This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warren Cup article. 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 |
Warren Cup was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 14, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
I have to disagree with the following text in the article about the relationship of the young man with the boy he is penetrating on the Cup: "... the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm.... on the Warren Cup, a mutual tenderness is represented."
This appears to be an assumption which goes well beyond the scene depicted on the Cup. It may be true that it was intended to depict mutual tenderness, and encouragement of the sex by the boy. But it is equally possible, based solely on the scene depicted, that the man is penetrating the boy without the latter's consent, encouragement, or pleasure. We simply don't know.
The young man and the boy are looking away from each other, and the man is holding the boy firmly in his grasp while he penetrates him. This is not evidence of encouragement or mutual tenderness.
The boy may be grasping the man's arm -- it is hard to tell from the photos -- but, if so, it is equally plausible, given the context, that the boy is grasping the arm in pain and to avoid screaming (to avoid punishment). We simply don't know.
So I have to say, with great respect, that the text quoted above appears to be wishful thinking rather than compelled by the evidence.
I read the author Fae's comments about pueri delicatus on this Talk page, which refer us to the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality in Ancient Rome. That text has this to say about pueri delicati, among other things: "...the Roman delicatus was in a physically and morally vulnerable position. The 'coercive and exploitative' relationship between the Roman master and the delicatus, who might be prepubescent, can be characterized as pedophilic, in contrast to Greek paiderasteia" (quoted from /info/en/?search=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
This background, as set out in that other article, does not support the text quoted above, and is more consistent with the depicted scene being an abusive and exploitative sex act.
It would be rash to conclude, without further evidence, that the scene is, in fact, a depiction of abusive or exploitative sex. But the current text goes way beyond the evidence, in my respectful view.
As such, I would have to say the quoted text takes the article away from being Neutral, as used in the Good Article guidelines (although that is only my own opinion). If it was to be modified to be neutral and balanced, I would certainly agree the article is a good candidate for being a good article, thanks to the many informative, detailed, and interesting additions made by Fae in the last few months. Greg Dyer ( talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate Fae's comments but they are not persuasive about the accuracy of the text to which I take objection above. Fae writes "Both Williams and Clarke in the recent sources reviewed above, are strong in their interpretation of the Warren Cup imagery intentionally representing the enjoyment of lovemaking, rather than representing a forced penetration.... I have attempted to follow a neutral path for this article by sticking firmly to the sources, and avoiding any significant interpretation, aiming to explain the most likely contemporary interpretation of the imagery as put forward by the most established writers about this artefact."
This would be persuasive if the article quoted the Williams and Clarke interpretations, or summarized their arguments in more detail. But the absence of anything except conclusions is not coming across as sticking to the sources at all.
The text doesn't say "Authors Williams and Clarke believe the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm, based on the following evidence [and citing it]". Instead the text simply asserts as a fact, without mentioning Williams and Clarke's words or arguments at all, that "the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm".
Citing authors' views is a report of those views, and that is helpful. But the existing text makes no mention at that point of those authors' views at all, but merely asserts that the boy is apparently encouraging the penetration & grasps his lover's arm. (If this is Johnbod's point, I agree with him.)
Similarly the text doesn't say "Authors Williams and Clarke believe that on the Warren Cup a mutual tenderness is represented, evidenced by [cite their arguments]" but instead says "on the Warren Cup, a mutual tenderness is represented", quite a different assertion. The former would report their views and the basis for them, whereas the existing text reports no such thing, but instead asserts as a fact that mutual tenderness is represented.
That is a hugely tendentious assertion because it flies in the face of the best evidence itself -- the depiction on the Cup -- and if it is to be enough to use others' views to the contrary, they should be articulated clearly and not merely summarized in a single conclusion without evidence.
Mutual tenderness might be a possible conclusion for the obverse side (with the older men), although a single-moment snapshot of master-slave relations -- if that is what is depicted, that too is not certain -- can fail notoriously to disclose a power imbalance which renders a slave impotent to object safely, and thus appear to represent assent and comfort which are not in fact present. Many slaves or other coerced people have appeared content with their lot, even happy, when seen for a moment, yet those who got to know them better discovered they were deeply unhappy but afraid to show it.
But it is not neutral (in any usual sense of the term) to draw a conclusion of mutual tenderness about the reverse of the Cup (young man & boy), except as a mere possibility. I have never seen such a weak conclusion asserted with such firmness in a Wikipedia article.
