Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Older discussion: Archive 1 (Apr 2005-Aug 2006) Archive 2 (10 Aug 2006-25 Aug 2006) Archive 3 (19 Aug 2006-26 Aug 2006) Archive 4 26 Aug 2006-14 Sept 2006

Thornton's argument

I don't believe I removed sourced quotes. I just added some more. If I did remove some it was by mistake and I apologize, but looking back, I see Wohl's quote is still there. If you think Thornton's argument is expanded too much then it would be better to shorten it a little rather than delete it all. If you think sourced quotes are removed, then put them back in, because it wasn't done on purpose. If you don't think Bruce Thornton is good enough for this article, then you can look up "Love, Sex and Marriage - a Guide to the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks" by Nikos Vrissimtzis which has been translated into 5 languages. There is more work but I think the way Thornton's argument is stated in the article best encompasses these views, and best explains modern Greek views on the subject.

If you are interested in the work of Nikos Vrissimtzis which has been praised by those who support his theories and strongly criticized by those who oppose them you can see the following BBC article on his book.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/428798.stm Steve88 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken; you didn't remove any sourced quotes. My edit summary was wrong. My apologies.

However, you are trying to restore an edit that was placed by a known sockpuppet. I won't revert again, but that is basically why I suspected your edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is wondering, my previous comment does not mean that I agree with Cretanpride's edits, it simply meant that I regretted posting an erroneous edit summary, and that I wasn't going to continue an edit war with a sockpuppet. I certainly don't think the edit should stay. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is so difficult to add an alternate theory in the article. Sources were given and everything was stated from a neutral point of view. Noone gave any reason as to why it should not be included. You all just yelled SOCKPUPPET!! and that was your defense. Sources were given (Thornton, David Victor Hanson, Mary Lefkowitz) If they are not enough than you can look up Nikos Vrissimtzis. There are scholars that argue the point that was expressed in the edit. Why was it reverted? What was wrong with it? Why was it so bad, it all had to go? It was sourced and explained from a neutral point of view. It improved the article. James577 02:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, Cretan, your edits are being reverted not because of their content but because you are making them. You have exhausted the community's patience, and have been banned; you no longer have the right to edit Wikipedia. The merit of your contributions, or lack thereof, no longer matters; in this case, "sockpuppet" is an adequate reason to revert contributions.

That said, I think that there are indeed a few grains of worthwhile content in Cretanpride's screed. I see two points which probably merit inclusion: 1) the support of Thornton's position by Hanson and Lefkowitz, who are notable scholars and (in Hanson's case) public figures, and 2) the book by Vrissimtzis and the public response to it in Greece, as evidenced by the BBC article and also these articles from the Guardian (you may need to register to read them). I don't see any evidence that Vrissimtzis has posed a serious challenge to the scholarly consensus, but if the book was as much of a hit in Greece as these articles indicate, it's worth mention.

Finally, we probably should acknowledge that both sides of the debate have attempted to use their own interpretations of history to support their positions in the modern-day culture wars. One side happens to have much more solid scholarship to support it, but it would be foolish to deny that LGBT advocates have used the Dover/Halperin interpretation for political purposes as much as the Greek nationalists and anti-LGBT activists have used the Georgiadis/Vrissimtzis interpretation.

Let me stress that I do not support Cretanpride's constant POV-pushing, block evasion and violation of Wikipedia policies. However, if we're to be intellectually honest and support the NPOV policy we should ensure that the article gives an appropriate and proportionate voice to minority viewpoints. (I just wish that there were someone providing these viewpoints who wasn't Cretanpride!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, I disagree on a few points. Whether through dishonesty or ignorance, our puppetmaster misrepresents scholarly work on a regular basis. The extent of Hanson and Lefkowitz's "support" for Thornton's argument are blurbs on the dustjacket of the book. That's it; as far as I can see, neither one has written a review, article, or book that cites Thornton. So they're not worth including.

