Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes

Mostly harmless

I just noticed this edit summary of yours, Sir Gawain McGarson:

"reverting numerous changes by anon. IP number clearly aimed at demoting caveat material - our pederast friends are at it again"

Really? And how did you come to the conclusion? I was that IP editor, editing without bothering to log in as I was disillusioned with Wikipedia at that time (still am). I find being characterized as a pederast for daring to make the article more NPOV more than a little insulting. The article was inappropriately giving Wikipedia's voice to the views of one modern historian - David Leitao, making it seem like his views were the most widely accepted and that the ancient sources and other modern historians were all simply mistaken. And no, the fact that this opinion is only Leitao's was not stipulated by the one who originally added them User:McOoee. McOoee's changes seem to be aimed at reducing the overall homosexual nature of the band (probably from personal beliefs), even if it meant characterizing the original source as a "questionable authority".

I didn't even remove Leitao's views, I merely specifically stated that it was his opinion and his opinion alone, not Wikipedia's and not that of the other sources and accordingly reduced its prominence in the lead. Furthermore, it was not me who characterizes the relationships between the soldiers as pederasty. Homosexual yes, pederastic only in the sense that the pairings were of older and younger men. The parabátai were most assuredly young men, not children, men old enough to fight and die in wars, so the alleged connection to boy love (which I personally find disgusting) is nonsensical as well.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, why don't we just expand the article while we're at it. I'll gather more sources (regardless of whether they were pro and against Plutarch's account). And leave it at that.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, first my comment was aimed at an IP number whose edit looked highly suspicious. I would expect rough treatment if I edited an article as an IP number, demoting important material on a subject as problematic as pederasty. The ancient account doesn't use a term equivalent to 'homosexualityy'. That's a modern term. Emphasizing the ancient account is emphasizing pederasty and that has pedophile connotations. The article was short on scholarly sources when I found it. It was Original Research. You demoted Leitao's views and removed them from the caption. I accept your word that your edit was not tendentious. However Leitao is a modern scholar who has studied the primary sources and readers are entitled to know his findings at the outset. Your source is Plutarch. Plutarch distances himself from his own account and readers should know that his account was in fact a minority view. I also am trying to counter POV. I'm restoring my edit as yours is based on OR and minimizes the role of research. Oh and I should add that I was McOoee.

Just noticed your additional comment. Yes by all means expand the article. But don't demote scholarly literature that specifically addresses the credibility of the ancient account. Thanks. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How is reporting the account as is, OR? This article is first and foremost about Plutarch's account, any interpretations by modern historians are secondary. This is not Sacred Band of Thebes according to David Leitao is it? And of course Leitao's views are valid, hence why I didn't remove him. But to adopt his stance unequivocally with Wikipedia's voice (i.e. without attribution to the interpretation being Leitao's), is not NPOV. That's deliberately confusing the original account with a modern interpretation that calls it a lie.

Leitao himself admits that the existence of such couples in other ancient Greek military were abundantly attested (e.g. Xenophon). And other historians, when discussing Leitao, point out Plutarch's account rests on far less shaky authority than many things accepted in ancient historiography.

Are you even getting my point?

Anyway the article as is has numerous inaccuracies. They are described as hoplites for instance despite describing them earlier as charioteers (they were in fact hippeis, elite cavalry units, not infantry). I'll expand the article with more sources tomorrow as I'm too tired at the moment, with emphasis on sources other than Leitao, which currently controls the tone of the entire article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reporting the account as is? The article quoted Plutarch out of context. That is not reporting as is. As I said, by all means expand things. But don't cite any primary source without also citing a modern scholar's interpretation of that source (I don't want your interpretation, even though I respect your right to a personal opinion) and don't go beyond the subject matter. This is about the Sacred Band, not about homosexuality in the ancient Greek miitary, nor is it a chance for contributors to indulge in wishful thinking. There is in fact almost nothing about the Sacred Band in ancient literature, and even less about its sexual orientation. However, you may find numerous references to the Band in all kinds of literature. Happy reading! Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And your own opinion is not any less "wishful thinking"? I don't want your opinion either. May I remind you of the first commandment of WP:NPOV? Note that it's not the only one you've broken but it's your most common:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

A single-source interpretation is not any more or less authoritative than other historians' accounts, which outnumber Leitao in accepting the historicity of the band. In fact, Leitao, is the only historian who specifically questions Plutarch's account, and is thus the most controversial, and you chose him to speak as the article's voice? Why? Leitao's own case rests equally on presumptions. And almost nothing, is not quite nothing no? What about Dinarchus? Dio Chrysostom? Athenaeus of Naucratis? Were they also simply fabricating stuff? What about the corpses beneath the Lion of Chaeronea which Leitao dismisses simply because Plutarch does not mention it and it's 50 short, not providing an alternative explanation even then. Less can be said for much of the history you don't dare to question because none of them involve homosexual couples.¹ And like it or not, that is the main reason for the fame of the Band in the first place.

