Talk:Antinous

Antinous Mandragone?

I have deleted the image captioned "Antinous Mandragone" for several reasons. Firstly, although it has some resemblance to Antinous images, the hair arrangement makes it fairly clear that it's a woman. Antinous may have been a catamite, but he wasn't a drag queen. Secondly, a Google image search for "Antinous Mandragone" does not turn up any independent verification of this work, nor does a search for "Antinous Louvre". A general search for "Antinous" turns up hundreds of images, but not this one. Thirdly, if this an Antinous bust in the Louvre, its striking qualities should make it at least as well known as the other Antinous busts in the Louvre, in the Vatican and at Delphi - and it isn't at all well known. Fourthly, I went through the Louvre looking specifically for Antinous images, and I certainly didn't see this one. Of course I may have missed it - it's a big place - and I may be quite wrong. But I'd like to see some sources for the assertion that this is Antinous. Adam 00:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm the author of this photograph. This bust stands in the new « salle du Manège » which was opened some months ago (immediately on your right when you come out of the escalator). This hall is dedicated to French copies or casts of Greek antiquities.

The hair arrangement doesn't strike me as particularly feminine, at least not more than other male statues. As for the caption, it's a mispelling. It's Mondragone, from the Mondragone Villa in Italy, near Frascati. 30 hits in Google with "antinous mondragone". Jastrow 00:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The bit about the mythological character should be merged with Antinous son of Eupeithes. --LakeHMM 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the irrelevant material to Antinous son of Eupeithes. Will try and do the merging later. 62.31.128.13 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Hadrian and Antinous met in 123 or 124 for the first time?

Uncited section about modern 'worship'

I removed the following, as it is uncited and seems quite doubtful.

Today, many young Pagans and Wiccans (especially males with homosexual orientation) have revived the worship of Antinous. In Cyberspace, several virtual temples have been dedicated to him. In Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston, he is the main deity for several covens.

Please feel free to discuss and cite. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your action. Adam 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are many pagans (of many ages) who are actively worshipping Antinous, but they are not Wiccans. You'll note the websites of several of these in the links which have been added.-Alfrecht 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I can say this that yes there are many Pagan's worshipping Antinous,I am one and everyone that I have met have not been Neo-Pagans but Recons. Remeber that Antionus' religion in the ancient past was Syncretistic just as it is today,but that did not make the ancient worshippers of him Neo-pagans or wiccans either,just as it does not make modern worshippers Neo-pagans or wiccans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.102.20 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is now occasion to revisit this topic, as what seems to be a reliable source was published by the University of California Press:

The New Cultus of Antinous Hadrian’s Deified Lover and Contemporary Queer Paganism Ethan Doyle White Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Vol. 20 No. 1, August 2016; (pp. 32-59) DOI: 10.1525/novo.2016.20.1.32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Images

We're using more space for images here than text. Rendering lots of media on a subject is the purvue of Wikimedia Commons. I think that four images here has passed "distracting" and well into "cluttered". Jkelly 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - but I think one image doesn't really describe the depth and breadth to which Antinous has been captured in various cultures. Perhaps something a bit more less drastic (2-3 images)? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend going with more than two until we expand the text. I have a strong preference for Image:Antinous_Mandragone_profil.jpg (due to its being featured on Commons), and a mild preference Image:Antinous-osiris.JPG (to show that "depth and breadth" you mention). Thoughts? Jkelly 01:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I also have a liking for the photo I took, and consider it to be largely redundant with the bottom bust. So I'd prefer 3 images. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have again deleted the Mondragone Antinous, since it appears from the above discussion, and other opinions I have been given, that it is a modern work. Adam 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, have you read my answer to you? If you can read French, please read the Louvre cartel, which clearly states "ca. 130 CE". This bust is mentioned as an antique work in Winckelmann's work as well as in Haskell & Penny's Taste and the Antique. Please clarify which opinions state otherwise. Jastrow 08:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

I think that having a twelve-thumbnail gallery here is excessive. That's what Wikimedia Commons is for. Jkelly 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree... why do we need so many images for such an unimportant person?

