Talk:Romani ite domum: Difference between revisions

 

Line 144: Line 144:

:The inclusion of this paragraph falls short of reflecting the accepted standard to which wikipedia articles are expected to conform to. It is factually misleading, and seems to be ideologically motivated rather than an honest interpretation of what the author has actually written.

:The inclusion of this paragraph falls short of reflecting the accepted standard to which wikipedia articles are expected to conform to. It is factually misleading, and seems to be ideologically motivated rather than an honest interpretation of what the author has actually written.

:The page should be unlocked and the offending article removed. [[User:Noahrama|Noahrama]] ([[User talk:Noahrama|talk]]) 10:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

:The page should be unlocked and the offending article removed. [[User:Noahrama|Noahrama]] ([[User talk:Noahrama|talk]]) 10:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

::If in fact you had reviewed the article’s history, you’d see that several ”different” editors have undone the deletion of the paragraph in question. But that doesn’t really matter, because nothing in Wikipedia policy requires a minimum number of editors to respond to what appears to be repeated instances of vandalism. The description of the reference as “inappropriate”, the book as “obscure” and its acclaim as “inconsequential” all reflects your personal opinion—and if, as you say, you’ve already stated it on this page, you’re simply [[WP:BLUDGEON]]ing with it now.

::Some of this is a red herring; whether a book is “obscure” is not really that important, nor is the level of its acclaim, though of course both are still matters of opinion, and need to be taken in context: some people would say that the topic of this article is itself obscure, and that being the case, any published and documented use of it by notable authors to illustrate a point would seem to be an “appropriate” means of demonstrating its cultural significance.

::Your use of the word “paraphrase” is incorrect, since the paragraph describes what Halberstam says; it does not merely restate it with different wording. But I think your point was to suggest that paraphrasing itself is not allowable, which is not the case. It is unnecessary for Halberstam to have used the word “phenomenon”; I think here you assume that “phenomenon” is unwarranted as a peacock word, when in fact it is being used in its literal sense, “a peculiar or particular situation or circumstance”, rather than to mean “something really great or amazing”. I am not sure that Halberstam’s perspective matters to whether his observation is relevant; by “as distinct from the world at large”, do you mean that his opinion is only relevant if it is shared by the rest of the world? That would not be a valid objection to citing his book.

::What ”your book” says, however, is not likely citable—at least not by you. Did you mention it above somewhere so that it can be verified by other editors? Without any bibliographic details or information about its author, it is impossible for anyone to determine whether you are an authority on any of the issues related to this topic.

::What Halberstam says is perfectly on point: that the argument over Latin grammar in this scene distracts the participants from the underlying crime of graffiti—or the political situation in which the graffiti was made—in a manner similar to the way that arguments over the use of non-binary pronouns are used to distract people from the underlying issue of transgender rights. That’s all the paragraph says; it doesn’t go on at unnecessary length or digress into other issues. The fact that reams and reams of electronic paper have been wasted trying to get this short and plain statement of what a notable author says about this scene removed from Wikipedia says a lot about the zealousness of one editor with little or no apparent interest in other topics or issues.

::It’s ironic that you keep insisting that I must be ideologically motivated; I’m not an activist and not part of the queer community at all. I simply see a valid—and brief—point that goes toward demonstrating the cultural significance of an article that I became involved with editing only ”after” I saw it was proposed for deletion due to supposed lack of cultural significance. And I see one or possibly a few editors (the number can only be guessed at due to the constantly-changing names and IP addresses, though most of them have little or no editing history outside of this one topic, and this one issue with said topic, suggesting that most of them are the same person) determined to spare no effort to erase that one short paragraph, through whatever means necessary, any reason that sounds like it might make sense (whether or not it does), and no matter how long it takes. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{reflist-talk}}

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 March 2023. The result of the discussion was consensus non habemus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

From WP:RfD:

• Romani ite domum → Monty Python’s Life of Brian – “Romani ite domum” is a Latin phrase that occurs in a hilarious sketch in the film. That said, I really don’t think people would look it up. Well, I did, but that’s because I’m a strange guy who likes to look up weird stuff. (If an article about this were to be created, it should probably be created at Romanes eunt domus instead, which is the incorrect Latin that Brian had written before the centurion corrected his grammar.) – furrykef (Talk at me) 08:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The Monty Python script appears to be using the theme of Mark Gospel chapter 5 where the Roman Legion is told to “go home”. — 92.24.112.238 26 May 2019

The imperative is a mood, not a case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.109.125 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just so pleased this article exists –there’s hope. Cramyourspam (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Students of Latin often note that domi is the locative of domus in literary classical Latin. The (allative) case construction used in the final formulation is accusative of motion towards

• it could also be noted that “ite domi” is a litteral translation of “go home”, and could also be interpreted as simply “go to the house” . A more correct phrase to convey the meaning of “Romans go home!” would be “Romani, ad vestras domus abite!”. Though it would probably kill the joke.Purgebandit (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some might claim that strictly literally, “ite domi” would mean “go at the home” (i.e. do your going there, rather than going to there) — see Locative case… AnonMoos (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the dialogue is also meant to

1. satirise the then-common experience of strict, grammar-based Latin learning
2. contrast the idea of Classics as Latin grammar with the actualite of Roman rule

Also, John Cleese was a former Latin teacher, so he is sending himself up in this scene. Jim Killock (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the first item refers to didacticism. This may have been mentioned in one of the sources that I cited for the error section, but if so I overlooked it. Doubtless Romans learned to speak Latin without first learning its grammar, but it’s difficult to imagine how anyone could do so now—although that could simply be an effect of the prevalence of didactic methods in language instruction in recent times. If you can find a source that discusses this, I’m sure it would make a good addition to the article.