And now that I've realized that you ARE User:McOoee, you've been doing this to all related articles as well. That begs the question just who is being tendentious here?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

¹And don't lecture me about homosexuality being a modern word, I'm referring to the same sex nature of the relationships, rather than applying a modern cultural definition to the Greek tradition. As is your claim of pedophile connotations which seems based on hysteria, the younger of the pairings are men of fighting age, hardly children. You might as well accuse most men in history of being pedophiles because before the late 20th century, brides were ideally married off between 14 and 16.

Most scholars refer to the Sacred Band in relation to other issues. Leitao is interested only in the Band and in the credibility of the ancient account. No point arguing. Come up with the sources. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason. The first guideline of WP:NPOV is very clear. And his view is still the minority, and thus the most controversial. And that's not even true. Leitao's treatise was part of a larger work discussing sexuality among ancient Greeks, and he himself makes the caveat that his goal is ultimately not to "offer decisive proof that Thebes never had an erotically constituted fighting force" but to examine how it might have originated and on what basis. And what about DeVoto, Crompton, Dover, Armstrong, etc.?

Anyway I'm currently revising the article to include a wider range of references. It will take a few days (still awaiting access to DeVoto's paper). Please do not revert anything while I'm doing it. This is definitely not among my normal topics. I have a lot of far more important things lined up for Wikipedia, and I'd appreciate it very much if this remained civil and doesn't devolve into an edit war.

And can you at least insert "According to classicist David Leitao" in your other additions as well? So I won't have to scour your contribs for where you've inserted this in Leitao's voice. Even without my expansion, those insertions are already violating WP:NPOV. I know you did in the Sacred Band's mention in Pederasty for example. You don't have to change anything, just clarify that it's Leitao's analysis and not the general view on the matter.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My expectation is that Leitao's findings will have a full and prominent place in this article .i.e. in the intro. Plutarch's account needs to be interpreted in the light of those findings. The other sources you mention are not specifically concerned with the Theban Sacred Band, but refer to it as only one consideration among many in addressing broader issues. I won't stop you citing them. However, I will of course revise your edit if I think you are aiming to water down Leitao's findings or if you are trying to bury them under a weight of irrelevant information. My advice is don't try to present the band as an historical fact (you are on weak ground there) but rather try to develop its significance as a cultural icon. We should be on the same wavelength then. Plutarch himself was responding to its iconic significance. Hopefully, I'll be pleasantly surprised by your edits, but I've seen too much nonsense in articles like this to expect much at the moment. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing yourself. The historicity of the band has never been in question. It was itself the inspiration for similar elite units like the Sacred Band of Carthage, are you saying they were not historical too? Leitao's work itself was about the historicity of the composition of the band, not on whether the band itself existed or not. Get your arguments straight.

Leitao's work will be present in the lead, rest assured. But attributed specifically to him. His interpretation will be specifically separated in a criticism section. And weak ground? Hardly. There are too many sources that do not agree with him (including archeological ones and ones by eminent historians we actually have articles on). Percy himself acknowledges Leitao but criticizes that Leitao's arguments were similarly based on suppositions, dismissing not just Plutarch, but also Dinarchus, Dio Chrystostom, Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus, Athenaeus, Thucydides, Diodorus, etc. who are the sources for much of Ancient Greek history today. Much of his arguments are based on literal mindreading based on Plutarch's supposed weasel wording.

And how'd you figure that it's a requirement to specifically filter the account through Leitao? I've already told you that the rationale that other sources are irrelevant because of "not being specifically concerned" with the Theban Sacred Band is groundless. I'm pointing out DeVoto, Crompton, et al. again, whose works were specifically about the Sacred Band, not to mention military historians recreating specific battles. Unless you can tell us exactly how and why Leitao is more WP:RS than the other "irrelevant" historians, the answer is no. See WP:DUE--- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, your edit is certainly better than your lead-up suggested it would be. At least now we can all see your sources and know exactly where you are coming from. As for confusing myself, no, just not expressing myself carefully enough. Just glancing at your comments, I'm wondering for instance what Herodotus and Thucydides have to say about the Sacred Band? There are other issues we can address later. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have to ask that, you haven't read Leitao. But I digress, inviting more editors here would be a better way to settle this later. I'll bow to consensus and policies, not decrees on subjective reliability and the ensuing due weight to be adopted.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, Thucydides and Herodotus are cited as exemplars of a generic argument (p 156) and they are also in the notes: Herodotus (n. 50, referring to a citation by Dover) and Thucyd. (n. 5, 36, 56), which are of marginal significance. It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge the effort you have put into this article. Your editing as an IP number set alarm bells ringing, and mysterious comments such as This article is first and foremost about Plutarch's account, any interpretations by modern historians are secondary, didn't help (mysterious because it doesn't hint at the competent work that was to follow). I'll be interested to see how you fit Leitao into it. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm wading through a lot of unfamiliar territory here, and not even half done yet. Though it's surprisingly quite enjoyable. Anyway, I'm saving Leitao for last, and as mentioned, he will probably have to be separated into a whole new section. Unless you'd want the entire article to read like "He said this, he said that, but Leitao disagrees because of this and that" at every paragraph.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Pleased to hear that you enjoy it. I see from your contributions that you are basically a science man. I'm basically a literature man and I too am not in familiar territory here. However, we'll make do since nobody else has bothered to fix this mess up for years. Something I noticed in your source Rockwell: he supports Leitao's view. I quote – "From the way Plutarch introduces this material it is clear that the notion of the Theban Sacred Band as a military unit composed of paired lovers was a variant tradition, opposed probably to a dominant tradition that simply related the unit's elite status and military prowess. His use of [Greek: enioi de phasin] is a way for Plutarch to distance himself from the sensitive issue of male homosexuality." p.23-24

