Talk:Greek love

OFFENSIVE

Not all greeks are homosexual, This article is biased and should thus be deleted. New references acknowledged. Will have to temporarily suspend my further input due to overseas travelAniChai 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Editing cannot take place on an emotional basis. Material is properly sourced and article makes no assumptions about the sexual preferences of "all Greeks", for which no proper data are available anyway. Haiduc 10:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The above strike-out is of a comment I made on 26 March 2007, which appears to have been adopted by another user. The article seems to have lost its way: the original purpose, as I recall, was to find application of the term Greek love in the modern world without however losing its historical perspective. We had reached the point of considering the Oxford Uranists and their identification with 'pederasty' as an ideal in the context of relationships which were more often androphilic. J A Symonds actually used the term (GL), but in the ancient sense. To recover the thread may require large-scale deletion. Dominique 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Large scale deletion begun untill the realization that the article does not meet notability due in large part to the lack of sources and references that directly refer to the subject of Greek Love. Besides Byrons account, little exists.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the claim that this entry is "Redundant" and "Unencyclopedic"

I consider my alterations today to be sufficient to at least begin addressing the claim that this entry on "Greek Love" is "Redundant with other articles on the topic, kind of essay." I would assert instead that the major reason for keeping this entry resides in the fact that it provides – as an encyclopedia should – a decent gloss for a term that might cause some degree of puzzlement and confusion if encountered for the first time in a scholarly or more general cultural context. Besides, it is easy to claim that an entry is "unencyclopedic and should be deleted," rather than to attempt to alter and improve it, as I have here attempted. Given these comments and my alterations of the entry, I have removed the proposal that it be deleted. Welland R 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep the capitalised "Greek Love" if you prefer, but then the title of the article should be changed to match (or else, leave the word in lower case).

OK, I agree. It is clear that all of the scholars quoted do not capitalize "love," so I guess that is the better alternative. I will make the change. Welland R 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)\

What scholars? I find nearly nothing available about this actual subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Term is hidden and requires creative search terms. One would normaly find a google book search of just the term to return top results and it is....but top results have little to do with this subject. Best researched through Greek and Roman sexuality, LBGT studies and archeology. Literary sources are only encyclopedic for illustration but contain no use of the word and connections may be found through literary historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.13 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Renewal

Major changes to the article, not all bad, have been made without discussion. I have made some restoration including the 'examples of scholarly use of the term, Greek Love', a section originally contributed by Ms R Welland, a Yale graduate with expertise in this area. I have also expanded the Byron/Shelley paragraphs, and am currently working on material acquired through recent researches by Davidson, Lauritsen & Percy, which will hopefully improve the overall presentation of a complex subject. Refs will be added. Comments/suggestions welcomed. 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Dominique (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The promised major additions are to be added over the coming weeks, starting today with a section on Dover against whom more recent scholarship can be compared and evaluated. Work on Percy, Hubbard, Davidson and others will follow. References and refinements will be added.--Dominique (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

POV: Kenneth Dover

The Greek love#Kenneth Dover section is worded with POV phrases, such as referring to his "landmark" study, that is was published "to critical acclaim", and that it had "at a stroke" achieved what was claimed. The bulleted list then continues to read in similar vein. --ClickRick (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Edited what I found, if no other issues are indicated I will remove the tag. Haiduc (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comment and assistance. This is intended as a comparative study of scholarship to date - the material to be added will refer back to Dover - in more detail than is available in other similar articles. The bulleted list (also for Percy) does not go beyond articulating the findings and interpretations of the author presented.--Dominique (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This comparative study will be valuable. As for Dover, I think it is recognized by now that his merits notwithstanding, he did as much harm as good. It is worth noting he was planning to co-author the work with Devereux before the latter's death, who was a notorious homophobe. Haiduc (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Yes, I am quite aware of Dover's controversial reputation, though still respected in academic circles. I still think however he deserves credit - apart from his unmatched philological command - for opening up the 'problem' of the Greeks, even at the risk of unleashing extremists on both sides of the argument. At least one recent detractor has been publicly taken to task for 'protesting too much'! Homophobe or not, Devereux is quoted by Percy, no less, as one who understood the 'Greek Miracle', which might encourage me to include a mention in the screed to follow. At the outset of this project, I was determined to resist political correctness however disguised as enlightenment or thinking a la mode. After all, sometimes the devil has the best tunes!--Dominique (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Progress

Haiduc, I agree with the thrust of the amendments, but as I said above, the individual presentation representing the essentials of the position (on Greek love) of a particular author should stand unamended, so that various aspects, ambiguities or misreadings can be highlighted with reference to other professional opinion to follow. For instance Dover will receive a bruising in the next entry (from Percy's Reconsiderations about Gk Homosexualities), and Hubbard may well offer a succinct rebuttal of the Spartan's denial of feeling. So in short, all the text for Percy is 'according to Percy', and similarly for Dover & others, this I believe being a more professional way of presenting an author's thesis, which is certainly not the case in other references to scholarly theses in comparable WP articles. Obviously, the finished, balanced result cannot be achieved until we have all the material aligned, which I think is important to the goal of defeating the carping critics (whom I am sure you are familiar with) who are interested only in hammering a one-eyed position which may reflect a personal idiosyncracy. Bless them! At some point, if we feel the amount of formal material imposes a strain on the reader to sort out or evaluate the many nuanced strands of thinking by (after all) exceptional writers, we can possibly come up with a device e.g. inserting comments or amendments, but this would have to be (i) clearly separate from the author concerned and (ii) astute and informed and - most important - absolutely impartial.

Re the Thera 'verbs' designating penetration or 'pedication', you may well have the edge in knowing the precise term applied in the quoted example - oiphein (see below)? Do you have actual images of the inscriptions - or other info - by which we can confirm actual verbs visible or reliably deduced? There are certainly many such, including specific words like binein, kinein, laikazein, laikonazein, pugizein (quite specific: 'to do through the buttocks', Percy) cf. diamerizein, 'to do between the thighs'.

Re the Spartans, may I quote Percy's exact words: 'Xenophon and Plutarch maintained that although Spartans' love for youths depended upon the physical beauty of the male (as it theoretically did not among the Cretans), it did not arouse sensual desires in the erastes.' Percy has to stand accountable for this statement!

Would you agree to a conditional reversion while we explore the options?

