremarkable (if bound by complex social rules). I think that "Ancient Greek sexuality" does that. No, it doesn't explicitly say "Alexander was male-oriented", but the article addresses that question. I think this is a fair compromise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, were Dover's book titled "Greek Sexuality", were Crompton's work titled "Sexuality and Civilization", were Hubbard's sourcebook titled "Sexuality in Greece and Rome" and were Verstraete and Provencal's anthology titled "Desire and Love in Graeco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West" I might well withdraw and consider my monomania a matter strictly between me and my doctor. But the fact is that none of those works are so dubbed, that what we are discussing in particular are same-sex attractions that in any reputable venue are indicated to be specifically that.

You could conceivably argue that is no less correct - only less precise - to file it under some over-arching vague category so as to avoid stepping on the sensibilities of those who for nationalistic reasons are uncomfortable with the more accurate indexing. It is however a circumlocution. It is also a terrible precedent. None of the authors I noted above elected to paper over the nature of the relationships studied, none saw fit to claim, with a wink and a nod, that - well - the Greeks saw it all as part of sexuality so why shouldn't we do the same?! So forgive me if I decline to put my name to this proposal. Haiduc 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Josiah's statement above and since there are scholars out there such as Bruce Thornton who do title their books Ancient Greek Sexuality I don't see how the arguement that the Category:Ancient Greek sexuality is not an approriate category for this article. Mallaccaos 18 October 2006

There's a quote from Thornton on this talk page that shows that he uses the words "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" in the text of his book. None of the editors who oppose using the word "homosexuality" have ever offered a secondary source that supports their position, whereas ample evidence has been provided that scholars use the term as a matter of course. This is exactly why I say there's an NPOV problem here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thornton might use words like "homosexuality" but he also uses words like "heterosexual", he also specifically goes into great detail to explain Eros the way the ancient Greeks saw it and makes the distinction of terms like "homosexuality" and "heterosexual" are modern identities and not terms ancient Greeks/Peoples would be familiar with. "What we notice about these few examples is that even a beautiful nature is the scene of fatal encounters for humans with the numinous inhuman powers filled with cosmos- and one of the most potent and destructive of those powers is sex. We must not, then think of "nature" in our terms but in the Greeks', in which nature is the collection of chaotic forces and processes in the teeth of which humans create their orders of identity."[2] Thorton goes into great detail on the subject matter:[3] Apro 18 October 2006

I do not find your quote relevant. However, I do agree with your argument that the term "homosexual" is a bit loaded, which is why I suggested we use the term "same-sex desire." Not "love," because love was not always a factor, and not "relations" because that implies a physicality that was also not always a factor. But I don't think you can argue that there was ever in these relationships an absence of desire. Haiduc 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read Thornton's book, so I have a pretty good idea of what he's arguing. I quoted him above--here's part of what he says: "Thus the evidence from anicent Greece involves either man-youth homosexuality (the idealized social relationship we will discuss in Chapter 8), or the precisely defined passive homosexual or kinaidos, the adult male who perversely enjoys being penetrated by other males and who has sex with women only because of societal pressure." Thornton calls pederasty a type of homosexuality. He calls kinaidoi "passive homosexuals". As Apro points out, Thornton also uses the term "heterosexual". Why is Thornton's book an example of why we can't use the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" to describe the ancient world, when he does so himself? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Thornton does not use terms like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" as labels for his ancient subjects and goes into great lenght to differentiate those terms, which are sexual identities in today's society, with that of what the ancient Greeks saw as Eros. In conclusion I have to say that I agree with both Josiah and Mallaccaos that Ancient Greek Sexuality is the most approriate category. Apro 18 October 2006

Well then, you're basically saying that Thornton uses "homosexual", "homosexuality", and "heterosexual" descriptively, rather than normatively--basically, you're saying that he does what Halperin recommends. Why shouldn't we do the same? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Thornton quite clearly tells us that modern terms such as "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" were not part of ancient Greek identity, that Eros to the ancient Greeks was a form of "nature": "one of the most potent and destructive of those powers is sex. We must not, then think of "nature" in our terms but in the Greeks"; We are also told: "A second view of nature was that it was an assemblage of destructive forces overthrowing reason and law. It was savage and monstrous and inhuman. In these terms eros is a natural energy flowing out from humans onto ANY object — same-sex paramour, child, relative or beast. There is no qualitatively distinct category of "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because by definition eros is indiscriminate. Thus a Greek would not categorize as homosexual a man who has penetrated another. Any limitations of eros arise not from the inherent nature of sexual activity that directs itself toward one object or another, but from the literally unnatural — the codes, laws, customs and institutions of society that define the proper and im proper objects and occasions of sexual activity.". Apro 18 October 2006

Yes, I've read that part of the book also. Nevertheless, Thornton uses the terms "homosexual" throughout his book as a descriptive term, as the passages I've quoted demonstrate. You still haven't answered the question: why can't we use the terms "homosexual", "homosexuality", and "heterosexual" in the way that Thornton and Halperin do? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Because no matter how it is spinned it will be applying modern terms to ancient peoples who did not identify nor associate themselves with as Thornton clearly states above: "There is no qualitatively distinct category of "homosexual" or "heterosexual" because by definition eros is indiscriminate. Thus a Greek would not categorize as homosexual a man who has penetrated another." Apro 18 October 2006

This argument doesn't fly. What you're doing is using a quotation from Thornton to argue against what Thornton actually does; Thornton uses the terms "homosexual", "homosexuality", and "heterosexual" throughout his book. Furthermore, it's clear that Halperin, Dover, Hubbard, Crompton, Wohl and many others who are prominent scholars of classical antiquity use these terms. Why should your personal opinion count for more than these scholars', especially when you have not provided a single source that supports your views? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because these terms are used in his book does not mean they would be correct to categorize ancient Greeks under them, that is not my "opinion" since Thornton strongly argues as much through out his works. Nor does he categorize any ancient Greeks under these terms. Thornton clearly differentiate between what we use as modern terms to mean "homosexual" and "heterosexual" from that of what the ancient Greeks associate such activities with. He goes on to further state: "If we look at male homosexuality as we understand it today, there are two adult partners. In Greece, the kinaidos is the passive homosexual whose inability to control his appetite, his itch for sexual pleasure, induces him to forsake his masculinity and submit to anal penetration. In either concept of nature, the kinaidos is condemned: The kinaidos become the emblem of unrestrained compulsive sexual appetite, or surrender to the chaos of natural passion that threatens civilized order, a traitor to his sex, a particularly offensive manifestation of eros’s power over the masculine mind that is responsible for creating and maintaining that order in the face of nature’s chaos." And its not just a quotation from Thornton but what he is argues in all his work. Also I was under the impression that a category was suppose to be reached which was in consensus to all and seeing as to how this article is not about Homosexuality but Alexander's biography, just a portion of it that talks about his "relationships" which have been in dispute, I don't see how applying the term "homosexuality" in the article still applies. Apro 18 October 2006

What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. You acknowledge that Thornton uses "homosexuality", "homosexual" and "heterosexuality", and that's ok because he makes it clear that there's a difference between modern concepts and ancient concepts. Yet you're argue that Wikipedia cannot do the same thing. Yet we have an article, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, which explains the differences between the modern concept and what the ancient Greeks did (and even cites Thornton). This is reflected in the Alexander article by the sentence "It should be noted that the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist in Greco-Roman antiquity."

You ask why I'm still arguing with you. It's a good question, because it seems futile. However, I'm still writing about this because I feel that our consensus was reached without proper regard for scholarship, and because, as Haiduc indicated, whatever category gets created can/should be used in other articles. If the compromise of Category:ancient Greek sexuality gets used as a stealthy way to eliminate mention of homosexuality from other classical articles, I'll regard it as a failure. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thornoton might use such terms but he never titled his works as such. Also this article is not about "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece" but the biography of Alexander the Great, now some people want to add a category on his supposed sexuality because a portion of the article makes mention of of suppode such relations. Well that's fine but using a category such as "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece", a term which has its bases in modern ideology and in essence a labeler of sexual identifier towards ancient individuals who never identified themselves as such, and at least we know some scholars are in agreement with that much, does not make sense. Apro 18 October 2006

More on categories, because I'm tired of scrolling down.