I found this also, relating Plutarch's account to Plato's Symposium, but by a different author, A Georgiadou – Plutarch "...sees this love of the [Greek: erastai] and [Greek:eromenoi] of the Sacred Band through Platonist eyes and assumes that it was so called because of Plato's description of the lover as 'divine friend'. He suggests thereby that their love did not seek physical expression but aimed at the goal of the beloved object. (A. Georgiadou, Plutarch's Pelopidas: A Historical and Philological Commentary, Stuttgart 1997, 155-56)

Checking out my OCD: its article on the Sacred Band notes that the Band's military significance is hard to assess, its role at Leuctra is controversial, and the Band's burial under the Lion Monument is disputed. The sources for the article are J. de Voto, Ancient World 1992, and J. Buckler, Theban Hegemony 1980.

So, in summary of my prelimnary researches, Leitao's position cannot be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think. I'd like to see these positions covered in the article. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the way you think. Rockwell thinks Plutarch's use of distancing language is because the Band was itself unique in terms of other elite units, strange enough to be explicitly mentioned and strange enough that he does not identify with it. A view I've also found in other historians. But so are Theban and Elean practices, really (during that time period of course), in terms of their social structure, particularly their attitudes to pederasty which was (apparently) freely allowed to be physically consummated (in contrast to the Platonic ideal). Remember one thing: Plato was an Athenian and "Greece" back then was far from being a monolithic culture.

And yes to all of that of course, I'm not planning to suppress any disputes, merely present them in the appropriate weight in proportion to their significance in the actual sources. And yes, my topic of choice is Biology, and I encounter these situations frequently - established theories being challenged by newer controversial ones. Leitao is the challenger of an established view. Regardless of how compelling his arguments might be to you, the only "peer" that has acknowledged his "hypothesis" AFAIK is Percy, and Percy opposes it. While his position certainly should not be dismissed lightly, it should not displace the more stable position of the majority of his fellow historians either. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your response to the Rockwell quote I just gave you. He clearly recognizes two traditions and he says the erotic tradition was not the dominant one. That's also Leito's position. Rockwell also says on page 19 that the band "...supposedly was a unit composed of 150 pairs of men, each consisting of a lover and a beloved." That's distancing language. Rockwell goes on to add that he thinks members of the band may have been groomed from among Theban youth by pederastic relationships. But he does not think the band was structured as a band of lovers. I certainly expect you to moderate your opening to the article, seeing that we have two very recent sources aligning themselves with the dominant tradition. In other words, what this article needs is some distancing language of its own. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's WP:SYNTHESIS to assume he's supporting Leitao when he nevers mention him by name. Like Leitao, you're reading too much into semantics and ignoring everything else. Imagine this example for a neighborhood where houses are predominantly painted red:

"There's a house there on the bend of the road. And another a little further on. And in front of that is a rundown house. They say that house used to be blue."

I am also indicating that a blue house is a minority tradition, as opposed to the usual practice of having a red house. I am not indicating that the house was never really blue or merely blue in some parts. Likewise, Rockwell is not indicating two traditions where one recognizes the erotic nature of the band and the other does not. But two separate traditions where other elite units are not institutionally pederastic but the Sacred Band is. i.e. it's not in relation to people who disagree with the account, but in relation to surrounding/contemporary practices that differ from it.

Rockwell indeed mentions the author who claims that the love was merely Platonic (though even in such a case, that makes no difference as it would still be composed of erastês and erômenos and would still be homosexual in nature, regardless if they contented themselves to sighing and hugging each other). More importantly, that was not his last conclusion. He goes on to specifically mention Xenophon's own observations of Boeotian and Elean practices of men and youths being virtually married to each other. Not to mention his interpretation that flute-playing may actually be a reference to fellatio. He also quotes J.M. Moore to point out that Xenophon's typically Athenian view on the matter (of it purportedly being restricted to feelings with no touching) was defensive and naive as a result of Xenophon's well-known strong pro-Spartan views (Sparta also practiced pederasty widely), clashing with his Athenian view on the institution of pederasty in military training (which was indeed widespread).

And in conclusion he says: In all likelihood, pederasty was a part of the recruitment process for the Sacred Band, and homosexuality among its members a continuation of these bonds, especially given that members lived together as a unit stationed in Cadmea.

That doesn't strike me as supporting any of Leitao's arguments. It's not something one would say if he believed it was merely incidental and happening only in a few members of the ranks like in other elite troops.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As for "needing a distancing language of its own", I'm already doing that, aren't I? I specifically attribute which accounts belong to which. The account of them being composed of paired lovers is Plutarch's and labeled as such.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As for my own opinion on the matter, I believe Plutarch's account of 150 neatly paired off couples is also typical of literary narrative stylization when it comes to numbers. It's a stretch after all to imagine what would happen if one of them were to die, or if couples broke up. But like Rockwell, and unlike Leitao, I believe that the band itself is wholly composed of lovers, given their origin and isolated and close-quartered circumstances (to put it bluntly, exclusively homosexual), which justifies Plutarch's later claims and Xenophon and Plato's contemporary references to the practice. The dominant tradition being that the erômenoi were usually not part of the military unit of their erastai, if they fought at all. It's important to note that Leitao doubts the existence of the band itself (though he does not argue why), which colors his entire arguments focused on denying Plutarch's account of the composition of the Band.