Oiphein - which Dover describes as 'a blunt work for sexual intercourse'.--Dominique (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem representing these fellows as arriving at their own conclusions. I would suggest using their exact words in quotes so as not to give the impression that these are definitive statements. As in "it did not arouse sensual desires in the erastes," which will also be useful for later comparisons with other scholars' opinions. The same for their personal impressions vis-a-vis "oiphein."

Re pictures of the Thera epigraphs, photographing them has been on my agenda for years, maybe I will get to it this winter. Haiduc (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An original (uploaded) image would certainly enhance the argument, esp if you can capture the verb! I note in Hubbard Sourcebook, the epigraph in question is translated using 'penetrated'. There must be a list of the inscriptions in Greek available somewhere. More about sexual acts later. --Dominique (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [New section title]--Dominique (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Better phrasing, thank you. But why did you reinsert Cantarella, and what is she doing in a section exclusively about Percy?! And where does Percy say that most Greeks fucked their boys up the ass? Haiduc (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion helpful here. The info is taken from the 'Introduction' [Ped and Pedagogy, (Urbana 1996)], section 'What the Greeks did' P7. In presenting this material I have included any refs (in Percy's text or footnote) in the passage quoted, as in the para above re Kilmer. The Cantarella ref is, I agree, not indispensable, since the P. 'claim' is quoted, and there are further (primary) sources mentioned in the ongoing text e.g. comedy, Hellenic and Latin writers, the Thera inscriptions (we need more detail here), and a passing ref to Dover's 'revised position' (1988). Hubbard indicates that for man-boy relations, intercrural contact predominates - more of him later. I am thinking along the lines that any controversial or challengeable claims should be highlighted in some way - certainly further authors will receive focus on these aspects: the history is pretty well covered. Nothing is straightforward, and even established opinion must go under the microscope.--Dominique (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dropped the Cantarella ref, it seemed out of place, as if we were helping Percy argue his view. Perhaps we should give David Cohen a place at this particular table. May I suggest his papers in Past and Present #117, Nov. 1987 ("Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens") and in Greece and Rome 38/2 Oct. 1991 ("Sexuality, Violence, and the Athenian Law of Hubris")? Haiduc (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. And I have removed the in-line ref also. The critical sentence is clearly Percy's, so it can stand unaided. Next move is a short discussion of Percy's (up-dated) Dover views and others, then we can move on. Yes, Cohen sounds good if distinctive views can be incorporated into the more focussed section coming up.--Dominique (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love is not Pederasty

The term of Greek Love is not to be confused with the term Pederasty which is nearly a direct translation into "boy lover". The two subjects are only slightly related. The term "Greek love" refers to the male bonding of two equals not in reference to a sexual relationship with younger individuals and elders. That is something that is covered by Platonic love and Pederasty in ancient Greece.

The information was not sourced or referenced except for a single citation in a quote that did not reference the claim of the overall comparisons made.

The section 'Victorian Hellenism" appears to cover the subject and confusions well.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New history section

Unfortunately this article has many references and citations that are not acceptable as citations. One I question whether is even a legal site. A complete rewrite of the history section is required.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article may not meet Wikipedia standards for notability

In just the last hour or so of looking through this article and its "references", I am not convinced this is a legitimate subject of notable quality. Many of the references so far have dealt with a different subject entirely and one was just a comment and then attempted to use an open source dictionary as the reference.

Research so far shows very little academic information available and what is available is less than trust worthy as a reliable source.

I am continuing to look into this.....but so far, my opinion is, that this should be nominated for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You know.....I am finding that so much material is based on the false assumption that "Greek love" is a form of boy love. I am putting this up for deletion. It is completely POV and OR on the part of the editors here so far (no offense) to link Greek love with pederasty.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This presents a good opportunity to articulate exactly what is being treated here. If I were to theorize, I would say that this is a form of pederasty that is moderate or pedagogic, in the style of the Greek ideal, and that transcends the Greek boundaries and thus can be traced a thread that reappears at various times and places in history, such as Victorian England and perhaps the Middle Eastern shahid bazi tradition (both of which were informed by the writings of the Greeks).

How has the term been used? Google Books is useful here. Out of the first fifteen titles brought up by a search for the term, ten seem to use the term interchangeably with pederastic relationships more or less in the Greek style. The use varies, Eglinton (Breen) uses it in a very general way, Craig Arthur Williams sees it as referring exclusively to pederastic relations with freeborn young men (adolescents, of course). But so far (and I do not have a lot of time to look, at the moment) all discuss relations between men and boys. So this is not a false assumption.

To sum it up, I agree with your point that the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired, but I do not agree that is a reason to delete an article or even large chunks of it. Let's see what the principal editor has to say, but at this time I intend to remove the deletion tag in the next 24 hours and to add some references to support the main argument. Haiduc (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You found 15 titles with this subject on Google books? Interesting, I did not find anywhere near that amount;

  Greek love‎ - Page 3

by J. Z. Eglinton, Paul Goodman - Homosexuality - 1964 - 504 pages

In what follows I expect to prove that — so far from being a brief Greek aberration or a sign of Roman degeneracy — Greek love is as widespread as mankind; ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Ancient Greek Love Magic‎

by Christopher A. Faraone - History - 2001 - 223 pages

Surveying and analyzing these various texts and artifacts, Christopher Faraone reveals that gender is the crucial factor in understanding love spells. Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

An incomplete education‎ - Page 262

by Judy Jones, William Wilson - Reference - 1995 - 683 pages

How Is an Ancient Greek Like a Modern Californian? ... What's Love Got to Do, Got to Do with It? The Greeks wrote the book on forms of affection, ... Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Byron and Greek love: homophobia in 19th-century England‎

by Louis Crompton - Social Science - 1998 - 419 pages

Byron and Greek Love is at once a fascinating biography and an incisive social commentary; its far-reaching implications for the social and cultural history of... Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Grecian History‎ - Page 72

by James R. Jay - 1900

The freedom of the Greek genius was never fettered by the foreign ideas which it acquired. From the bare results of thousands of years of thought and ... Full view - About this book - Add to my library

Grecian History: An Outline Sketch‎ - Page 72

by James Richard Joy - History - 1892 - 289 pages

The freedom of the Greek genius was never fettered by the foreign ideas which it acquired. From the bare results of thousands of years of thought and ... Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in Nineteenth Century England‎

by Louis Crompton - Social Science - 1985 - 424 pages

No preview available - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Primitive Love and Love-stories‎ - Page xvii

by Henry Theophilus Finck - Love - 1899 - 851 pages

Love in Sappho's Poems, 750— Masculine Minds in Female Bodies, 754 — Anacreon ... 781 — Literature and Life, 782 — Greek Love in Africa, 785 — Alexandrian ... Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

