Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:09, 13 April 2011

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep and improve.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greek love article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

still a mish-mash

The article hasn't improved since I last saw it. The last AFD debate uncovered a recently published book that treats Greek Love as a term applying across different social and historical contexts - that's a source that makes sense of this article but it isn't being used. The article continues to be a grab-bag of hobby-horse interests that could have any real or imaginary connection with pederasty in ancient Greece and it is still hardly more than an excuse for reduplicating content. Sources are cited that don't even use the term 'Greek love'. Meanwhile there is a picture of a Roman cup depicting the sodomy of a boy who looks hardly more than 12 years old. I wouldn't object to that picture if it clearly belonged to a well-defined article but this article is still not well-defined and the picture has only dubious relevance at best (in fact, my understanding of Greek love is that it plays down the sexual component of pederastic relationships and that is why it is distinct from the term 'pederasty').

There is now at least one source that adequately covers 'Greek love' as a multi-disciplinary term relevant in widely different contexts. Hopefully somebody will get around to using it someday. I would use it if I had voted Keep. I voted Delete and I feel entitled to work at other things. McZeus (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Warren Cup is specifically discussed, and is the subject of the article by John Pollini, "The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver," Art Bulletin 81.1 (1999), which is cited. In his view, the two sides of the cup (perhaps both should be here) present two different traditions of pederasty, the Greek and the Roman, and he theorizes that the cup was meant to be used as a conversation piece in a Roman "symposium" setting; the cup is therefore in his view a concrete example of the Roman reception of an aestheticized Greek homoerotic model, that is, "Greek love." I contributed a significant amount of time to this article, as well as to Pederasty in ancient Greece and Symposium, in order to address your concerns. You are probably unaware of similar efforts at Cyparissus (you'd have to go through the edit history) to create a more balanced perspective. I haven't made my way back to Greek love for a while because I've had other things I've preferred to work on, and because I haven't been able to obtain the book you're referring to. The parts available in preview, however, were used to craft the introductory section. I feel that this will be stronger when we have an article on the classical tradition, which is something I very much want to write, but which I expect to take concerted effort over several months. I am truly sorry and even pained that you find this article and the topic in general so upsetting. One problem is that an editor who takes too great an interest in the topic for the wrong reasons is not the best person to write it, but disinterested parties may not be as motivated. As I said above, I find the pederastic aspect upsetting, and can only take it in measured doses. In antiquity, a person was thought to be ready for sexual behavior as soon as he or she had passed into puberty, in general around 14. We call this having sex with minors; they didn't. We don't have to approve of a social practice in order to describe it in an encyclopedia. It should also be remembered that the use of a reimagined Greek past in some periods was a way to conceptualize same-sex love at a time when it was forbidden — quite a different use of the classical model, one which I find poignant and which I you don't feel obliged to condemn. Whether one condemns or approves however, is irrelevant to explaining the concept as it evolved and responded to different times and places. That has to be done neutrally. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am critical of the article not of you. The image of a man buggering a boy creates the wrong impression about this article's subject matter. It was made clear here and in the AFD debate that this article is definitely not about anal sex yet the image is a very graphic representation of that common use of the term. The fact that the cup is mentioned in a published article about Roman responses to Greek pederasty doesn't seem relevant to me (does the author of the paper even use the term 'Greek love'?) Unfortunately these are the sort of arguments we will continue to have so long as the article is constructed from a pot pourri of sources whose authors would never dream of collaborating or debating with each other about the meaning of 'Greek love'. We have one author who tries to pull it all together but the article's summary of his position is so generalized that it could mean anything. That's the only source we have for this broadly-based article and it needs to be used properly. McZeus (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The current article on Greek love is unsatisfactory because some periods are minimally present or absent. It needs work. It does, however, in the introduction and in outline follow the book to which you refer. However, it isn't a book report, so it needs to incorporate other views on the topic. I don't see it as my job to use this talk page to explain the terms "reception theory," "classical tradition,","or what an historical approach is. In structure, this article is no different from, say, looking at how Roman republicanism