Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:11, 28 January 2023

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 20. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.

The headcount is roughly evenly divided. The "keep" proponents argue that the list is adequately sourced and organised. The "delete" side counters that the list as a whole is original research by synthesis because of the (perceived) lack of an accepted definition of pederasty. Furthermore, in the opinion of the proponents of deletion, assigning the label "pederasty" to all sorts of often poorly documented relationships is also original research.

Although I find the "delete" argument to be more persuasive prima facie, there's really no objective basis for me to say that the "keep" side is wrong with their assertions to the contrary. For that, I'd have to examine every individual item and its source, which is obviously infeasible in this context. In short, I can't determine whose arguments are stronger, and so we've got no consensus.

Obviously, WP:BLP must be strictly observed in this article – some of the children involved, at least, might still be alive. Any inadequately sourced entries (especially those pertaining to the 20th century) should be summarily removed per WP:V and, as the case may be, per WP:BLP.  Sandstein  18:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical pederastic couples

• Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic couples
• Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic couples (2nd nomination)

Historical pederastic couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Haiduc (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article began its life as a list, but has over time become the storinghouse for any uncited claim of any person in history whom any editor wants to claim was involved in pederasty. In a number of cases (e.g. Leonardo DaVinci and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein), material appears in this omnibus which has been roundly rejected from the main article, thus turning this list into a de-facto POV content fork. Lastly, the decision for this to be a list, rather than a category (which might be defensible) smacks of original research: the desire to synthesize and publish original commentary on Misplaced Pages, which violates WP:NOR.

This article was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago, but the discussion surrounding it was very lightweight, on both sides of the issue. I'm hoping this nomination will get a bit more serious attention and thorough discussion. Nandesuka (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: "Pederast" is a term of law, not nature, and someone attempting to do political graverobbing is either trying to convict a number of people of a crime posthumously or trying to pile up so many corpses as to argue that the act is no crime. Either thing is bad. The "list" cannot be legitimate unless it serves a function as a list that a category wouldn't perform. Finally, this list is only valid if every single biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." If the authors and editors of those articles eject or reject it, then this is a POV fork. For three reasons: delete. Geogre (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Where is it "a term of law"? Is it even mentioned in the penal code? Please elighten me. Fulcher (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to me to be a serious, generally well-referenced article. Pederast is not a legal term, as claimed, but a term that has been used historically in exactly the way it is used in the article. It was prodded a few days ago by someone who obviously had a POV reason to get it deleted and claimed it was an attempt to "legitimise paedophilia" (as Geogre also suggests above), which it is clearly not. I can see no attempt here to legitimise anything, just to document. If the "pederasty" is only an allegation then that should be reliably referenced, and in most cases it is (and if it is not, then of course it should be removed) - if an allegation against a deceased person has been publicly made and is appropriately referenced then it is encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please to find a historical usage of "pederast" that is not an allegation of a crime. Do this first. Second, the list is not documented at all. Having a rumor is having a rumor, and reporting as fact the rumor is foolhardy intellectually, and illegitimate politically. I still await an explanation of what this list does as a list instead of a category that is useful. Geogre (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a pederast is "A man who has or desires sexual relations with a boy." No allegations of crime (note the "desires"!) or description as a legal term. As to documenting rumour: should we not document rumour if that rumour is significant and generally believed? If it appears in a reliable source then of course it should be documented. Should we not document who was "rumoured" to be Jack the Ripper or that King John was "rumoured" to have had his nephew murdered? Of course we should. The rumour is a fact, even though the thing rumoured may not be a fact. As to categories over lists, this is a longstanding debate but there is no WP policy or guideline against lists and a list does what a category cannot: it provides information in one place. I find this to be an interesting list not because I have any desire to legitimise paedophilia (and as I said, I can see no evidence that it has been created for that purpose), but simply because it is an interesting list! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there's also no mention in the OED of the way Misplaced Pages defines pederasty -- as (1) a relationship rather than a desire or "relations" and (2) as particularly with adolescents rather than with boys in general. Misplaced Pages has chosen an idiosyncratic sub-definition used by a small group of writers, made that definition the primary one, and then generalized it from its culture of origin to the entire world. Dybryd (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but remove uncited examples even if that's 90% of the content. There's precidence for that. I do understand the nominator's objections and concerns. Lists like this soon degrade into unencyclopedic OR, but we're not allowed to ban them based on that. We are, however, allowed and encouraged to remove uncited content especially if it is whatsoever provocative or controversial. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be 90% or more. Let's put it this way: you find a letter where X says that Y loved him deeply and the two spent all their days together one summer. It was written in 1580. Homosexuality? No. You can find Thomas More and Erasmus speaking that way of each other, and the two were models of probity and heteronormative behavior. In prior ages, it is stupid (not ignorant, but outright stupid) to interpret "love" as more than affection. Discourse changes over time. "Homosexual" as a category did not exist before the 19th century, and therefore something like pedophilia+homosexuality+power (a rough equivalence of "pederasty") is impossible as an application. Unambiguous documentation is so rare as to be unheard of (Oscar Wilde is about as early as anyone may go), so anything about prior ages is speculation or pointed interpretation. Those who read Foucault's History of Sexuality will know that even the ancient Athenian (not "Greek") culture had something where elder men were expected to have younger men, but this very rarely involved sexual intercourse, and these men were also with women (and temple prostitution was rife), so trying to use a contemporary term to limit such lives is inexplicable except to forgive contemporary political and criminal outlaws. Geogre (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I wish this article and hundred like it were never created but think this one has a right to exist under current guidelines. I thoroughly understand your argument. Really. Really. But saying "it is stupid (not ignorant, but outright stupid)..." adds no weight to your argument and seem unnecessarily uncivil towards editors who might make good faith errors in interpreting references to events of past centuries. To make such errors would indeed be caused by ignorance of specific cultural context. That's very much a different thing from “outright stupid”-ity. More opinions may be added here that differ from yours. Do stay cool. (c :17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Were the distinction and historicism of "love" rare or hard to obtain knowledge, I would be quite tolerant, but I suspect that this list owes existence to bad faith. Again, can someone ignorantly assume and mistakenly state? Of course. Would someone create a list, though, whose purpose is to establish that there are numerous persons from ages prior to the 19th century who were "pederasts?" That's a special term, and I invite anyone to find a lexical definition that treats it as culturally ambiguous or non-criminal. It is a word that from Greek onward is denotative of abuse. To use such a special pleading and then suppose that there is a list that will serve a function? No. That's too many mistakes to attribute to bumbling, too much politics to attribute to pluralism. List articles are special on Misplaced Pages, because their function is duplicated by categories, so a list has to prove itself as a list. This one does not, because it requires rather than invites or allows assumptions and very prejudiced interpretation. I am, I assure you, quite cold about this matter, but tolerance is not apathy. Geogre (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good points, perhaps valid. But might not an argument based on lexonographical conservatism invite someone (not me!) to suggest a rename to "Historical intergenerational all-male couples" or "Teenage/Adult sexual and/or male romatic couples in history" or whatever? Then we'd have the same ugly article with an even uglier name. If some feels there just has to be an article about "Dead chickenhawks and their boy toys" (how's that for a rename suggestion!) it might not be preventable. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but remove any unsourced material. This page is well written, has a huge number of RS, and otherwise seems to stand up. The only problem is potential BLP issues and the ICK factor. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep after thorough scrubbing. This is bound to need regular oversight (in the non-wiki sense of the word) to guard against inappropriate bias, but clearly a proper article can be written and maintained with proper sources. Once the unsourced and poorly sourced material is removed, what remains is appropriate Misplaced Pages fare. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete from the same reasons mentioned by Geogre. --Olahus (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep

1. Only lightwieght and spurious arguments have been advanced against it. "Pederasty" in academia is different from the term is law, thus that argument is irrelevant here.
2. Whether the main articles cover this or not is immaterial - the information either is valid or is not, on its own terms.
3. Most entries are referenced, only the early ones were not because they were compiled before the new standards went into effect. They are the easiest of all to document as most are common knowledge and widely documented. Leave fact tags and I or someone else will get around to it. Haiduc (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• For living persons, I think things will need to be removed rather than "fact tagged" immediately per WP:BLP. And given the nature of the subject and the feelings associated with it, I'd go with the same for everyone else too. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we covering up homosexual relationships? Are we doing the same from now on with heterosexual ones as well? Haiduc (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note that Haiduc is a major author of this article and a proponent of changing biographical articles that reject these claims as flimsy to state that these persons were "pederasts." "Common knowledge" by his account is frequently, in my assessment, rumor. It is the kind of 'documentation' that would say that Malory was a rapist and Machievelli worshipped Satan. Geogre

(talk) 19:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would not personalize this, and address the issues, rather than the individuals involved in the conversation. Haiduc (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Equally speedy keep

Haiduc's reasons for keeping this article mirror my own. Welland R (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Wow! Here I was inventing an article like this over at the Dominionist AfD as an example as to why these lists are bad ideas, and son of a gun if one isn't actually here. Quoting from the article: The nature of the relationships have ranged from overtly sexual to what is now commonly referred to as platonic .... so based on this any adult male who has had any kind of relationship whatsoever with a young unrelated male is a pederast? The problem here is that someone has come up with a loose definition. Fine. There are people who are likely admitted to being a pederast, or have eyewitness evidence that they were engaged in a physical relationship. Again, OK, fine. The problem here is that there are a lot of people on this list who are here because they "fit the definition" (and sourced against that definition). I mean, I am a teacher, and I have non-romantic friendships with former students after they graduate. By this definition, you could add me to this list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Haiduc's arguments were the most convincing ones of this discussion. Fulcher (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Effectively novel synthesis, grabs a whole load of alegations from various sources, and rams them all together.

• Note that the attempts to insert cross-links to this article into the Bernard Montgomery article were by socks of the banned user:DavidYork71. David Underdown (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that it is Montgomery's principal modern biographer with full access to his papers who has documented this aspect of his life, and who has further documented the fact that he himself had a relationship with Montgomery when he was a boy, one that was chaste but nevertheless homoerotic. I add this here because David's brief note is easily misread so as to inappropriately cast a dubious light on this legitimate topic. Haiduc (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc's insistence on this point is, I think, the best demonstration of the inevitability of this article being used as a sort of floating POV fork. Nandesuka (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you and your pals, here, who seem insistent, and on a matter where you presume to counter a recognized scholar (Hamilton) with desultory chit-chat. Fine for you to bandy your opinions on each other's talk pages, not fine for you to impose it on the articles. Haiduc (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment concerns about what an article might be "used for" or the negative turns it make take in the future are never valid arguements for deletion. The converse, how an article might be improved, is often put forth as an argument and holds weight in the editorial community. Likewise, editorial agendas (pro and con) are not really relevant. Focus on articles, not editors. - House of Scandal (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A nice idea, but when the deletion is over the article being a POV fork, then there is no way to avoid talking about both intention, reception, and use of an article, and that means people. Yes, talk about the article, but you cannot talk about a gun in an insane asylum as if it were the same as a gun in a museum. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Delete any list whose unifying purpose is that listed persons have had certain allegations leveled against them. Unless the facts are broadly agreed-upon, it is an inappropriate way of tying people together. The allegations may or may not be true, but that can be discussed on the subject's own article. The counter-argument that the list might be kept while "removing uncited examples" will not solve the problem. Some of the examples (such as da Vinci) do have citations, but the allegation has been moderated by consensus on the subject's own page. A page like this, which affirms the allegation by its very title, cannot possibly achieve the required subtlety. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not materially different from List of LGBT couples. Plus, your slanted approach is out of place. Would you use the same language about interracial couples, that they "have allegations leveled against them?" The "unifying purpose" of this list is that these people have been in relationship with each other, not that some bigot got on their ass about it! Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your references to racism and bigotry demonstrate your own bias, and I will not respond to them.

I have no problem with the first section of List of LGBT couples, as the facts are clear to everyone. The second section ("Historical couples") is similarly problematic to this page. I firmly believe that WP should not take sides on controversial matters (at least when both sides of the controversy are in the mainstream). If the existence of a relationship is controversial, then it should not appear on a list like this. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I will agree with Haiduc about this list being essentially the same as the other. And my problem remains the same: if there is very strong documentation (exceptional claims require exceptional evidence), then there shouldn't be a problem. The issue again is that, especially with the more historic persons, I see a lot of "interpretation" of what was written about them. Even some of the sources that I read admitted that many of the allegations got blown out of proportion as part of smear campaigns. That is what I have a problem with. The sad thing: since being homosexual has for so long been illegal and such in so many parts of the world, it means that sources are going to be necessarily difficult to find in many of these cases. To me, that doesn't excuse the sources being used to justify some of the people on this list being as weak as they appear to be. That would go for this list or any other list.

