text:
Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes

Mostly harmless
I just noticed this edit summary of yours, Sir Gawain McGarson:

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

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 Wikipedia 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 inappropriately giving Wikipedia'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 User:McOoee. 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".

I didn't even remove Leitao's views, I merely specifically stated that it was his opinion and his opinion alone, not Wikipedia'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 pederasty. Homosexual yes, pederastic only in the sense that the pairings were of older and younger men. The parabátai 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.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

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'. 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.

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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 Sacred Band of Thebes according to David Leitao is it? And of course Leitao's views are valid, hence why I didn't remove him. But to adopt his stance unequivocally with Wikipedia's voice (i.e. without attribution to the interpretation being Leitao's), is not NPOV. That's deliberately confusing the original account with a modern interpretation that calls it a lie.

 * Leitao himself admits that the existence of such couples in other ancient Greek military were abundantly attested (e.g. Xenophon). And other historians, when discussing Leitao, point out Plutarch's account rests on far less shaky authority than many things accepted in ancient historiography.

 * Are you even getting my point?

 * 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 hippeis, 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 other than Leitao, which currently controls the tone of the entire article.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reporting the account as is? The article quoted Plutarch out of context. That is not reporting as is. 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 your 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 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! Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * And your own opinion is not any less "wishful thinking"? I don't want your opinion either. May I remind you of the first commandment of WP:NPOV? Note that it's not the only one you've broken but it's your most common:

 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. 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."

 * 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 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 Dinarchus? Dio Chrysostom? Athenaeus of Naucratis? 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.1 And like it or not, that is the main reason for the fame of the Band in the first place.

 * And now that I've realized that you ARE User:McOoee, you've been doing this to all related articles as well. That begs the question just who is being tendentious here?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 1 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 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.

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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a good enough reason. The first guideline of WP:NPOV 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 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.?

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

 * 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 mention in Pederasty 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.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  04:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 Sacred Band of Carthage, are you saying they were not historical too? Leitao's work itself was about the historicity of the composition of the band, not on whether the band itself existed or not. Get your arguments straight.

 * 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 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.

 * 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. again, whose works were 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 WP:RS than the other "irrelevant" historians, the answer is no. See WP:DUE--- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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 Herodotus and Thucydides have to say about the Sacred Band? There are other issues we can address later. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 adopted.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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 into this article. Your editing as an IP number set alarm bells ringing, and mysterious comments such as This article is first and foremost about Plutarch's account, any interpretations by modern historians are secondary, 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 like "He said this, he said that, but Leitao disagrees because of this and that" at every paragraph.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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 Rockwell: he supports Leitao's view. I quote – "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 [Greek: enioi de phasin] is a way for Plutarch to distance himself from the sensitive issue of male homosexuality." p.23-24

I found this also, relating Plutarch's account to Plato's Symposium, but by a different author, A Georgiadou – Plutarch "...sees this love of the [Greek: erastai] and [Greek:eromenoi] 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 object. (A. Georgiadou, Plutarch's Pelopidas: A Historical and Philological Commentary, Stuttgart 1997, 155-56)

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, Ancient World 1992, and J. Buckler, Theban Hegemony 1980.

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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 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.

 * 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 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. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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 "...supposedly was a unit composed of 150 pairs of men, each consisting of a lover and a beloved." 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 * That's WP:SYNTHESIS 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 red:

 * "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. They say that house used to be blue."

 * 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 not 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 surrounding/contemporary practices that differ from it.

 * 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 erastês and erômenos 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 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).

 * And in conclusion he says: In all likelihood, pederasty was a part of the recruitment process for the Sacred Band, and homosexuality among its members a continuation of these bonds, especially given that members lived together as a unit stationed in Cadmea.

 * 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 troops.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 such.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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, 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 erômenoi were usually not part of the military unit of their erastai, if they fought at all. It's important to note that Leitao doubts the existence 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.

 * 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 Band itself. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rabbit Hole
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 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 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.

 * 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. 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. Hercules and Hylas 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 same-sex 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 ethnonym.

 * 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 viewpoints have more merits. The proportion of the opinions in reliable sources, not on what opinion deserves center place because you happen to believe in it.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  09:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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 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? Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 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 Wikipedia, not Essay 101?

 * 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 Wikipedia policies. If you did not know this by now, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV again as it seems like you skipped it on orientation day.

 * I'm tired of repeating myself. From now on, just please tell me exactly what Wikipedia policy 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 done.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 [more dominant] viewpoints either. I might add that I'm using primary references correctly (no they are not forbidden), if you even bothered to read WP:PRIMARY.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  17:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your private critique of the legend but the critique given by scholars. I've already identified some for you.
 * Leito's position is supported by Rockwell re a dominant tradition concerning an elite unit and a minority tradition about a band of lovers
 * 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, positions akin to those put forward by Leitao
 * 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 (Bisexuality in the Ancient world, 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.