• I don't - while we sadly lack data to elaborate the text, he happens to be an important theme in art, precisely because he's believed to be the most beautifull male mortal in all Antiquity, a 'real life adonis', and his life determined by this reputation : a subject simply crying out for images if ever there was one Fastifex 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Antinous unimportant? Are you kidding, he is possibly the most known face from antiquity.

I have removed a picture: Image:NAMA Antinoüs.jpg|From Patras, from Hadrian's Villa in Tivoli, because it cannot be both from Patras and from Tivoli, and the tag in the picture itself says the bust is from the NAM in Athens. --5telios 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't blank images or blank text: it puts you in bad company. I have returned the image, and corrected the caption, something which 5telios might easily have done. --Wetman 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the blanking - unaware that it is frowned upon. I might easily have repaired the caption, had my knowledge of the statue's provenance been better. As it is I saw a picture labelled with two mutually exclusive labels, something any visitor to the page, regardless of specialist knowledge would find strange. --5telios 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This gallery is incredibly valuable to those learning the subject. Please do not delete these, I even hope that more are added, as Hadrian had so very many, it is great to see as many as practical to comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.11.59 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to delete the gallery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries very clearly states that galleries should not be put on article pages if they are just a collection of images that have nothing else in common except that they illustrate the subject of the article. As for the gallery's usefulness to users, it can be moved to commons and made easily available as a link -- which is exactly what the policy calls for. Strawberryjampot (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with proposals to delete the gallery. His primary claim to fame is the large diversity of art works from antiquity representing him. Nothing portrays that diversity better than a gallery of pictures. Rwflammang (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cinderello

"Another version has it that Hadrian had the empire searched for the most beautiful youth, and chose Antinous." Oh. Doesn't even the most gullible Wiukipedian recognize the Cinderella motif in this? Claptrap. --Wetman 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hadrian's Lover

I agree with the above poster, in addition, it is not proven that they were lovers. It has been suggested that because of the frosty relations between Hadrian and his wife that Hadrian saw Antinous as a son he never had. All views and opinions should be presented, and the reader should be allowed to draw his own conclussions. In any case, personal relations should not figure into the introductory paragraph in my opinion, especially since it is a debated subject.MarcusAntoninus 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As for the IP's view below me (please sign your posts even if you are not registered user), perhaps you would like to prove that Antinous was indeed "H"adrian's lover? Who are you to say that there could not have been something else than romantic/-erotic relationship and call these possibilities as silly joke? --Kurt Leyman (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Antinoüs was a slave. If a Roman wanted to have an adopted son, he could only adopt a free man. It is obvious that the relation between Hadrian and Antinoüs was erotic. That's a silly joke to say that he was not Adrian's lover.

He wouldn't have been a slave, being younger and of a lower social position he would have been the Eromenos of the two and Hadrian the Erastes, but that doesn’t make him a slave. Their relationship would have followed the standard Greek pederasty tradition, likeiest the Athenian version to be specific, meaning the relationship would have been mutually consensual. Although if the emperor makes a pass at you its probably not a good idea to shoot him down.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. If you have any sources for your statements, such as a scholar Dr. Jim Smith of This-or-That University, we would be grateful. Actually this discussion page is about the article content. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty silly. A Roman who wanted a son adopted one, as did 4 of the 5 emperors of the Nerva-Trajanic dynasty. Indeed Hadrian adopted 2 sons, Lucius Aelius Caesar and Antoninus Pius. Antinous is nowhere described as a slave and in any case Roman law permitted manumission and permitted the adoption of freed slaves. It is, however, extraordinarily unlikely that the Roman elite would have accepted a provincial of Greek origins with no connections to the dynasty as an adoptive son because that would have made Antinous an at least presumptive successor.