The article already makes the point of contrasting the centurion’s attention to correcting Brian’s bad grammar with what we would expect a Roman soldier apprehending an insurrectionist to do, and Jack Halberstam made a comparison between classroom discourse as a distraction from the actualitas of Roman rule with contemporary political rhetoric, although I don’t believe he or any of the other sources I consulted suggested that the scene’s focus on grammar was intended to satirize the reduction of classics to Latin grammar. This could nonetheless be the case, but again you would need to find a source that says so—if you can, or if you can find it in something that’s already cited but overlooked for this purpose, please add it in the appropriate place!

I’m not sure that John Cleese could be described as satirizing himself in the scene, even if he based his performance loosely on his brief experience teaching several subjects, including Latin, simply because few if any members of the film’s intended audience would have known that he had ever done so. I suppose it is not impossible that he was making a joke only for the very small number of people who were “in the know”, but it seems highly improbable. That it may have given him or those closest to him a laugh to see his ridiculous take on a Latin instructor doesn’t necessarily mean that his earlier teaching experience was intended as a target of the joke. That said, I’m sure the fact that he actually taught Latin (among other subjects) at one point in time is relevant and citable in this article—it may simply be that it will have to be described as ironic, rather than that one purpose of the scene was to make light of it.

If you can find sources to cite for any of these ideas—and it certainly looks like there are sources, at least for John Cleese having taught Latin briefly—please add them to the article, and help make it better! P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 🙂 On the first point, it’s more that people who had to learn Latin, learnt it in such a dry manner, that it was almost always an awful experience:

“Latin is a language

As dead as dead can be.

It killed the ancient Romans

And now it’s killing me.”

for example. There’s a whole lot more one could find on this, eg Churchill on Latin at school; in a sense this is the most recent well known example of this kind of humour.

I’ll see if I can find something on Cleese having taught Latin, as this does seem like something that can be found and referenced. Someone ought to write something on the wider subject of Latin in humour and satire I feel! Jim Killock (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your additions; they look fine—I just moved them out of the lead, since that should just summarize the article. I thought that the sections describing the sketch should probably precede commentary and sources of inspiration, so I put your paragraphs at the end; but as I put in the edit summary, this isn’t absolutely the only way to do it, and this section could possibly go elsewhere in the article.

I believe there are some articles that touch on Latin humour, and perhaps they could be linked to one another better. There’s probably room for much more than we have now! My own experience with Latin was no worse than trying to learn French, and I felt better about my pronunciation, plus I was more inspired to learn it. I still failed to learn enough of it, but I pull my books out from time to time and have made progress. At least I can usually make sense of most (transcribed) funerary inscriptions given time and effort, and that serves me well! P Aculeius (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. Yes, some other links between things would make sense. Jim Killock (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vocativos complures are crossing my mind just now, indeed. Tuvalkin (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Wikipedia points out that the more natural phrasing would be Romani auferte vos domum, even if Romani ite domum is technically correct. Is there a source for this? Should this be mentioned here? שונרא (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be how you would say it if you were an actual Roman, but the point is that Brian was in a Jewish resistance cell and using a slogan derived anachronistically from 20th century protests in a particular phrasing. In Latin Wikipedia it might make sense to distinguish between what was written for the film, and what a native Latin speaker might have written instead. In English Wikipedia it seems like an unnecessary detail that would require too much effort to explain, given that it’s neither part of the grammar actually discussed in the film, nor part of works of literature describing the scene. P Aculeius (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last year, a variety of edits have deleted or, in one instance, recast the same paragraph of text, usually with edit summaries that allege bias or irrelevance or make no sense at all; for instance the first reason given referred to “self-promotion/advertisement”, although there is no evidence that the author cited is a contributor to the article. All of these edits were undertaken by users who were not logged in, using various IP addresses, with little or no history of constructive edits to other articles. Given the narrow focus of the changes, I believe that one person is responsible for this disruption, which has constituted a significant portion of the activity for this article since the end of 2023’s deletion discussion. Constructive edits have also occurred during this period, but usually by editors who are logged in, and who have a history of constructive edits to other articles.

The relevant paragraph currently reads:

The film’s satirical use of classroom discourse as a technical exercise to distract from the realities of Roman imperialism has also been compared with the contemporary political phenomenon of diverting attention from serious social issues by focusing attention on details, such as argument over the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a means of distracting attention from discriminatory practices, harassment, and legal disabilities affecting transgender persons.^[1]

Note: this section was originally created on January 9, 2024 for the purpose of documenting persistent single-purpose vandalism over the course of several months, and requesting page protection, which was subsequently granted. I’ve updated it following a substantially similar series of edits on April 6, 2024, and may do so again if this cycle repeats. I do not know whether the author of the April 6 edits is the same as any of the IP editors who performed the same edits in the past, but given the timing, it seems to be the same person who commented on this section as an IP editor shortly before the first edit on April 6. The times given in this table are those shown in the edit history when I view it in the Eastern U.S., and so are four to five hours earlier than UTC, which appears automatically in signature lines. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Edit: updated March 20, 2025.

• 10:11, March 20, 2025, Special:Contributions/209.204.20.98 deleted the entire paragraph. Edit summary: “For content on this page to be related to cultural significance, it must be related to the content of this scene or the views expressed in this movie. Neither is the case here. See “Life of Brian: Loretta” scene. It is activist vandalism to repeatedly include this content.” Fifth edit to this paragraph by this IP in 24 hours, all reverted; no other edits by this IP.
• 9:55, March 20, 2025, Special:Contributions/209.204.20.98 deleted the entire paragraph. Edit summary: “Removing persistent vandalism. Vandal continues to add unrelated content. Content must be related to scene or movie as a whole. If added again vandal will be reported.” No other edits by this IP except for three preceding instances of vandalism to the same portion of this article.
• 9:37, March 20, 2025, Special:Contributions/209.204.20.98 deleted the entire paragraph. Edit summary: “Removing irrelevant content. Rest of movie debunks claims that this is a valid interpretation of scene. Demonstrates previous editor is not concerned with the content of this scene or this movie and is simply being an activist.” No other edits by this IP except for two insertions of arguments about transgenderism in this article the previous evening.
• 22:12, March 19, 2025, Special:Contributions/209.204.20.98 inserted the text: “Another scene from this movie addresses this issue more directly.” No edit summary; no other edits by this IP except for the one preceding this to the same article.
• 21:04, March 19, 2025, Special:Contributions/209.204.20.98 inserted the text: “This last part concerning transgenderism is fake news as this phenomenon has been debunked by reality. Quite interestingly, this very movie, The Life of Brian, features a scene highlighting the absurdity of this cultural movement by showcasing one character’s desire to be a woman despite the fact that he is actually a man. Another interesting point is that Wikipedia keeps removing this correction. I will continue fixing this because the simple fact remains, transgenderism is a lie. Please watch this very movie, The Life of Brian, for a brilliant critique of this destructive ideology.” No edit summary; no other edits by this IP except the one following this to the same article.
• 16:47 and 16:55, February 7, 2025, Special:Contributions/199.164.135.78 inserted the text: “This last part concerning transgenderism is fake news as this phenomenon has been debunked by reality. Quite interestingly, this very movie, The Life of Brian, features a scene highlighting the absurdity of this cultural movement by showcasing one character’s desire to be a woman despite the fact that he is actually a man.” No edit summary; 12 edits attributed to this IP from 2022 to 2025, but possibly by different persons, as there’s no obvious connection between the edits.
• 8:14, November 23, 2024, Special:Contributions/2A00:F41:4C0C:BD13:0:5E:8559:8001, deleted the example and source cited; edit summary: “No reason to evoke gender”. No other edits attributed to this IP.
• 1:44, September 9, 2024, Special:Contributions/2A00:F41:4C0C:BD13:0:5E:8559:8001, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “Fixed”. No other edits attributed to this IP.
• 8:25, April 6, 2024 User:Takeshi357 repeated the previous deletion; edit summary: “Activist vandalism”.
• 8:20, April 6, 2024 User:Takeshi357 deleted most of the paragraph; edit summary: “thinly veiled activism”.
• 6:58, April 6, 2024 User:Takeshi357 deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “Irrelevant information to the subject used as a tangent for LGBT activism in the disguise of “cultural significance”.” Few edits over the last ten years; one possibly relevant edit arguing that the article “LGBT rights in Iran” should be “redirected to ‘oxymoron'”.
• 13:08, January 9, 2024 Special:Contributions/167.88.21.51, deleted the entire paragraph; no edit summary; no other contributions by this IP.
• 13:28, December 25, 2023 Special:Contributions/74.64.100.109, replaced the words “The film’s… has been compared with” “Queer activists have compared the”, and “social issues” with “LGBT issues”; edit summary: “Fixed sentence order”; fewer than 50 edits attributed to this IP; not clear whether any of them were by the same person.
• 10:46, December 13, 2023 Special:Contributions/90.242.218.182, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “”Far fetched, ludicrous, and completely non-notable”; no other contributions by this IP.
• 2:22, November 26, 2023 Special:Contributions/82.129.98.131, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “Duplication”; three other edits attributed to this IP, all between November 26 and December 1, 2023; one of these was to delete a reference to the Quran, which I’ve just reverted, after checking that the mention was correct.
• 8:42, August 11, 2023 Special:Contributions/146.198.82.243, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “removed paragraph of irrelevant pseudoscience”; no other contributions by this IP.
• 7:16, June 9, 2023 Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:4A8A:5601:8CE1:33BC:B9B1:8484, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “Biased POV, irrelevant to article”; no other contributions by this IP.
• 8:22, May 25, 2023 Special:Contributions/170.148.215.161, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “removed irrelevant content”; fewer than 30 edits attributed to this IP; not clear whether any of the others were by the same person.
• 16:15, May 14, 2023 Special:Contributions/79.13.155.198, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “Fixed informations”; no other contributions by this IP.
• 13:09, April 22, 2023 Special:Contributions/23.149.32.47, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “removed paragraph of dubious relevance/significance”; fewer than 20 edits attributed to this IP; not clear whether any of the others were by the same person.
• 10:43, April 11, 2023 Special:Contributions/51.52.8.226, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “What?! This has nothing to do with Romani ite domum, and is rubbish in the first place”; fewer than 50 edits attributed to this IP; one of them on April 21, 2023 removed a footnote about a singer having come out as transgender, without an edit summary; another on May 26, 2023 left a rude message on the talk page of a user who’s been inactive since 2007; another left a sarcastic comment in an article about the background of someone appointed to address racism (which the user changed to “inequity”).
• 4:46, April 4, 2023 Special:Contributions/78.35.147.78, deleted the entire paragraph; edit summary: “Remove unrelated self-promotion/advertisment”; no other contributions by this IP.

It’s not clear whether this vandal’s target is Jack Halberstam and anything written by him, or queer or transgender issues (there may be such a pattern here, but I’m not sure, since it’s hard to know who was responsible for some of the loosely-related edits to other articles or a retired editor’s talk page), or social justice generally. The fact that the reasons given keep changing, and never include a clear explanation or lead to a talk page discussion, seems to demonstrate that there is no concrete basis for the editor’s objection to this paragraph. It’s frustrating to see the same act of vandalism repeated every few weeks with another unclear or nonsensical edit summary. P Aculeius (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know anything about the anonymous IP editor, but the paragraph certainly seems to have an extremely tangential relationship to the article’s subject, and could violate WP:COATRACK… AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph concerns a discussion of the scene as a parallel for a recent sociopolitical phenomenon: using the minutiae of a situation as a distraction from a deeper social issue that goes unaddressed because of misplaced focus on details that are ultimately unimportant. The discussion may not be of intrinsically great importance, but then the film itself isn’t very serious either. Yet it reached–and continues to reach–a vast audience, because it portrays historical fiction in an eminently relateable way, and so in Halberstam’s book, this scene is used to demonstrate a peculiar rhetorical trap that, unlike the events of the film, has great cultural significance today.

But that’s not what this discussion was started for. It’s here to document repeated vandalism so that the article could be presented for either pending-changes protection or semiprotection. The guidelines for protection requests suggested that extended discussion of the request could be placed on the article’s talk page, so that’s what I did. Documenting the occurrences and pattern of repetition would have been too lengthy and detailed to post on the article protection request page. Since the request was granted, this section remains largely to explain why the request was made and granted. P Aculeius (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If what is being deleted is only very tangential at best to this article’s subject matter, then it’s extremely relevant to a discussion as to whether or not deleting it is indeed vandalism… AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say it’s not at all tangential for a scene demonstrating how relevant social commentary is diverted into a grammar lesson, that does nothing to resolve the underlying social issues, to be used as an example of a rhetorical device being employed in current sociological debates. The argument that it’s not vandalism if you don’t think that the point is important enough to make, even though multiple editors tell you that it is, is a bit like saying that Brian didn’t vandalize the building because the Romans shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Here the vandal doesn’t even seem to be able to make a coherent argument on the talk page, and keeps changing the reason provided, or giving none at all.

The fact that one of the edits attempted to recast the discussion by saying that it was only queer activists who would make such a comparison, and that it wasn’t a social issue, but merely an LGBT issue, combined with the fact that some of the IP’s also removed a reference to someone being transsexual in another article, changed “racism” to “inequity” in another, and deleted a reference to the Quran in a third–despite some uncertainty over which of the edits by each IP were by the same person who was vandalizing this article–strongly suggests that the vandal is a reactionary, whose real problem is with the statement that transgender people face harassment or discrimination, and that all of the complaints about “nonsense”, “duplication”, and “pseudoscience” are arguments with Jack Halberstam and his book, not with the relationship of the paragraph to the article.

Repeatedly deleting material from an article under false pretenses, because you disagree with the opinion of the source being cited, while concealing one’s identity and refusing to engage in any detailed or meaningful conversation, seems to be the very definition of “vandalism”. P Aculeius (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know or really care about the anonymous IP, but I see material with a more direct connection to an article’s topic than what’s at issue here deleted from “In popular culture” sections of an article all the time. See Talk:Carol of the Bells#In Popular Culture, use in Dr. Who, in just the past day or so — and of course, the song “Carol of the Bells” apparently actually does occur in the Dr. Who episode, while the “Romani ite domum” section of the Life of Brian movie does not refer or allude to transgender issues in any way (whatever the movie has to say about such issues — not referred to with the word “transgender” at the time, of course — is contained in the Stan/Loretta segment). Again, consult WP:COATRACK… AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an “in popular culture” section listing dozens of passing mentions without any significance. I have tried to explain on multiple occasions that this scene appears as a teaching tool in the work selected—which itself is not a mere collection of trivia or TV episode with no cultural relevance beside its own fanbase. The particular relevance of this scene is not to popular culture, but to didacticism and rhetoric specifically, and it has been described and included in various works not merely to say, “hey, I watched this too!”, but to make comparisons between the actions and dialogue of this particular scene and modern social and political movements and debates. I’m not sure what’s so confusing about this.