But that's neither here or there. We go with the sources, not on what we think is likely to have happened. Perspective, context, and weight. In terms of that, Leitao is only one of the different interpretations, and the only one to actually deny the existence of homosexual relationships within the Band itself. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rabbit Hole

Pederasty was part of the social background in the fourth century. All Greek units were made up of pederasts. The question is whether the Sacred Band was organized along erotic lines, in couples. According to the minority tradition, they were. According to the dominant tradition they weren't (that doesn't deny the sexual attitudes among soldiers at the time, or the chance of informal sexual relations among them). I think that's where you are getting the wrong angle on things. I also think you are not distinguishing between pederasty and homosexuality. At that time, sexual relationships were supposed to be unequal, one partner being dominant. So pederasty was considered OK since it was OK for a man to dominate a youth. But homosexuality was frowned on because it put one man in an inferior position. That's why Ferrill says "Homosexuality was rife in ancient times, but it was as controversial in antiquity as it is today", and that's how he explains Xenophon's disapproval. Likewise Rockwell talks about Plutarch's sensitivity to homosexuality. That's why Rockwell can talk about youths being recruited by erotic relationships, and also how these could continue as homosexual relationship, but he's not arguing that the band was structured along erotic lines, in couples. Since you offered some personal opinions, I'll offer mine. A military unit made of lovers would be like a military unit made of married couples. "Did you put out the garbage?" "You're getting more and more like your mother every day." "You leave my mother out of this!" It's just ridiculous. The minority tradition was championed by moral philosophers who were not concerned much with practical realities. I might add, ancient Greece is not a proper role model for modern homosexuals, but the Sacred Band has become a gay icon and it's difficult to argue about these these things objectively. Anyway, that's my POV. The fact is there are two traditions, one that mentions the erotic nature of the band, and one that doesn't. That needs to be stipulated at the outset. Similarly controversy about the band's military significance should also be stated at the outset. Actually, I don't think we are far off consensus. The article is already much better than it was. It is no longer Plutarch reconstituted for promotional purposes. But, I think the icon thing is causing you to favour some interpretations rather than others. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agh. The part about minority and majority tradition again. Let me explain again. You, like Leitao, use those terms to denote opinions on whether the Sacred Band was pederastic or not. Other authors use those to denote that the Sacred Band's alleged practice is unique in contrast to other military institutions. Don't conflate the two. And yes, the resurgence of interest in the Sacred Band today is primarily because of the crap about DADT in the US. That means there are just as many who would dearly love to see it dismissed to validate their view that gays should not serve, as there are those who want it to be more than what it really was to function as role models on a pedestal.

As I've already stated I actually agree with you that the Band was not explicitly structured along erotic lines. But it was not a "minority tradition" in the sense that it only existed incidentally within the Band either which would beg the question as to why it was reported in the first place. Claiming it's wishful thinking among Greek moralists holds no water when some of those who report it frown on the practice. They'd be more likely to suppress it if that was the case. And I disagree on the ridiculousness of lovers in a military unit. The "practical realities" of classical Greece is not exactly the same practical realities of married couples today. Greek and Roman heroic traditions even explicitly pair up heroes, using the emotional bond to further make a tragedy even more tragic. Hercules and Hylas for example, during the voyage of the Argo. Not to mention the numerous depictions of it in their arts. And again, I'm using the word homosexuality only in the sense that it's a same-sex sexual relationship, like all the authors you've mentioned. With no connotations as to what the modern definition is. It's scientific jargon, not an ethnonym.

But though there have been a lot of opinions around it (during the Victorian period it was even suppressed entirely, relegating their relationships instead to close friendship) and regardless of our own opinions, our role here is simply to report what historians say, not on deciding which of the viewpoints have more merits. The proportion of the opinions in reliable sources, not on what opinion deserves center place because you happen to believe in it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. The significance of the band and the reliability of the sources are disputed in the scholarly literature. That's fact. This article still ignores those doubts. Where is there a scholarly debate in this article? The modern scholarship cited here gave me hopes that you were attempting a critique of a legend. But the citations turn out to be a dummy, put up for show, while you echo a selection of primary sources. Or are you getting around to a fuller development? Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I count exactly 1 scholar who disputes the significance and historicity of the Band. You want me to blow up his importance by making it seem like 99% of the academe are throttling each other over the Sacred Band and publishing paper after paper on the lies told by your favorite Greek classical scholar? It's what you did in your carefully worded previous version that covered up the fact that Leitao was alone in his opinions quite neatly. And a "critique of a legend"... eh? May I remind you that this is Wikipedia, not Essay 101?