A Problem in Greek Ethics: Being an Inquiry Into the Phenomenonof Sexual ...‎ - Page 32

by John Addington Symonds - Homosexuality - 1908 - 73 pages

This sufficiently indicates, in general terms, the moral atmo- / sphere in which Greek love flourished at Athens. In an earlier part of his speech Pausanias ... Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions

Ancient and modern images of Sappho: translations and studies in archaic ...‎

by Jeffrey M. Duban, Sappho - Poetry - 1983 - 176 pages

"Co-published by arrangement with the Classical Association of the Atlantic states"--T.p. verso. Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library

Only three would qualify and two are already being used, and not in a way that justfies the subject. Greek love is not about man-boy love. This has been brought up before and I am not seeing anything in this article (and I have swept over it several times) to prove the definition as such. The discussion has gone on for nearly two years and it is time to deal with this. Should the tag be removed I will continue to take this either to speedy delete or nomination. Far to much original research and personal point of view regarding Pederasty, which is not the true meaning of this term.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the true meaning of this term, and what evidence do you have to back that up? Haiduc (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In his book, "A Problem in Greek Ethics" By John Addington Symonds, the author admits on page 16 that "It has frequently occurred to my mind that the mixed type of paiderastia which I have named Greek love took it's origins in Doris". The author admits here that he has simply labeled Pederasty as such. He offers no reference in history to do this and has convinced me this book is speculation, that veers off from others. Even throughout the book the author makes the distinction that not all sources agree with his assesment.

Greek love is simply the male bounding of two people. There is no evidence that I can find to determine that the phrase indicates a man-boy relationship.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best argument I have that this is a misleading route to go with this subject, is the work of JZ Eglinton, (Walter Henry Breen). Greek love which from what I can find is basically an attempt to use the term "Greek love" as an excuse for pedophilia. Is this incorrect? As I see it, all sources to his work do not cite it as definite. He is listed as the main person responsible for the idea that Greek love is man-boy love.

This article would require far more than the controversial and questioned work of these authors, and I do not see much to go on.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the table of contents for the book "Greek Love" by JZ Eglinton;

I. Theory and Practice

1. Objectives

2. Some common Objections Answered

3. Greek Love as a Social Problem

4. Greek Love as a Solution to a Social Problem

5. The Theory and Practice of Love

6. Sexual Aspects of Greek Love

7. Some uncomplicated Greek Love Affairs

8. Some Difficult Greek Love Affairs

II. History and Literature

9. Historical Synopsis

10. Boy-love in Ancient Greece

11. Boy-love in Ancient Rome

12. Boy-love in the Middle Ages

13. Boy-love in the Renaissance

14. Boy-love in the Restoration, Enlightement, Romantic Period

15. Boy-love in the 19th Century

16. The 20th Century -- Divergent Traditions

Seems pretty clear what the author was aiming at just looking at this. I doubt i will have any interest in actualy reading this book....or even touching it. (ok...the last part was a joke...no not really)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you believe this use of the term to be incorrect, and that its true meaning is something else. But what I was asking was not to have you try to prove that this is the wrong meaning, but to lay out your evidence for that other, correct meaning that you claim. What exactly is this meaning of the term "Greek love" that you label as "true" and what sources do you have to back it up? I do not mean to be snide, this is how we resolve disagreements and how we improve the articles. Haiduc (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your being snide. However you are talking semantics now. Try to prove, and lay out my evidence? Isn't that sort of the same thing?

I am laying out my evidence. This subject is not agreed upon by scholars (putting it mildly). There is no definitive work for this that can be used so far as I am seeing that justifies labeling "Greek love" as definitely the sexual relationship between man and boy. Many argue that scholars that do, are confusing subjects. One author, ( I can't remember who now) even went so far as to define Homosexuality as man-boy sex.

Kenneth Dovers book, "Greek Homosexuality" does treat the subject better and goes into detail about the confusion of some previous work.

The article is certainly not workable the way it is. It's use of other work based entirely on Pederasty is unencyclopedic and original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if both Shelley and Symonds used the term, there's notability for an entry in Wikipedia. I have little opinion on the content but would say

• that if the term has limited usage, that should be clearly noted in the article, and
• if it's being applied with a broader brush than the sources support, it should be trimmed (to stub length, if necessary).

But deletion seems unwarranted. And unless there's clearly consensus here, it should go for a full AFD review. Rivertorch (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not to sure if Shelly used the term (edit: in more than poetry). I believe it was Byron and I am not sure that makes it notable in itself however as you said I have been trimming and realized that I would be left with very little after removing dead links, inappropriate citations, unverifiable information and the inappropriate use of OR to link Pederasty to the term. In short after looking through the history I have come to very much doubt the accuracy of the article and its notability.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If no full consensus the article will not be tagged for Speedy deletion (not sure it would qualify), and will go to AFD, of course. (unless something drastic happens) Other ways to deal with this may be to simply rename the article, Man-boy love or merge with Pederasty.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you have responded to my request. You claimed that there was a true meaning of the term that was different from the one applied here, and I asked you to define that meaning and back it up. Instead you continued to attempt to refute the meaning as understood by the main editor of this article, and myself. This is not constructive. Let's see what Dominique has to say. Haiduc (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir, it's already on the page. It was there before I began editing. I have not ADDED any information that I have to justify at this time. I am justifying the removal of information as I should. I am Justifying the deletion as I should. As I have stated, I am not the only one on this talk page that has questioned it's prose and the direction of the article. It is not as if it isn't something that can't be referenced, what I am saying is so far what references I have seen for this article are very few as far as reliable and appropriate. Both you and the other editor claim to be teachers. You don't agree that this article has become almost exclusively about the subject of pedophilia?

Another thing, I didn't realize that Percy Shelly and Lord Byron wrote nonfiction. I will have to read them. For I had been under the understanding that these two gentlemen were poets. Poetry is not non fiction and can only be used as a reference to directly discuss the poem. Saying that just because Byron mentions "Greek love" in a poem doesn't make it notable in my view. Rivertorch brought this up and I think it is important to mention.