The fact that the scene itself makes no mention of transgender issues seems completely irrelevant to the comparison being made in the Halberstam book. Many things have cultural relevance to other topics, persons, or events that were completely unknown at the time they occurred. It would be an extreme position to argue that even detailed discussion of a thing for illustrative purposes is no more than “fancruft” illustrating the author’s familiarity with something. That’s what a passing mention is; this isn’t that. P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then use a different comparison. 2001:14BB:AB:C759:50E0:CE3B:404D:48FE (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the timing, you seem to be the same person as User:Takeshi357. This article is not the place to pursue a vendetta against “LGBT activism”. This article has nothing to do with activism, and despite your accusations, I am not an activist. The subject of this persistent edit war was included in the article because it’s a discussion of this article’s topic in a contemporary context, and the only reason for the edit war seems to be an unreasoning demand that because Brian isn’t gay or transgender, nothing to do with LGBT issues can be mentioned here.

But that’s not why it’s here: it’s here because a notable author has made use of a widely-known scene in which an insignificant issue (grammar) is used to distract from the underlying issues (anti-Roman sentiment, vandalism) to compare with how the furor over the use of unconventional pronouns (grammar) has been used as a distraction from the underlying issues (transphobia, legal disabilities imposed upon transgender persons). The fact that Halberstam makes this comparison in his book is relevant to the topic, whether or not on thinks his comparison is apt, or whether one agrees with his point, and irrespective of one’s position on LGBT issues. You can think he’s way off base, making something out of nothing, or hold any other opinion—but that doesn’t change the fact that a notable author has made this comparison, or that making it is relevant to this topic’s significance in a contemporary cultural context. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever — You’re quite adept at attributing evil motives to others, and daring other people to knock the chip off your shoulder, but rather poor at demonstrating why the whole thing has any particular relevance to this article beyond the most tangential… AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you’re getting either of those from, other than repeating what I already responded to three months ago. I just explained why it’s here again, and don’t think it could or needs to be made any clearer—the fact that this is the only thing anybody seems to have a problem with or wants to do anything about seems to indicate some animus against Jack Halberstam or his book or the point he was making—I can’t tell which. I’m not the one who charged in here accusing me of being an activist writing thinly-veiled activism, neither of which is true. I have no particular interest in or connection to LGBT activism, besides wanting everyone to be treated fairly and with dignity. My point about Halberstam using this scene to illustrate a point about contemporary issues stands. It was not a passing mention, but a clear and nuanced comparison between what occurs during the scene and a current political debate, and that makes it relevant to this article, because it illustrates the ongoing influence of this article’s subject in contemporary culture. P Aculeius (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a mentally ill obsessive. Please seek help. You need therapy, not wiki arguments. 2601:600:817F:B270:AD6F:B6FA:4C79:E01F (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally while I can speak from personal experience that the misdirection tactic described here definitely exists, it is not one limited to the sphere of politics, and there’s definitely no reason whatsoever why it needs to be a specific, not to mention obviously controversial, example – and I still do not think it ultimately has any real relevance to the subject (apart from it being part of the joke), so I would still vote for just deleting the whole paragraph. Takeshi357 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What’s controversial about it? The fact that some people might disagree with Halberstam’s comparison? That doesn’t affect the fact that he made it, or whether it shows that the subject of this article continues to have some cultural relevance. He could be completely mistaken, but the fact that the argument is made is relevant to this article, irrespective of whether you or I agree with it. Or is it that some people might mistakenly assume that Halberstam is saying that Brian or some of the other characters are gay or transgender, or that Monty Python was saying something about LGBT issues? Other people’s mistaken understanding of what a scene is used to illustrate doesn’t make the argument irrelevant.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at with “apart from it being part of the joke”. Halberstam isn’t saying that LGBT issues are part of a joke in The Life of Brian, he’s saying the use of didacticism as a distraction from the underlying issue in Brian is similar to how serious discussion of LGBT issues today are ignored when someone brings up “zhe”, “hir”, or “them”, or (and this isn’t in Halberstam, as far as I know) litter boxes in school bathrooms for “students who identify as cats”, a non-issue that everyone’s heard of and has an opinion about despite no evidence that such things ever happened. But again, you don’t have to agree that Halberstam’s comparison is correct. The fact that he makes it is what’s relevant to this article: it shows the ongoing relevance of the subject in contemporary culture (and it might be cited for completely opposite reasons—against LGBT issues, or why the internet is broken; those would also be relevant, provided there’s a serious point being made, and not just a passing mention, as if to say (and I said this earlier in the discussion), “I saw this movie too!” P Aculeius (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who Halberstam is, and I don’t care either. The paragraph has nothing to do with what the article is actually about and insisting on keeping it in anyway despite overwhelming opposition reeks of trolling at this point. Takeshi357 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve already made it perfectly clear that you consider mentioning the use of this scene to illustrate a point by a notable author is “activism”, “vandalism”, “activist vandalism”, “thinly-veiled activism”, etc. Adding “reeking troll” and “overwhelming opposition” to your list of accusations—nearly a year after the last post in this discussion, and the only contributions you’ve made to Wikipedia in the last three years—doesn’t strengthen your position. P Aculeius (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a single user is blocking the removal of an what appears to be an inappropriate reference within the ‘cultural significance’ page, where they cite an obscure book of inconsequential acclaim.

My concerns over the inclusion of this paragraph (already printed on this page) relate to the fact that even if the book were relevant to the point where it was worthy of mention, whoever wrote the paragraph has misunderstood the original text or simply offered their own manufactured interpretation in place of it.

Firstly, the assertion that (paraphrase) there is a ‘contemporary political phenomenon which distracts attention away from discriminatory practices’ is an unfounded claim which is not supported at all by the text, nor does the author intend to imply that. Hallberstam does not reference any ‘phenomenon’, and in fact states clearly that his observations are from within the queer community as distinct from the world at large.

i include the relevant extract (page 10 in my book):

“This episode reminds us that sometimes we really cannot see the forest for the trees, the Roman Empire for the cheery centurions, or the site of linguistic domination for the miscellaneous slurs directed at marginal subjects. In queer communities today, while we fight about words like “tranny,” worry about being triggered, and “call each other out” for our supposed micro-crimes of omission/inclusion/slang, we are, like the People’s Front of Judea, trying to fight power by battling over the relations between signifiers and signifieds while leaving the structures of signification itself intact.”

Moreover, Hallberstam references his argument with respect the bickering and infighting of the Peoples Front of Judea. Not the centurion giving a lesson in bad latin grammar. In that regard, it doesn’t even make sense to have this paragraph here to begin with.

The inclusion of this paragraph falls short of reflecting the accepted standard to which wikipedia articles are expected to conform to. It is factually misleading, and seems to be ideologically motivated rather than an honest interpretation of what the author has actually written.

The page should be unlocked and the offending article removed. Noahrama (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If in fact you had reviewed the article’s history, you’d see that several different editors have undone the deletion of the paragraph in question. But that doesn’t really matter, because nothing in Wikipedia policy requires a minimum number of editors to respond to what appears to be repeated instances of vandalism. The description of the reference as “inappropriate”, the book as “obscure” and its acclaim as “inconsequential” all reflects your personal opinion—and if, as you say, you’ve already stated it on this page, you’re simply WP:BLUDGEONing with it now.

Some of this is a red herring; whether a book is “obscure” is not really that important, nor is the level of its acclaim, though of course both are still matters of opinion, and need to be taken in context: some people would say that the topic of this article is itself obscure, and that being the case, any published and documented use of it by notable authors to illustrate a point would seem to be an “appropriate” means of demonstrating its cultural significance.

Your use of the word “paraphrase” is incorrect, since the paragraph describes what Halberstam says; it does not merely restate it with different wording. But I think your point was to suggest that paraphrasing itself is not allowable, which is not the case. It is unnecessary for Halberstam to have used the word “phenomenon”; I think here you assume that “phenomenon” is unwarranted as a peacock word, when in fact it is being used in its literal sense, “a peculiar or particular situation or circumstance”, rather than to mean “something really great or amazing”. I am not sure that Halberstam’s perspective matters to whether his observation is relevant; by “as distinct from the world at large”, do you mean that his opinion is only relevant if it is shared by the rest of the world? That would not be a valid objection to citing his book.

What your book says, however, is not likely citable—at least not by you. Did you mention it above somewhere so that it can be verified by other editors? Without any bibliographic details or information about its author, it is impossible for anyone to determine whether you are an authority on any of the issues related to this topic.

What Halberstam says is perfectly on point: that the argument over Latin grammar in this scene distracts the participants from the underlying crime of graffiti—or the political situation in which the graffiti was made—in a manner similar to the way that arguments over the use of non-binary pronouns are used to distract people from the underlying issue of transgender rights. That’s all the paragraph says; it doesn’t go on at unnecessary length or digress into other issues. The fact that reams and reams of electronic paper have been wasted trying to get this short and plain statement of what a notable author says about this scene removed from Wikipedia says a lot about the zealousness of one editor with little or no apparent interest in other topics or issues.

It’s ironic that you keep insisting that I must be ideologically motivated; I’m not an activist and not part of the queer community at all. I simply see a valid—and brief—point that goes toward demonstrating the cultural significance of an article that I became involved with editing only after I saw it was proposed for deletion due to supposed lack of cultural significance. And I see one or possibly a few editors (the number can only be guessed at due to the constantly-changing names and IP addresses, though most of them have little or no editing history outside of this one topic, and this one issue with said topic, suggesting that most of them are the same person) determined to spare no effort to erase that one short paragraph, through whatever means necessary, any reason that sounds like it might make sense (whether or not it does), and no matter how long it takes. P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange that there is nothing said about this obvious context. There is not even a “Yankee go home!” page on Wikipedia. It only forwards to Anti-Americanism. I’ll leave the rest to Billy Wilder:

“When the Southern belle is confronted about her foolishness in the matter of helping him blow up anti-American “Yankee Go Home” balloons (how the couple met) she simply replies with, “Why, that ain’t anti-American, it’s anti-Yankee… And where I come from, everybody’s against the Yankees …””

2A01:C23:B96D:1D00:1CBB:CB92:B2C6:A24A (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly comes to mind, and it could have been omitted because to the article’s original authors, it seemed too obvious to require explation. However, I’m not aware of any published source that makes the connection, and without even a proper history of the phrase, I can’t feel certain that similar phrases weren’t used of other peoples. That would make it hard to connect the phrase to this article without a reliable source. If you can find a published source that does so, it might be worth including here. P Aculeius (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious move request MosheDov1 (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t seem particularly obvious to me. The current title seems to be how most readers know of it—the “correct” version, as illustrated with a museum piece, and as it was written a hundred times by Brian in the film—as opposed to once for the proposed title, when the whole scene in which it appears is about how that’s wrong and this is right. The proposed title has always been a redirect, either to the article about the movie, or here. Page views suggest that nobody is searching for this at the proposed title: over the last 90 days, this article has had an average of 181 daily page views, while the redirect has an average of 1. So other than that it occurs first chronologically in the same scene, I can’t see any reason for moving this to the “incorrect” version. P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve cut the section mentioned above as it does seem tangential to the article (WP:COATRACK) and I don’t think one author’s view of the scene justifies its inclusion. The cut section is:

The film’s satirical use of classroom discourse as a technical exercise to distract from the realities of Roman imperialism has also been compared with the contemporary political phenomenon of diverting attention from serious social issues by focusing attention on details, such as argument over the use of gender-neutral pronouns as a means of distracting attention from discriminatory practices, harassment, and legal disabilities affecting transgender persons.^[1]

I’d like to figure out if there’s consensus for including or excluding the section. Rcfische2 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my justification, the other examples are cited to two journal articles which separately mention the scene with respect to the topic of graffiti in the ancient world and a textbook on linguistics and humor. Skimming those sources, I see that the scene has

1) been recognized by scholars as accurately representing a historic phenomenon.

2) been analyzed as an example of a style of humor in a textbook.

Both of these seem to show the scene’s continuing significance. In contrast, I’m not sure I see how a single author’s reading of the scene as a parallel for how modern discourse on gendered oppression misses the forest for the trees shows anything more than that specific author found it significant. I’d be interested to see if there’s any other sources to support this view, or if the section can be rewritten, I.E show the scene has been used to illustrate language as oppression.

Rcfische2 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article has been repeatedly vandalized to remove just this one thing—with a variety of facile arguments about the example’s inherent noteworthiness—and had to be protected multiple times for that same thing, and that anything having to do with trans people has become tantamount to sedition in the current political climate, it’s hard to see someone deleting it again without first achieving consensus for doing so as anything but a thinly-veiled attempt to censor the article because and solely because it mentions trans people.

But to rebut the point, it is an example used to illustrate a point: not anything to do with trans people or woke agendas, but the way in which political discussions are continually warped by focusing everyone’s attention on little details that so completely involve everyone’s attention that the big picture is ignored: focusing on the grammar of the message and not the act of vandalism aimed at the Roman occupation. You could take a dozen examples out of the politics of the last few decades—one that comes to mind being the absurd claim that schools were placing litter boxes in their bathrooms for students who “identify as cats”—but this particular example is in a published work by a notable author.

Your argument is that this example is unacceptable, but reworded to exclude that example it would be fine. How does that not constitute censoring Wikipedia to avoid offending fans who feel that their favourite movie is being sullied by the fact that it’s been used to illustrate a point relevant to transgender politics? The “coatrack” argument repeatedly advanced would only make sense if this text were somehow being used to promote an otherwise non-notable argument or its author, but that clearly isn’t being done here. I don’t see how the inclusion of an example involving transgender politics offends any Wikipedia policies, or any good reason to exclude that or any other significant cultural discussion of the scene.

This is not about creating a section of pop culture fancruft: we’re not talking about a passing mention of Romani ite domum (or Romanes eunt domus) in an episode of The Big Bang Theory or a wink and a nod saying “I like this movie” in Spongebob Squarepants. This is not a passing mention, but a serious comparison made for a serious purpose, and that makes it noteworthy enough to include in this article. P Aculeius (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point.

example’s inherent noteworthiness

I disagree with your assessment that it’s inherently noteworthy to the article. One author’s reference to a cultural work to illustrate a point does not, on its own, justify its mention in the article. If so, Lectures on the Philosophy of History would mention hundreds of history books that use the quote, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” It’s a balancing act, and that section does not measure up in my view. Per MOS:POPCULT, “mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient [for inclusion].” My view is that this scene’s use to illustrate a point in an (admittedly reliable) secondary source falls outside of this criteria when compared to its scholarly analysis as a depiction of ancient graffiti by two primary sources and its inclusion in a textbook as a direct subject of discussion.

it’s hard to see someone deleting it again without first achieving consensus for doing so as anything but a thinly-veiled attempt to censor the article because and solely because it mentions trans people.