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 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.

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 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * You wrote most of Timocreon, 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.

 * 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 are one and have probably been laughing at my naive assumption of good faith all this time. I really don't much care for that either. Let me finish the article in peace, and then fire away with specific complaints. If 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. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you're even implying here. Did you invent a time machine or are you psychic? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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 my own, I make no apologies for that. Yes, I'm on a crusade against propaganda. No, Timocreon 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 Theognis of Megara and Ibycus. 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 will 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 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.

 * 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 articles.

 * 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 are 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 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.

 * Any reworking you do, will be assessed in light of your past activities. Impartiality doesn't arrive with a new username, you earn it.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

 * And I know. Harsh. But I'm more than a little pissed right now.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Caucus Race
I hope you mean pissed off. 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, The Defense of Attica by Mark H. Munn. He discusses his sources in the section Sources 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...

"...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)

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, 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:

"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 exclusively 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)

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 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.

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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 * pissed [pɪst]
 * adj
 * 1. Brit, Austral, and NZ slang intoxicated; drunk
 * 2. US slang annoyed, irritated, or disappointed

 * You don't seem British to me.

 * The best thing about my sources is that they're placed right next 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 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.

 * 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 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 Earth and then insisting that half or more of the article space be devoted to explaining how flat it really is, and how the scientists have all lied to us.

 * 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. What's my favorite color? 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 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.

 * 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: Double eupais en pée œuvaie. I'll even link you the specific policies that everyone else on Wikipedia follows but you: WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, WP:BALANCE. But you'll just make a crack about me being a police car again, of course. Wew wew wew

 * 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 Pindar's biography backwards 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:

 * "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"

 * I'm afraid that's all yours, sir knight. See WP:TONE, and when you've at least grasped the basics of what Wikipedia is about, feel free to come back and lecture me on the quality of my editing. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your favourite colour? Don't you remember what it is? But speaking of psychic powers: I can't find any mention of a band of lovers in Central Greece and the Politics of Power in 4th century BC (John Buckler and Hans Beck) nor in Philip II and the Sacred War (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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

 * And awww. No mentions in those three? No worries. I can give you hundreds of books alone, all mentioning that the Sacred Band was composed of lovers. That's the majority "tradition" I'm talking about. Happy now?

 * And of course it's not a club. But that does not excuse deliberately disruptive behavior does it? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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, 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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" 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. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It would be just fantastic if a day's peace might be had in this cat fight. Meow.  davidiad.: 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * LOL, I'll be finishing up soon. I have some work coming up.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Rabbithole II, the term "pederastry"
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 Pederasty in ancient Greece, 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 not 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. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 knee-deep in expanding Leuctra atm, and then the Theban hegemony and then the Battle of Chaeronea.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  08:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Hmm thanks for that but you only have to read Pederasty in ancient Greece 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 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. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 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 User:McOoee, a sockpuppet of Sir Gawain in the article page history. Note particularly how he warped the previous wording.

 * 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 Unit Spirit and Morale: The Origins of the Regimental System in Victor Hanson's The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (2009).-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  09:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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, pairs of male lovers would be good enough at that point in the article. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And some French Fries to go with that please, no salt; a coffee too! I'll wait at the table by the window. Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Epic fries.jpg -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 in the unit was not between men and small, pre-puberty boys. Small boys can't carry hoplons, 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. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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.

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

Hooray for wikipedia....

/endrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.45.226 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012

 * 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 just this morning. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 * 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 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 due weight. Also note that Sir Gawain inserted Leitao in several other articles. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've revised it to drastically reduce the focus on Leitao (whose views appear to be WP:FRINGE 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. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Remaining dab link
I've removed all but one of the dab links in the article and also removed the dablinks template. The remaining dab link is redirectd from medized to the "dab" page medism. 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. Susfele (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead too short
The lead is 70 words compared to article c. 6000. Should be around 1/25 of the whole article. Soerfm (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis 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 preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sacred Band of Thebes


text:
Health Resources and Services Administration

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services located in North Bethesda, Maryland. It is the primary federal agency for improving access to health care services for people who are uninsured, isolated or medically vulnerable.

Comprising six bureaus and twelve offices, HRSA provides leadership and financial support to health care providers in every state and U.S. territory. Its grantees provide health care to uninsured people, people living with HIV/AIDS, and pregnant women, mothers and children. They train health professionals and improve systems of care in rural communities.