Having said that, and I don't know the history between you two, but I would be really careful about throwing around accusations or implications of being racist/bigoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyBeacon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The presumption of treating a collection of historical homosexual lovers as a bunch of criminals speaks for itself and indicts its author. While I have certainly included criminal acts in this list so as to maintain a balanced approach, it should be evident upon the most cursory analysis that many (if not most) of the relationships would be lawful and legitimate today in their respective countries. It is a fact that most of these individuals were hounded by the church and the state for their love. However, to legitimize that persecution by employing legalistic terminology in discussing the relationships as if were discussing real crimes is an aberration and has no place in civilized discourse. Haiduc (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about me or BlueMoonlet? Who is legitimizing persecution? LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am responding to your cautioning me not to draw parallels between prejudiced attitudes (not yours) here, and those in other contexts. Haiduc (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier in this discussion you chided someone and warned them to not personalize this debate. Please show others the same respect you want them to show you. Nandesuka (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You fail to distinguish between respecting the speaker and respecting the speech. What I am condemning are the words, not the man. Prejudiced speech has no claim to immunity here. Haiduc (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Haiduc doesn't want me to do it, can someone else please refactor this tangent to the discussion page? Commentary on the personal attributes of other editors interferes with this discussion, and is most unhelpful. Nandesuka (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, what we are discussing here is the way we are talking about the subject, and how the form of speech we use is indicative of our personal points of view. These individual perspectives can skew the discussion and need to be examined and critiqued in order to be able to communicate meaningfully. In this particular instance, we are dealing with an original statement that begs the question. Nandesuka's curious effort to remove the exchange of ideas and to misrepresent it as a series of personal attacks is not helpful. Haiduc (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not our job here to decide whether or not pederasty is a good thing. Perhaps I should not have used the word "allegation," but my point is that many of the people we are talking about did not want it to be generally thought that their relationship was pederastic. If they did, then they would have been open about it, and the facts would be broadly known and agreed-upon, and by the substance of my argument above I would have no objection to saying so. Can we lay aside for a moment that the hot-button issue of homosexuality is involved here? Regardless of the topic, we do violence to a person's memory if we say things about him that he denied, without a strong evidential basis. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to further qualify what you have said by adding that it is not up to us to make pederasty out to be either "good" or "bad." It is far too complex a phenomenon and does not lend itself to simplistic reductions.

In what regards your suggestion that people would have been "open about it" if they had been unashamed about their relationship, I have to disagree. You are discounting the fact that any such relationship - for much of the historical period covered by the article - would have been grounds for imprisonment, torture, and execution, had it been widely known. It is only in the past generation or so that homosexual lovers have been able to come out of the shadows. To support that, I will bring up the Greeks and the Japanese. In those cultures the relationships were not blameworthy and they were conducted out in the open. Not so in premodern Europe and the Islamic countries.

Finally, in what regards the evidential base, historians (as opposed to judges and juries) work from hints, fragments and a preponderance of information adding up to probable conclusions. A good example is Leonardo. Here is a man with a lifelong disinterest in women, a lifelong interest in handsome youths, who was once indicted and jailed for such a relationship, and one of whose lovers revealed that he had been passionately loved. If historians take those bits of evidence to conclude that the man had homosexual tastes and satisfied them (as they have for the past four hundred years) we are entitled - even obligated - to report that. That is the model for the relationships included in the article, though necessarily some entries will be supported by more sources and others by fewer. Not everyone is a Leonardo or a Wilde.

To conclude, I disagree that we do violence to anyone here. It is the other way around - these are people to whom violence has been done and who are here presented, at long last, in a climate free from violence. Haiduc (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that the people in question were "ashamed", but simply that they did not want their pederasty (if indeed it existed) to be known. There are a number of reasons why that might be. You, with your language of liberation, are making a judgment on that issue just as much as the persecutors did. Perfectly valid for you to do as a person, but not for WP.

Yes, legitimate historians may have concluded that pederasty existed in some of these cases. Oftentimes, their conclusions have been rebutted by others. WP needs to accommodate both viewpoints. That is best done with a nuanced discussion in the subject's own article, not in a list like this where the conclusion has practically been drawn by the subject's mere inclusion. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The historical lovers did not have a choice, they had to remain hidden. In an open society that choice is rare. As for my "language of liberation" (yes, I am glad that these things can finally be openly discussed, even if, lo and behold, there are still some who would like to stifle the discussion) I will not be criticized by someone who a moment ago was using the language of repression.

Polemics aside, I have to agree with you on the need to represent alternative points of view. In some instances that has indeed been done - see the entry on Cocteau and Radiguet. More of the same would certainly enrich the article. Haiduc (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I reject your implication that responding to my points i beneath you. I also reject the idea that it is WP's job to right historical wrongs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - This is a list that can be easily used to list people who really don't belong, and I suspect it already has been. The list needs to be seriously gutted, but deleting it would, in the most positive outcome, lead to its recreation with a proper listing. AfD is not for cleanup though. Having checked some of the sources, there are too many "supposed" relationships that are being labeled here. Given that I see people improperly listed already, I suspect it will be in the future. I'm not sure where to go from there. Certainly, a list of people confirmed in multiple reliable sources, self-admitted persons, and caution to BLP need to be looked at. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Random section break

