Talk:Nisus and Euryalus

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Latin Text[edit]

The text reported and the translation have nothing to do with Virgil's poem. They look like a student's compendium intended as an exercise in Latin, or (but I really doubt it) a late autor's compendium of the poem. In any case they are misleading in the present form, as they suggest that this is Virgil's story, thu I decided to remove them. Virgil's paragraph is quite long and contains several famous images. One possibility could be to add Dryden's translation or even an home-made one, but not this crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.164.120.126 (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This paragraph is simply a one-sided argument: "It has been argued that it is unlikely that Vergil intended this pair to be seen to be in a pederastic relationship due to the Romans feeling that this sort of relationship was taboo. This hypothesis is invalidated, however, by comparison with other poets roughly contemporary with Vergil, such as Catullus and Ovid. One might try to discount Ovid as an appropriate moral standard in the Augustan era because of his exile, but Ovid’s exile cannot be seen as brought about by the sexual, including homosexual, themes in his poetry. He was exiled because of the politically subversive themes in his poetry as well another unrelated political indiscretion. Therefore we must conclude that the idea that the Romans would have found a homosexual relationship, such as that between Nisus and Euryalus, to be distasteful is unfounded, since comparison with contemporary literature offers no such interpretation. Widespread homophobia was a feature of the later Roman society brought about mainly by Judeo-Christian thought; in Greece and the early Roman Empire bisexuality was the norm."

Aristotle1990 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe the contents of this paragraph to be incorrect or one-sided. It reflects the the mainstream consensus of the academic community, and there is no reasonable basis to believe this consensus to be false. However, I have edited the paragraph to give whatever pieces of another side to the argument that exists (that homophobia might have existed, although it was not mainstream), as well as a more neutral tone. I will remove the "references" tag because references have been named. There are several more references which I may add if this continues to be disputed.

JMO historian (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that the references have been provided, but it's not made clear in the text which of the references support which position on the argument. Could someone familiar with the references please clarify the text accordingly, please? --Kay Dekker (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear[edit]

I don't know why I allowed myself to get distracted by working on this article when I knew I didn't have time to do it properly. Anything that looks like OR at the moment is really just my having jotted the material down without the energy to add the citations. Will get back to this soon. Apologies. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]