Talk:Alexander the Great/Archive 9

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.

Hi. I'm AMIB. Nekosilver asked me to make a comment about Arbcom (similar to a comment I made elsewhere in another dispute), but I've noticed that this dispute has defenerated somewhat. Since I'm a sucker for punishment, I think I'll try and mediate informally (given that there's no real formal or binding mediation process.)

There's an interesting contrast here; Haiduc makes the point that there is significant scholarly commentary on the subject of Alexander's homosexual relationships, and not only that but Alexander is brought up in the larger context of historic homosexuality (separating this from the "Is Hitler gay?" sort of commentary that only ever comes up in discussion of Hitler and not in larger discussions of homosexuality).

The argument against this seems to be that there doesn't actually seem to be a conclusion that Alexander was homosexual in the modern sense of the term, instead that Alexander is a significant part of commentary on Greek homosexuality, whereas Category:LGBT people has typically been for people who self-identify or are identified as homosexual in the modern sense.

There isn't an easy solution to the answer of "Was Alexander homosexual?" nor is it the question we should ask here. The question we should ask is "Is this category for people whose sexuality is a significant subject of commentary or for people who are identified as homosexual by modern standards?"

Can anyone explain to me the existing practice on Wikipedia in this area? I'm less interested in issues outside of Wikipedia; this article already covers the subject (and whether it should isn't in dispute), so we're just fiddling with a Wikipedia practice of how to use categories, not necessarily a larger scholarly practice of covering such subject matter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think my comments my help you. I initially posted them in the previous discussion, but seeing your edits I brought them here.

I have not followed this discussion in detail, so, forgive me If I don't exactly follow the arguments of both sides. But I've expressed in the past my opinion, which was against the creation of a Category "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" and against the categorization of Alexander as "homosexual". For two main reasons:

1. It is another thing "homosexuality" and another thing "paidikos eros". The term "homosexuality" fails to describe this cultural (and not merely sexual) trait of ancient Greeks. The fact that most male ancient Greeks participated in a "erastis-eromenos" relationship does not mean that they were homosexuals. They had wives and some of them were really womanizers! How can we call a womanizer like Alcibiades as homosexual?! Because he had an intimate relationship with Socrates or other men, the nature of which we do not actually know (Paul Cartledge in his best-seller "The Spartans" argued that the erastis-eromenos relation did not include anal penetration)? Alexander was also a womanizer!
2. The article states the "No contemporary source states that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers." So we don't actually have any solid evidence to call him a homosexual (apart from Hephaistion no other possible male relationship is mentioned). Are we going to categorize him as homosexual based on speculations and on a misinterpretation of the erastis-eromenos relationship?!!! Historically that would be a terrible mistake. Even if there was an intimate relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion this was a erastis-eromenos relationship and not a homosexual relationship as we know it today. But again I repeat that not even this intimate relationship is proved! It is based on speculations.

My conclusion is that it is a terrible mistake to categorize people like Alexander, Demosthenes, Agesilaus, Socrates, Plato, Alcibiades, Pelopidas etc. as homosexuals. They were not! Such a categorization does not serve historical and factual accuracy. I must also point out that the sections concerning the personal relations of Alexander in this article are over-expanded without an obvious reason. The whole speculations are not an important issue and they are mainly based on the misinterpretation of the erastis-eromenos relation: Even Paul Cartledge and Fox, mentioned in the article do not speak for a homosexual relation between Alexander and Hephaistion, but for an intimate erastis-eromenos relationship ("his great friend was Hephaestion, and surely the sexual element (frequent between young males, or an older and younger male, in Greek city-states) developed already then, ""thus intimated that he was the eromenos ["beloved"] of Alexander, as Patroclus was of Achilles." → not homosexuality, but erastis-eromenos relationship).--Yannismarou 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making the second case again. You're arguing that it's inappropriate to describe Alexander as a homosexual, where the case to include him in these categories seems to be that it's appropriate to mention Alexander in the context of homosexuality. I think that people are talking past each other on this point; are these categories about homosexuals or people associated with homosexuality? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Yannismarrou and A Man in Black)

Hi Man in Black, thanks for stopping by. I want to say right away that I'd ask the question a bit differently. As has been pointed out many times, the ancient Greeks didn't have a concept of a heterosexual or homosexual identity, so we can't call ancient people gay or straight. No one is trying to identify Alexander as a homosexual, it doesn't make any sense. We can use the term "homosexuality" as a description of sexual activity, though, and that's the sense in which it's used by classical scholarship. (For sources, please see this list I've put together:

User:Akhilleus/List_of_classical_scholars_who_use_the_term_"homosexuality"

.)

In fact, I don't want to label Alexander, the person, at all. I want to categorize the article. There is a difference. A category like "LGBT people" can't be easily applied to articles like Homosexuality in ancient Greece, but a category like "history of same-sex relationships in ancient Greece" could be applied to articles about people, like Sappho and Alcibiades, but also to articles about concepts like Pederasty in ancient Greece, literature like Symposium (Plato), and so on.

So I'd ask the question this way: "What should we call the category that we place in articles that have material relevant to the study of homosexuality in the ancient world"?

As far as existing practice, I'm not sure there is any consistency. One of the reasons why I've paid so much attention to this is that it could be a model for other articles, and I want to make sure we don't create a category that obscures what kind of relationships we're talking about.

