Talk:Solon/Archive 1

Comments

I have removed the LGB category tag because there's nothing in the article to support it; if it's important enough to merit placement in a category, it's important enough to be in an encyclopaedic biography. I have no objection to its reinsertion if someone can come up with a citation within the article itself. Binabik80 04:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well like most men in grecce at that time, he had a thing for little boys, but the as i said must did, the question is, does this make him gay?--JWJW ^Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real reason for this article to be listed as an interest to LGBT - to believe it has relevance to LGBT issues is to fundamentally misunderstand what sexuality was to Ancient Greeks. One should try to avoid such anachronisms as labelling Solon or Socrates as homosexual (however implicitly). I also might add that I can recall no evidence for Solon engaging in sexual activity with adolescents. I think it looks a bit silly as it stands. Mr. Alcibiades 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is listed as LGBT because of the laws on pederasty that were written by Solon? I, Podius 08:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having examined the LGBT project's page, I now realise that they wish to trace the history of sexuality, more or less, and are not politically motivated. In that case this article is relevant, but you'd have to add the tag to nearly every page about famous Ancient Greeks, which I think is impractical and undermines the significance of Ancient Greek sexual thought. Perhaps stronger LGBT coverage of the relevant topics involved, such as those outlined in the article on Athenian Pederasty, would be more appropriate. For some reason that article is only assessed as 'Start' class while this is B-class. I don't know how that works out. Mr. Alcibiades 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

The bottom citation link, Re-examining Solon's ideas on sortition for safeguarding democracy, does not link to the document. Can anybody provide its URL? Paxfeline 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-

"Goedde summary" Section seems out of place, and not up to par with the rest of the article. I would reccomend it be removed, and/or its content to be worked into the rest of the article. Themusicgod1 11:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments of Solon?

This may end up an NPOV issue, but should Solon's "Ten Commandments" be mentioned or listed? If there aren't any objections, I'll go do that. --^hello,gadr e n 04:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what i love

how solons life is a small paragraph —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.12.250 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Readability

I went through the document which had dumb things in it like 'takes a lot of shits'!! and the word 'tripping' for traveling. It looks like it was written by someone who did not speak English or was doing a literal tranlation of another document. I tried to improve the readability but it still looks as if it needs a thorough rewrite. --Johnor 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never, I wrote 'takes a lot of xxxxx'. That should have been vandalism. --Anawhoisawitch 22:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)anawhoisawitch Yes. It was vandalism, by 163.153.222.110. Also, he deleted a whole section. --Anawhoisawitch 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)anawhoisawitch[reply]

Seriously, get someone fluent in English to rewrite this.

This looks like it was written by an illiterate retard. Hopefully someone with even a basic grasp of the english language will edit this.

Sources

There are too many unreliable sources in this article. Wikis are not reliable sources. See WP:RS for more information--Sefringle 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited aren't Wikis, they're ancient texts on wikisource, there's a difference. I, Podius 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They need to be sourced to the origional source of the quote. Wikisource is still a wiki, and as such, it isn't a reliable source.--Sefringle 03:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, who would use a wiki as a source?

Nonsense

This article reads like a lot of nonsense to me. The nonsense is plucked from ancient sources and much of it can be dismissed as myth or folktale. The sources should be reliable modern texts, such as the new Oxford Classical dictionary. Some serious editing is needed. Either that or there should be a caveat at the start, letting the reader know that the information is taken uncritically from ancient sources. Lucretius 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit

I think I'll do a new edit of this entire Solon article. I'll use G.R. Stanton's text 'Athenian Politics c800-500BC', published 1990. The Wiki quotes from Plutarch should be OK since they are copied from an 1859 reworking of Dryden's translation. However, a non-Wiki version could be found on the web. Google probably has a copy of Plutarch in its library of photocopied texts. Anyhow, I'll be rumbling across the border with all canons blazing. Sorry if anyone gets hurt but this is history! Lucretius 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: the picture of a bust of Solon - who says it's Solon? It could be the sculptor's landlord for all we know. I notice that the original file was downloaded with some other interesting pictures. There is a nice bust of Homer in the same collection. Personally I rather like the Homer bust and I think maybe we should title that bust 'Solon'. Also there's a picture of Poseidon that could pass muster in a Solon-look-alike competition. I typed in one for Hephaestos but it came out as two beer bottles. Still, it's not a bad likeness either and I'll leave it in. Contributors please vote for the Solon you think works best. I'm voting for Poseidon as my preferred Solon.Lucretius 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solon
Solon
Solon

I've now completed the introductory section and used this in part to highlight the inconsistencies in ancient sources. The character of Solon as revealed in his poetry is now the main focus in this section. Hopefully the reader will get the idea that ancient history is a bit like a Who Dunnit thriller, where the detective has to sift through the evidence and work from some kind of psychological profile to piece together what really happened.

Next section will provide the economic and social background to the troubles Athens faced pre-Solon. The 3rd section will show how these problems were or were not addressed by Solon's reforms. The 4th section will be a trivia thing. That's the plan at moment. All going well, I'll later build on other articles relevant to this, such as Alkmaeonids, Kylon, Peisistratos etc Lucretius 01:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Tags

I'm intending soon to remove the caveat tags at the head of the article i.e. regarding factual accuracy and English competence. My revisions are making those tags unnecessary as the article is gaining lots of documentary support and my English is better than yours (so there!). If you object to removal of said tags, speak now or forever hold your tongue. Lucretius 04:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to make such a major effort rewriting the Solon article. This article, like a few other articles on Ancient Greek identities, has suffered from the attention one particular contributor who has demonstrated a great fascination for quoting slabs of text direct from Plutarch but combined it with a very poor grasp of English language and grammar. It makes for excruciating reading. I tried to edit some of them, but I unfortunately don’t have the time to totally rewrite these articles (which is what is required), so I really appreciate what you are doing. --Chaleyer61 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I have an excellent sourcebook to refer to, and I'm interested in the period. So it makes sense for me to do it. However, I notice a poor quality in a lot of history articles at Wiki, compared say to physics articles, and that's very sad. Civilisation can get by without physics, I think, but not without history. Lucretius 08:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail

I am quickfailing this article because it looks like it is original research. Over half of the quotations are from ancient sources, and not just anecdotes, etc. Major claims are sourced to these sources. Wikipedia articles need to be based on the work of scholars (see here on the types of sources), otherwise they read like the editors' interpretations of the ancient sources. Awadewit | talk 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing examples per comment on my talk page. Here is an analysis of the first section alone:

Solon was a voice for political moderation in Athens at a time when his fellow citizens were increasingly polarized by social and economic differences. - no citation
Words such as these persuaded both the haves and the have-nots that Solon might be the right man to lead Athens out of its political troubles. - no citation (colloquial language)
(entire paragraph) Other Greek city-states had seen the emergence of tyrannoi (loosely translated into English as 'tyrants'}, opportunistic noblemen who had grabbed power on behalf of sectional interests. There was, for instance, Cleisthenes of Sicyon who had usurped power on behalf of an Ionian minority, and there was Theagenes in Megara who had relieved the poor from the burdens of an oligarchy. Many Athenians hoped or feared a similar champion might arise in their country. In fact, the son-in-law of Cleisthenes, an Athenian named Cylon, had already attempted a coup around 632BC. - no citation
Cylon had staged his coup with the help of forces sent by his Megarian father-in-law, yet it had received limited support among Athenians themselves and in consequence it had been quickly and bloodily crushed. - cited from Thucydides
Solon's popularity was in part due to his resounding advocacy of war against Megara in a dispute over possession of the island of Salamis. - no citation
Solon had backed up this poetic bravado with true valour on the battlefield [7] and Athens had subsequently gained both an island and a hero. If Athens ever had need of a 'tyrant' to fix things inside its own borders, who better than this?! - cited from Plutarch (what's with the punctuation and colloquial language?)
Missing citations for three poetical quotations in first section.
After legislating a wide variety of reforms, Solon surrendered his extraordinary authority and left the country. According to Herodotus [11], the country was bound by Solon to maintain his reforms for 10 years, whereas according to Plutarch [12] and the author of Athenaion Politeia [13] (reputedly Aristotle) the contracted period was instead 100 years. A modern scholar [14] considers the time-span given by Herodotus to be historically accurate because it fits the 10 years that Plutarch [15] assigns to Solon's absence from the country. Evidence from ancient sources always requires careful sifting. Sometimes it is quicker just to consult our knowledge of human nature : would a wise man seek to impose a 100 year moratorium on reform? - This is better because it alerts the reader to the sources, but what is this bizarre appeal to human nature?
(entire paragraph) Within 4 years of Solon's departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but now with some new complications. There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and sometimes important posts were left vacant. Some people now blamed Solon for their troubles [16]. Solon later accused Athenians of stupidity and cowardice for allowing one of his own relatives to exploit the situation. This same relative, Peisistratos, eventually succeeded in making himself the tyrant of Athens [17]. - only ancient sources
(entire paragraph) Solon had failed to save Athens from its internal divisions. Never the less, he laid the foundations for democracy and he prefigured one of the greatest Athenians of the democratic age: famous for wisdom, indomitable in the face of all opposition, the conscience of a nation, a voice in the wilderness, Solon was in many ways the Socrates of his time. - Uncited and hagiographic.

I did carefully read the article and this is why I failed it. I am sure that you have greatly improved the article, but effort is not sufficient for GA. The article must meet the GA criteria. You are free to appeal this decision at GA review. Awadewit | talk 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 104 citations in the article. You don't seriously expect me to add even more? How many GA articles have as many citations as this one? As for modern scholarly sources, I've cited these authors - Stanton, Walters, Hignett, Gallant, Laurence, Morris, Snodgrass, Garnsey, Innis, Forrest, Piper. That's 11 contemporary authors, thank you very much. How many GA articles cite more than 11 contemporary authors? However, what annoys me is not the rejection of the article as a GA candidate. What annoys me is the accusation that I have somehow tried to smuggle into this article some personal view of Solon's epoch. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.Lucretius 11:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the number of citations that count, it is their reliability and their appropriateness (see WP:CITE and WP:OR#Sources). As I explained in my detailed list above, you have not cited scholarly authors where necessary. They might very well support the statements in this article, but I cannot know that from reading it. I am not accusing you of "smuggling" in your interpretation at all (note my statement above: "otherwise they read like the editors' interpretations of the ancient sources"). I am explaining the effect of the article; I am stating that, as a reader, I have no reason to believe that much of this article is based on scholarly sources because it cites many ancient sources for its major claims or cites no sources at all. I am not attacking you personally, I am critiquing the article. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree that the article probably needs further work. In particular the section 'Solon the reformer' requires some tightening up. I doubt if the reviewer Awadewit actually read the rest of the article. Lucretius 23:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed the rewrite and I think the article is better off for it. I'll soon resubmit it for classification as a Good Article and hopefully this time the verdict will be realistic. There is however an outstanding question behind this whole process - How good must an article be before it can be considered good in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit? I don't think there is any real consensus about this. Lucretius 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

right is not 'right'

Some contributor added a lot of irrelevant info about the phalanx on the grounds that the word 'right' in Dryden's translation actually means right hand side and not 'justice'. I undid that revision because it is piffle. Dryden's translation employs the word 'right' because it rhymes with 'might'. The original phrasing in Solon's poem does not include any reference at all to right hand side. Lucretius 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

right has a double meaning

That contributor was I. For reference here is the quote with the double meaning:

Before them both I held my shield of might
And let not either touch the other's right

Dryden has apparently missed that a reference to Greek military practice (shield in the first line), and defending your neighbor's right (second line), can mean both citzen's rights and the role they were required to serve in combat. Here Solon states his willingness to assume the same risk borne by the rightmost hoplite in a phalax. The hoplites in such a position were at grave risk for they exposed their own (sarissa-bearing), right side while their shield (in left hand), covered only their midsection and their left-hand neighbor's right shoulder (see Phalanx_formation "Overview"). In this analogy it is important to realize that in many Greek city-states to have the rights of a citizen meant having the means to afford a hoplite's accoutrements and so serve in the phalanx and for the common defense.

We should recognize Solon's wit by documenting his double entendre around 'right' as entitlements of citizenship, and 'right' in a phalanx of his fellow citizens, and leave in this contribution. Since you seem to be the arbiter of this page, Lucretius, what say you? Rchf 23:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the arbiter - I'm just the person who seems to be doing most of the work on this article at the moment. However, I can read Greek and I have read the verse in question and there is no reference to the right hand side of anything. The pun is English. Lucretius 04:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positioning within a citation

When I look inside some of your citations (Lucretius) I am positioned at the top of a huge citation such as Plutarch and must search for the number of the citation with parenthesis e.g. I literally have to search for '[3]'. Is there a way to position to these citations directly?Johnor 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be possible by adding the number of the section at Wikisource to the link e.g. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives/Solon#3] = [1]. Or change it to an internal link [[s:Lives/Solon#3|[3]]]=[3] VirtualDelight 13:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the positioning of all of the Plutarch citations.I will recheck them for accuracy of content in a bit. Thanks for your hard work on this whole article. Regards!Johnor 13:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also corrected the positioning of the Athenian Constitution entries by Kenyon. Pointed them to wikisource with same translation.Johnor 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for all the work you have done, Johnor! I don't get around to Wiki much any more otherwise I would have thanked you sooner. I don't know what else the article needs for a GA rating. Feel free to keep making necessary changes. Lucretius 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of the approval process is dependent on the particular person applying the rules. I noticed a featured article that had about the same amount of use of primary sources as this article and asked the person who disapproved of this article to read and opine on why the featured article was approved and not yours. They said that if they had reviewed the article in question they would not have allowed it to become a featured article either. So, there you have it! Johnor (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism

It's very flattering to see that the Solon article I drafted has annoyed some inadequate creep so much that he/she can't resist vandalising it. Thankyou. Lucretius 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty

Sorry but the changes by User: Haiduc, giving emphasis to Solon's alleged interest in pederasty, are a bad idea. Firstly, if Solon was indeed a pederast, his sexual preference was nothing unique for that time - so why make such a song and dance about it? Was his pederasty some kind of defining characteristic? I suspect it is important to people who have a sexual agenda of their own. Secondly, the proof of his pederasty is very doubtful - Haiduc relies basically on gossip by Plutarch, a politically motivated speech by Aischines, and a poetic fragment (was the fragment actually written by Solon?). I wouldn't be surprised if he was a pederast - possibly the lack of real evidence for his pederasty could be due to the fact that for the ancients pederasty was not a big deal - which again brings me to the point: why give so much space to it in the article? Thirdly, I already touched briefly on Solon's pederasty and his alleged sexual relation with Peisistratos - that was in the final section. That limited reference was proportional to the issue's significance. Haiduc's changes are disproportional.

I intend to undo Haiduc's changes, unless he or someone else can come up with compelling reasons for keeping them. I agree with Haiduc that the article could do with further revision, but this kind of revision is not helpful. Lucretius (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already indicated at your talk page, your insinuations about my "agenda" are out of order. My "agenda" is the proper coverage of this topic. Solon contribution is very important, as he was the one to legislate Athenian pederastic morality, and is also indicated to have been the founder of a very important pederastic dynasty, Solon-Peisistratus-Charmus-Hippias. Your "coverage" of the topic, little more than a footnote, was both inaccurate and insufficient. As for your refutation of Aeschines, Plutarch and Atheneus, who are you to refute sources? Haiduc (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haiduc. The Solon article, as drafted by me, places strong emphasis on the unreliability of ancient sources, and it gives a variety of accounts so the reader gets an understanding of how the historical record is open to dispute. The tone of the article is chatty at times, I agree, and that can be considered a stylistic fault in an encyclopaedia. Others are welcome to edit it as they see fit, unless of course they are using the article to promote personal causes. No scholar would accept your sources as sufficient proof that Solon legislated to promote pederasty. Ancient sources make all kinds of claims, many of them palpable nonsense.

I said before and I'll say it again - Solon's sexual orientation has little historical significance. If you found some sources that claim he preferred soft cheese to hard cheese I'd say "So what?". You have found some sources that say he liked pederasty and I say "So what?". For pederasts, Solon's sexual orientation could seem important simply as a means of validating their own choices and lifestyle, but the article is not written with that purpose in mind.

Anyone who enjoys reading the classics soon learns to be indifferent about other people's sexual orientation. However, as a school teacher, I would be the first to have a pederast arrested if he came anywhere near my class. Pederasty is nothing but a sentimentalized version of paedophilia. I am offended by your attempt to hijack this article and I will delete your edits. However, I'll make this offer - I will accept a separate section dedicated to Solon's significance for pederasts, so long as you make it clear that both his sexual orientation and his role in promoting pederasty are open to debate. Lucretius (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Haiduc. I've had a closer look at the speech by Aischines and I can't find there any specific reference to Solon except as one of the lawgivers of Athens. You say in the article that Solon excluded slaves from the wrestling schools. I can't find evidence for that assertion. I'll quote from the speech you cited: Your fathers, when they were laying down laws to regulate the habits of men...forbade slaves to do things which they thought ought to be done by free men. "A slave," says the law, "shall not take exercize or annoint himself in the wrestling schools."(paragraph 138) This is not proof that Solon wrote such a law. Also I want to know your source when you say that Solon was the founder of a 'pederastic educational tradition'. Are you aware that Homer's works had not yet been written down when Solon was archon? Are you aware that the Parthenon had not yet been built, and even the temple that preceded it had not yet been built? Athens was hardly more than a village. How many teachers do you think were in Athens at that time? Do you seriously think, amid all the urgent reforms he needed to make, that Solon found time to legislate about slaves in wrestling schools? Many of the slaves in Athens at that time were in fact free born Athenians who had been enslaved due to bad debts. Your primary source, Aeschines, was a barrister arguing a case, and he dragged Solon's name into the argument in the same way that an American would mention George Washington or Abe Lincoln.

I intend to delete your tendentious edits some time in the next few days. If you must write something, I think you should write a whole subsection on the topic of Solon's pederasty. To do that, you will need to marshal your facts carefully and you should then discover that you have no real proof for your theories. All you have is hearsay. But do not insert your arguments into mine. Lucretius (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to engage you in your political excursion, nor in your homophobic pretension that pederasty is necessarily illegal (more erudite and qualified people than you or I have clearly indicated that animosity against pederasty is the last redoubt of homophobia). Your personal dislike of pederasty is not a ground for censoring this article and you have no standing for deciding that valid information should be removed from the article because it is "too much" on a given topic. I do agree, however, that we need more modern sources for this material, and I will produce them when I return to my library in a couple of weeks. As for your offer, you would do better to have a section on Solon´s significance for pedagogues, since that is the context of the discussion - as well you should know.

As for your "refutation" of Aeschines, are we expected to believe that this orator would have introduced palpably false nonsense into a speech intended to convince Athenians of a matter that was as important to him as the destruction of Timarchos??? That is nonsense, and the fact that his action succeeded gives the lie to your argument. Haiduc (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Haiduc. I'm glad to hear that you are doing the research and I look forward to seeing the results in a separate subsection dedicated to Solon's role in pederastic culture. However, your comments above indicate that you tend to snatch at straws as if they were proof of your theories. The speech by Aeschines proves that pederasty was commonplace in Athens more than 2 centuries after Solon and it does not prove the claims you have made in the article. I've quoted from that speech in my comments above. Aeschines was exploiting Solon's good name for his own political purposes. Nowhere does he specifically attribute any law to Solon - he would have if he could have, you can be sure of that. As for my homophobia, I'm pretty sure most homosexuals would agree with me - pederasty is firstly a form of paedophilia and only secondarily a form of homosexuality. Some heterosexuals abuse children and so do some homosexuals, except the latter try to excuse it as pederasty. I remember myself at 14 years of age. I was a child. It is not alright for an adult to woo a boy, whether the adult is male or female. It's a sickening abuse of a child's trust and vulnerability. The ancient Greeks engaged in it but they also engaged in slavery. I am reverting your edits today. I will accept a subsection on pederasty because that will separate your work from the work I and others have done. If you have the scholarship to prove your theories, then you have no reason to refuse my offer. Lucretius (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Athenians voted the death penalty for Socrates and I think that pretty well indicates how easily Athenians could be led by orators. The arguments against Socrates were nonsense. Read the speech by Aeschines against Timarchos. It's an artful speech and it proves absolutely nothing about Solon except that he was a revered figure whose name could be exploited by a clever speaker. Lucretius (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius, I am sorry, but the problem with your comments is that they are largely about you and your idea of me. They also show a great deal of animosity, against pederasty. All these things are inappropriate. We are not in some internet forum where we might go to blow off steam, or strut our stuff. This fundamental misapprehension is why you failed in your attempt to get the article to GA, though, as I said before, you have improved it a great deal.

What we are expected to do in our work here is to step back a bit from the subject at hand, and park our emotions and opinions at home. I will provide the requested references upon my return, at which point this material, plus anything else I encounter on Solon´s contributions to the pederastic tradition will have to go back. Your notion of putting it all together in a separate section is interesting and I will consider it. Your motive, that of segregating it from "your work" is unfortunate but irrelevant. If you will permit me to make a further comment on your clearly stated prejudice, it would be more appropriate for you, as a Wikipedia editor, to adopt a neutral view of pederasty. It so happens that it, like all human endeavours, has both negative and positive manifestations. I share your rejection of the negative aspects, I simply bring to the table an awareness of its positive aspects. Thay are generally not of a sexual nature but rather of an emotional and altruistic nature, and often of a spiritual nature as well. That is what the Greeks and others tell us, if we read their works. And that is what modern pedagogues tell us as well. Fundamentally it is not about sex, it is about love, and about its appropriate expression. So your righteous wrath is well justified, but out of place. Haiduc (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello yet again Haiduc. Sorry but pederasty is about children satisfying the sexual fantasies of adults. You can fancifully suppose that the pederast has a moral purpose and you can quote some brilliant Greek authorities in support of it, but it remains a sexual activity in which children are led due to their trust in adults. The same authorities found good excuses for slavery.

You have reverted the article to your own edit after I have already demonstrated that your theory about Solon lacks real evidence. We don't even know for sure that Solon gave ordinary people a vote in the assembly, so how do you know that he legislated in support of pederasty? Your claims do not belong in an article that makes cautious use of historical sources. I have said I'd be happy for you to write a separate subsection and you should accept the offer. It is the right of contributors like myself to keep our contributions separated from highly controversial material such as the kind you are promoting. I gave it a brief reference in the section about folklore because that's where it belongs - Solon's role in pederasty is poorly substantiated hearsay. You are welcome to have a section on pederasty and the onus is then on you to substantiate your claims.Lucretius (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reinstating fully referenced material upon my return to my office. At the same time I am formally warning you to cease and desist from your homophobic rants. The association of same sex relations with child abuse is a old slur and recognized as such. It also has nothing to do with the Greeks. In the future keep your contributions here focused on the topic at hand. Haiduc (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no scholarly expertise in Classical Grecian matters (merely a dillettante interest), nor any particular axe to grind over sexual mores. If I may interject as a disinterested observer, it appears to me that Lucrecius and Haiduc may be arguing from different understandings of the term 'pederasty': it might be helpful if they agreed on one before continuing this discussion, and then did so. My own understanding, for what it's worth, is that the term usually refers to physical sexual relations between a male adult and male minor - generally frowned upon in most current Western societies (amongst others), but accepted as normal in cultures and eras of Ancient Greece. Establishing moral equivalence between different cultures (with different definitions of all these terms) separated by millennia is, perhaps, problematical.40.0.96.1 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearly stating the problem. As I have said from the beginning, the only construction of pederasty that is relevant here is the one found at Pederasty in ancient Greece, and if we really want to be exact, at Athenian pederasty. Any introduction of modern manifestations of the phenomenon or opinions about such are simply not germane. As an aside, I do not necessarily agree with everything you have stated, but that too is irrelevant here. Haiduc (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore and Fiction

An anonymous contributor removed the words 'folklore and fiction' from the section titled 'Solon the man - folklore and fiction'. Evidently the contributor really believes fictional events such as the conversations between Solon and Croesus king of Lydia about wealth and happiness. As a matter of historical record, Croesus was not king when those conversations were alleged to have happened. It is possible that the two men met but we certainly don't know what was said between them or what Croesus said as he sat on the imaginary funeral pyre. I seem to be up to my armpits in contributors who don't understand what is or what is not a reliable source of historical information. I won't revert this silly edit yet as there are other issues that have to be dealt with. In fact it's likely that I won't be able to give this article much more of my time and I sincerely hope there is someone else who will resist the efforts of the vandals, nincompoops and activists who are interested in Solon for non-historical reasons. Lucretius (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can understand the concerns expressed by Lucretius, I would also like to caution all of us to remain careful not to engage in wording that might be construed as personal attacks, even if unintentional. We should not assume that someone has an "agenda", but instead assume that each editor is a sincere individual who is attempting, in good faith, to assist in the editing of an article to improve it to the highest standards of academic excellence. Arion (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to look after this article? Fantastic! I hope you'll restore the words 'folklore and fiction'. Or would that be taking sides? Cheers Lucretius (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a better heading name, perhaps "Tales told about Solon"? Arion (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've restored my sanity. Thankyou :} Lucretius (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours of Pederasty

Hello Haiduc.You added these comments:

He is also credited with being the systematizer of the pederastic educational tradition in Athens, adapting the ancient custom the new environment of the Athenian polis.^[1] According to the orator Aeschines, he drew up a set of laws that were intended to promote and safeguard the institution of pederasty and control abuses against freeborn boys. Specifically, he excluded slaves from the wrestling halls, and from pederastic relationships with the sons of citizens.^[2]

According to the later histories of Plutarch and Aelian, Solon took the future tyrant Peisistratus as eromenos. The boy happened to be one of his relatives (their mothers were cousins). Later, Solon appointed him as a commander in the conquest of Salamis in the 590s BC.^[3]^[4] Aristotle, however, claims that the difference in age between the two (31 years) would have been too great, making the relationship "impossible".^[5]

This is basically the same stuff that I deleted before. You said you were going to come back with documentary evidence for your views. All you have brought forward is one new source (Sergent, the first quote) and even that looks suspect. I would like you to quote Sergent here on the discussion page. Also I invited you to create a separate section about Solon's pederasty. Why have you not done this? You keep putting it in the main body of the text. What has the alleged affair between Peisistratos and Solon got to do with his reforms?

