Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes

1431:

doesn't deny the sexual attitudes among soldiers at the time, or the chance of informal sexual relations among them). I think that's where you are getting the wrong angle on things. I also think you are not distinguishing between pederasty and homosexuality. At that time, sexual relationships were supposed to be unequal, one partner being dominant. So pederasty was considered OK since it was OK for a man to dominate a youth. But homosexuality was frowned on because it put one man in an inferior position. That's why Ferrill says "Homosexuality was rife in ancient times, but it was as controversial in antiquity as it is today", and that's how he explains Xenophon's disapproval. Likewise Rockwell talks about Plutarch's sensitivity to homosexuality. That's why Rockwell can talk about youths being recruited by erotic relationships, and also how these could continue as homosexual relationship, but he's not arguing that the band was structured along erotic lines, in couples. Since you offered some personal opinions, I'll offer mine. A military unit made of lovers would be like a military unit made of married couples. "Did you put out the garbage?" "You're getting more and more like your mother every day." "You leave my mother out of this!" It's just ridiculous. The minority tradition was championed by moral philosophers who were not concerned much with practical realities. I might add, ancient Greece is not a proper role model for modern homosexuals, but the Sacred Band has become a gay icon and it's difficult to argue about these these things objectively. Anyway, that's my POV. The fact is there are two traditions, one that mentions the erotic nature of the band, and one that doesn't. That needs to be stipulated at the outset. Similarly controversy about the band's military significance should also be stated at the outset. Actually, I don't think we are far off consensus. The article is already much better than it was. It is no longer Plutarch reconstituted for promotional purposes. But, I think the icon thing is causing you to favour some interpretations rather than others.

2410:

much that he wrote about the Sacred Band was intended to win tolerance for homosexuals. Homosexuality was controversial even then. Oddly enough, pederasty was OK then, in so far as it was between adult and 'boy', while today that is much more controversial than homosexuality. However, 'boy' could be a pretty flexible term and often it was used to denote adult males in an inferior position. It is conceivable that members of the band might have refered to each other as boys, just as we refer to women as girls. What seems absurd to me is the notion that a military unit would be divided into pairs of lovers. What happens if one dies? Does his partner have to leave or does he have to fall in love with a new recruit or what? You only have to look at the writings of Archilochus and Xenophon to see that hoplites valued steadiness under pressure, men acting together as a unit. It's the moral philosophers who go on about a band of lovers and that can also be pointed out in a study of the sources. However there is no denying that pederasty, between man and 'boy' was a fact of life then. The question is whether or not a band was organized into pairs of lovers and the idea that they were not certainly deserves higher placement in the article. But I'm not going to engage in any edit war over this. I'll come back later and try adding something, after feelings have had time to settle.

646:

That's a modern term. Emphasizing the ancient account is emphasizing pederasty and that has pedophile connotations. The article was short on scholarly sources when I found it. It was Original Research. You demoted Leitao's views and removed them from the caption. I accept your word that your edit was not tendentious. However Leitao is a modern scholar who has studied the primary sources and readers are entitled to know his findings at the outset. Your source is Plutarch. Plutarch distances himself from his own account and readers should know that his account was in fact a minority view. I also am trying to counter POV. I'm restoring my edit as yours is based on OR and minimizes the role of research. Oh and I should add that I was McOoee.

2217:

Buffiere 1980, Sergant 1986, De Voto 1992, Ogden 1996). He cites only one scholar as sceptical (Buck 1994). Add to the sceptical list very recent works by Leitao himself and Rockwell. Conclusion: Yes, most scholars favour the lovers tradition, but not all. The word "tended" does not support the notion that the sceptical group is insignificant . Yet your intro to the article doesn't even acknowledge that group and you are referencing some works that do not even mention the lovers tradition. Do you have psychic powers? Do you know which tradition underlies those books, even when it is unstated? The intro must allow for that difference of opinion among scholars, and the article must cover the problematic nature of the sources.

929:

only one consideration among many in addressing broader issues. I won't stop you citing them. However, I will of course revise your edit if I think you are aiming to water down Leitao's findings or if you are trying to bury them under a weight of irrelevant information. My advice is don't try to present the band as an historical fact (you are on weak ground there) but rather try to develop its significance as a cultural icon. We should be on the same wavelength then. Plutarch himself was responding to its iconic significance. Hopefully, I'll be pleasantly surprised by your edits, but I've seen too much nonsense in articles like this to expect much at the moment.

2653:

surprising). I'd also emphasize that the composition of the unit is a primary aspect of the Sacred Band's notability, even if the minority view that they didn't exist or weren't male lovers somehow "proved" true: the mutual devotion of the men is what made them of interest in the later tradition. In ages when homosexuality was forbidden, that devotion was idealized and interpreted as non-sexual. But at the beginning of the modern gay-rights movement in the 19th century, the military valor of male lovers was used to counter stereotypes of effeminacy. So the Sacred Band does have both a historical and legendary tradition.

2137:(John Buckler). That's three cited books I've checked so far and not one supports the tradition of the band of lovers that you so confidently announce in the intro. Add Leitao and Rockwell's scepticism to that silence and there is a good case for mentioning two traditions in the intro, just to cover all bases. However, I must admit that your articles is looking better as it grows. I'll be generous and not claim any credit for that. Regarding your earlier statement about earning respect – it's an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, not a club. 2005:

tweaking. Rockwell can be added later as I'm looking at other sources for expanding the sections on the battles. Hard enough to do without you constantly whining that I'm not making the subject look bad enough to fit your revulsion of it. And no, Leitao doubts not only that the Band was composed of lovers, but everything about it. That's not even close to Rockwell's position. Nevertheless, if they share the same opinion on something, they'll both be cited... later. Besides we both know that's not really what you're after.

2170: 1267:

married to each other. Not to mention his interpretation that flute-playing may actually be a reference to fellatio. He also quotes J.M. Moore to point out that Xenophon's typically Athenian view on the matter (of it purportedly being restricted to feelings with no touching) was defensive and naive as a result of Xenophon's well-known strong pro-Spartan views (Sparta also practiced pederasty widely), clashing with his Athenian view on the institution of pederasty in military training (which was indeed widespread).

1453:

Claiming it's wishful thinking among Greek moralists holds no water when some of those who report it frown on the practice. They'd be more likely to suppress it if that was the case. And I disagree on the ridiculousness of lovers in a military unit. The "practical realities" of classical Greece is not exactly the same practical realities of married couples today. Greek and Roman heroic traditions even explicitly pair up heroes, using the emotional bond to further make a tragedy even more tragic.

1652:

chronologically. But secondary sources come first methodologically because they provide a context for interpreting the ancient record. You've started this article with a clear idea of what you think the primary sources are saying, and now you are interpreting and selecting secondary sources to fit your interpretation. If you were writing about starfish I wouldn't care about priorities. But this is a key article in a web of articles concerning pederasty. It should be above suspicion.

1209:" That's distancing language. Rockwell goes on to add that he thinks members of the band may have been groomed from among Theban youth by pederastic relationships. But he does not think the band was structured as a band of lovers. I certainly expect you to moderate your opening to the article, seeing that we have two very recent sources aligning themselves with the dominant tradition. In other words, what this article needs is some distancing language of its own. 958:

historians we actually have articles on). Percy himself acknowledges Leitao but criticizes that Leitao's arguments were similarly based on suppositions, dismissing not just Plutarch, but also Dinarchus, Dio Chrystostom, Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus, Athenaeus, Thucydides, Diodorus, etc. who are the sources for much of Ancient Greek history today. Much of his arguments are based on literal mindreading based on Plutarch's supposed weasel wording.