On the death of Lucius Aelius Caesar, who actually was an adoptive son, Hadrian did none of the things, deification, city-naming, temple-building, that he did on the death of Antinous. The 'son he never had' theory fails. The vast majority of ancient and modern authors describe Antinous as a lover not a putative replacement son. The article should reflect this view. --Alan (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

Does any-1 know that galleries s*cxs? (!!!) There are 19 images of that Antin-guy, in the gallery, about 16 too many. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a call to {{Cleanup-gallery}} in section Gallery, more people like me hatesss galleriessss... (My precious!) ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave the galleries alone. They enrich and add a very nice touch to the article,and let us come to our own conclusions about interpretations of 'the best known face from the ancient world'.If Hadrian loved his friend,so what? There is little enough love in the world,ancient of modern.Even the Vatican seems happy to leave a Roman emperor's gay lover in pride of place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee (talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, which notes, among other things:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text ... Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. ... However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. ... One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. (emphasis added)

The gallery in this article very clearly is exactly the sort of gallery which Wikipedia policy discourages: it is "a collection of indiscriminate images of the article subject" titled just "gallery". One may disagree with the policy, but currently it is the policy, and under it any editor should feel free to revamp or delete this gallery. Personally, I feel it should be moved to Commons, though someone with the proper knowledge might be able to revamp it to, for instance, illustrate Antinous specifically being portrayed as various deities, along with expanding the text to explain the motives Hadrian had for portraying him this way. Such a more limited and specific gallery, with a title something like "Antinous Identified with Gods", would, I think, be within policy. Strawberryjampot (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nerva–Antonine family tree

The Nerva–Antonine family tree would be a nice thing to have in some article in which it would serve a function, but it does not do so here. There is no blood relationship between Antinous and anyone in the family, which makes the family tree quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. I suggest it be moved to some article where it will be useful.

Yes, it's clearly out of place in this article, and since it's available in the article on the Antonines, I've just taken it out. Strawberryjampot (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Revert to 416592041

"The secrets of the imperial bedchamber must for ever to denied to us, and, in view of all the hideous and speculative publicity about their love, Hadrian and Antinous are surely entitled to keep this ultimate and intimate secret." Lambert, op, cit., p. 98. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No doubt - but if Antinous has any notability at all, it's in his relationship with Hadrian. We can discuss that without getting into pornography. Incidentally, the fact that Lambert could describe homosexuality as "hideous" is enough to cast doubt on his objectivity. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the "hideous" has to do with speculation that Hadrian had Antinous sacrificed. Murder, not nookie, is what bothers Lambert. Consider his attitude toward Trajan's drinking and boyfriends, which he he regards with impartial equanimity as weaknesses of the flesh. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a relief. Now for suggestions: the sections heads references inn pagan sources and ditto Christian sources are not encyclopediac - we don't normally just collect great slabs of text from primary sources like that. What should be there is something about the reaction to deification (which didn't happen every day) in the ancient world. Antinous is at a turning point in history, with the Classical world-view still strong dominant but the new Christian world-view rapidly rising. We need to cover that, but as social history, not as a kind of scrap-book. What's your view?PiCo (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's OR, and besides, apart from the Fathers of the Church, there doesn't seem to have been any recorded reaction. As far as this place is concerned, we're finished except for warding off fools. Lambert read everything, of which there isn't much, so if it isn't in Lambert, it doesn't exist. Those "great slabs of text" rather annoy me; I don't think they belong here, but they do no harm so I haven't deleted them. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok if you want to leave them I won't argue. I see from earlier Talk that the gallery has been questioned. I rather like it, but I can see there's a point. The thing to do is probably to turn it into a review of the Antinous image-industry - actually discuss the images, don't just put them up for decoration. After all, these are supposed to be the last great original achievement of ancient plastic art - quite a claim to notability. (I could get a friend with more art-history knowledge to look at it). PiCo (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The gallery is probably pointless, and I added an external link to Wikimedia Commons. In what seems liked the reign of Henry V I got an AB in History of Art from Yale. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Fatidiot1234. I've read the Lambert; most of it is educated guess, and the author makes no mystery of it. I have access to articles about Antinous from a art history point of view. I can send them to anyone interested — it's been too long a time since I've researched the subject. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to prune back Ancient Literary Sources?

For someone who only has eight lines of biography, having almost eight screens worth of ancient literary sources mentioning him, copied out in full, seems excessive. How about a few choice passages, with further links, if available, to the rest? Rootlet (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this talk page to praise the complete coverage in this article. I think it is refreshing and illuminating to read the primary sources, rather than the hopelessly contemporary take of a consensus of editors. Rwflammang (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur to a degree ... Antinoos was a broad chested construct, so the appraisal of antiquity is the story. But we might organize and present them a bit better, and with the guidance of reliable secondary sources.  davidiad { t } 01:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My impression, after 6 years of editing, is that this place is not about primary sources quoted in extenso. That has a slight flavor of OR. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As should be clear from Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, it is against Wikipedia's policy to include vast tracts taken directly from primary sources, whether they are copyrighted or not. Thus I have gone ahead, been bold, and deleted the masses of un-referenced quotation from Roman and early Christian texts that currently litter this article. I have also added in referenced information from secondary (academic) sources briefly describing these texts. However, that is not to say that we cannot re-introduce select sections of these sources in future, if they are of obvious utility. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bravo! Fatidiot1234 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Era style

If you must add era tags, please keep the neutral "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:ERA. You can't take a preemptive measure based on your personal preference. I haven't searched the edit history, so I don't know whether an era designation was ever established in the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hadrian's family tree

Why is Hadrian's family tree in an article about Antinous. Also, why is Antinous listed as Hadrian's spouse in that family tree? Regardless of the nature of their relationship, there is no evidence that they were ever considered spouses in the culture and society of their time, either by others or between themselves. 122.105.157.209 (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it is basically irrelevent here. If there are no objections, I shall go ahead and remove it ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bisexuality the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society?

I think that it is entirely untrue that "bisexuality was the norm in the upper echelons of Roman society by the early 2nd century". Homosexuality, and "bisexuality", were entirely alien to Roman traditions, and certainly never the norm, or even common.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Source? Fatidiot1234 (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Romans certainly didn't have modern sexual identity politics, so they wouldn't have identified themselves as homosexual, bisexual or even heterosexual in the sense of having identities based relationships with certain genders. Men were expected to marry women, but if an adult male had sex with a passive young male, particularly a slave, that was considered normal and just men being men. To our eyes, men who enjoy sex with males and females are bisexual.Gymnophoria (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not about slaves or "young boys". Anyone who read the Satyricon, for example, would have no doubt that lots, perhaps a majority, of free adult men desired and had sex with each other. Male homosexuality in all its forms flourished among the Romans to an even greater extent than among the Greeks. Homophobic revisionism doesn't stand a chance against even a superficial reading of Roman sources or ruins. 2804:7F7:DC80:408C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antinous. 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/20121014100046/http://purl.pt/13961/2/l-78094-p_PDF/l-78094-p_PDF_24-C-R0150/l-78094-p_0000_capa-capa_t24-C-R0150.pdf to http://purl.pt/13961/2/l-78094-p_PDF/l-78094-p_PDF_24-C-R0150/l-78094-p_0000_capa-capa_t24-C-R0150.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114074003/http://purl.pt/13967/2/res-4516-v/res-4516-v_item2/res-4516-v_PDF/res-4516-v_PDF_24-C-R0150/res-4516-v_0000_capa-capa_t24-C-R0150.pdf to http://purl.pt/13967/2/res-4516-v/res-4516-v_item2/res-4516-v_PDF/res-4516-v_PDF_24-C-R0150/res-4516-v_0000_capa-capa_t24-C-R0150.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ladylever/collections/antinous.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antinous. 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/20100303232231/http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/egyptologie/enim/index.php?page=cenim&n=1 to http://recherche.univ-montp3.fr/egyptologie/enim/index.php?page=cenim&n=1

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) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Anoos?

I'm not even trying to make a joke here. I was told somewhere that another spelling of this name is 'Anoos'. Maybe that was a joke? I don't know. Does anyone have any corroboration? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

See section below ("Requested move 13 October 2020"). If Anoos was a significant alternate name, they would have discussed it. Threeorange (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Antinous → Antinoös – Antinoös is the proper translation of the name Ἀντίνοος. Antinoüs is also possible, as a Latinized form, but the present name "Antinous", is the worst of all worlds because, lacking a diaeresis, there's nothing to notify the reader that the two vowels at the end are not pronounced as a diphthong but as two separate sounds. This is mostly a typographic issue, but one where, unlike many published sources, we are not limited to avoiding diaereses by publishers' style guides which occasionally (and lazily) discard it. Indeed, Wikipedia guidance for Romanization of Greek recommends a diaeresis where such a one exists in Greek, as in this case.

These points were raised when the page Antinoöpolis was moved by consensus Talk:Antinoöpolis#Requested_move_19_January_2020 to its present name. The proposed change would also ensure uniformity not only with the Egyptian city where the youth was deified, but with articles with similarly doubled-omicron names, like Heroön, Boötes, Meröe, etc. In English-language academia the "-oös/-oos" is usually preferred to the Latinized "-oüs/-ous", and in either case the diaeresis going missing is an artefact of difficulties with printing with ink, a casual attitude to orthography, or an immersion in Italianate art-history, in which the Latinate "Antinous" is often used for statuary, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator. GPinkerton (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Antinoüs", as the more traditional form—English normally prefers Latinized Greek to direct transliteration of names. I checked Google Books for ngrams, and found that the current title is historically the most common, if not necessarily more correct without the diaeresis—difficulty with typesetting will have affected the occurrences. Leaving the plain form out, "Antinoüs" is currently the most common, and historically was used at about the same frequency as "Antinoos", which I dislike for the same reason as the nominator, as well as the one I mentioned. "Antinoös" is currently common, if less so than "Antinoüs", but hardly occurs in literature more than twenty years old. Considering that 'u' spellings occur much more frequently overall and always have, "Antinoüs" would make more sense. I note that the use of the 'u' is not inconsistent with the result at "Antinoöpolis", because "Antinoüpolis" is not a form that occurs in literature. P Aculeius (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an Oppose then! Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per P Aculeius's well-argued case; I prefer the current name as the WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously all should redirect & be bolded, which they are not at present. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. We go by the most common name used in English sources, and that is the current title, as evidenced by the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

pinging editors who contributed to the Antinoöpolis Request Move in January: @P Aculeius:, @Khruner:, @A. Parrot:. Also notifying WP:CGR

• As usual with these topics, Ngram is emphatically not a good way of establishing the common name. How are you to distinguish this Antinous from the the other really famous one?GPinkerton (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure whichever spelling we use should be the same for both—it's the same name and should be rendered the same way in English, unless practice clearly demonstrates otherwise. They'd need to be disambiguated some other way. P Aculeius (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case with such instances as Achilles and Achillius and Achilleus and Achilles and Achillios and Achillius and Achilleius. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

But as I said, practice demonstrates otherwise. Each of these seems to be known primarily by a distinct variant in English. "Antinous" and "Antinoüs" are interchangeable, and depend primarily on whether the writer is A) aware of the significance, B) easily able to produce the character, and C) willing to make the effort. P Aculeius (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In Wiki terms this one, with nearly 700 views daily, is much more famous than Antinous of Ithaca (30 day avge 39 views), hence he gets the plain name, however it is spelled. Do you think the other should be moved? Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Critics"

The "Condemnation and Decline" section claims that Pausanias was a critic of the cult of Antinous, but the cited passages from him say nothing critical at all. It also claims that Lucian and Julian were critical, without giving any citation. Does anyone have corroboration for these claims? This seems to need a revision. --Uiscefada (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death: suicide?

The part about his death lists several theories about his death, but suicide is not mentioned. While I might be expressing some modern (and layman) bias, I do find this rather peculiar—it sounds like the most obvious motivation for someone who is effectively a sex slave for the strongest man in the world, who is also about 35 years older than him. Is there no scholarship examining this? שונרא (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Roman sexuality

The article’s discussion of Roman sexuality, to say nothing of some of the comments on this talk page, need to be corrected and updated in light of the now-standard reference on the subject, Craig A. Williams’ Roman Homosexuality, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Antinoos69 (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

How should the article change? Furius (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the current consensus, as reflected in Williams, is that male-male sex was in no way alien to the Romans, and class had little to do with that fact. So you can imagine the sorts of adjustments that need to be made, citing Williams. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

So, mostly the material discussed in the "Life of Hadrian" section? At the moment, that section discusses the chronological course of A & H's travels and discusses the nature of their relationship (largely on the basis of Lambert 1983). It seems to me that those two things should be separated and that the section on the discussion of their relationship should give some sense of how scholarly thought has developed and where there are differences of opinion or emphasis (this is far from my area of expertise, but I've definitely encountered post-2010 scholarship putting Hadrian and Antinous' relationship in the context of Hadrian's philhellenism and I see that C. Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome 2007 takes the "Greekness" of the relationship as an open question). Further: I'm unclear on what the evidence is for H & A's relationship having been "controversial." The speculations about exactly how H & A's relationship had changed based on the depiction in the lion-hunt tondo seem odd to me. Furius (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm rather amazed that anyone could think that the article as it is suggests that 'male-male sex was alien to the Romans'. One point, re "If the statues have no pubic hair, it is just as likely that the artist thought clumps of hair were unattractive and either left them off or painted them in lightly after the sculpting was done as almost all Roman statues were painted" - or that A was represented as shaved, no? Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I can see how "Such a societal institution of pederasty was not indigenous to Roman culture, although bisexuality was socially accepted in some of the upper echelons of Roman society by the early 2nd century." tends in that direction. Furius (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but there's a lot going the other way. I did wonder which 2nd century was meant for a moment.... Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Antinous/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coldupnorth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Good day, I will undertake the GA review of this article and will list my comments and findings below. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It's great to work with you again! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article was a pleasure to read. It it is generally well written and is sufficient to cover all the key points a likely reader would want. I have identified a few issues I would like you to consider. Importantly, there are a few instances where additional references should be added. Overall, it is nearly at GA. Please address the below comments accordingly. Thank you. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback. I've had some books ordered from the library for a while now to help me with this article, but if they do not come in time, would you consider extending the hold? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Great, that is dedication, thank you and yes, happy to wait on hold. As you have also done, depending on the importance of the text to the overall article, it may also be possible to remove text as uncited and then replace when you have a reference again. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I just received an update on my library orders. I expect to complete all the revisions you suggested by 2 October at the latest. Is it okay if you extend the hold until then? Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem Unlimitedlead, happy to keep it on hold to give you sufficient time to update the references. Many thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry about the sudden change, but I have another book coming in in a few days/weeks, so the hold may need to be extended until 12 October. Is that alright? Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, that's fine, just let me know when ready. Thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing all of my queries. I believe this article is now at GA level. Well done! Coldupnorth (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Grammar - infobox, is the comma in caption before bracket correct?

 Done Comma removed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Lead - wording - 'and was with him when he killed the Marousian lion in Libya.' could be improved to provide context/clarity. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says that the content should provide an accessible overview. I didn't know what this was. Perhaps it should read something along the lines of 'and was with him when he killed a Marosian lion in Libya, a significant event for the Emperor'. I took at look at the Hadrian article, it notes that they killed the article together (although that specific sentence does not have a reference). It also says that they killed it together in the main body.

 Done Now reads: Antinous accompanied Hadrian during his attendance of the annual Eleusinian Mysteries in Athens, and was with him when he killed the Marousian lion in Libya, an event highly publicised by the Emperor. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Biography - first paragraph - would this be better as a historiography section towards the end of the article? While I understand it provides the historical context/accuracy of what follows, this often appears at the end of WP historical biographies. For example, the Hadrian article discusses it in the section 'Sources and historiography'.

 Done Moved to the new "Historiography" section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Birth and childhood - reference within quote. The reference is given Robert 1980 but this is not given elsewhere, however, if it is a reference within reference 16 (R.R.R. Smith) then it is not needed?

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Age - I'm not sure the Age subsection fits here. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Order_of_events says a biography should generally be in chronological order unless good reason. This section appears more an analysis of the age relating to sculptural/cultural depictions of Antinous. Maybe it would be better elsewhere, perhaps in the Roman sculpture section?

 Done Now a subsection underneath the Roman sculpture section. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Age - This subsection needs more references. Firstly, a reference is needed for the end of the first paragraph. This is historical analysis/research concerning the Delphi Statute/boy at 17 so needs a verified reference or could be considered original research. Secondly, 'These statues should not be treated as photographic evidence'. Why not? Who said this? This needs a verifiable reference or should be removed.

 Comment: Doing some digging in the revision history, that last sentence was actually added by a random user without a source. I will go ahead and remove it. As for your first concern, I am searching for a reference for that. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I could not find any source for that sentence concerning the Delphi statue, so I have removed that unsourced information. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that is fine. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Status - I found the wording of this sentence difficult to follow. It may read better as two sentences. 'Although many historians from the Renaissance onward asserted that Antinous had been a slave, only one of around fifty early sources claims that, and it remains unlikely,[26] as it would have proved heavily controversial to deify a former slave in Roman society.'

 Done Split sentence. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 4th paragraph - grammar. Should a comma be after 'In April 128'?

 Done Technically, introductory prepositional phrases under four words long do not require commas, but I see your point. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 4th paragraph - knowledge. Who are the 'Caeserii brothers, and Pedanius Fuscus the Younger' If they are to remain mentioned, some context needs added as to who they are.

 Done Added information on who these people are. The additional text I added can be found in the citation at the end of the sentence. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 5th paragraph - please add more references to this paragraph. There should be a separate reference for the June 129 events. Importantly, the claim that Hadrian was critical of Jewish culture needs a separate reference.

 Done Citations added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Life with Hadrian - 7th paragraph. 'Many of these early writers were biased towards Hadrian especially in regard to his relationship with Antinous.' A reference is needed for this statement please.

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Deification and the cult of Antinous - first paragraph. 'However, the public and formal divinisation of humans was reserved for the Emperor and members of the imperial family;[77] thus Hadrian's decision to declare Antinous a god and create a formal cult devoted to him was highly unusual,[95] and he did so without the permission of the Senate.[96]' This sentence is little long and difficult to follow. Please look at splitting it up and rewriting for clarity.

 Done Split sentence. Now reads: However, the public and formal divinisation of humans was reserved for the Emperor and members of the imperial family. Thus, Hadrian's decision to declare Antinous a god and create a formal cult devoted to him was highly unusual, and he did so without the permission of the Roman Senate. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Deification and the cult of Antinous - third paragraph. Suggest change 'In October 131, he' to 'In October 131, Hadrian' for clarity.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Antinoöpolis - first paragraph. Please add a reference for the sentence beginning 'Hadrian also had political motives...'

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• The cult's spread - third paragraph. I think 'and archaeological finds point that Antinous was worshipped in both public and private settings' would be better as a new sentence for clarity.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• The cult's spread - third paragraph. The sentence beginning 'At least 28 temples...' needs a reference.

 Done Added citation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Condemnation and decline - first paragraph. please add a reference to the end of 'as well as the Sibylline Oracles, who were critical of Hadrian more generally.'

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Condemnation and decline - second paragraph. 'During the struggles between Christians and pagans in Rome during the 4th century, Antinous was championed by members of the latter.' This could be expanded and a reference added. Was it pagans generally, a leader of a group of pagans, senior figures in the government of Rome?

 Done Done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Condemnation and decline - third paragraph. 'Some contemporary Neo-Pagan groups have re-sacralized Antinous. This modern cult of Antinous mainly attracts LGBT polytheists.' Please look at rewriting these two sentences and expanding for clarity. For example, what neo-pagan groups? LGBT polytheists is not a clear term. Do you mean members of the LGBT community who choose to worship the form of Antinous? I was intrigued by this but further clarity is needed.

 Done I have reworded that area to be clearer. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• In Roman sculpture - second paragraph. 'About a hundred statues of Antinous have been preserved for modernity,[13] at the least, a remarkable fact as his cult was the target of intense hostility by apologists of Christianity, whose followers vandalized and destroyed artefacts and temples built in honour of the youth.' This sentence is little long and difficult to follow. Please look at splitting it up and rewriting for clarity. Also, the following sentence re number of images more than most others in antiquity is a significant fact. A version of it could perhaps go in the lead? However, that is up to you.

 Done Now reads: About a hundred statues of Antinous have been preserved for modernity, a remarkable fact considering that his cult was the target of intense hostility by Christian apologists, many of whom vandalized and destroyed artefacts and temples built in honour of the youth. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• In Roman sculpture - gallery. Please look at the image captions. For consistency, the museum/location should be clarified for all. Also, for the statue in Rio, Brazil is named. However, no other countries are named. Please look at the image captions for consistency.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cultural references - 6th paragraph. A reference is needed for the Fernando Pessoa paragraph.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cultural references - 7th paragraph. A reference is needed for the Marguerite Yourcenar paragraph.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cultural references - 8th paragraph. A reference is needed for the BBC drama paragraph.

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• References - 44 and 63. Two references are given as an undergraduate thesis by T.E. Fox. I do not believe this is sufficient. Another reference would be preferred. If the thesis is given, it should be accessible, eg weblink and confirmed as verifiable, etc.

 Done Citation added. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• References - 97. This perhaps should be split up into a note and a reference?

 Comment: What do you mean? Could you please elaborate on what you'd like to do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be clear, I suggest moving the text from now reference 96 'Hadrian's "Hellenic" emotionalism finds a culturally sympathetic echo in the Homeric Achilles' mourning for his friend Patroclus' to a footnote and then having the reference tag as 'Vout, Caroline, Power and eroticism in Imperial Rome, illustrated, Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-521-86739-8, pp. 52–135' See Help:Footnotes for further guidance. The article already has a footnote which you can use as a reference, (a) which is formatted as) Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Further reading. The title 'Antinous. The Face of the Antique' by Vout would arguably be a major source on the topic. Ideally, at some point it should be read and references included in the bibliography. However, other works of Vout are referenced throughout. I also believe aside from a few missing references, an excellent academic overview of the subject is given, so this is only a comment for the future if it is possible.

 Comment: I appreciate the comment, but unfortunately, I am unable to acquire the book (at this time, at least). Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem, the article is arguably sufficient in content and coverage without it. Thank you for considering it though. Coldupnorth (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Busts of Hadrian (left) and Antinous (right) at the British Museum

• ... that the Roman emperor Hadrian was so grieved by the death of his male lover Antinous that he made him into a god and founded a city in his honour? Source: Lambert, Royston (1984). Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. George Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 2. ISBN 978-0297780458.
  • ALT1: ... that Antinous, the male lover of Hadrian, may have been only eight or ten years old when he first met the emperor? Source: Lambert, Royston (1984). Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. George Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 59. ISBN 978-0297780458.
  • ALT2: ... that Antinous, the male lover of Hadrian, may have voluntarily sacrificed his life in order to prolong that of the latter? Source: Lambert, Royston (1984). Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. George Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 130-141. ISBN 978-0297780458.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: No QPQ needed: this is my third DYK nomination
    Personally, I prefer the first hook, but the ALTs are okay, too.

Improved to Good Article status by Unlimitedlead (talk). Self-nominated at 17:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Unlimitedlead: Great article! I'm going to assume good faith with the offline sources but other than that this article is great. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Podcast

In June 2023 Hadrian and Antinous were the subject of the podcast The Rest is History by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook. Sandbrook is a well-known British historian, author, columnist and television presenter. I think this podcast is notable and entirely reliable. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

References

What does “initiated” mean here?

It was in Athens in September 128 that they attended the annual celebrations of the Great Mysteries of Eleusis, where Hadrian was initiated into the position of epoptes in the Telesterion. It is generally agreed, although not proven, that Antinous was also initiated at that time. What does this mean? BhamBoi (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Look up the definition for "initiated". Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

When I first read the passage, I had missed the first sentence describing what he was initiated into, so was confused upon reading the word in its second instance. BhamBoi (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not Greek - Bithynian

He was a Bithynian from Bithynia. Not Greek. They were a Luwian people. Luwians are one of the extinct tribes of the Indo-Europeans Historiaantiqua (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What "Bithynian" meant in the Bronze Age and what it meant in the 2nd century AD are two very different things. This is like claiming that Louis XIV was not French but Gaulish. Furius (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)