• Comment I've removed the unsourced claims, though I'm not sure how reliable all of the remaining sources are. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep in spite of the resulting editing difficulties. One's feelings about the practice are totally irrelevant. DGG (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Questions for Geogre and Nanudeska:
  • On POV Fork: I read the page this links to, and I'm not sure what you're saying by characterizing this article as a POV fork. The WP:FORK page describes mirror sites, implying the information was lifted from another source. Or am I misunderstanding that? Because the relationship between da Vinci and a younger man is not addressed in da Vinci's article but is highlighted here—is that what you're claiming is the fork? Can you clarify this?
  • On the term "Pederastic couples": Where it is clear (to me, at least) that the well-cited information in the article describes both romantically and sexually intimate relationships between an older man and a younger one, and the best word English has for this is "pederast", would it satisfy the naming conventions and the claims of NPOV to name it "Historic couples of older men who have had relationships with younger men"? (Cumbersome.) Because English does not have an appropriate word to describe these relationships does not justify deleting the article. It is the continued difficulty of WP:LGBT to label a relationship something when the word did not exist when the subject was alive, or that a living person does not call him or herself. Can we call Cristina Aguilera bisexual if she admits in an interview that she is sexually attracted to men and women, yet she did not use the word "bisexual"? What does one label the relationship Eleanor Roosevelt had with her secretary that, proven by letters, was physically intimate, if the term "lesbian" was not in use until the 1950s and 1960s?
  • On the "ick" factor: I read the link to Geogre's talk page supplied by Haiduc, and that conversation is disconcerting. The questions I'm asking here are true problems for any article, and solving these would help the encyclopedia as a whole. However, I think the "ick" factor is discouraging creative solutions to these problems. I think we can do better than that. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What "ick factor?" That page has a discussion of why Geogre opposes this article: 1. Not verifiable, 2. Not useful as a list, 3. The biographical articles rejecting claims of being a "pederast" makes this a POV fork, 4.If the purpose of the list is to make pederasty ok, then that's horrible, and then he equates pederasty with rape, because it means that one party is incapable of giving informed consent. Where in all of that do you see "I want it gone because it's icky?" That pederasty is non-consensual, legally, is a priori. It's why you use the term "pederasty" instead of just leaving it at the existing articles on gay couples. Why split these couples off from those, except that you want to highlight that one member of the relationship was a minor? A minor cannot give legal consent in the US. In most European nations, it's the same. So, again, why duplicate material with this list? Why cut these couples off, except because of an implicit point of view that "pederasty" is licit? I think you're imagining things and projecting, if you think the people talking on that page are going "ick." Utgard Loki (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't know who "he" is. And I'm still not sure what a POV fork is. Are you able to clarify that?

I can see where imposing our current Western morals on non-Western and ancient or long-gone relationships is a grey area. I have a great deal of discomfort with pedophilia. However, ancient Asian, Greek, and Roman cultures did not define sexuality into homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual identities as we do, and a rite of passage for a young man was to be paired with an older man in these cultures may make editors now uncomfortable. Where we can set an age of consent at 14, 16, or 18, these ages meant nothing to the cultures and the people in this article. Some may have been unduly manipulative as pedophiles can be to children, but some may have been what was considered at the time and place to be in consensual relationships. Again, these are grey areas. However, this does not mean that deleting the article is a valid response to the misconceptions about pederasty. If concepts need to be clarified, then it needs to be done. If it needs to be cited, then cite it (not you, but the article's contributors). --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FORK was indeed the wrong page; I meant to refer to Misplaced Pages:Content forking, which I believe is self-explanatory. I've adjusted my nomination accordingly. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a help, thanks. So the objection is that this article presents information that the subject articles do not? Is that relatively accurate, or am I still misunderstanding the objection of the POV Fork? Should the attempt be made then to integrate all the information from this article into all the notable people it mentions? That will satisfy that objection, right? That will be an excessively uphill climb for sure (you'll help, yes?). But if the sources are reliable, then the articles themselves should be as comprehensive as possible. If the sources are not reliable, then the individuals with no reliable sources should be removed from this article. The article as a whole, still, I do not see the justification for it to be deleted. The only other reasoning from the Misplaced Pages:Content forking page is that this article only presents one side of an argument, but what that argument is I cannot say. Feel free to point out my mistakes here. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue with this page is that it presents, as historical fact, that every pair of people listed here was, without a shadow of a doubt, a "pederastic couple." There is no gray area and there is no room for argument. If you're on here, you're part of a pederastic couple. That is, from a cursory glance at a few of these alleged relationships, utterly unsupportable. For many or most, there are sources which make *assertions* and *speculations* and *arguments* that these couples were involved in sexually-attractive relationships, but this article is not called "people who have been asserted to be members of a pederastic relationship." If these arguments can be made without stating as settled fact arguments that are, by nature, generally speculative at best, they should be placed in their respective articles.

It is unfortunate that, because of long-standing sexual taboos (and the resulting illicit nature of these alleged relationships), there is often little available evidence for historians to examine and use to explore the personal lives of many of these figures. I do not argue that they are all lies. But as BlueMoonlet noted above, Misplaced Pages is not a place to correct historical wrongs. We are here to reflect the modern state of knowledge. If there is not enough evidence today to be historically certain that someone engaged in a sexual relationship (of any nature), then we cannot and should not be listing them as if the bits and pieces which are available constitute historical proof. FCYTravis (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to consider my reply overnight to make sure I still agreed with what I initially thought in reading your reply. (I do.) Your first point goes to my issue above, that could be addressed by renaming the article. However, if English does not have a word or phrase that accurately describes the subject, that is not a reason to delete the article. Again, restructuring the article, being stringent with citations, and adhering to WP:RS and WP:V are more appropriate responses. Your second point regarding Misplaced Pages correcting historical wrongs I reacted strongly to. Either that means you or BlueMoonlet believe Misplaced Pages should not correct historical inaccuracies (maintaining that Washington chopped that cherry tree down, regardless of the fiction is was intended to be), or that Misplaced Pages should not supply information that opposes previous historical schools of thought. Is there another meaning that I did not get? Because I don't know how to disagree with this statement more emphatically. I've written an entire article on the folly of an era of historical thought, and its real effect on the environment and society (I put the point of what people considered to be right in the lead to boot). We as editors can only report on what has been written about our subjects, and we must present these ideas evenly and fairly.