807:? Were they also simply fabricating stuff? What about the corpses beneath the Lion of Chaeronea which Leitao dismisses simply because Plutarch does not mention it and it's 50 short, not providing an alternative explanation even then. Less can be said for much of the history you don't dare to question because none of them involve homosexual couples. And like it or not, that is the main reason for the fame of the Band in the first place. 2237:

you have somehow come to the sweeping conclusion that there are more of these scholars around, just hiding their opinions. LOL, can you get any more vaguer than that? And please stop with the "tradition" argument. Read Leitao again, and understand how he uses the term. Come up with something solid, show me the hundreds of other scholars who dismiss the historicity of the Sacred Band, or shut up. You're grasping at straws. --

463: 281: 442: 263: 1170:

challenged by newer controversial ones. Leitao is the challenger of an established view. Regardless of how compelling his arguments might be to you, the only "peer" that has acknowledged his "hypothesis" AFAIK is Percy, and Percy opposes it. While his position certainly should not be dismissed lightly, it should not displace the more stable position of the majority of his fellow historians either. --

291: 119: 2011:

agree on. That's primarily in the interest of readability. This is after all, a historical article, not the script for a play. Leitao is unique from all of them, because he's arguing that everything about the Sacred Band is untrue. A view shared by how many exactly? You want me to split the article between several dozen on one side and Leitao on the other? That's like editing the article on

473: 374: 353: 1447:

institutions. Don't conflate the two. And yes, the resurgence of interest in the Sacred Band today is primarily because of the crap about DADT in the US. That means there are just as many who would dearly love to see it dismissed to validate their view that gays should not serve, as there are those who want it to be more than what it really was to function as role models on a pedestal.

1119:"From the way Plutarch introduces this material it is clear that the notion of the Theban Sacred Band as a military unit composed of paired lovers was a variant tradition, opposed probably to a dominant tradition that simply related the unit's elite status and military prowess. His use of is a way for Plutarch to distance himself from the sensitive issue of male homosexuality." 22: 191: 180: 169: 158: 2850:. It's not actually a proper dab page though -- it contains a short article about the relevant medism, and a two sentence definition of an irrelevant medism. I will tag the medism page for cleanup. In the meantime, since there isn't an article page for the relevant medism and the dab page does contain relevant information, I am leaving in the link to the dab page. 1164:

so are Theban and Elean practices, really (during that time period of course), in terms of their social structure, particularly their attitudes to pederasty which was (apparently) freely allowed to be physically consummated (in contrast to the Platonic ideal). Remember one thing: Plato was an Athenian and "Greece" back then was far from being a monolithic culture.

234: 2592: 77: 53: 565:

inappropriately giving Knowledge's voice to the views of one modern historian - David Leitao, making it seem like his views were the most widely accepted and that the ancient sources and other modern historians were all simply mistaken. And no, the fact that this opinion is only Leitao's was not stipulated by the one who originally added them

1367:

and unlike Leitao, I believe that the band itself is wholly composed of lovers, given their origin and isolated and close-quartered circumstances (to put it bluntly, exclusively homosexual), which justifies Plutarch's later claims and Xenophon and Plato's contemporary references to the practice. The dominant tradition being that the

2033:

anything. Didn't it even strike you that Leitao was applying it only on classical scholars? Or that he was the first to propose the hypothesis? And that he did this in 2003? Munn wrote his book in 1993. Or did you really build that time machine and told him about Leitao's hypothesis as well? No my favorite color is not blue.

1671:, correct? I see you did exactly what I'm doing (in fact you did it almost exclusively), though I don't much care for the extremely informal subjective tone of your writing. The only difference seems to be that you're perfectly happy directly quoting Plutarch, Athenaeus, and Herodotus when it doesn't involve homosexuality. 2433:

misrepresented yourself as several editors over the years while pursuing this goal. Isn't that why you're here in the first place? Because you hysterically believe that editors who add content favorable to the Sacred Band are propagandists of "Boy Love"? For the uninitiated, as I initially was, check the "additions" by

1826:

electronic blips on the computer or something, but we both know that's bull, don't we? Multiple user accounts make it easier for you to hide your trail, and man, your trail is something else. And I had to find out about it from someone else. Deceit and objectivity are not something I usually find in the same individual.

147: 1941:

short article, refers to disputes and controversies among scholars. I guess I'll have to get hold of its cited sources because, reading your article, I get no sense of any divergence at all, except a few comments banished to the end section, like an afterthought that the reader need not take too seriously.

1810:

books, the same events discussed in our other articles on Ancient Greek history. Perhaps that's why you wanted a "critique" because you want me to treat this as fictional literature? With in-depth critical examinations of rhyming or wording or whatever it is you do? I'm sorry but I can't do that either.

2367:

Yep, as evidenced by Sir Gawain's confounding it with pedophilia. The lead is usually the last part of the article I expand though, as it's a summary of the main body. It's the one part of the article I have the most problem with. Feel free to propose some wording that might point this out, I'm still

2236:

Let's see... we have three scholars now out of hundreds. Only one of those explicitly challenges the assumption of the historicity of the Sacred Band. The other two are merely skeptical and not even to the point of how you're characterizing them (I doubt they're even that). And from the word "tended"

1928:

His interpretation here belongs within the tradition of an elite force, without mention of any sexual organization. So long as you continue to ignore the two traditions, the reader of your article will assume from your intro that you and your sources are always referring to a band of lovers. However,

1163:

Yes, but not in the way you think. Rockwell thinks Plutarch's use of distancing language is because the Band was itself unique in terms of other elite units, strange enough to be explicitly mentioned and strange enough that he does not identify with it. A view I've also found in other historians. But

1061:

OK, Thucydides and Herodotus are cited as exemplars of a generic argument (p 156) and they are also in the notes: Herodotus (n. 50, referring to a citation by Dover) and Thucyd. (n. 5, 36, 56), which are of marginal significance. It would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge the effort you have put

963:

And how'd you figure that it's a requirement to specifically filter the account through Leitao? I've already told you that the rationale that other sources are irrelevant because of "not being specifically concerned" with the Theban Sacred Band is groundless. I'm pointing out DeVoto, Crompton, et al.

572:

I didn't even remove Leitao's views, I merely specifically stated that it was his opinion and his opinion alone, not Knowledge's and not that of the other sources and accordingly reduced its prominence in the lead. Furthermore, it was not me who characterizes the relationships between the soldiers as

2773:

I entered the previous discussion assuming good faith and thus believed that I really could find more scholars supporting or saying the same thing as Leitao as Sir Gawain McGarson had claimed. I have still not been able to find more. Leitao, it seems is the only source that questions the historicity

2216:

Disruptive? Good luck with that one! Silly? Do my arguments really seem that way to you? Maybe I haven't explained myself clearly enough. Try again. Leitao says on p.143 that scholars have "tended" to take the lovers tradition at face value. He cites some of these scholars in footnote 1 (Dover 1965,

1809:

use them without hesitation but with the appropriate due weight. Of course primary sources are not reliable. The references to them are merely to specify where and when it was mentioned and to credit direct quotations. The same thing you've been doing. The description of events here are from history

1513:

Hmmm. The significance of the band and the reliability of the sources are disputed in the scholarly literature. That's fact. This article still ignores those doubts. Where is there a scholarly debate in this article? The modern scholarship cited here gave me hopes that you were attempting a critique

883:

Anyway I'm currently revising the article to include a wider range of references. It will take a few days (still awaiting access to DeVoto's paper). Please do not revert anything while I'm doing it. This is definitely not among my normal topics. I have a lot of far more important things lined up for

852:

And don't lecture me about homosexuality being a modern word, I'm referring to the same sex nature of the relationships, rather than applying a modern cultural definition to the Greek tradition. As is your claim of pedophile connotations which seems based on hysteria, the younger of the pairings are

2409:

to see that pedophilia was an aspect of pederasty. I certainly agree that we need to distinguish between pederasty and homosexuality. That should emerge from a study of the ancient sources. For example, Plutarch's sensitivity to homosexuality (relationship between adult males) is well recorded, and

2010:

There's not much apparent divergence because there isn't much of any when it comes to what Leitao is proposing. Other authors are merely arguing details. And I'm reflecting them as much as I can (e.g. on the lion being a Theban or Macedonian burial site), without disrupting the flow of what they do

1940:

I suggest again that you consult your source Rockwell, whose position on 2 traditions coincides with Leitao. You keep saying Leitao is the only one who takes that position. Both those authors allow for informal sexual relations within the Sacred Band. I've said twice already that the OCD, in a very

1366:

As for my own opinion on the matter, I believe Plutarch's account of 150 neatly paired off couples is also typical of literary narrative stylization when it comes to numbers. It's a stretch after all to imagine what would happen if one of them were to die, or if couples broke up. But like Rockwell,

1010:

Well, your edit is certainly better than your lead-up suggested it would be. At least now we can all see your sources and know exactly where you are coming from. As for confusing myself, no, just not expressing myself carefully enough. Just glancing at your comments, I'm wondering for instance what

889:

And can you at least insert "According to classicist David Leitao" in your other additions as well? So I won't have to scour your contribs for where you've inserted this in Leitao's voice. Even without my expansion, those insertions are already violating WP:NPOV. I know you did in the Sacred Band's

2727:

From a quick glance at the talk page, it looks like this all goes back to one loser who had nothing better to do that day than twist everything here into his preferred author's perspective. Subsequent attempts to re-balance the page turned into an edit war, which was settled by giving this asswipe

2032:

I specifically looked for that "minority tradition" you kept babbling about and surprise! it's not even close as to what you were imagining it to be. It's amazing how badly you've misread Leitao and are still now applying a dichotomy on everything everyone else is saying, even when they didn't say

1651:

How many times now have you flashed WP policies and guidelines at me? You're like a police car. Anything that isn't in the Book of Common Sense is breakfast for lawyers. My point is, you are writing the article back-to-front. You were right when you said primary sources come first; they come first

1587:

And before you can complain further, yes I will give the criticism section a more thorough treatment later. But I will not, I repeat, I will not suppress the rest of the viewpoints either. I might add that I'm using primary references correctly (no they are not forbidden), if you even bothered to

1535:

I use as many sources as I can, from as many viewpoints as I can. The viewpoint echoed by the most number of sources gets more space, and in this case Leitao is the obvious minority. I do not pick and choose which one to believe in, like you were doing. I use them all. These are the very basics of

1430:

Pederasty was part of the social background in the fourth century. All Greek units were made up of pederasts. The question is whether the Sacred Band was organized along erotic lines, in couples. According to the minority tradition, they were. According to the dominant tradition they weren't (that

1388:

But that's neither here or there. We go with the sources, not on what we think is likely to have happened. Perspective, context, and weight. In terms of that, Leitao is only one of the different interpretations, and the only one to actually deny the existence of homosexual relationships within the

1116:

Pleased to hear that you enjoy it. I see from your contributions that you are basically a science man. I'm basically a literature man and I too am not in familiar territory here. However, we'll make do since nobody else has bothered to fix this mess up for years. Something I noticed in your source

1081:

Thank you. I'm wading through a lot of unfamiliar territory here, and not even half done yet. Though it's surprisingly quite enjoyable. Anyway, I'm saving Leitao for last, and as mentioned, he will probably have to be separated into a whole new section. Unless you'd want the entire article to read

2720:

Knowledge topics growing in size used to be a good thing. Now it seems like every single historical page has become a giant tug-of-war between nationalists, political extremists, religious zealots, and POV pushing douchebags of all flavors. None of the self-serving junk they insert can be deleted

1635:

The Oxford Classical Dictionary cites two sources, J. de Voto, Ancient World 1992, and J. Buckler, Theban Hegemony 1980, in a short article stating that the Band's military significance is hard to assess, its role at Leuctra is controversial, the Band's burial under the Lion Monument is disputed,

1446:

Agh. The part about minority and majority tradition again. Let me explain again. You, like Leitao, use those terms to denote opinions on whether the Sacred Band was pederastic or not. Other authors use those to denote that the Sacred Band's alleged practice is unique in contrast to other military

1266:

and would still be homosexual in nature, regardless if they contented themselves to sighing and hugging each other). More importantly, that was not his last conclusion. He goes on to specifically mention Xenophon's own observations of Boeotian and Elean practices of men and youths being virtually

1252:

indicating two traditions where one recognizes the erotic nature of the band and the other does not. But two separate traditions where other elite units are not institutionally pederastic but the Sacred Band is. i.e. it's not in relation to people who disagree with the account, but in relation to

928:

My expectation is that Leitao's findings will have a full and prominent place in this article .i.e. in the intro. Plutarch's account needs to be interpreted in the light of those findings. The other sources you mention are not specifically concerned with the Theban Sacred Band, but refer to it as

877:

is very clear. And his view is still the minority, and thus the most controversial. And that's not even true. Leitao's treatise was part of a larger work discussing sexuality among ancient Greeks, and he himself makes the caveat that his goal is ultimately not to "offer decisive proof that Thebes

1825:

propaganda. Your objectivity died when you started misrepresenting yourself as different editors over the years with a long reputation of censoring anything that has to do with homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Yes yes you make anarchic pseudo-philosophical explanations about usernames being just

1474:

But though there have been a lot of opinions around it (during the Victorian period it was even suppressed entirely, relegating their relationships instead to close friendship) and regardless of our own opinions, our role here is simply to report what historians say, not on deciding which of the

794:

A single-source interpretation is not any more or less authoritative than other historians' accounts, which outnumber Leitao in accepting the historicity of the band. In fact, Leitao, is the only historian who specifically questions Plutarch's account, and is thus the most controversial, and you

745:

interpretation, even though I respect your right to a personal opinion) and don't go beyond the subject matter. This is about the Sacred Band, not about homosexuality in the ancient Greek miitary, nor is it a chance for contributors to indulge in wishful thinking. There is in fact almost nothing

564:

Really? And how did you come to the conclusion? I was that IP editor, editing without bothering to log in as I was disillusioned with Knowledge at that time (still am). I find being characterized as a pederast for daring to make the article more NPOV more than a little insulting. The article was

2652:

Just wanted to recognize the substantial improvements made by Obsidian Soul. I agree with Petter Bøckman about the problems of using "pederastic lovers" in the first sentence (it's an issue of common vs. specialized usage, and the reader needs to be prepared for specialized usages that might be

2004:

to what they're supposed to verify. And where is Munn placed again? Or did you skip that on your orientation day too? And yes I know Leitao isn't homophobic. You, however, are another story. I think I've summarized Leitao well enough in the Criticism section. Though it might still need a bit of

1452:

As I've already stated I actually agree with you that the Band was not explicitly structured along erotic lines. But it was not a "minority tradition" in the sense that it only existed incidentally within the Band either which would beg the question as to why it was reported in the first place.

957:

Leitao's work will be present in the lead, rest assured. But attributed specifically to him. His interpretation will be specifically separated in a criticism section. And weak ground? Hardly. There are too many sources that do not agree with him (including archeological ones and ones by eminent

645:

OK, first my comment was aimed at an IP number whose edit looked highly suspicious. I would expect rough treatment if I edited an article as an IP number, demoting important material on a subject as problematic as pederasty. The ancient account doesn't use a term equivalent to 'homosexualityy'.

1529:

I count exactly 1 scholar who disputes the significance and historicity of the Band. You want me to blow up his importance by making it seem like 99% of the academe are throttling each other over the Sacred Band and publishing paper after paper on the lies told by your favorite Greek classical

1169:

And yes to all of that of course, I'm not planning to suppress any disputes, merely present them in the appropriate weight in proportion to their significance in the actual sources. And yes, my topic of choice is Biology, and I encounter these situations frequently - established theories being

785:. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." 1647:

I haven't even scratched the surface. I didn't search for these sources; they are the result of some cursory reading on my part. Plutarch is not an historian but a moral philosopher and raconteur. Leitao identifies 11 authors, most of them who mention the Band very briefly in passing. A well

2432:

Sounds ominous. Everyone who's had interactions with you knows that you "adding something" later always turns out to be either censoring all mentions of pederasty in an article or rewording it drastically to cast the greatest amount of doubt or revulsion on the fact. And you've deliberately

1921:

and limits them to Xenophon and Diodorus, none of whom refers to a band of lovers (though Xenophon disparages the sexual mores of Theban soldiers generally). So of course Munn himself says hardly anything at all about the band, nothing about its sexuality. He says the Sacred Band...

2638:, so they wouldn't have been part of the unit. As "buggering of small boys" is the common current understanding, we should explain the difference in a few words. What the band did in their spare time is not relevant to here, as this as you both say was quite common in back then. 1772:

Not all historians consider The Sacred Band a decisive influence on the period's history i.e. the primary sources are not as reliable as you would like them to be. Yes, I think we've both said enough here for the moment. Re the personal stuff, I don't belong to any project but

2815:

here), reducing the text devoted to him to the few sentences given to other individual scholars, placing the vast number of more mainstream authors first, and revising the section's lead-in to make it clear that the Sacred Band's historicity is widely-accepted among academics.