Thanks to Fae's suggestion, I have now visited the British Museum's web site, following the link in the article (it is the British Museum's site, not the British Library's as Fae wrote -- they are close but still over a mile apart from each other), and carefully examined the photos e.g. at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=93761&objectid=410332 and the others shown there.
The conclusion, if any, of mutual tenderness on the reverse side appears to come primarily from the alleged grasping of his "lover's" (or master's) hand by the boy. That is a possible interpretation. But it is entirely possible, from the photos, that the boy is grasping his own left hand, which is otherwise not seen. If someone can say for sure that the boy is graping the man's left hand and not his own, that might be some evidence of mutuality, albeit unable to displace the presumption of a power imbalance given his depiction as a slave.
But if the boy is grasping his own left hand, and that of the man is out of sight, presumably holding the boy's body elsewhere, it is not evidence of mutuality or tenderness.
Similarly, the fact they are looking away from each other, with apparent diffidence about each other's feelings, is not supportive of mutuality, tenderness, or encouragement.
To summarize, the text to which I take objection asserts, as facts, conclusions about encouragement, mutuality, & tenderness which are not supported by an observation of the Cup, at least in the photos available here or at the British Museum's web site. And the reported conclusions of authors Williams and Clarke are not quoted or summarized with any of their arguments or details, nor even referred to in the article except as a footnote which has no such details. Anyone reading the article is led to think that somehow these assertions are correct when they are, in fact, very tendentious.
If Williams & Clarke's views are strong evidence in favour of the article's conclusions, despite the visual evidence to the contrary, the article would benefit greatly from having them articulated in much more detail, in order to be persuasive. So far it is not, with all due respect. Greg Dyer ( talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
When I read the article for the first time it was obvious to me that an improvement is possible, but I hesistated. So I read the main article many times. I came to the conclusion that the sentence above "... the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm ..." refers to the side of the cup that shows the hand of the "beardless youth" on the arm of the “bearded” man. You can see it on the view of the figure in the doorway. Therefore another remark should be made about two other figures. The posture of the slave behind the door reveals his interest. But the smaller boy on the other side of the cup has his hands tightly closed on what would most naturally be his own left thumb, therefore his face could possibly represent a powerful endurance. This is in accordance with a social position that gives him no room for a free decision about these matters. After all: it is the other one who is wearing the leaf crown. Taalstraat ( talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
1. The difficulty is in the cloth between the boy and the adult. If you look at the chest of the boy you see some folds in the cloth and if the man supports him there with his arm then it is close to the center of gravity of the boy. 2. It is obvious that the artist is capable to show differences in emotions. The slave really has a posture of interest. The hand on the arm shows really some tenderness. So a fair description should do something with the gesture of the face of the boy. 3. The difference between a rape in our time and this object is that our laws are against the act between the boy and the man, but this is not our time; it is Roman time. They rule and the have their own laws and customes. 4. The hypothesis that the boy is showing tenderness looks to me as putting our way of live into another time. The cup has two sides, mutual tenderness is acceptable at the A side. It is not supported by facts on the B side. 5. So: if an explanation of a described artefact only shows the bright side of what the artist reveals of the live in his time, than its interpretations could become misleading. Taalstraat ( talk) 22:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Taalstraat ( talk) 05:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I started to read this article because a book about the history of the city of Jerusalem (Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem The Biography (London, 2011) and the cup shows something of the time thirty years before the public appearance of Jesus Christ. There were a lot of tensions in that society, the situation was very complex. As for the aesthetic aspect of the cup, I own no aesthetic books about this matter, but the best source is the site of the British Museum with many photographs. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=517539001&objectid=410332 It is obvious that there is a great symetry in this peace of art. Look to the music instruments, look to the curtains, etc. So it is proper to expect a symmetry in the situations also. The face of the bearded man shows a difficult side of what is happening. If you look to view 22 (follow the link) you can see that the face of the boy has its own typical expression. Of course we can not prove his inner thoughts. But we can point out the symmetry: two acting persons on the cup have an easy time, two other persons have a more difficult time.
As for the discussion above. The main thing is that it would be a mistake if the Wikiarticle suggests that the image with the boy supports the quote about the mutuality or tenderness. The discussion 2014 shows that this errancy is lightly made. (It is better to distinguish between three things: 1. What you can see on the cup 2. What people write about the cup. 3. What people write about corresponding situations in that time.)