So, I'd answer my question with the following potential categories: Category:Homosexuality in ancient Greece (corresponds to the article Homosexuality in ancient Greece), Category:History of same-sex desire in ancient Greece, Category:History of same-sex relationships in ancient Greece

Let me just add something about what Yannismarrou posted. The term "homosexuality" is used by many, many classical scholars (I linked to a list I put together above). We've got an article, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, which discusses the differences between ancient Greek practice and the modern concept. So I don't think it's anachronistic to follow a majority of classical scholars, including ones who write about Alexander, and speak of homosexuality in ancient Greece. However, using the phrase "same-sex" gets across the same idea without using the word "homosexuality", so perhaps that's preferable. And if we use a category that's specific to the erastes-eromenos relationship, that might work (but wouldn't help us with Sappho). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, my opinion based on my history records are that Alexander was neither homosexual or associated with homosexuality. Taking Man in Black's question:

• "Is this category for people whose sexuality is a significant subject of commentary?" Sexuality or homosexuality, because this article treats Alexander's sexuality in general and not homosexuality (and over-expands according to my opinion).
• "Is this category for people who are identified as homosexual by modern standards?" But can we identify him as homosexual by modern standards? My opinion is no, because: 1) his erotic relationship with Hphaistion is disputed, 2) even if such relationship existed again, we cannot identify him as homosexual by modern standads, because then we accept that: erastis-eromenos relationship=modern homosexuality, which is untrue and historically inaccurate.--Yannismarou 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And answering to Akhilleus: It is another thing to say that the erastis-eromenos relationship may possibly have had some elements of homosexuality and another to say that these people were homosexuals and generalize by using the modern term "homosexuality".--Yannismarou 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. If we figure out the category is about homosexuality or homosexuals, we'll get to that. Right now, we need to focus on what the category is for, and not get ahead of ourselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As a parallel in WP category practice, we don't label people unless they self-identify as such, or unless there is concrete evidence that supports so. I must note that this may not be the case in what regards categories for

You're jumping a few steps ahead. Let's stick to the main point first; you're making the case that categories of the form "Foo people" are for people who self-identify as Foo or who have been conclusively shown to be Foo. Right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have a really slow connection, and, until my laptop is fixed, I have a really, really slow computer. Because of this, barring objections, I'm going to abuse page protection on this page as a bit of a gavel when things get hot, so that I can head off some heated tangents (such as the one above between Akhilleus and Yannismarou) and be able to actually moderate this discussion without getting hopelessly edit-conflicted to death and being completely inable to post anything. If you find the page protected, rest assured that I'm right here trying to reply to what's already been said, and if an admin should find this page protected for more than ten minutes, then something has happened with me and the page needs to be unprotected. Is this acceptable? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and hope you'll be fine after 10'. An archiving would also help. •NikoSilver• 16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with A Man In Black)

I'm getting pretty frustrated with this. I repeat, over and over, that classical scholarship uses the term "homosexuality" in a particular way, and that we should follow the practice of authoritative, reliable sources, and people keep on saying "you can't use modern terms!" I still don't understand why we can't follow the lead of David Halperin, Paul Cartledge, Bruce Thornton, Marilyn Skinner, K.J. Dover, Thomas Hubbard, etc. etc. etc. and use "homosexuality" descriptively (but not as a personal identity). Or are Yannismarrou and NikoSilver saying that we should delete the article Homosexuality in ancient Greece, since we can't use that word? Because that is the logical conclusion of what they're saying, as far as I can see.

I actually believe that the title of this article is worng. So, no, I wouldn't propose deletion, but, yes, I would propose renaming.--Yannismarou 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On the same point, NikoSilver, do you have a problem with the content of the article as it stands now? Since you feel so strongly that nothing has been proven re:A.'s relationships with Hephaistion and Bagoas, and that Fox and Cartledge are merely making assumptions, isn't the logical conclusion that we should remove those sections from the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(to Akhilleus) See? that's exactly where you're wrong! The article contains both