1789:. Odd that you over-looked those. But you do tend to overlook things you don't want to see. I will be reworking your edit, if necessary, to ensure an objective article on the Sacred Band of Thebes. My hope is, it won't be necessary. There are other things I'd rather be doing. 1126:

sees this love of the and of the Sacred Band through Platonist eyes and assumes that it was so called because of Plato's description of the lover as 'divine friend'. He suggests thereby that their love did not seek physical expression but aimed at the goal of the beloved

2497:

I'm using sockpuppets? I strongly urge you to make an official complaint about me if there is any grain of truth in what you say. Either that or stop believing everything you are told by electronic signals who have somehow earned your respect. Re terminology in the intro,

2716:

This "controversy" section should be removed and a simple paragraph inserted into the above noting that a recent publication, unsupported by the greater academic community, questioned their existence. That's it. We don't need to read his entire argument; it's irrelevant.

1136:

Checking out my OCD: its article on the Sacred Band notes that the Band's military significance is hard to assess, its role at Leuctra is controversial, and the Band's burial under the Lion Monument is disputed. The sources for the article are J. de Voto,

1913:. I'm used to pissing people off, but driving them to drink is a new experience for me. The best thing about your edit is the online citations so that people can check out your interpretations for themselves. For example have a look at your source, 2753:

Well, I've been in the same sort of dialogue more than once with the editor you characterize so pungently, so I understand all too well how this happens. But I agree with your assessment, and said something along the same lines less colorfully

1026:

If you have to ask that, you haven't read Leitao. But I digress, inviting more editors here would be a better way to settle this later. I'll bow to consensus and policies, not decrees on subjective reliability and the ensuing due weight to be

2038:

All your posts have so far boiled down to one thing. If you don't understand why Leitao isn't and will never be my primary source for the entire article, read the Manual of Peace, Joy, Boundless Procreation, Good Fortune, and Rabid Wombats:

1648:

researched article should name and summarize the sources, and the way that modern, especially recent scholars interpret their significance. This article so far is a naive re-warming of some primary sources, as if they were historical fact.

1815:

And what about Theognis and Ibycus? They are also completely sterilized versions. If you didn't identify them as pederastic I would have assumed their poems were addressed to women given that there's absolutely no indication of it in their

1204:

I'm surprised by your response to the Rockwell quote I just gave you. He clearly recognizes two traditions and he says the erotic tradition was not the dominant one. That's also Leito's position. Rockwell also says on page 19 that the band

1688:

you have any legitimate ones that don't boil down to "I don't want you to imply they were even real", that is. For the last time, I will not misrepresent the sources to match your personal prejudices and your crusade. Stop asking me to.

1530:

scholar? It's what you did in your carefully worded previous version that covered up the fact that Leitao was alone in his opinions quite neatly. And a "critique of a legend"... eh? May I remind you that this is Knowledge, not Essay 101?

1936:

of pairs of lovers and beloveds, and 2) these pairs were presumably involved in an active and ongoing relationship of an intense emotional, if not sexual nature. A Sacred Band so constituted would have been radical indeed." (p. 145)

1228:

to assume he's supporting Leitao when he nevers mention him by name. Like Leitao, you're reading too much into semantics and ignoring everything else. Imagine this example for a neighborhood where houses are predominantly painted

1247:

I am also indicating that a blue house is a minority tradition, as opposed to the usual practice of having a red house. I am not indicating that the house was never really blue or merely blue in some parts. Likewise, Rockwell is

2450:

Your "steadiness under pressure" comment is also particularly ignorant given that hoplites normally fought next to close kinsmen in battle. A fact recorded by numerous ancient historians, including Xenophon. See the chapter

1326:

As for "needing a distancing language of its own", I'm already doing that, aren't I? I specifically attribute which accounts belong to which. The account of them being composed of paired lovers is Plutarch's and labeled as

1804:

Stop making vague references and specify WHO. Which historian. What sources. What statement. I've already used Leitao, DeVoto, and Buckler, and will add more as I find them. Pointing them out will help me greatly, and I

1925:"...was a product of needs faced by the Thebans at the outset of the Boiotian War when the crack mercenary force led by Chabrias provided the same model of discipline and high moral for the Athenians." (p. 190) 241: 63: 569:. McOoee's changes seem to be aimed at reducing the overall homosexual nature of the band (probably from personal beliefs), even if it meant characterizing the original source as a "questionable authority". 668:

is it? And of course Leitao's views are valid, hence why I didn't remove him. But to adopt his stance unequivocally with Knowledge's voice (i.e. without attribution to the interpretation being Leitao's), is

1288:

That doesn't strike me as supporting any of Leitao's arguments. It's not something one would say if he believed it was merely incidental and happening only in a few members of the ranks like in other elite

1549:

I'm breaking with my edits and I will try to fix it. Until then, I'm inviting more editors from the involved Wikiprojects to help settle this while I resume work on the article. And yes I'm far from being

1929:

if you read Leitao more carefully, you'll see there is still plenty of room for consensus between us. Leitao is not a homophobic propagandist. He talks about the pederastic mores of the time and adds:

1781:

is not an example of bad editing. I began with the scholarship and then cited the verses and primary sources that were cited by the scholars. I've also written articles about pederastic poets such as

1821:

As for your lone gunslinger in the wild wild west "project", yep. It's hard to see something when you don't want to see it. Take a long hard look in the mirror. You're not fighting propaganda. You

858:

Most scholars refer to the Sacred Band in relation to other issues. Leitao is interested only in the Band and in the credibility of the ancient account. No point arguing. Come up with the sources.

2065:

And please, enough with your little delusions of having a better grasp of what articles should be when you can't even be arsed to read the policies. I suppose being a mirror can result in writing

1639:

Plutarch is far and away the major source for the legend, and both Leitao and Rockwell critique his motives, and I've already cited Georgiadou's interpretation, and there is also Eva Cantarella (

2028:

Unless they explicitly say what they do or don't believe in, interpreting them as saying something they didn't is mind-reading. And you haven't answered me yet on whether you're psychic or not.

2344:

The current lede state that the unit was "pederastic". Having browsed through the above discussion, I have understood exactly what is meant by this. The word "pederastic" links to the article

2724:

This is supposed to be an informative, encyclopedic article - it should not have ten times as much space devoted to "controversy" as it does to famous quotes from ancient historical sources.

853:

men of fighting age, hardly children. You might as well accuse most men in history of being pedophiles because before the late 20th century, brides were ideally married off between 14 and 16.

2963: 424: 414: 2348:, again explaining it. However, words change with time, and the current understanding of the term pederastry is more along the line of (pardon my French) "buggering of little boys", and is 649:

Just noticed your additional comment. Yes by all means expand the article. But don't demote scholarly literature that specifically addresses the credibility of the ancient account. Thanks.

577:

were most assuredly young men, not children, men old enough to fight and die in wars, so the alleged connection to boy love (which I personally find disgusting) is nonsensical as well.--

746:

about the Sacred Band in ancient literature, and even less about its sexual orientation. However, you may find numerous references to the Band in all kinds of literature. Happy reading!

2968: 1643:, 1992, pages 71-2), who construes his mention of the Band as an attempt to assure his readers that homosexuality is not to be condemned though Plutarch himself favours heterosexuality. 2452: 611:

In fact, why don't we just expand the article while we're at it. I'll gather more sources (regardless of whether they were pro and against Plutarch's account). And leave it at that.--

1932:"Our sources for the Sacred band describe a phenomenon quite different from these ordinary pederastic intrusions on army life: 1) the Theban Sacred Band seems to have been composed 1723:

Oh and I should add that many historians who cover the period never even mention the Sacred Band, despite its colorful aspects. That silence isn't carelessness. It's a judgement.

1461:

for example, during the voyage of the Argo. Not to mention the numerous depictions of it in their arts. And again, I'm using the word homosexuality only in the sense that it's a

2080:"The Muses are to him as an oracle is to a prophet, and lesser poets are to him as ravens are to an eagle; the art of such men is as hackneyed as garland-making; his is magical" 2073:

at times. Or burst into impromptu poetic "craplessness" in the main text of the article. It's not even a quote or anything, just a frail grasp of what an encyclopedia should be:

1676:

Because it's funny that you should mention being above suspicion. How did you word it? "Propagandists and POV-pushers are parasites"? Since I last posted here, I've learned you

390: 2958: 2774:

of the Sacred Band (and by extension the historicity of Pelopidas, Epaminondas, and the Theban Hegemony). I have no problems with culling it or removing it altogether per

1148:

So, in summary of my prelimnary researches, Leitao's position cannot be dismissed as lightly as you seem to think. I'd like to see these positions covered in the article.