HRSA oversees organ, bone marrow and cord blood donation. It supports programs that prepare against bioterrorism, a program to compensate people who experience vaccine adverse events, and maintains databases that protect against health care malpractice and health care waste, fraud and abuse.

Functions
HRSA's $10 billion budget (FY 2015) provides direct health care to 23 million people. Its health center program supports medical, oral and behavioral health services to uninsured and underinsured individuals through a nationwide network of community-based clinics and mobile medical vans. By bringing comprehensive primary and preventive health care services to inner-city and rural communities that otherwise would be without them, health centers improve the health of their communities and relieve pressure on overburdened hospital emergency rooms. The agency also recruits doctors, nurses, dentists and others to work in areas with too few health care professionals.

HRSA funds life-sustaining medication and primary care to about half of the estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States. The agency also furnishes funds and expertise that save and improve the lives of millions of mothers and children. HRSA also oversees all organ, tissue, and blood-cell donations. It is the federal agency primarily responsible for pediatric poison control. It also maintains databases that track cases of health care malpractice and compensates individuals judged to be harmed by vaccinations. HRSA monitors trends in the health care workforce and forecasts future demand. Scholarships and academic loan programs encourage greater minority participation in the health professions and seek to maintain an adequate supply of primary care professionals.

Primary health care
HRSA funds almost 1,400 health center grantees that operate more than 10,400 clinics and mobile medical vans. Health centers deliver primary and preventive care to over 16 million low-income patients in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and U.S. possessions in the Pacific.

HIV/AIDS
HRSA's Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program provides primary care, support services and antiretroviral drugs for about 530,000 low-income people. The program also funds training, technical assistance and demonstration projects designed to slow the spread of the epidemic in high-risk populations. These services avert more costly in-patient care and improve the quality of life for those living with the virus.

Maternal and child health
HRSA administers a broad range of programs for pregnant women, mothers, infants, children, adolescents and their families, and children with special health care requirements. The largest of the programs, the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant to States, supports local efforts to reduce infant mortality and childhood illness and control costs associated with poor pre- and neo-natal care. The Block Grant includes State Formula Block Grants, Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS), and Community Integrated Service Systems (CISS) projects. Other vital missions include Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, Traumatic Brain Injury, Healthy Start, Sickle Cell Service Demonstrations, Family to Family Health Information Centers, Emergency Medical Services for Children, and autism.

Among the most successful public health initiatives in U.S. history, HRSA's Maternal and infant health programs annually serve more than 34 million people.

Rural health
In order to make health care more accessible for the 60 million residents of rural America, HRSA funds programs that integrate and streamline existing rural health care institutions and aid in the recruitment and retention of physicians in rural hospitals and clinics. HRSA's telehealth program uses information technology to link isolated rural practitioners to medical institutions over great distances. Many of these activities are designed and operated out of the Agency's Office of Rural Health Policy.

Health workforce
The agency strives to ensure a health care workforce that is diverse, well-trained and adequately distributed throughout the nation. In exchange for financial assistance through National Health Service Corps scholarships and student loan repayment programs, more than 28,000 clinicians have served in some of the most economically deprived and geographically isolated communities in America over the past 35 years.

Healthcare systems
HRSA oversees the nation's organ and tissue donation and transplantation systems, by way of supervising the work of the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit organization that is contracted to run the complex organ and tissue donation and transplantation system in the U.S.

HRSA oversees a drug discount program for certain safety-net health care providers.

HRSA also supports the nation's poison control centers and vaccine injury compensation programs, which distribute awards to individuals and families who have been injured by certain vaccines, after proving it to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The awards come from a trust fund that is funded by an excise tax on all vaccines. Whenever anyone gets a vaccine, there is a $.75 excise tax. The fund currently has almost $4 billion available (as of September 2019) for compensations to petitioners and for attorneys fees and costs of the program.

Predecessors
Most of HRSA's bureaus have predecessors within the Public Health Service (PHS), coming from either its Bureau of Medical Services or the Community Health Divisions of its Bureau of State Services. During the PHS reorganizations of 1966–1973, these were both absorbed into the short-lived Health Services and Mental Health Administration (HSMHA). The goal was to coordinate divisions with similar focus with a holistic rather than fragmented approach; however, it came to be seen as large and unwieldy.

In 1973, HSMHA was abolished and split into four parts: the Center for Disease Control and National Institute of Mental Health were spun off within PHS, and the remaining functions were split between the newly established Health Services Administration and Health Resources Administration.

A few of HRSA's programs have origins outside PHS, though. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau originates from a 1969 split of the Children's Bureau, with its special projects, training, and research programs moving into PHS. The Bureau of Primary Health Care's system of Community Health Centers were initially part of the Office of Economic Opportunity, but were moved into PHS in 1974.

