Talk:Solon

Anachronistic writing

Dear Lucretius, your treatment of the reports by Aristotle, Plutarch and Aelian is misleading to anyone unfamiliar with ancient history. Aristotle wrote the Athenian Constitution around 330. Plutarch's floruit was over four hundred years later, that of Aelian 500 years later. But your phrasing has them bickering with each other, or maybe even has Aristotle refuting the other two. Lets call a spade a spade. An account discussed over the course of five centuries is nothing but "persistent" and the presentation has to show that the later writers persisted in their belief despite the earlier contrary opinion. --Haiduc (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the above message.

As for Dover, as indicated, I am basing myself on Garland as I do not have access to my library at the moment. But this assertion is a foregone conclusion. See Eros and Greek Athletics By Thomas Francis Scanlon, p.67, or Percy in Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, p.16, both on the web, just for starters.

As for deleting the poem, I don't think the reasons you give are accepted Wikipedia practice, and I think you are shortchanging the reader. How can you justify having a section in which the only citation is there to refute the premise of the section, while supporting materials are kept out??? --Haiduc (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

pederasty again

Haiduc, I reverted your quotation of a pederastic poem because there is no reason to confront readers with material that most of them would find distressing and which encourages vandalism. The quotation adds nothing to our knowledge of Solon. I also changed the link from Athenian pederasty to Pederasty in ancient Greece because the latter article is better researched whereas the former article looks like an attempt to promote pederasty - it represents a highly idealized view that a 3rd century Athenian would happily ascribe to. Lucretius (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, you claim that pederasty was widespread in Athens by the end of the 7th century and you cite this text: Dover, Greek Homosexuality pp.195-196; 1978 (after Dillon and Garland, 475). Could you please type the exact phrasing that you rely on for this claim. Hopefully it will include some mention of the evidence on which the claim is based. Lucretius (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments in the section above - you shouldn't lecture me about anachronisms. I've just looked up one of your sources - Scanlon page 67. Scanlon supports Dover's thesis that overt homosexuality began in the 7th Century and that this then led to the invention of initiation rituals for boys involving homosexual behaviour. This view is said to be in opposition to a view held by others (Sergent and Bremmer) that pederasty began in prehistoric initiation rites. So your Scanlon source seems better suited as support for the argument that pederasty was not widespread in 7th Century Athens. This is not the first occasion that you have used sources in an uncertain manner - your use of Aeschines was also 'uncertain' until I corrected it for you. As for Solon's pederastic affair with Pisistratus, there is no mention of it in Herodotus and yet he's the kind of author who would have used such material if he knew about it. Regarding the pederastic poem you have repeatedly tried to insert into this article, by all means cite it - but don't quote it. Lucretius (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not lecturing you, and I am sure that you do not intend to lecture me. But I can see that we are talking at cross purposes. I am discussing problems in the article, and you are commenting on my alleged personal failures. Let me encourage you to change tacks and address the message rather than attempting to kill the messenger.

I read Scanlon as saying the dispersal occurred in the 7th c. since he claims that it was fast and it was then that the practice "came out". Bear in mind that we are discussing events at the very end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century.

I also do not understand why you insist on using the ancient sources in a misleading and clearly anachronistic manner. It seems a small thing to put things in the proper perspective.

As for the poem about the sweet mouths and thighs of boys, we do not have to use it if you do not like it. But we do have to provide a quotation of some ancient fragment or another in order to balance things out. I will see what I can dig up. --Haiduc (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Scanlon's book clearly demonstrates disagreement among scholars about the spread of pederasty in archaic Greece. The archive is a record of your other attempts to misuse sources. The article achieved a proper balance before your recent set of edits. Your latest edit about the 'loving feelings' between Solon and Pisistratus is typical of a soap opera and it is intended merely to convince the reader that pederasty is OK. This article is not about pederasty. Lucretius (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What Scanlon (213) says is pretty clear: "...the date of Solon´s pederastic regulations corresponds neatly to our earlier hypothesis that athletic nudity and pederasty began to see more widespread acceptance by about 600BC."

Plutarch said that their mutual feelings "retained still in its embers living the strong fire of their love and dear affection" so I think my paraphrase is more than restrained.

My own feelings are my affair, there is no point in our analyzing or deprecating each other.

This section IS most definitely about pederasty, as it relates to Solon´s life and the views that ancients and moderns have had about Solon´s participation in that tradition and legislation of its various aspects.

You have still not addressed my critique of the muddled and confused text which juxtaposes helter-skelter sources half a millennium apart. --Haiduc (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your latest Scanlon quote is better suited to your purposes. However, according to his own wording, it's just a hypothesis. Now consider my edit: Pederasty was common in Athens in Aeschines' time and it is possible that it was also a common practice in Solon's time. Here is the edit you replaced it with: The pederasty that was still common in Athens in Aeschines' time had already become a widespread custom by the end of the seventh century. Your edit treats an hypothesis as an historical fact; my edit left the matter in doubt, which is a better reflection of the state of historical knowledge.

Muddled? Here is my edit: According to Plutarch and Aelian, Solon took the future tyrant Peisistratus as his eromenos. Aristotle, on the other hand, claimed that the difference in age between the two (31 years) would have been too great, making the relationship "impossible". This is not muddled.

You are clearly using this article to promote pederasty. This creates problem with other editors. I also object to these attempts. I admire the Greeks for many things but they practised slavery, misogyny and pederasty because the men of that culture thought they were entitled to exploit weak and vulnerable individuals. They tried to excuse their behaviour with high sounding rhetoric. When I look at your edits, I see an attempt to revive that rhetoric. Lucretius (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the proper phrasing regarding pederastic institutions in Solon´s time, I expect we can find something mutually agreeable. How about "is thought to have become widespread by the end of the seventh century?"

As for the scrambling of historically disparate sources, I am glad you think your text is not muddled but merely stating that does not make it so. You have still failed to address my critique. Let me repeat. Placing Aristotle´s views after those of Plutarch, Aelian and Athenaeus makes a hash of the history of the argument because it is anachronistic and seems to use the earlier writer to refute the later ones. It appears to have been written so as to make a point, namely to refute the contention that S and P were lovers.

As for your moral approach to Wikipedia editing, a tactic of which, as you point out, other editors too are guilty, I think it is inappropriate. We are not here to stand in judgment of our topic, or of each other. We are here to document the current state of knowledge. I may think Greek pederasty is the cat´s miaow and you may think it is terrible, just terrible. So what? Let´s fix the text and let´s move on.

It seems that your claim that things Solonian are "in doubt" is just for show. Trying to find out where you are coming from, I took a look at your user page. There we discover the real certainties – rather than the claimed doubts – that cause all this friction. I quote:

The [Solon] article includes a problematic section where one contributor argues that Solon institutionalized pederasty. The claim is shown to be spurious and tendentious and some contributors now argue that the section should be deleted. I think the section should be retained - if we delete it, the pederasts at Wiki will simply restore their specious claims and then someone else will have to research a new refutation.