I also notice that you have again quoted a fragment of an erotic pederastic poem attributed to Solon:

". . . when in the delightful flower of youth one learns to love a boy, yearning for thighs and sweet mouth".^[6]

The authenticity of fragments is often open to dispute and I would like to know the history of that particular fragment. Also, why didn't you quote some other piece of verse? Why did it have to be pederastic eroticism? Of all the many fragments attributed to Solon, why that one? Obviously because you approach this article from the viewpoint of someone who takes a very strong interest in pederasty. But that's not the purpose of the article. Lucretius (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a check on the poetic fragment you quote (Fragment 25, Diehl) and it appears to be wrong. You may look here for a copy of the fragment in Greek [2]. I can assure you that this quote is about milk, cream and boundary stones (in fact you'll find this very quote in Athenaion Politeia because it's actually about politics). There is another version of Fragment 25, which you can find on page 31 of a "A Short History of Greek Literature" by Jacqueline de Romilly (accessed on the web via Google Book). Maybe you are getting your quotes from pederastic literature, in which case there is every reason to believe that the scholarship is poor because the motives are not academic. On the other hand, it is possible that the numbering of fragments is more complicated than your citation would indicate. I do not have a copy of Diehl. Lucretius (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've worked out the problem in your citation of fragment 25 - you have mis-attributed it to Diehl when it should be attributed to West. The moral of the story is - it's easy to mis-attribute a quote. I found your fragment in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome by T.K.Hubbard, published by Uni California Press 2003, page 36. You can access it via Google Book. The fragment there is listed as 25 West. The author adds to the fragment this cautionary comment: ...the authenticity of short aphorisms like this one is uncertain. The authenticity of Solon's political poetry is pretty much certain but his erotic poetry could in fact have been written by anyone. Yes, even the ancients mis-attributed quotes, though they had more excuse than we do since they lacked any concept of history as a discipline. Lucretius (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius, felix sit annus novus and thanks for your extensive comments. Also thanks for your spirited participation in the other articles on Classical pederasty, your interest in the topic can only serve to improve them. Likewise, I appreciate your correction of the poem citation. I often use the citations of other authors instead of looking up the original sources myself, a practice liable to introducing an element of error, as you have shown.

Regarding the Sergent citation, here it is: "The Athenian city began to organize itself both earlier and more slowly than others. Among the oldest evets, "Solon's laws" date back from the beginning of the VIth century. Before going into politics he wrote poems, some of which sang of paederastic love, witnessing that paederasty was an accepted and current practice at the end of the VIIth c. in Athens. Precisely for that reason, new laws were necessary on that subject." Then he goes on to cite the law forbidding slaves from annointing themselves or taking exercise or loving boys, and calls it "Solon's law." (Part of Sergent's argument is that pederasty was not a new fashion, a la Dover et al., but an ancient custom that had to evolve with the evolution of Greek society.)

Regarding the poem, you are welcome to indicate in the article that some researchers feel there is an element of uncertainty as to its origin. We would be making a mistake to "handfeed" the reader the illusion that absolute certainty can be had anywhere, and least of all in the biography of a man who lived 2600 years ago. On the other hand, it behooves us to take into consideration others' comments as well. Dover, for example (Greek Homosexuality, 1978, p195-6), ascribes the poem to Solon and asserts that: "...[the] couplet raised some eyebrows in later times, since Solon was revered at Athens as a lawgiver and upright moralist."

He, unfortunately, falls into the same trap as you, unable to see that Solon's contribution to pederasty was precisely its formulation along moral lines. That is not a mistake made by Nick Fisher (Against Timarchos, Oxford, 2001). He accepts the couplet as genuine (2001, p37) and describes it as "display[ing] an interest in the ideals of pederasty." He also accepts as genuine the laws protecting boys from improper pederastic relations, thus conversely enabling proper pederastic relations (ibid). He views them as "probably" and "very likely" Solonian, and adduces arguments for that position, such as their mention by Plutarch (Lives, Solon) and the presence of archaic terms, such as "xeraloiphein" (for "annoint" as far as I can tell). Wright also detects a pattern in Solonian legislation of protecting the weak against the strong, and observes that the laws on pederastic ethics fit that mold.

Allow me to close by responding to your question of why I chose that particular poem to highlight. It is because there is a dearth of coverage of this key element of Greek history, and a predilection on the part of some to sweep it under the rug or to explain it away. Sadly, you yourself seem to carry the banner for that faction, claiming that this article is not purposed to cover pederastic matters. Are you really serious? Are you really proposing that we break out the pederastic aspects of Solon's legacy and exclude them from the article? That we not include them in the list of moral reforms when a key primary source identifies his laws on pederasty as exactly that? Have you not read Aeschines? "Consider, men of Athens, how much concern was shown for moral control by Solon, our ancient lawgiver, and by Drakon and the other lawgivers of those times. First of all they legislated about the moral control of our boys . . ." So my counterproposal to your suggestion that I break out all the pederastic material into its own, sanitized subsection is this: Let's start the section on moral legislation with what the Greeks - not us moderns - thought most important! Regards, Haiduc (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haiduc. At last some documented arguments! You need a separate section on Solon's alleged pederasty because the topic is very much open to debate and you need to put forward the best case you can, which means bringing all your evidence into a single presentation. You will be able to cite your documents in that separate section, also the alleged affair with Peisistratos and the pederastic poem. Solon's association with pederastic laws is so tenuous that Fisher has had to go to some trouble to put forward an argument in favour of it, and I can easily find quotes that question the authenticity of the erotic poems. I suggest you read Aeschines objectively. He's a barrister putting forward the best case he can and he uses simple rhetorical tricks like loosely associating Solon with other lawgivers. I also suggest you read the rest of the Solon article and try to understand how cautiously it puts forward all arguments about Solon that are based on historical sources. All the sources are questionable due to the antiquity of the period.

I thank you for coming up with your material but it belongs in a separate article so that readers will understand how questionable the argument is. If you leave the material scattered throughout the text, it is hard for others to reply to it with contrary material because then the whole article will be sidetracked by a debate that isn't so important to others as it is to you. This is a reasonable request. I look forward to seeing your arguments in a separate section and, in the meantime, I hope you will remove the text you recently inserted.

You asked me:Are you really proposing that we break out the pederastic aspects of Solon's legacy and exclude them from the article?. No, I am really asking you to demonstrate that his legacy does in fact have pederastic aspects.

xeraloiphein apparently means using rubbing oil without water, according to my lexicon, if that's any help. Lucretius (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I kept on looking at it as "xera" + "oiphein" and you can imagine what came to mind. As for the suggested treatment of the topic, I would agree except I have a real problem with what seems to me a double standard: under your scheme the sources, such as Plutarch for example, would be treated as credible when it comes to certain topics and not credible when it comes to pederasty. I am sure I do not have to remind you that Plutarch opens his discussion of Solon on a strong pederastic note. How about this: I notice that one other thing missing from the article is a discussion of Solon's establishment of public brothels. Why not have a section on regulation of sexuality, as an extension of his regulation of morality. That section can then be broken down in regulation of relationships with women and regulation of relationships with boys. In the section of relationships with boys we can include references to Solon's own pederastic interests. Deal? Haiduc (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haiduc.

First: There is no double standard when it comes to historical sources such as Plutarch. Look at the start of the final section now titled Anecdotes where it labels him virtually as a fiction writer. Herodotus comes off even worse, being labeled the father of lies. Nothing that comes from an ancient source is taken in this article as fact and every proposition has some counterproposition.

Second, broadening the sexuality issue seems a reasonable idea but it should still have a separate section. I wouldn't make it a subsection of Reforms. The moral reforms in that section are basically economic reforms with moral significance, such as releasing of slaves. The kind of issues you are talking about were not really economic or political and they were not the kind of issues that were threatening to tear the country apart. Solon was not given dictatorial powers to make laws about brothels or to establish a pederastic tradition. Your argument seems to be that he somehow found time, while he was saving the country, to worry about his countrymen's sexual mores. I don't think he did but because the topic seems important to you I'm prepared to give the topic quite a lot of consideration. I don't understand your reluctance to give it a separate section. Lucretius (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks' sense of morality, as I understand it, is that honor matters more than money, and that you have not saved the country if men are eating well but their sons are being routinely buggered by their neighbors' slaves. It seems to me you are projecting a modern materialist view on a very different society. Anyway, I think we are homing in on a mutually agreeable solution. I appreciate your collaboration and look forward to your feedback. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Haiduc. I see that you put the topic in the Reforms section. But at least it's a separate subsection and I can accept this. I'll get around to putting in the evidence against your arguments as time and opportunity present themselves. My expectation is that it will be a section with a good balance of arguments for and against, which is the proper way to deal with questionable sources. As for sons being buggered by the neighbours's slaves, that's the kind of problem that might have affected Athenians after they had grown idle and decadent on the profits of empire; I doubt if the abuse was ever routine and it was probably something like the fear that Americans had about negroes raping their daughters. If you ever stop to think carefully about what Athens was like in Solon's day, you will realize how absurdly anachronistic the whole issue is. Pre-imperial Athens was not a thriving commercial town, it didn't have lots of stone buildings, porticoes and wrestling schools, and there were not thousands of slaves wandering about in search of someone to bugger. Almost all the slaves were out working on the estates of rich men and many of them were enslaved debtors Lucretius (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Lucretius. If work were an antidote to sex, we would not have the lively office life that 9to5ers report. Seriously, though, I am concerned by your impression that there is some anachronism afoot here. May I refer you to Thomas Scanlon, "The Dispersion of Pederasty and the Athletic Revolution in Sixth-Century BC Greece" in Same Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity; Harrington, 2005? His contention is that open pederasty appears in Dorian poleis in the early seventh c. and spreads to the rest of Greece within a hundred years or so, together with athletic nudity. That puts us right around the time of Solon's floruit. Haiduc (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Haiduc. I was replying to your comments about brothels and about slaves buggering the freeborn. The economy in Solon's time was barter-based (there were no coins) and it's hard to see how organized, secular prostitution would be possible in those circumstances, and the number of slaves was far fewer than in Aeschines day. Anyhow, I've now added to the article some citations that are relevant. Also, however, I have been looking at your reference to Aeschines (paragraphs 6,25,26 are cited) and there is nothing in those quotes about wrestling schools (6 refers to Solon, Draco and lawgivers in general, while 25 and 26 refer to Solon's modest wearing of the himation). Could you please provide a specific paragraph number? Or are you getting the info from Plutarch? Thanks Lucretius (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Also the reference to Philemon is given as Fr4 - what set of fragments are we talking about here? Lucretius (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lucretius. The Aeschines reference is from 136-138[3]

I also notice that you inserted a disclaimer stating that information about Solon is of late origin and thus not 100% reliable. I agree, but I question the wisdom of placing that text in the pederasty discussion, as if it was not relevant to the rest of the article, which it certainly is. What do you say we place it either at the beginning or the end of the article, specifying that ALL the information in the article is subject to that caveat? Haiduc (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haiduc. First, I think it is a good idea to put some kind of disclaimer at the very start of the article regarding the unreliability of ancient sources for this period. In fact, I touched on that issue in the caption that goes with the bust of 'Solon'. However there are already various caveats throughout the article, letting the reader know that the ancient sources lead to conflicting versions of Solon's reforms. The caveat I inserted into the new section is best suited to that section because your arguments there are specifically about civil laws and those assume very detailed knowledge e.g. such as the laws regarding wrestling schools.