was interpreted as an ideal (as distinguished from the Roman Republic written about as history) at various times and places, how it was portrayed in art or how it shaped and was a means of discourse. It's the same structural approach as taking a Greek myth, such as the abduction of Persephone, and looking at its reception in art and literature. Such an article would not be about Persephone in ancient Greece, but would obviously make reference to Greek art and literature as it was received and interpreted in the MIddle Ages and Renaissance, and by the Romantics or Victorians, and so on. Nor would I complain that such an article included artistic depictions of rape, even though I find rape abhorrent, and I certainly wouldn't argue that images of the rape shouldn't be used because the article wasn't about rape, but rather about the reception of a myth/concept. I can't think of a better art object than the Warren Cup to embody the dialogue between Roman and Greek on this subject. If you have a problem with the notability or suitability of the Warren Cup for Misplaced Pages, you should take it up at the talk page there, or in an appropriate forum. If the community decides that it should be suppressed or censored, then that's fine; I suppose I would understand that. There's also a way to hide exceptionally offensive images so that the user has to click to view them. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel I should also add that I'm sorry I have not put more time into this one--I got sucked into other issues and the BLP drive and then decided to back down my activities here for a bit of a vacation. I'll take a crack at some improvements this weekend. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Classical Tradition link you provided, Cynwolfe, is typical - the three mentions of Greek love are "Greek love poetry", "Greek love of life" and "rather wan 'Greek love' found in Peter and Wilde". What's all that got to do with this article? Regarding any article like Persephone - the subject matter there comes under a particular discipline: classical studies. It's significance for modern Western art and English literature, for example, can never be anything more than an end section about the legacy of the classical myth. Otherwise such an article would be based on an inter-disciplinary approach and that would need to be modelled for us by a respected author before we could attempt it. Who models that multi-contextual inter-disciplinary approach for us in this article? There is now one text, published last year, that seems to do it and it offers a chance for some agreement. But you don't want to base the article on it because "it's not a book report". OK so find other books that have a multi-disciplinary approach to the term 'Greek love'. Otherwise, the article should be broken up and its sections should be incorporated in other articles that do have some academic integrity. We live in an age when knowledge becomes ever more specialized but this is an article that completely reverses that trend and lumps different disciplines and contexts together on the basis of a shared phrase/term. It amazes me how it could get past two AFDs - sexual politics has a lot to do with it obviously.McZeus (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Oh and regarding the image of sodomy practised on a boy, it's provocative in the context of this article's history as a sandbox for pedophiles and pederasts. There are other more neutral images that could be used. Why insist on that one? McZeus (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not productive. By implying that only someone sympathetic to pedophiles could work on this article, you've made possibly the vilest personal attack I've been subjected on WP (as well as misrepresenting homoeroticism as it relates to this article, as not all uses of the "Greek love" aesthetic model are pederastic). After a year of trying to take your concerns seriously because I considered you to be a well-meaning person, I'm forced to conclude that there's an issue here that scholarly collaboration can't address. I'll contribute what I can to this article when I can, but I really don't want to be put in a position of dealing with your personal issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If I implied that only someone sympathetic to pedaphiles works on this article then I must be one too, considering the amount of time I have put into it. I have put a lot more time into it than you have. If you don't want to work on the article, that's because you have already finished the part of it you are interested in, not because of anything I have said. And that just proves my point - it's a multi-disciplinary article and you are only engaged with the classical aspect. You are relying on others to bring in material from other disciplines that aren't your cup of tea. It's a mishmash without an authoritative source or else it's a book review, as you yourself said. I can't argue with reliable sources. Find sources that support a multi-disciplinary approach to 'Greek love' and then we'll have an article nobody can argue with. McZeus (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

McZeus, I ask politely that you refactor or strike some of your statements above, particularly "Oh and regarding the image of sodomy practised on a boy, it's provocative in the context of this article's history as a sandbox for pedophiles and pederasts." Characterization of other editors in this manner is not appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• Low-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Start-Class Greek articles
• Low-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages