Talk:Pederasty/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

PoMo > CSA criticism

We should be looking to remove the assertion that the CSA angle is supported by PoMo theories of power. Such theories (Foucault included) tend to subvert top-down approaches such as CSA. forestPIG ^(grunt) 15:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty Among Primitives

For the references section. The correct link should be:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2086628 forestPIG ^(grunt) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

The "Etymology" section had a number of serious problems that I have corrected.

First, there was a quote attributed to the Concise OED that, as near as I can tell, was at best in error or at worst fabricated. I corrected the definition.

Second, the section was presented backwards, first presenting definitions from specialist sources and only then presenting the general definitions later. I reversed the order.

Thirdly, the text surrounding all of these definitions was not even remotely written from a neutral point of view; it seemed to promote some of the fringe definitions and denigrate the dictionary definitions. I tried to make the text more neutral.

Lastly, one of the sources, William Percy's Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, is generally speaking not an acceptable academic source, being tainted by its association with a fraud scandal. There is a second edition of the encyclopedia that does not suffer from this taint, and it's likely that it has a similar definition. I did not touch this for now, but we should work to replace the fraud-tainted source with a reference to a source with an unstained reputation. Nandesuka (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your aggressive logos here notwithstanding, the version as amended now approaches a neutral tone and is provisionally acceptable. The OED quote was simply what was there when last I checked. Haiduc (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to say the OED offers two definitions is incorrect; that is a single definition with two explanatory clauses. When the OED provides different definitions, it numbers / enumerates them separately, or else joins them with a connector, such as "also."

"Restrictive", regarding the concise OED, smacks of a value judgement, and is thus not NPOV. I suggest "terse" as a better term than either "restrictive" or "direct". Nandesuka (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We can always say that the OED indicates two uses, one general and the other specific. I disagree with "terse," we can leave the text to speak for itself. Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The OED is perfectly capable of enumerating uses when they intend to. Why in the world would we fabricate a second definition when they chose to provide only one? Regarding the other issue, "Terse" is a descriptive attribute of a sentence. "Restrictive" is a comment on the semantics and meaning of the definition. My $0.02. Anyone else want to chime in? Nandesuka (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The guide to OED entries makes it quite clear that describing these as two different definitions is a misrepresentation:

While the headword section of an entry defines the form of a headword, the sense section explains the headword's meaning. The sense section consists of one or more definitions, each with its paragraph of illustrative quotations, arranged chronologically. Some words, especially those that have existed for centuries, have acquired many meanings. Because of this, the sense section for some entries is quite extensive.
... Senses, or meanings, are ordered according to a structure resembling a family tree, so that the development of one meaning from another can be plotted. The individual meanings are numbered within this structure for ease of reference.

(emphasis added). Nandesuka (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the OED is perfectly capable of enumerating usages, and they do. Why, however, are you so quick to allege "fabricated quotes" without even bothering to check properly. It's a tactic that creates a wholly offensive atmosphere. The quotation you removed was "Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy"; since that's a rather negative characterisation, I can't imagine why Haiduc - the implicit subject of your accusation - would have "fabricated" it, can you? However, for your infornmation, here is the full 1989 version of the definition, which they have since revised. The revised version can also be accessed from the OED website. Paul B (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What is "fabricated" in context, above, was Haiduc's suggestion that the OED definition is in fact "two definitions". On this talk page I indicated that I wasn't sure whether the concise OED definition was fabricated or not. I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell because the reference was incorrect, leading to a completely different definition. This sort of thing has happened innumerable times: I check a reference, and it says something completely different from what it is purported to say. I'm beyond trying to guess whether it's on purpose or not. Nandesuka (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your "why" question, I can't speculate, but it's worth noting that our text introducing that quote was "Some borrow the terminology of religious discourse...", which, frankly, seems like an egregious violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Nandesuka (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the two formulations offered by the OED are synonymous? Haiduc (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm stating that if the OED intended that entry to contain two definitions, it would contain two definitions instead of one. Your argument isn't with me. It's with Oxford. Good luck with that. Nandesuka (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer the question, instead of forcefully inserting your false statement into the article. Haiduc (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I refuse to tell you whether or not I am still beating my wife. If you have a problem with the OED's guide on how to read an entry, which I linked to earlier, take it up with them. There is simply no ambiguity here. If the OED wanted to provide two definitions, they would have provided two definitions. When the OED provides multiple definitions, they are numbered. Always. Without fail. If you want to argue that in this one case, for some reason, they went against their conventions, you are sailing against the wind Nandesuka (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Our edits overlapped. Nevertheless, now we see who it is who is really fabricating a fantasy and shoving it down the throats of our readers as well as other editors. So you will presume to bring in here this text: "Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner" and then you will claim that there is only one definition in those two very different descriptions. But that is only because you are gaming the word "definition." Your argument is pure sophistry. It does not matter whether we say that there are two definitions, two formulations or two views represented here. The main point is that this dictionary holds that there are two separate things that can be represented by the word "pederasty," and one of the forms described is strictly copulative, while the other is far more general and does not restrict the relationship to any particular form of sexuality.

But you cannot admit that, because it blows your argument at Nicolo Giraud out of the water. So what we now discover is that, far from wanting to see accurate sourcing for the articles on pederasty, what you really want is to set an artificially high bar for pederasty so that as few articles as possible will discuss the topic. How do you have the nerve to waste our time with your political agenda, especially one which has degraded this encyclopedia and deprived readers of valuable information? Haiduc (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So, instead of acknowledging that there are two formulations, with two very separate meanings, you refuse to discuss it and resort to edit warring, and to falsely claiming that you are making the edits on the basis of "consensus." But you are the ONLY one to hold that view - that consensus exists only in your head. So what we are seeing now is the face of Nandesukapedia, a project in which the paramount good is for Nandesuka to win an argument, at any cost to the integrity of the encyclopedia or to the form in which we resolve our differences. What a wonderful thing it must be to be an administrator with friends in all the right places, so you can say and do what you want and revert edits as many times as you want, with complete immunity. Considering the amount of time you spend here, you must be getting a lot out of it, it must be a profoundly satisfying and self-affirming experience for you. How nice. Haiduc (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are really behaving quite unacceptably, and are making this editing environment quite unpleasant and, frankly, hostile. Nandesuka (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka, you are correct about the OED, but I can't say that you're addressing this situation cooperatively. You could explain why the two parts of the OED definition are synonymous, rather than being snarky.

Haiduc: this is one definition. When the OED says "homosexual relations between a man and a boy", it means sexual relations specifically; the clause "homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner" is meant to be synonymous with the first clause. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I was trying to be straightforward: we know they are not two definitions because the OED's guide on "how to read an entry" explains what multiple definitions looks like, and this entry doesn't look like that. Nandesuka (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OED definitions in full (1989 ed)

Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy.

1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage (1614) 293 He telleth of their Pæderastie, that they buy Boyes at an hundred or two hundred duckats, and mew them vp for their filthie lust. 1752 HUME Ess. & Treat. (1777) II. 382 Solon's law forbid pæderasty to slaves. 1788 GIBBON Decl. & F. (1846) IV. 233 The same penalties were inflicted on the passive and active guilt of paederasty. 1869 RAWLINSON Anc. Hist. 529 Hence the laws against infanticide, against adultery, against pæderasty. So pæderast [Gr. ], pæderastist, a sodomite; pæderastic a. [Gr. ], pertaining to or practising sodomy; hence pæderastically adv.

1730-6 BAILEY (folio), *Pederast.., a Sodomite, a buggerer. 1738 WARBURTON Div. Legat. I. 171 As the detestable Pæderasts of after Ages scandalized the godlike Socrates. 1925 R. FRY Let. 7 Sept. (1972) II. 581 We had a long talk on the tyranny of the Paederasts and Sapphists. 1935 E. E. CUMMINGS Let. 2 Jan. (1969) 131 Scientists are of course pederasts, as we neither know nor care; & unnaturally enough this natural history museum is a temple or cathedral of the scientific spirit. 1963 A. HERON Towards Quaker View of Sex 69 Socially the paederast is the most isolated of homosexuals. 1969 Listener 14 Aug. 205/3 A divorced woman on the throne of the House of Windsor would be a pretty big feather in the cap of that bunch of rootless intellectuals, alien Jews and international pederasts who call themselves the Labour Party. 1971 P. QUENNELL Marcel Proust 11 The sense of his own separateness, as a paederast who loved women,..and a sick man..intensified his gift of observation.

