Someone is simply perverse. 'Spadone' is a proper Latin term for a eunuch whose testicles have been surgically removed. The mutilator of the Wikipedia piece is trying to redefine it for his own purposes and pull it over into English.

There are places where this clearly does not work. For example, his coinage of the term "Male-to-Spadone" when there is a solid medical literature using "Male-to-Eunuch" and "Male-to-Eunuch" will be the term in the next edition of the Harry Benjamin Standards and it is the term that is in the current draft leading to the DSM-V that is moving up the hierarchy of committees. This peculiar article may be the only place that "Male-to-Spadone" has ever been used.

I doubt that I'll have time in the next several weeks to do anything to correct all of the errors that have been added to Wikipedia. I hope that someone here will work on it.

Using one term "eunuch" still seems to leave room for further terminology amplification, eg. specific terms for:

a) A surgically castrated male (both testes) regardless if voluntary or due to injury or medical reasons.

b) A male who has not been surgically castrated, testicles not physically or medically damaged, but who is taking a medication, by choice, or for medical reasons, or by court order, that inhibits production of or utilization of testosterone

c) A male who has not been surgically castrated but has had physical or medical condition that has caused testicles to stop producing all or enough testosterone.

For such persons, once testosterone is replaced and one does not experience or demonstrate the effects of testosterone loss, is one still a "eunuch" in all cases? Does one become a "former eunuch", or "rehabilitated eunuch".

I think people jump to the assumption that "eunuch" means loss of both testicles, regardless of the cause. With additional terms to describe various physical conditions that have eunuch-like results, perhaps then the term "eunuch" can solidly be used for that condition where both testicles no longer exist.

One can have "eunuchism" without having been surgically castrated.

Should such people be "eunuch-like" ?

Could there be terms such as:

Medical Full or Partial Eunuch (Health condition)

Chemical Full or Partial Eunuch (Androcur, Siterone, etc)

Injury Full or Partial Eunuch (damage to testes from sports, or other injury)

Castrated Full or Partial Eunuch

Where Full = both testes affected and Partial = one teste affected.

The common thread in "eunuch" being reduced or no testosterone coming from one or both testes, or inability of the body to utilize the testosterone that is being produced by a teste or both testes.

I got kicked off Wikipedia otherwise I'd do something about it. First thing I would do is go to the discussion page and say, "WTF?"! Next time I go to a public computer, I'll do something. I notified someone of the change at Wiki but they saw nothing wrong with the split of the articles. Usually when UYOU alter an article significantly or move an article, UrYOU'RE supposed to discuss it before-hand. On the discussion page.

I can count at least a dozen types of eunuchs: Pituatary: child, adolescent, adult, elder. Chemical: child, adolescent, adult, elder. Surgical: child, adolescent, adult, elder. Most of the population would however fall into the pituatary child and adolescent, the chemical adolescent and adult, and the surgical adult and elder though. Then too a phenotypical female who cannot bear kids could be very realistically considered a eunuch too. If there was a developemental scale developed for eunuchs then the pituatary child and the phenotypical female would be at one end of that scale whereas the chemical and surgical adult would be at the other end.

There is a very large population of males throughout the world, who have not undergone castration, but who are unable to have children because they have undergone a vasectomy. Would they, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be eunuchs?

In my opinion, no. Being sterile is a component of being a eunuch, not a conclusive sign. --FLO--

Solaris (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2009 9:04 am There is a very large population of males throughout the world, who have not undergone castration, but who are unable to have children because they have undergone a vasectomy. Would they, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be eunuchs?

While Gary Taylor, the author of Castration: An Abbreviated History of Western Manhood, might agree that vasectomy equals castration, I doubt that you could find many others who would. During the period when the Indian government was pushing sterilization clinics across the country, they were at great pains to make clear that vasectomy leaves the testicles intact and producing testosterone. Someone who has had a vasectomy has not been castrated and is not a eunuch.

The most common definition of eunuch is a natal male whose testicles have been removed, destroyed, or are non functional. It is the removal or destruction of the testicles that is termed “castration.” This term is used for all animal species, including humans.

There are various extensions and perversions of the term that you can find in the literature. Sigmund Freud, for his “castration complex,” focused almost exclusively on the penis, and left the testicles out of his discussion. “Castration” can also be used metaphorically to describe the loss or removal of power from someone, just as Germaine Greer used “Female Eunuch” to refer to the powerlessness of women.

There are also a few Female-to-Male individuals who argue that, while they now present as male, they have no testicles, hence must be eunuchs. They would NOT, however, argue that they had been castrated as they never had testicles to remove or destroy.

Eunuchs castrated before puberty were also valued and trained in several cultures for their exceptional voices, which retained a childlike and other-worldly flexibility and treble pitch. Such eunuchs were known as castrati. . . .

The broad sense of the term "eunuch" is reflected in the compendium of Roman law created by Justinian I in the sixth century, known as the Digest or Pandects. That text distinguishes between two types of "eunuchs"—spadones (a general term denoting "one who has no generative power, an impotent person, whether by nature or by castration,"[13] and castrati (castrated males, physically incapable of procreation). Spadones are eligible to marry women, institute posthumous heirs, and adopt children (Institutions of Justinian, 1.11.9), unless they are castrati.

Source: New World Encylopedia, (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Eunuch)

So Roman Law had two kinds of Eunuch, castrati, made so to sing at a young age & spadone (all else).