I have no issue with transgender people. I simply disagree on the passage’s significance to the article. As to the first point, WP:BRD. We’re here, aren’t we?

But to rebut the point, it is an example used to illustrate a point: not anything to do with trans people or woke agendas, but the way in which political discussions are continually warped by focusing everyone’s attention on little details that so completely involve everyone’s attention that the big picture is ignored

No argument. I actually find Mr. Halberstam’s argument compelling.

but this particular example is in a published work by a notable author.

No argument.

Your argument is that this example is unacceptable, but reworded to exclude that example it would be fine.

No, I’d be completely fine with the section if an additional source was included to show Halberstam’s view of the scene is shared by at least one other scholar or that other authors have used the film to illustrate how “political discussions are continually warped by focusing everyone’s attention on little details that so completely involve everyone’s attention that the big picture is ignored,” as is done with the two citations for the first example. I did a cursory search for such a source and could not find one.

This is not about creating a section of pop culture fancruft: we’re not talking about a passing mention of Romani ite domum (or Romanes eunt domus) in an episode of The Big Bang Theory or a wink and a nod saying “I like this movie” in Spongebob Squarepants. This is not a passing mention, but a serious comparison made for a serious purpose

No argument.

and that makes it noteworthy enough to include in this article

This is where we disagree.

I appreciate that you rescued this article from AFD, and I think the other examples you provided are good. However, I’d note that three other registered editors (excluding me) have disputed the inclusion of this paragraph. I’d also note that your edit summary and this post both seem to accuse me of having an ulterior motive to censor the article. I’d reject that.

Rcfische2 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, you’ve set my mind at ease about your motives, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions. But this article has seen almost all of its activity focused entirely on one passage, and most of the edits summaries have given incoherent and inconsistent reasons, which is why I and others have been reverting them; I patrol most articles I’ve edited significantly, and I typically check Wikipedia for various reasons throughout the day, so I’ve done more of the reversion than the others.

However, we disagree on whether this falls afoul of MOS:POPCULT; I would argue that that’s exactly what I described above: passing mentions that say nothing more than “I also saw this” or “here’s a shout-out to Monty Python”. Popcult literally uses the words “passing” or “trivial mention” and gives the example of saying that Bill Clinton was once in a band called “Three Blind Mice” as a passing mention of the band. It’s a passing mention because it doesn’t describe the band or their lineup or their music or their performance history, other than to say that Bill Clinton was a member.

A discussion of the band and its musical style, and how it set the stage for the future careers of its members would not be a “passing mention”. It would be a significant one, and a reason to include it in some appropriate article. It’s not like, to borrow another example I see repeatedly added to—and deleted from—an article I was patrolling for unrelated reasons, mentioning Spongebob Squarepants in the article on Max Schreck just because a gag involves a still image from Nosferatu being shown once or twice, without any discussion of the film or actor. That’s a “passing mention”.

If Jack Halberstam had said, “this situation is like something out of The Life of Brian,” and then moved on without discussing what it is about Romanes eunt domus/Romani ite domum that’s relevant to the point he’s making, or if it were only relevant to some internal concept that nobody would recognize without having read his book, then it would be a “passing mention”; a mere appearance in (popular) culture with no real significance. But by describing the particular characteristics of the scene and explaining why it illustrates a particular political phenomenon that most people can relate to (whether they agree with his analysis or not), it becomes more than a “passing mention” and becomes a significant use.

Your example of Lectures on the Philosophy of History being quoted in hundreds of books is relevant, in that the fact that it’s frequently quoted is relevant and probably should be mentioned in a comprehensive article about it, although individual quotations of it are unlikely to be notable precisely because there are so many of them. If there are any particularly important works that make a point of quoting it, one or two of them could still be named as examples. In Romani ite domus we have something that, while very widely known, is not widely discussed, and that makes any discussion that is not merely trivial—i.e. a passing mention—likely to be significant to this article.

This article carefully excludes trivial mentions, and includes this passage because it’s a discussion of the theme that the scene has in common with everyday life, rather than a shout-out to Monty Python that has no particular relevance beyond a gag in the work where it’s mentioned. And since there aren’t many other works that discuss it, that makes this use more significant than if there were many such works all saying the same thing. If there were more uses of greater importance for various reasons, then there would be an argument for replacing this example. But this meets the threshold of being more than a “passing mention” or “trivial use”, and as one of the few examples that can be easily located, it should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Your argument is convincing, particularly that “[it’s] very widely known, is not widely discussed, and that makes any discussion that is not merely trivial—i.e. a passing mention—likely to be significant to this article.” That should have jumped out after I saw how little it’s been mentioned in scholarly works. Rcfische2 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]