878:

never had an erotically constituted fighting force" but to examine how it might have originated and on what basis. And what about DeVoto, Crompton, Dover, Armstrong, etc.?

1514:

of a legend. But the citations turn out to be a dummy, put up for show, while you echo a selection of primary sources. Or are you getting around to a fuller development?

664:

How is reporting the account as is, OR? This article is first and foremost about Plutarch's account, any interpretations by modern historians are secondary. This is not

132: 89: 1258:

Rockwell indeed mentions the author who claims that the love was merely Platonic (though even in such a case, that makes no difference as it would still be composed of

682:). And other historians, when discussing Leitao, point out Plutarch's account rests on far less shaky authority than many things accepted in ancient historiography. 386: 381: 358: 2943: 2894:

like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always

692:

Anyway the article as is has numerous inaccuracies. They are described as hoplites for instance despite describing them earlier as charioteers (they were in fact

1944:

You ask me to look in the mirror. That's impossible. I am the mirror. If people give me crap, crap is what they get back, and articles like this are full of it.

118: 385:, a group of contributors interested in Knowledge's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our 968:

specifically about the Sacred Band, not to mention military historians recreating specific battles. Unless you can tell us exactly how and why Leitao is more

741:. As I said, by all means expand things. But don't cite any primary source without also citing a modern scholar's interpretation of that source (I don't want 2983: 2938: 1379:

of the band itself (though he does not argue why), which colors his entire arguments focused on denying Plutarch's account of the composition of the Band.

781:. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should 2953: 2933: 1774: 1677: 795:

chose him to speak as the article's voice? Why? Leitao's own case rests equally on presumptions. And almost nothing, is not quite nothing no? What about

1465:

sexual relationship, like all the authors you've mentioned. With no connotations as to what the modern definition is. It's scientific jargon, not an

2352:

what is meant by the word in this article. I suggest spending a word of two explaining that we are not dealing with the modern interpretation here.

2630:

Gent's, on topic please? I was just pointing out that the term needs a bit elaboration in the lede. I guess we can all assume that the pederastry

944:

You're confusing yourself. The historicity of the band has never been in question. It was itself the inspiration for similar elite units like the

696:, elite cavalry units, not infantry). I'll expand the article with more sources tomorrow as I'm too tired at the moment, with emphasis on sources 529: 319: 2091:, and when you've at least grasped the basics of what Knowledge is about, feel free to come back and lecture me on the quality of my editing. -- 1066:

didn't help (mysterious because it doesn't hint at the competent work that was to follow). I'll be interested to see how you fit Leitao into it.

2978: 519: 84: 58: 2988: 93: 1632:

Leito's position is supported by Rockwell re a dominant tradition concerning an elite unit and a minority tradition about a band of lovers

1831:

Any reworking you do, will be assessed in light of your past activities. Impartiality doesn't arrive with a new username, you earn it.--

2741: 315: 305: 268: 665: 495: 2667:

Thanks. Looks like the work I was expecting is not going to pan out, so I'll finish up with the last remaining sections soonish.--

894:

for example. You don't have to change anything, just clarify that it's Leitao's analysis and not the general view on the matter.--

1628:

I'm not asking for your private critique of the legend but the critique given by scholars. I've already identified some for you.

561:"reverting numerous changes by anon. IP number clearly aimed at demoting caveat material - our pederast friends are at it again" 2973: 2883:

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to

948:, are you saying they were not historical too? Leitao's work itself was about the historicity of the composition of the band, 2948: 1124:

I found this also, relating Plutarch's account to Plato's Symposium, but by a different author, A Georgiadou – Plutarch "...

2572: 2507: 2415: 2222: 2142: 1949: 1794: 1728: 1657: 1519: 1436: 1236:"There's a house there on the bend of the road. And another a little further on. And in front of that is a rundown house. 1214: 1153: 1071: 1016: 934: 863: 751: 654: 678:

Leitao himself admits that the existence of such couples in other ancient Greek military were abundantly attested (e.g.

486: 447: 33: 2159:

If a reference is placed next to a sentence that says the sky is blue, don't look for mentions that the grass is green.

816:, you've been doing this to all related articles as well. That begs the question just who is being tendentious here?-- 2406: 2345: 1479:

of the opinions in reliable sources, not on what opinion deserves center place because you happen to believe in it.--

2643: 2357: 1064:

This article is first and foremost about Plutarch's account, any interpretations by modern historians are secondary,

1684:

don't much care for that either. Let me finish the article in peace, and then fire away with specific complaints.

2915: 2129:? Don't you remember what it is? But speaking of psychic powers: I can't find any mention of a band of lovers in 2568: 2503: 2437:, a sockpuppet of Sir Gawain in the article page history. Note particularly how he warped the previous wording. 2411: 2218: 2138: 1945: 1790: 1724: 1653: 1515: 1432: 1210: 1149: 1067: 1012: 930: 859: 747: 650: 555: 2721:

because draconian edit policies and "good faith" protect all but the most ludicrous additions from removal.

573:

pederasty. Homosexual yes, pederastic only in the sense that the pairings were of older and younger men. The

2795: 2745: 2684: 2612: 2542: 2476: 2385: 2318: 2254: 2199: 2108: 1885: 1848: 1755: 1706: 1609: 1567: 1496: 1406: 1344: 1306: 1187: 1099: 1044: 993: 945: 911: 833: 717: 628: 594: 88:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 2567:

And some French Fries to go with that please, no salt; a coffee too! I'll wait at the table by the window.

2639: 2353: 804: 673:

NPOV. That's deliberately confusing the original account with a modern interpretation that calls it a lie.

1062:

into this article. Your editing as an IP number set alarm bells ringing, and mysterious comments such as

1011:

Herodotus and Thucydides have to say about the Sacred Band? There are other issues we can address later.

39: 1082:

like "He said this, he said that, but Leitao disagrees because of this and that" at every paragraph.--

884:

Knowledge, and I'd appreciate it very much if this remained civil and doesn't devolve into an edit war.

2911: 2903: 2737: 2368:

knee-deep in expanding Leuctra atm, and then the Theban hegemony and then the Battle of Chaeronea.--

2182:

And of course it's not a club. But that does not excuse deliberately disruptive behavior does it? --

21: 2821: 1225: 1738:

I'm not sure what you're even implying here. Did you invent a time machine or are you psychic? --

494:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2907: 2780: 2762: 2669: 2658: 2597: 2527: 2461: 2370: 2303: 2282: 2239: 2184: 2093: 1870: 1833: 1782: 1740: 1691: 1594: 1552: 1481: 1391: 1329: 1291: 1172: 1084: 1029: 978: 896: 818: 702: 613: 579: 1207:...supposedly was a unit composed of 150 pairs of men, each consisting of a lover and a beloved. 2162:

If someone does not explicitly say that the grass is green, don't assume he thinks it's orange.

2899: 2895: 2884: 2869:

The lead is 70 words compared to article c. 6000. Should be around 1/25 of the whole article.

2855: 2839: 2054: 1589: 2874: 2812: 2045:. I'll even link you the specific policies that everyone else on Knowledge follows but you: 2050: 2046: 2712:

CONTROVERSY section should be REMOVED (or trimmed to a tiny fraction of its current size)

314:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the 2817: 2088: 2041: 2015:

and then insisting that half or more of the article space be devoted to explaining how

1545:

I'm tired of repeating myself. From now on, just please tell me exactly what Knowledge

1537: 874: 800: 766: 1680:

and have probably been laughing at my naive assumption of good faith all this time. I

1536:

Knowledge policies. If you did not know this by now, please familiarize yourself with

2927: 2775: 2758: 2654: 2280: 973: 478: 2811:

I've revised it to drastically reduce the focus on Leitao (whose views appear to be

2278:

It would be just fantastic if a day's peace might be had in this cat fight. Meow.

2851: 2016: 969: 296: 2728:

his own section (and essentially letting him have the last word in the article).