My essential question: Is deletion necessary? What is being used for cause are examples of a poorly written article. If that is the case (and that is disputed), then the material should be amended. Deletion is a drastic measure for this article in particular, and it goes against purpose of the encyclopedia to improve information as a community. Surely articles having claims with no citations aren't up for deletion all the time. It wasn't too long ago that Everglades kind of stunk bad. I'm concerned that a common distaste of the subject (pederasty) and/or its associated issues (pedophilia) are prompting editors to be less creative in reaching solutions to the issues in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni, to your second point (if I may). Why deletion and not improvement in this case? 1. We are dealing with people who, while they are not living, may have living relatives, who might find any such allegations offensive and upsetting (as indeed Oscar Wilde's family find the whole 'Wildean' thing an offence to his memory. We have a policy on the biographies of living persons, we should also have a similar respect for the dead, where possible. Unless these assertions in this article are verifiable in the Wikedia WP:OR sense, they should be immediately deleted. 2. The article is essentially propaganda by PPA's to 'normalise' views on paedophilia by linguistic tricks and fallacies such as changing definitions, meanings, selective reading of historical documents and so on. This is original research for own-view promotion, or fringe view, and has not place here. Delete entirely. Peter Damian (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Misplaced Pages is not censored, and forgive me for pointing that out because it drives me nuts when folks point out policies to me. See the incredible battle over Matt Sanchez's page. If a distant relative of Wilde's is offended by Wilde's well-documented homosexual relationships, does that mean that we remove the content? And as I have stated above, I recognize the grey areas regarding pedophilia, but for the time and culture, some of these relationships were considered normal and natural. We're judging these (and even I am uncomfortable considering these normal and natural) by our western 21st century viewpoints. In the 18th century, girls could get married at 13 and it was a fact of life for women in colonial America. The case of the children who were removed from the Fundamentalist LDS sect in Texas: would the same scrutiny be paid to an article describing polygamous families in these sects where girls are married as young as 14? I don't see this article as attempting to normalize pederastic relationships, but to illustrate that they have existed across many cultures through time. That the information exists does not condone, validate, or reject the behavior. If that is what we're connecting to information, we need to reassess our roles in the encyclopedia. --Moni3 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course Misplaced Pages is censored, don't be silly. What an absurd thing to say. WIKIPEDIA IS CENSORED. Taking your points in order. If a relative is offended by a well-documented proposition that has appeared in many authoritative sources, then so be it. If they are offended by some inane speculation and original research published on Misplaced Pages by some amateur historian, I think not. On your point about how we judge 'such relationships', again, as others have pointed out, not enough is known about 'such relationships' to make a judgement. As Geogre wisely says "In prior ages, it is stupid (not ignorant, but outright stupid) to interpret "love" as more than affection." And your comments about the real purpose of articles such as this are naive in the extreme. Peter Damian (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me in fact give you an example that proves my point exactly. Read the article on Erik Moeller. Then Google this and see if any of the material you find on Google overlaps with the material you find in the article. Case proven. Why is there nothing in the article? For the reason we don't want uninformed gossip and speculation in an encyclopedia of this sort, particularly when people may find it personally offensive. Of course Misplaced Pages is censored, and for good reason. Peter Damian (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Banjeboi 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Misplaced Pages is not censored" is a content disclaimer. It is not a licence for us to publish titillating speculation and innuendo about people, be they living or dead. In fact, really, on its face it's incorrect, because we are censored - anything that violates U.S. or Florida law cannot be published, whether we want to or not. FCYTravis (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually I think you'll find it's a bit more than that but to stay on point here, if there is some unverifiable "titillating speculation and innuendo about people" then likely it should go. But just because something is "titillating speculation and innuendo about people" in itself is not reason to deleted everything else. And we do include "titillating speculation and innuendo about people" if it's in reliable sources and relevant to the article - for instance, that Clay Aiken has been dogged about rumors of his sexuality. We sourced it and present it encyclopedicly. Banjeboi 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, one way to invalidate my opinions is to refer to them as silly and naive. However, as much as I would like to make this about me and my eminence and brilliance, it is not. What remains are very good questions, and I am still certain that this article should not be deleted. Since conversations such as these do tend to go off on tangents, I'd like to sum up the reasons for this AfD. Please feel free to correct my understanding of the facts.

• It is a POV fork because information in this article is not present in (some? most? all? of) the articles for their individual subjects.
• The declaration that these people were pederasts is disputed because they did not claim themselves as pederasts.
• Furthermore, because some of the citations suggest that the relationships were romantic or sexual in nature, that does not warrant their inclusion in this article because they are not presented as solid fact.

Is there more? --Moni3 (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That is, essentially, a solid summation. The article, by its very title, declares that Misplaced Pages believes it to be historical truth that every person on this page was part of a pederastic relationship. This is questionable, at best. For example, take John C. Fremont. This article says about him:

The adventurer and politician took on the thirteen year old boy as his page, a role he filled for two years, until 1863. Jesse had been chosen because he was queer, and the two were constantly together.

This claim, stated as unchallenged fact, is sourced to a single book by a single author: Drum Beat: Walt Whitman's Civil War Boy Lovers, by Charley Shively, a history professor and gay rights activist.

I've done repeated Google searches and SpringerLink academic journal searches. I cannot find a single other source that claims this "pederastic" relationship existed.

Now, does this mean Shively's argument is entirely without merit? No. I have not read his book, but it is possible that it makes good arguments based on available sources.

But what this does mean is that we are taking the argument of a single historian and asserting that it is unchallenged fact. That is unacceptable, period. FCYTravis (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Random section break

• Delete per nom and Geogre. Khoikhoi 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP' A well written article with one hundred references. It's obviously scholarly, and I see no need for this nomination, other than distaste for the subject. When last I checked, Wiki wasn't censored. Until we change that status, the article should remain. And if we change that status, point me towards the exit. Jeffpw (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop repeating this silly myth. WIKIPEDIA IS CENSORED. Peter Damian (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Misplaced Pages is not censored is a policy. Banjeboi 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that the policy doesn't say anything like what you think it does. That policy notifies users that they may see material that offends them. It is not a guarantee of non-censorship. In fact, the policy itself states that we must censor anything that violates U.S. or Florida law. Editorial decisionmaking on what is and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia is not "censorship." FCYTravis (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's not assume what each other thinks and agree to disagree on this. Banjeboi 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP well-cited information. With the usual suggestions that anything uncited should be cited. If it is to remain an article, the list should be changed to text. If that's too much stuff to do, revert it to a list. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Haiduc's universalizing use of the out-of-the-way, culturally specific term "pederasty", modeled on a handful of respected but not-exactly-in-the-academic-mainstream writers, is extremely POV -- one that he has successfully made accepted standard usage across Misplaced Pages. In the world outside Misplaced Pages, it is no such thing. This is a problem! Dybryd (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I take that to mean that you feel scholarship has no bearing on Misplaced Pages. What a startling and anxiety-provoking idea. Perhaps you should edit Simple Misplaced Pages, where scholarship is not as highly regarded as it is here...or was, as the case may be. Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I take that to mean you are wearing an elk on your head. Startling indeed!