I use as many sources as I can, from as many viewpoints as I can. The viewpoint echoed by the most number of sources gets more space, and in this case Leitao is the obvious minority. I do not pick and choose which one to believe in, like you were doing. I use them all. These are the very basics of Wikipedia policies. If you did not know this by now, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV again as it seems like you skipped it on orientation day.

I'm tired of repeating myself. From now on, just please tell me exactly what Wikipedia policy I'm breaking with my edits and I will try to fix it. Until then, I'm inviting more editors from the involved Wikiprojects to help settle this while I resume work on the article. And yes I'm far from being done.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And before you can complain further, yes I will give the criticism section a more thorough treatment later. But I will not, I repeat, I will not suppress the rest of the [more dominant] viewpoints either. I might add that I'm using primary references correctly (no they are not forbidden), if you even bothered to read WP:PRIMARY.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your private critique of the legend but the critique given by scholars. I've already identified some for you.

• Leito's position is supported by Rockwell re a dominant tradition concerning an elite unit and a minority tradition about a band of lovers
• The Oxford Classical Dictionary cites two sources, J. de Voto, Ancient World 1992, and J. Buckler, Theban Hegemony 1980, in a short article stating that the Band's military significance is hard to assess, its role at Leuctra is controversial, the Band's burial under the Lion Monument is disputed, positions akin to those put forward by Leitao
• Plutarch is far and away the major source for the legend, and both Leitao and Rockwell critique his motives, and I've already cited Georgiadou's interpretation, and there is also Eva Cantarella (Bisexuality in the Ancient world, 1992, pages 71-2), who construes his mention of the Band as an attempt to assure his readers that homosexuality is not to be condemned though Plutarch himself favours heterosexuality.

I haven't even scratched the surface. I didn't search for these sources; they are the result of some cursory reading on my part. Plutarch is not an historian but a moral philosopher and raconteur. Leitao identifies 11 authors, most of them who mention the Band very briefly in passing. A well researched article should name and summarize the sources, and the way that modern, especially recent scholars interpret their significance. This article so far is a naive re-warming of some primary sources, as if they were historical fact.

How many times now have you flashed WP policies and guidelines at me? You're like a police car. Anything that isn't in the Book of Common Sense is breakfast for lawyers. My point is, you are writing the article back-to-front. You were right when you said primary sources come first; they come first chronologically. But secondary sources come first methodologically because they provide a context for interpreting the ancient record. You've started this article with a clear idea of what you think the primary sources are saying, and now you are interpreting and selecting secondary sources to fit your interpretation. If you were writing about starfish I wouldn't care about priorities. But this is a key article in a web of articles concerning pederasty. It should be above suspicion. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote most of Timocreon, correct? I see you did exactly what I'm doing (in fact you did it almost exclusively), though I don't much care for the extremely informal subjective tone of your writing. The only difference seems to be that you're perfectly happy directly quoting Plutarch, Athenaeus, and Herodotus when it doesn't involve homosexuality.

Because it's funny that you should mention being above suspicion. How did you word it? "Propagandists and POV-pushers are parasites"? Since I last posted here, I've learned you are one and have probably been laughing at my naive assumption of good faith all this time. I really don't much care for that either. Let me finish the article in peace, and then fire away with specific complaints. If you have any legitimate ones that don't boil down to "I don't want you to imply they were even real", that is. For the last time, I will not misrepresent the sources to match your personal prejudices and your crusade. Stop asking me to. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I should add that many historians who cover the period never even mention the Sacred Band, despite its colorful aspects. That silence isn't carelessness. It's a judgement. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're even implying here. Did you invent a time machine or are you psychic? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all historians consider The Sacred Band a decisive influence on the period's history i.e. the primary sources are not as reliable as you would like them to be. Yes, I think we've both said enough here for the moment. Re the personal stuff, I don't belong to any project but my own, I make no apologies for that. Yes, I'm on a crusade against propaganda. No, Timocreon is not an example of bad editing. I began with the scholarship and then cited the verses and primary sources that were cited by the scholars. I've also written articles about pederastic poets such as Theognis of Megara and Ibycus. Odd that you over-looked those. But you do tend to overlook things you don't want to see. I will be reworking your edit, if necessary, to ensure an objective article on the Sacred Band of Thebes. My hope is, it won't be necessary. There are other things I'd rather be doing. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop making vague references and specify WHO. Which historian. What sources. What statement. I've already used Leitao, DeVoto, and Buckler, and will add more as I find them. Pointing them out will help me greatly, and I will use them without hesitation but with the appropriate due weight. Of course primary sources are not reliable. The references to them are merely to specify where and when it was mentioned and to credit direct quotations. The same thing you've been doing. The description of events here are from history books, the same events discussed in our other articles on Ancient Greek history. Perhaps that's why you wanted a "critique" because you want me to treat this as fictional literature? With in-depth critical examinations of rhyming or wording or whatever it is you do? I'm sorry but I can't do that either.

And what about Theognis and Ibycus? They are also completely sterilized versions. If you didn't identify them as pederastic I would have assumed their poems were addressed to women given that there's absolutely no indication of it in their articles.

