Talk:Malakia

Revisionism in the Church

Guess what word is missing from New Bibles:

NEW BIBLES Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament 26th edition l979 (Used as textbook in Roman Catholic Seminaries.)

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, not idolaters, not adulterers, not sexual perverts, …will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.

OLD BIBLES The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958

1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”

The King James Bible

1 Cor 6.9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.

This is an importance of an Encyclopaedia. So, information does not get lost. Nestle Aland is an prestigious work. It has an authority. It is used in many seminaries. Yet, where the Greek has five activities, the English only reads four.

Words are important. Lose the Word, one naturally loses the concept. It is important that this word disappears from modern culture. WHEELER 14:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• "Of the dispositions described above, the deliberate avoidance of pain is rather a kind of SOFTNESS (MALAKOS); the deliberate pursuit of pleasure is profligacy in the strict sense." Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 415.

• "One who is deficient in resistance to pains that most men withstand with success, is soft (MALAKOS) or luxurious (for Luxury is a kind of Softness (MALAKIA); such a man lets his cloak trail on the ground to escape the fatigue and trouble of lifting it, or feigns sickness, not seeing that to counterfeit misery is to be miserable." Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 415

• "People too fond of amusement are thought to be profligate, but realy they are SOFT (MALAKOS); for amusement is rest, and therefore a slackening of effort, and addiction to amusement is a form of excessive slackness" Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 417.

Socrates and Plato trans by Paul Shorey

• "And they may be excellent for other purposes, but we are in fear for our guardians lest the habit for such thrills make them more sensitive and SOFT (MALAKOTEROI) than we would have them." The Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 207.
  • This is the note Mr. Paul Shorey attaches to this: "With malakoteroi the image passes into that of softened metal; cv. 411 B, Laws 666 B-C, 671 B.

• "In respect of savagery and hardness or, on the other hand, of softness (MALAKIAS) and gentleness". Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 289

• "This if relaxed too far would be softer (malakoteron) than is desirable...". Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 289

• "Now when a man abandons himself to music to play upon him and pour into his soul as it were through the funnel of his ears those sweet, soft (MALAKAS), and dirge-like airs of which we were just now speaking..." Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 291.

• • The Great Classicist M. A. JOWETT translates this word malakos EFFEMINATE.

CATAMITE a, paiderastis Plato; to be a catamite, paiderasteo, Plato

• NOWHERE DOES THE WORD MALAKOS APPEAR. Pg 87 if you dare to look

Effeminacy, anandria; anandrea; MALAKIA; MALTHAKIA;

• PG 188

Effete is a totally differenct Greek Word, arimenos

• pg 188.WHEELER 18:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

WHEELER, whatever else we may say about the word (whether malakos or effeminacy), you can't continue to deny that it has anything to do with "gender roles". The word "effeminate" in English derives its origin from the Latin femina -- obviously, to describe a man as being "womanly" is to state that something about him is more in accord with the gender roles fulfilled by women than those fulfilled by men. You insist that malakos is used to describe men who are "unmanly" -- I can't disagree. But surely you must admit that being "unmanly" means that a man is not fulfilling the gender role normally fulfilled by men. Even if it does not mean "womanly", it must be very carefully associated with classical Greek ideas and ideals of manhood. You can't continue to assert that it has nothing to do with gender roles. Jwrosenzweig 16:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deconstructionism

The above is an example of what follows:
Pick up the book by Gene Veith, Modern Fascism, Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. He has a subchapter on *Deconstruction* It is preceeded by a chapter on *Relativism*. "...deconstruction begins with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is through language. Who is the originator of this. Paul de Man. Henri De Man was is uncle. "Henri was mentioned in the same breath as Heidegger as major thinkers for the new fascist order"

• "The act of writing, the simple assertion of meaning, becomes not only a "power play", but an act of "arbitrary power". pp 135-139
• "Deconstruction encourages this kind of moral detachment. It also tends to minimize the past. In a discussion of Nietzsche, De Man wrote that "the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or revolutions." Just as literary texts have no determinate meaining in themselves and are ultimately unknowable, the same must be true of texts such as wars and revolutions." pg 140.

Veith continues:"...the major theorist of deconstruction is not De Man but Jacques Derrida, a Jew. "This Jewish approach is far different from Hellenic thought, which has dominated Western philosophy with its attempt to go beyond language to posit rational systems and idealized truths. Herbert Schneidau relates Derrida's deconstruction to the radical iconoclasm of the Biblical tradition. G. Douglas Atkins, supporting both Handleman and Schneidau, employs Thorleif Boman's Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek to place Derrida in the Hebraic traditon."pg 141.WHEELER 00:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We have two different thought patterns here. It is not about gender roles. It is about the faults of the soul. If you read carefully, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas you will find out that it is related to being lazy, luxury and entertainment. Either gender participates in this. It is not about gender roles or homosexuality or doing the laundry, or cooking or lipstick, or dresses or sexual position or penetration at all.WHEELER 00:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not talking about deconstruction, nor am I using that technique. Please focus on what I am saying. I am not talking about laundry or penetration or sexual positions. I never have. All that I am saying is the following simple statement. If you are talking about effeminacy or unmanly behavior, by definition, you are talking about a gender role. Perhaps not what modern society believes gender roles to be, perhaps a very vague gender role, but a gender role all the same. This is irrefutable, unless you propose to ignore the origins of the words "effeminacy" and "unmanly". Jwrosenzweig 16:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

English is a terrible language. It is not comparable to Greek. Greek is a very scientific language. It has deeper varied meanings to their words. English is a late language and not a pure one. Just because the English strove coined the term effeminacy for several things does not make it a technical language nor an exact translation of the word malakos. Virtue is not a gender role.

Werner Jaeger writes, "The qualities which usually came under the name aretai, "excellences" or "virtues", in the Greek polis—courage, prudence, justice, piety—are excellences of the soul just as health, strength, and beauty are excellences of the body. That is, they are the appropriate powers of particular parts of the soul or their co-operation cultivated to the highest pitch of which man's nature is capable." Paideia, Vol II, pg 44.

The origin of the word is the Greek word malakos. Their usage comes from the Bible and then the Latin Bible and Plato's writings. The Victorian English concept is the Greek classical concept.WHEELER 15:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know the etymology of malakia, and I agree with JWR that it has most definitely a connotation of sexual behaviour in Classical Greek (not to mention Modern Greek :o) — take for example Pseudo-Lucian's Lucius or the Ass (Λουκιος η Ονος), where the poor ass has to serve a bunch of malakes who are clearly male prostitutes. dab (ᛏ) 12:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

btw, I don't understand what you mean by "The origin of the word is the Greek word malakos." at all. As for "English is a late language", well, so is Greek. Why, half of the PIE consonants have evaporated, or have merged. Semivowels - lost, several times over; Labiovelars - lost during the Greek Dark Ages. PIE prevocalic s - lost, before the Greeks even reached Greece. Voiced aspirates - lost. The language is a fair ruin, and by no means more pure than say Old Norse or Sanskrit. Modern English is, of course, again 2000 years later, and should be compared to Modern Greek, which hasn't exactly preserved its ancient glory either, although I suppose it's a marvel it is still spoken at all, after all the Slavic and Turkic migration that took place. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The linguistic side

I'm fixing up some linguistic things: giving the Greek with its classical accents, making sure the transcriptions reflect ancient and not modern Greek, etc. BTW, ἀνδρόγυνον is a Byzantine word for "marriage" (joining man and woman); the classical word for an effeminate man or androgynous person was ἀνδρόγυνος. --Angr/_comhrá 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unsuitable for Wikipedia

This article makes very POV assertions about a concept which is quite difficult to prove. Certainly, false claims are made: "[ἀνανδρία] is always applied to fully heterosexual men". This is clearly rubbish. Plato 'Crito' 45e2: Crito uses it of Socrates (et al), and Socrates, like most Greeks was by no means "fully heterosexual". The conclusions drawn border on original research; the introduction is a mishmash of etymologies, conveniently ignoring the evidence from the scanned dictionary entries that connect effeminacy with like θηλύνομαι. The words cited are fairly rare in any case (under 300 instances of μαλ(θ)ακος in all of classical literature, inlcuding references to objects and so forth). The article belongs either in a classics-related periodical - abd even then only after serious revision. --Nema Fakei 01:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me how old meanings of words are now "original" and "new". This article preserves the old meaning of the word and its context. I wish you would leave it alone. There is a story that Socrates refused sex from a male. For you to intimate that he was homosexual is pure conjecture on your part. WHEELER 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can be heterosexual and still refuse sex from someone of the opposite gender. That Socrates once refused does not mean he was not bisexual. Take, for example, Socrates' advances towards Alcibiades. I am not sure what you mean when you say "It amazes me how old meanings of words are now "original" and "new"."

Hm. I've taken a look at the bibliography, and there seems to be no secondary material whatsoever on the classical usage - just dictionaries and texts. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it clearly indicates that this is purely original research. I'm not suggesting that all of ideas the article presents are wrong or even new, but perhaps if you could cite some of the more sweeping or controversial claims. You've obviously put in a lot of work, and I'd prefer not to gut the article of POV/OR statements unless necessary.