Haiduc said this "If I were to theorize, I would say that this is a form of pederasty that is moderate or pedagogic, in the style of the Greek ideal, and that transcends the Greek boundaries and thus can be traced a thread that reappears at various times and places in history, such as Victorian England and perhaps the Middle Eastern shahid bazi tradition (both of which were informed by the writings of the Greeks)." That is actually Platonic love. It appears that Byron and Shelly may be used in the article in a misleading way. While they may mention the term, it has not been proven that their writings can even be used for more than illustration. They certainly are not reliable sources to say this was an actual term used regarding a specific definition.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't much care whether the article stays or goes but am glad it is going through proper AFD channels. Incidentally—and this has little bearing on the point you were making—poetry is usually considered nonfiction. Rivertorch (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is now midnight here, and I have just returned from afar to find this sudden onslaught. My intention is to compare the work of reputable scholars whose views vary considerably - the current section will include a reference to J. Davidson's work whose views may be more in line with views expressed above. Personally I do not have much truck with Breen, and I agree that any statements or positions have to be referenced. All in good time. I have no intention of misrepresenting any source, or of using unreliable or apologist material. It is of course a controversial subject - no less today - which will attract both extreme reactions, or a reasoned response: the term itself (Greek love) is being approached in the light of usage by principle writers already highlighted. I have more books and articles on order, and will need time to evaluate. I shall of course welcome guidance and comment from historians or classicists with particular interest in Greek antiquity. --Dominique (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the outcome be that the article remains, two additional projects have been added and there may be additional input. I do not doubt your intentions. As the major contributor to the article I am sure you feel strongly about the subject. There are many editors and the tone of almost boosterism eventually creeps into articles. If the article remains I hope that we can broaden the coverage of the subject and not shy away immediately just because we do not agree on everything.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags on article

The tags were placed for the following reasons;

It may contain original research or unverifiable claims - The synthesis of the article is tilted and heavily weighted in a manner that may constitutes original research.

The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed - Consensus is not clear on notability for two years. Although silence can be seen as consensus, it was and still is a debatable issue here. OR issues question notability.

It may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia - Possible agenda based editing.

Its truthfulness has been questioned - In short the overall truthfullness of the article and groups of articles including this one, Platonic love, Pederasty in ancient Greece may be compromised by a social and political POV. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrogance or Goodwill disguised?

The retention or deletion of this article - as you know - was already discussed in June 2007 under the title (see above) 'Addressing the claim that this article is redundant and unencyclopedic' by R Welland whose credentials for making a judgment are impeccable, and who was personally responsible for listing authors responsible for 'solidifying' the use of 'Greek love' as an authentic term. Mr Madscientist, I am not sure whether your sudden attack on this article is politically motivated, but it certainly lacks scholarly sensitivity. In any event, making large deletions without proper discussion is usually considered a form of vandalism. I am not convinced that you are interested in my rationale for expanding the article: the new section is intended to summarise the background and current scholarship on the subject in order to avoid the very charges of OR, POV, or slant, which you seem anxious to make. This represents a significant amount of research motivated by a desire to present the material comprehensively and impartially, and with necessary references. Included in the material will be a discussion of 'Age-classes' and the 'paedophile myth' of Greek love, the term itself being understood (by mainstream scholars) to embrace pederasty and its institutions, but to extend well beyond this. The 'Controversies' section, barely begun, but deleted as though in anticipation of 'Non-Notability' or 'non-verifiable' claims, is central to the whole project's purpose, that of dealing with some of the issues (which you raise), not in the editor's words, but in the words of the scholars themselves. What could be more non-POV than that, especially if one highlights conflicting views? Incidentally, the Percy critique of Dover will have to be restored for that reason alone. Clearly the repression of controversy will not serve an enquiry such as the present one.

I do agree that the balance of the material is a matter for thought, but this can be done only when the overall scheme is understood. The re-casting of the Intro history is on the agenda, and the possible attenuation of the bullet-pointed background summary (which directly refers to the words of Dover & Percy). Headings under 'Controversies' will most likely be: Sex and Domination (a key point of interpretation), Age-classes (sim.), (Greek love in) Homer, Eros and Philia, Mythology, and possibly others. Nothing can be done quickly, if it is to be done well, and I would shirk the prospect of undertaking such a complex task unaided. It is however important that it is done in a spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation. Yes, I am interested in the subject, but have no particular axe to grind unless it be the desire to uphold "the intrusion of moral evaluation, 'the deadly enemy of science'", as in Dover! It may be appropriate that all preparatory work be done offline, rather than run the risk of inviting immediate and spontaneous interference/editing of an article undergoing radical re-examination - in which case I shall delay the restoration of deleted material. You, on the other hand, will have to be persuaded that you are dealing with editors of quality and impartiality, though like anyone else you are free to raise questions and comments, and hopefully to avoid direct accusations. WP is a marvelous medium, though popular opinion and esoteric thought are usually irreconcileable.

It will be interesting to see whether this enquiry, given due time, will attract positive interest or support. --Dominique (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Motives?

While I have not attacked any individuals, You come here and attack my motive on an article that has clear agenda driven edits. The connections between this article and several others that attemtpt to boost pedaphilia or "pederasty" as a common idea exclusive to the articles, while pushing other definitions with scholarly, and academic work back or reducing them to small notes are clear.

The articles in question include this one, and Platonic love, (where an editor has accussed an academic source as "making it up". But not seeming to notice the blatant misuse of the first couple of references, even sticking in the wording of man-boy inappropriatly, when the authors make no mention of it. There are several more article and they are all linked together with Direct links used above the lede. Wikipedia has been notified through the proper channels.

Call it what you will, but Wikipedia has strict standards that are blatantly being ignored on these and many other articles of similar subject.

The chance that this could fall into an edit war and a heated outright fight with you, is a possibility I am not going to take. You may do and say as you wish. No amount of overweighted attention to one side of any article is appropriate and you know that well. One article is OR and POV and agenda driven editing. Several articles constitutes a conspiracy towards an inappropriate use of social and political propaganda. Who these editors are is easily seen in the history of those articles and this one. What changes are made and what information is used, is within the history of each article and is accessible to all.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors, Administrators, Please see this!