Establishment and later history
HRSA was established on October 1, 1982, when the Health Resources Administration and the Health Services Administration were merged. Dr. Robert Graham was the first administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration.

In November 2019, Thomas Engels was appointed administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, replacing administrator George Sigounas. Engels left the post on January 20, 2021.

On January 20, 2021, the incoming Biden administration named Deputy Administrator Diana Espinosa, a career civil servant, to serve as Acting Administrator until a permanent successor is named. On December 17, 2021, it was announced that Carole Johnson would be named as Administrator, having previously served as testing coordinator on the White House COVID-19 Response Team. Johnson took up her administrator role in the first week of January 2022.

On August 1, 2022, the HRSA vaccine injury database revealed that 6,088 claims had been made for injuries/deaths attributed to the COVID-19 vaccination, only a very small number of which had been denied, but no payouts had yet occurred. Any payout resulting from the remaining granted claims will automatically trigger a Congressional review of the PREP Act's medical fraud section, as vaccines were certified to Congress as being "safe and effective." In addition, under the 1986 Healthcare Quality Improvement Act, Congress is responsible for reviewing the HRSA vaccine injury database every three years.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord"

The Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord" (Евангелическо-Лютеранская Церковь "Согласие") is a small confessional Lutheran denomination based in Russia. Established in 1992, it is a mission denomination assisted by missionaries supported by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It currently consists of five congregations and several Christian Information Centers, all in the province of Siberia in Russia.

The denomination is headquartered in Akademgorodok, just south of Novosibirsk where it also operates a seminary for the training of clergy.

Affiliations
The Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord" is a member of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference.

title: Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord"


text:
User talk:Ghaywood

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 04:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ghaywood


text:
D-2 (video)

D-2 is a professional digital videocassette format created by Ampex and introduced in 1988 at the NAB Show as a composite video alternative to the component video D-1 format. It garnered Ampex a technical Emmy in 1989. Like D-1, D-2 stores uncompressed digital video on a tape cassette; however, it stores a composite video signal, rather than component video as with D-1. While component video is superior for advanced editing, especially when chroma key effects are used, composite video was more compatible with most analog facilities existing at the time.

History
Ampex created the first D-2 video machine, the ACR-225 commercial spot player working with Sony, who had done some early research into composite digital video, as a cost-effective solution for TV broadcasters with large investments in composite analog infrastructure such as video routers and switchers, since it could be inserted into existing analog broadcast facilities without extensive redesign or modifications. This was because D-2 machines accepted standard analog video and audio inputs and outputs. D-2 machines are capable of interfacing through either serial digital video or analog video connections. Four PCM audio channels are available for editing (an improvement over the then-popular Type C analog machines with two audio channels) as well as an analog cue channel and timecode, also with digital or analog connections.

Features
Like D-1, D-2 uses 19 mm (¾ inch) tape loaded into three different sized videocassettes to support commercial spot playback as well as long-form programming such as movies. Although D-2 videocassette housings are nearly identical to their D-1 counterparts, they are not interchangeable due to D-2's metal particle tape formula, needed for its higher recording density.

Ampex D-2 tape transports are extremely fast. A high speed search at 60 times playback speed with a recognizable color picture allowed three hours of videotape to be searched through in approximately three minutes.

The format uses helical scan, with an M wrap pattern in which the tape is wrapped around the head drum around the left and right side. This records diagonal tracks, called helical tracks, using heads mounted on the drum which rotates at high speed. Both audio and video are recorded on the helical tracks.

The D-2 offered read before write or preread functionality, which allowed simultaneous playback and recording on the same transport. For example, a title could be superimposed over existing video already on the same video tape by playing the tape through a video switcher, adding the title, and recording the new composite image back onto the same location of the tape. This eliminated the need for an additional recorder and saved considerable time in video editing. Steven Fuiten was the first PreRead Editor to composite video using a full D2 digital system.

Acceptance
During its early stages, finished episodes of South Park were hastily recorded to D-2 to be sent to Comedy Central for airing in just a few days' time. D-2 replaced Type C videotape for the mastering of LaserDiscs in the late 1980s.

D-2 was also used to send at least some episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 to Comedy Central for playback.

D-2 was in widespread use for some ten years, as the computer-based video server (with fewer moving parts and correspondingly greater reliability) became available not long after its release. By 2003, only a handful of broadcasters continued to use the D-2 format, and even then only to access materials recorded on the format.

Panasonic introduced D-3 in 1991; it is very similar to D-2 as it uses a smaller cassette case.