Additionally, the dictionary entries would be much better typed: such big pictures are bad for dialup users, though that's low priority.

--Nema Fakei 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the following sentence included in the "Classical definition of Effeminacy"?

Without conetation it's to waste time.. because there is the real thing and there is Malakies

I can't parse the meaning of what's being said and I suspect it's just a goofball addition to this wiki. "Conetation" appears to be a misspelled "connotation" and the grammar is very poor...

Malakia does not mean effeminacy

This article should not have “(effeminacy)” in the title, as this is by no means the most accepted translation.

I was recently studying the Bible passage in 1 Corinthians 6 , and I looked up the word “malakos” (including several articles about the word, and several Greek references). None of the sources I found translated malakia as “effeminacy” — the overwhelming consensus seemed to be that the word meant: spinelessness. (Without moral force, strength, resolution, or courage. Feeble, nerveless, credulous, weak, cowardly, spiritless.)

Whether these sources are correct or not, the fact remains that “effeminacy” is not widespread, and certainly there is more than one common translation out there — which should at least be acknowledged by the article.

This article, therefore, has no right to present just one translation as being authoratitive and definitive (by using that translation in the page title). Doing so requires, at very least, justification as to why the lesser used translation has been nominated, and the mainstream one rejected.

Grand Dizzy (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maliaka

Maybe would be useful to add to this article that Bulgarians use often name "Maliaka" for Greeks. Actually Greek very often use this word for them self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Molluscs

What reliable source states that in Greco-Roman mythology molluscs symbolize femininity? Cowries look like a vulva and so the Latin word concha, which applied to some shellfish was also used of the vulva. But that is not mythology. The source given for the origin of Aphrodite/Venus does not state that in Greco-Roman mythology molluscs symbolize femininity. So what source does state it? Please read WP:SYNTH. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim about Greco-Roman mythology has now been removed. The revised text quotes two sources. One states that the scallop shell is associated with the female genitalia and with Aphrodite/Venus. The other states two things: that marine invertebrates are associated with female genitalia; and that in Latin the word concha (a bivalve such as a mussel or an oyster) was applied also to a vulva. You need a series of links to associate these statements with the Greek word malakia, which perhaps makes them off-topic in an article on that Greek word. Esoglou (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of viscerotonia

The St Petersburg editor wrote on my talk page: "Formulate your arguments on the talk page instead of slapping Relevance tags without any explanation." I presume s/he has not yet learned that it is for the editor who wants to insert something in Wikipedia to provide justification for its insertion. To satisfy her/his request for a formulation, it is enough to ask what has viscerotonia got to do with the Greek word μαλακία (malakia) that the article is about? Viscerotonia may be related to softness, but that is a different article. What direct relation does it have with μαλακία? Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Viscerotonia is not softness in all senses. It is psychosomatic softness and as such is synonymous with malacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.9.6 (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"Viscerotonia", you say, is a form of "softness". That is no explanation of why it should be dealt with in an article on the Greek word μαλακία. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Words are used to convey notions. This is an article about the notion of psychosomatic softness, and NOT an article on the Greek word μαλακία. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.12.221 (talk • contribs)

This article is on the Greek word μαλακία. If you want an article on psychosomatic softness, write it. Esoglou (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of the English word "malacia"

Information on the English word "malacia" has been deleted with an edit summary: "Deleted irrelevant edits". "Malacia" is the Latinized form of the Greek word μαλακία. Surely that English form of the same word, used in medical contexts with the same meaning that the Greek word has is relevant in an article on μαλακία? Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Radical alteration of the article

Can you redirect the article from Malakia to Malacia? The English word for effeminacy has come from Latin and is "malacia", not "malakia": [1], [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.9.6 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is not about the Latin word malacia. Nor is the article in this English Wikipedia about malacia, which in English has a narrow medical meaning, with the result that in this article the English word "malacia" deserves only a passing mention without going into detail. Even if you were to maintain that the English word, not just the Latin word, means effeminacy, that is still not what the article is about. What the article is about is the Greek word μαλακία, which according to Wikipedia indications μαλακία is to be transliterated as malakia, not as malacia. You should write an article on something else, if you want an article on it, instead of trying to hijack this one. The one that you sometimes seem to be aiming at is on effeminacy in general, since you are piling in stuff that not only is not about μαλακία, but is not even about Latin malacia or the English medical term "malacia". Take your reference to Caesar's De Bello Gallico, which used none of those words. There already is an article on effeminacy. Your disquisitions on Buddhism are also confusing.

There is a practical rule in Wikipedia referred to as WP:BRD. Read it. You have been bold. Excessively so. You have won consensus from no other editor. Your excessively bold work must therefore be deleted and subjected to discussion before being restored. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In English, both "malacia" and "malakia" have been used in all contexts for centuries: [3] [4] But the variant "malacia" eventually won the competition. Presently, English dictionaries have "malacia" but do not mention "malakia".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.12.221 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Except, like Esoglou's already explained, this article isn't about the English word. — lfdder 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Saint Petersburg editor is of course free to start an article on the English word. Or on the Latin word as the opening that editor is trying to impose suggests. Or on any other of the jumble of themes. Esoglou (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. This is an article about the notion of psychosomatic softness, and NOT an article on the Greek word μαλακία. In English, the notion of psychosomatic softness is conveyed by the word "malacia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.12.221 (talk • contribs)

This article is on the Greek word μαλακία. You have tried to change it, but to do that you must get at least one other editor to agree with you. I'm sorry, I must insist until you get to realize that Wikipedia isn't yours to do what you wish with it. Esoglou (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See malacia. — lfdder 18:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This article should be redirected to "Malacia (effeminacy)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.12.221 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Try giving a persuasive reason why it should. You might then get someone to agree with you. Until you do, the article must remain an article on malakia. Or, if you prefer, add information to the malacia article, but try to keep it on malacia alone, not on Buddhism and the like. Esoglou (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Because the notion of psychic softness is Greco-Roman, not Greek. In English, Greco-Roman notions are invariably conveyed by Latinized Greek words. 91.122.12.221 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wish, write an article on psychic softness. No good reason seems to exist for changing to a quite different name the name of an article on the ancient Greek word μαλακία (a word whose meaning is not limited to what you call psychic softness), an article parallel to the article on the modern Greek word μαλάκας (a word whose meaning is not limited to "masturbator"). Thank God, nobody has tried to change the latter to an article on this notion! Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I went too far. I am sorry for that and now undertake to make no edit to this article for at least 24 hours from now or at least 36 hours since my last edit. I also explicitly recognize and highly praise the openness of the IP editor to letting the article continue to be about the word malakia. The IP editor can obviously make very valuable edits to Wikipedia. So I recommend taking an editing name and continuing the good work. During the period when I will make no edit of the article, the IP editor may wish to consider whether it is really appropriate to keep the reference to the Latin words remollescere and effeminari used by Caesar in speaking of the Germans in general (not just the Suevi - and I wonder if by "Nervi" are meant the Nervii, whom Caesar classified as Gauls, not Germans). A more appropriate quotation from Caesar would be his use of malacia to mean a calm at sea, which is already mentioned in this article. The Greek loan word malacia used in Latin by Caesar and Seneca and also Pliny (see Lewis and Short on the use of malacia by Latin writers and on the meanings they attached to it, including sluggishness of the stomach) deserves mention in the article. Perhaps the IP editor would also reconsider whether the Jack London quotation really is related to the Greek word. And of course there are more extensive parts of the article that remain under discussion, even if the IP editor has removed the tag that labelled them as such. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeming vandalism

IP St Petersburg, why do you persist in attributing to sources what they do not say? For instance, claiming that this source says that μαλακία "figuratively denotes effeminacy" (it doesn't) or that this source says that the modern Greek word malaka is defined as "the brain's postorgasmic relaxation to a jellyfish state of blissful imbecility" (what it says is that the word is defined as "softening of the brain, stupidity, and imbecillity")? And why do you delete without explanation genuine information based on reliable sources that replace your inventions? That is not the constructive work expected from a Wikipedia editor. I have never yet reported other editors for this attitude, but have hitherto always been able to get them to accept reason. Unless by tomorrow you can offer a good defence, or alternatively undo your unconstructive edits, I fear I may have to do so for the first time. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You have claimed in this edit that the opposite of malakia is patient endurance. Since you are unable to understand that "patient endurance" is an attribute of meek (i.e., soft-spirited) pack animals, such as a donkey, you should keep away from this article. A patiently enduring coolie is an epitome of malakia, not its opposite. That is exactly why the Greeks ascribed malakia to the Asiatics. 89.110.11.12 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What I put in Wikipedia is what is said in the reliable source: "καρτερ-ία , ἡ, patient endurance, perseverance, opp. μαλακία, X.Cyr.8.8.15, cf. Pl.La.192b, al.; “κ. ἡ περὶ τοὺς πόνους” D.H.2.28; distd. from ἐγκράτεια (self-control), Arist.EN1150b1: pl., “εἴ πού τινες . . κ. πρὸς ἅπαντα . . λέγονται” Pl.R.390d."

I could add this: "μα^λα^κ-ία , Ion. -ιη, ἡ, (μαλακός) A.softness, Hp.Aër.20: hence, of persons, moral weakness, opp. καρτερία, Arist.EN1150a31, cf. Hdt.6.11, Th.1.122, Lys.10.11, X.Smp.8.8, D.11.22, etc.; “τῇ σαυτοῦ ζυγομάχει μ.” Men.201.5.
2. = κιναιδεία, Ph.2.306, Plu.CG4, D.C.58.4.
3. weakliness, sickness, LXX Ge.42.4, Ev.Matt.4.23, Ps.-Hdt.Vit.Hom.36, POxy.1151.27 (v A. D.); μ. σώματος, opp. ψυχῆς, Phld.Mus.p.30 K.
II. calmness of the sea, malacia ac tranquillitas, Caes.BG3.15.3."

If what you put in Wikipedia are false quotations and your own personal interpretations rather than what is stated in reliable sources, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Since you are deaf to what I say, I hope some other editor can explain this better to you. Esoglou (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are an incoherently loquacious waste of time. 89.110.17.243 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is regrettable that you prefer your own ideas to what is in reliable sources. The first citation stated (in the part I bolded) that καρτερία means "patient endurance, perseverance", and is the opposite of μαλακία. The second, in the part I bolded, said that the basic meaning of μαλακία is "softness" and hence, when used of persons, it means "moral weakness", the opposite of καρτερία.

I am still hoping that someone else can get across to you what is involved in editing Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Malakia is philosophic weakness, not moral weakness. Asiatic warriors have the highest morale when it comes to standing up for their moral ideals. But it does not make them less slavish. Just compare the vague dreaminess of Indian philosophy with the terse coherence of the Western philosophy, and you will see why a handful of British administrators could control hundreds of millions of Indians despite all the bravery and moral strength of the latter. The same holds true for the North American Indians, who were famous for their bravery in battle but had an extremely vague and dreamy ("soft") philosophy, if any. 89.110.17.243 (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting original-research opinion, suitable for a forum, but inadmissible in Wikipedia, which accepts only what is stated in published reliable sources. As for the opinion-holder's edits in the article, even a forum would condemn as dishonest the attribution to a source of what is not in the source and is even contradicted by it. Esoglou (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not original research. For Epictetus and the Cynic epistles, the term malakoi refers to men who take life easy rather than enduring the hardships of philosophy: [5]

This dictionary says: "Malacia : Figur. languor, effeminacy; Senec." So, the use of malacia as "effeminacy" is attributed to Seneca. I am just curious why you cannot see it.

It appears that you are a paid troll employed by a government-sponsored social-engineering agency. Could you make yourself scarce, troll? 89.110.17.243 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize. I was mistaken. When viewed with Internet Explorer, the link you gave did not show the word "effeminacy", covering it up with "MALACI", a still recent defect that I (wrongly, it seems) blamed on Google Books, not on Internet Explorer. With Safari, the word "effeminacy" does show. This is a further reason to abandon Internet Explorer entirely. (It had an advantage over Safari in that it updated the Wikipedia watchlist every time I returned to it, while Safari continues to give the watchlist as when first viewed in the tab. Safari, on the other hand, I found better for editing. I must see whether the other browsers I use update the Wikipedia watchlist.)

So the 1840 book does give "effeminacy" as one of the figurative meanings of malacia in Latin. Will you agree to include the other and more common meanings, including the other figurative meaning that the same dictionary gives for the word and puts in first place? After all, the article is about the word μαλακία, isn't it? Esoglou (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a Wiktionary article dedicated to malacia. I will add a reference to it. The Wikipedia article should be kept as terse is possible, because only terse information is usable. All the medical meanings of the word malakia/malacia were introduced by the Greeks, not by the Romans. 89.110.17.243 (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that the Wiktionary entry is about the English word "malacia", which has no meaning outside of medicine and pathology, and which has its own article in Wikipedia; and you are, of course, aware that this article is instead about the Greek word and its various meanings?

I agree that this article, like any other, should be kept as terse as possible. Terseness is rather the contrary of turning the article from one on the Greek word into an essay on something that one of the word's figurative meanings refers to. Terseness also requires that there be no indulging in imaginative and quite unsourced commentary that a different though cognate word allegedly implies "the brain's postorgasmic relaxation to a jellyfish state of blissful imbecility"; that there be no dragging in of quotations that contain no word that is even cognate to malakia; and so on. Agreed?

You have deleted citations that indicate the primary meaning of the Greek word, which should surely be given at the beginning. You have also deleted the citation of an authoritative source that indicates the primary meaning of the word as used by Latin writers. Even the source whose mention you chose not to delete indicates the primary sense of the word as used by Latin writers. In spite of those reliable source, you have insisted on giving the article a lead that mentions only a secondary sense, one of the word's figurative meanings. You insist on a mention of that secondary meaning, and exclude any mention of more multi-sourced senses. Esoglou (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

From the edit history, it is obvious that you had no interest in this article before I came here. You are not a Wikipedia administrator, and still you are spending an awful lot of your lifetime on trying to revert somebody else's edits. From your contributions, it follows that you have spent every day of the past four years on editing Wikipedia articles, writing thousands of words per day, wikilawyering, and squabbling, as if you were a full-time employee of some organization. Can you explain it? Because I have a strong desire to spit you in the face. 89.110.17.243 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed

Please indicate the reliable source that makes this generic statement: "Until women's enfranchisement (1920 in the USA, 1944 in France), the preferred and correct tranlation of malakos was 'effeminate'". Is this a misunderstanding of what Dale B. Martin said about Bible translations of μαλακοί in 1 Corinthians 6:9? Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It will not help. You will keep asking for "reliable sources" simply because you are paid for it. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, read WP:OR and WP:AGF. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You still have indicated no source that makes the questioned statement. I suppose it is because you can't. Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You are still maintaining in the article your claim that "Until 1920, which is the year of women's enfranchisement in the USA, the standard and correct translations of malakos and malakia were 'effeminate' and 'effeminacy' respectively." That is merely your own unsourced idea. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Indication of date of a text

Why is the Loeb Classical Library translation of Seneca's Letter LXVII to Lucilius, which was published in January 1920 (Seneca, Epistles 66-92) and repeatedly reprinted since then presented as if it were a 1996 translation? Esoglou (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In the Collins English dictionary, tranquillity is defined as "a state of calm or quietude". [6] Therefore, the translation "it is not tranquillity; it is merely a flat calm" is an inane tautology. It is not because the translators were idiots, but because women were enfranchised in 1918 in Britain and in 1920 in the USA. It would be absurd to enfranchise "soft-brained imbeciles", hence the political pressure on the publishers. Do not forget that all books and films in the United States are censored. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That opinion of yours doesn't justify the falsehood of presenting a translation published in 1920 as a 1996 work. Esoglou (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The 1920 book had one translator—Richard M. Gummere. The 1996 book had three translators—Richard Mott Gummere, Thomas H. Corcoran, and Frank Justus Miller. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You know all too well for your comfort that the text in question was already in the 1920 edition. It was not a 1996 composition. Presenting it as if it supported your unsourced generic statement about votes for women looks like falsehood, so please remove that (false, I suppose) impression. Esoglou (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have found the 1920 version. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding it after deleting it when given by me. Thanks for removing the falsehood. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Primarily Greek or Latin

The article open by citing one source (and one older than a more prestigious one that says practically the same thing) about the meaning of the word as used by Latin writers. Why is no similar source cited about the meaning of the original Greek word? Esoglou (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added a link to a Greek lexicon in the "External links" section. Since it has many scores of meanings, it is impossible to cite them all. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you did elsewhere (such as putting a completely out-of-date work under Bibliography) does not explain why you open the article citing no reliable source for the meaning of the Greek word in Greek, but only with a citation of an old source on the meaning of the word in Latin. Esoglou (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Latin entry included in the lead-in begins as "MĂLĂCIĂ, (μαλακία,)", which clearly indicates the Greek origin. The Latin malacia is merely a transliteration of the Greek malakia and can be used in all the meanings of the latter. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The English word τοo is of Greek origin, as any English dictionary will indicate. English "malacia" is merely a Latinized transliteration of the Greek word μαλακία. To say that either the Latin word or the English "can be used in all the meanings of the Greek word" is simply false. Is either the English or the Latin word used to mean passive homosexual activity? Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See this dictionary: [7] 89.110.26.230 (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if this book weren't such a poor source for English usage, packing in terms not admitted to regular English dictionaries and giving definitions as questionable as saying that "malacia" means "homosexual desire" (felt by a man or a woman, to play the woman or to play the part of a man or of a woman) - but let us leave that aside: the essential thing is that it could not make up for your starting the article by talking about one secondary meaning of μαλακία (giving as basis your interpretation of an adjectival word, not of the word μαλακία itself) instead of giving a clear sourced account of what the word μαλακία really meant in Greek. The article is titled μαλακία, not "A secondary use of the word μαλακία". Esoglou (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Preferring an out-of-date source