I don't know that the reluctance is nationalistic, but I have to admit to the value of your larger point. We are an encyclopedia and should be calling it what it is. The difficulties seem to be with the name of the category, so perhaps that's where they should be addressed - anyone uncertain as to what the category means or is about can look at an article on that category. This article could well address the differences in how sexuality, etc was perceived then vs now. Or perhaps there should be (or is) an article devoted to just that. This article or that category could be linked to that article, too. --Badger151 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Homosexuality in ancient Greece addresses exactly these concerns. As I've written many times, the term "homosexuality" is used by almost every classical scholar writing on the topic of same-sex relations/relationships in ancient Greece (and Rome, for that matter). These scholars understand quite well that ancient conceptions of sex and sexuality were not the same as those of modern western society, and the differences are spelled out in Homosexuality in ancient Greece. A number of articles, including Pederasty in ancient Greece and Philosophy of Greek pederasty, are also relevant; it's not as if WP is lacking in explanations of what scholars think about this topic. However, several editors have made it quite clear that they won't accept a category that includes "homosexuality" and will only accept "same-sex" under certain conditions. In my opinion, this flies in the face of scholarship and is a violation of the NPOV policy. But this is the impasse that we've been trying to work through, and why we've come up with Sexuality in ancient Greece", which I agree is not an ideal solution. But it's about the best compromise we can get among the editors who are currently active on this talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg pardon; you have mentioned this several times. Would there be objections to adding a link to Homosexuality in ancient Greece under a "See also" section in the article? It might fit better as a "See also" in the section on his personal life than as an association with the entire article. Hypothetically, a short statement on the different conceptions on sex and sexuality could also be made: "See also homosexuality in ancient Greece for a discussion of ancient Greek conceptions of sex and sexuality." --Badger151 03:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Badger, in case you got the impression that I was irritated with you, that isn't the case at all; I was just expressing my frustration with the current state of the debate. If you missed my posting about the use of "homosexuality" by classical scholars, I can't blame you--this debate has gone on for so long that no reasonable Wikipedian should be expected to read it all. Anyway, I think the suggestion in your last sentence is valuable, and something like that could be added at the end of the "Personal life" section, where currently reads: " It should be noted that the concept of homosexuality as understood today did not exist in Greco-Roman antiquity. If Alexander's love life was transgressive, it was not for his love of beautiful youths but for his persistent love of a man his own age." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New RfC on WP:RFC/BIO

The previous RfCs were on the "History and Geography" RfC page, but I probably should have put them on the "Biography" page. I listed an RfC there also. I think we have a compromise that most of us can live with, but it can't hurt to have more input. Here's what the RfC says:

• Talk:Alexander the Great -- A section of this article, "Personal life", has material on Alexander's sexuality. There has been an extensive discussion, including some RfCs over at WP:RFC/HIST, about whether the article should have a category for this section, and editors have arrived at a tentative consensus of a new category, Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece. Some editors have expressed reservations, and more input would be welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with both Category:Ancient Greek sexuality and Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece as alternative categories. Apro 18 October 2006

• • I take exception to the description of the situation. Consensus has not been reached. We have simply slid towards the last and worse recourse, appeasement. The suggested category is absolutely unacceptable since it is a mask for the fact that what is being discussed is the predilection of Alexander to enter into love relationships with other males. This category is blatantly biased and "flies in the face of scholarship and is a violation of the NPOV policy," as another editor so aptly put it above. Haiduc 00:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, if you think there's no consensus, feel free to edit the RfC. I think I've made it clear, at great length, that I'm not pleased with how we reached this point; after all, I wrote the words that you quote.

In an attempt to get some new voices involved, I have also requested the involvement of the mediation cabal; any other suggestions on how we can get additional input would be welcome. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece and Category:Ancient Greek sexuality are both agreable to me. Mallaccaos 18 October 2006