[1593 G. HARVEY New Letter Wks. (Grosart) I. 290 That penned..another [Apology] of Pederastice, a kinde of harlatry, not to be recited.]

1704 SWIFT T. Tub Pref., There is first the *pæderastic school with French and Italian masters. 1864 tr. Gaspar's Hand-bk. Forensic Med. III. 333 note, Dohrn..has observed this appearance in his old pæderastic hospitallers.

Ibid. 332 A boy alleged to have been abused *pæderastically.

1684 T. GODDARD Plato's Demon 29 The little respect which he had for that Sex, and great love for the other, which made him so great a *Pæderastist

Words, words, words

In the face of such a boring exchange - the last amusing offering excepted - I turned my attention to the French version of ‘Pederasty’, and was relieved and indeed enlightened by what I found. Here we have an ‘encyclopedic’ article which succeeds in treating its subject in a balanced and interesting way, without a trace of academic sterility, moral judgment, and especially political correctness!

Even for those with limited French, a glance at this article will give a sense of what can be achieved – and apparently without heated arguments among the contributors. Certainly, there is reference to the evolution of the term and how it can be variously understood, and an overview of changing dictionary definitions up to the present day. The intro begins:

The word pederast (from Ancient Greek παιδ- / paid – “child” and ἐραστής / erastès – “lover”) aims today to designate the sexual attraction of a man to adolescent or pre-adolescent boys.
It appeared in the French language in the 16th century in the sense of ‘love of boys’, and quickly underwent a series of semantic shifts which were to distance it significantly from its first meaning. Almost abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century in favor of the term ‘homosexuality’, it has gradually been reintroduced in the current sense (as mentioned above), more in line with its etymology but nevertheless different from its initial sense.

Note that a distinction is made between ‘child’ and ‘pre-adolescent’. In the section on semantic history, the article makes interesting points about the influence of the English-speaking world (through the Internet) on the perception of the meaning and application of the term, pederasty, and concludes that its chaotic history is far from over.

The structure of the article and its historical comprehensiveness should give the editorial team food for thought. Dominique (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Link:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominique Blanc (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken Section (Choppity, chop, chop!)

The Child Abuse section starts midflow: A study countering this position. What position? This section doesn't really discuss concerns of child abuse, the reason correct or not that the relationship considered illegal in many places. It left me scratching my head.--Soulfare (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BoyLove

I assume that everyone is ok with my redirection of Boylove etc to this article. The alternative was Pro-pedophile activism, which I found most incongruous. forestPIG ^(grunt) 11:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, etymologically at least. However, I do not know how the term is used now. Maybe a disambiguation page would me more useful, with a link to pedophilia for prepubescent applications, and one to pederasty for pubescent and postpubescent applications. Haiduc (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, it's a bit surprising that Mr. Pig chose to redirect that term here, along with the similar term, Boylover that he also redirected here. You might want to learn a bit about how those terms are used today before you agree to this. A quick Google search can show you a couple million examples of why you may prefer not to have those terms associated with this article. I'm not reverting; I'll leave that decision to you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the redirection - I believe that the word "boylove" is similar enough to Boys Love (and Boys Love (film)) that a person might end up at boylove when they really wanted one of the others. I've undone the redirect. --Malkinann (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be no redirect to pedophilia"X"

There is an alternative use, as identified by Jack-A-Roe. I suggest a disambiguation page:

Boylove may refer to:

Pederasty, a sexual relationship between a man and an adolescent boy.
Boy-attracted pedophilia.

The above definition, as advocated by Pro-pedophile activism.

and

Boylover may refer to:

The pederast (adult male) in a sexual relationship with an adolescent boy.
A boy-attracted pedophile.

The above definition, as advocated by Pro-pedophile activism. forestPIG ^(grunt) 17:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

There are multiple reliable sources indicating the use of the terms "boylover", "girllover" & "childlover" are used as terms of self-identification by pedophiles. A couple sources are in the Pro-pedophile activism article already, and more are easy to find. Here's another one, found in a few seconds of Google searching:

FBI investigators in California found a coin that had been imprinted with the BoyLover logo on one side and the inscription "Kids Love Pedos" on the other. ... One website that openly displays the BoyLover and ChildLover logos was also central to a trial earlier this year, when an alleged Australian pedophile was described as using it to contact his alleged victim. ... This website lobbies for the social acceptance of "boylove", as well as providing its members with a forum in which to communicate anonymously. Fox News Australia

The Pro-pedophile activism article has a section discussing the present-day and recent historical use of the terms, making it a natural target for the redirects. There is no discussion of the use of those terms in the Pederasty article - is that because they are not used to refer to pederasty, or is it just that the editors of this article have not yet added that information?