I would be very glad if a native speaker would be so kind to examine whether the current representation in the main text adequately prevents this error. Taalstraat ( talk) 10:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I’m pretty extensively read in the ancient history of sexuality, especially in ancient Greece and Rome, and have read a fair bit on the Warren cup. I have only rarely encountered anyone seriously questioning its authenticity or taking this supposed controversy seriously. Originally, this article cited exactly two scholars questioning its authenticity, and only by citing the work in which they question it. That scholar count is now down to one sole scholar. One scholar hardly constitutes a controversy. This all seems highly fringe to me, especially in light of the hard scientific data supporting the cup’s authenticity. So I question to what extent, if any, this should be covered anywhere in this article. At the very least, the material needs to be reduced and generalized. Certainly nothing here rises to the level of the sort of “prominent controversy” deserving any mention in the lead.
I would also advise, if this is going to continue to be covered, that we base ourselves not on the work produced by individual scholars—or an individual scholar, as things now stand—but on the representation of this matter by third-party scholars commenting on it. Again, one scholar crying in the wilderness cannot constitute a “controversy,” let alone one possessing the notability and prominence to be mentioned here. As the material now stands, how is this not fringe? Antinoos69 ( talk) 08:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I can’t believe I would have to explain this to Johnbod, but here we are. The term “prominent controversies” comes directly from WP:LEAD, which Johnbod threw in my face in his edit summaries. While I’m at it, let me throw out WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:DUE WEIGHT, for good measure. A few tidbits: “Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight” (Fringe). WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear that “scholarship” refers to “reliable, published sources” (second quoted term taken from lead of policy article). “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a ‘see also’ to an article about those specific views” (Due Weight). (The published work of exactly one scholar certainly qualifies as a “tiny minority,” wouldn’t you say?)
Now, the three sources provided by Johnbod, two of which sit on my shelves, make clear (rightly or wrongly, as I would have expected a few more) that there is now only one published scholar questioning the cup’s authenticity. Per policy, we don’t care about what scholars informally say among themselves. We care about what the scholarship says, the published studies and investigations. There is good reason for this. Scholars don’t generally subject their informal thoughts and impressions to the same rigor and investigation they do their published work, nor are their informal opinions subjected to the same review that their published work is.
So, I again put to you that the controversy is the fringe theory of apparently one scholar, whom no one else seems willing or able to back up in print. The article needs to be edited accordingly, per policy. Antinoos69 ( talk) 07:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Warren Cup article. 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 |
Warren Cup was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 14, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
I have to disagree with the following text in the article about the relationship of the young man with the boy he is penetrating on the Cup: "... the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm.... on the Warren Cup, a mutual tenderness is represented."
This appears to be an assumption which goes well beyond the scene depicted on the Cup. It may be true that it was intended to depict mutual tenderness, and encouragement of the sex by the boy. But it is equally possible, based solely on the scene depicted, that the man is penetrating the boy without the latter's consent, encouragement, or pleasure. We simply don't know.
The young man and the boy are looking away from each other, and the man is holding the boy firmly in his grasp while he penetrates him. This is not evidence of encouragement or mutual tenderness.
The boy may be grasping the man's arm -- it is hard to tell from the photos -- but, if so, it is equally plausible, given the context, that the boy is grasping the arm in pain and to avoid screaming (to avoid punishment). We simply don't know.
So I have to say, with great respect, that the text quoted above appears to be wishful thinking rather than compelled by the evidence.
I read the author Fae's comments about pueri delicatus on this Talk page, which refer us to the Wikipedia article on Homosexuality in Ancient Rome. That text has this to say about pueri delicati, among other things: "...the Roman delicatus was in a physically and morally vulnerable position. The 'coercive and exploitative' relationship between the Roman master and the delicatus, who might be prepubescent, can be characterized as pedophilic, in contrast to Greek paiderasteia" (quoted from /info/en/?search=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
This background, as set out in that other article, does not support the text quoted above, and is more consistent with the depicted scene being an abusive and exploitative sex act.
It would be rash to conclude, without further evidence, that the scene is, in fact, a depiction of abusive or exploitative sex. But the current text goes way beyond the evidence, in my respectful view.
As such, I would have to say the quoted text takes the article away from being Neutral, as used in the Good Article guidelines (although that is only my own opinion). If it was to be modified to be neutral and balanced, I would certainly agree the article is a good candidate for being a good article, thanks to the many informative, detailed, and interesting additions made by Fae in the last few months. Greg Dyer ( talk) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate Fae's comments but they are not persuasive about the accuracy of the text to which I take objection above. Fae writes "Both Williams and Clarke in the recent sources reviewed above, are strong in their interpretation of the Warren Cup imagery intentionally representing the enjoyment of lovemaking, rather than representing a forced penetration.... I have attempted to follow a neutral path for this article by sticking firmly to the sources, and avoiding any significant interpretation, aiming to explain the most likely contemporary interpretation of the imagery as put forward by the most established writers about this artefact."