2634:

the unit was not between men and small, pre-puberty boys. Small boys can't carry

2919: 2878: 2870: 2859: 2825: 2806: 2766: 2695: 2662: 2647: 2623: 2576: 2553: 2511: 2487: 2434: 2419: 2396: 2361: 2329: 2288: 2265: 2226: 2210: 2146: 2119: 2020: 1953: 1896: 1859: 1798: 1766: 1732: 1717: 1661: 1620: 1578: 1523: 1507: 1440: 1417: 1355: 1317: 1218: 1198: 1157: 1110: 1075: 1055: 1020: 1004: 938: 922: 867: 844: 813: 755: 728: 658: 639: 605: 566: 2838:

I've removed all but one of the dab links in the article and also removed the

462: 441: 280: 262: 1777:, I make no apologies for that. Yes, I'm on a crusade against propaganda. No, 468: 286: 2057:. But you'll just make a crack about me being a police car again, of course. 1282:, especially given that members lived together as a unit stationed in Cadmea. 1778: 1668: 891: 796: 2778:. Also note that Sir Gawain inserted Leitao in several other articles. -- 1962: 769:? Note that it's not the only one you've broken but it's your most common: 373: 352: 1466: 1454: 679: 2843: 2591: 1375:, if they fought at all. It's important to note that Leitao doubts the 952:

on whether the band itself existed or not. Get your arguments straight.

761:

And your own opinion is not any less "wishful thinking"? I don't want

233: 2847: 2070: 2066: 1786: 491: 737:? The article quoted Plutarch out of context. That is not reporting 2173:

alone, all mentioning that the Sacred Band was composed of lovers.

700:

Leitao, which currently controls the tone of the entire article.--

76: 52: 2012: 1868:

And I know. Harsh. But I'm more than a little pissed right now.--

1458: 311: 310:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all 2169:

And awww. No mentions in those three? No worries. I can give you

2891: 2301:

LOL, I'll be finishing up soon. I have some work coming up.--

1131:

Plutarch's Pelopidas: A Historical and Philological Commentary

972:

than the other "irrelevant" historians, the answer is no. See

15: 1280:

homosexuality among its members a continuation of these bonds

765:

opinion either. May I remind you of the first commandment of

2453:

Unit Spirit and Morale: The Origins of the Regimental System

232: 117: 2898:

your edits before you publish them or test them out in the

2457:

The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece

389:. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our 2131:

Central Greece and the Politics of Power in 4th century BC

1917:

by Mark H. Munn. He discusses his sources in the section

1540:

again as it seems like you skipped it on orientation day.

873:

That's not a good enough reason. The first guideline of

2755: 2000:

The best thing about my sources is that they're placed

1253:

surrounding/contemporary practices that differ from it.

2177:

the majority "tradition" I'm talking about. Happy now?

2152:

You do know how silly your arguments are, don't you?

1371:

were usually not part of the military unit of their

490:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 130:

This article has been checked against the following

2502:would be good enough at that point in the article. 215: 129: 2964:Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles 2969:All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages 1117:Rockwell: he supports Leitao's view. I quote – 666:Sacred Band of Thebes according to David Leitao 399:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 2405:Hmm thanks for that but you only have to read 402:Template:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 2087:I'm afraid that's all yours, sir knight. See 1636:positions akin to those put forward by Leitao 8: 2842:. The remaining dab link is redirectd from 554:I just noticed this edit summary of yours, 2959:C-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles 436: 347: 257: 212: 126: 47: 2902:. If you need additional help, check out 812:And now that I've realized that you ARE 82:This article is within the scope of the 438: 349: 259: 49: 19: 102:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 92:. To use this banner, please see the 2944:Classical warfare task force articles 382:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome 105:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2340:Rabbithole II, the term "pederastry" 2133:(John Buckler and Hans Beck) nor in 484:This article is within the scope of 379:This article is within the scope of 2984:WikiProject Greece general articles 1983:annoyed, irritated, or disappointed 38:It is of interest to the following 2939:C-Class Classical warfare articles 783:not be stated in Knowledge's voice 405:Classical Greece and Rome articles 328:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies 14: 2954:WikiProject LGBT studies articles 2934:C-Class military history articles 1475:viewpoints have more merits. The 1276:a part of the recruitment process 1274:In all likelihood, pederasty was 331:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies 2590: 1641:Bisexuality in the Ancient world 471: 461: 440: 372: 351: 289: 279: 261: 189: 178: 167: 156: 145: 75: 51: 20: 779:Avoid stating opinions as facts 524:This article has been rated as 419:This article has been rated as 302:This article is of interest to 2807:03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 2767:20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC) 687:Are you even getting my point? 1: 2979:Low-importance Greek articles 2920:12:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC) 2906:or ask the friendly folks at 2860:04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 1995:You don't seem British to me. 498:and see a list of open tasks. 2989:All WikiProject Greece pages 2826:07:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 2135:Philip II and the Sacred War 1240:that house used to be blue." 504:Knowledge:WikiProject Greece 242:Classical warfare task force 85:Military history WikiProject 2407:Pederasty in ancient Greece 2346:Pederasty in ancient Greece 2042:Double eupais en pée œuvaie 1272:And in conclusion he says: 735:Reporting the account as is 507:Template:WikiProject Greece 3005: 2879:13:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC) 2748:) 16:33, 18 September 2012 2696:18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 2663:15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC) 2648:11:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2624:10:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 2577:09:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 2554:01:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 2512:22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2488:09:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2420:08:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2397:08:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2362:07:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2330:01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2289:01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2266:01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 2227:08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 2019:it really is, and how the 1133:, Stuttgart 1997, 155-56) 530:project's importance scale 425:project's importance scale 150:Referencing and citation: 2731:Hooray for wikipedia.... 2211:13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 2147:12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 2120:16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 2030:What's my favorite color? 1954:12:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 1897:16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 1860:16:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 1799:13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 1767:16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 1733:10:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 1718:16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 1662:10:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 1621:17:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 1579:15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 1524:13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 1508:09:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1441:08:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1418:07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1356:06:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1318:05:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1278:for the Sacred Band, and 1219:22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1199:17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1158:16:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1111:14:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1076:12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1056:11:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1021:11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 1005:10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 939:06:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 923:04:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 868:22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 845:11:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 756:09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 729:08:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 659:07:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 640:07:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 606:07:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC) 523: 456: 418: 396:Classical Greece and Rome 367: 359:Classical Greece and Rome 274: 240: 211: 108:military history articles 70: 46: 2904:our getting started page 2021:scientists have all lied 1975:slang intoxicated; drunk 306:WikiProject LGBT studies 946:Sacred Band of Carthage 244:(c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) 216:Associated task forces: 161:Coverage and accuracy: 2974:C-Class Greek articles 1141:1992, and J. Buckler, 805:Athenaeus of Naucratis 237: 194:Supporting materials: 122: 28:This article is rated 2949:C-Class LGBT articles 1973:Brit, Austral, and NZ 1915:The Defense of Attica 318:or contribute to the 236: 121: 2500:pairs of male lovers 2569:Sir Gawain McGarson 2504:Sir Gawain McGarson 2455:in Victor Hanson's 2412:Sir Gawain McGarson 2219:Sir Gawain McGarson 2139:Sir Gawain McGarson 1946:Sir Gawain McGarson 1791:Sir Gawain McGarson 1725:Sir Gawain McGarson 1654:Sir Gawain McGarson 1516:Sir Gawain McGarson 1433:Sir Gawain McGarson 1211:Sir Gawain McGarson 1150:Sir Gawain McGarson 1068:Sir Gawain McGarson 1013:Sir Gawain McGarson 964:again, whose works 931:Sir Gawain McGarson 860:Sir Gawain McGarson 748:Sir Gawain McGarson 651:Sir Gawain McGarson 556:Sir Gawain McGarson 183:Grammar and style: 136:for B-class status: 2846:to the "dab" page 2834:Remaining dab link 2756:just this morning. 1783:Theognis of Megara 1667:You wrote most of 487:WikiProject Greece 238: 123: 90:list of open tasks 34:content assessment 2888:in updating pages 2840:dablinks template 2805: 2790: 2740:comment added by 2694: 2679: 2622: 2607: 2552: 2537: 2486: 2471: 2395: 2380: 2328: 2313: 2264: 2249: 2209: 2194: 2171:hundreds of books 2118: 2103: 2060: 2031: 1895: 1880: 1858: 1843: 1765: 1750: 1716: 1701: 1619: 1604: 1577: 1562: 1506: 1491: 1416: 1401: 1354: 1339: 1316: 1301: 1197: 1182: 1109: 1094: 1054: 1039: 1003: 988: 921: 906: 854: 843: 828: 727: 712: 638: 623: 604: 589: 544: 543: 540: 539: 536: 535: 435: 434: 431: 430: 346: 345: 342: 341: 256: 255: 252: 251: 248: 247: 207: 206: 152:criterion not met 94:full instructions 2996: 2803: 2800: 2794: 2793: 2788: 2785: 2779: 2749: 2692: 2689: 2683: 2682: 2677: 2674: 2668: 2620: 2617: 2611: 2610: 2605: 2602: 2596: 2594: 2550: 2547: 2541: 2540: 2535: 2532: 2526: 2484: 2481: 2475: 2474: 2469: 2466: 2460: 2393: 2390: 2384: 2383: 2378: 2375: 2369: 2326: 2323: 2317: 2316: 2311: 2308: 2302: 2287: 2262: 2259: 2253: 2252: 2247: 2244: 2238: 2207: 2204: 2198: 2197: 2192: 2189: 2183: 2116: 2113: 2107: 2106: 2101: 2098: 2092: 2058: 2029: 1909:I hope you mean 1893: 1890: 1884: 1883: 1878: 1875: 1869: 1856: 1853: 1847: 1846: 1841: 1838: 1832: 1763: 1760: 1754: 1753: 1748: 1745: 1739: 1714: 1711: 1705: 1704: 1699: 1696: 1690: 1617: 1614: 1608: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1593: 1575: 1572: 1566: 1565: 1560: 1557: 1551: 1504: 1501: 1495: 1494: 1489: 1486: 1480: 1414: 1411: 1405: 1404: 1399: 1396: 1390: 1389:Band itself. -- 1352: 1349: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1334: 1328: 1314: 1311: 1305: 1304: 1299: 1296: 1290: 1195: 1192: 1186: 1185: 1180: 1177: 1171: 1129:(A. Georgiadou, 1107: 1104: 1098: 1097: 1092: 1089: 1083: 1052: 1049: 1043: 1042: 1037: 1034: 1028: 1001: 998: 992: 991: 986: 983: 977: 919: 916: 910: 909: 904: 901: 895: 851: 841: 838: 832: 831: 826: 823: 817: 725: 722: 716: 715: 710: 707: 701: 636: 633: 627: 626: 621: 618: 612: 602: 599: 593: 592: 587: 584: 578: 512: 511: 508: 505: 502: 481: 476: 475: 474: 465: 458: 457: 452: 444: 437: 407: 406: 403: 400: 397: 376: 369: 368: 363: 355: 348: 336: 335: 332: 329: 326: 299: 294: 293: 292: 283: 276: 275: 265: 258: 223: 213: 197: 193: 192: 186: 182: 181: 175: 171: 170: 164: 160: 159: 153: 149: 148: 127: 110: 109: 106: 103: 100: 99:Military history 79: 72: 71: 66: 59:Military history 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2924: 2923: 2867: 2836: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2786: 2781: 2735: 2714: 2690: 2685: 2680: 2675: 2670: 2618: 2613: 2608: 2603: 2598: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2533: 2528: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2467: 2462: 2391: 2386: 2381: 2376: 2371: 2342: 2324: 2319: 2314: 2309: 2304: 2285: 2279: 2260: 2255: 2250: 2245: 2240: 2205: 2200: 2195: 2190: 2185: 2125:Your favourite 2114: 2109: 2104: 2099: 2094: 1907: 1905:The Caucus Race 1891: 1886: 1881: 1876: 1871: 1854: 1849: 1844: 1839: 1834: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1741: 1712: 1707: 1702: 1697: 1692: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1595: 1573: 1568: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1502: 1497: 1492: 1487: 1482: 1428: 1426:The Rabbit Hole 1412: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1350: 1345: 1340: 1335: 1330: 1312: 1307: 1302: 1297: 1292: 1193: 1188: 1183: 1178: 1173: 1143:Theban Hegemony 1105: 1100: 1095: 1090: 1085: 1050: 1045: 1040: 1035: 1030: 999: 994: 989: 984: 979: 917: 912: 907: 902: 897: 839: 834: 