Akhilleus, right now, we're only discussing categories, and at the moment, we're only discussing how categories are used on Wikipedia. NikoSilver got ahead of that, but there's no sense wandering off on tangents. Do you disagree that "Category:Foo people" on Wikipedia (not in scholarship, not in any other context) is only used to describe people who self-identify or are conclusively identified as "Foo"? (We'll get to other points later.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I say yes, and I can provide other examples/debates too if requested. •NikoSilver• 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me stress on what Nicos underscored: For Alexander's heterosexual relationships we do have proofs; for his "homosexual" (I once again point out that I regard this terms as a wrong one - possible heterosexual elements do not cover the whole spectrum of the erastis- eromenos cultural phainomenon and constitute a misinterpretation) relationships we just have allegations and speculations.--Yannismarou 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A Man in Black, if we're going to the Socratic method, can we have a new section every so often, like this? (change it if you don't like it) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(pasted from above:) Do you disagree that "Category:Foo people" on Wikipedia (not in scholarship, not in any other context) is only used to describe people who self-identify or are conclusively identified as "Foo"? A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A catgeory such as "Chinese people" clearly implies that the person who is the subject of the article is Chinese. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So, do you want the category you propose to imply that Alexander was homosexual, something that is not proven?--Yannismarou 17:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not the question at hand. The question at hand is for how categories are used in general. Do you disagree that categories of the form 'Category:Foo people' are for people who self-identify as Foo or are overwhelmingly identfied as Foo? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think we have a consensus for a minor point. If someone objects to this, feel free to comment below. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolved: Categories of the form 'Category:Foo people' are for people who self-identify as Foo or are overwhelmingly identfied as Foo. 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The extensive disquisition on whether or not the term is used for people who self-identify or not, or anything else whatsoever is an unauthorized tresspass into territory we have no right to tread. It is part and parcel, unintentionally I assume, of the endless debate which has no place here and merely postpones the conclusion. It is a debate in which users have tried to disqualify sources on the basis of their presumed sexuality, palpable nonsense of course since then we would have to seek sources which were neither heterosexual nor homosexual. We are not here to do gender studies, we are here to categorize Alexander, not to praise him, or to blame him. We have to follow standard practice in the scholarship. That has been demonstrated to have placed him in the center of discussions on homosexuality in antiquity. Thus, as of right we are entitled to place him in "LGBT history." But we have been trying here for a very long time, in the face of focused abuse and deception, to accommodate users uncomfortable with the LGBT monicker. So let's leave the inappropriate and ultracrepidarian gender studies discussion aside and let's try to find an accurate wording for a category that will not be custom-fashioned to accommodate a single purpose, and let's get on with our lives. Haiduc 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an argument about categories, which are not only general, vaguely-defined contexts but also specific tools on Wikipedia with a specific use. (I'm glad everyone has a sense of humor, though. Socratic method? "Not to praise him, or to blame him"? Heehee.) I think the overuse of certain specific problematic example categories are doing much to muddy this discussion already-contentious subject, so I want to eliminate those problematic categories, or at least narrow the discussion to be able to discuss their specific merits or failings. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Man in Black, I wasn't joking about the Socratic method, but I'm glad you're having fun. The answer to your question about "Foo people" is obviously yes, so what's the next question? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't agree with Haiduc's analysis. And I definitely don't want to categorize Alexander somewhere he does not belong to. And this discussion is not a favor for those who are "uncomfortable". Alexander is already categorized in a series of categories. The problem here is if the proposed categories are 1) accurate, 2) necessary, 3) if they have anything to do with Alexander.--Yannismarou 17:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Witty wordplay doesn't have to necessarily be a joke. I think we're going to be able to make some progress here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure I didn't miss anything glaringly obvious that makes this all moot, has Alexander ever self-identified as homosexual or bisexual? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not!--Yannismarou 17:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only he never self-identified as homosexual, but he indeed identified himself as a person who regards sex with young boys as immoral!--Yannismarou 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only did Alexander not self-identify as homosexual, the concept of "homosexuality" as an identity would have been completely alien to him. I appreciate the work that AMIB is undertaking in leading this meandering discussion, but I hope that he will take into account the concern posed by Akhilleus and Haiduc: the search for a category that will accomodate not Alexander, the man, but Alexander, the subject of extensive scholarly research into homosexual activity in the ancient world. We now return you to your previously scheduled Socratic dialogue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I want also to point out some further inaccuracies in "Personal Life section":

In the begining of this section we read:

"A number of ancient sources have reported on Alexander's attachments to both males and females. While the object of his affection may have varied, he was admired for treating all his lovers humanely. Plutarch has argued that Alexander's love of males took an ethical approach, inspired by the teachings of his mentor, Aristotle. He gives several examples of Alexander's morality in this domain:" So by this paragrpah we get the impression that Alexander was regarded as bisexual (not "homosexual") by ancient sources. But then the paragraph quoted by Plutarch proves exactly the opposite:

"When Philoxenus, the leader of the seashore, wrote to Alexander that there was a youth in Ionia whose beauty has yet to be seen and asked him in a letter if he (Alexander) would like him (the boy) to be sent over, he (Alexander) responded in a strict and disgusted manner: "You are the most hideous and malign of all men, have you ever seen me involved in such dirty work that you found the urge to flatter me with such hedonistic business?"

So, when Philoxenus proposed to send a boy to Alexander, the King felt "digusted" and refused the offer. So how is the homosexuality or the bisexuality proved here? The "disgust" indicates quite the opposite.--Yannismarou 17:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote Plutarch's 22, because I want to know where Plutarch exactly speaks about Alexander's homosexuality as the currest text of the article implies:

"When Philoxenus, his lieutenant on the sea-coast, wrote to him to know if he would buy two young boys, of great beauty, whom one Theodorus, a Tarentine, had to sell, he was so offended, that he often expostulated with his friends, what baseness Philoxenus had ever observed in him, that he should presume to make him such a reproachful offer. And he immediately wrote him a very sharp letter, telling him Theodorus and his merchandise might go with his good-will to destruction. Nor was he less severe to Hagnon, who sent him word he would buy a Corinthian youth named Crobylus, as a present for him. And hearing that Damon and Timotheus, two of Parmenio's Macedonian soldiers, had abused the wives of some strangers who were in his pay, he wrote to Parmenio, charging him strictly, if he found them guilty, to put them to death, as wild beasts that were only made for the mischief of mankind."

This is the exact quote and it proves quite the opposite: That Alexander was disgusted by homosexual propositions. I really want to know where the allegations in "Personal Life" that "A number of ancient sources ( the expression prepares us for a variety of sources here!) have reported on Alexander's attachments to both males and females" are based, because otherwise I'm going to tag this particular section for factual inaccuracy. Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, that passage may be read in more than one way. It is certainly possible to read it, as you do, to suggest that Alexander was horrified by the prospect of sex with boys. However, it is also possible to read it as suggesting that Alexander was horrified by the prospect of non-consensual sex with slaves. The latter is certainly consistent with Plutarch's account of Alexander's treatment of the Persian slave women. The article should present the evidence, and perhaps offer cited examples of how Plutarch has been interpreted by reputable modern scholars. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the interpretation of the quote is not correct and does not prove that "a number of ancient sources have reported on Alexander's attachments to both males and females." This assessment remains unverified and not-supported.--Yannismarou 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes — I agree that the Plutarch quotes don't support the phrase "a number of ancient sources". I think that's a relic from a time when the section was much smaller, and discussed only his (moderately well-attested) relations with Hephaestion and Bagoas. The article now has citations from Plutarch, Aelian, Dicaearchus, Curtius, Justin and Diodorus Siculus for Alexander's relationships. Isn't that a number of ancient sources? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Plutarch, Curtius and Diodorus don't say anything about homosexual relationships (at least the citated quotes). They speak only about his love affairs in general or for his relationships with women. So, what is left? Aelian! Is this our "number of ancient sources". Obviously by "number" the editor means no 1 or something like that!!! Hm???!--Yannismarou 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly care how the sentence in question is phrased, but I thought I'd quote a little Epictetus (Dial. 2.22.17): "When, for instance, we think that the gods stand in the way of our attainment of this, we revile even them, cast their statues to the ground, and burn their temples, as Alexander ordered the temples of Asclepius to be burned when his loved one died." (ὅταν γοῦν εἰς τοῦτο ἐμποδίζειν ἡμῖν οἱ θεοὶ δοκῶσιν, κἀκείνους λοιδοροῦμεν καὶ τὰ ἱδρύματα αὐτῶν καταστρέφομεν καὶ τοὺς ναοὺς ἐμπιπρῶμεν, ὥσπερ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐκέλευσεν ἐμπρησθῆναι τὰ Ἀσκλήπεια ἀποθανόντος τοῦ ἐρωμένου.) Note the word eromenou. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to add this reference to the section on Hephaestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Eromenou! A man he loved, but not necessarily in a homosexual way. Excuse me, but this is your interpretation!