This does not strike me as a good, impartial foundation from which to write an article about a man long associated with Greek pederasty. --Haiduc (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does enough already on the theme of Solon's pederasty. My moral approach comes into play when somebody tries to misrepresent historical evidence. You continually misuse sources. The fact is there is no irrefutable evidence for or against Solon's pederasty and none for or against his pederastic legislation. The harder you try to argue that he was a pederast who legislated in favour of pederasty the more tendentious your arguments appear and the more you are drawn into misrepresenting the available sources. You are here only as a propagandist and your attempts to sound like the voice of reason are laughable. The quote you have taken from my user page is correct - the claim that Solon was a pederast is shown to be spurious because there isn't enough evidence to support it. I am prepared to shift the whole section into the Anecdotes section, where it really belongs. It can stay where it is, if you like, but in that case you must stop trying to turn it into an anecdote. Lucretius (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There is very little that is irrefutable about Solon in general. So selecting the topic of pederasty as even less irrefutable than the rest of the material is uncalled for. As for my use of sources, you are welcome to challenge whichever source you like. Until then, forgive me if I do not take that accusation very seriously.

As for being a propagandist, I am afraid that you have already revealed yourself as one. You label other users who write about pederasty as pederasts (what shall we call editors who write about mid-20th century Germany and Italy, fascists?) and you labor under a one-sided negative view of Greek pederasty, one that does not reflect current scholarship on the topic.

I do not favor pederasty, that would be nonsensical. I admire the ethical forms of the practice, and I deplore the unethical ones. But I am concerned that it be properly and correctly covered. Unfortunately all too often I run into editors such as you who would improve upon the original by pruning away whatever they find distressing about their favorite topics. I do not belive in prettifying the subjects I write about, and like to present them warts and all. No propaganda there, and no squeamishness either.

In what regards the article, I have nothing more to add or subtract from it as long as that misleading anachronistic mishmash is repaired. Will you do it or shall I? --Haiduc (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that putting Aristotle after the other writers and the phrase "on the other hand" is an implicit refutation of the idea that Peisistratos was Solon's eromenos. I think a way of solving this would be to include what current scholars say about the notion--I'm sure someone has commented upon it. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when does the placement of sources have to follow a chronological order? Far from being a mish-mash, I find the edit to be clear and an admirable attempt at a compromise not merited by the material. This whole section is based on mere speculation and in my judgment should either be eliminated or relocated to the anecdotes section. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I will add two words to my edit ('had earlier'):According to Plutarch and Aelian, Solon took the future tyrant Peisistratus as his eromenos. Aristotle, on the other hand, had earlier claimed that the difference in age between the two (31 years) would have been too great, making the relationship "impossible". I hope this removes the suspicion that I am somehow manipulating the word order to mislead people about the time frame. That apart, I will revert to my own edit and remove the soap opera element introduced by Haiduc. Haiduc, your sources should never be accepted by anyone without first being checked by someone else. Even your second reference to Scanlon (page 213) looks doubtful because it relates to an 'earlier hypothesis'. I can't check this out yet since I can only access the Google Book version and it won't open at the required page. You still haven't typed out the exact wording in Dover's book. I won't accept your current edit because you have added nothing of significance and it's simply part of your ongoing campaign to promote pederasty even at the expense of historical accuracy. Lucretius (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed some of the problems with the section, and cleaned up the loaded language and stilted English as well, as much as I am able. It is well that we have debated things here, since it has led to the discovery of some interesting material that I have included in the article. Akhilleus´suggestion was particularly useful.

At the same time I have to request that in the future you Lucretius restrict your comments to the subject matter, and not make accusations unless you are prepared to back them up with evidence in a proper forum. Also, since you have candidly admitted to being biased against what can be a legitimate and lawful expression of homosexual desire, I would suggest that you delegate work on such topics to other not hamstrung by such prejudice. As for your possesive attitude towards the article, I will leave others to judge whether it is appropriate or not. --Haiduc (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept your latest edit, Haiduc. It looks so unlike your usual contribution that it seems as though it was written by someone else - it's balanced and the English is good. My only criticism is that it ventures too far into trite speculation by one ancient source about the love feelings between Solon and Pisistratus - that probably belongs in the anecdote section. Regarding your misuse of sources, this talk page is a record of my constant attempts to correct your misinformation. Regarding pederasty as a legitimate and lawful expression of homosexual desire, in my country (and probably yours) sexual relations between an adult and a minor are illegal, homosexuality is not. Regarding my own prejudice, Alcmaeonid is a better judge than you are. Lucretius (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the section Solon#Solon and Athenian sexuality to ensure that I'm satisfied with it. I still think the quoted speculation by Plutarch goes too far - it tells us more about Plutarch than about Solon. On the other hand, it also tells us something about the ancient account that Plutarch shared and the reader should be aware of the existence of that account. The quote links to Plutarch's document, I think the first sentence of the quote is enough to set the context and the rest of the quote should be deleted as unnecessary. Also, the final paragraph of the section begins 'Solon's pederastic desire', which invites the assumption that he was in fact a pederast. The phrasing there needs fixing. The reader should be left with the clear impression that we really don't know if Solon was a pederast or not. Lucretius (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Something else - quote 135 in the reference section uses the phrase 'to some extent' twice in one sentence. That surely is a misquote and it doesn't inspire confidence. And I notice that it supports a sentence in the text beginning 'Solon is believed...'. That should be changed to 'Some believe that Solon..'. Lucretius (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerate response. I concur with the substance of all your comments on the latest edit, and have made a series of modifications. Let me know if they are workable. Regarding the politics of homosexual desire, in most regions young people reach the age of consent while they are still minors, making pederastic relations legal within certain constraints. Of course, not all that is legal is ethical. But this is not the place to discuss such things. --Haiduc (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well at last we seem to have got to an edit of this section that both of us are prepared to maintain and that shouldn't attract too much negative attention from other editors. Hopefully the article will now be quite stable for some time. The pederastic account is part of the historical narrative about Solon and the article has acknowledged it without giving it more attention than it deserves. Thanks to both A's for input. And they lived happily ever after. Lucretius (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New Plutarch link

Unfortunately somebody for some reason somewhere where such decisions are made has decided to move Dryden's Plutarch to a different address. It is now here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lives_(Dryden_translation)/Solon [1]. So all those Plutarch links in the article will now need to be redone - and care must be taken that the sectional headings aren't lost. One of the article's merits is (was) its ability to link quickly and directly to paragraphs within primary sources. But somebody for some reason somewhere...should be shot hung drawn and quartered and left to hang on a flagpole as an example to other meddling....but I suppose it had to be done for some reason. Lucretius (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the linking is, was, or will be very useful. As Lucretius suggested, I've put this interesting and now more-or-less stable page on my watchlist. My own reading suggests some minor changes in presentation. I'll wait a while before I suggest these on this page. Regards to y'all. Haploidavey (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All suggestions are most welcome. Lucretius (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Background to Solon's reforms" provides information in a somewhat awkward list format. The "common theme" statement after the sub-headers becomes formulaic and repetitious. Haploidavey (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting - I thought the list format was useful there as highlighting the different theories and the repetition was useful as a summary. I like lists and summaries in an encyclopaedia as it facilitates skim reading - most people who access the article are likely to skim read - while there is still enough there for more empowered readers (those with the time, inclination and educational background to go deeper). Feel free to edit as you like, though I reserve the right to undo, same as I hope you'll undo any unhelpful changes I might make at Gladiator. Lucretius (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I happily admit my bias in this respect - and it is a bias. Personally I find lists and bullet-points difficult to read, and narrative easier to read and to write. I'll try an offline narrative version over the next few days, then paste it in. As you say, reversion is an option. Btw, all your edits to date at Gladiator have been improvements... imo. Regards! Haploidavey (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored all the Plutarch links (I think). Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Perrin's relatively modern version of Plutarch is now available at Perseus, with tolerable load times; it also links to the Greek. This would be preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Athenian sexuality