Format Description

 * General:
 * Format name: D2 digital
 * SMPTE type: D2
 * Format type: digital composite
 * Scanning system: multi head segmented helical
 * Year introduced: 1988
 * Developer: Ampex/Sony
 * Physical Data:
 * Tape width: 19 mm
 * Tape speed(s): 5.19 ips
 * Tape thickness: .55 mils
 * Playing time(s): 32, 94, 208 minutes (Small, Medium, Large cassette sizes)
 * Headwheel (head drum) diameter: 2.95" (96.4 mm)
 * Helical track width: 35.2 microns
 * Speed: 7200 rpm
 * Head-to-tape writing speed: 1078 in/sec.
 * Sampling rate: 4fsc (14.31818 MHz for NTSC)
 * No. of bits: 8
 * Data rate: 60.1 MB/sec (480.8 Mbps)
 * Audio:
 * No. of digital channels: 4
 * Sampling rate: 48 kHz
 * No. of bits: 20

Models

 * Ampex
 * VPR-200, VPR-250, VPR-300
 * ACR-225 Commercial Spot Player (robotic tape system)
 * Sony
 * DVR-10, DVR-18, DVR-20, DVR-28
 * DCR-10, DCR-18, DCR-20, DCR-28 (sold by BTS)
 * DVC 80, DVC 1000s LMS (Library Management System)

title: D-2 (video)


text:
Bobby Hamilton Jr.

Charles Robert Hamilton Jr. (born January 8, 1978) is an American former professional stock car racing driver. He formerly competed in the NASCAR Nextel Cup Series, Nationwide Series, and Camping World Truck Series.

Early career
When he was 15 years old, he found a Ford Pinto in his driveway as a gift from his father (2004 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series Champion Bobby Hamilton). They fixed up the car, and Hamilton began racing it on weekends at the local speedway. In 1998, he moved to the ARCA series where he earned four top-5 finishes in five races.

1998–2001
In 1998, Hamilton began to run some Busch Series races for the Sadler Brothers Racing No. 95 team. He made his debut at Rockingham in October, where he started in 27th position. He led four laps and finished 37th, three laps off the lead. He also made the race at Atlanta, had a 19th place start and 20th-place finish. Hamilton and the No. 95 Shoney's Inn team entered 1999 with a part-time schedule. In four races with the team, his best start was 6th at Daytona, and his best finishes were 27th at Rockingham and Darlington. He did not race again until the Hensley Motorsports No. 63 Exxon Superflo team had an opening. He ran six of the next seven races, beginning at Watkins Glen. In that seat, he set his best career finish of 21st at Pikes Peak. Hamilton then moved over to the No. 22 Air Jamaica Team owned by Carroll Racing. He qualified for all the races he attempted, and matched his career best start of sixth at Charlotte. At Homestead-Miami Hamilton started 15th and finished 9th.

Hamilton got a full-time ride with Carroll in 2000, driving the newly formed No. 26 Chevy, with sponsorship from Baywatch. Hamilton had three top-10s in 2000, with a fourth at Talladega, and a pair of sevenths at Charlotte and Memphis. Hamilton also won his first career pole in the season finale at Homestead-Miami. He finished 19th in points. During the Homestead weekend in 2000, he made his Winston Cup Series debut at that track, driving the No. 57 Chevrolet owned by his father. He finished 33rd in that race, six laps down. He drove the No. 01 Coors Light Chevrolet for SABCO Racing the following week to a 31st-place finish.

Hamilton returned to Carroll had a pair of fifth at Darlington and Rockingham in 2001. He also added three other Top 10s, and won another pole at Fontana in addition to starting in the Top 10 for half the races. After finishing 17th in points, he left the team. He made his Truck Series debut that year at The Milwaukee Mile in the No. 4 Dana Dodge Ram for BHR, but exited early due to a transmission failure. He also ran three races in the No. 33 Oakwood Homes Chevy for Andy Petree Racing as a teammate to his father, filling in for the injured Joe Nemechek. He also ran seven Cup races late in the season for Morgan-McClure Motorsports, driving the No. 4 Kodak Chevy to three Top 20 finishes.

2002–2006

In 2002, Hamilton joined Team Rensi Motorsports to drive the No. 25 United States Marine Corps-sponsored Ford Taurus. He won his first career race at New Hampshire and finished eighth in points. He also had his first Top 5 finish in the Truck Series at Nashville Superspeedway, finishing seventh in his father's Square D entry. He had his statistically career-best season in 2003, where he won four Busch Series races and finished fourth in the final standings. He also partnered with Rensi to run some races at the Winston Cup level, his best finish being a 14th at Kansas Speedway in the No. 35 Marines Ford.