You have stated that you have put a link to an 1843 publication under "Bibliography". You are not unaware, are you, that the 1843 publication is an altogether out-of-date edition of a work that, because of the many profound revisions it has undergone since then, making it far more complete than in 1843, now enjoys such prestige. Were you to look with an open mind at the information a more up-to-date edition gives on the word μαλακός (as here), you would see that the Greek word does not correspond to your presentation of it. I already put in the article what it says of the Greek word μαλακία, but you refuse to allow this to be linked to in the lead. Why? Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have included the online lexicon in the "External links" section. It is almost identical with A Greek-English Lexicon, Harper & Brothers, 1846. But it was finished by 1925, when women had already been enfranchised: [8]. That is why the entry "malakia" has been expurgated by censors and does not mention general effeminacy but equates malakia with κιναιδεία, which is just a particular case of effeminacy. 92.100.172.12 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You misread. Use of μαλακία as an equivalent of κιναιδεία is only one meaning of the word. I really do not believe that you know more than the scholars who worked on that publication. Strange that you use "expurgation" for what is the contrary of expurgation. Has it not struck you that the "censorship" you speak of could be what was done in the past, not now? If you are unclear about what κιναιδεία means, look up cinaedus in Wikipedia. Expurgation of such terms is no longer as much in vogue. For instance, the Loeb Classical Library has been revising its texts of, say, 1920, so as to give such terms in plain English instead of paraphrases such as "unnatural vice" and "effeminacy". The original Loeb edition of Martial's Epigrams stated: "All epigrams possible of translation by the use of dashes or paraphrases have been rendered in English, the wholly impossible ones only in Italian." The change that has occurred was of course - I speak ironically - due to female enfranchisement. Your imaginative theory about a particular effect of female enfranchisement is at least as baseless as that. Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How much does the government pay for your incoherent babbling? From your contributions, it follows that you have spent every single day of the past four years on spin-doctoring Wikipedia articles and wikilawyering. Oswald Spengler called such scribblers "male prostitutes". 89.110.26.230 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So, practically speaking, he called them μαλακοί, without bowdlerizing. Did he say anything that would help you defend your unsourced claim that, "until 1920, which is the year of women's enfranchisement in the USA, the standard and correct translations of malakos and malakia were 'effeminate' and 'effeminacy' respectively"? I notice now that it was before 1920 that Gummere translated Latin malacia as "dead calm", seeing that printing of his translation of Seneca's letters in three volumes had been completed in time for it to be published in January of that year, seven months before ratification of the 19th Amendment of the US Constitution. And for each of the passages cited in Liddell and Scott for use of μαλακία in Greek literature there are several pre-1920 translations that do not use the word "effeminacy" for it and scarcely any that do use "effeminacy". Yet you would make them all out to be incorrect! Esoglou (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

More unsourced claims

You declare: "The entry [in later editions of Liddell and Scott] no longer mentions general effeminacy but instead equates malakia to κιναιδεία (passive pederasty)." You have managed to pack several unsourced (and unfounded) claims into this declaration.

1. Saying that the entry "equates μαλακία with κιναιδεία" is, at best and assuming your good faith, ambiguous. What the entry says is that μαλακία was used to mean κιναιδεία by Philo Judaeus, Plutarch, and Cassius Dio Cocceianus. It does not say that μαλακία simply is to be equated with κιναιδεία. It gives this use of the word by those writers as only a secondary meaning. Esoglou (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

2. You say that κιναιδεία means "passive pederasty". What source supports this idea of your? Cite it. Liddell and Scott says it means "unnatural lust". Of the adjectival form κίναιδος, it says that the primary meaning is a catamite or, generally, a lewd fellow.

3. You say that the entry in the later editions replaces what you call "general effeminacy" with an equation with κιναιδεία. It doesn't. The 1843 edition (the first edition) cites two passages of Herodotus and Thucydides as using μαλακία to mean "delicacy, effeminacy". The later editions interpret the same passages of the same two authors (and other passages of several other authors) as indicating that they were using the word to mean "moral weakness". The change is from "delicacy, effeminacy" to "moral weakness", not to κιναιδεία. Esoglou (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it worthwhile to examine whether your claim that the online edition is that of 1925 is as false as the three claims that I mention above. I will only say that, at least for the entries we are discussing, the online text is identical with that in the 1961 reprint of the 1940 (ninth) edition that I have here beside me, and which contains Stuart Jones's 1925 preface (an account of the detailed revision work done since the first 1843 edition) as well as what it calls "Postscript 1940". So I am not saying that your claim about the date of the online edition is false. Esoglou (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Postorgasmic

Another unsourced claim of yours is that the modern Greek word that you call maláka(s) "implies the brain's postorgasmic relaxation to a jellyfish state of blissful imbecility". What reliable source can you present in support of that claim? The one that you cite does not support it. Esoglou (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Complete alteration of an article by a single editor