Similarly, since I have been harping on accurate quotation so much, I don't think we should include Vrissimtzis' work unless someone can actually find it and read it. It's not widely available in the US (only 4 university libraries have it), and I'm not about to order it from Greece. I would rather, as I've already suggested, turn to scholars like David Cohen for the argument that pederasty was limited to the elite.

If someone can get a copy of Vrissimtzis the BBC articles suggest that it might be a good example of attitudes towards ancient Greek sexuality outside academia. Another good example of how this subject gets involved in present-day controversies over homosexuality is Martha Nussbaum's involvement in the court case on Colorado's Amendment 2; there are a number of good articles on this that I'll supply references for when I have some time. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, Amazon.com has copies of Vrissimtzis for cheap, so perhaps I'll get it myself. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All that makes sense, Akhilleus; however, I think that citations from BBC News and The Guardian are probably reliable enough to justify a mention of Vrissimitzis in the "scholarship and controversy" section. I'm thinking of something like this:

The subject has caused controversy in modern Greece, where opposition to the scholarly consensus is widespread. Love, Sex And Marriage, A Guide To The Private Life Of The Ancient Greeks by Nikos Vrissimtzis, who claims that "homosexuals were not ... openly accepted by society", became a bestseller in Greece upon its publication in 1999. In 2002, a conference on Alexander the Great...

That wording isn't great, but it conveys the gist of Vrissimtzis' opinion on the subject, in his own words as quoted in the BBC article, and indicates that a lot of modern Greeks are happy to believe that their noble ancestors weren't that way inclined. I agree that given Cretanpride's track record we don't want to assume that he's portraying Vrissimtzis accurately, but I trust the BBC and The Guardian to do so.

(I'm guessing that Vrissimtzis identifies κῖναιδεία with any homosexual activity, a position not supported by Dover or other scholars. But that's my own surmise, and not worthy of reflection in the article.)

By the way, I agree that Cohen and Nussbaum are probably worth mention as well, and more so than anything Cretanpride comes up with. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means let's do mention here Vrissimtzis' book, and it's success in Greece (and only in Greece) together with the fact that it was self-published, not paid any attention by any reputable academic source and that mainstream media deem that "Mr Vrissimtzis's book rests on a lie." Haiduc 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have made that addition. However, although I share your disdain (and that of the Guardian reviewer), I'm a little worried about whether the tone complies with the spirit of NPOV. If anyone can find a better way to express the reaction to Vrissimtzis, please do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reporting a discrediting mainstream review is totally objective. Haiduc 11:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disturbed individual persists on imposing nationalistic and homophobic views and resorts to blackmail

I have received the following message through Wikipedia mail:
HI Haiduc, perhaps you have not realized how serious I am about adding my previous edit to that article(homosexuality in ancient Greece). Perhaps you have not realized the length I will go to get it. I will present to you an ultimatum now. Either my last edit stays. The one which shows Bruce Thornton's argument, or a young girl named Emily dies because of your unfairness. Am I bluffing? That's not the question. The question is whether you are willing to take that chance. Do you want this with you the rest of your life? You have 48 hours for the article to change to my previous edit or you can hear about this on the news. I am not asking for much. Just two paragraphs which encompass the truth. I hoped it wouldn't come to this. I have wasted two months of my time, I think I should be rewarded. Its your call. You have made fun of me and mistreated me and never considered what I had to say no matter how convincing. I am sick of homosexuals such as yourself distorting my peoples history. This is what you get. This is very simple. Restore to my previous edit or else...
This presumably comes from the fellow claiming to be a Greek defending Greek interests. We should be aware that we are dealing with a conflicted, mentally disturbed individual here. Please note that any further "private messages" will be posted here forthwith. Haiduc 11:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

He sent similar messages to me and Akhilleus. We have a fairly good idea who he is, and may be taking the matter further. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I also, for the record, got the same message. CaveatLector^Talk 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would let him have his edits for now. (They are not that bad anyway and its not worth it).--Blue Tie 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got the email too: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Death threat by Cretanpride. —Khoikhoi 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to change an article based on threats and blackmail. We could have POV warriors making all sorts of threats if their preferred version is not handled. The threat is being handled by the appropriate authorities; that's as far as our moral obligation goes. In the highly unlikely event that the threat is not empty, we'd only be culpable if we had not contacted the police. I have done that; if "Emily" is real and Cretanpride is so disturbed as to think that the contents of this article are worth killing for, he and he alone is at fault for that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Josiah has already said it all. If it becomes known that we once gave in to threats, the consequences would be terrible, with a new weapon in the hand of nationalist editors. Also, we all know that for Cretanpride lying and breathing are the same thing, so I'd calm down.--Aldux 20:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Death threats are ilegal under quite a few legal systems. Inform the authorities.Geni 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

They have been informed, and are investigating. Incidentally, I've just received another email from Cretanpride:

You guys win. I give up. That last email was a joke. You win. I'm never going to edit on that article again.

My guess is that the police found him and made him realize how inappropriate the "joke" was.

I've forwarded this message to the police as well. I tried to call them, but the officer who's handling the case isn't available. I left him a message, and will let you all know what I hear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's good news! I am pleased that it will end in a good way. I suppose this person is young and has not had experiences to inform his or her decisions with regard to such serious matters. Well, mistakes help us get experience and perhaps he or she will now have experience to avoid such mistakes in the future. It may be a costly lesson though.

Thank you very much Josiah Rowe!

--Blue Tie 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Full protected

I think the best thing for now is to keep the page full protected. This will prevent edit warring. If he disagrees with the current content, he can contact me so that I can take appropriate action with the law-enforment authorities. As I have protected it, noone else can do something about it, so I am to blaim now, nobody else. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good to me. —Khoikhoi 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note if another admin is gouing to unprotct the page in due time, it has to go back to semi-protect. And I suggest to leave it blocked for a few days till things are for sure settled (aka, when the police says it is resolved). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Update on the threat

I've just received a call from the police officer; it turns out that he wasn't able to verify the identity that I gave him, so the timing of Cretanpride's second email was a coincidence. Given that email, it seems extremely probable that this was a hoax; while making a hoax death threat is still a serious matter, I think that we can all relax a bit now. I'm going to continue to pursue the investigation, but the urgency has diminished. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is not too soon to pin a coda on this particular episode:

"Fair Greece! Sad relic of departed worth!

Immortal, though no more. Though fallen, great!
Who now shall lead thy scattered children forth,
And long accustomed bondage uncreate?
Not such thy sons who whileome did await,
The hopeless warriors of a willing doom,
In bleak Thermopylae's sepulchral strait—
Oh! Who that gallant spirit shall resume,

Leap from Eurotas' banks, and call thee from the tomb?"
Haiduc 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hilariously apt. Well said, Haiduc — and, indeed, well said Byron. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to semi?

Time to go back to semi-protection? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I've done it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article contains POV, misrepresentation, and the final paragraph insults the intelligence of the modern Greeks

When I came across this page, there were several things I found quite disturbing. To put it straightforward: this article is full of POV, misrepresentation, and the final paragraph insults the intelligence of the modern Greeks.

First off, the final paragraph: It states that Vrissimtzis’ book was a bestseller in Greece, and the article seems to imply that the only reason the Greeks bought it is because of his views expressed on this subject(Homosexuality). This couldn’t be further from the truth. His book does not even touch on the subject all that much – it just says that homosexuals were tolerated, but not openly accepted by society. I seriously doubt Greeks bought it because of that. Also, his book is not self-published. The Greek and English version of his book are published by “Agia Paraskevi” and the Portuguese version is published by “Odysseus.” The Spanish, French, and German language versions all have different publishers. Just because Amazon.com does not know the publisher does not mean it is self published. More importantly, his book has gained notice in Academia. University libraries in the U.S. and abroad have it.. If you perform a google scholar search, you will find it. It has been mentioned in scholarly journals in France and Germany and has been translated into 6 languages. I would think this is worthy of note, and constitutes as “notice.” His book has also achieved success outside of Greece as well, especially the Portuguese version. More importantly, if you thought his book gained “no notice in academia” then why include it into the article? To insult the intelligence of the Greeks?

Many sections of the article also contain bias/pov. An example would be the context section. It gives the opinions of Kenneth Dover, David Halperin, and William Percy, but does not give the opinions of Bruce Thornton or Mary Lefkowitz to give it more balance. When you quote someone as saying Homosexual relations were a central part to the “Greek miracle” then you must give an altering viewpoint. When you say penetration of social inferiors was seen as “normal” then you definitely must give an altering viewpoint. A common counterargument you may have to my proposal would be that this would be giving a minority opinion undue weight, something which is not true. There are many scholars who argue against what this article claims to be a “scholarly consensus.” Here is some bibliography that would disagree with this article:

Cohen, David. Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens. Cambridge, 1991.

Thornton, Bruce .S. Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality. Boulder, 1997.

Xirouchakis, S. "Moral Crimes in Classical Athens," Archaiologia 10 (1984)

Lentakis A. "Sexual Life in Ancient Greece," Archaiologia 10 (1984)

Flacelière , Robert. Love in Ancient Greece. London, 1962.

The list goes on but my point is that this is a debated topic and certainly no “scholarly consensus” has been reached. Every aspect of Greek sexuality is debated!

Moving on, another example of POV would be the passage in Plato’s Laws mentioned. How do you know he is describing “carnal pederasty,” the passage says “the intercourse between men and men and of women with women,” and how do you know the speakers acknowledge that a law banning pederasty would be unpopular? Because you think so and because Martha Nussmaum and David Halperin think so? The amount of opinions are not enough to prove this assessment. Bruce Thornton argues that this passage is applied to all sexual intercourse that does not procreate and that Plato describes this as “contrary to nature”. You have to say that specific passage’s meaning is debated and it is unclear whether this is Plato’s opinion and to who exactly it is applied to is unknown. Then you could say “according to David Halperin:…”

The most obvious POV is the “scholarship and controversy” section where Bruce Thornton is misrepresented. Rather than present his argument, you misrepresent him and make it seem as if he has no argument. If you consult his book “Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality” he never “generally concedes” that pederasty was “part of the social structure of the polis.” He writes that, but that is manipulating what he wrote to say what you want. He doesn’t “concede” anything, on the contrary, he argues very strongly that most Ancient Greeks despised homosexuality and he gives examples. Also, when you write “Even those that argue it was limited to the upper classes generally condede..”—This is the most obvious POV. Any reader with below average intelligence will realize this is POV. Am I the only one who notices this? I find the amount of bias in this article disturbing.

Here are some citations from Thornton’s book that shows what he really argues:

Thornton starts off in the preface by saying the Greeks "were horrified and disgusted by the idea of a male being anally penetrated by another male, and called such behavior 'against nature.’” (Thornton, P. xiii)

The above would go well in the “context” section. Moving on:

Like shame, “outrage” (hubris) is another important term that communicates the idea of excess, particularly the excess of passion and appetite that leads one to injure and hence “shame” or dishonor another. Sexual crimes including rape, seduction, and pedophilia all would be characterized as hubris, as would sexually using a man like a woman, which is to say penetrating him anally. Sodomizing a man, then, just as today in American prisons, humiliates and shames him, as in the fifth idyll of Theocritus, where the shepherd Comatas asserts his power over Lacon by reminding him how he “taught him as a child” by buggering him until he was sore. Likewise in Aristophanes’ Knights, where the Sausage-Seller threatens to “****[Kleon’s]***hole like a sausage-case,” one of many examples in Aristophanes of buggery used to humiliate and shame. (Thornton, P. 114)