I come back again, because reading this particular section I find out how badly written it is. It is a section full of confusions! Let's see what Aelian says. Well, Aelian does not speak about "homosexual relations". Listen to what the article says:

"Aelian in his Varia Historia (12.7) claims that Hephaestion "thus intimated that he was the eromenos ["beloved"] of Alexander, as Patroclus was of Achilles."

"No contemporary source states that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers." → comment of the article contradicting the prevvious phrase that "a number of ancient sources" speak about the homosexual relations of Alexander. But let's come back to Aelian:

Aelian makes a parallelism with the Patroclus-Achilles relationship and speaks about an erastis-eromenos relationship between them. Do I have to speak again about the differences between the terms "erastis-eromenos relationship" and "paidicos eros" from one side and the inaccurate for this cultural phainomenon modern term "homosexuality". So, my conclusion is that not even Aelian speaks about a "homosexual" relation between Alexander-Hephaistion. "Erastis-eromenos relationship"="homosexuality" is not historically and factually accurate.--Yannismarou 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou, despite your opinion about this, the consensus in English-language scholarship is that the erastes-eromenos relationship was sexual in nature. Sources are scattered all over the talk archives, Homosexuality in ancient Greece, and other articles. However, if for whatever reason you don't want to call this "homosexuality", why can we not call it a "same-sex relationship"? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it gives emphasis on the sexual element which is wrong and inaccurate. The erastis-eromenos relationship was basically intellectual and usually ended in a long-lasting friendship. I was now reading Ioannis Sykoutris' introduction to Plato's Symposium. Listen to what this great scholar says: "Paidikos eros (not "homosexuality" as you want to name it) refers to something completely strange to the habits and the moral conceptions of our contemporary society". He also points out that the "pedagogic character of paidikos eros differentiates it from other homosexual phainomena of other eras and other nations". I fullly agree with these remarks and that is why I regard the use of any term emphasizing on the sexual element of the erastis-eromenos relationship (which sexual element by the way is not yet fully clarified whatever you say) as inaccurate and misleading. Particularly, as far as Alexander is concerned, I insist that no homosexual relationship of his of any kind is undisputably proved.--Yannismarou 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should brush up on the definitions of

siafu

19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, in ancient Greece they had a broader meaning and not primarily sexual but pedagogic.--Yannismarou 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that there was some variety in how the eromenos-erastes relationship was practiced in different regions and times; in some circumstances it was chaste, in others, it was unambiguously sexual. It is also true that we don't know where Alexander's relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas fell on this continuum. But that's not a reason to deny that the paidikos eros relationship was, even in its naming, erotic. (And, of course, the Hephaestion relationship is problematic in the context of pederasty in ancient Greece, since the two were of a similar age — but that's another matter.)

Nobody is trying to tag Alexander with the modern term "homosexual" — and indeed, the article does not do that. What the article should indicate is that ancient sources show Alexander as having emotional, and perhaps erotic, relationships with both males and females. Plutarch and Dicaearchus both mention the incident in which he kissed Bagoas; I have trouble seeing how that is not an "attachment" (the term the article currently uses).

The context on how ancient Hellenes viewed erotic relationships between males is at Homosexuality in ancient Greece. (Akhilleus has provided an extensive bibliography justifying the use of the term "homosexuality" in that article's title.) We don't need to use the modern term "homosexuality", but our duty to historical truth demands that we acknowledge that, according to both ancient sources and modern scholarship, it is probable, though not certain, that Alexander had sexual and/or erotic relationships with at least two males. We can try to find a better wording, if you like, but this must be acknowledged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the article mentions about Bagoas that "No historian states plainly whether they were physical lovers." And, excuse me, but a kiss is not a proof for homosexual relationships. In certain societies men or women may kiss each other in the mouth without this indicating "homosexual attachment". Let's not use our standard for this historical period! Again all the ancient evidence is incoclusive about Alexander's possible "homosexual" (how wrong is this term!) relationships and I still not accept as accurate the terms "homosexual" or "homosexuality" for "paidicos eros". I think that If ancient Greeks were asked they would also disagree (personal assumption!)! Unfortunately I must leave this interesting discussion now. Hopefully, I'll be back tomorrow and I'll comment on the comments I may have missed.--Yannismarou 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: nobody is trying to label Alexander as "homosexual". However, the context of the Plutarch story about Bagoas, which emphasizes his beauty and has Alexander embracing and kissing him, is clearly erotic, and I think that it takes a very forced reading of the text to deny that. Furthermore, which is more important than my interpretation or yours, it has been interpreted as erotic by notable scholars such as Robin Lane Fox. Whether the relationship went beyond a kiss and an embrace is immaterial: it is a historically attested erotic link between Alexander and another male.

