Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Homosexuality in ancient Greece

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, Page contains bias and unsupported claims 66.233.19.170 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The page contains no credible evidence to support the claims made. The article makes controversial and disputed statements as if they are fact. --Cretanpride 06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)cretanpride[reply]
This is a brand-new user whose first edits were to the article's talk page and this discussion. Gazpacho 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While the article needs citation and NPOV, it does cover a subject which would be of great use to the encyclopedia. --chemica 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was rather disturbed by this page, I find it hard to believe ancient Greeks were well known pedophiles --Cloveious 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree, I was disturbed by this page and as a Greek, I find the article offensive. I have studied Greek literature and Greek history and I have lived in Greece and I find that what this article claims cannot be true.--Cretanpride 07:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't bold your opinion more than once, it doesn't count twice. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes references to back up the statements. Moreover, there is ample confirmation of most of the points in the article through the images on classical Greek pottery. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Sappho issue alone is one discussed in university classrooms and is encyclopedic. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add citations. Many sources, such as those listed in the militaries article, show the existence and awareness of homosexuality in ancient Greece. If you think sources do not exist or the article misrepresents sources, you can edit it. Gazpacho 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reeks of a bad faith or biased nomination. Sources are cited. More are needed, but this doesn't outright fail WP:V enough to be deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - sources are cited (although some claims may warrant footnotes, but that's hardly a hanging offence). What little I know on the topic tallies with what's there, although I'm hardly an expert on Ancient Greece or homosexuality in history. If anything, this should be tagged for expansion. I don't want to say "bad faith nom", but I'm seriously tempted to. BigHaz 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, appears to be a bad faith nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 09:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,while the article cites sources, they are not credible. One of the sources is a book review. Article also does not show the other side of the argument. There have been books published that argue against the contents of this article yet this article seems to have strictly one point of view.--66.53.98.122 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order/Comment - the book review is of a work by a man with academic credentials in the area, which implies at the very least that what's contained in the work under review is credible. The lack of "the other side of the argument" is not a reason to delete so much as it is a reason to expand the article with sources and information from the books which have been published arguing this other side. BigHaz 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit on this page arguing the other side which repeatedly got omitted because the link was considered an uncredible source. The uncredible source was a book review of the book entitled "Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece", It was also written by a man with academic credentials and showed what was in the book but was deleted. It seems as if, even if someone wanted, could not edit this article to argue the other side.--Cretanpride 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contend that the reason that particular citation was removed was due to its placement, more than its content. Further, Adonis Georgiades doesn't exactly leap out as a man with academic credentials beyond those perhaps in the teaching of language. William Percy, on the other hand (the man whose book review we're talking about) is a Senior Professor of History with a wide range of academic publications. Not necessarily a case that "my professor trumps your professor", but it might come close. BigHaz 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was more likely removed because the book is vanity-published and the review is right-wing partisan bullshit. Gazpacho 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may also be the case. I was giving the author of the book the benefit of the doubt (not to mention giving my historiographical radar the night off). That said, certainly the most recent removal of the link doesn't say anything about either reason. BigHaz 22:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand/add citations. SatyrTN 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SatyrTN Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a documented feature of classical Greek culture. Weregerbil 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs improvement but the article itself is useful and relevant. Blowski 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a serious encyclopediac topic. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - a good article, could probably have Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece merged into it. --Brianyoumans 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this is a well-established academic topic, not even debatable except for details. Haiduc 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I thought everybody was taught this in high school, as I was in NYC, mid-sixties. (no not a 'hands-on course') Bustter 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inarguably encyclopedic. Bad-faith nom. Daniel Case 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Well-documented aspect of ancient Greek civ. I did Classics in uni; I'll help clean it up. -- Merope 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Ancient ideas about sexuality differed from ours, and I'm not sure the category of "homosexual" as an identity in the current sense meant a great deal in ancient Greece, but ancient Greeks did not uniformly disapprove of same-sex acts. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a serious rewrite, The article is full of BS, POV, and erroneous cruft, or worse, OR erroneous POV cruf... Sappho was scandalous, and love between adult men was regarded with little more favor than in modern Iran or Saudi Arabia... The subject is worth keeping, the article as it currently stands is not. --Svartalf 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The article is clearly of encyclopedic value. It does need a rewrite, but the topic is discussed at length in universities and high schools around the world, not to mention countless History Channel specials, museums, books, and so on. Srose (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article does need to be sourced, and criticisms or disagreements are certainly apt where notable (I seem to remember Voltaire making a comment to the effect that, even if he were provided proof that the Greeks engaged in pederasty he still wouldn't believe it). As for use of the word 'homosexual' it is fairly common historian shorthand for "otherwise uncategorized same-sex eros", so I see no especial reason to change it. -Smahoney 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above. Well written article. Valoem ^talk 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Keep per Valoem —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dark Shikari, Daniel Case, Valoem, and others. Good article, so this appears that this is a bad-faith nomination. --Big top 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject looks like it covers an important part of ancient Greek culture. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever work this article needs to bring it up to the standard of, say, Spartan pederasty, should be done. This should be a vote about facts, not opinions. --Richhoncho 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article appears to be drivel (someone read Love, Sex, and Tragedy: Why the Classics Matters and put up the info, or I will when I finish it) but that is no reason to delete it. "Greek love" is constantly invoked in discussion on homosexuality and in the 90s the Colorado state legislature heard lengthy evidence from experts on Plato to try to dicover whether homosexuality was "natural" or not. This article is important. Dev920 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fixup per Dev920. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep This is the standard academic view on this topic (note: that does not necessarily mean that it isn't drivel) and, offended Greeks notwithstanding, the article should be kept. See a similar discussion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Roman Sexuality. JChap T/E 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -- Samuel Wantman 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why I really need to come here and say Speedy Keep for the love of God. Above and beyond all the discussion listed here so far. What we would call homosexual practices were for the Ancient Greeks not only existent, but crucial to the culture of the era. The offended Greeks should try and crack open a book, perhaps Halpern's book or, dare I say it, anything written by Plato. I'm tired of seeing Wikipedia being thrown to unacademic, anti-elitist dogs. The fact that an article on homosexual practices in Ancient Greece can even come up for deletion shows serious problems with the editorial system here. CaveatLector^Talk 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. -Smahoney 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well put. Perhaps in cases like this there should be a way to designate a page as a "protected keep", To be designated as a "protected keep" a page must garner an overwhelming consensus for being a keep, and would get a tag on the talk page that said "This page recieved an overwhelming consensus of opinion that it should not be deleted at this discusion at AFD. Please don't waste everyone's time nominating it again."

That would be nice. However, there are actually legit reasons for renomination sometimes. Maybe it should become standard to put a tag on the talk page saying "this page was nominated for deletion on this day. Unless there have been substantial changes, etc., etc., please do not renominate until this other day." -Smahoney 06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have read Plato's work and other Greek literature such as the Illiad and there is nothing that implies homosexuality. There is no evidence to suggest Achilles and Patroclus were gay. There is no evidence to suggest Alexander the Great was bisexual. It is common sense biology that if you are born heterosexual you will not want to participate in sexual acts with someone of the same sex. A thousand years from now what are people going to say about our culture? Are football and soccer players homosexuals for taking showers together naked and saying gay slang terms to each other? No they are not. I was never taught Ancient Greeks participated in acts like this growing up in Australia and I hope noone else was taught this disturbing material. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece seems a fabricated myth by historians who have their own agenda.--66.233.24.105 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]