There are many respected scholars with minority viewpoints whose work should not be presented on Misplaced Pages as representing the consensus of their discipline.

Dybryd (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you really prove your idea that the majority of scholars would disagree with Haiduc's view on pederasty? Fulcher (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Both of you should keep comments on the deletion discussion, and stop taking swipes at each other. Both comments were uncalled for. Dybryd is correct from the standpoint that the sources need to be looked at very carefully. There is the possibility that the sources being cited are not the mainstream viewpoint held in historic studies. I for one am not an expert in that field, and I cannot make that decision. Nonetheless, even assuming that some of the sources fit Jeffpw's description (they represent a minority view within academia, they are flat our unreliable, etc) that is the job of cleanup, and not the job of AfD. Having looked over the article, I suspect that there is enough notability and good sources to support at least most of this list existing, and as such, it has to stay. My suggestion is that if there are learned people in the field that have a problem, start checking sources and go through cleaning up the article. I am changing my disposition to keep, and leave it in the hands of the experts to make sure every single person on this list is supported by credible, mainstream academic sources (which would be my hope for any article dealing with historic figures). LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw, the fact that scholarship does not belong on Misplaced Pages is in fact policy, WP:NOR. Feel free to seek publication in a learned journal, but Wikipedians are neither trusted nor permitted to engage in scholarship here. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Scholarship does not belong on Misplaced Pages"? That's the first time I here that. Fulcher (talk)

Actually NOR states In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. So this would seem to support that scholarship is preferred. Perhaps you meant to indicate that original research is not acceptable? With well over 100 references this would seem to be considered more sourced than original research. Banjeboi 11:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A reference does not indicate historical fact - particularly when these references are generally based on subjective analysis of letters, poetry and other indirect sources. At best, a single reference indicates a single historical opinion. It is not enough to say "this professor analyzed the writings of John Doe and determined that his poetry speaks of a sexual relationship, ergo this person is part a historical pederastic couple." No, no, no. What we have is one professor arguing that this is a sexual relationship. That may be a point of contention, and may deserve space in the person's biography if it has sufficient support to be more than a fringe POV, but it does not make it an undisputed historical fact. FCYTravis (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we fix it not delete it. If a reference doesn't support it then state that upfront, "according to _____, this indicates _____" if another scholar disputes that and it's also considered valid then perhaps cite that as well. Are you disputing every specific and general source used here? We improve articles not simply delete them because it has perceived issues. Banjeboi 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's not an article on "historical pederastic couples," then. That's an article on "every person in history who's ever been accused or asserted to be pederastic." That is an impossible-to-maintain, hopelessly-POV list. That's why this article needs to be deleted and relevant information merged into individual biographies, where appropriate. FCYTravis (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The Geogre knows of what he speaks, this is a combination of historical revisionism, original research and advancement of an agenda. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Uncomfortable material doesn't disappear just because someone thinks it's "icky", this list is a strong example of working to treat a demonized topic in an encyclopedic fashion. Some cultures encourage forms of pedophilia and pederastic couples can indeed be found throughout history even if their very existence, much like LGBT people in general, have been denied, scrubbed or otherwise neglected. Tighten up the lede and, if needed, add qualifiers to beginning of sections that warrant an additional explanation. Obviously it should adhere to BLP concerns just like every other article on wikipedia. Otherwise this is an obvious keeper and we're lucky to have someone who understands the material and is willing to spend the time to accurately present it. Banjeboi 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We can take it as read that the ickiness or non-ickiness of the material doesn't factor in to whether or not the article should be kept. I proposed this for deletion because it is, as a synthesis, primarily original research, and secondly because it has been (and I think inevitably must be) used for POV forking, and thirdly because this is material that -- in the absence of original research -- should be a category, and not a list. "Ickiness" doesn't have anything to do with it. I just want to make that clear. Nandesuka (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • What do you mean by "pederastic couples"? Is the younger partner of a pederast himself in some way "pederastic"? If not, what is he?

I'm not simply splitting semantic hairs to be annoying, here. I mean to point out that "pederasty" as a term refers structurally only to the desiring elder partner -- English has no equivalent "eromenos" except perhaps in slang. This makes Misplaced Pages's definition of pederasty as a form of relationship problematic -- the word normally refers to the desires or actions of one person.

Even granting the definition Haiduc prefers -- that "pederasty" refers to an "erotic relationship" between an adult man and an "adolescent" -- the idea of pederasty still can't be meaningfully universalized "throughout history" because the concept of adolescence cannot be meaningfully universalized throughout history. In order to do so, we must take a classical concept, alter it to fit modern Western understanding, and then shoehorn classical and non-Western practice back into our altered terminology. The whole undertaking is just hopelessly shady and subjective!

What I am arguing here is that this list cannot be sourced because "pederastic couples" is a term that can't be meaningfully defined, so inclusion remains arbitrary no matter how sources are quoted. Dybryd (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dybryd, I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, but this time you have gone way out on a limb and I think it is cracking. How is your argument that "pederastic" can only refer to the lover and not the beloved consistent with the reality that Greek pederasty (for example) is considered to have been a pedagogic tradition? If, as per you, the beloved is not included under the rubric of pederasty, then who pray tell is being instructed, the lover?!

As for your denial of the historicity of adolescence, come on! What do you think coming of age customs have to do with?! And they are everywhere. There is nothing more universal than adolescence. The fact that its beginning and end may vary somewhat from culture to culture is a different matter, and not relevant.

And what is this stuff about "my" definition of pederasty? Other than its vernacular use as a vague term of abuse, and its legal sense which may well vary from place to place, its main use in history, anthropology, art, literature and philosophy is as covered here. As you well know from your work on homosexual topics, pederasty forms the core of male homosexual history. If that pederasty is not the pederasty of academic discourse, then exactly which pederasty forms that history?! Haiduc (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If I were to base a definition of "sodomy" on the way the word is used by a prominent writer such as, for example, Proust, and then apply that definition according to my own very inclusive judgment to a broad range of relationships, I could plausibly argue that "sodomy forms the core of male homosexual history." That would not make a list article called sodomitical couples of history any less POV.