You are correct that the evidence is not conclusive; however, as Wikipedians we are not in the business of interpreting the evidence ourselves. We are in the business of reporting how reputable scholars have interpreted the evidence. And there is a consensus among such scholars: that it is likely, but not definite, that Alexander's relationships with Hephaestion and Bagoas had a sexual element. This does not mean that Alexander was "homosexual" or even "bisexual" in the modern sense of these terms, as cultural identifiers. However, it does mean that it is appropriate to acknowledge that reputable historians have associated Alexander with same-sex eros. We can debate what the most appropriate wording for this acknowledgement is, but we should not attempt to deny it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the entire quote from Plutarch:

"As soon as he came to the royal palace of Gedrosia, he again refreshed and feasted his army; and one day after he had drunk pretty hard, it is said, he went to see a prize of dancing contended for, in which his favourite Bagoas, having gained the victory, crossed the theatre in his dancing habit, and sat down close by him, which so pleased the Macedonians that they made loud acclamations for him to kiss Bagoas, and never stopped clapping their hands and shouting till Alexander put his arms round him and kissed him"

This says Bagoas had won a contest, and Alexander congratulated him. It doesn't mean it was erotic. Peter Green writes that Bagoas had won the contest, and the Macedonians urged Alexander to kiss the winner, and Alexander "duly obliged." Plutarch makes only one reference to Bagoas in his entire biography of Alexander. I don't get it: how is this "clearly" erotic?

Now, I don't have anything about this specific passage at hand, but here's what Robin Lane Fox says about Alexander's relations with Bagoas (I've quoted this before, but whatever): "Alexander did not have a one-way homosexual orientation, in the prevailing modern use of the term. He had sexual relations with males (including a eunuch) but also with a Persian mistress, his first wife Roxane (mother of his child) and two more Persian wives, too." Elsewhere (Alexander the Great: a Biography, p. 42), Fox describes Alexander as "a man who was to sleep with at least one man, four mistresses, three wives, a eunuch, and, so gossip believed, an Amazon." Please note that in these quotes Fox doesn't say "likely", "probably", or "possibly". He says that Alexander had sexual relations with men, women, and a eunuch. Fox is probably the most prominent expert writing about Alexander in the English language, so I believe we can safely say that this is a mainstream opinion. It's certainly a better source for the article and its categorization than the personal opinions of Wikipedians. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The debate seems to be degrading/tangenting again. As for categories, can we list (again) which would be acceptable? --Keitei (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we are being worn down here with endless inappropriate analyses, I would like to simply use what is a correct and existing category, "LGBT history" which, if you will go to its page obviously includes many articles the subject of which was not strictly speaking LGBT in the modern sense but are accepted as forming the history of the group, just as we are no longer Cro Magnon people yet they are considered to be part of of our history. Haiduc 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Only this guy's history isn't at all compatible with your history. Your account could be easily identified as 'single purpose': to relate everything in WP with homosexuality and pederasty. Sorry, wrong article, wrong rationale. Still no answers on my points from the archive. •NikoSilver• 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution to this discussion seems to reduce to personal attacks. I'm disappointed, I expected better from you. What points? Haiduc 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver, I think the quotes I posted from Robin Lane Fox above show that Alexander's sexuality is not "disputed". Why don't you respond to that point, instead of making personal attacks on someone who's been active on Wikipedia since June 2004 and who's edited on 1207 different articles? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this discussion has been done before as well... Robin Lane Fox is a well known historian, very important and respected, but there is "dispute", Akhilleus. Noone knows for sure if Alexander had affairs with men. What is not "disputed" at all is that Alexander was not a 'pederast'. and do not mention Bagoas again... Even if he had sexual relations with him, he was not a child! and, please, noone say again that the time of childhood in ancient Greece was different, bla bla bla... Everyone in the world knows what 'pederasty' means, and listing Alexander among the 'paedophiles' is just pov-pushing. Hectorian 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this exemplar of hectoring, in which all the familiar red herrings are duly dragged out only to be misrepresented. It reminds us - as if we needed reminding - of the absurdity of anyone here (myself included) presuming to second-guess the scholars. And yes, Bagoas was a boy, and Alexander had his way with him (though from what we can glean about Bagoas, I'd wager that it was he who had his way with Alexander). More important, Alexander is mentioned in works dealing with pederasty, such as that of Percy and that of Eglinton and that of Kroll on knabenliebe in the Pauly-Wissowa. So in addition the the "LGBT history" cat we really should also include "Greek pederasty." Haiduc 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, I don't understand how there's a "dispute". I see Fox saying he definitely had a sexual relationship with Hephaistion and Bagoas, and other people saying he probably did. Not much of a dispute there! If you want to convince me otherwise, a great way would be to provide an example of a reliable source disagreeing with Fox's statement.

