This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Malakia redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Socrates and Plato trans by Paul Shorey
CATAMITE a, paiderastis Plato; to be a catamite, paiderasteo, Plato
Effeminacy, anandria; anandrea; MALAKIA; MALTHAKIA;
Effete is a totally differenct Greek Word, arimenos
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)
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"
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 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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:16, 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Malakia redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Socrates and Plato trans by Paul Shorey
CATAMITE a, paiderastis Plato; to be a catamite, paiderasteo, Plato
Effeminacy, anandria; anandrea; MALAKIA; MALTHAKIA;
Effete is a totally differenct Greek Word, arimenos
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)
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"
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 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)
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)
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)
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...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:16, 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
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)