Hamilton returned to Rensi in 2004, but did not win a race. He competed in six Nextel Cup events for Phoenix Racing in the No. 09 Miccosukee Indian Gambling-sponsored Dodge, and had a best finish of 17th. He also drove three times in the Truck Series, winning a pole in his father's No. 04 truck, as well as running twice for HT Motorsports. After 23 Busch races, he left Rensi to move up to the Nextel level, driving the No. 32 Tide-sponsored Chevrolet for PPI Motorsports. He was given the full-time ride for 2005, but struggled immensely, failing to qualify three times and not finishing any higher than 11th. After driving two events in equipment leased from Front Row Motorsports, Hamilton was let go from PPI at the end of the season.

Without a full-time ride, Hamilton moved to the Truck Series, leasing equipment from the No. 08 team owned by Green Light Racing, and running with Corky's Ribs and BBQ sponsorship. After three races, it was announced that his father had been diagnosed with head and neck cancer, and Hamilton was deemed his replacement in the No. 18 Fastenal-sponsored Dodge. He won the pole in his first race in the truck, but only mustered a 16th-place finish in points, as well as dealing with conflicts within the family-run organization. His attempt to run the 2006 Allstate 400 at the Brickyard at the Cup level also failed.

Following his father's death on January 7, 2007, Hamilton was expected to take over ownership of the team; however, he was not part of the management named by the team's backers the following month. The team eventually closed down in 2008.

2007–present
In 2007, Hamilton returned to the Busch Series and Team Rensi, this time driving the #35 McDonald's Ford. He had three Top 10 finishes and finished sixth in the final standings. After his #35 team folded in 2008, he moved back to the #25 car with Smithfield Foods sponsoring for thirty races. Despite missing two road course events, Hamilton had two Top 10s and finished 15th in points. The team was ready to close near the end of the season when Smithfield's sponsorship ended, but Hamilton funded the team out of his own pocket for the final few races of the season to keep the team going. He also purchased a small portion of the Sadler Brothers team for whom he had begun his career, allowing them to run a limited schedule in the Nationwide and ARCA RE/MAX Series.

Before the 2009 season, Hamilton purchased a small portion of Rensi Motorsports and merged his own operation with the team, forming the new Rensi-Hamilton Racing operation. The #25 team lacked the sponsorship to run Hamilton, and he subsequently drove Randy MacDonald's #81 Dodge for a limited schedule. Hamilton returned to the Truck Series in 2010 for Rick Ware and also ran at Nashville Superspeedway in 2011 with Ware in their #1 truck.

After two years away from major-league racing, Hamilton returned to the track in 2014, signing with Carter 2 Motorsports to drive the team's No. 40 Dodge full-time in the ARCA Racing Series; however before his first race with the team, he was released. In 2015, Hamilton resigned with Carter 2 Motorsports to compete in the 2015 ARCA season.

In 2016 Bobby started Hamilton-Hughes Racing, with none of the three cars entered at Daytona making the field. By the end of May, cars from Hamilton-Hughes Racing were no longer showing up to the track. Most recently Bobby is facing lawsuits from multiple drivers and the team has been evicted from its Russellville, KY shop.

Other ventures
Hamilton replaced his father in 2006 as co-host of "The Driver's Zone" on WGFX 104.5 The Zone in Nashville with Liz Hackett, the remarried widow of Davey Allison, who uses her first husband's surname on the radio show.

Hamilton and wife Stephanie own the Courthouse Cafe in Springfield, Tennessee.

In December 2009, Hamilton purchased Highland Rim Speedway, located in Ridgetop, Tennessee; the track was where he had competed in his first race. In late 2010, Hamilton was accused of pulling a gun on a competitor at the track during a dispute; Hamilton stated he legally possessed the weapon and believed he was being threatened. No charges were filed in the case. In April 2011, Hamilton and fellow driver Chad Chaffin acquired a two-year contract for the rights to operate Nashville Fairgrounds Speedway in Nashville, Tennessee. In November 2011, however, they were found by the Nashville State Fair to be in default on their obligations, and in April 2012, Hamilton was named in a lawsuit by Nashville for unpaid obligations related to the contract. Hamilton had declared bankruptcy that January, and the Highland Rim track was sold at public auction in February.

Personal life
Hamilton currently resides in Greenbrier, Tennessee, with his wife Stephanie and a daughter named Haley.