Plato in the Phaedrus likewise calls the “bad horse” of the soul, the one desiring physical gratification from a beloved boy, the “comrade of outrage(hubreos).” And Aeschines used the same word to describe Timarchos’s behavior, quoting the law against sexual “outrage,” which he believes covers Timarchos’s transgressions, since he defines his sexual crimes as an “outrage(hubrin) against his own body,” an outrage “contrary to nature.” Like the association of buggery with defecation, the ideas of “shame” and “outrage” locate passive homosexuality in the realm of destructive appetites and excessive passions, excrement and gender confusion, indiscriminate forces of nature threatening the orders of the mind and the city. (Thornton, P. 115)

Here is another interesting quote from Thornton’s book where he uses the plays of Aristophanes as evidence:

Ancient Greek has several insulting epithets that derive their force from the disgust felt toward those who allow themselves to be sodomized. Indeed, for a society considered tolerant of a wide spectrum of sexual behavior, the ancient Greeks possessed a much wider public vocabulary of homosexual disparagement, outside the public rest room, than a sexually uptight America can call on. Two of those epithets from ancient Greece-euruproktos, “wide-anused,” and katapugon, “passive homosexual, lecher”-are compounds built around the words puge, “rump,” and proktos, “anus”. This obsession with the anus reflects the Greek contempt for the man who endures anal penetration. Other insults originating in the disgust sodomy provokes include “cistern-assed,””gaping-assed,” and “gaper,” alluding to the stretched-out anuses of pathics. Moreover it does not lessen the homoerotic force of these words to argue, as some modern scholars do, that these words are sometimes used of women or in contexts not explicitly sexual. Whatever context they are used in, these words are insults because they link excessive destructive behavior to what is seen as the premier standard of degeneracy, the kinaidos….These ancient Greek epithets are so deadly because they characterize the recipient of them as a creature of unrestrained appetite who sacrifices his humanity to the lure of bestial pleasure. (Thornton, P. 110)

Another argument against the unqualified acceptance by the Greeks of homosexuality is the prevalence of the male-female sexual pattern in the references to same-sex relations, which suggests that the heterosexual paradigm is the “natural” one that homosexual relations mimic and pattern themselves after. As Aristotle says, “The affection between man and woman appears to happen according to nature, for humans by nature are disposed to live in pairs more than in political communities.” Thus the passive homosexual is assimilated to the womans’s role, which accounts for the traditionsal animosity between women and kinaidoi-the latter are poaching on a female preserve. The fifth-century comic poet Cratinus attributed homosexuality to hatred of women, and another comedian, Timocles, in a burlesque of a scene from Aeschyluss’s Eumenides, showed the notorious pederast Autocleides as Orestes, with courtesans as the vengeful Furies sleeping around him. (Thornton, P. 106)

He has many many more arguments. Please do not misrepresent scholars and please do not make it seem as if they have no argument. Victor Davis Hanson and Mary Lefkowtiz feel Thornton’s book is the most accurate account of Greek Sexuality. They think he has a strong argument and, no offense, their opinions are more important than yours.

Here is David Cohen, who believes there was no monolithic view in ancient Greece for or against homosexuality. He certainly doesn’t say it was practiced “largely with official sanction.”:

To say that homosexuality was tolerated at Athens is just as misleading as to say that it was condemned, for in this area Athenian culture was not only stratified, but also fraught with ambivalence, ambiguity, and conflict. To sidestep the matter by referring to the “dominant morality” only exacerbates the problem. (Cohen, P. 21)

