Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek love

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn but there are a few outstanding delete !votes. However, a clear consensus to keep has been established. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love

Greek love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject lacks true academic references. What is used relies on the subject of Pederasty, which is not the same subject and Pederasty in ancient Greece which again is not the same subject. I do not recommend merging as the article is filled with OR and POV. Research showed little to no information available through either Literature or online. Little to no chance of accuracy through general references. Term is relatively contemporary and does not meet notabilty. Many citations were removed as inappropriate. Some, seemingly odd to use as an ecyclopedic reference and others outright unreliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 15 June 2009

  • Nomination withdrawn I Amadscientist hereby withdraw this nomination from Articles for Deletion. Disputes and concerns are being addressed. Article may not have been notable in the narrow way it was presented, and as much work as it is going to take to do it.....I have started fixes and will continue untill article is broad in scop and referenced properly.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the objections raised by the nominator. I count 25 citations of which eight are to books published by university presses and a ninth is an academic journal. There appear to be more academic referencs than for most articles. The article contains an entire section on the notability of the term itself, and the other issues raised can be fixed by editing.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many of those references are about Byron, who wrote poety and not non-fiction and his use of the term, along with Shelly. Perhaps this should be merged to the Byron page.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fear that the nomination is a case of WP:IDON'TLIKE. The nominator put a whole load of tags on the article the day before nominating it for deletion. These include "unencyclopedic" and "hoax" which I find incredible when the article cites three different books, all listed on Amazon UK, with the term in their title. As the first of these was published in 1964, the description of the term in the nomination as "relatively modern" might mislead readers into thinking this is a much more recent coinage. That said, the editors should be careful that this article does not spend too much time on material that belongs in Pederasty in ancient Greece but that it instead focuses on the (presumably two-way) relationship between how Byron and others saw this topic and how they saw themselves and their own feelings. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's not a hoax, but it's remarkably inaccurate (for example, Shelley's translation of the Symposium simply omits several paragraphs on Socrates and Alcibiades). What Peter Cohen recommends would be a good article (if there were enough untendentious material to support one), but this is not it; while I am tempted by deletion as a POV fork (of, say, Romanticism), I will consider merge proposals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Nominator seems to be agenda driven, claiming that "The term 'Greek love' refers to the male bonding of two equals" and claiming that the article misrepresents the "true meaning of this term" but failing to provide evidence for either position when repeatedly and patiently requested to do so. He also asserts that "this article has become almost exclusively about the subject of pedophilia" when 1. nothing of the sort is the case and 2. what if it was, is pedophilia (or bibliophilia, or any other philia) a forbidden topic on Wikipedia? The whole situation could benefit from toning down the level of the discussion, and letting the main editor resolve issues as they come up. Realistic ones, preferably. Haiduc (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether using the term pederasty or pedaphilia, the question is not a moral one, but of accuracy. I believe you are aware of that sir, since you called for help on the Platonic love article and I defended the use of the term "man and boy" on that article as appropriate. The lede in the article states "Greek love is a relatively modern coinage (generally placed within quotation marks) intended as a reference to male bonding and intimate relations between males as practised in ancient Greece,. I didn't write that, but I do agree with it basicaly. It's "as well as to its application and expression in more recent times, particularly in a 19th-century European context" that I dispute, because it also never discusses the 19th century use to mean bonding. The article never discusses the bonding part at all. It goes into extreme detail about the relationship between men and youths. But no disussion of the first definition. The body of the work seemed more than tilted. If the article remains I can contribute to it in good faith and am not pushing a political, personal or social agenda.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 'Greek Love' is clearly a euphemism for sexual relations. We live in the age of gay rights when such euphemisms for homosexuality are completely unnecessary and therefore the article is unnecessary if indeed it is about Greek homosexuality. However, Greek Love can also be regarded as a euphemism for pederasty, a criminal activity hardly to be distinguished in modern law from paedophilia. 'Greek Love' is in fact a term that blurs the distinction between homosexuality and pederasty and it has tendentious qualities. It provides pederasts with an opportunity to treat pederasty as if it were just another form of homosexuality. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for that kind of agenda-based editing and the article should be deleted. There are already other articles on pederasty. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No: 'Greek Love' is not merely a "euphemism for sexual relations". At one time it may have been so, but the usage which is clearly outlined in the article refers specifically to homosexual relations in the context of ancient Greek society, and the nature of the relationships which were expected in that society. Nor is it merely "a euphemism for pederasty": it is, again, a term relating specifically to a particular attitude to sexuality in a specific social context. As for "agenda-based editing", isn't that exactly what this user is advocating? He/she wants to have the article deleted because he/she morally disapproves of it. However, we should bear in mind WP:NOTCENSORED. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Morally disaprove? Are we discussing the same nomination I made...or are we making assumptions without checking the actual article yourself out discomfort for the subject?