This would be persuasive if the article quoted the Williams and Clarke interpretations, or summarized their arguments in more detail. But the absence of anything except conclusions is not coming across as sticking to the sources at all.
The text doesn't say "Authors Williams and Clarke believe the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm, based on the following evidence [and citing it]". Instead the text simply asserts as a fact, without mentioning Williams and Clarke's words or arguments at all, that "the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm".
Citing authors' views is a report of those views, and that is helpful. But the existing text makes no mention at that point of those authors' views at all, but merely asserts that the boy is apparently encouraging the penetration & grasps his lover's arm. (If this is Johnbod's point, I agree with him.)
Similarly the text doesn't say "Authors Williams and Clarke believe that on the Warren Cup a mutual tenderness is represented, evidenced by [cite their arguments]" but instead says "on the Warren Cup, a mutual tenderness is represented", quite a different assertion. The former would report their views and the basis for them, whereas the existing text reports no such thing, but instead asserts as a fact that mutual tenderness is represented.
That is a hugely tendentious assertion because it flies in the face of the best evidence itself -- the depiction on the Cup -- and if it is to be enough to use others' views to the contrary, they should be articulated clearly and not merely summarized in a single conclusion without evidence.
Mutual tenderness might be a possible conclusion for the obverse side (with the older men), although a single-moment snapshot of master-slave relations -- if that is what is depicted, that too is not certain -- can fail notoriously to disclose a power imbalance which renders a slave impotent to object safely, and thus appear to represent assent and comfort which are not in fact present. Many slaves or other coerced people have appeared content with their lot, even happy, when seen for a moment, yet those who got to know them better discovered they were deeply unhappy but afraid to show it.
But it is not neutral (in any usual sense of the term) to draw a conclusion of mutual tenderness about the reverse of the Cup (young man & boy), except as a mere possibility. I have never seen such a weak conclusion asserted with such firmness in a Wikipedia article.
Thanks to Fae's suggestion, I have now visited the British Museum's web site, following the link in the article (it is the British Museum's site, not the British Library's as Fae wrote -- they are close but still over a mile apart from each other), and carefully examined the photos e.g. at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=93761&objectid=410332 and the others shown there.
The conclusion, if any, of mutual tenderness on the reverse side appears to come primarily from the alleged grasping of his "lover's" (or master's) hand by the boy. That is a possible interpretation. But it is entirely possible, from the photos, that the boy is grasping his own left hand, which is otherwise not seen. If someone can say for sure that the boy is graping the man's left hand and not his own, that might be some evidence of mutuality, albeit unable to displace the presumption of a power imbalance given his depiction as a slave.
But if the boy is grasping his own left hand, and that of the man is out of sight, presumably holding the boy's body elsewhere, it is not evidence of mutuality or tenderness.
Similarly, the fact they are looking away from each other, with apparent diffidence about each other's feelings, is not supportive of mutuality, tenderness, or encouragement.
To summarize, the text to which I take objection asserts, as facts, conclusions about encouragement, mutuality, & tenderness which are not supported by an observation of the Cup, at least in the photos available here or at the British Museum's web site. And the reported conclusions of authors Williams and Clarke are not quoted or summarized with any of their arguments or details, nor even referred to in the article except as a footnote which has no such details. Anyone reading the article is led to think that somehow these assertions are correct when they are, in fact, very tendentious.