Also, coming of age customs mark a boundary between childhood and adulthood. They are the opposite of having a lengthy "in-between" period, which is by no means a cultural universal - it is quite unusual. And no, coming-of-age rituals are not universal either. For example, modern America lacks them, and instead uses specifically academic or legal markers -- which perhaps is why that "in-between" period is of such cultural interest to us. Dybryd (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I wasn't commenting to the nom as stating the subject was "icky" but to other comments that have appeared during this discussion. That may be their honest opinion but it's despite that very generalized ick factor that these relationships, frankly many male-male relationships also face, that makes this list particularly useful and helpful. Female-female relationships face a different but similar reaction and frankly all LGBT people are quite used to seeing their history buried and destroyed so i hope we can avoid that here. Deleting to being only a category is pretty useless for those unaware of how categories work - I personally don't make much use of them - and reading an article certainly seems more engaging than reading a category list although I suppose some certainly might derive pleasure there. The article makes a good faith effort of presenting an overview of couples throughout time. There seems to be no end to the efforts to researching and documenting sexual and gender minorities from BLPs to folks who are dead and turned to dust ages ago. The burden is always to show someone wasn't the "normal" gender and sexuality. And now we're faulting those efforts here. Banjeboi 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator and Geogre. Jayjg 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. If it hasn't been addressed already I want to respond to Geogre's "Finally, this list is only valid if every single biographical article of every figure contains the information that X and Y were "pederasts." Nonsense. The burden is not on the editors here to amend every other article and then police them, it would be nice if that happened but hardly a requirement. Folks in the LGBT wikiproject have to go through mini-dramas just to have our project tag on the talk page let alone cope with the homophobia of editors who just don't want that kind of information in an article they're protecting. Banjeboi 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Geogre's points above. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per Geogre. I note particularly that this article conflates well-documented relationships (Oscar Wilde's, for example) with ones which have virtually no backing and aren't even mentioned in the parent articles (the alleged relationship of John C. Fremont, for example). This article, by its own title, makes the bold claim that every single one of these relationships is proven historic fact, which is utterly untrue. Seems rather unacceptable to me. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • Your accusation that the entries have no backing is unfounded. All the entries have been compiled on the basis of published sources, though some of the early ones were not cited properly and have to be documented again. Individual entries can certainly be debated (and have been) and dissenting opinions can and should be noted. Haiduc (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, no, you've rather got it backwards. If there is no historical consensus that a person was part of a sexual relationship, it is unacceptable to list them in an article called "Historical pederastic couples." The very name of the article insists that this list consists of indisputable historical fact. A single source is almost certainly not going to be enough to establish historical fact. It establishes, perhaps, that there is a debate over a person's sexual relationships - that there are people making an academic argument that this person had these sexual relationships. But it does not factually establish that the relationship existed. Ergo, the article is facially broken. FCYTravis (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Travis, the "historical consensus" you are grasping at is a chimera. There are NO indisputable historical facts, that's why there is the discipline of history, to work things out. By that logic we should delete Alexander and Bagoas because not every single historian accepts that they were lovers! Relationships which are accepted by some and contested by others should be presented as such. The rest (the majority) are generally widely accepted. If published sources indicate that X and Y were in a homosexual love relationship, or in a homosexual sexual relationship, and X and Y are of appropriate ages, then it is appropriate to list them here as having been so described. Your "essential" flaw does not exist, it is merely a matter of addressing individual issues. It is as if you were trying to wish historical pederastic relationships out of existence. Haiduc (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  Haiduc, you note the point of concern: If there is a legitimate dispute among non-fringe historians about some of these couples, than their inclusion on this list is a misrepresentation. It would be more honest to call the list: List of confirmed and/or speculated historic pederastic couples. I stated that the list should stay because I am convinced that there is some non-zero number of these couples to which the speculation is nil to zero in the mainstream academic community. However, if there is a part of non-fringe historic academia that contests this, then you either have to note that side of the argument in relative proportion to the support given from academia, or you need to take those couples out. Otherwise, you could be treading on WP:UNDUE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

  "Relationships which are accepted by some and contested by others should be presented as such." Quite so. Which, as I said, is the essential problem with the article - by its very title, it presents these as undisputed "historic pederastic couples," without hint or question that... well, maybe they weren't. The article treats the question as settled in every single case, when by your own admission, it very often is not.

  The solution is not to create separate lists of people who have been speculated to be this, or thought to be that. The solution is to integrate into biographies, where appropriate, meaningful academic discussion of a person's intimate relationships. See Alexander the Great for a good example of this. FCYTravis (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quibbling and misstating the issues. The title is a succinct label for a complex topic. It cannot, by definition, be exhaustive. What should we do with the Pederasty in ancient Greece title? After all we are including Macedonia. But some will say that Macedonia was not Greece. And others will say that there was no such thing as ancient Greece, that they were individual city states.