I've restored a February 2009 edit of the section on Athenian sexuality in order to remove the most recent propaganda of the banned user Haiduc. I'm tempted to remove the whole section into the Anecdotes. Note - I was user Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest and before that Lucretius. I had many discussions with Haiduc on this talk page about his misuse of sources. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I have restored my February 2009 edit after it was reverted. If somebody wants to reinstate elements of the reverted edit, please discuss here and also please verify the accuracy of the sources that you intend re-instating. My concerns are legitimate. The Feb 2009 edit I have reinstated was the result of long debate and negotiations between myself and Haiduc, and I was satisfied that it gave appropriate emphasis to the pederasty issue and that the sources were correct. However, Haiduc came back again much later with more edits, which I accepted at the time simply to avoid an edit war. Haiduc's most recent edit says more about his idealization of pederasty than it says about Solon. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The source in question is Plutarch's Life of Solon, which is - perforce - the source of most of this article. I quote section 1.2 in full, in Perrin's translation:

Solon's mother, according to Heracleides Ponticus, was a cousin of the mother of Peisistratus. And the two men were at first great friends, largely because of their kinship, and largely because of the youthful beauty of Peisistratus, with whom, as some say, Solon was passionately in love. And this may be the reason why, in later years, when they were at variance about matters of state, their enmity did not bring with it any harsh or savage feelings, but their former amenities lingered in their spirits, and preserved there, “ smouldering with a lingering flame of Zeus-sent fire,”the grateful memory of their love.

I don't care whether or what Haiduc did; the way to correct his errors is not to revert him when, as here, he correctly represented his sources.

This is blanking, which is tantamount to vandalism, even if intended to counter a POV agenda; massive and indiscriminate reversion of POV agendas usually amounts to the imposition of a contrary agenda.

Solon was not a member of the Orthodox faith; he was not a citizen of a modern state; he did things which would be illegal and abhorrent in either of these - he presumably owned slaves, and certainly passed laws on slavery. It is misrepresentation not to say so.

The text Amphitryoniades blanked is itself perhaps too short; it does not mention that Plutarch as well as Aeschines attests Solon's legislation on pederasty. If it were advocacy, it certainly would quote in full Plutarch's language in 1.3 about pederasty becoming, under Solon, an honorable institution, worthy of free-men. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Plutarch's quote includes words like according to, largely because, some say and this may be the reason why - all evidence that it is merely the kind of conjecture that makes for a good story. Plutarch says a lot of other things about Solon. I like this quote about his heroism in the war against Megara:

Solon, sailing by night to the island, sacrificed to the heroes Periphemus and Cychreus, and then, taking five hundred Athenian volunteers (a law having passed that those that took the island should be highest in the government), with a number of fisher-boats and one thirty-oared ship, anchored in a bay of Salamis that looks towards Nisaea; and the Megarians that were then in the island, hearing only an uncertain report, hurried to their arms, and sent a ship to reconnoiter the enemies. This ship Solon took, and, securing the Megarians, manned it with Athenians, and gave them orders to sail to the island with as much privacy as possible; meantime he, with the other soldiers, marched against the Megarians by land, and whilst they were fighting, those from the ship took the city.

Why not quote this as well? Or rather - why only quote Plutarch about Solon's relationship with Pisistratus? Haiduc chose that quote because it suited his agenda, promoting pederasty as a lifestyle. He certainly had no interest in Solon - he never edited any other section of it. I can't be bothered analysing the motives of PMAnderson, who accuses me of vandalism, but I would ask him to quote Aeschines, attributing laws about pederasty to Solon, and let's use that instead of the Plutarch quote about Solon's tender affair with Pisistratus. I'll leave PMAnderson's edit stand for the moment but later I intend either to revert to my own more balanced edit or to put the Plutarch quote in the Anecdotes section, where it belongs. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I ddn't care what Haiduc's motives were; they are relevant only to the sanctions against him. What matters is the present state of the page, in which this reflects both what Plutarch said and the emphasis he placed on it, which is after all the very beginning of his Life of Solon. I note also that the present text does in fact address the dubious nature of all this material - and almost all our other material on Solon - as Amphitryonion's text does not.

I will not inquire into Amphitryoniades' motives either; they are embalmed at WT:CGR in case sanctions prove to be necessary. His proposal, or rather ukase, displays a bad case of WP:OWN. If he does revert-war, I will consider the text further in making counter-edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As for Amphioniades' other proposal, which he plainly considers facetious, it would be a definite improvement from the present text, which botches the story of Salamis, and does not mention Nisaea at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

By all means proceed with your sanctions and let's see how it turns out. The present state of the page is unacceptable because it promotes Plutarch's conjecture to the status of a significant quote, which it certainly is not - it was put there by a banned editor to serve his own purposes. There are other Plutarch quotes that deserve precedence in this article, if indeed he needs to be quoted at all. My edit acknowledged the issue of pederasty in an objective manner and for that reason it should be reinstated. Regarding Solon's picturesque courage at Salamis, I chose to link to the appropriate section in Plutarch rather than quote him because, like Plutarch's account of Solon's pederasty, it is told as an entertaining narrative and it doesn't need to be quoted at all. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have already expressed your agenda. Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you want me to stop doing? Amphitryoniades (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, here's the problem. We amateurs have no business trying to interpret what ancient sources really mean; that's why it takes longer to get a doctorate in classical studies than a law degree. There's this naive tendency on Wikipedia to mistake mere literacy — "I can read" — for understanding, which takes decades of concerted, wretched study in the languages and scholarly methodology and reading vast amounts of the primary sources in the original language. After I read my first Platonic dialogue in Greek, I never wanted to see a Greek participle again. And if your knowledge of ancient Greek is at a professional level of fluency, you still have taken only one step toward understanding what Plutarch said; scholars weigh the factuality and meaning of what he (or any other ancient source) says by drawing on an accumulated body of knowledge that is both broad and deep. And let's not even get into the dangers of using any pre-1920 Loeb translation, with its gentility on matters of sex, or the magnificent Plutarch of Dryden, which must be read as an example of the translator's art.

Wikipedians are not supposed to interpret primary sources! That is "original research"! We use secondary sources for the purpose of interpretation. With primary sources, all we as individual editors can do is simply state: "Plutarch says that … " Anything beyond a quotation or summary paraphrase is a matter for secondary sources; however, there is no grounds for deleting a properly cited and attributed quotation or paraphrase from a primary source, even if it lacks for the moment further amplification in the form of secondary analysis. If you feel the primary source is misleading if taken at face value, and you care so darned much, do the work: read about 10 secondary sources that take a range of positions till you can provide a context for understanding the quoted statement. Don't delete the testimonia of ancient sources if they trouble or perplex you; explain them via secondary sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. However, as you you well know, it is normal to prioritize sources for quotation and to work out which quotes are unnecessary or which might be paraphrased; at Wiki, we also have the option of linking to sources. There is no need to quote a contentious source when:

1) we can instead link to that source - I know the links to Plutarch are there because I have installed them twice after a systemic failure;

2) the quote was selected by a banned editor with an obvious propagandist agenda;

3) the quote is the author's own conjecture prefaced with wording such as: according to, largely because, some say and this may be the reason why (it says more about Plutarch than about Solon);

4) there are so many other possible quotes from Plutarch that might take precedence over this soap-opera view of Solon's relationship with Pisistratus.