There is an asserted effort on pages in wikipedia towards a slant to political agenda, I have edited my comments here to not accuse editors here, even unnamed. I do not know that any editors on this page may be a part of other documented efforts, but remind editors to be careful to be more nuetral and edit pages of major interest to them with these subjects with care.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Wikipaedophilia

There is a serious problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this extremly interesting as well;

http://www.wikisposure.com/Wikipedia_Campaign

--Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Using off wiki rantings against soem WP:Cabal to justify deletion isn't very convincing. If you have any actual evidence of wrong-doing then present that evidence. Otherwise this suggests an inflated Think of the children witchhunt. Sorry, we don't operate that way. -- Banjeboi 07:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't control what you think, my concern is for the truth and frankly I resent that as blatantly ridiculous, and uncalled for. Give me a break. How about "think about reality". This is an encyclopedia. As for those off wiki "ranting", those are open source sites just like this site, but this is not an article. At least I didn't use an open source link like this as a reference as found on this article and removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Many special interest groups use Wikipedia to advance their points of view. Just think of the many nationalist edit wars or of what went on around the last American election. It's nto surprising that some groups may want to influence this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A way out of this mess

I do not know if I can keep up with this onslaught, but I will say that I do not see any problem with this article that cannot be resolved in a scholarly manner and with a level head. I will mention, however, that the flurry of recent edits have gutted the framework of the piece, and have made a dog's breakfast of what was shaping up as a complicated but thorough and important article. The present formulation is substandard from any editorial point of view. What needs to be done is to go back to the last complete version of the article and then reference material as needed, without waving red flags or red capes. Haiduc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a bold rewrite in a nuetral manner with encyclopedic tone that stays honest with the subject and does not push personal, social or political points of view. I believe you are too close to these articles and may suffer from Wikistress. I suggest that you step back and take a break.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarity is needed on what this article is about. There is already an article on Pederasty in ancient Greece. Therefore, if this article is to remain, it has to be on something else. And that is how modern writers have used their vision of what the practice was in ancient Greece to build a concept (or several concepts) of Greek love as something applicable to modern times.

This needs to take account of the modern conception being a moving target. There have been some mentions above of Greek love as an equal relationship, others of it as pedagogic and therefore necessarily age-structured. Meanwhile Chambers Dictionary defines the term as simply meaning anal sex (without indicating any restriction on the sex of the receiving partner).

And we need to look for critical voices too. Greek Love was written at a time when sexual relationships between male professors and female students passed with little comment. Now it is likely to be treated in many institutions as gross professional misconduct. In Britain, there is a higher age of consent when a caring or similar relationship exists between the partners, representing a different take on things from that of the author of Greek Love.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A good assessment: it is the lack of clarity, and the (understandable) opportunism of some recent scholar-authors to use the ambiguities inherent in the term, Greek love, to promote a particular interpretation, which provides timely motivation for seeking a viable definition in the article. James Davidson's recent tome is a case in point offering interesting material for the 'Controversies' section envisaged. I like your point about 'a moving target', and I would like to think that there is a way of making that target a little less mobile, even if still centred (as in Davidson) on the diverse phenomena in antiquity. --Dominique (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Very good assessment. There is a complicated tradition here, that is being somewhat fractured throughout the articles on this subject. The Ancient traditions of Greek philosophy, Eros (as a deity with dual traditions and as an idea) and Cupid (the Roman equivalent , Kalos (which doesn't have a proper page but redirects to Kalos inscription, which does at least relate to the archaeological evidence), and the graffiti of the ancients left on walls of stadiums, columns and rocks. These are the actual expressions of love left by real people in love with real people. The inscriptions of pottery and the pottery itself. Then there are the original surviving poetry and oral traditions of the original Hellenistic age and the writings of the many who wrote about or used these subjects as plot device as used in Jason and the Argonauts. Then, there is what the Romans thought.

Could a renaming (move) to "Neo Hellenistic Greek Love" or "Neo classical Greek love" be an appropriate proposal. The article can keep the emphasis on the 19th century movement with an overview explaining the ideology of the original Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians etc. Then begin as the article does and go on to other forms of influence and authors like Evelyn Waugh and Oscar Wild, all the way up to it's influences on LGBT studies as well as film and televison.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stepping back

I am stepping back from this situation and these articles and will be continuing my own research on these subjects through my personal sub pages. I am gathering references, building a structured article and will split it into the varying subjects over time and eventually edit the actual articles with full references. I tend not to edit this way as instant changes to articles can be perceived as too bold, but sometimes these style of editing is more appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD dilemma.: What is Greek love?

‘Indeed, most people who vote to keep the article really have no idea what it's about…’ hardly qualifies as a statement of faith, but which nevertheless may or may not be a fair estimate of the true support for the retention of this article. It may be helpful to those on either side of the argument to consider the complexity of finding an answer to the burning question beyond giving a dictionary-type definition e.g. Greek love = Greek homosexuality.

My quest for a more detailed description has led me to consider the writings and scholarly enquiries of those classicists and historians currently engaged in this very task. Most recently, James Davidson has published a lengthy study entitled “The Greeks and Greek Love – a Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece” (2007), which from the opening page delineates the size of the problem:

“For centuries, Greek homosexuality or Greek Love – what the Romans referred to as ‘the Greek custom’ (mos Graeciae, mos Graecorum) – has been one of the knottiest problems in all of Western history.”

Four hundred and sixty-six pages later - in the Conclusion section – the author confirms this opening observation, adding: “Such a claim is not incontestable, but I have found no cause to change my mind. Certainly it has been one of the most difficult subjects I have tackled as a modern historian of ancient Greece – elusive, complicated, and hard to fathom – which is precisely what makes it so fascinating a subject to explore.” His elaboration continues: “…if Greek Love is a knotty subject in the sense of ‘tangled’, it is also knotty in the sense of ‘tying lots of things together’, not merely a junction that is difficult to navigate, but one where many different routes to many different destinations converge, a distinctive feature of Greek art, Greek society, Greek philosophy, poetry, history, what ties the court of Polycrates, archaic tyrant of Samos, to the courts of the kings of Macedon, what ties Hyacinthus, the hero mourned at Sparta’s most important shrine, to Pelops, hero of Olympia…” and so forth.

As a humble WP editor, I quail before the impossibility of coming up with a potted version bound by the limitations of a public forum and confined space. The one thing that I – or other editors – cannot do is to oversimplify the task. My original intention (as stated) was to lay out the material, scholarly arguments, presentations and controversies, so that at least the reader can get a sense of the scale and depth of the subject. This alone would be an achievement, and even a means by which individual readers could be drawn into exploring the lives, beliefs and loves among our distant ancestors whose cultural and, yes, spiritual world still impinges upon our own.