Furthermore, I have said no such thing that "very often it is not." Let's not put words in each other's mouth, shall we? I am simply allowing for the possibility that there may be contrarian voices out there and accepting that they should be included if and when found. I do not have them in a bag under my desk. They need to be looked for, and if found, added to the article. That is part of the development of an article, not a cause for its deletion. As for adding material to individual articles, nothing wrong with having this and that, they serve two very different purposes. Haiduc (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, is your reply above a reply to FCYTravis, as the indentation suggests? Please explain how it is a reply. FCY has said that the article treats the question as settled in every single case, when it very often is not. You reply that the article is not meant to be exhaustive. Please explain how that is a reply. You then make a point about the geography of Ancient Greece whose logical connection to Travis' point is entirely unclear. And then you go on about bags under your desk. What are you talking about? Peter Damian (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Umm, so we should delete everything because there are problems with some of it. Is there some policy about one bad apple rots the whole bunch I'm missing here? Banjeboi 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Whereas I generally admire Haiduc's work and input the one area which I think doesn't serve Misplaced Pages very well is the use of general sources, which, I believe, is quite common for older articles. Unfortunately a lot of LGBT-related material is regularly contested and vandalized so more rigorous and in-line sourcing is usually the only way to ensure that this content is allowed to exist. I've gotten used to that but it is quite a chore to rework an entire and extensive article and revisit prior work to then add cites, page numbers, etc. If Haiduc confirms that the vast majority of material is covered in sources, personally, it's good for me, however that falls short for almost everyone else and we have to write for a wider audience. As a suggestion, it would be helpful to add refs that at least documented which sources covered which couples. This would also aid others who wanted to either verify or learn more about the subject. Banjeboi 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The article is mostly unreferenced, indeed it states clearly that reference is impossible in most cases (it says "In the pre-modern and modern West, their equivocal status has made pederastic relationships difficult to document" and talks of presumed pederastic couples). This makes the whole subject a matter of speculation and presumption and thus an automatic violation of WP:OR. It might make an interesting PhD thesis or a book (if it were sufficiently well-written, but that is another problem, for it is not). It is entirely unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. It is also vulnerable to the fallacy of definition that plagues articles of this sort. Is it about pederastical relationships stricto sensu, i.e. of a proven sexual nature, or is it about homoerotic or platonic relationships? If pederastical relationships can be Platonic (i.e. non-sexual), why does the article say "At present pederastic relationships between unrelated individuals above the local age of consent are legal in most jurisdictions." Fallacy of definition. And it also descends pretty quickly into the dreaded Wikipedian list - should be deleted for that alone. And I agree with Guy and others that scholarship does NOT belong in Misplaced Pages. Haiduc should take his interesting and thought-provoking speculations elsewhere. Peter Damian (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As has been stated above most of the list is referenced but, as is common in list articles, not every item is sourced. in addition there are general references which should be painstakingly worked to reference individual items instead so other editors and our readers can also verify content. Banjeboi 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is article 'well referenced'? Referencing is not simply slapping the name of a book that somewhere mentions the person. The reference has to support the specific claim that is being made. In this case, the article is about pederastical relationships. Another thing: WP:NOR has stronger requirements than just referencing. It prohibits 'any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position'. The position in this case is Haiduc's thesis that the history of homosxuality is the history of pederasty. It is an interesting thesis. But it is that: it belongs in a book, not in an encyclopedia. Note: it would be a very good thing if Haiduc wrote an article for here about this thesis, which was well-sourced to reference works on the subject, and which contained no OR. But please keep OR out of Misplaced Pages, it is not for that. Peter Damian (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• DELETE I vote for the removal of the article but keeping of its content or at least the part that is accurate. If this sounds contradictory what I mean is we can keep the reliable and accurate info on the article pages of the historic people. If they have a pederastry tag at the bottom of the article then you have all the related articles in one place by going to the tag page. Problem solved. This easily makes the hisrtocal pederastic couples page redundant. However even some of the referenced stuff is incorrect, either because of overly free interpretation of the reference, because the reference is just guessing or speculating, because the reference gives a fringe theory, or because there isn't even any mention in the reference. So a lot of sorting out needs to be done first to separate what is reliable and accurately referenced and what is not. We should keep the first and remove the rest.

I have to agree the fuzzy and over lax definition of pederasty needs to be fixed. What are the age cut offs? I don't think being with someone 18 or over should count at all and if the two guys are just separated by a couple years then it shouldn't count either. Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This more than anything is what needs fixing. Haiduc's thesis is that the history of homosexuality = the history of pederasty. What is he claiming here? It all hangs on the definition of 'pederasty'. If pederasty is chaste or Platonic friendships, then the thesis is that the history of homosexuality = the history of chaste friendships between men and boys. Surely not. Is pederasty simply another word for homosexuality? Then the history of homosexuality = the history of homosexuality. Banal and uninteresting. The definition needs to be fixed. I also get impatient, as a logician, with the claim that 'pederasty' meant something different in the past. Irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia and the meanings that are relevant are the meanings of words used know: the sense that readers of this encylopedia will understand when they read the article in question. Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The article needs to be rescued because it reads more like a list rather than an article. I do not see any compelling reason to delete it but from a purely aesthetic and therefor subjective point of view, the article needs help. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There's a whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here, as is there a whiff of WP:ILIKEIT. However, deleting lists on such subjects seems to be a bit of overzealous reaction to what could be a legitimate list. Clean it up and remove unsourced material. Also, I don't think speculation on the motives of others is going to be fruitful. Sure, it could be part of the PPA agenda, but that is not a reason to delete it. Also, we should not allow BLP to cover dead people. It is bad enough that the cancer that is WP:BLP has spread to many parts of the encyclopedia without it going there. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The agenda I was talking about was this idiosyncratic thesis of Haiduc's that the history of homosexuality = the history of pederasty. It is an interesting one, I admit. But it is original research. That is why the whole thing should go. What is the list for. Peter Damian (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

a particular "wtf?" example

Of course, a specific example of a problem in an article doesn't speak to deletion at all. But I think this one does get across the general problem of subjective judgment inherent to Haiduc's "pederastic" label and its application to specific cases.

The article's lede defines pederasty as occurring "between adult men and adolescent boys". Well, down in the Eighteenth century section we encounter two couples, both from Europe, occurring sixty years apart. The broad social context -- in terms of how the passage into adulthood would be understood -- is the same.

• First, an 18-year-old runs off with a 26-year-old (and the 26-year-old gets executed for it!)
• Second, a 19-year-old reads stories to a 10-year-old (who later grows up to "pursue boys")

Now, were I the one arbitrarily selecting people to be listed in this article, I should exclude both these couples. In my opinion, zero out of the four individuals is "adolescent" - one pair consisted of two adults, the other of an adult and a small child.

But it doesn't really matter how my judgment differs from Haiduc's here, what matters is that the couples can't be included on or excluded from the list without its subjective application. Sources are given for both these stories - but those sources speak to the facts of history, not to the categorization of a late teenager as an adult "pederast" in one case and as the non-adult partner of a "pederast" in the other. To say nothing of the weird way that the apparently non-sexual relationship with the 10-year-old is given an erotic cast by references to the boys future "pursuit" of "boys" -- whether adolescent or pre-, the article doesn't say.

Another note -- most striking about the inclusion of a 10-year-old is that it tends to work against the idea that "pederasty" ought to be considered as something distinct from "pedophilia" -- a distinction that is often and fiercely defended on Misplaced Pages in discussions of these articles.

I do not think that pederasty is the same thing as pedophilia. I don't think it's anything; I think it is a phantom. It's a category that cannot be objectively defined even for one culture, much less when generalized to every culture. Its use in the culture outside of Misplaced Pages -- like that of "sodomy" or "natural" or "masculine" -- may be of encyclopedic interest as a subject, but its use as a judgment by Misplaced Pages editors will always be strongly POV.

Dybryd (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

• Pages at deletion review