Mr. Pig, since you changed the redirects and started this discussion, would you like to find those references and add a section to this article about the ways the terms "Boylove" and "Boylover" are used to refer to "pederasty" as differentiated from "pedophilia"?--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

These websites frequently use the terms in relation to relationships between adults and adolescent boys. For example, North American Man/Boy Love Association. Therefore, we can add a vast chunk of contemporary usage to the etymological root argument for redirecting to Pederasty. The pedophile usage is novel, fringe in nature, but nevertheless equally as prolific when compared to pro-pederast advocacy and scholarly use in pre-1970s texts. That is why I support the use of disambiguation instead of redirecting. forestPIG ^(grunt) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In looking around for more evidence, I came across an amusingly contrasting use: Current Trends in Analytical Psychology By Gerhard Adler p.250 uses "boy-lover" to represent the boy who loves (and is loved by) the man. Something that should be added to the mix.

Outing By Warren Johansson, William A. Percy, p.282 seems to use the term for "pederast," which should be sufficient to show relationship to this topic. Haiduc (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Russia

Can somebody expand on the Russia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.107.81 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity section keeps getting changed back and forth.

1. If the Greek translation of "beloved slave" is still in contention, (RE: Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10) then it's not valid footing for a full-blown historical reference.

2. Determining a simple agape, phileo, or eros-type root isn't really as much of a chore as it's being made out to be.

3. Parenthetical quote: "it is this translation that leads to the argument below, alternatives are "dear" or "valuable." <-- While both a welcome and acceptable addition, it still fails to truly settle what appears to be a simple turn of one word.

4. For the past 2 years or so, this entry still contains the weasel words, "has been interpreted by some as supportive of male love." Yet, Professor Jennings is only one individual, and not "some." Therefore, making the entry itself a consensus of one. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In scholarship, contention never ends. That does not man we cannot document the conversation. Haiduc (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, I proposed no such thing and you're reading into an intent that is not there. Options are available, such as scrubbing "some" and substituting it with "Professor Jennings," or adding cites of additional scholars who side with Jennings. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On review of the edit itself, I find it agreeable and have no further issues with it. Obiwanjacoby (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ganymede

I'm a bit confused about what's going on with the Ganymede images. In this edit, User:Dave Chaparral removed two images, and gave the edit summary "Removing ad hoc synthesis regarding meaning of a religious metaphor amounting to "novel narrative or historical interpretation" (J. Wales) & serving to advance a position not advanced by sources." I don't understand where the supposed OR is, and I don't understand why the description of the images as "religious metaphor[s]" isn't itself OR.

So I reverted. (Maybe I should have given a fuller explanation?) Then User:Nandesuka reverted back to Dave Chaparral's version, with the edit summary "He was pretty clear in the edit summary: are there sources that characterize Zeus-Ganymede as "pederasty"? Can a god actually be a pederast?" Well, again, I don't think Dave's summary was clear at all: where's the "religious metaphor"? If Dave was objecting to calling the Zeus-Ganymede relationship "pederasty", he could have spelled that out.

As far as sources for the relationship, it's hard to see why we need them; the homoerotic nature of Zeus-Ganymede is so well-known that it is in the realm of common knowledge. Nevertheless, there are sources in the current version of the article: Clement of Alexandria, and Friedrich Engels. It's not hard to find more. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (s.v. "Ganymedes"), Ganymede's name is even the origin of our word "catamite" (brought through Etruscan to Latin, thence Anglicized). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Shah Abbas

I removed this text from article, as it has been taken out of context. Shah Abbas prefered young "men", not adolescent boys. and the wine boys mentioned in the text were mostly around 19-20 years of age. I am posting the link to an image of him and the young wine man in questions.[2] Furthermore "Amrad Khaneh" is related to a male porstitution. Ofcourse this does not mean pederasty did not exist in Persia,as it most definitely existed, but these examples are incorrect. The material has been taken out of content to fit in this article, and homosexuality has been used synonyms to pederasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.104.195 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Baha'i interpretation of term "boys" in the Kitab-i-Aqdas their own Scripture.