Incidentally even PMAnderson can't deny that Haiduc was a propagandist - see here. Note that he refers to me there as an opposing fanatic, as if I might be some right wing Christian fundamentalist. If you look at the top of this Talk Page you will notice that I have battled not only against Haiduc but also against deletionists who want to remove the mention of pederasty. Once you have done the 'darned' research into my contributions here and elsewhere at Wikipedia, you might cut me a bit of slack. Or you can continue to toe the party line as put forward at the CGR project by PMAnderson. Either way, I have a right to edit this article and even to insist that a quote selected by a propagandist should be removed. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apologies, I have a bit of the school marm in me and I was lecturing, as is my wont. That is no doubt because I'm old enough to have given birth to the majority of other editors, a fact that frequently comes home to me in these discussions, which I often wish were taking place in a room full of people I still had the authority to fire. Be that as it may, who said I was lecturing you? Don't self-accuse. I was simply asserting my view of the issue of how primary sources should be used, and how they have to be framed by secondary sources who will regularly disagree with each other because that's the nature of scholarship. The secondary sources give relative weight to certain questions, and that will naturally shape the article. Deletion is obviously a negative way to contribute; it should only be done when the information is demonstrably wrong and unverifiable. Otherwise, revision is always better. Now, I have no idea what your contributions are, and whether you habitually delete rather than revise, and therefore my remarks cannot possibly be directed at you. But I confess that your claim to be a better authority than Plutarch on what's significant in ancient Greek culture gives me pause. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apology, Grandma :}. But the notion that your comments are not directed at me is rather strange since I know you are here in response to a sneering comment about me by PMAnderson on the CGR talk page (so what else is new?) When I first started editing this article, it was almost all Plutarch quoted verbatim by a rabid pederast who hardly knew a word of English, so I am used to editing Plutarch out rather than editing him in. I have edited the article as User:Lucretius and User:Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest. If Plutarch is to be accepted as an authority on the subject of Solon, by all means let's revert to the verbatim account and do away with all the secondary sources I have introduced - and which all testify to the limited reliability of primary sources such as Plutarch. However, as editors, we can and do choose which sources to employ, whether to quote them or paraphrase them or link to them or ignore them, and that includes both secondary and primary sources. The argument that the Solon quote, selected by Haiduc, cannot be removed is fiendishly absurd. The quote was chosen by a propagandist or 'fanatic', in PMAnderson's words, and it was chosen for a sly purpose that makes a mockery of this encyclopaedia. I don't mind if we link to the Plutarch passage, or find some other passage, or some other secondary source to explain things further. So far, I've got nothing back in return for my appeals except accusations that I am a vandal, with an agenda of some kind, and next to no knowledge about how to use sources. Give us a break. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Our ancient sources are Plutarch and Aristotle and the orators. All are open to question, as Haiduc's edit at least made clear, but we have nothing better; Diogenes Laertius? The chronologically impossible miracle stories of Herodotus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All the primary sources are so unreliable and contradictory I prefer hardly quote them at all - there are a couple of contradictory quotes about the political and social background, and I've quoted some verses by Solon, but otherwise the article relies heavily on secondary sources with many links to primary sources. The easiest way to deal with the current edit is to replace the Plutarch quote with a paraphrase and a link and then everything else can remain as it is. Plutarch's soap-opera sentimentality has to go. I trust you to come up with a suitable paraphrase because you don't strike me as a very sentimental kind of person! Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A stream cannot rise hiigher than its source; this is all anybody - including the secondary sources - knows about Solon. We should make clear that there are problems; but we have done so.

I will put this article on my list to rewrite; but there is little point to periphrasis. Plutarch's position is not impossible, and it is what he says - and anyone who thinks him sentimental hasn't read him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On this I agree: Where, Amphitryoniades, do you think secondary sources get their biographical data? Seances? Plutarch is a reliable source for what was considered significant in ancient Greek culture — by definition, since he was an ancient Greek and he choose what he thought was worth mentioning. His factuality and his individual biases raise a whole other set of questions; but he decides to take note of his subjects' sexual behavior for some reason, yes? Because these things were considered revealing of character, not because they made for juicy gossip (for that, see Suetonius). So certainly in a biography of Solon, what Solon's ancient biographers say is pertinent, if not always transparent (hence, I drone on, the need to use secondary sources).

I didn't visit this discussion as an auxiliary to PMA, by the way, who hardly needs defended and who might've (if he chose) found criticism in my remarks about the hazards of older Loeb translations. (And "Grandma"? ho ho. That tickled me.) I visited because I'm concerned about material being deleted unthinkingly; if there's something wrong with how material is presented, its proportional weight in the article or its framing, do the work and revise. This has nothing to do with Haiduc, who should be forgotten. The articles to which he contributed should be read carefully and edited — but not by looking at the edit history and singling out his edits. The material should be judged on its own merit. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I always delete material unthinkingly. It's my main agenda here at Wikipedia. Sadly it's impossible for me to get away with it in this article, thanks to your timely intervention. I leave the article in your hands. Have you read it yet? You should if you are to keep an eye on it. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I should add, just for the record - here is the invitation PManderson posted on the CGR talk page, to which Cynwolfe has responded in appropriate measure (italics mine):

*And the original Amphitroniades (I would prefer to think he is merely presenting himslef as Iphicles ;->) is -er- expressing himself at length on Talk:Solon. A third voice would be welcome. [User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] [User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]] 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Plutarch quote that PManderson regards as non-sentimental view of pederasty, and which apparently is worth keeping (italics mine):

And they say Solon loved [Peisistratus]; and that is the reason, I suppose, that when afterwards they differed about the government, their enmity never produced any hot and violent passion, they remembered their old kindnesses, and retained "Still in its embers living the strong fire" of their love and dear affection.

This talk page and the archived page are a record of my continual attempts to bring balance and objectivity into Haiduc's edits by means of structuring his contributions with opposing points of view - the 'darned work' that Cynwolfe so eloquently chastises me for ommitting. There is no 'Haiduc edit' in the article, as such, since all his work has been processed by me beforehand. I accepted his inclusion of the Plutarch quote in order to avoid an edit war. I leave it in situ now once again to avoid an edit war. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This talk page and the edits it records are confirmation of one of Raul's Rules: Attempts to change POV articles to NPOV invariably result from a different POV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For clarity: Yes, PMA brought this discussion to the attention of the G&R Project: I respond to such notices when they pertain to issues of concern to me. Editors frequently post notices on project talk pages to solicit additional views on article talk pages; why does Amphitryoniades find something conspiratorial about this? On several other occasions I have argued against the views of PMA, who has, I must say, never once show an inkling of promoting an agenda or POV in any discussion I've seen him participate in. I'm sorry my jokey and folksy use of 'darned' has left such a lingering wound in Amph's psyche. I shall review the policy for spewing obscene language on talk pages.