Here's the way it's rewritten in Wikipedia (

Spadone_<3 (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:42 pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadone

#Legal_status):

Similarly, according to very late Roman law, as compiled by Justinian I in the sixth century Digest known as the Pandects, castrated men (castrati) were not permitted to marry women (D 23.3.39.1), institute posthumous heirs (D 28.2.6), or adopt children (Institutions of Justinian 1.11.9)[4]; however, as with Judaism, all other spadones had these rights.

Footnote 3 in Wikipedia is interesting:

Tertullian, On Monogamy, 3: “...He stands before you, if you are willing to copy him, as a voluntary spado (eunuch) in the flesh.” And elsewhere: "The Lord Himself opened the kingdom of heaven to eunuchs and He Himself lived as a eunuch. The apostle [Paul] also, following His example, made himself a eunuch..."

I dunno know what to make of being called a spado . . . . New Testament says "Eunuch."

There were three different types of eunuch identifiable by the three different methods of castration. The slaves whose penis and testes had both been severed were called castrati by the Romans and sandali or es-sendelle by the Arabs. Spadones was the word used to describe those eunuchs whose testicles had been literally torn from their bodies, but not cut off. By far the most common method of emasculation was to detach the testicles by a single cut, and these eunuchs, who were called thlibias or semivir, retained their penis.

Source: COLIN BLAKEMORE and SHELIA JENNETT. "eunuchs." The Oxford Companion to the Body. Oxford University Press. 2001. Encyclopedia.com. 24 Oct. 2009 (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O128-eunuchs.html)

In Original Bible texts ";eunuch"; is described as saris (Old Testament, Hebrew) or eunouchos (New Testament, Greek). However, both words could also mean ";official"; or ";commander";. The 38 original Bible references to saris and 2 references to eunouchos were studied in order to determine their meaning in context. In the Septuagint saris was translated as eunouchos, except for Genesis 37:36 and Isaiah 39:7 where spadon was used;

Source: (Acta Theologica (http://ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/view/5382): 2002 22(2): 114-125)

Genesis 37:36 with commentary (http://bible.cc/genesis/37-36.htm):

And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an {l} officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard.

(l) Or eunuch, which does not always signify a man that is gelded, but also someone that is in some high position.

Isaiah 39:7 with commentary (http://bible.cc/isaiah/39-7.htm):

And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be {f} eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

(f) That is, officers and servants.

So spadon = officer, i.e., a Court Official.

Wikipedia should reverse what they split. The article "Eunuch (Court Official) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch_(court_official))" = Spadon (

Spadone_<3 (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:42 pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadone

).

The person who split the article wrote this HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... Spadone.3F) in response to "Mairi":

What's your source for moving this to spadone from eunuch? "Spadone" doesn't appear to generate any relevant google results, nor appear in most dictionaries. Whereas "eunuch" is a common word, and used in the sources for that article. --Mairi (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll find it in most historic academic writings. Remember, google isn't a reliable source for notability. But if you really want to read google results, see [4]. Highlights from that google search include:

"The free dictionary" says "SPADONES, civil law. Those who, on account of their temperament, or some accident they have suffered, are unable to procreate. Inst. 1, 11, 9; Dig. 1, 7, 2, 1; and vide Impotence.".

[5] websters dictionary appears to have the same definition

[6] this academic work (social science) about male impotence and canon law

[7] another book, about Papal decisions

[8] a Middle English dictionary, bizarrely, under 'spado' (middle english - giving 'spadone' as the etymology)

[9] a commentary about Isaiah

[10] a digitised out-of-copyright book about medicine

[11] this Jewish Encyclopedia article

Its a bit like the word "cherub". Technically it is the singular of Cherubim, and refers to a creature rather like a Shedu. But in recent times people have bizarrely confused it with "putti", which is basically a baby with wings.

You have

(a) people holding a specific official position, and

(b) people who cannot or will not procreate

and therefore

just (a)

(a) and (b)

just (b)

(a) are Eunuchs (literally translating as 'bed-chamber attendants'), (b) are Spadones

people who are castrated in modern times are not usually castrated for the purpose of an official position; in other words, they are not (a)

similarly there were bed-chamber attendants who were not castrated - who were not (b)

laws tend to apply to (b) not (a)

(a) and (b) overlap heavily, but they are not the same thing

Newman Luke (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm still skeptical about it being a better name for the article, given that half of those are historical texts (and some use "eunuchs and spadones"). Also, almost all the sources in the article use "eunuch", not "spadone", and they're not about the court officials. -Mairi (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately its the same with most people talking about pictures like these - [12] - as cherubs, when in fact the whole of the first page there are actually putti. These - [13] [14] [15] [16] - are cherubs.

Popular perception is not the same as accurate. Most people think you have to risk a lot to gain a lot, but professional financial traders on foreign exchange risk no more than just 1%, and they rake in millions.

But the point is not that its a "better name for the article" but that there should be two articles - Spadone about the category of non-procreative men, and Eunuch about the court official. Newman Luke (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Page 102 HERE (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D8Zz ... es&f=false) gives a definition of Spado as castrated.

Old men would also be considered Spado under Newman Luke's definition.

Confused? So am I . . . more later.

My question on the word spadone

I just watched a movie where it sounds as if they are using the word

To the main character I could not tell because they said it so fast

So for those of you who have seen gladiator , is the word spadone what they are calling him