There are controversies all the way, not least as to how Greek Love, as an immutable force, may yet have impact on our modern world. --Dominique (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)--Dominique (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I encounter with the article and the way it handles the subject is that it is too narrow and does not even attempt at much effort to do much more than discuss scholarly opinion of literary subjects and their views. That just seems somewhat dilluded. While I like the Davidson assesment provided, the book is a new theory which should be treated with due weight. So new that my local library is still pocessing it's addition. I would certainly be interested in reading it and getting a better understanding what new ideas he has.

Nothing is impossible if one sets ones mind to it. This is just an encyclopedia, it's not a school of philosophy or spiritual sanctuary, who's essence must be weighed with each subject and an offering made. I don't doubt your intentions to layout a subject in a very lethargic, and well thought out manner. I just ask what subject it is you are laying out?

I am simply unclear what you want out of the article. Some editors are easy to read, because they wear their hearts on their user page, some even have agenda sections so it is clear. Others have no aimed direction in general or in articles. I know you have a direction for this article. What do you want it to be? Do you agree that the scope should be as broad as is neccesary to cover the subject, it's history, and the findings of accepted and reliable sources?

If that's a yes, then there should be a great article. But I have questions that are legitimate as well. Like about the reference format. Is that a debatable subject for change? Is the renaming of this article a debatable subject with you? Could you give me your thoughts on that?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dominique, I believe your intentions are good but the identity Greek Love = Greek Homosexuality is the very reason why this article should not be retained. We already have an article on Greek homosexuality. You are obviously trying to create a more nuanced approach to the topic, selecting from various sources, but that appears to be a highly personal selection and nobody really understands the particular criteria you are using. That confusion opens the door for others to twist this article to suit an agenda of their own. The people who are voting to retain this article really have no idea what they are voting for and you need to establish this article's criteria in the current debate before it is too late. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments

Since the publication in 1964 of Greek Love by J. Z. Eglinton (the pseudonym of Walter Breen), the term 'Greek love' has been authenticated in Humanities scholarship, being employed in the titles of books by major cultural critics, as, for example, Louis Crompton's Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in 19th-Century England (1985), David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and Other Essays on Greek Love (1990) and James Davidson's The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece (November 2007).

References

The references next to the mention of each book is intended only to show that the book was published and seems unnecessary. The next reference appears to be the exact same thing, as all references on this section are doing. None of the references justify the section at all and constitutes original research and a ponit of view. I am removing this section and the references attached--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Article

OK, so I returned the article to the last edit by Dominique as was suggested to use as a starting page to work on the article. I discussed and removed only the blatant errors. We are pretty much back to where we were before...except for another editors removal of a section and the sections that I had removed as having no references before are back.

There are still to be seen if all references match the claims being made. Edits and trimming to conform with consensus that the article is overweighted, have not begun or attempted. Sections lacking context have not been discussed to gain consensus as to their need in the article (like the laundry list of block quotes with no prose).

It is a start.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A, I very much appreciate all the time and effort you are putting into this project. Even though we may not always see eye to eye, I can see that you are taking this matter very seriously and you are trying to do the right thing. I cannot be as involved as you, I just do not have that kind of time, but I do want to lend a hand from time to time, as I am able, and bearing in mind that Dominique had a very good plan for the article, a plan that would be a pity to disembowel. Specifically I am referring to his work of putting together the various interpretations of Greek Love, from Dover to Davidson, and who know who else. That kind of overview would be very useful to any student of the topic, because the philosophy of homosexuality (of which Greek love is a part) and the understanding and interpretation of homosexual history have been evolving very quickly over the last 150 years. It is sheer nonsense to throw all that work that Dominique has done into the garbage, and it could only have happened as a result of a misunderstanding. Like you I am not inclined to play the revert game, nevertheless we have to restore the material so that the article can continue to grow. Haiduc (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Committee for keeping Greek Love

The following users all voted successfully to keep this article and they should all consider themselves responsible for its current state. No doubt some of you would like to walk away from it. However, it was generally acknowledged in the debate that the article has been badly corrupted and it is in need of cleaning up. Obviously you all know what the article is about since you voted to keep it, and now you should work together to 'restore' it to whatever status is consistent with the article's criteria. Personally I don't think it has any clear set of criteria at all and this will make it difficult to protect from POV opportunists but that's your problem, not mine.
Will Bebacktalk
Peter cohen
Haiduc
Edward321
Allstarecho
Geronimo20
Born Gay
Dominique Blanc
Mendaliv
Dream Focus
Mbhiii
Good luck with your endeavours to improve Wikipedia's credibility! Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have severely misunderstand the nature of an AFD, starting from the fact that it is not a vote in the first place. People who !voted Keep are no more a committee that people who !voted Delete. No one who expressed a view on that AFD, regardless of what that view was, is responsible for the current content of the article. Nor do any of us have any more responsibility to improve the article or keep it from being vandalized than any other member of the project. Someone who thinks the article should be kept has just as much right to walk away from the article as you do. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER anyone? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not clean up. It is to determine if an article's subject is notable enough to remain, and nothing more. There are thousands of articles out there that need some help, we all doing what we're interested and capable of doing. Dream Focus 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well this falls under the heading of... WTF. Dude. I've been accused of paranoia, caring too much for the children, being uncomfortable with the subject, and many, many other things due to my AFD nomination of this article......but that is a part of the process. Not everyone is going to have the same ideas as to what AFD is. Some think it is simply about notability, others that it is a strict vote. It is neither. It is a debate within the community meant for the purpose of improving the article and Wikipedia. The AFD will help improve this article just by supplying the needed consensus that problems the article does have, DO need to be addressed. The debate helped editors get a good idea as to how multiple editors view the subject as notable enough to keep but references need verification and checking against claims, etc.

There was no reason to become uncivil, and upset. You have more options than this, one of which is to contribute to the article. I know many people are uncomfortable with that. Many editors are more than willing to defend articles they have no intention of ever editing, but many people critical of the article are just as unwilling to contribute.....maybe more.