I'm not seeing anything in Amph's remarks, which have become personally derisive, that address my points about the relation of primary and secondary sources. Nor does he counter what I said about the role of anecdote and the portrayal of character in Plutarch, which is a standard trope of Plutarchan scholarship. Amph points to no secondary scholarship that says "Plutarch's views of Solon's life must be discarded as useless." That Solon may have fallen in love a couple of times does not surprise me; that this love took forms characteristic of his time is equally unsurprising; that we would want to delete rather than explain what Plutarch says about any of his subjects strikes me as lazy editing. In the quoted passage, note "differed about the government" — the biographical point Plutarch is making is how personal relationships can spill into and roil public life, unless people manage and moderate their personal passions: the passage is an affirmation of Solon's morality. The flowery language is likely to be toned down in a more modern translation (see my point about translation above) — but that Plutarch put it this way says something about Greek culture.

I still say that the articles to which Haiduc contributed should be carefully reviewed and edited — but not by singling out his contributions, some of which may be valid, in the edit history. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cynwolfe - we'll just have to agree to disagree about this matter. I'm not at all wounded by your language. I'm been a school teacher and I've taught in some tough schools and us adults are all just pussycats. Regarding the present discussion, we've both explained our positions and further discussion seems pointless. However, PMAnderson's last message can't be disregarded by me and this is my reply to that:

Hi PMAnderson - your last message, in the context established by this discussion, implies that I am a Haiduc-like propagandist, differing from him only in my POV. This inference follows also from your comments here, where you present me as being even worse than Haiduc on account of my supposed greater inaccuracy. Haiduc is a banned editor and he was blocked on several occasions before that. I have never been blocked even once, let alone banned, neither under my present username nor my previous two usernames. If you have evidence to back up your accusations, now is the time to make a formal complaint. I'll give you a week to collect your evidence. If, after that time, you have not made a formal complaint against me, I'll make one against you. The only other alternative is for you to make a full apology. Incidentally, this might also be an opportune moment for you to proceed with the sanctions you mentioned earlier - I'm curious to know what I am supposed to have said or done on the CGR talk page to merit these sanctions. If you don't follow up your threat about that, I'll cite it as yet another example of your harrassment of me. Alternatively, I'll accept your apology about that too. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem rather fond of ultimata, Amphitryoniades. It's not a becoming trait. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an opportunity to clear the air. My other appeals have failed. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Haiduc quoted a primary source (one which any writing about Solon, including this article, must ultimately depend on) and Amphitryoniades wishes to remove it - selectively. Which is more accurate? (Haiduc also quoted - accurately - a source on playing with hoops in mid-19th century Russia; and this was also a controversy on WT:CGR; having verified that, I stand by the text - as my own citation, not Haiduc's.)

Uf Haiduc were still editing, battling against a steadily accumulating POV might justify these extreme measures; but he isn't.

This is - at this point - a content dispute. I commend the advice of a distinguished editor on yet another of these tempests in teapots: please don't undo obviously useful edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No it stopped being a content dispute when I said I'd leave the quote in situ to avoid an edit war. The dispute is about the issue of harrassment and misrepresentation: you accused me of vandalism and of having an agenda, you threatened me with sanctions, you made a sneering request on the CGR talk page for a third opinion (which in fact invited pre-judgement) and you cited Raul's Rule to imply that I am a Haiduc-like propagandist (which is consistent with the message you left on another talk page accusing me of being a fanatic like Haiduc but subject to even more inaccuracy). My treatment of the historical issue of pederasty is objective and inclusive and you have misrepresented it. It is obvious to me that you will continue to misrepresent me in this manner, as for instance in your attitude on the CGR talk page, unless action is taken. So either follow up your threats and accusations or I will follow up with a formal complaint against you. I think that's fair. It amazes me that anyone would think I am being unfair in the circumstances. You still have another six days to gather evidence about my propagandist role here at WP. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• To the best of my recollection, I have not said nor implied "vandalism". Found it; blanking sourced and accurate text without explanation is vandalism.
• I worded the request for a third opinion neutrally; if I had received a different third opinion, I would have climbed down.
  • Amphitryoniades is long and confusing; is it intended to convey an arrogant identification with Hercules, or is it not?
• There are certainly more fanatical editors, and I thank you for having reverted Tonalone - although encouraging him on his talk-page may have done as much harm as that helped.
• Nevertheless you proclaimed an agenda on CGR, and your edits before and since pursue it. Please stop. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I unwisely stuck my nose into this, could I (in the interest of making sure I'm being fair and evenhanded) ask Amphitryoniades to amplify his statement that his "treatment of the historical issue of pederasty is objective and inclusive"? Is there a discussion on a talk page, or a particular section of an article you contributed, that you feel best sums up your approach to the subject? You suggested above that I should familiarize myself with your contributions before making assumptions. Although as I explained, I was stating principles of editing I believe in, not making specific criticisms, I don't want to leave remarks hanging that might be taken as misrepresenting an individual editor. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to PMAnderson and Cynwolfe

This discussion has already gone on too long for a talk page about an article. However, I'll answer you both in a point by point reply to the strange claims made by PMAnderson just above, and hopefully that will settle the issue:

• I explained my reversion to the earlier edit at the very start of this talk page section 'Athenian Sexuality' and I invited people to discuss my edit before they undid it! PMAnderson undid my edit without discussion and labelled me a vandal.
• PMAnderson's request for a third opinion was clearly associated with a derisive opinion of me and thus invited a prejudiced response to my work from those of his associates who look to him for guidance.
  • My previous usernames were Lucretius (famous Latin poet) and Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (A verse by Lucretius = Yet you must admit that there is a void in things). I have a history of exotic usernames, none of which express my opinion of myself or my role here at WP. My present name came to me when I saw it in a poem by Bacchylides and I decided Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest should come back from the dead to write some articles about lyric poets. I then pasted on my new userpage the first image I found relating to Amphitryoniades (Hercules) coming back from Hades. It shows him dragging Cerberus into the light but it was not a mission statement (here is my userpage before I got embroiled in controversy:[2]) However, it's beginning to look like one now - my mission is to expose stupidity wherever I find it, in whatever form it takes, and that includes stupid responses to the issue of pederasty.
• My inclusive and objective approach to pederasty is already shown in this article, where I resisted the propaganda edits of Haiduc while also harvesting the useful bits of info he came up with occasionally. I did the same with my edit of Herodotus, where Haiduc, with help from PMAnderson and Akhilleus, imposed a tendentious edit on other contributors, based solely on the self-conflicted and highly doubtful authority of Ptolemaeus Chennus (see Herodotus talk page). I came in afterwards and restructured the article to take account of doubtful, ancient authorities, including that of Ptolemaeus Chennus (my edit is here, in the section Life of Herodotus - As told by other 'liars'; see also the talk page). Also review, inter alia, The Knights, which is almost entirely my edit and where I include mention of the hero's pederastic relationship with ThePeople, with the relevant links.
• The agenda I was trying to get moving at CGR was entirely in response to the banning of Haiduc - I want a set of protocols in place that can help the project members deal with future Haiducs. A propagandist like Haiduc can be put to good use if he is carefully watched and if he is managed intelligently. He was banned because he was not kept under careful watch and he was not managed intelligently and we should all take responsibility for that. But all I've seen from CGR is a culture of denial - Haiduc's banning is Arb.com's fault, or my fault, or the fault of Amadscientist etc. Even now the CGR project has no protocols in place for dealing with the issue of pederasty. The banning of Haiduc, the enormous damage he has done to WP's credibility, the alienation of conscientious editors and the subsequent polarization of editors around the pederasty issue - all this shows that a set of protocols is desperately needed.