Also, I don't see how your new citation specifically ties Solon to the laws you are talking about. Are you able to to provide the reader with a paragraph number for the Aeschines speech, definitely linking Solon in particular with any law about pederasty? This detailed kind of citation is practised throughout the article, as for example with Plutarch. As far as I can tell, Aeschines only links Solon to pederastic laws by inference, as one of the lawgivers of Athens. Lucretius (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucretius, I take responsibility for being lackadaisical yet again. Yes, you are right, it is by inference that the link is made, but that is recognized in the literature. I shall correct and provide references in the body of the article. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haiduc. You have now heavily qualified or rephrased the 2 little sentences I added to your extensive draft. Do I express myself so badly that I am in need of your help? You have not yet reworded the quote I supplied but I'm sure you would if you could.

You now admit on the Discussion page that there is only an inferred link between pederastic legislation and Solon. You say this is recognized in the literature. But you have still not recognized it in the article. Also, who are these 'others' that you now mention in addition to Plutarch and Aeschines? Philemon perhaps?

I also question this assertion: "While some consider the law regulating the availability of free youths and his pederastic poetry as being among the most authentic of his writings,^[7] Solon's authorship of such fragments is not universally accepted." ^[8]. The last clause (in italics) is mine of course and it's a fair minded comment - the rest of the sentence (in bold print) is yours and it's a mad assertion. I'd like to see the quote that identifies the pederastic poems as the most authentic of the poems attributed to Solon. How can any scholar make such a claim? Or are we being lackadaisical again?Lucretius (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lucretius, I was going to rephrase the quote, then I realized it was a quote. I think we should be very specific, as I am sure so do you, which is why I focused the discussion on Aeschines since he is not the only source and it sounded otherwise as if all the sources were ancient orators and everything they said was a lie.

The "others" I was referring to has to do with a note (#16, p.213) to Percy, in which he points to Eberhard Ruschenbusch (Solons Nomoi, 1966; 97-98), who cites Hermias of Alexandria's comments on Plato's Phaedrus 231e as another proof of authenticity. I do not have access to Rauschenbusch as I do not have German and have not tracked Hermias down yet, which is why I did not want to stick him into the article, blindly.

As for the quote request, here it is (and I will look for others): "Some of Solon's sayings deemed most authentic are his poem on love of youths and his law forbidding slaves to practice pederasty with free adolescents." (Percy, 177) Haiduc (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haiduc.

Yes but 'deemed most authentic' by whom? This is not the way a scholar usually expresses himself unless he has already made it clear whose opinions he is citing.

As for your reference to others - a note by some bloke called Percy, referring to something said by some bloke called Ruschenbusch, who was citing an Alexandrian scholar who was commenting on a work by Plato - this is a proof of what? This is so much nonsense. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

The new section 'Sexual Reforms' is getting out of hand and it is venturing into prolix, poorly supported opinion. The problem comes down to your insistence on pushing a point of view much further than the sources permit. I think we should restore the section to my last edit, which gave fair treatment to both sides of the argument, even though 90% of the words in it were yours. Otherwise we are going to be here forever trying to come to terms with our very different ideas of historical proof. Lucretius (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucretius, I am sorry you are upset, but I am also disappointed at your attitude. The pursuit of information documented by scholarly researchers is not "nonsense," it is the type of documentation we do every day. Yes, the topic is perhaps a tad recondite, but this is not a grade school level project. And as for "scraping the bottom of the barrel," all the individuals cited are published academics and bona fide scholars or ancient authors. Obviously they all have their points of view, which is why it is well that we can bring contrasting opinions to bear on the topic.

As for reverting my corrections and additions, I would request you to proceed on an item by item basis rather than a blanket reversal. I substantiated my work, and pointed out that you were lumping all sources under your criticism of some, i.e. of the orators. Also you seemed to be jumping to conclusions with the assertion that all later authors got their information from Aeschines. But that is not credible. Plutarch had access to many sources of information long lost to us, and unless I missed something, he did not specify that Aeschines was the only source he consulted. Absent that, we cannot generalize.

I will continue to look for Hermias of Alexandria, and please go ahead and change anything I wrote as long as you can back up your action with contrary evidence. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haiduc. Ok continue looking for Hermias of Alexandria. You should find him in the margins of various ancient texts. I'm reverting to my last edit because you have not adequately answered my objections made above. You are not aiming for a proper balance of arguments for and against. My last edit struck a balance. We could be here forever citing sources for and against. I've already allowed you 90% of the wording. If you can't bias the section even with that advantage, it's because the evidence for your arguments is thin. Now you want 100% of the wording, and you want to pile on poorly referenced opinions from just about any source you can dredge up. Forget it.

Regarding Hermias, maybe you are referring to the author of 'Satire on the Profane Philosophers'. According to the OCD, he is an otherwise unknown Christian author of uncertain date but 'perhaps AD 200'. By all means look there. Regarding Plutarch, here is a quote from this reliable scholar on whom your argument depends almost completely:[28]

Aesop, who wrote the fables, being then at Sardis upon Croesus's invitation, and very much esteemed, was concerned that Solon was so ill- received, and gave him this advice: "Solon, let your converse with kings be either short or seasonable." "Nay, rather," replied Solon, "either short or reasonable." So at this time Croesus despised Solon; but when he was overcome by Cyrus, had lost his city, was taken alive, condemned to be burnt, and laid bound upon the pile before all the Persians and Cyrus himself, he cried out as loud as possibly he could three times, "O Solon!" etc etc.

Yes Plutarch is certainly very careful with historical facts! I suppose he was a fly on the wall at the palace of Croesus when these conversations were going on.

Regarding Aeschines, you seem at last to have seen the light, though it took months to get you there because you wouldn't read the source properly. And now you lecture me about the proper use of documentation. I'm not a professional scholar but at least I try to present the facts in good faith. Lucretius (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lucretius, you may not be a professional scholar but you sure have the makings of one, in every sense of the word :) I think that things are fine as they are, they may not be perfect from my point of view but we have come a long way from where we were. I actually found you more than civil and I have enjoyed our collaboration. Regards, Haiduc (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear?

Hi Haiduc again. I noticed you've put a tag in the section after the intro, saying that the meaning is unclear. It seems clear enough to me and you'll have to let me know what the problem is. Solon wrote in verse. Have you ever written verse? Clarity of meaning is not the poet's only concern - he has to write according to the genre, with a set linguistic pattern, and he uses metaphores that can in fact complicate his meaning. He writes for poetic affect. Lucretius (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I've now rephrased my edit and I think the result is better. Thanks. Lucretius (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing "and therefore much of the meaning was created for poetic affect." It simply did not make sense to me that "the meaning" was created for "poetic effect." It totally trivializes Solon, and makes it seem that he perverted the meaning of his words to suit some poetic fancy. That is both bad poetry and terrible lawmaking. He would not have achieved the reputation he had if he had been known as a superficial man who cared more about the form of his words than their substance. But all this of course is my own supposition. Did you actually read that somewhere or were you hypothesizing also? If it can be referenced we can include it with the caveat that it is only one opinion. Haiduc (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was customary at the time for writers to communicate with the public in verse and he was merely following convention. But if you've ever attempted to write verse you will understand how it often forces a writer to go in a direction he didn't originally intend. That doesn't necessarily mean that he trivialized matters. On the other hand, try writing a poem about your own life and see what happens! Lucretius (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, I have. But here's a counter-example (one of many) to your thesis: Shakespeare's sonnets. Though the words he uses may be unorthodox, the meaning is always crystal clear. For a good poet, it is not the meaning that is subsumed to the word, but vice-versa: "And summer's lease hath all too short a date." Poet, eat thy words. Haiduc (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry reveals a world of eternal verities. The world we live in is a very different kettle of fish. Lucretius (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetical comment

I deleted the following comment in parentheses because it severely interrupted the sentence into which it was inserted:

(although iot is only possible to securely ante-date the arkhonship to pre-582BC, restoring the arkhon-list Meiggs and Lewis 6 with Plutarch Sol.14, as Solon held the arkhonship in succession to Philombrotos, three years after Kypselos, who died in 585BC)

I think this could be best replaced by citations to the sources that inspired this comment. Can the contributor provide such citations? Another alternative is to put the comment at the end of the paragraph, again with the necessary citations. Lucretius (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination

I think the Solon article is now within sight of an FA nomination. Work needs to be done on the References section. Possibly some reworking of the Notes section is needed also to comply with formal requirements. Maybe some deeper structural issues need to be considered though I myself see no problems there. All help and advice is welcome. Lucretius (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be strongly against a promotion to FA at this time. Solon is one of the most studied figures in archaic Athenian history, yet the article cites only three secondary sources, two of which are sourcebooks and one of which is a collection of poetic fragments. There are many scholarly monographs on Solon and his reforms, and an article which fails to report their views should not be considered for an FA. In addition, while the Oxford Classical Dictionary is a fine source to start with, an article of FA quality should not cite it; those citations need to be replaced with citations to monographs or peer-reviewed articles.