Wikipedia has a process. It took me some time to get to understand it, but I know I followed guidelines, kept my cool and persisted with civility. Take a breath, and collect your thoughts and return to the debate when you are not angry.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider myself responsible for the state of this article, or under any obligation to edit or improve it. I may or may not do this, as time and my other interests on Wikipedia permit. I would politely ask the user who listed me as part of the "committee" to keep this article not to comment on my talk page in future. Born Gay (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I stumbled across this lengthy book review and thought it might be a useful source for those who are working on this article. The review doesn't make clear whether this is a new edition of Davidson's book, but it does go into considerable relevant detail. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many more scholars with much more to say on the subject of ancient Greek sexual practices, and the debate to the extent and value given the subject of same sex relations continues, however there are accepted forms of research that specifiably deal with the subject as an idea or concept specific to the use of the term that need expanding. While the actual words "Greek Love" are in the titles of the books, that does not make them the definitive works in the field or make it clear that their use is correct....especially radical new appraisals.

We need to establish the earliest known use of the term, and whether or not it directly translates from any form of Ancient Greek alphabet. Once this is established it needs to be explained how the term is defined in relationship to the ancient Greek practices. Next we have to go through history in reference to the phrase and it's actual use. The Romans are important to this article and should not be under estimated in there possible contributions to these term. The next would be christian doctrines and suppression, the renaissance, 19Th century Hellenism, 20Th century etc.

While all the scholarly and academic references are great, they are not the subject of the article unless it specifies such in the title. As it stands this article is just "Greek Love". It is a very generic term used by different historians for different reasons. Literature is valuable and needs to be discussed, especially as part of the bigger idea of a rekindling of an ancient concept, but just stating that they wrote this line and wrote that line is not encyclopedic. It lacks context as to why it is notable that they wrote "that line". A statement to such, explaining notability of any quote and how it relates to the subject is a must. A published reference verifying that statement is essential.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Accessment of prose and references

I am going to begin going through the article to see if small fixes can be made to any prose or references that lack context. Also some prose may not be supported by the reference. As part of that, I am going to be changing references in quotes to reflect the reference as either just showing the where the quote comes from or if it is supporting a claim.

If the citation is the origin of the quote itself, Quote marks should be used (""). The author should be credited with the book it is from (if the title is in the prose I still add the title next to the credit in the box for at a glance confirmation) and a separate source and reference to any claim being made about the quote.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

History

Here is a book that can be used as a reference to begin the history section in a nuetral manner, indepth and in a similar manner as the section is now, but which would require a bold rewrite in tone.

Sex and reason‎  by Richard A. Posner

A start to referencing a few claims being made but with a bit more neutrality and expanding on the thought. Good source of further information in detailed notes from the author.

Now another really good source to history as well as the archaeology is Stephen Miller.

Excavations at Nemea: The early Hellenistic Stadium by Steven G. Miller

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[http://www.jstor.org/pss/639540"Greek love in Rome--Amadscientist (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love

Bearing in mind the confused recent history of this article, I felt I needed to step back before making any judgment on the future direction of the article even after the present title had been retained. At the time the AFD issue was raised, the article was undergoing a ‘radical review’, new ‘draft’ material having been introduced, though no decision had been made about the final form of the article except that a considerably larger and more complex treatment was envisaged. Of course all this has been interrupted during the deletion debate.

I do not however wish to suggest that the original (evolving) plan has been indefinitely postponed but my part in it will of necessity be delayed since I simply do not have time at present to devote to it. My impression so far is that there have been some technical improvements, but the language and content of the revised introduction is questionable. I am not a mind-reader, but I suspect that the current editor (whose commitment and passion are beyond doubt) is not fully persuaded of the core meaning of the article’s subject. ‘Greek love’ – whatever extension of meaning is applied to this title –refers essentially to the ‘love’ practiced by the Ancient Greeks, which as we know from numerous sources, was pederastic, and not ‘homosexual’ as that category is understood today. It is however a term which has a wider connotation within the ancient world, reaching beyond the educational framework of pederasty to embrace not only intense emotional (rather than sexual) relationships between adult males, but a world of social, literary, philosophic, heroic and military interaction and accomplishment which was unique to the Hellenes. Thus Greek love was the driving force behind the ‘Greek Miracle’, as it is known, and has been adopted by major scholars and historians both as a designation of institutionalized pederasty and as an evocative reference to the wider ramifications of the Greek mind and outlook.

The popular notion of ‘Greek love’ – as a euphemism for modern homosexuality – is separate from this, and should receive little attention, if any, in the context of a serious article. But the scholarly application of the term still opens up wider discussion on a number of issues of import to our modern society, as for instance the problem of power differential and ‘abusive’ relationships about which we hear so much these days, or the politics of ‘assimilationist’ gay rights and the ‘marginalization’ of youth sexuality. Here I refer to an important publication (2000) under the title of ‘Greek Love Reconsidered’ edited by Thomas K Hubbard, and in particular Professor Hubbard’s own contribution, “Pederasty and Democracy: the Marginalization of a Social Practice” [4], which presents a clear and concise overview of the recent history of homosexual consciousness in Europe and its relation to Greek practice.

I regret that I must withdraw meantime from what I have considered an absorbing enquiry, but urge those presently involved or other knowledgeable classicists who have the time and stamina to offer their expertise in unraveling the complexities and paradoxes of this fascinating subject.--Dominique (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Platonic Love

I think the sentence The term itself is interchangeable with other modern interpretive phrases, such as "Platonic love" and "Socratic Love". is confusing as it nowadays platonic love associated with an asexual relationship (often involving people of different sexes). The source suggests that this was a usage of about 200 years ago in German texts, so the usage of "modern" is also confusing. The sentence in the lead is actually far more accurate, but I don't think this term merits mentions there.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to stay as close to the wording the reference supports I did lose more descriptive language. I can copy edit to be more specific.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nearly all academic sources point to the original intention of the phrase Platonic Love. The contemporary meaning is different from the modern. Modern is a relative term associated with many time periods one may not think of in those terms, but the usage of "Common Era" as well confuse people. I can certainly copy edit the line for a better narrative of the claim, but it is accurate. Platonic, Socratic and Greek love all have origins from the same philosophy and they truly are interchangeable.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Careless or dishonest editing

I have restored the original text and references for the Romantic/Victorian section, which was severely reduced on the grounds of poor referencing. I have checked the original references, and found them to be correct and specific in the main, thus answering a number of charges of "Reference does not support claim". I noted some 'Reference removed tags' ( re refs which appeared to have been removed anonymously, though with an identifiable Californian IP address). I have reverted the main images removed - on the grounds of irrelevance to text - noting in one case the related text had been removed in advance. A core definition of 'Greek Love' (by J.A. Symonds) - a topic uppermost in the recent deletion debate - has also been restored. As time permits I shall be looking closely at these irregularities - as I hope others will do - and as necessary file a report to the appropriate WP dept. --Dominique (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhm.......let me get this straight.......you want to "File a report" for my editing irregularities becuase you don't like what I deleted.