I expect an apology from PMAnderson for threatening me with sanctions and for accusing me of being a fanatic like Haiduc. If he has proof to back up his claims, he must act on it, or I will take action against him for misrepresentation and harassment, apparently intended to prejudice people against me in future. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I always love being accused of tendentious editing. It makes me so eager to collaborate with others. Please note, I've made only one edit to Herodotus, and that after Haiduc was banned. I've made a total of five edits, I think, to Talk:Herodotus--thus, I impose my will upon Wikipedia. Soon, I won't need to edit at all to shape articles to my will.

If Amphitryoniades wants to focus on "stupid responses to the issue of pederasty", may I suggest that he start by looking in the mirror? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked in the mirror - I said above that we are all responsible for Haiduc's edits and I also gave a mea culpa on the CGR talk page (14 Feb 22:05 and 15 Feb 2:52). I haven't seen anyone else accept responsibility yet. The fact is you did support his inclusion of a highly doubtful and very minor source (Ptolemaeus Chennus) in the Herodotus article. It is also a fact that other editors were resisting his edit because they could see what he was up to. It was common for him to introduce the issue of pederasty into poorely developed articles, where it might assume disproportional significance (his last edit of the Herodotus article is here). We need protocols for situations like that, advising editors of their options, or even something like resource-pages, where quotes/summaries and their sources can be listed for later inclusion in articles. So far we've merely swept the problem under the carpet and meanwhile voices like mine are dismissed as fanatical, inaccurate and contemptible. Look in the mirror, Akhilleus. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fanatical, for sure. You're entitled to your belief that these edits represent some kind of moral test which we've all failed. But I think you'll find that belief isn't widely shared, and the manner in which you're pursuing your goals is making people less receptive to what you have to say. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've failed a few moral tests in my life, but none of them on a Wikipedia page and only a few of which were photographically documented. I doubt that reading an article about archaic Greece affects anybody's morality. Do people turn to pedophilia because they read about Solon's love affairs? After all, they fail to become wise from reading about his proverbial wisdom.

I don't agree that new protocols are needed for handling users like Haiduc (whose comments on this page are respectful toward others and scholarly). There is evidently already a procedure for banning abusers. Good editing takes care of the rest. By "good editing," I don't mean deleting everything you don't like the sound of. I mean reading articles carefully and doing the enormous amount of research required to make sure they reflect the state of scholarship on the topic. This kind of editing is as vital for the humanities as it is for the sciences.

As entertaining as it is to watch PMA lose his cool, it speaks volumes that the honorable Akhilleus has also been drawn into the fray. Amphitryoniades has edited under three different names on this page alone, while asserting that his methodological approach is self-evident; how can I locate its coherence, when he presents himself as multivocal and fragmented? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

At least I've contributed to the felicity of nations.

We have a protocol for dealing with POV-pushers like Haiduc: demand sources; check the sources; check the obvious other sources; revise accordingly. Since, unlike many POV-pushers, he did provide sources, and is not around to edit-war for his contributions, this should be easier than usual.

The only serious obstacle is the blanking of sourced (and largely correct) claims by editors over-reacting to a departed threat. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Haiduc was the victim of a witch-hunt led by Arb.com and by contributors like myself - that's the bizarre viewpoint that's emerging from the CGR project. Therefore I must be a fanatical, inaccurate, vandalizing propagandist since I made some attempt to resist his respectable and scholarly edits (in fact I should have done more to resist his edits - failure to do so was my mistake and the mistake of many others as well). PMAnderson owes me an apology for misrepresenting me as a fanatic given to worse inaccuracies than Haiduc and he owes me an apology for harassment. Akhilleus can prove how honourable he is by resigning from his admin position and Cynwolfe should try to be a little less multivocal and fragmented herself. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Haiduc was treated unjustly, because I haven't researched the case against him. I assume the correct decision was made; this indicates that Wikipedia has an effective procedure for identifying and banning abusive editors. I reiterate that reviewing articles to which such editors contributed and editing them in accordance with the usual guidelines ought to be sufficient to purge material that doesn't belong there. On this page, which is all I'm talking about at the moment, Haiduc did try to address the questions put to him by offering scholarly evidence. I don't question the ban on the basis of this page in isolation; I do question whether all his edits should be considered invalid on their face.

If I have spoken with multiple voices that seem contradictory, or left gaps in stating my views, I'm willing to clarify. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple voices? I'm tempted to say Q.E.D. (in fact I think I just did). Haiduc was polite on this page because I was patient and he had previous experience of my accommodating approach - he knew I would accept well-supported and proportional edits, if he could come up with any. However, his persistently loaded edits and his frequent misrepresentation of sources was actually very annoying. He was banned on several occasions for edit-warring in other articles, and once I think for spitefulness (do the 'hard work' and research his Wiki career). I never said all his edits should be deleted - I've already said he sometimes came up with info that was worth harvesting. Since Akhilleus invited himself into the present discussion, I should mention also that Haiduc was edit-warring in the Herodotus article but Akhilleus chose to ignore it and instead supported Haiduc against the other editors (see the Herodotus talk page). Akhilleus has chosen here to support PMAnderson with personal attacks on me - It's not a becoming trait for me to demand apologies, I should look in the mirror for an example of stupidity, and I am fanatical, for sure. That doesn't improve my opinion of him as an admin. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer about improving this article. I suggest it stop; I think we've all made our opinions of each other clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your comment here is appropriate for an admin and I'll comply with it happily. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Solon was a pederast and a poet92.141.42.143 (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Solon did not repay his friends' debts

I edited under Anecdotes a few days ago to correct this error, but McZeus rolled it back. Not sure why. Plutarch clearly writes that Solon released his debtors in the amount of 5 or perhaps 15 talents, but does not write that he repaid his friends' debts. If there is support for the claim that he paid his friends' debts, or even his own, Plutarch is not the right citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Gilguillory (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Guilty, as charged. I was addressing a number of issues and rolled back that particular edit consulting only my own memory. The moral is - never edit from memory. But it was one of Plutarch's own faults and it serves him right if I did to him what he did to others. :)McZeus (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Plutarch's wording is a bit ambiguous: ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν εὐθὺς ἐλύθη τὸ ἔγκλημα τοῖς πέντε ταλάντοις: τοσαῦτα γὰρ εὑρέθη δανείζων, καὶ ταῦτα πρῶτος ἀφῆκε κατὰ τὸν νόμον. ἔνιοι δὲ πεντεκαίδεκα λέγουσιν, ὧν καὶ Πολύζηλος ὁ Ῥόδιός ἐστι. τοὺς μέντοι φίλους αὐτοῦ χρεωκοπίδας καλοῦντες διετέλεσαν. Solon was found to have lent 5 talents but it's not at all clear that this was money he had lent previous to the fraud - it could be the money lent to his friends and which he has remitted to the creditors as if he had been found (by public opinion) to be the lender in their place. That might not be the best interpretation of εὑρέθη δανείζων but the context makes that interpretation quite reasonable, I think. Dryden's translation could also be interpreted either way. But I'll let your interpretation stand since there is some doubt. McZeus (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Oh and Dryden interprets τοῖς πέντε ταλάντοις as "famous five talents", whereas it could be the debt previously mentioned. That's how I see it (but I'm no scholar). McZeus (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact there are different translations on line. Here is one from Perseus:

"However, this charge was at once dissipated by his well-known sacrifice of five talents. For it was found that he had lent so much, and he was the first to remit this debt in accordance with his law. Some say that the sum was fifteen talents, and among them is Polyzelus the Rhodian. But his friends were ever after called ‘chreocopidae,’ or debt- cutters."