As for your lone gunslinger in the wild wild west "project", yep. It's hard to see something when you don't want to see it. Take a long hard look in the mirror. You're not fighting propaganda. You are propaganda. Your objectivity died when you started misrepresenting yourself as different editors over the years with a long reputation of censoring anything that has to do with homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Yes yes you make anarchic pseudo-philosophical explanations about usernames being just electronic blips on the computer or something, but we both know that's bull, don't we? Multiple user accounts make it easier for you to hide your trail, and man, your trail is something else. And I had to find out about it from someone else. Deceit and objectivity are not something I usually find in the same individual.

Any reworking you do, will be assessed in light of your past activities. Impartiality doesn't arrive with a new username, you earn it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And I know. Harsh. But I'm more than a little pissed right now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Caucus Race

I hope you mean pissed off. I'm used to pissing people off, but driving them to drink is a new experience for me. The best thing about your edit is the online citations so that people can check out your interpretations for themselves. For example have a look at your source, The Defense of Attica by Mark H. Munn. He discusses his sources in the section Sources and limits them to Xenophon and Diodorus, none of whom refers to a band of lovers (though Xenophon disparages the sexual mores of Theban soldiers generally). So of course Munn himself says hardly anything at all about the band, nothing about its sexuality. He says the Sacred Band...

"...was a product of needs faced by the Thebans at the outset of the Boiotian War when the crack mercenary force led by Chabrias provided the same model of discipline and high moral for the Athenians." (p. 190)

His interpretation here belongs within the tradition of an elite force, without mention of any sexual organization. So long as you continue to ignore the two traditions, the reader of your article will assume from your intro that you and your sources are always referring to a band of lovers. However, if you read Leitao more carefully, you'll see there is still plenty of room for consensus between us. Leitao is not a homophobic propagandist. He talks about the pederastic mores of the time and adds:

"Our sources for the Sacred band describe a phenomenon quite different from these ordinary pederastic intrusions on army life: 1) the Theban Sacred Band seems to have been composed exclusively of pairs of lovers and beloveds, and 2) these pairs were presumably involved in an active and ongoing relationship of an intense emotional, if not sexual nature. A Sacred Band so constituted would have been radical indeed." (p. 145)

I suggest again that you consult your source Rockwell, whose position on 2 traditions coincides with Leitao. You keep saying Leitao is the only one who takes that position. Both those authors allow for informal sexual relations within the Sacred Band. I've said twice already that the OCD, in a very short article, refers to disputes and controversies among scholars. I guess I'll have to get hold of its cited sources because, reading your article, I get no sense of any divergence at all, except a few comments banished to the end section, like an afterthought that the reader need not take too seriously.

You ask me to look in the mirror. That's impossible. I am the mirror. If people give me crap, crap is what they get back, and articles like this are full of it. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

pissed [pɪst]

adj

1. Brit, Austral, and NZ slang intoxicated; drunk

2. US slang annoyed, irritated, or disappointed

You don't seem British to me.

The best thing about my sources is that they're placed right next to what they're supposed to verify. And where is Munn placed again? Or did you skip that on your orientation day too? And yes I know Leitao isn't homophobic. You, however, are another story. I think I've summarized Leitao well enough in the Criticism section. Though it might still need a bit of tweaking. Rockwell can be added later as I'm looking at other sources for expanding the sections on the battles. Hard enough to do without you constantly whining that I'm not making the subject look bad enough to fit your revulsion of it. And no, Leitao doubts not only that the Band was composed of lovers, but everything about it. That's not even close to Rockwell's position. Nevertheless, if they share the same opinion on something, they'll both be cited... later. Besides we both know that's not really what you're after.

There's not much apparent divergence because there isn't much of any when it comes to what Leitao is proposing. Other authors are merely arguing details. And I'm reflecting them as much as I can (e.g. on the lion being a Theban or Macedonian burial site), without disrupting the flow of what they do agree on. That's primarily in the interest of readability. This is after all, a historical article, not the script for a play. Leitao is unique from all of them, because he's arguing that everything about the Sacred Band is untrue. A view shared by how many exactly? You want me to split the article between several dozen on one side and Leitao on the other? That's like editing the article on Earth and then insisting that half or more of the article space be devoted to explaining how flat it really is, and how the scientists have all lied to us.

Unless they explicitly say what they do or don't believe in, interpreting them as saying something they didn't is mind-reading. And you haven't answered me yet on whether you're psychic or not. What's my favorite color? I specifically looked for that "minority tradition" you kept babbling about and surprise! it's not even close as to what you were imagining it to be. It's amazing how badly you've misread Leitao and are still now applying a dichotomy on everything everyone else is saying, even when they didn't say anything. Didn't it even strike you that Leitao was applying it only on classical scholars? Or that he was the first to propose the hypothesis? And that he did this in 2003? Munn wrote his book in 1993. Or did you really build that time machine and told him about Leitao's hypothesis as well? No my favorite color is not blue.