NASCAR
(key) ( Bold – Pole position awarded by qualifying time. Italics – Pole position earned by points standings or practice time. * – Most laps led. )

ARCA Racing Series
(key) ( Bold – Pole position awarded by qualifying time. Italics – Pole position earned by points standings or practice time. * – Most laps led. )

$$ Season still in progress $1$ Ineligible for series points

title: Bobby Hamilton Jr.


text:
User talk:Davidlwilliamson

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Learn about some of the Wikipedia landmarks by trying our Wikipedia scavenger hunt!
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 04:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on the Lake Placid bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track article. It earned a DYK yesterday! Chris (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hawaii history stubs
Hi. Please see my comments here. We're not supposed to create history stub templates and categories without the approval of the stub project. Also, WikiProject Hawaii is already using a Stub-Class assessment system, so if you want to sort by history, a task force is the next logical step. —Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Look forward to working with you. —Viriditas | Talk 08:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking, why don't you go ahead and just request the stub template through the normal channels on the Stub project page?   Even though I'm biased against them, it may work for you, as you seem to have a vision in this regard, and I think it is important to encourage that.  It would also give you practice with the correct procedure. :)  It shouldn't have any impact on whether we create a task force, a separate project, or whatever.  In case you need the link to the procedure, it's here. —Viriditas | Talk 09:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP:WSS/P (Hawaii history stub)
Hi - noticed your proposal on the Stub sorters page about a Hawaii history stub and your second thoughts about it... FWIW, a lot of WikiProjects prefer using WikiProject-specific talk page templates, which allow them to assess all articles covered by a topic, rather than just stubs. They require a bit more coding knowledge than stub templates, but are ultimately far more useful (see WPBeatles for an example of one in action). Grutness...wha?  00:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good news
User:Phoenix-wiki has proposed an American history task force on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Would you be willing to contact him as a representative for Hawaii history articles related to American history and help coordinate? —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008
Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 15:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008
Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008
Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008
Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - August 2008
Aloha. The August 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008
Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VII - October 2008
Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VIII - November 2008
Aloha. The November 2008 issue of the Hawaii WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaii 06:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia
Hi, WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Davidlwilliamson


text:
Talk:Special pleading

Examples?
I'd like to see examples for each of the bulleted forms of immunity. Can someone provide this?--Bryan H Bell 04:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Would spurious claims of "bias" in the other side (without evidence) be considered a form of special pleading? Kasreyn 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How is "Sure, an omnipotent benevolent deity could and would prevent evil, but free will prevents that." special pleading? Is it reference to vocabulary ("free will")?67.158.76.126 12:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It's special pleading in the same way that ""Sure, an omnipotent benevolent deity could and would prevent evil, but chicken soup prevents that." Or "Sure, it's not physically possible to bend spoons with your mind, but Uri Geller can". They are unjustified claims of an exception. -- 71.102.136.107 10:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"An omnipotent benevolent deity could and would prevent evil" is a false assertion. This particular sentence is a very bad example; not only is it a questionable use of "special pleading", but it has the much more basic flaw of being built on a false assertion. Thus, it is confusing and unclear, so I have removed it.

I think that the "examples" section no longer adds anything to the article (given the more specific examples now present), and I think the examples in it are needlessly contentious. Consequently I have removed it. Rafaelgr 15:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says: "A more difficult case is when a possible criticism is made relatively immune to investigation. This immunity may take the forms of: reference to vocabulary that is owned by a distinct community with sole rights to assess meaning and application"

But why should I accept that a community can just hijack a word? 92.117.253.175 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The second and third examples here don't seem to match the fallacy described in the beginning of the article, which says it is supposed to be about an unjustified exception to a rule. What rule is broken by talking about the religious beliefs of aliens on another planet? The fallacy as described earlier wasn't about just making unverifiable claims. And the third example is actually an example of a different fallacy which it links to.--108.86.123.184 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

examples logically ok, but need at least one with more oomph
Special pleading has a negative connotation. The article needs an example the gives this feeling to it, like the special pleading of a pastor caught cheating on his wife and paying for someone's abortion.216.86.177.36 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However, we do need to avoid original research.216.86.177.36 (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Whenever we speak, we assume stuff about what our audience knows or believes. We consequently leave most of that stuff out of what we say--otherwise it would take all day to say much of anything. It's always a gamble, though; you might have misjudged how your listeners will take certain things that you say or leave out. The present definition "... an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception" would unfortunately include such ordinary, good-faith acts of omitted speech. Conciseness shouldn't be defined as a fallacy!

Also, the second example includes a kind of justification--a brief, weak one, but it's there. Apparently, since "we" (= the court, public opinion, ... ?) would reject it out of hand, it's as if no justification had been offered at all. Yet the speaker may have meant to reference what he thought was a common understanding (again, a misperception of other people's thinking, but surely not a fallacy). So mere omission or the use of implication isn't what constitutes this fallacy--one could say somewhat cynically that it's either the failure to produce any argument, OR the use of arguments that someone else (in authority) ultimately deems as weak or invalid.