Please. "Man/boy" are weasal words used over and over. It's the inaccuracy of its use as well as the way the article overflows with boosterism.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a vague term that floats around in meaning and isn't notable by itself. Just because the words "greek" and "love" appear together doesn't mean there is something unique or special about it. Of the billions of things published in the world, just because you can find a handful that use those two words together doesn't make it motable. Reading this article, how is this term any different than paederastry?--TheDecanome (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer TheDecanome's question, it is different in relating the concept specifically to the context in which it appeared in ancient Greece. Since love between males had a special role in that society, one which it does not have in any modern society, it is a concept with a social meaning quite different from the meaning which "paederastry" has in our society. As for "there is something unique or special about it", I should think there are many thousands of articles about things which have nothing unique or special about them: if we were to remove them all we would have a much smaller encyclopedia. For example, there are articles about many authors of books, and probably only a tiny proportion of them are unique or special. There is nothing in the Wikipedia notability guideline saying that uniqueness or specialness is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term - article is referenced and additional references are easy to find on GScholar [1] and Gbooks. [2] Edward321 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you possibly mean to say is that it's easy to point to a Google search that simply finds two words occurring in succession. It's rather harder, however, to make a proper argument for keeping, because that involves reading what the searches find (to see whether they are even relevant) and citing the specific works (a Google search result is not a citation). I note that you search result turns up things wholly disconnected from one another, including Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in Nineteenth-Century England, Greek History for Young Readers, and Ancient Greek Love Magic, the latter two of which have zero connection to the subject at hand. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course there are false hits, and I never claimed that a Google search was a citation. You appear to be assuming I did not read what the sources find, which is incorrect and not assuming good faith. The false hits do not change my points that the article is already sourced and that Google Books and Google Scholar both show that there are several of addition sources. Obvious ones on just the first page of the latter include Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in Nineteenth-Century England, Roman attitudes to Greek love, and Sexual life in ancient Greece. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am voting even though I nominated the article for deletion. I don't know if it's OK or not, so should it be wrong just don't count it, but I have discovered what appears to be an asserted effort by pro pedophilia supporters to edit a social agenda on wiki and I am making use of every possible tool at my disposal here at Wiki.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very honest of Amadscientist to admit to basing his/her comment on a POV position, but, however much he/she or you or I or any number of us may or may not disagree with "pro pedophilia supporters", Wikipedia is not censored, and "I morally disapprove of the motive behind this editor's editing" is not a valid reason for deletion: the decision must be based on the content of the article, not on speculation (nor even on established fact) about the viewpoint of the authors of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold Comment Wow, attributing a quote to someone who never made it is beyond in-civil. Misunderstanding someones intention is one thing, but to just make stuff up is serious. This attempt to label me as "Intolerant towards the pederastic community on Wikipedia", is inaccurate and at the same time.....true. While i do not support any pederastic subculture editing within the site. it is only when it becomes an asserted group effort to trash all other incoming information. While the Major contributer is civil in this discussion....his message on your talk page is clear. He supports the locking of technical articles to keep out unwanted opinion. He is the one stating that the "direction" he was aiming at was highjacked.

A detailed history section that I am about to reference was called frivilous.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment if the article stays I believe it should be renamed as "Byron and Greek Love", or "19TH Century Greek love philosophy" or "Pederasty in 19TH century England".--Amadscientist (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So many hits on Google, it made me dizzy. Obviously relevant and appropriately named. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 05:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, the topic is of historical note. It is scholarly and well cited. One could perhaps argue about the title of the article, but not its content. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important historical concept, has sources, probably does deserve its own article. Born Gay (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actualy as the nominating editor I can say I have a great interest in this area as part of my interests in many Ancient Greek and Roman subjects. This isn't the subject being written about. The article discusses a 19th century neo classical version and even then only a small part of that movement is discussed. Articles makes claims that are not supported by references and in some cases the article boost the idea of pederasty as the only definition and subject against mountains of literature, archeaology and known history.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the (current) principal editor, I am encouraged by the support, but disturbed that much of the article has already been deleted without discussion. The essential argument devolves upon the title which had been validated in discussion on the talk pages two years ago, and remained unchallenged until two days ago. I have made my rationale clear on the talk pages. The new material - deleted without warning - was intended to focus on recent publications e.g. "Greek Love Reconsidered" (ed. Hubbard) which title neatly sums up the direction that the article is to follow. --Dominique (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)--Dominique (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have also been disturbed by the way the article has been treated, and have already indicated that the proper way to proceed is to restore it to its original state of a couple of days ago, and to reference it in a reasonable way as may be necessary. I am sure I am not the only one who sees it as the product of a mature and responsible intellect. Like any other article here it will benefit from the attention of other responsible editors, but its current sorry state is not the way to move forward. Haiduc (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Dominique, here is what you wrote about the term 'Greek Love' on the Talk page, 12 Oct 2006 (italics mine): Even as a popular term, it may still provide a gateway to 'enlightenment' for those for whom the word 'pederast' is vague or meaningless, though I suppose this could be provided by a search 'redirection'. Your original intention was a reappraisal of pederasty and that is what is objectionable about the article. We already have articles on pederasty and we don't need an article that tries to promote a sympathetic view of it. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It has been my experience, in my long career of working on pederastic topics for Wikipedia, that one is quite as likely to dig up a distasteful example of pederasty as an exemplary one. Thus it is to be expected that the process of enlightening the reader (benighted or otherwise) would include the worst as well as the best of pederasty. I am sure you are not suggesting we should promote an antagonistic view in these articles. I do not read Dominique's words as seeking a reappraisal as much as seeking to inform the reader. It may well be that as a result of that information the reader may reappraise his position, either for the better or the worse, but that is not our concern. Haiduc (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Dominique needs to provide an alternative title so that we all know exactly what this article is about. If it is an attempt to enlighten readers about the true nature of pederasty, it should be merged with articles on pederasty. The present title invites confusion and people are editing it with various ideas about its significance. Indeed, most people who vote to keep the article really have no idea what it's about - two have cited Google hits as a reason for keeping it. This is crazy. I have nothing more to say. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Pederasty is a vast subject. It makes no sense to merge separate articles simply they come under the same category. Haiduc (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOT doesn't apply considering the following: this is a noteworthy subject which merits an article as there's clearly the interest and sources to clean up whatever problems there may be. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOTCLEANUP states "if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read on, you'll see what the authors of that essay mean by "harmful"; they refer specifically to BLP and COPYVIO situations, that is, those situations where there is a genuine concern that the article does harm to individual(s) and thereby exposes the Wikimedia Foundation to legal action. This isn't one of those situations. Another, though, which I've supported in the past, is if the article unequivocally violates WP:NOT, there exists no version in the article history which would satisfy it and there's difficulty finding reliable sources relevant to the subject (kind of like CSD G11). This isn't one of those cases either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominated mass deleted things the past few days [3] and then nominates the entire article which remains for deletion. The term shows up in plenty places. The article has plenty of references. It has enough content to be its own article, not combined with something else. It is uniquely different than other articles of similar topics. Therefore, it has both a reason and a right to exist. Dream Focus 01:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is a complicated tradition here, that is being somewhat fractured throughout the articles on this subject. The Ancient traditions of Greek philosophy, Eros (as a deity with dual traditions and as an idea) and Cupid (the Roman equivalent , Kalos (which doesn't have a proper page but redirects to Kalos inscription, which does at least relate to the archaeological evidence), and the graffiti of the ancients left on walls of stadiums, columns and rocks. These are the actual expressions of love left by real people in love with real people. The inscriptions of pottery and the pottery itself. Then there are the original surviving poetry and oral traditions of the original Hellenistic age and the writings of the many who wrote about or used these subjects as plot device as used in Jason and the Argonauts. Then, there is what the Romans thought. There is no definition in the eyes of the author being discussed as to what "boy" is defined as. No discussion of age at all, or that there exists other, perhaps even more common, uses of the term attributed to adults of age or "Equals". The sporting and Olympiad connection is also not brought up.
Renaming (move) to "Neo Hellenistic Greek Love" or "Neo classical Greek love" could be appropriate. Article can keep the emphasis on the 19th century movement with an overview explaining the ideology of the original Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians etc. Then begin as the article does and go on to other forms of influence and authors like Evelyn Waugh and Oscar Wild, all the way up to it's influences on LGBT studies as well as film and televison.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to bring confusion to this AfD. If he just wants to rename the article he should have discussed the matter on the talk page. If just wants to create a drama and draw a lot of people in, then he should find another forum. This AfD should never have happened, and is wasting time. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A waste indeed. There appears to be some sense of 'conversion' in the comments, though I am not shy of reasoned critique. I have been examining the topic over about three years - the development of my own thinking is recorded on the talk pages - and became convinced that a definition of 'Greek love' was bigger or more pervasive than that for Pederasty, tout court. Recent major literature on the subject should convince some doubters that the title has validity, even if a precise charaterization is elusive. The project under way re the article involves changes and re-writings (of the 14 June 09 more complete version of work to that date): the direction and suggested categories have already been mooted. I hope that this work can continue with the benefit of open discussion, support and challenge, but no calculated disruption. In my view, the title should stand as representing an established concept of current scholarly debate. A more comprehensive understanding is the goal.--Dominique (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have discussed the matter on the talk page. AFD was suggested as the proper route even after suggestion of renaming or merging were being made. A good debate in a civil manner whether lively or not is not a waste of time. I would have no choice but to agree if everyone was flattly against everything I bring up, but that isn't the case. This is not a WP:SNOW. The consesus of keeping looks good, so why wouldn't I want to gauge what is wanted by those envolved enough to add to it what the next step should be. If this is drama, I'm not the one painting it with such broad strokes.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and different from other articles mentioned, perhaps beginning with something like "Ancient Greek conceptions of love were in a hierarchy, with thoughtful male-to-male love, now commonly called 'Greek love', held in highest regard." -MBHiii (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Thank you. See further comment about the search for a 'definition' on the article's talk pages. --Dominique (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been some good rationals for and some good rationals against and plenty of rationals covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but overall the debate brought out clear consensus with problems agreed upon by even those proposing Keep. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of the material may be best presented in other articles, but there's enough cited evidence to show that the term is more than a neologism and deserves its own subject apart from other Pedarasty topics. ThemFromSpace 22:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nom seems to argue for a rename -- AfD isn't the right venue for that. The Victorian hellenic ideal certainly is notable. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greek_love&oldid=1086067605"