And here is the WP Dryden version:

"But he presently stopped this suspicion, by releasing his debtors of five talents (for he had lent so much), according to the law; others, as Polyzelus the Rhodian, say fifteen; his friends, however, were ever afterward called Chreocopidae, repudiators."

There is another version somewhere where I got the phrase "famous five talents" and I'll try to dig it up again. The WP version is less literal than the Perseus version and it supports your interpretation, but I think my interpretation makes more sense and it is consistent with the other versions. McZeus (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The other version is found here: Stanton, G.R. Athenian Politics c800-500BC: A Sourcebook, Routledge, London (1990), p. 59, though I am not sure who the translator is.:

"But this charge was immediately removed by Solon's famous loss of five talents. For such a large sum Solon was found to have lent, and he was the first to remit it in accordance with the law. Some, Polyzelos of Rhodes among them, state that the amount was fifteen talents. At any rate, his friends continued to be known as 'khreokopidai'"

I'm wondering how 5 talents can be a famous amount if some commentators thought it was 15, so I'm pretty sure that τοῖς πέντε ταλάντοις actually refers to the debt that his friend fraudulently incurred, which of course changes the meaning of the passage quite significantly. McZeus (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another translation, which I got here:

"This charge however was soon removed by his being the first to comply with the law, and remitting a debt of five talents, which he had out at interest."

So that's 4 translations now and they all give a different emphasis to the passage. However not one supports my interpretation unambiguously, whereas two give clear support to your interpretation. On the balance of probabilities, and deferring to the scholarship of the translators, I now have to agree with you! Solon did not repay his friends' debts :}McZeus (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Aristotles reliability as a witness.

Aristotle is well known for being a hard-case prude in relation the sexual morals of the times he lived, and he was very persistent in white-washing the character of people he liked on other grounds, even ones whose erotic frolics are very well attested, and besmirching the repute of men he disliked. So I would not consider him a reliable witness at all, but a very biased one. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In writing the history of classical antiquity, we present the view of antiquity. Presenting Aristotle's opinion is not an endorsement of it, but an exercise in epistemology which the informed reader should be prepared to deal with critically. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do please read the preceding discussion on this talk page. People are clearly using (unfairly) the weight of Aristotle "Ipse Dixit!" to evaluate what weight the different sides of the argument should be given in their presentation in the article. Really, read the discussion.

In fact what is pretty laughable is that both sides appear to precisely have a vested interest in *not* representing the whole historical context, but only the parts that support their agenda. To me both sides are equally guilty of that.

But Aristotle is really precisely the wrong brickbat to use to cow the other side to admit that the whole issue of pederasty should be elided from the historical context. I am not saying that he is precisely lying. Aristotle might well be telling the truth (in that instance) but I wouldn't take his say so on the issue, because he is *such* an unreliable witness on the peccadilloes of philosophers he knew.

As for the issue of the age difference making the whole thing implausible... I would ask you, if such liaisons *never* took place, why would all the greek contemporaries be so excercised over the issue? There are bits and pieces all over Platos works for instance where the old codgers rather animatedly dispute precisely the issue of what age should the boy be for, you know what. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah ... I didn't realize that you were referring to an ongoing issue (I wasn't around for the above debates and sped right by them.) So you're talking specifically about the "Solon and Athenian sexuality" section? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through the discussions above and this particular section and its sources, I'm not going to get too involved with this since it appears to be a POV bloodbath that is bloated with competing statements that don't necessarily cohere beyond making sure that everybody got to get their volleys in. I do still think that my initial reply applies and don't really see the mention of Aristotle as cowing anyone. A few statements in the section get a bit creative with their syntheses, though, and might border on OR. If you think that the language around the Aristotle discussion is too POVish, then why not edit and see what sort of dust you kick up? Best, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah the good old days! I was in that bloodbath, under my previous user name Amphitryoniades. The 'debate' concerned a quote from Plutarch, which had been installed by a banned editor. Plutarch conjectures ("and that I suppose") about a loving relationship between Solon and Pisistratos, and I tried to remove it because it was tendentious (the banned editor was that kind of editor). For this, I got mugged by key figures in the Completely Gross and Revolting Project, who descended in numbers and accused me of being a vandal etc. Actually, I have a history of removing ancient sources from this article (it was ALL ancient sources when I made my first edit here, when I was operating under yet another one of my user names, Lucretius – what a mystery man I am!) So my removal of the Plutarch quote was nothing out of character for me, except that time it concerned the theme of pederasty, where the banned editor could always look to the CGR project for support, even after he was banned. What can one man do against a mob like that? Which is why the Plutarch quote is still here. However, I subsequently managed to sterilize the propagandist germ the best I could. There are various sterilizing agents in there and Aristotle is one of them. Therefore I have no objection to the section on pederasty staying the way it is. But if Aristotle goes, so does Plutarch. McOoee (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Herodotus did not wrote "hundreds" of years after the death of Solon

Herodotus lived just a bit more than a century later than Solon. Born 74 years after his death.--Lucinos (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Valid point. Herodotus got lumped with Plutarch. Changed the wording to "long after". Thanks. McOoee (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

and while you are at it can you provide citations for this : "at a time when history was by no means an academic discipline." you might say that for Herodotus (although it is debatable) but Plutarch lived after the Historian (Thucydides) and therefore history was an academic discipline at his time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.216.254 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Coinage

I am going to re-revert this [3] edit by User:Odysses about early Athenian coinage. The previous version of the article said, apparently correctly, that it had formerly been thought that Solon reformed coinage but that recent scholarship has revised this view and come to the conclusion that coins were only introduced in Athens a few decades later (around 560 BC). This was correctly sourced to this [4] work by R. R. Stanton, from 1990, which includes a detailed review of scholarship up to that date showing that many coins previously dated earlier were now dated to later periods.