I do not recall making any mistakes in what was deleted by I will recheck what is there. All images must have clear relevance to what is being discussed. You are welcome to edit the article and contribute relevant information with, or with out proper sources. This is an open source medium and yu are acting like a child throwing a tantrum over the "Direction" you "planned' for this article. I have a better idea.....why don't we stick to the wikipedia way. Consensus cannot be formed by an individual, nor between two or three editors. Consensus is not a vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would request all editors here to maintain the rudiments of Wikipedia decorum. It is inappropriate to suggest that another's editing is dishonest, unless you have evidence to back it up. And telling someone they are childish is also inappropriate. Let's keep our opinions to ourselves, and focus on editing the article. Everybody has a POV, and only by collaborating are we likely to filter out personal bias. Haiduc (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there if you care to look at it. --Dominique (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Posner

Is it really necessary to quote Posner with this much emphasis? He is not a classicist (evidently; we know a great deal about the sexual customs of Thebes and Sparta, and a good bit about Corinth) or an expert on language. The point, insofar as it is not his POV, is linguistic, and essays on it should be at Wiktionary, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I had already earmarked the Posner quote for 'reconsideration' - apart from the 'classicist' angle, it sends out the wrong signals. From the linguistic angle, the use of modern terminology e.g. homosexual, with reference to the Greeks, is misleading. Even the maligned Dover - a brilliant philologist - made this clear (1978), a summary of his position being part of the original extension to this article. --Dominique (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it is necessary. Here is why. The posner quote fills several reference purposes along with the book reference itself supporting a number of different claims in the lead and overview that are points of controversy, That Greek Love can be in reference to homosexuality, that the phrase Greek Love, is used along with other phrases of a similar natur in brackets and that different phrases are in use by Scholars. The simple fact that Posner is not a linguist is irrelevant to any claim he is making. In Fact a linguistic expert may not be of any help in this article unless specifically talking about the term itself, which posner is. The use is not only needed but crucial.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, a reference for this article is not limited to linguistics, or academics of just classic studies.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot. The Posner quote also explains in very short and diliberat verbage that ancient Greek men were not homosexual. He explains it in fewer words than most, but is also along the lines of other historians. The formal way I refer to Judge Posner may make it stand out to some, but it is a legitimate reference. Leaving out sources just because they are not experts in specific fields does not disclude them. There are other theoris in social economics that do justify his use. The books is relavent to the subject. leaving out other fields, in my opinion, leaves out huge amounts of documentation that is well respected.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

While I didn't immediatly agree with the Posner assesment about the sexual cusoms of other city states, it appears he is correct and a little search of both the internet and Google books showed very little on the subject specificaly and what I did find was very short and mostly covered in other works talking about Athens.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Symonds

Now.....is it necessary to have two quotes from Symonds?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly, but if one had to choose, the 'Greek love' definition in the shorter quote, should be kept - after all the squabbling during the last week or so. Personally, a consensus would be helpful, and like some other matters, a decision is not urgent. May I add that the matter of any source that raises queries should be treated seriously. --Dominique (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia policy on neutrality

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Wikipedia should not have a view as to whether a topic or event is amusing, interesting, ironic, (in)significant or (un)fortunate. Avoid using adjectives like these, and their corresponding adverbs, to express an editorial opinion or a personal observation in an article. If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so and why, citing sources to support the claim. If a matter is inherently amusing, the reader should not need to be told.

It may be appropriate to use "ironic" in a context such as "Alabama 3 made ironic use of a sample of a Jim Jones speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent here is that of the artist.

Similarly, whereas "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" is an editorial opinion, the alternative phrase "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be acceptable if it is clear from the context why this was unfortunate. Still, it may be better to avoid the adverb altogether, and simply state "Smith could not attend."

The words "significant" and "significantly" require special care as they make a claim sound authoritative. For example, in "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote", the word "significantly" is unsupported, and should be removed unless it can be attributed, as in "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote", with a citation to support the claim.

In science and medicine the word "significant" means that a statistical test has shown that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance (see statistical significance). Do not use the word in the colloquial sense when this technical meaning might be implied.

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

Avoid drumming up interest in facts or trivia by tagging them with editorial remarks. For example, it is generally unhelpful to prefix a fact or development with comments like “interestingly”, “ironically”, “surprisingly”, "the researchers were shocked to find" or “it should be noted” and the like. Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy.

Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Wikipedia should not have a view as to whether a topic or event is amusing, interesting, ironic, (in)significant or (un)fortunate. Avoid using adjectives like these, and their corresponding adverbs, to express an editorial opinion or a personal observation in an article. If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so and why, citing sources to support the claim. If a matter is inherently amusing, the reader should not need to be told.

It may be appropriate to use "ironic" in a context such as "Alabama 3 made ironic use of a sample of a Jim Jones speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent here is that of the artist.

Similarly, whereas "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" is an editorial opinion, the alternative phrase "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be acceptable if it is clear from the context why this was unfortunate. Still, it may be better to avoid the adverb altogether, and simply state "Smith could not attend."

The words "significant" and "significantly" require special care as they make a claim sound authoritative. For example, in "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote", the word "significantly" is unsupported, and should be removed unless it can be attributed, as in "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote", with a citation to support the claim.

In science and medicine the word "significant" means that a statistical test has shown that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance (see statistical significance). Do not use the word in the colloquial sense when this technical meaning might be implied.

Ok, this is a good review for me as well--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

questionable

Amadscientist, why do you persist in replacing "couched in elaborately conceived circumlocution" with "questionable"? Who is questioning and on what grounds? Haiduc (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Please leave Apollo alone with his text (Hyacinthus can wait) which I have restored yet again. And....if I may suggest, directing footnotes to the Reference section is more convenient than in the Notes when a particular point is being expanded. No slur, I should add, on the technical know-how of the editor concerned.--Dominique (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)