In addition, the article seems to rely on Plutarch far too much. In some respects, Plutarch probably knew *less* than we do about Solon. We need to rely on secondary scholarship, not primary/ancient sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Akhilleus for this useful advice. However, you only saw the unfinished Reference section (I was in fact looking for help in finishing it). There are 24 secondary sources now listed in the Reference section. Compare that with the 31 secondary sources in the FA article Slavery in ancient Greece and the FA possibilities for this article don't look so gloomy after all. I think extensive use of primary sources is fine since physical evidence is ultimately what history is about, provided of course the sources are viewed with adequate scepticism, as is the case here. But certainly more secondary sources are needed. Can anyone provide some more citations based on secondary sources? Lucretius (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those secondary sources aren't specifically about Solon. Where the meaning of primary sources is contested (as it definitely is w/Solon), we need to rely on secondary sources. Primary sources may seem to have a straightforward meaning, but if you consult the scholarly literature on Solon, nearly everything about his career is contested. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Akhilleus. If you read the article, you will see that the point you make is made repeatedly by the article itself - no ancient source is accepted prima facie and there are numerous caveats. History is supposed to instil critical thinking into its students and that's a very good reason for extensive use of primary sources - particularly at Wiki, where we have wonderful links to translations of some ancient documents, all available at the click of a mouse. The secondary sources listed in the References all appear in the Notes and they all support specific claims made in the article. A text can be authoritative and relevant even if it is not exclusively about Solon and his times. I've been busy restructuring the article with numerous edits and this may have interfered with your opportunity to read it properly. In fact, the restructuring has weakened the article temporarily (like ripping down a wall to fix the plumbing) but that can be fixed with some rephrasing (replastering and repainting). If you want to rewrite something on the basis of sources you have at your disposal, be my guest! Equally, if you have textual support for key points made by the article, again be my guest! But if you are right and there are major structural defects with this little building, I'd better get out of it altogether and let someone else have a turn. Cheers. Lucretius (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read my previous post. Sounds as if I want to take my ball and go home. Sorry about that. I 'inherited' an article that relied entirely on uncritical use of Plutarch. I (and others) have since introduced many secondary sources and also other primary sources. It is possible that the original structure, with its uncritical reliance on Plutarch, still peers through the extensive revisions we've made. My personal opinion is that this is not a major problem - we're dealing with cracks in the plaster, not cracks in the foundation. The article is now largely based on Stanton's sorcebook, which covers the broad spectrum of scholarly opinion in its commentaries. I think that's a solid foundation. There is still a lot of Plutarch but it's not used uncritically by any means. Most of the Putarch references are now in the sections covering Solon's poetry and 'Anecdotes' about his life. Lucretius (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucretius, I appreciate that you've been putting a lot of work into this article and that you've improved it from its previous state. However, there's still more to be done. For instance, the first sentence of the "Background to Solon's reforms" section reads:

Solon was elected eponymous archon in 594/3BC and, according to ancient sources[14][15] it was at this time that he was entrusted with dictatorial powers to reform the country as he alone saw fit.

The date of 594/3 is one that most scholars would agree with, but 592/1 is another possible date for his archonship. More importantly, though, while ancient sources might attribute "dictatorial powers" to S., modern sources do not: e.g. Stanton, p. 34 says he "was appointed as mediator with power to change the constitution"; others simply saw that he passed laws or reformed the constitution. There's another chronological problem which the second sentence of the "background" section covers, but not in enough depth: when were Solon's reforms? Were they during his archonship, or later, and did they happen all at once, or in stages? (For instance, is the seisachtheia at a different time than the nomothesia?)

Other things that are not treated in enough depth or are simply missing from the article include coinage, weights and measures, religious and funerary legislation. There is far more dispute about what the seisachtheia was than this article would suggest.

Let me again insist that Stanton is not a "solid foundation" for the article. It's a sourcebook--i.e. primary sources in translation, with a running commentary in footnotes. We shouldn't use this as a major source for the article any more than we should use Kirk's commentaries to write the Iliad article--we should instead be using articles and monographs that use continuous prose to make arguments longer than a few sentences. Note also that there is some skepticism about Stanton's assessment of Solon--a review by Hugh Bowden in the Journal of Hellenic Studies 112 (1992) 200-201 said: "This book is certainly a useful collection of material, and will no doubt be seized upon by students wanting to write an essay on Solon, Peisistratos or Kleisthenes. Whether their understanding will be deepened by it, however, I am not so sure." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your wonderful input. You are providing very useful suggestions for further improving the article. In my opinion, your suggestions don't require a major reconstruction of the article. The sections now in place are inclusive of a broad spectrum of scholarly views and supporting texts can be slotted in very easily along with additional sentences and paragraphs where necessary. Some sections would benefit from a major rewrite (e.g. the 'Aftermath' section was hastily cobbled together, as was the expanded section 'Solon the poet and reformer). I'll be scouting around for more secondary texts that can be cited, particularly texts with key words in the title (e.g. Solon, archaic Athens etc). In fact I've already been including such texts in response to your suggestions.

I can't agree with everything you say above. The state of scholarly opinion about Solon and his times is so broad that it is impossible to cover every alternative view by major scholars or every contingency that the topic puts in our way. Equally, you will find scholars in so much disagreement that they are bound to question the value of each other's work (I'm not surprised you found a scholar who doesn't appreciate Stanton's work - I'd be surprised if you had found no criticism of him.)It is important that the reader be aware of the extent of uncertainty and disagreement among scholars and how this results from the very scanty evidence available to them - and I think the article achieves this very successfully (one vandal even inserted his opinion that 'Solon didn't exist', which is a bit extreme but still a good sign that he read parts of the article with some degree of critical thinking). Regarding Solon and his 'dictatorship', I can't think how else to define government by one man released from constitutional constraints (anyone who makes laws on his own is in some valid sense a 'dictator' surely). Anyhow, that's a small issue easily dealt with. Regarding the time of his reforms, the article does mention differences of opinion about this and it cites sources.

In summary, I think the article is approaching FA status and your suggestions are furthering it along that road, for which many thanks. Please do add/change things where you think appropriate. Lucretius (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, I've just checked the history page and I find that you have already been making numerous useful/necessary changes, particularly in presentation. That's much appreciated. Lucretius (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sexual Reform

I reinstated the earlier edit on Sexual Reform because the edit by DelJE was, though well-intentioned, ill-informed. DelJE removed much of the argument on the grounds that there is no need to mention spurious claims about Solon's 'pederasty'. However, I think it's best to let the pederasts make their spurious claims so that everyone can see how weak their arguments are. Modern pederasts exploit unsubstantiated claims made by pederasts in the 4th Century and that's the only 'proof' they've got. It's important to counter those claims and not just sweep them under the carpet, otherwise they just keep coming back. Lucretius (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, whoa: no need to be rude! Don't bite these guys! But I do agree, you've made an interesting point! BlackPearl14 ^[talkies!^•^contribs!] 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that a play, a piece of fiction would be taken as a historical documentation of fact. I'm sure we can all think of many instances when stories, movies, plays, books (da vinci code, innumerable movies like Amadeus) etc. are created using historical characters but are very flimsily based on fact. We should only be mentioning them evidence of a person's historical or cultural relevance or influence but not as a basis of finding out facts of a person. That would be like using the movie Amadeus as a basis of writing a biography on Mozart. There is this line starting: While the veracity of this account is open to doubt, it is considered significant that in Classical "Athens, three hundred or so years after the death of Solon, there existed a discourse..." This sounds like what I see others cal original research. It only tells us that people still thought Solon was a significant figure. We don't even have evidence that Philemon believed Solon as represented in his play was factually accurate as opposed to using a historical figure for his own creative purposes. --Truert (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very, very, very much with your thoughts but wikipedia is not a place for peerersts to make unsubstantiated claims no matter how spurious they are. In fact they should not be allowed to make those claims here precisely because they are spurious. Sure we can allow the reader to see how flimsy they are but they shouldn't be included here because they are flimsy. If anything it would give the reader the wrong idea. They'd give it greater weight because they'd assume it is worth considering otherwise it wouldn't have been included. We'd essentially be diluting the quality of the article just to prove a fringe theory wrong. If it's spurious and fringe, we should be able to veto it on the talk page so it wouldn't get on the article. This wouldn't be sweeping it under the rug. We should include it if it is a meaningful reputable view; we should not be entertaining fringe views and possibly confusing less informed readers in the process. The ultimate goal should be presenting factual evidence of the subject, not disproving fringe theories about the subject. I hope you understand my point. I'm willing to help you ensure that these non-representative views are kept out of the article to ensure the highest quality and greatest accuracy possible in representing modern scholarship on Solon and others.--Truert (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits. The section that you removed is cited to several secondary sources. The citations need some improvement, but an article in One Hundred Years of Homosexuality cannot be called a "fringe theory". We report the opinions of experts in the field, regardless of whether we agree with them or not. If these scholars are wrong, there should be other secondary sources that say so, in which case we should add that material to the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns but the reference for the article "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" but it is used as reference for "significant that in Classical Athens, three hundred or so years after the death of Solon, there existed a discourse that associated the availability of heterosexual pleasure with democratic values." While this in itself is valid, the paragraph treating a clearly fictional work, a play titled "Brothers". The secondary source is not making that mistake. The secondary source is simply noting the significance of the *discussion* of sexuality, NOT that we should take it as a source of information on the historical Solon. The anonymous wikipedia editor who entered the paragraph is the one committing that mistake. It would entirely appropriate to have a mention of "Brothers" as an example of Solon being represented in the arts if there were such a subheading, but it is a gross error to include it in a section discussing his reforms.