Odysses changed this passage into its opposite, by presenting Stanton's work as an obsolete view which was "recently" superceded by other findings. This is baseless and very poorly thought out WP:OR. There is no reference to any work critically discussing the literature reviewed by Stanton or stating that it has been superceded. The only references cited are entries on three individual coins in online catalogues. However, the datings in these catalogues come from the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, a long-term research project dating back into the early 20th century. For example, the entry linked to here [5] is from volume III of the SNG, which was published in 1938–1949. This [6] auction item references J. Svoronos, Les monnaies d’Athenes Munich 1923-26. There is thus no reason at all to believe that the early datings shown in these online catalogues represent a more recent layer of scholarship that has superceded the work represented in the Stanton source; the exact opposite is true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise keeps on reverting edits about Solon's coinage reform, probably unaware of what other reputable Encyclopedias mention on the subject, such as Britannica that says:

the circulation of coined money (invented in Solon’s lifetime) was stimulated by the minting of a native Athenian coinage on a more-suitable standard than that of the coins of neighbours, which had been used hitherto; and new weights and measures were introduced. "Solon" in Britannica

Furthermore, he insists on a link on G. R. Stanton, emphasising that "Athens probably had no coinage until around 560 BC", suppressing the fact that this article also mentions that "M.C. Root goes too far in attributing the coinage reforms of Solon to Ephialtes, c.462 BC" and that "D. Kagan argues that the literary evidence associating Solon with a change in Athens coinage should be accepted."

By the way I did not remove Stanton's link from the article. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise even disputes the credibility of SNG coins, assuming that they sell false dated items. J. Svoronos's reference in this coin was given only for the description of the coin. SNG has other means to accurately date their coins. It is Future Perfect at Sunrise's opinion (WP:POV) to insist that "Solon performed his monetary reforms even though there was no coinage at the time". Odysses (○) 12:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

We should not be using numismatic catalogs to source information about history when there are secondary sources of recent date that contradict the sales catalogs. If Stanton's view is superceded - we should use secondary scholarly sources to show that, not numismatic catalogs. The proper sequence here is someone boldly changes thing - (Odysses) and someone reverts (Future Perfect) and now things are discussed. The readdition of the disputed information should be self-reverted while discussion goes on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Further - "The Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, a project that publishes ancient Greek coinage, includes Athenian coins in their database that date back to 570 BC." is not supported by either this coin entry or this coin entry because they give a range of dates - 570 to 530 BC. We cannot assume that 570 is the correct date when the source itself gives a range of dates. That date range does not rule out Stanton's dating of the introduction of coinage to 560. As an aside, when the heck did this article suddenly become sourced almost completely to primary sources?? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted to a version without the original research based on coin catalogs. This material should not be re-added without a recent secondary source saying that coinage existed in Solon's time. I don't expect such a source to be supplied, since the current consensus seems to be that there was no Athenian coinage at that time. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Akhileus - this area isn't my specialty, so I was not comfortable claiming that the consensus was with no coinage during Solon's time. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Coinage isn't really my thing, so I had to hunt around a bit to make sure when people think Athens started using coins—the more recent sources I consulted go for a date of ca. 550. Stanton, whom Fut. Perf. linked to above, was published in 1990, and has a very extensive note on the date of the introduction of Athenian coinage. Even though he gave a date of 560 for the first Athenian coins, he makes it clear that some scholars were arguing for a later date, and I think this position is now widely accepted (at least, among those people who study Athenian money, which is not a huge group of people). At least one article argues that the first Athenian coins were produced around 530:[ http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=776306462678746;res=IELHSS]. But even 560 is decades after Solon's reforms, whenever we should date them and whatever we think they were. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage by William Metcalf, page 88 says: "Monetazation began before the first coin was struck in Athens. The laws of Solon (Ruschenbuch 1966) suggest that by early sixth century the Athenians were accustomed to using silver, likely in the form of miscellaneous pieces of cut silver for a variety of monetary payments (Kroll, 1998, 2001, 2008) Already the term of account "drachm" and "obol" had been adopted, although the corresponding standard weights were possibly still in flux." Similar descriptions given in other recent sources, such as: The coinages of Athens.

According to these sources, coins were minted after around 560 BC. Therefore I regret to say that my edit: "Previous numismatic studies had led to the conclusion that Athens probably had no coinage until around 560 BC, well after Solon's reforms. However, recent findings indicate that Athens had issued coinage as far back as 590 BC." is inaccurate and should not be in the article.

However, according to the above sources, "drachmas" and "obols" existed at the time of Solon in uncoined silver, in the form of weighed bullion.

Is there any objection to include the info on monetazation (i.e. that "drachmas" and "obols" existed at the time of Solon in uncoined silver, in the form of weighed bullion.)? Odysses (○) 11:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

If Ruschenbuch is talking about the use of cut silver as an exchange medium in the context of Solon's reforms, this seems fine. If he doesn't connect it to Solon, then it's problematic. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ruschenbusch is about Solons reforms as far I can tell from the title (Solonos Nomoi Solon's laws and is a key reference to most recent scholars regarding Solons reforms. Odysses (○) 18:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

a) WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Pronunciations belong at the guy's Wiktionary entry.

b) WP:RS. If we were going to list pronunciations, we'd need sourcing, particularly for specious pronunciations like /ˈsoʊlən/.

c) WP:BIAS. The pronunciations given were solely American.

Once you fix that, though, it means we have a laundry list of every possible pronunciation of the letters Solon which means there's no actual value being provided. Anyone who can read the rest of the page in English can piece together an "acceptable" pronunciation for the guy's name. There are places for pronunciation guides where there are established but non-obvious pronunciations like BAY-uhl for Ba'al. This guy's name ain't one of them and the article's better off without IPA clutter in the lede. — LlywelynII 05:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace

The article states "Solon was born in Athens ..." and later: "... his ashes were scattered around Salamis, the island where he was born." So which one is right? I understand that Athens claimed the island of Salamis as its possession but this claim was disputed by Megara. If he was born in the city of Athens proper, then the passage about his ashes are wrong. If he was born on the island of Salamis, then it is misleading to state that he was born "in Athens" as the wording suggests that the city of Athens proper is meant. --Proofreader (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Solon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013223755/http://uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/walters.html to http://www.uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/walters.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013223755/http://uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/walters.html to http://www.uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/walters.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013223755/http://uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/walters.html to http://www.uwo.ca/english/florilegium/vol2/walters.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.4literature.net/Demosthenes/Oration_on_the_Regulation_of_the_State/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinarily misleading, naive, and strange article

I am a professional ancient historian. This piece is quite poor, as if most of the dominant editors have no more than a mediocre undergraduate level understanding of the topic - at best. It treats any number of thinly sourced ideas as if they had credibility and consensus, when the opposite is true. It has little of sense to say about the most basic questions scholars address: which ancient sources are most credible, and what are their biases and underlying assumptions, their anachronisms, and their guesses and inventions? It also does a terrible job of analyzing the ancient polemics among various historical and political authors, which are reflected in the few surviving sources. Instead, we get a bizarre and bizarrely large section on Solon's supposed regulations of sex. Who in the ever loving world are these editors who thought that "sex" deserves closer attention than the debate over the "ancestral constitution"?139.147.60.232 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia created by volunteers. Many of its articles could be better. Especially on relatively niche topics like this one, the articles are usually the products of only a few interested editors; in the case of this article, there haven't been significant content changes in years. If you want to improve the article, the best thing to do would be start editing it yourself, to better represent modern scholarly views on Solon. The second best thing to do would be to suggest, on this talk page, some recent high-quality sources on Solon that other editors could consult, or to point out some specific claims which are currently in the article but are inaccurate or where there are other scholarly positions which are not represented. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)