What does it mean, “to make a boy a woman”? It is necessary to distinguish two related aspects of this claim. The first concerns the sexual act itself and the way in which the roles of the two participants are seen, while the second involves the larger social context of courtship and the role patterns associated with it. Although it has become quite fashionable to deny that any Greeks thought homoeroticism to be unnatural and that modern categories of homosexual/heterosexuality can be applied to classical Greece, one should not make such universal assertions too facilely. Sexual roles in both of the senses distinguished above were defined in terms of a male/female dichotomy and judged by norms that were felt by some to be at once social and natural. Some scholars conced that Plato may have felt this way, but endeavor to portray his perspective as entirely idiosyncratic, standing in opposition to the entirety of Athenian society. This vision of a monolithic sexual normativity is, however, reductionist and incomplete. To begin with the first sense of “making a boy a woman,” there is ample evidence to show that the Levitical formulation “to lie with mankind as with womankind”(lev 20:13) represents a way of categorizing homosexual intercourse that was not unknown in Athens. Indeed, Xenophon refers to the hubristic practice of “using men as women,” and Plato argues that the man who adopts the passive role in homosexual intercourse can be rebuked as the impersonator of the female a situation which is “against nature” (Cohen, P.187)

Here is Robert Flaceliere:

"It appears extremely likely that homosexuality of any kind was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society. The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind, which seem to have been associated with a sort of snobbery. The available texts deal mainly with the leisured nobility of Athens. But they may give the impression that pederasty was practiced by the entire nation. The subject, however, of the comedy by Aristophanes entitled Lysistrata suggests that homosexuality was hardly rampant among the people at large. It would be an error to think so. ... There was nothing particularly 'Greek' about homosexual feeling. The nation in antiquity was by no means alone in providing illustrations of inversion (see note below), which has been practiced at almost all times and in almost all countries. ... In the pre-Christian era, the case of Sodom is well known. Nor were the Persians, the Etruscans, the Celts or the Romans ignorant of homosexuality. But its existence among these peoples was kept more or less secret on account of the discredit which attached to it. But in Greece, though pederasty was forbidden by law in most cities, it had become so fashionable (among the artists and aristocrats) that no one troubled to conceal it." (Flaceliere, p. 49-50)

What I also find very interesting is that some very important facts and citations from Greek sources which contradict this supposed “Scholarly consensus” are not included. Why not include the fact that only 0.001 percent of all vase paintings found have a homosexual theme? Why? I would really like to know why that is not included.

I noticed the “homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece” section also selectively quotes from Greek sources. Why not include the following quote:

"Lycurgus adopted a system opposed to all of these alike. Given that some one, himself being all that a man ought to be, should in admiration of a boy's soul endeavour to discover in him a true friend without reproach, and to consort with him--this was a relationship which Lycurgus commended, and indeed regarded as the noblest type of bringing up. But if, as was evident, it was not an attachment to the soul, but a yearning merely towards the body, he stamped this thing as foul and horrible; and with this result, to the credit of Lycurgus be it said, that in Lacedaemon the relationship of lover and beloved is like that of parent and child or brother and brother where carnal appetite is in abeyance. That this, however, which is the fact, should be scarcely credited in some quarters does not surprise me, seeing that in many states the laws do not oppose the desires in question." (Xenophon, Lacedaemonian Constitution, II. 13.)

I could post much much more and many more citations from ancient sources. If you see something sexual in what I just posted, then you must literally see it everywhere. One can argue that The Spartan constitution bans sexual relations between its soldiers. Why not add at least one of these quotes in order to give more balance? You may counterargue that the militaries section does not say soldiers had sexual relations, but it certainly implies that they did and the average reader would see it that way.

To sum up, this article deals with a controversial topic which is debatable. The article should be written from a neutral standpoint and should allow the reader to decide what the truth is based on the evidence and scholarly opinions given. You should not attempt to spoon feed the reader what to believe. I am ready for a civilized intellectual discussion about this. I have several sources with me ready to argue my point. I don’t want to start a war here but this article is incredibly biased and I feel obligated to start a discussion. Adding this material would by no means be giving “undue weight” to a minority opinion. I have listed plenty scholars who would argue against this “scholarly consensus”(e.g. Bruce Thornton, Mary Lefkowitz, Robert Flaceliere, Nikos Vrissimtzis, David Cohen, Victor Davis Hanson)

I hope that whoever responds to this will respond to all of my points and not become fixated on just one. I hope you all consider my concern and take it seriously. Takidis 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)