In any case, the title of the article could for intents and purposes be "One hundred millennia of homosexuality" in that the title is no way related to the quality nor reputability of the article. For that, we look at the author, their qualifications, and the source of publication. Even if it is by a prominent individual who is eminently qualified to speak on a subject we want to see how representative their views are of the field. James Watson, one of the discoverers of the molecular structure of DNA, expressed some very controversial opinions a couple years ago regarding the relationship between intelligence and race. It is easy to see his views were non-representative of the rest of the academic community despite his standing within it. My general point is we should not be in a position to take any secondary source blindly. I'm not necessarily saying this is true of the current sections in question, but this is a general statement with regards to ALL secondary sources and something practiced in academia. --Truert (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is rather porous and sloppy scholarship on the part of whoever contributed it, and NOT (with perhaps one exception) the part of the secondary sources. For example, the part starting "According to the orator Aeschines..." is mostly fine with the exception of the insertion of "ancient lawgivers (and therefore Solon by implication)." The part in brackets was inserted by whoever contributed this section and is a logical stretch and not supported by Aeschines. This is not careful scholarship and I have chosen to remove it. The Sergent sentence is non-representative. The following paragraph used to refute it doesn't even discuss the issue let alone argue against it (because it is generally not a topic of mainstream discussion, thus making it a fringe view); the secondary sources in the paragraph were merely used to indicate "our knowledge of Solon's legislation is originally sourced in accounts by 4th Century writers and orators and these often feature anachronisms". The paragraph is considerably better written from a scholarship perspective and involves no unnecessary stretches being introduced on the part of the contributor.

I have removed these sections for now, but the section as --Truert (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not again

Truert, your latest edit makes almost no sense at all since you have deleted many of the linking arguments. I don't want to go over this territory again since the section you dislike was a compromise that arose from my previous (interminable) debates with another contributor. This encyclopaedia is about compromise. However, I'm ready to go this far.

1. Paste the following paragraph into Anecdotes (italics):

According to a surviving fragment from a work ("Brothers") by the comic playwright Philemon,^[9] Solon, in order to "democratize" the availability of sexual pleasure and to place it within the reach of even those of modest means, established publicly funded brothels at Athens.^[10]

2. Delete this sentence since it doesn't seem to contribute any new information about Solon: While the veracity of this account is open to doubt, it is considered significant that in Classical Athens, three hundred or so years after the death of Solon, there existed a discourse that associated the availability of heterosexual pleasure with democratic values.^[11]

3. Reinstate the rest of the original edit.

I have followed through with these changes. Lucretius (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The computer I was using was being problematic. In addition to strange keyboard issues the internet connection was intermittent and eventually nonexistent. What I mean is I was still in the middle of working on the section when I lost connection.

1. I agree completely that this encyclopedia with its many editors is all about compromise. However it is more than that. It's about compromise in equal representation of valid views or positions so readers can get a broad and adequate representation of important perspectives on an issue. It shouldn't be a compromise between legitimate arguments and nonlegitimate ones that in the end offers a bit of both. This dilutes the quality of the article. As an example, if for some reason if some editors decided to present racist propaganda on the Barack Obama article, you would not expect a compromise. You would first be giving unnecessary weight to a fringe view and confusing readers into thinking their arguments are worth considering because they wouldn't be on wikipedia otherwise. You mentioned above "Modern pederasts exploit unsubstantiated claims made by pederasts in the 4th Century and that's the only 'proof' they've got." You also say you want allow "them make their spurious claims so that everyone can see how weak their arguments are". We simply shouldn't be allowing spurious claims in wikipedia even for this reason. And not every reader has the intellect to reach the same conclusion as you or I.

2. And if a major concern is these "spurious claims" just keep coming back, then we can just have them look at the talk page. This is how these things are treated in other articles that I've seen it come up. What is more likely to be coming back is people expressing concern about the illegitimacy of these spurious claims and their inclusion in the article.

3. I do agree wholeheartedly with your decision to move the fictional work by Philemon to a more appropriate section.

4. Please allow me to finish what I was working on before and then you can make changes based on the finished product. I do appreciate your feedback.--Truert (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will detail every one of my moves and provide a detailed reason for them below:

1.I am removing the lead sentence to sexual reforms starting "It has been argued that Solon systematized..." because (a) it is from a non-mainstream source (it's titled "Gay Studies from the French Cultures" for one thing, which is odd when the topic is ancient Greek culture) and (b) a similar claim should easily be found from a mainstream scholar/historian on Ancient Greek culture. I would be happy to leave it in if one such source can be provided.

Reply: The cited source is not about French gays - it's a paper specifically about Pederasy and Political Life in Archaic Greece and it would certainly include the Aeschines speech against Timarchus. The citation is appropriately followed by a summary of the Aeschines speech in so far as it relates to Solon, which is followed in turn by a quote regarding the unreliability of orators like Aeschines.

I have had a look at the actual text and you're right it is on Ancient Greece. My point was it's an odd title and not a mainstream source. My (b) point was that we should easily be able to find it in mainstream sources if it is a mainstream and legitimate argument. Again, I would be happy to leave it in if such sources were provided to address this concern. In any case it is superfluous given that it adds nothing new to the rest of the paragraph; the paragraph stands well without it.

2.I've moved the sentence "our knowledge of Solon's legislation is originally sourced in accounts by 4th Century writers" to right after the sentence starting "Modern scholars doubt the reliability of these sources..." as it fits nicely there. I've also altered the beginning of the sentence for smoother transition.

Reply:Moving that sentence to that location merely results in tedious repetition of the main point there.

It's not repetition. It's a statement of another reason why we cannot be very certain about Solon's legislation. However, I am fine with your preference to leave it where it was originally located because it is a nice counterbalance to the paragraph that precedes it.

3.I'm removing the two sentences starting "According to the orator Aeschines, ancient lawgivers (and therefore Solon by implication)" because the editor is the one adding the part on Solon in brackets, NOT Aeschines. I think this is what I've seen called "original researching" in other discussions. The section simply starts "Your fathers, when they were laying down laws to regulate the habits of men and those acts that inevitably flow from human nature, forbade slaves to do those things which they thought ought to be done by free men." before detailing the restrictions on slaves. It would be sloppy to attribute or imply that Solon had a role in every law given by "ancient lawgivers."

Reply: I have already covered this in my answer to your first point.The reference to Aeschines speech is not original research and there is no doubt that Aeschines was implying Solon's involvement in pederastic legislation.

I completely accept your point here. I'd happy with this staying in. In fact I have even modified it to make explicitly clear why there were these restrictions against relationships with slaves based on what's in "Against Timarchus".

4.I moved the remaining section to the more appropriate poetry section since that is what it is discussing. If now follows at the end of the poetry section. I've rearranged it such that it follows after the detailing of the fragments of poetry that survive. I think it makes it a smooth transition since the addition now starts with a discussion of some fragments of Solon's poetry.

Reply: The poetry section is not an appropriate place for Solon's pederastic affair with Pisistratus. Also, the cited source regarding the authenticity of Solon's poems related specifically to some pederastic verses and it belongs better in a separate section on sexual reform.

You are right about that. However, the discussion of Solon's poetry should be in the section on Solon's poetry because it is poetry and is not related to sexual reform. So I am going to move it back there.

That leaves just the small section on Pisistratus which is neither here nor there. Honestly I'm for leaving it out for several reasons: (a) there is already plenty enough on pederasty without it, (b) unless pederasy is a big part of Solon's life and legacy we are at risk of giving this theme more weight and focus than it accurately deserves, (c) this alleged relationship is not important enough to include in the article especially when it is described as unlikely, (d) there is a source for Aristotle's claim such as relationship was impossible but not for Plutarch or Claudius Aelianus and (e) nothing is lost by not including it for the reasons stated.