Finally, just beneath the examples, the article says, "In the classic distinction among informal (material), psychological, and formal (logical) fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of psychological fallacy, ..." but if you follow the link to "psychological fallacy" you find something that seems quite different, to me at least. I frankly don't see the connection.

All in all, I think this article needs help. And I'd really like to read it again after it's gotten that help, since I've never felt that I understood what "special pleading" is supposed to mean. I'm not even sure to what extent it is a fallacy in logic, since there's so much that depends on "the eye of the beholder" about it. DSatz (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I love the examples currently in there, especially the racism one (racism is prejudice based on race, except for this, because this is prejudice based on race that benefits the group!) One I'd love to see in there that has plenty of oomph is any peculiar definition of Christian.  Any dictionary will say a Christian is someone who follows Christ, maybe any member of a group that believes Christ was divine.  Yet countless competitive religionists will say "anyone who believes in the eternally co-existent and Biblical Christ, without body parts and passions; and sola scriptura and universal salvation by grace without any efforts on our part but reading this poem, and also the Nicene Creed, and the Apostle's Creed, and the various declaration of the Catholic church even though we don't consider Catholics Christian either," etc. etc.  I see that kind of special pleading daily and want the world to giggle with me!--Mrcolj (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Use by English lawyers
I get the impression that "special pleading" is a technical term in the practice of law in Great Britain. It does not seem to have the pejorative connotations addressed in this article. If this is the case, someone should create a new section explaining the British legal phrase "special pleading".   Solo Owl   15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eall Ân Ûle (talk • contribs)

Good Example
A good example of special pleading fallacy is "Everything requires a first cause. Therefore a god/gods/God made everything." which is the same as "Everything requires a first cause. Except for god, of course." This is quite a commonly-used one. 72.242.35.23 (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

could say what 'special pleading' is more clearly in simple language?
I came to this page to make sure my vague impression of the meaning of "special pleading" is accurate. I leave more confused than ever.

Here is an attempt to illustrate clearly what my understanding of special pleading is:

An exception to an accepted generalization or rule, without a clear explanation why the exceptional case gets a pass. Historical example: "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." (R. Nixon)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.156.23 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Amphibology problem
In the Spanish Wikipedia has an article with the same name but referred to a different fallacy. Given the problem of amphibology, I think that should rename this article from the English Wikipedia as Fallacy of special pleading (double standard) or Fallacy of the funnel, or Fallacy special case.https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falacia_del_alegato_especial. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. The idea I propose is to create a new voice: Special pleading, and differentiate the current voice as Special pleading (double standard), for example. There are two different fallacies. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "voice"? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From the context, I guess “article title”. ISTM (caveat: my Spanish is minimal) that the above article describes a type of genetic fallacy similar to an argument from authority or ipse dixit. This may be a case of linguistic difference; I think we would need English-language references supporting the necessity for disambiguation or forking here. Could be worth adding a see-also, though.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct Odysseus. I have enough bibliography in English: Clark, J., Clark, T. (2005). Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking. Brisbane: Nifty Books.* Dunning, B. "A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 6 Nov 2007. Web. 12 Jun 2013.  * Sagan, Carl. The Demond-haunted World, 1995. Regards--Javiergeografo (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Clark, J., Clark, T. (2005). HUMBUG! the skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking, page 124 http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/humbug.pdf--Javiergeografo (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many other books which, so far, I have not gotten access. I quote below that, a priori, I find most relevant: References & Further Reading of "Dunning, B. "A Magical Journey through the Land of Logical Fallacies - Part 1." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 6 Nov 2007. Web. 15 Jul 2013. ": - Walton, D. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - Miller C., Miller, D. "On evidence, medical and legal." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 1 Sep. 2005, Volume 10, Number 3: 70-75. References of chapter 12 of "The Demond-haunted World", of Carl Sagan: - Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, 7ª ed. (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, 1992). - Theodore Shick, Jr., y Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age (Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1995). - Noel Brooke Moore y Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (Palo Alto, CA, Mayfield, 1991). - J. B. S. Haldane, Fact and Faith (Londres, Watts & Co., 1934).--Javiergeografo (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

First example is uncited and may be original research
I checked the citations for both examples and I couldn't find either (ref 4 is dead but I checked it on Wayback and it wasn't there either). The 2nd one had a replacement example in ref 5 so I've replaced it but I couldn't find a suitable one in the existing refs for the 1st. ShabbyHoose (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Special pleading


text: User talk:68.113.221.140

title: User talk:68.113.221.140