The term is a general one about homosexuality and not a reference to pederasty writ specific. There are some who would prefer it to refer particularly, because they wish homosexuality to be acceptable in the Baha'i Faith and that makes it point of view. To be truthful would be to express it as I had before it was changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.252.223 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"The word translated here as “boys” has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations." [3]

We could mention that modern interpretations generalize the discussion to all homosexual relations, but the section discusses the original writings, not their modern interpretations. As it is there is already too much material on the Baha'i. Haiduc (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Implication and denotation are two different things. Could you please list some other single Arabic words that mean the same thing? Either the generic or the specific would be instructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.252.223 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Euphemisms and circumlocutions are the stock in trade of texts dealing with sexuality, especially ancient ones. "Though shalt not lie the lyings of a woman with another man." That does not mean that such materials are to be discounted. We would be left with no history whatsoever. What Arabic words are you referring to? Ghulam / ghilman? I do not have the copy of the Baha'i text nor am I drawing my own conclusions, I am relying on a plausible source that supports your contention. Haiduc (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the portrayal is anachronistic. The way the term boys is used in English to refer to "the Boys in the Band" would not denote or even imply pedophilia. Nor, as some suggest, does the term "ghilman" refer to slavery here. Both have been used in these times in attempts to deny the fact that the verse has always been interpreted as meaning homosexuality. They are revisions without a reason except advocacy for acceptance. Saying that it is a reference to pederasty is just incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.252.223 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Enid Bloch deletion

Regarding this deletion, I would be interested in how it is justified. You reference the talk page, but a more specific reference would be useful. My impression was that she had been given undue weight, and that a more succinct presentation would have been more appropriate, but I am curious to know your reasoning. Haiduc (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

" is an erotic relationship between an pre-adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family, or between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family. (etc.)

The opening paragraph seems to state things is a really long-winded fashion. I'm fairly certain there's a quicker way to say " is an erotic relationship between an pre-adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family, or between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside his immediate family. Traditionally and according to modern usage, pederasty refers only to erotic relationships between an adult man and an pre-adolescent or an adolescent boy" than how it's said. Zazaban (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted, text is unwieldy. "Preadolescent" is also unreferenced. I would remove it, it is too vague. Haiduc (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

why is this separate from Pedophilia?

we don't need separate articles on synonyms. I fail to see how erastia and philia are distinct in this context. Pais means "boy" either way, and whether the homosexual relationship is based on "loving" (erastia) or "liking" (philia) boys is a rather moot question. Geoffrey Gorer in distinguishing pederasty from pedophilia seems to take -erasty vs. -philia as referring to pubescent vs. prepubescent participants. Well, if this article is supposed to discuss male homosexuality between pubescent and mature males, how is its scope different from Ephebophilia, dedicated to precisely that?

This article should probably be merged into either Pedophilia or Ephebophilia, or become a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedophilia, pederasty and ephebophilia are in fact different enough to warrant their own articles. This article just needs tightening up for clarity. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is one of semantics. If we set aside the terms, we are looking at erotic relations with children, with adolescents, and with post-adolescents. Those are three very separate topics, which should have separate articles. While there is inevitable semantic and actual overlap, the present structuring seems to me the most precise and the most consistent with historical and academic usage. Haiduc (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Photograph Necessary?

The photograph is explicitly noted to have been taken to appeal to a pederastic crowd and has little informational value to the article, nor indeed even a historical one, save that there was some men willing to buy prints of naked teenage boys in the 19th century. Considering the poverty of its informational content and that pederasty is illegal in all Western nations, this seems rather like "giving an example" of child pornography in the child pornography section, save of course that the models are not children, but adolescents. I suggest that it be taken down unless a valid reason be given for its inclusion.69.22.238.202 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The photograph is an apt illustration of interaction between a man and a boy, as well as an illustration of pederastic sensibility, and it is the work of an artist who is noted for his pederastic opus. As such it is eminently appropriate for illustrating an article about pederasty and pederastic relationships between men and boys. It contains a great deal of informational value, as opposed to, say, a picture of a boy's genitals, which would have little informational value and would be merely prurient.

As the article itself indicates, there is nothing inherently illegal about pederasty, its legal status is contingent on the age of the boy. Even if it were illegal, that would not be an impediment to publishing this illustration, after all we can publish images of illegal drugs, of Uighur rioters, and of thieves.

This is not pornography as there is no sexual activity going on. Furthermore, the pictures were officially exonerated in the late thirties when von Gloeden's heir was accused of possession of pornography by the Italian Fascists, only to be found innocent at trial. Even if it were pornography, Wikipedia is not censored.

I can understand that it may make some people uncomfortable, people who are uncomfortable with nudity, or with sexuality, or with homosexuality, or with age-structured homosexuality. I am sorry that is the case, but that is not a good reason to deprive the rest of the audience of valid and valuable work.

Finally, I will add that, as with any work of art (of which there are many in this article) there are layers upon layers of meaning within the picture, making it not only informationally rich but also speaking to each viewer to a greater or lesser extent, according to that person's perspicacity. The picture is a kind of tableau vivant, with the dramatic personae expressing the vision and the intent of the artist(s). The man and the boy here have very different poses, and play very different roles, both very evocative. I do not think I need to go here into what I can read into this image, and I hope that it is sufficient that I have pointed out that a lot can be read into it. Let's let the viewers relate to the material, let's not try to filter their experience. Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture is gratuitous and unnecessary. It is not particularly closely tied to the content of the article -- it's not as if we were surveying art or von Gloeden; and it doesn't help the reader understand anything in the article any better. Many readers will consider the image NSFW. If the picture directly helped understanding of the subject, that wouldn't necessarily be a problem. But to take a serious encyclopedic article and make in NSFW just gratuitously and unnecessarily for no good purpose doesn't serve our readers well.

Please don't restore the picture again, unless you can first show consensus for its inclusion. Jheald (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The picture is no more or less gratuitous and unnecessary than a picture of a bear at the Bear article. It is probably even less gratuitous that that since everyone knows what a bear looks like, but not everyone knows what pederasty is.

As for not being tied to the content of the article, it is hard to see what could be more tied. All the pictures in this article are artistic, as are many if not most illustrations in Wikipedia. That does not mean that they are "about" art. And all the pictures in Wikipedia are by some author or other, but are understood not to be "about" that author.

As a pederastic image by a photographer known for his pederastic work this a particularly good illustration of the subject. All the more so as it is a culturally neutral image that can represent the entire topic, rather than a cultural subset. It is a picture of a man and a boy who could be from almost any culture discussed in the article.

What is at work here is a double standard, which accepts that somewhat general or somewhat specific pictures can be used to illustrate everything else, but rejects a picture with pederastic content not because it is not relevant but precisely because it is pederastic. How else to interpret the "NSFW" label affixed to it by Jheald, and the "pornography" label tagged on by the anon?! And this for a perfectly innocuous artistic work depicting two nude people. How is this any different from any picture of Adam and Eve uncovered??? Or from any other nude picture in Wikipedia??? Haiduc (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Take your crusade somewhere else.

Most photographs with sexual content are very sharply restricted as to the articles they can be used on.

And a CD of photographs of Adam and Eve found by Customs at London Heathrow wouldn't leave you looking at a community sentence, five years on the sex offenders register, and a lifetime ban on ever working in a position of responsibility with children again, for possession of level one material under the Protection of Children Act 1978.

Crying "double standards" isn't going to wash.

This photograph should only be used in an article which directly relates to it. It is not just innocuous illustration, and many of our readers will regard it as NSFW. Jheald (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not safe for work" isn't a valid reason to remove content from Wikipedia, as I'm sure you must know. The image in question isn't overtly sexual anyway, although it depicts full nudity. It would help if specific, actionable objections could be given. 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Take my crusade somewhere else?!" Is that how you talk to other editors? There are a number of true and accurate remarks I could make about you that you would not like and which I am refraining from making, so please refrain from this kind of abuse in the future.

The art of baron von Gloeden is sold by Christies for very high prices. Perhaps you should rush and tell that venerable auction house the risks they are running, they seem to be totally oblivious.

There are many things readers will find offensive. Devout Muslims will find naked pictures of women offensive, Evangelicals may well find pictures of men kissing offensive, communists may find pictures of Trotsky offensive, and so on. YOU seem to find pictures of nude males offensive. So what? That does not give you the right to censor Wikipedia, bandying about ludicrous "sex offender" charges that are demonstrably off the wall.

As for the "sexual content" first off I do not see anything particularly "sexual" about it, unless you will hold that nudity is sexual and then let's start getting rid of things like Christ on the cross and other such S/M pornography, and even if we were to concede sexual content, what could be more fitting than a pederastic image at the pederasty article? If this was the Friendship article I might agree with you, but not here. Haiduc (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You think the claims are off the wall? Tell that to the defendant in R. vs Graham-Kerr.

This isn't about censorship. There is a place for discussing this work on Wikipedia. Rather, it is about editorial judgment. Depictions of Muhammad offend Muslims, so I wouldn't put a full-face picture of Muhammad on the article Muhammad. But there is a place for it on Artistic depictions of Muhammad. Similarly, the article here, already well illustrated, doesn't need a gratuitous piece of paedophile porn to introduce it. ::::::::You're the one that says it directly depicts a pederastic relationship. That in itself puts it in a category beyond ordinary nudes. Images that are stronger than ordinary nudes we don't sprinkle at will throughout the project. Instead, we are more careful, and only use them when they really help the understanding of an article. Jheald (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[undent] We don't censor Wikipedia articles for fear of offending readers. Muhammad does contain images. We also have an article that contains all the Jyllends-Postens cartoons from a few years ago. Also, calling this particular image a gratuitous piece of paedophile porn is hyperbolic and inaccurate. So far, Jheald, you haven't provided any actionable reasons not to include this image. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The cartoons are appropriate in an article about the cartoons. But we don't put them in our article Muhammad. And we certainly don't start that article with a full-face image of the prophet. That is an editorial decision the editors of the page have made, and in my view a correct one. Similarly, my view is that photographic images of pederasty should not be used gratuitously, nor normalised -- I don't want to help the grooming of children that that would assist; and my view is that this article is more encyclopaedic and useful to readers as it was, without being introduced by an NSFW paedophile's pin up. Jheald (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But you haven't demonstrated that what you say is true: that the image is pornographic or even overtly sexual, or that it would somehow help pedophiles to "groom" their victims. As for the "not safe for work" issue, you know full well that's not a consideration at Wikipedia. Indeed, there's a convincing argument to be made that the image is a work of art: it's by a well-known and by all accounts important artist. By the way, it's useful to have a link to the image we're discussing, so I'm adding one: File:Gloeden, Wilhelm von (1856-1931) - n. 0581 ebay.jpg. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr - is the picture representative of pederasty as a whole? Does it give a good or iconic representation to the breadth of the topic? Is it inherently notable on its own? What is its informational content?--Tznkai (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I really can't understand what the fuss is about this. The Gloeden image is less pornographic and obviously sexual than some of the other images in the article, such as the "At the palaestra" image, which shows an adult man fondling a boy's genitals. If someone was going to complain about any image, really it should be that and not von Gloeden. Haiduc's comment that the Gloden picture is valuable as an "illustration of pederastic sensibility" seems right to me. Born Gay (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, some of your questions can only be answered with personal opinions, making them OR, a matter true of most if not all images on wikipedia, including my putative picture of a bear at the Bear article. It is sufficient that the image is by an artist known for his pederastic work and his pederastic clientele, and it clearly and obviously features an adult and an adolescent male.

However, let me try anyway to address some of the issues you have raised. Since the image represents two nude males, it can ostensibly apply to any culture, though it is more specific to the European ambit. It is notable since it was created by a notable artist, and as far as informational content, THAT is a subjective matter. Just as with a bear picture, you can read a great deal into it, and frankly the more thoughtful readers will see more and the less thoughtful readers will see less, as is inevitable with any communication medium.

Jheald, I must point out that the anti-pedophilia discourse is out of place in more than one way. First of all, the youth is blatantly adolescent, making your association simply inaccurate. Secondly, if pedophilia is indeed a disease, why are we attacking sick people? Would you do the same to tuberculosis sufferers? As for the normalization of pederasty, this is not a battle to be fought in Wikipedia, neither pro nor con. Haiduc (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Add me to those that find nothing pornographic in the image. If anything, the picture is weirdly desexualised and creepy - Which is not a reason to censor it. The question about it meaning for the "article as a whole" may be valid enough for it to be moved to a more specific section - but then no image i can think of would ever be representative of a cultural practice spanning the whole world over 1000s of years, and this has less cultural baggage than others.Yob Mod 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)