An editor using a dynamic IP in St Petersburg, Russia, who appeared for the first time on 30 April last, has in a mere ten days made hundreds of edits of this article that altered it completely, while reverting edits by the few other editors who tried to keep the article on-topic (it was originally an article on the Greek word μαλακία), accurate, and encyclopedic. Today he has without prior discussion blanked out several sections of the article. Guidance and help are needed. I recognize, of course, that the pre-30 April text needed improving. A better text to compare the present text with would be this, although this too would be better without the irrelevant section on viscerotonia. Esoglou (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Complete alteration of an article by a single editor

The user opening this RfC requests community comment on the extent of the alterations to this article by a single editor. missing summary provided by  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The article did certainly need work, but the changes go too far, are mostly unsourced, and often are of WP:NPOV- and WP:NOR-violating editorial character, not encyclopedic in tone. That said, not all of the additions are useless. I would suggest a good-faith attempt to restore the removed material, work in the additional material (including helping to source it) where it seems useful, and engage in dispute resolution with the editor in question. If said party will not stop making unilateral changes, the matter can be escalated to WP:ANI. Regardless, the current state of the article is definitely unacceptable, and has the character of a personal essay.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  PS: It's not abosolutely certain that these IP edits are by the same party, though it seems likely. I was just in Greece recently, and the enormous tourist trade there has resulted in nearly every restaurant having wifi; I would think other major Eastern European cities are similar in this regard, so someone editing from various local cafés is a likely explanation for the changing IP addresses. I would not assume that the party is switching IPs for any other reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you, SMcCandlish, both for rearranging properly this request for comments and for your own comments. The St Petersburg editor has simply deleted your "essay" tag, as he has been doing constantly to all edits by other editors. Of the last 200 or so edits, the only one by another editor that he has allowed to stand seems to be this bot edit whose effect is invisible ("Remove invisible unicode control characters + other fixes using AWB (10096)"). I gave up my attempts to correct the article and tried to get him to remove errors and consider other points of view by pointing out problems on this talk page, but he has ceased to respond even here. Having been the only other editor seriously involved, I might seem to be acting out of personal resentment, and so I don't want to be the one who reports the situation to WP:ANI, something too that others are able to do more competently than I can. Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

*Admin note: The fluctuating IPs from St Petersburg never participate on the article Talk page (here) and they have no stable user talk where they can receive feedback. So I've semiprotected the article. If consensus is reached the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've seen this type of ownership before, though not to the extent described above. I haven't examined the article, but it seems to me that a good course of action would be to compare the current version to the last stable version, and copy out any useful edits and additional sourced material from the current version, add it in to the last stable version, and update the article according to this new version. If someone is willing to do the comparison, I would be happy to edit those into the last stable version in an encyclopedic and prosaic manner and perform the update.

Edit: I just looked over the article, and I want to state that I unequivocally hold that this version by Esoglou is vastly superior to the current version. The IP editor(s) clearly are familiar with the word, but seem almost schizophrenic in their attempts to convey information about it. The current version is disjointed, nonsensical and rambling. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made bold to do a general revision of the article, keeping only what is securely sourced and is related to the word malakia, and removing the superabundant material about all sorts of ideas that have no sourceable relation to the word. Esoglou (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Esoglou: I looked over the article, and it looks a lot better. Great job. It went from a time-cube-esque schizophrenic manifesto to a decent encyclopedic article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Return of the St Petersburg IP

The editor in St Petersburg, Russia using a dynamic IP is again turning the article into a composition of his own imaginative original research. I have removed that. If he still refuses to discuss his proposals, it may be necessary to renew the page protection. Esoglou (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have renewed the semiprotection for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: It looks like the same problem is occurring again. Would you mind renewing the semiprotection once more? Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Now semiprotected indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article, as it stands, analyses primary sources, such as dictionaries, the works of Homer, Aristophanes, Plato, and St. Thomas Aquinas and the Bible. There are zero secondary sources cited anywhere to back up the claims made by the various editors who have contributed to the article. This constitutes original research in the most literal sense. As such the article either needs to be properly cited or deleted — Iadmc♫^talk  08:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• No one commented on this so I listed the article for deletion — Iadmc♫^talk  19:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517151431/http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/20154-on-effeminancy to http://www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/20154-on-effeminancy

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Stub article

Since Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, and not a place for original research, I have stubbed this entire article. Any investigation of how the Ancient Greeks linked effeminacy to moral weakness, and what words they may have used to do so, should proceed from reliable sources. Any contributions based on word usage or definitions should be contributed to Wiktionary instead of here. - car chasm (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)