If Williams & Clarke's views are strong evidence in favour of the article's conclusions, despite the visual evidence to the contrary, the article would benefit greatly from having them articulated in much more detail, in order to be persuasive. So far it is not, with all due respect. Greg Dyer ( talk) 03:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
When I read the article for the first time it was obvious to me that an improvement is possible, but I hesistated. So I read the main article many times. I came to the conclusion that the sentence above "... the boy appears to encourage the penetration, grasping his lover's arm ..." refers to the side of the cup that shows the hand of the "beardless youth" on the arm of the “bearded” man. You can see it on the view of the figure in the doorway. Therefore another remark should be made about two other figures. The posture of the slave behind the door reveals his interest. But the smaller boy on the other side of the cup has his hands tightly closed on what would most naturally be his own left thumb, therefore his face could possibly represent a powerful endurance. This is in accordance with a social position that gives him no room for a free decision about these matters. After all: it is the other one who is wearing the leaf crown. Taalstraat ( talk) 16:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
1. The difficulty is in the cloth between the boy and the adult. If you look at the chest of the boy you see some folds in the cloth and if the man supports him there with his arm then it is close to the center of gravity of the boy. 2. It is obvious that the artist is capable to show differences in emotions. The slave really has a posture of interest. The hand on the arm shows really some tenderness. So a fair description should do something with the gesture of the face of the boy. 3. The difference between a rape in our time and this object is that our laws are against the act between the boy and the man, but this is not our time; it is Roman time. They rule and the have their own laws and customes. 4. The hypothesis that the boy is showing tenderness looks to me as putting our way of live into another time. The cup has two sides, mutual tenderness is acceptable at the A side. It is not supported by facts on the B side. 5. So: if an explanation of a described artefact only shows the bright side of what the artist reveals of the live in his time, than its interpretations could become misleading. Taalstraat ( talk) 22:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Taalstraat ( talk) 05:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I started to read this article because a book about the history of the city of Jerusalem (Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem The Biography (London, 2011) and the cup shows something of the time thirty years before the public appearance of Jesus Christ. There were a lot of tensions in that society, the situation was very complex. As for the aesthetic aspect of the cup, I own no aesthetic books about this matter, but the best source is the site of the British Museum with many photographs. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=517539001&objectid=410332 It is obvious that there is a great symetry in this peace of art. Look to the music instruments, look to the curtains, etc. So it is proper to expect a symmetry in the situations also. The face of the bearded man shows a difficult side of what is happening. If you look to view 22 (follow the link) you can see that the face of the boy has its own typical expression. Of course we can not prove his inner thoughts. But we can point out the symmetry: two acting persons on the cup have an easy time, two other persons have a more difficult time.
As for the discussion above. The main thing is that it would be a mistake if the Wikiarticle suggests that the image with the boy supports the quote about the mutuality or tenderness. The discussion 2014 shows that this errancy is lightly made. (It is better to distinguish between three things: 1. What you can see on the cup 2. What people write about the cup. 3. What people write about corresponding situations in that time.)
I would be very glad if a native speaker would be so kind to examine whether the current representation in the main text adequately prevents this error. Taalstraat ( talk) 10:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I’m pretty extensively read in the ancient history of sexuality, especially in ancient Greece and Rome, and have read a fair bit on the Warren cup. I have only rarely encountered anyone seriously questioning its authenticity or taking this supposed controversy seriously. Originally, this article cited exactly two scholars questioning its authenticity, and only by citing the work in which they question it. That scholar count is now down to one sole scholar. One scholar hardly constitutes a controversy. This all seems highly fringe to me, especially in light of the hard scientific data supporting the cup’s authenticity. So I question to what extent, if any, this should be covered anywhere in this article. At the very least, the material needs to be reduced and generalized. Certainly nothing here rises to the level of the sort of “prominent controversy” deserving any mention in the lead.
I would also advise, if this is going to continue to be covered, that we base ourselves not on the work produced by individual scholars—or an individual scholar, as things now stand—but on the representation of this matter by third-party scholars commenting on it. Again, one scholar crying in the wilderness cannot constitute a “controversy,” let alone one possessing the notability and prominence to be mentioned here. As the material now stands, how is this not fringe? Antinoos69 ( talk) 08:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I can’t believe I would have to explain this to Johnbod, but here we are. The term “prominent controversies” comes directly from WP:LEAD, which Johnbod threw in my face in his edit summaries. While I’m at it, let me throw out WP:FRINGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:DUE WEIGHT, for good measure. A few tidbits: “Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight” (Fringe). WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear that “scholarship” refers to “reliable, published sources” (second quoted term taken from lead of policy article). “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a ‘see also’ to an article about those specific views” (Due Weight). (The published work of exactly one scholar certainly qualifies as a “tiny minority,” wouldn’t you say?)
Now, the three sources provided by Johnbod, two of which sit on my shelves, make clear (rightly or wrongly, as I would have expected a few more) that there is now only one published scholar questioning the cup’s authenticity. Per policy, we don’t care about what scholars informally say among themselves. We care about what the scholarship says, the published studies and investigations. There is good reason for this. Scholars don’t generally subject their informal thoughts and impressions to the same rigor and investigation they do their published work, nor are their informal opinions subjected to the same review that their published work is.
So, I again put to you that the controversy is the fringe theory of apparently one scholar, whom no one else seems willing or able to back up in print. The article needs to be edited accordingly, per policy. Antinoos69 ( talk) 07:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)