All your posts have so far boiled down to one thing. If you don't understand why Leitao isn't and will never be my primary source for the entire article, read the Manual of Peace, Joy, Boundless Procreation, Good Fortune, and Rabid Wombats: Double eupais en pée œuvaie. I'll even link you the specific policies that everyone else on Wikipedia follows but you: WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, WP:BALANCE. But you'll just make a crack about me being a police car again, of course. Wew wew wew

And please, enough with your little delusions of having a better grasp of what articles should be when you can't even be arsed to read the policies. I suppose being a mirror can result in writing Pindar's biography backwards at times. Or burst into impromptu poetic "craplessness" in the main text of the article. It's not even a quote or anything, just a frail grasp of what an encyclopedia should be:

"The Muses are to him as an oracle is to a prophet, and lesser poets are to him as ravens are to an eagle; the art of such men is as hackneyed as garland-making; his is magical"

I'm afraid that's all yours, sir knight. See WP:TONE, and when you've at least grasped the basics of what Wikipedia is about, feel free to come back and lecture me on the quality of my editing. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your favourite colour? Don't you remember what it is? But speaking of psychic powers: I can't find any mention of a band of lovers in Central Greece and the Politics of Power in 4th century BC (John Buckler and Hans Beck) nor in Philip II and the Sacred War (John Buckler). That's three cited books I've checked so far and not one supports the tradition of the band of lovers that you so confidently announce in the intro. Add Leitao and Rockwell's scepticism to that silence and there is a good case for mentioning two traditions in the intro, just to cover all bases. However, I must admit that your articles is looking better as it grows. I'll be generous and not claim any credit for that. Regarding your earlier statement about earning respect – it's an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, not a club. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You do know how silly your arguments are, don't you?

• If a reference is placed next to a sentence that says the sky is blue, don't look for mentions that the grass is green.
• If someone does not explicitly say that the grass is green, don't assume he thinks it's orange.

And awww. No mentions in those three? No worries. I can give you hundreds of books alone, all mentioning that the Sacred Band was composed of lovers. That's the majority "tradition" I'm talking about. Happy now?

And of course it's not a club. But that does not excuse deliberately disruptive behavior does it? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive? Good luck with that one! Silly? Do my arguments really seem that way to you? Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly enough. Try again. Leitao says on p.143 that scholars have "tended" to take the lovers tradition at face value. He cites some of these scholars in footnote 1 (Dover 1965, Buffiere 1980, Sergant 1986, De Voto 1992, Ogden 1996). He cites only one scholar as sceptical (Buck 1994). Add to the sceptical list very recent works by Leitao himself and Rockwell. Conclusion: Yes, most scholars favour the lovers tradition, but not all. The word "tended" does not support the notion that the sceptical group is insignificant . Yet your intro to the article doesn't even acknowledge that group and you are referencing some works that do not even mention the lovers tradition. Do you have psychic powers? Do you know which tradition underlies those books, even when it is unstated? The intro must allow for that difference of opinion among scholars, and the article must cover the problematic nature of the sources. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's see... we have three scholars now out of hundreds. Only one of those explicitly challenges the assumption of the historicity of the Sacred Band. The other two are merely skeptical and not even to the point of how you're characterizing them (I doubt they're even that). And from the word "tended" you have somehow come to the sweeping conclusion that there are more of these scholars around, just hiding their opinions. LOL, can you get any more vaguer than that? And please stop with the "tradition" argument. Read Leitao again, and understand how he uses the term. Come up with something solid, show me the hundreds of other scholars who dismiss the historicity of the Sacred Band, or shut up. You're grasping at straws. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be just fantastic if a day's peace might be had in this cat fight. Meow.  ^davidiad_.: 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I'll be finishing up soon. I have some work coming up.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Rabbithole II, the term "pederastry"

The current lede state that the unit was "pederastic". Having browsed through the above discussion, I have understood exactly what is meant by this. The word "pederastic" links to the article Pederasty in ancient Greece, again explaining it. However, words change with time, and the current understanding of the term pederastry is more along the line of (pardon my French) "buggering of little boys", and is not what is meant by the word in this article. I suggest spending a word of two explaining that we are not dealing with the modern interpretation here. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, as evidenced by Sir Gawain's confounding it with pedophilia. The lead is usually the last part of the article I expand though, as it's a summary of the main body. It's the one part of the article I have the most problem with. Feel free to propose some wording that might point this out, I'm still knee-deep in expanding Leuctra atm, and then the Theban hegemony and then the Battle of Chaeronea.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm thanks for that but you only have to read Pederasty in ancient Greece to see that pedophilia was an aspect of pederasty. I certainly agree that we need to distinguish between pederasty and homosexuality. That should emerge from a study of the ancient sources. For example, Plutarch's sensitivity to homosexuality (relationship between adult males) is well recorded, and much that he wrote about the Sacred Band was intended to win tolerance for homosexuals. Homosexuality was controversial even then. Oddly enough, pederasty was OK then, in so far as it was between adult and 'boy', while today that is much more controversial than homosexuality. However, 'boy' could be a pretty flexible term and often it was used to denote adult males in an inferior position. It is conceivable that members of the band might have refered to each other as boys, just as we refer to women as girls. What seems absurd to me is the notion that a military unit would be divided into pairs of lovers. What happens if one dies? Does his partner have to leave or does he have to fall in love with a new recruit or what? You only have to look at the writings of Archilochus and Xenophon to see that hoplites valued steadiness under pressure, men acting together as a unit. It's the moral philosophers who go on about a band of lovers and that can also be pointed out in a study of the sources. However there is no denying that pederasty, between man and 'boy' was a fact of life then. The question is whether or not a band was organized into pairs of lovers and the idea that they were not certainly deserves higher placement in the article. But I'm not going to engage in any edit war over this. I'll come back later and try adding something, after feelings have had time to settle. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds ominous. Everyone who's had interactions with you knows that you "adding something" later always turns out to be either censoring all mentions of pederasty in an article or rewording it drastically to cast the greatest amount of doubt or revulsion on the fact. And you've deliberately misrepresented yourself as several editors over the years while pursuing this goal. Isn't that why you're here in the first place? Because you hysterically believe that editors who add content favorable to the Sacred Band are propagandists of "Boy Love"? For the uninitiated, as I initially was, check the "additions" by User:McOoee, a sockpuppet of Sir Gawain in the article page history. Note particularly how he warped the previous wording.