829: 824: 819: 723: 718: 713: 708: 703: 634: 629: 624: 619: 614: 600: 595: 590: 585: 580: 552: 550:Mostly harmless 509: 506: 503: 500: 499: 477: 472: 470: 450: 404: 401: 398: 395: 394: 361: 333: 330: 327: 324: 323: 295: 290: 288: 221: 195: 190: 184: 179: 173: 168: 162: 157: 151: 146: 107: 104: 101: 98: 97: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 3002: 3000: 2992: 2991: 2986: 2981: 2976: 2971: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2936: 2926: 2925: 2866: 2865:Lead too short 2863: 2835: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2770: 2769: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2640:Petter Bøckman 2628: 2627: 2626: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2400: 2399: 2354:Petter Bøckman 2341: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2283: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2214: 2213: 2179: 2178: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2154: 2153: 2123: 2122: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2075: 2074: 2062: 2061: 2035: 2034: 2025: 2024: 2007: 2006: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1976: 1906: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1863: 1862: 1828: 1827: 1818: 1817: 1812: 1811: 1770: 1769: 1721: 1720: 1673: 1672: 1645: 1644: 1637: 1633: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1582: 1581: 1542: 1541: 1532: 1531: 1511: 1510: 1471: 1470: 1449: 1448: 1427: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1321: 1320: 1285: 1284: 1269: 1268: 1255: 1254: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1231: 1230: 1202: 1201: 1166: 1165: 1114: 1113: 1059: 1058: 1008: 1007: 960: 959: 954: 953: 926: 925: 886: 885: 880: 879: 856: 855: 848: 847: 809: 808: 801:Dio Chrysostom 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 771: 770: 732: 731: 689: 688: 684: 683: 675: 674: 643: 642: 551: 548: 546: 542: 541: 538: 537: 534: 533: 526:Low-importance 522: 516: 515: 513: 510:Greek articles 496:the discussion 483: 482: 466: 454: 453: 451:Low‑importance 445: 433: 432: 429: 428: 421:Low-importance 417: 411: 410: 408: 377: 365: 364: 362:Low‑importance 356: 344: 343: 340: 339: 337: 301: 300: 284: 272: 271: 266: 254: 253: 250: 249: 246: 245: 239: 229: 228: 226: 224: 218: 217: 209: 208: 205: 204: 202: 200: 199: 198: 187: 176: 165: 154: 140: 139: 137: 124: 114: 113: 111: 80: 68: 67: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3001: 2990: 2987: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2972: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2962: 2960: 2957: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2942: 2940: 2937: 2935: 2932: 2931: 2929: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2887: 2881: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2864: 2862: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2833: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2799: 2789: 2784: 2777: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2757: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2711: 2697: 2693: 2688: 2678: 2673: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2616: 2606: 2601: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2555: 2551: 2546: 2536: 2531: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2489: 2485: 2480: 2470: 2465: 2458: 2454: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2389: 2379: 2374: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2339: 2331: 2327: 2322: 2312: 2307: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2248: 2243: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2212: 2208: 2203: 2193: 2188: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2161: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2121: 2117: 2112: 2102: 2097: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2069:'s biography 2068: 2064: 2063: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2037: 2036: 2027: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2009: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1984: 1982: 1977: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1904: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1879: 1874: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1857: 1852: 1842: 1837: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1808: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1749: 1744: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1700: 1695: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1649: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1622: 1618: 1613: 1603: 1598: 1591: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1571: 1561: 1556: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1509: 1505: 1500: 1490: 1485: 1478: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1425: 1419: 1415: 1410: 1400: 1395: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1357: 1353: 1348: 1338: 1333: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1300: 1295: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1277: 1271: 1270: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1200: 1196: 1191: 1181: 1176: 1168: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1139:Ancient World 1134: 1132: 1128: 1122: 1120: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1093: 1088: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1038: 1033: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1006: 1002: 997: 987: 982: 975: 971: 967: 962: 961: 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 924: 920: 915: 905: 900: 893: 888: 887: 882: 881: 876: 872: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 850: 849: 846: 842: 837: 827: 822: 815: 811: 810: 806: 802: 798: 793: 792: 784: 780: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 768: 764: 760: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 744: 740: 736: 730: 726: 721: 711: 706: 699: 695: 691: 690: 686: 685: 681: 677: 676: 672: 667: 663: 662: 661: 660: 656: 652: 647: 641: 637: 632: 622: 617: 610: 609: 608: 607: 603: 598: 588: 583: 576: 570: 568: 562: 559: 557: 549: 547: 531: 527: 521: 518: 517: 514: 497: 493: 489: 488: 480: 479:Greece portal 469: 467: 464: 460: 459: 455: 449: 446: 443: 439: 426: 422: 416: 413: 412: 409: 392: 388: 384: 383: 378: 375: 371: 370: 366: 360: 357: 354: 350: 338: 334:LGBT articles 321: 317: 313: 309: 308: 307: 298: 287: 285: 282: 278: 277: 273: 270: 267: 264: 260: 243: 235: 231: 230: 227: 225: 220: 219: 214: 210: 203: 201: 196:criterion met 188: 185:criterion met 177: 174:criterion met 166: 163:criterion met 155: 144: 143: 142: 141: 138: 135: 134: 128: 125: 120: 116: 115: 112: 95: 91: 87: 86: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2908:the Teahouse 2885: 2882: 2868: 2837: 2797: 2782: 2742:97.92.45.226 2736:— Preceding 2733: 2730: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2686: 2671: 2635: 2631: 2614: 2599: 2566: 2544: 2529: 2499: 2496: 2478: 2463: 2456: 2387: 2372: 2349: 2343: 2320: 2305: 2256: 2241: 2215: 2201: 2186: 2174: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2124: 2110: 2095: 2040: 2001: 1980: 1978: 1972: 1961: 1943: 1939: 1933: 1931: 1927: 1924: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1908: 1887: 1872: 1850: 1835: 1822: 1806: 1771: 1757: 1742: 1722: 1708: 1693: 1685: 1681: 1650: 1646: 1640: 1627: 1611: 1596: 1569: 1554: 1546: 1512: 1498: 1483: 1476: 1462: 1429: 1408: 1393: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1346: 1331: 1308: 1293: 1279: 1275: 1273: 1263: 1259: 1249: 1237: 1226:WP:SYNTHESIS 1206: 1203: 1189: 1174: 1147: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1130: 1125: 1123: 1118: 1115: 1101: 1086: 1063: 1060: 1046: 1031: 1009: 995: 980: 965: 949: 927: 913: 898: 857: 835: 820: 782: 778: 762: 742: 738: 734: 733: 719: 704: 697: 693: 670: 648: 644: 630: 615: 596: 581: 574: 571: 563: 560: 553: 545: 525: 485: 420: 387:project page 380: 325:LGBT studies 316:project page 304: 303: 297:LGBTQ portal 269:LGBT studies 131: 83: 40:WikiProjects 2435:User:McOoee 2059:Wew wew wew 1934:exclusively 1027:adopted.-- 890:mention in 814:User:McOoee 567:User:McOoee 172:Structure: 2928:Categories 2776:due weight 2459:(2009).-- 2055:WP:BALANCE 2002:right next 1911:pissed off 1590:WP:PRIMARY 1477:proportion 1289:troops.-- 698:other than 320:discussion 2818:Aquillion 2813:WP:FRINGE 2734:/endrant 2071:backwards 1816:articles. 1779:Timocreon 1669:Timocreon 1377:existence 892:Pederasty 797:Dinarchus 575:parabátai 391:talk page 64:Classical 2890:, since 2759:Cynwolfe 2738:unsigned 2655:Cynwolfe 2525:Done.-- 2051:WP:VALID 2047:WP:UNDUE 1981:US slang 1550:done.-- 1467:ethnonym 1463:same-sex 1455:Hercules 1369:erômenoi 1327:such.-- 1264:erômenos 1238:They say 1121:p.23-24 680:Xenophon 133:criteria 2900:sandbox 2896:preview 2886:be bold 2852:Susfele 2844:medized 2787:BSIDIAN 2676:BSIDIAN 2636:hoplons 2604:BSIDIAN 2534:BSIDIAN 2468:BSIDIAN 2377:BSIDIAN 2310:BSIDIAN 2246:BSIDIAN 2191:BSIDIAN 2100:BSIDIAN 2089:WP:TONE 1919:Sources 1877:BSIDIAN 1840:BSIDIAN 1747:BSIDIAN 1698:BSIDIAN 1678:are one 1601:BSIDIAN 1559:BSIDIAN 1538:WP:NPOV 1488:BSIDIAN 1398:BSIDIAN 1373:erastai 1336:BSIDIAN 1298:BSIDIAN 1260:erastês 1224:That's 1179:BSIDIAN 1127:object. 1091:BSIDIAN 1036:BSIDIAN 985:BSIDIAN 903:BSIDIAN 875:WP:NPOV 825:BSIDIAN 767:WP:NPOV 709:BSIDIAN 694:hippeis 620:BSIDIAN 586:BSIDIAN 528:on the 423:on the 30:C-class 2912:Andrew 2871:Soerfm 2848:medism 2175:That's 2127:colour 2067:Pindar 2023:to us. 1963:pissed 1787:Ibycus 1775:my own 1682:really 1547:policy 1145:1980. 974:WP:DUE 501:Greece 492:Greece 448:Greece 36:scale. 2892:wikis 2013:Earth 1588:read 1459:Hylas 970:WP:RS 739:as is 312:LGBTQ 2916:talk 2910:. 2875:talk 2856:talk 2822:talk 2763:talk 2746:talk 2659:talk 2644:talk 2573:talk 2508:talk 2416:talk 2358:talk 2223:talk 2143:talk 2017:flat 1968:adj 1950:talk 1807:will 1795:talk 1785:and 1729:talk 1658:talk 1592:.-- 1520:talk 1457:and 1437:talk 1262:and 1229:red: 1215:talk 1154:talk 1072:talk 1017:talk 976:--- 966:were 935:talk 864:talk 763:your 752:talk 743:your 655:talk 2914:🐉( 2802:OUL 2691:OUL 2619:OUL 2595:-- 2549:OUL 2483:OUL 2392:OUL 2350:not 2325:OUL 2261:OUL 2206:OUL 2115:OUL 1979:2. 1971:1. 1892:OUL 1855:OUL 1823:are 1762:OUL 1713:OUL 1689:-- 1616:OUL 1574:OUL 1503:OUL 1413:OUL 1351:OUL 1313:OUL 1250:not 1194:OUL 1106:OUL 1051:OUL 1000:OUL 950:not 918:OUL 840:OUL 724:OUL 671:not 635:OUL 601:OUL 520:Low 415:Low 2930:: 2918:) 2877:) 2858:) 2824:) 2816:-- 2765:) 2661:) 2646:) 2632:in 2575:) 2510:) 2418:) 2360:) 2284:.: 2225:) 2145:) 2053:, 2049:, 1952:) 1797:) 1731:) 1686:If 1660:) 1522:) 1439:) 1217:) 1156:) 1074:) 1019:) 937:) 866:) 803:? 799:? 754:) 657:) 558:: 222:/ 62:: 2873:( 2854:( 2820:( 2798:S 2792:† 2783:O 2761:( 2744:( 2687:S 2681:† 2672:O 2657:( 2642:( 2615:S 2609:† 2600:O 2571:( 2545:S 2539:† 2530:O 2506:( 2479:S 2473:† 2464:O 2414:( 2388:S 2382:† 2373:O 2356:( 2321:S 2315:† 2306:O 2257:S 2251:† 2242:O 2221:( 2202:S 2196:† 2187:O 2141:( 2111:S 2105:† 2096:O 1948:( 1888:S 1882:† 1873:O 1851:S 1845:† 1836:O 1793:( 1758:S 1752:† 1743:O 1727:( 1709:S 1703:† 1694:O 1656:( 1612:S 1606:† 1597:O 1570:S 1564:† 1555:O 1518:( 1499:S 1493:† 1484:O 1469:. 1435:( 1409:S 1403:† 1394:O 1347:S 1341:† 1332:O 1309:S 1303:† 1294:O 1213:( 1205:" 1190:S 1184:† 1175:O 1152:( 1102:S 1096:† 1087:O 1070:( 1047:S 1041:† 1032:O 1015:( 996:S 990:† 981:O 933:( 914:S 908:† 899:O 862:( 836:S 830:† 821:O 750:( 720:S 714:† 705:O 653:( 631:S 625:† 616:O 597:S 591:† 582:O 532:. 427:. 393:. 322:. 96:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index