5.I have renamed the section "Anecdotes" to "Solon's life" because that's essentially what it is covering even if it doesn't cohere very well as it is right now. The section starts with "Details about Solon's personal life..." which I think is fitting.

I hope you find these edits reasonable and acceptable.--Truert (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truert - I have reverted to my own edit because your cut and paste approach was inappropriate. My answers to your points have been inserted into your text at the appropriate places above (sorry if this looks like editing your text). I think my own edit took account of your objections. Thanks for your input - I think this has improved the article. Lucretius (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that I spent all that work trying to accommodate your concerns by keeping as much as possible and placing things where I think they would flow best with the rest just to see all of it undone. You still haven't addressed what I said regarding the primary purpose of an encyclopedia (my first 1-4s). I also don't understand how this has improved the article when it's essentially the same. Nevertheless, I do appreciate that you are at least responding to some of my input in writing if not in the body of the main article. I am adding responses to your comments above. You will see I ended up keeping most of the article the way you originally had it. The main change is keeping the pederasy poetry in the poetry section. Please also respond to my original 1-4s regarding the dilution of the quality of the article for the purposes of countering pederasty promoters when you can.

6. Addendum. On second thought, looking at the section on Solon's poetry, there's really no point including the brief blurb on pederasty themes in his verse. Unless it is an important or common theme in his poetry there's no point including it. The question we need to ask is, is it worth mentioning? There are so many possible themes we could talk about in Solon's poetry. Why this one? If Robert Browning wrote 1000 poems and only two brief ones mention an early infatuation, do we mention it? If so, it'd make a very long discussion of Browning's poetry given the 998 other poems. My point is it should be represented in proportion to what we find in mainstream sources. If paederasty is not a major theme of Solon's poetry it shouldn't be in there. If it is a major theme, we'd need some indication of it.--Truert (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again

Truert, you are deleting good secondary sources, which have arisen from the work and the research that others have done for this article. You should do some research of your own first instead of just cutting and pasting other people's work just to suit yourself. Your most recent edit contains many faults. Re your original 1-4 points:

Original 1:You say the quality of the article is diluted by 'non-legitimate arguments' and 'spurious claims'. BUT consider this - arguments are illegitimate and claims are spurious only when they have been shown to be so. The article did that before you started making edits

Original 2:Few people take time to consult the Talk Page and most of the talk here is so brief/obscure or tedious/detailed that almost none of them will bother to read it all anyway. The claims about Solon's pederasty have to be dealt with in the article. However you make a good point when you say that many readers might object to the presence of spurious arguments - you are in fact the second reader to object to the presence of these arguments. BUT readers should be aware that Solon is a contentious subject - this is pointed out at the very start of the article. The article consistently presents conflicting arguments and the Sexual Reform section does this too. The fact that one side of an argument appears stronger than another does not invalidate the argument as a source of academic interest. The article gives students ready answers to claims about Solon's pederasty and your edits only weaken that function.

Original 3: Yes we both agree that the Philemon citation belongs in the last section. However the section was titled Anecdotes but you've now changed it to Solon's Life. That section is reserved for gossip and poorly substantiated claims for which no counter-argument is necessary. Your title suggests that the section could be biographical fact.

Original 4: I have waited for you to make your changes - I'm sorry but your most recent changes are just more of the same.

In short, your edits are becoming highly counter-productive. You made a couple of good points at first, such as about Philemon, and I did edit those things accordingly. Please have the grace to allow my last edit. Thanks Lucretius (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point regarding original 2. If you see the Solon article as it stands now the Sexual reform section talking about Aeschines is largely intact. I've removed the part about the wrestling halls and I've made more clear the reasoning for the restriction of slaves. The main thing I've removed is the part on pederastic poetry for what I believe are very valid reasons. You say my most recent edits contain many fault but you don't say what that is. You say I'm making this to suit myself. This sounds almost like a personal attack with no basis. Not saying that's what it is, just saying it almost sounds like it. I've repeatedly stated my concern about content that is being viewed by others. How is that making it my personal page? Couldn't the same argument be made just as wrongly about you? If you're tired of talking about this with me so am I but at least I'm trying to compromise with you but you don't look like you're willing to do the same other than moving the Philemon section. You want everything to stay in there. I've kept as much in as I think is reasonable and most of it actually is in there where it originally was. I think I've been making much bigger compromises here and been very reasonable discussing it. Besides sometimes the best edit is when something is removed. Your last edit was simply a revert of everything I did. You can imagine how frustrating that was. It almost was like you weren't really considering my points. The reason for moving the pederasty poetry section to under the poetry section was pretty iron-clad but you still moved it back. I could have went on a rant but instead I've tried to present my reasoning politely and patiently to you. Please let's try to reach an agreement. --Truert (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truert, firstly, on Talk Pages one editor replying to another is supposed to start his paragraphs with a colon (:) because this indents his text and clearly distinguishes his text from that of the previous editor. I've now done this for you. I'll make these points:

Your current edit turns 'Sexual Reform' into a sub-heading equal in status to the other three reforms mentioned - it should be a more minor heading subsumed under Moral Reform, as it was in my edit.
Your heading 'Solon's Life' is inappropriate for a section that records anecdotes (many of the anecdotes are clearly fanciful).
I spent half a day searching for a citation that you have now blithely removed. A previous editor had cited some pederastic verses conventionally attributed to Solon, using that as supporting evidence for Solon's role as the founding father of the pederastic tradition. My citation argued that the authenticity of such poems is questioned by some academics. That citation belongs where I put it, in the section on sexual reform, but you have now put it in the section on Solon's poetry where we already have other quotes about unreliable attributions.
You say that the pederastic verses attributed to Solon are of small importance in the context of his poetry and you say it deserves no mention. Do you have an authoritative source for that judgement?
You removed mention of Solon's alleged affair with Pisistratus yet this is a key component in the ancient account, mentioned by various authors. It belongs in the Sexual Reform section as supporting evidence for his role in Athenian political life as a pederast.
I reverted to my earlier edit because you had made so many changes via cut and paste that it was next to impossible to see how much information you had deleted or shifted about. Much of that information required a lot of research and it would be a shame to lose it just to suit the preferences of a new editor who has yet to demonstrate a long-term commitment to this article.

I could make other points but this has already taken up too much space and time (I'm now in between feeding the dogs and cooking dinner and I have to go). I did take account of some of the points you made and I did thank you for helping to improve the article. I intend to restore my last edit if you do not. Thanks Lucretius (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reinstated the original section 'Sexual Reform' but I've retitled it 'Solon and Athenian Sexuality' and I have moved it to a lower position in the article. This is the best I can do to accommodate those who think Solon's sexual antics/beliefs have no real support in historical fact and those who think they have enough support to deserve mention. Later I will add an internal link from Moral Reform to the new section. I think this new edit is necessary to prevent further messing around from either side. Cheers. Lucretius (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bikitheke

I was able to lay hold of Solon fragments quoted from Plutarch at the Wiki/Biki site here [4]. The Biki site contains dozens of classical works typed up by Wiki-style contributors. I haven't yet checked out the Greek but it looks fine to me at a glance and, if there are any problems, they can be fixed easily by cut and paste. Unfortunately one couplet in the article is a quote from Dio.Laert. and there is nothing at Wiki-Biki about him, but that couplet can be supplied later via letter-by-letter cut and paste methods. I was surprised how close the Dryden paraphrase is to the Plutarch original. Lucretius (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I might not have formatted the Greek text properly. I copied it straight from Biki without using the normal {{Polytonic| command. If I've boobooed here, hopefully someone will fix it for me. 123.211.105.233 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama - the Solon of the 21st century?

just think about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.47.223 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean his achievements as a reformer are open to question, yes, Obama is the modern Solon. The difference is that Solon's work finished 2.5 thousand years ago and Obama has yet to start. That's a significant difference I think. Lucretius (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Bernard Sergent, "Paederasty and Political Life in Archaic Greek Cities" in Gay Studies from the French Culture; Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, NY 1993; pp.153-154
^ Aeschines, Against Timarchus 6, 25, 26[5]
^ Plutarch, The Lives, "Solon"
^ Aelian, Varia Historia, 8.16
^ Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 2.17
^ (Fr. 25, Diehl)
^ W. A. Percy,Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece, p.177
^ K.Hubbard, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents, Uni.California Press, 2003; p.36
^ Fr. 4
^ Rachel Adams, David Savran, The Masculinity Studies Reader; Blackwell, 2002; p.74
^ One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love, p.101

[1] Bernard Sergent, "Paederasty and Political Life in Archaic Greek Cities" in Gay Studies from the French Culture; Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, NY 1993; pp.153-154

[2] Aeschines, Against Timarchus 6, 25, 26[5]

[3] Plutarch, The Lives, "Solon"

[4] Aelian, Varia Historia, 8.16

[5] Aristotle, The Athenian Constitution, 2.17

[6] (Fr. 25, Diehl)

[7] W. A. Percy,Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece, p.177

[8] K.Hubbard, Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: a sourcebook of basic documents, Uni.California Press, 2003; p.36

[9] Fr. 4

[10] Rachel Adams, David Savran, The Masculinity Studies Reader; Blackwell, 2002; p.74

[11] One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: And Other Essays on Greek Love, p.101

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]