Talk:Pelagius of Córdoba

POV - unsupported deletion of historically documented sexual material from article

This article has been tagged as POV due to the repeated and unsupported deletions of documentation of the attempted pederastic seduction of Pelagius by the Caliph. Haiduc 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty

Pederasty is of the essence of this story, what argument is there for obhscuring it? Haiduc 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• He was offered freedom if he converted. There was no pederasty. --evrik 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no pederasty only because you insist on censoring properly referenced historical material demonstrating that the Caliph desired to have sexual relations with the boy and had him killed because he resisted his advances. Haiduc 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I went to the Penn library and couldn't find any of the books cited so i could look at them for myself. --evrik 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What a cop-out! The decent thing to do is to hold off mutilating others' research until you have verified it for yourself, not deleting it out of ignorance of the factsHaiduc 01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps you shouldn't make contoversial edits with obscure citations that can't be verified. --evrik 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If editing the article is "mutilating others' research", then the article is off-base. Wikipedia is not supposed to be someone's research. This article reads like someone's research for a graduate seminar in gender studies. Pederasty is not "of the essence of the story", the essence of the story is Pelagius of Cordoba. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone else's research is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to contain. Not original research. deisenbe (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Info on pederastic nature of the conflict is everywhere

Such as, "There is the story of the ninth-century martyr Pelagius, a boy whose beauty so aroused 'Abd-al-Rahman III, the caliph of Cordoba, that he wished to enjoy its delights. The boy's refusal led to torture and death. Within decades of the boy's martyrdom narratives circulated and he began to be honored as a saint, whose cult included a Mozarabic text for Vespers, Matins, and Mass. While the stories cited by Jordan served an obvious polemical purpose for European Christians in their demonizing of the Muslims, who are pictured as prone to same-sex desire, there is more in these texts than that. "As it begins to act out its own worship of the boy-saint, the Christian community seems as much bothered by his beauty as was the caliph" (28). For "... the flattery of his beauty that is sung by male choirs ..." (27) does unavoidably bring up questions of the point of such God-bestowed male beauty, so dangerous to its bearer and to its observers, including (perhaps?) the monks chanting Pelagius's praises."[1]

and . . .

"That liturgy, he notes, focuses as intently on Pelagius's beauty as did the caliph." in "Ganymede/Son of Getron: Medieval Monasticism and the Drama of Same-Sex Desire" by V. A. Kolve in Speculum, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct., 1998), pp. 1014-1067

and . . .

"Pelagius retains the Christian construct of blasphemous, sodomitic caliph,. while defusing the ephebe’s troubling erotic appeal for Christian chroniclers..." in "Queer Iberia: Sexualities, Cultures, and Crossings from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance (review)" by Leora Lev, in Journal of the History of Sexuality - Volume 10, Number 1, January 2001, pp. 119-122

You should have no trouble finding these even in your school library. Haiduc 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll need some time to look at this. --evrik 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Take your time. Haiduc 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've been to thee libaries in Philadelphia. Anyone want to lend me a copy? --evrik ^(talk) 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've just confirmed (in about five minutes, using Columbia's online e-journal library) the quotes proferred by Haiduc from Speculum and J. Hist. Sex.; they appear to be in context and support his view that the axis of pederasty has long been prominent in Pelagius' mythos, regardless of its truth. Whatever modern opinions about its veracity, it seems entirely appropriate to discuss St. Pelagius's historical context. Let's not let modern politics or mores interfere with maintaining high quality, thorough articles--and get that disputed tag off the page and reinsert the expurgated material. Citizen Sunshine 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Amazing that you could bring it up online ... my offer of compromise would be this ... that the article be written up first according to the catholic encyclopedia, and then have a section that discusses Haiduc's preffered version. Will that suffice? --evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind material from the Catholic encyclopaedia being included, but you well know we cannot privilege one source over another. But let's go ahead and present that point of view first, and then we'll detail the academic view. No problem there. Haiduc 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention Tag

As you appear to have reached a compromise on the POV issues brought up above, I am removing the "attention" tag from the Wikiproject infobox. (The article is looking good, by the way. It seems to acknowledge both the tradition of the pederasty in a way that allows for the fact that not everyone agrees on the veracity of the account). Pastordavid 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pelagius of Córdoba. 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/20060210230343/http://www.op.org/DomCentral/life/martyr06.htm to http://www.op.org/domcentral/life/martyr06.htm

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) 06:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)