Your "steadiness under pressure" comment is also particularly ignorant given that hoplites normally fought next to close kinsmen in battle. A fact recorded by numerous ancient historians, including Xenophon. See the chapter Unit Spirit and Morale: The Origins of the Regimental System in Victor Hanson's The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (2009).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm using sockpuppets? I strongly urge you to make an official complaint about me if there is any grain of truth in what you say. Either that or stop believing everything you are told by electronic signals who have somehow earned your respect. Re terminology in the intro, pairs of male lovers would be good enough at that point in the article. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And some French Fries to go with that please, no salt; a coffee too! I'll wait at the table by the window. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Gent's, on topic please? I was just pointing out that the term needs a bit elaboration in the lede. I guess we can all assume that the pederastry in the unit was not between men and small, pre-puberty boys. Small boys can't carry hoplons, so they wouldn't have been part of the unit. As "buggering of small boys" is the common current understanding, we should explain the difference in a few words. What the band did in their spare time is not relevant to here, as this as you both say was quite common in back then. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to recognize the substantial improvements made by Obsidian Soul. I agree with Petter Bøckman about the problems of using "pederastic lovers" in the first sentence (it's an issue of common vs. specialized usage, and the reader needs to be prepared for specialized usages that might be surprising). I'd also emphasize that the composition of the unit is a primary aspect of the Sacred Band's notability, even if the minority view that they didn't exist or weren't male lovers somehow "proved" true: the mutual devotion of the men is what made them of interest in the later tradition. In ages when homosexuality was forbidden, that devotion was idealized and interpreted as non-sexual. But at the beginning of the modern gay-rights movement in the 19th century, the military valor of male lovers was used to counter stereotypes of effeminacy. So the Sacred Band does have both a historical and legendary tradition. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the work I was expecting is not going to pan out, so I'll finish up with the last remaining sections soonish.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY section should be REMOVED (or trimmed to a tiny fraction of its current size)

This "controversy" section should be removed and a simple paragraph inserted into the above noting that a recent publication, unsupported by the greater academic community, questioned their existence. That's it. We don't need to read his entire argument; it's irrelevant.

Wikipedia topics growing in size used to be a good thing. Now it seems like every single historical page has become a giant tug-of-war between nationalists, political extremists, religious zealots, and POV pushing douchebags of all flavors. None of the self-serving junk they insert can be deleted because draconian edit policies and "good faith" protect all but the most ludicrous additions from removal.

This is supposed to be an informative, encyclopedic article - it should not have ten times as much space devoted to "controversy" as it does to famous quotes from ancient historical sources.

From a quick glance at the talk page, it looks like this all goes back to one loser who had nothing better to do that day than twist everything here into his preferred author's perspective. Subsequent attempts to re-balance the page turned into an edit war, which was settled by giving this asswipe his own section (and essentially letting him have the last word in the article).

Hooray for wikipedia....

/endrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.45.226 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012

Well, I've been in the same sort of dialogue more than once with the editor you characterize so pungently, so I understand all too well how this happens. But I agree with your assessment, and said something along the same lines less colorfully just this morning. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I entered the previous discussion assuming good faith and thus believed that I really could find more scholars supporting or saying the same thing as Leitao as Sir Gawain McGarson had claimed. I have still not been able to find more. Leitao, it seems is the only source that questions the historicity of the Sacred Band (and by extension the historicity of Pelopidas, Epaminondas, and the Theban Hegemony). I have no problems with culling it or removing it altogether per due weight. Also note that Sir Gawain inserted Leitao in several other articles. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've revised it to drastically reduce the focus on Leitao (whose views appear to be WP:FRINGE here), reducing the text devoted to him to the few sentences given to other individual scholars, placing the vast number of more mainstream authors first, and revising the section's lead-in to make it clear that the Sacred Band's historicity is widely-accepted among academics. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Remaining dab link

I've removed all but one of the dab links in the article and also removed the dablinks template. The remaining dab link is redirectd from medized to the "dab" page medism. It's not actually a proper dab page though -- it contains a short article about the relevant medism, and a two sentence definition of an irrelevant medism. I will tag the medism page for cleanup. In the meantime, since there isn't an article page for the relevant medism and the dab page does contain relevant information, I am leaving in the link to the dab page. Susfele (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead too short

The lead is 70 words compared to article c. 6000. Should be around 1/25 of the whole article. Soerfm (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)