Anyway, maybe the talking about "pederasty" is offtopic, since we aren't debating a "ancient Greek pederasty" category anymore. Back in mid-September, Hectorian, in this edit and this post to support/allow a category] like "LGBT people". Would you support/allow/oppose that now? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To Akhilleus: U did not have to present my mid-September edits about that. I never said the opposite. The cat about 'homosexuality' can remain, IMO, based on my previous posts. do i have to make it clearer? ok then: the category can stay, in order to help readers to jump in topics and since there is much evidence that Alexander had such affairs... but not to present it in the main body of the article as an indisputable fact! there are historians who disagree, and linguists who say that the word 'eromenos' in ancient texts did not have such a meaning. btw, the ancient historians are not 100% clear on the matter, allowing everyone else to support or oppose what they say. about 'pederasty', i have made myself clear and i am not backing off from that! such a category, as long as i am a wikipedian has no place in this article. my previous edits (which i am lazy to search for) will enlight any user why. And something else: since Fox has been "upgrated" as a divine source for Alexander in this article, am i free to add in the very first paragraph or line that Alexander was un-f***ing-disputably Greek? Fox says so, ancient historians say so, most modern say so... So, why it is not there? will i be reverted if i add also known as Alexander III, king of the Greek kingdom of Macedon? Hectorian 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, sorry if you thought the diffs were inappropriate. I think we agree on the purpose of the LGBT/same-sex/whatever category, and that the article should represent the primary and secondary sources fairly, including whatever prominent views we can find. I don't think the article needs the "Greek pederasty" category.

As for A. being Greek, I'm not really sure why you're asking me this, since I've never expressed an opinion about that. However, the change you propose sounds fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(To Haiduc:)

I would expect that you would be the last one to consider that pointing out your contributions are mostly in topics such as the ones below would be seen as a personal attack! If you consider it is a personal attack, then your contributions themselves make it that:

I remember you tried to illustrate how biased I am in this because of my Greekness! I had responded that I would expect Greek gays to support your arguments. Well, what matters most? One's ethnicity or one's sexual POV? I'll let the other editors judge that. If you are ashaimed of such contributions, don't make them in the first place, instead of accusing others for insulting you because they point them out.

(to Akhilleus:)

1. "Eromenos" was analytically explained by Yannismarou above, but you keep twisting its meaning.
2. Robin Lane Fox himself regarding Bagoas says: "Later gossip presumed that Bagoas was Alexander’s lover. This is uncertain." (The Search for Alexander - Little, Brown and Co. Boston, 1980, p. 67.). Keywords bolded by me, and ref copied by the archive talk. Yet you keep selectively excluding that quote from your references.

To conclude, I had proposed for

Niko, your problems with the documentation of pederastic practices are a personal matter and do not belong here (or anywhere in the Wikipedia). Your "argument" against me, based on some confused notion of guilt by association, is bizzarre and troubling for what it reveals about your notions of proper behavior here, among other things. Much more could be said but it is not my place or purpose to deal here with your problematic behavior or its roots. Let's just leave it at a reminder that we are all subject to personal bias, regardless of its causes, self-proclaimed heterosexuals no less than others. So let's focus on the proper description of existing scholarship rather than succumb to personal projections about others. Haiduc 12:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Niko, trying to "discredit" another user's opinion based solely on the nature and number of their contributions is entirely inappropriate both logically and by any sense of community.

I know. And I also know that my excuse below that "he started it" is childish. I didn't mean to comment on the user, I meant to illustrate that ethnic-bias for which I was unfairly accused is off the mark. Apologies. •NikoSilver• 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have thought of that before you started insinuating ethnic bias. For what its worth, I repeat my standing on this, as an unbiased third, who neither falls in the

homophobic camp. I find self-proclamation much more decent than hidden bias, and remind you that you have not responded where you stand in that regard. •NikoSilver•

13:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times on this page, Tekleni, (here, for one), nobody is trying to say that Alexander was homosexual in the modern sense, or even had a sexual orientation in the modern sense. Everyone acknowledges that is an anachronism. The question is whether there is a way to acknowledge that Alexander's sexuality has been studied by modern scholars of sexual history, specifically scholars of the history of homosexual activity. How many times do we need to explain this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I urge the fellow clacisist users to write an NPOV main article on

I would accept a Category:Ancient Greek eros or a Category:Ancient Greek erates-eromenos relationship or even a Category:Ancient Greek paidicos eros category. But not the biased categorizations Haiduc and Akhilleus propose, which indicate that Alexander and ancient Greeks in general were homosexual and definitely not an inclusion of Alexander in "LGBT history".

An article about

Ancient Greek eros a FA, but .... but .... --Yannismarou

14:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of Category:Ancient Greek eros; as for Category:Ancient Greek erates-eromenos relationship or Category:Ancient Greek paidicos eros, I find them a bit two complex. If I can add something, it's really said to see all this effort wasted on a category. In my opinion, this should be considered one of the lamest disputes wikipedia has ever seen.--Aldux 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, I totally agree that this dispute is lame, and I said so a long time ago. But when editors keep on saying I'm "twisting" the meaning of eromenos when my position is based on solid, mainstream classical scholarship, and when editors say the title of Homosexuality in ancient Greece is "biased and inaccurate", even though the title is based on solid, mainstream classical scholarship, and its content is beginning to be, I become a bit upset. I don't think this dispute has ever been just about a category, I think it's been a thinly disguised content dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yanni, don't make us beg! You know... there are

Akhilleus, don't get upset and go on with Category:Ancient Greek eros, where there seems to be a consensus. And, Nicos, I know these ways, but sometimes I think that it just is wasted time, when the possible collaboration with some other users seems difficult or problematic. Anyway, we'll see. Here, we cannot agree on the name of a category, because some people are determined to add the term "homosexuality" and then we speak about writing or renaming articles! Much more difficult tasks!--Yannismarou 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I don't understand your fears, Yannis. It's a year I'm projecting a radical rewrite of Alexander the Great, giving at last adequate and scholarly sourcing, but the fear of involving myself in endless disputes with legions of pov-pushers has always kept me away.--Aldux 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't give two figs for a category which told me which side of the bed Alexander (might have) slept on, I would prefer that someone who understands about tactics could actually write a section that would demonstrate why he is considered one of the greatest tacticians of all time, the campaign history is all very well but doesn't put anything into a wider frame on this area. --Alf ^melmac 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

An aside

Above, Yannismarou says that he would support Category:Ancient Greek paidicos eros. Category:Greek Pederasty exists; "pederasty" is the English translation of "παίδικος ἔρως". Would this existing category be acceptable? It would seem to describe the Bagoas relationship accurately, even if Hephaestion is still problematic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty has also a modern meanig which is problematic for me. I personally believe that again we should not use a term like "pederasty" causing confusions. That is why I intentionally did not propose it. Wy not just Category:Ancient Greek eros, where there seems to be an agreement? The title is quite clear and does not need further clarifications.--Yannismarou 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would actually support that, myself, but I know that Haiduc and Akhilleus would prefer a category that specifically indicated the role of Ancient Greek sexuality in the history of same-sex eros/sexuality. How would everyone feel about Category:Ancient Greek eros being placed as a subcat of Category: LGBT history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've said before that I could support a category like "ancient Greek sexuality"; "ancient Greek eros" is fairly similar, so for the sake of consistency I'll say that I can support that as well. I also think the idea of having an article

Eros (love) to that title. Someone recently created the category Category:Sexuality in the classical world

, so consider that one too.

I'd like to be clear, though, that I don't want "ancient Greek eros" to replace the category "Greek pederasty" in other articles. "Greek pederasty" (really ought to be "ancient Greek pederasty"), just like "homosexuality in ancient Greece", reflects how this topic is discussed in secondary scholarship. That's what I've been advocating this whole time: WP articles, both content and categories, should reflect how secondary sources discuss these topics. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As an aside to my aside about "pederasty" vs. "παίδικος ἔρως": I know that in the modern world "pederasty" is stigmatized and often confused with "pedophilia", but does modern scholarship make a distinction between the terms? Is there a case for renaming Category:Greek Pederasty? I'm just wondering, here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, maybe we should discuss this at Category talk:Greek Pederasty? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You open a new discussion now. I'll comment on your previous proposal and on Akhilleus' response.

Let's start from the basics, a bloody (sorry for the word, but ... ) category and then we'll see what happens with the articles. To the point now: Akhilleus last post indicates that we might come to an agreement for this particular point. I still have some reservations for this subcat in Category: LGBT history, but I don't express an absolute objections. Let's see what other users will say for this formula.--Yannismarou 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yannis, what do you think of Category:Sexuality in the classical world? Or is Category:Ancient Greek eros better? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a great problem with putting this article in Category:Sexuality in the classical world. I think I make it clear in my next post.--Yannismarou 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A Category:Ancient Greek eros could be a subcategory of the Category:Sexuality in the classical world Akhilleus' mentioned instead of Category: LGBT history. Just a proposal I have not thoroughly analysed!--Yannismarou 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I must also point out, that, after giving some second thoughts to the matter, I think that an

Ancient Greek eros article is a necessity and something missing from this encyclopedia. This article could also include broader matters like the Platonic conception of eros etc. When I'll have more time in about 10 days from now I'll hopefully focus my attention to this article among other things I have in mind. And again I apologize but I must leave; so I'll not be able to follow the further course of the discussion for today. Thanks!--Yannismarou

17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:-) If not even Ancient Greeks had an idea about the rest of the world, then we can imagine what the other Ancients thought! In any case, the addition "to the ancient Greeks", although not disagreeable, is a wordy

Ptolemy world map (c.500 years later) is also illuminating in this, should anybody have further unjustified doubts. •NikoSilver•

12:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To address the pleonasm, how about this: "Alexander the Great (Greek: Μέγας Ἀλέξανδρος,[1] Megas Alexandros; July 356 BC–11 June 323 BC), also known as Alexander III, king of Macedon (336–323 BC), was one of, if not the most successful military commanders in history. Before his death, he conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks; he is regarded as one of the greatest military strategists and tacticians who ever lived." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see both your point now. You mean in case before his death is not taken as descriptive of the words known world, but instead of the word capturing. In that regard, I like Akhilleus' second proposal better, as it splits the sentences in a more readable way (which is what mostly annoyed me in the first version). •NikoSilver• 15:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll make this change, but now things seem repetitive--"was one of, if not the most successful military commanders in history." and "he is regarded as one of the greatest military strategists and tacticians who ever lived." are very similar statements. I think this requires some further attention, but at the moment I can't think of a better way of phrasing. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I leave to go back to work and there's all this. Some of the tangential discussion is jumping a couple steps ahead on me. I do want to point out that I'm going to remove personalization of this debate on sight, however; it isn't relevant if an editor is interested in Greek history, homosexuality, or people whose name begin with A, clearly everyone has the best interests of this article at heart.

So, we've established that "Category:Foo people" is only for self-identified or overwhelmingly identified as Foo, and that Alexander the Great is definitely not self-identified.

I want to ask this question in the most narrowly-construed way possible: is Alexander overwhelmingly identified by the historic community as homosexual (or bisexual; whether he had heterosexual relationships isn't relevant to this)? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, in the sense that he is not identified as having a homosexual sexual orientation. In fact, almost everyone who studies ancient Greece would say that no one in the ancient world can be called homosexual (or bisexual or heterosexual); ancient Greeks didn't use these categories, and their conception of sexuality (most historians say) was different than ours. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I was about to give a sarcastic reply again, but then I noticed that Akhilleus wrote something intelligent. Miskin 10:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I seeing general support for Category:Ancient Greek eros (as a possible subcat of Category:Sexuality in the classical world)? This seems a reasonable compromise, though it doesn't specifiy same-sex, but perhaps that'd logically extend from the category once more populated. --Keitei (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is acceptable to everyone, we can skip all the preliminaries and just do this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not supporting or opposing for now, but what does that category have to do with the person? It should be about articles related to ancient Greek erōs - how is Alexander related to that in a manner that all ancient Greeks weren't? Behavior that we would describe as bi-sexual was widespread in ancient Greece - there is no need so slap some category on every article related to a person of ancient Greece to indicate that. Is a category necessary at all (one might ask)? All speculations regarding his lifestyle are discussed in the text (or they were last time I checked).--

Tekleni

21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Three reasons. Because this article discusses the subject. Because Alexander is discussed in the context of the subject. Because the subject is discussed in the context of Alexander the Great. Part of the reason I was chopping things into little questions so that we could see if any of those lesser points was contentious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably I am late in this response, but it will definitely help clear all misunderstandings. First off, Category:Ancient Greek eros (and a relative article) are the best descriptors for the situation, and I am glad you all seem to have come to an agreement about this proposal.

To continue, I'd like to clear out what I meant (I know, not very clearly) when I said that certain articles are

Wise words. It should be remembered that Lane Fox when speaking of a probable sexual element in the relation among Alexander and Hephaestion, considered it only one element in a complex interaction, that covers many aspects.--Aldux 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your remarks Nico and Aldux.--Yannismarou 07:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's appropriate to view

ancient Greek eros, and I look forward to the creation of that article. I also think that a Category:Ancient Greek eros would be appropriate for this article; however, I'm unsure whether it answers the concerns that Akhilleus and Haiduc have expressed. I look forward to hearing from them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for the word "allegations", which sounds like an accusation of a crime, I agree with NikoSilver's comment. An "ancient Greek eros" with links to other articles through {{main}} sounds good. Obviously same-sex relationships were only one of the manifestations of eros; I never said anything different. Nor did I ever mean to say that A.'s relationships w/Hephaistion and Bagoas were the sum total of his relationships. It's obvious that Roxana and Barsine are important here too. Nor was the category was ever meant to sum up Alexander's sexuality in a single word or phrase; it was meant to tell readers interested in the subject of same-sex relationships in antiquity that there is relevant material in this article.

Anyway, I said before that I'll support "ancient Greek eros", and I'll say it again. But I have a question: is this category meant to replace categories that are already in articles? E.g. is someone going to Pindar and replace the category "Greek pederasty" in that article with "ancient Greek eros"? That, I wouldn't be very happy about. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, not intended to sound like an 'accusation of a crime'. Strike that easily misunderstandable 'allegations' and make it 'assumptions'. For your other point, indeed, when someone does not appear to engage in other activities (sexual or not) of the broader spectrum of

Ancient Greek eros, I can holeheartedly support categorizing in the specific branch. •NikoSilver•

13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No one ever studies, or writes about, ancient Greek eros. Only specific aspects of it are of interest, as might be "Lesbian relations in ancient Greece" or "Prostitution in Thebes." Such a vague title, encompassing all possible aspects of sexuality and affection for a region which spanned three continents and for a period which spanned two millennia is bound to be useless and confusing. It just adds another, unnecessary, layer of hierarchy in the categorization scheme and puts off to another day the serious work of properly categorizing this article, and any other which will have the misfortune to be therein included. Having said that I will retire from this discussion since I have said all that I can possibly say on this topic. Haiduc 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you here, Haiduc: a quick Amazon search found quite a few books on the subject. Personally, I feel that it would probably be appropriate to include this article in both the proposed Category:Ancient Greek eros and the existing Category:Greek Pederasty. But clearly there is no consensus for the latter, so I think the former is an adequate compromise.

To answer Akhilleus' concern about Pindar and other articles: presumably Category:Greek Pederasty (and why is that capitalized, anyway? Shouldn't it be "Category:Greek pederasty"? But I digress) would be a subcategory of the proposed Category:Ancient Greek eros, which in turn would be a subcategory of Category:Sexuality in the classical world. Since the Pindar article is clearly sourced with a standard scholarly work supporting its inclusion specifically in the "pederasty" category, there should be no reason to "move him up" to the more general category (although an argument could probably be made for including him in both categories). I, at least, would not see this as a substitute for the pederasty category, but as a more general category, incorporating pederasty and all the other manifold forms that eros took in the Hellenic world. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems we have a consensus here with a Category:Ancient Greek eros (which will not substitute other existing categories) as a possible subcat of Category:Sexuality in the classical world, a proposal I also accept.--Yannismarou 07:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested editors may take a peek in my talk for a fragment of the debate. •NikoSilver• 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be good support for this category, I went ahead and created it--a bunch of redlinks should have gone blue. Right now it's empty--it has no members, no parent categories, and no subcategories--so if changes need to be made (including a name change, or even a deletion) it should be easy. Since discussion about the category is no longer specific to Alexander, may I suggest that we continue discussion at Category talk:Ancient Greek eros? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Still red? Who will do the deflowering? •NikoSilver• 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I started doing it myself, but changed my mind, as I was an active part in this debate. As this consensus appears to be final, I suggest that the mediators

Eros, but that can wait. •NikoSilver•

23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I second NikoSilver's suggestion, if Keitei and AMIB are willing to make such a summary. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me too!--Yannismarou 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate is summarized and Category:Ancient Greek eros now has a parent (and child) cat. Categorize away! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done the deed — for this article, anyway. Other articles can and should be added as appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone every discussed Alexander and his place in Dante's Inferno? Though many people both ancient and modern are very awed at his accomplishments he gets placed in a pool of boiling blood and gets shot at by centaurs. Dante cites the reason because of his excess of blood letting but I don't see a reference in the actual article, just a question. —The preceding

mmm... I think its better to leave that out. If every refrence to Alexander the Great in the last 2350 odd years were put in this article it would be long indeed. What Dante thought of Alexander might be more relevant to an article on Dante than an article on Alexander. Thebike 21:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It belongs in the article Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, but not in the main article. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)