This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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.

I think this article should be deleted as original research but we should have a disambiguation page titled 'Greek love', directing the reader to various articles covered by this broad term. There is no scholarly work giving an overview of the various uses of 'Greek Love' and, if we select any one use of the term, we are merely reinventing an article that already exists. Any support for this move? Any arguments against? (Please note: I have been involved in previous discussions about this article but under different user names) McZeus (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article should be deleted, and I don't see anything particularly original about it. It's a topic of intellectual history, and it's solidly sourced. I guess I'm not seeing grounds for deletion. I think it's illuminating to see how the significance of "Greek love" changes. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Greek love' conflates many terms and meanings, covered for example by articles such as these:

• LGBT history: e.g. The article GL says, among other things: The term Greek Love is encountered in other languages. In German, as "griechische Liebe," it has been found in German writings between 1750 and 1850, along with other terms as "socratische Liebe" (Socratic Love) and "platonische Liebe" (Platonic love), signifying male-male attractions
• Anal sex: The article GL once included this well sourced comment: In English-speaking countries, "Greek love" has been used since the 1930s as a slang term referring either to anal sex involving partners of any age, or to pederasty.^[1][2]
• Prison sexuality: The article GL says: A very different use of the term is made by Richard A. Posner, (author and judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago) in discussing the difference between men who prefer sex with other men, and men who prefer sex with women but were quick to substitute a man or (preferably) a boy when women were not available: "The first group dominates the homosexual subculture of today; the last group dominated "Greek Love" (which should really be called Athenian Love because we know little about the sexual customs of the other city states). Provided we are aware of this difference, we shall not get into trouble if we call Greek love homosexual."^[3]
• Platonic love: The article GL mentions that William Davenport first used this term in 1636 but it is not clear what term is meant - Greek love or Platonic love. I have Googled Davenport + Greek love and I got nothing. However, it is clear from the German words above that the two terms were interchangeable at least in Germany.
• John Addington Symonds: The article GL indicates that he is not using Greek love to identify ancient or modern pederasty but some kind of idealized notion or personal definition: The term was used by John Addington Symonds, one of the Uranians, a group of British intellectuals who sought to formulate concepts of homosexuality at a time when homosexual behaviour was illegal. When discussing the topic of idealized pederasty, often associated with ancient Athens, he defined it as follows: "I shall use the terms Greek Love, understanding thereby a passionate and enthusiastic attachment subsisting between man and youth, recognised by society and protected by opinion, which, though it was not free from sensuality, did not degenerate into mere licentiousness."^[4]
• Pederasty in ancient Greece: Hmmm - who actually uses 'Greek love' to mean pederasty in ancient Greece? There are passing references, as for example by the American judge, Prossner and Symonds above, both of whom specifically mention Athenian pederasty, but neither of whom actually uses the term in that context. Their representations of Athenian pederasty would not be accepted by scholars, I think, since indeed they are defining their own terms for modern contexts.

Some of these articles don't even mention 'Greek love' and the info here in GL would be more useful there. This article has a troubled history because 'Greek love' can be interpreted so many ways, as indicated by the links. Different sources use it in different contexts and original research is needed to interpret the meanings of the different authors and to correlate the various uses, their histories and origins. The need for original scholarship/research was recognized when the article was first created. Look for example here at the first 3 entries on the talk page. McZeus (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand and appreciate the problems associated with the term "Greek love" — but that's why I oppose deleting the article. The article should exist to explain all this. To be more specific about my reasons to keep:

• The phrase was used in the 19th century, concomitant with a revival of interest in Greek classical antiquity (in this case, as an antidote to more 'repressive' sexual attitudes of the time), and its use embodies a particular intellectual and aesthetic attitude (see, for instance, Crompton's Byron and Greek love: homophobia in 19th-century England, in the bibliography, where the concept of "Greek love" is part of a book title). The classical past was evoked to show that sexual "norms" are culturally determined, as we would put it now. In that context, it has a particular meaning.
• Craig Williams goes to great lengths to show that Latin authors talk about "Greek ways" with regard to several kinds of behavior that they want to consider "un-Roman," but not — he insists — pederasty. (I don't think 'Greek love' meant the Archaic Greek social custom in the first place.) But Williams himself has to use the term in order to set out to debunk it, because of its longstanding use; he provides a sort of history of the concept, and thus validates the existence this article as a topic in the history of scholarship.
• Although I like Williams' work very much, I think he goes to extremes with this particular argument, and although he's "owned" the topic for a while, it can't be assumed that his is the last word. From a "history of scholarship" perspective, I have on file, for instance, a pre-Williams article from Ramsay MacMullen, "Roman Attitudes to Greek Love," Historia 31 (1982) 484–502.
• Williams' argument seems to be that it's wrong to think the Romans had to learn to be gay from the Greeks, or to direct erotic feelings at boys or youths: these are not culturally determined behaviors. Yes — but that isn't the point. There was among the Roman elite clearly a stylistic choice, as distinguished from sexual behavior, that self-consciously shaped the way in which they expressed same-sex eroticism toward handsome youths; see Quintus Lutatius Catulus#As author. This is an aspect of Hellenization at Rome as a literary phenomenon. It's utterly beside the point (I'd call it an uncharacteristically boneheaded argument from Williams) to say that if the phrase amor graecus never appears in a Latin text, then there was no concept of "Greek love" among the Romans, let alone Byron and his set. A concept is not the same as a word. An aesthetic is not the same thing as a behavior.
• As for a single definition of "Greek love," are we about to delete every article on a term (say, "democracy", or "religion"), because there's no single definition of the term? Can we find a single source that includes every single possible definition and example of "democracy" or "religion"? An encyclopedia article is not a book report; WP is not a collection of abstracts of books and articles. Of course an article is going to combine multiple sources. The purpose of OR is to keep untested ideas and novel approaches out; simply reporting on the verifiable history of scholarship, without drawing any new conclusions, is not OR.
• Even if we could say with confidence "'Greek love' is a misnomer," to banish "Greek love" as an article from WP would be rather like saying that we couldn't have an article on a geocentric model of the universe because it's been shown that geocentricism is incorrect. "Greek love" is a significant concept in the history of how homoeroticism is intellectualized, and showing how its meaning changes over time, depending on context, seems to me exactly what the article should do. I'm not seeing what it would accomplish to fragment the discussion; some usages don't seem suited to sustaining an independent article at all.

The article as it stands may not be successful — there are lots of inadequacies. Those are reasons to rewrite and improve it, not delete it. Material that doesn't belong here (where "Greek love" is not a concept used in the cited scholarship) should go away. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • You are actually demonstrating the problem with this article. You are engaging in Original Research - there is no scholarly overview of the subject that you can appeal to. Instead you cite a number of authors who use the term differently. McZeus (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change to disambiguation page. The term is used to mean various things, and after extensive research and talk page discussion over a long time, we still do not have any reliable sources directly defining the term. An example of the disparate uses is that modern dictionaries and slang dictionaries define it as a synonym for the act of anal sex, while some of the historical literature suggests it refers to a lofty or even spiritual form of affection that may not involve sexual activity at all. Unless there are reliable sources connecting the various uses, this requires disambiguation to avoid original research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Deletion. Cynwolfe says it all. I'm not an expert in this field, but those are reasonable arguments for keeping the article. It serves a useful purpose. I'm also concerned that the proposal is being made by somebody who has repeatedly called for deleting or otherwise removing the contributions of another editor who was a major contributor to this article, and who previously engaged in lengthy battles with said editor over this and other articles. Articles should be edited in order to improve their accuracy and usefulness, not to promote one point of view or expunge the contributions of others with whom an editor disagrees. P Aculeius (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor has been banned. I resist any attempt to promote any sexual orientation. McZeus (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep reminding us. Haiduc was banned for repeated edit warring and disrespectful language towards other editors with whom he came in conflict, of whom you were one. I note that in the earlier arguments on this page you were both cautioned by third parties. Contrary to your assertions, he was not banned because of his point of view or because he was improperly promoting anything. The fact that he is currently banned is not a license for you to expunge all of his contributions, or to sanitize the articles to which he was a major contributor. You made your arguments for deleting this article last year, and that proposal was rejected. I cannot find any reason for calling for the same thing again, except for personal animus towards Haiduc. P Aculeius (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And oppose disambiguation. These are not genuinely distinct terms; they are different spins on a single term, usefully compared and contrasted in a single article. In Greek, they are all eros; if Greek love had a significant proportion of usage meaning Philhellenism or storge or agape, that would be a case for disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says they are not genuinely distinct? Cite your source. I say they are distinct and so does Jack-A-Roe but we can't cite a source either. McZeus (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abd you have not attracted consensus, have you? The burden of proof is on those who would change things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were a Pythagorean, I'd say you were a Sophist. As I am not, I'll only reflect on the fact that, at the last Afd for this article, you very rightly voted delete. Nothing has changed since then except - what? McZeus (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you a Pythagorean, that would be high praise; the derogatory sense is Attic.
    • I did not vote delete: I criticized.
    • What has changed? The article; the falsehood about Shelley is gone, the claim about equals has been changed to a far more limited and accurate claim. 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PMAnderson, my mistake - you didn't actually vote delete, but this was part of your comment at the Afd and it stuck in my mind as a delete vote (italics mine): "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." The question now is - if you don't actually want to delete GL, what do you want to merge it with? Even a merge is problematic because then we have to decide which article most identifies with the term 'Greek love'. McZeus (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the question before that is whether I still want to merge it; I don't. It is much closer to Peter Cohen's proposal; the major embarassment remaining is the boxed quote from Posner - not usefully talking about the modern term, not a reliable source on either the Greeks or the Regency, and wrong. I'll remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

t seems to me that this page should be two articles. There is an article about attitudes to homosexuality in ancient Greece and subsequent influence. That article should not be called Greek love as it appears to have been referred to by several different terms. Then there is the article about the specific phrase which could either be very short or a disambig. Just a thought.--Salix (talk): 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there are two articles: Homosexuality in ancient Greece is not even linked to on this page - as Cynwolfe remarks below, it ought to be; this article discusses the modern description of various erotic practices as "Greek". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Posner's definition of 'Greek love' has been removed by one editor because it doesn't fit in with his personal interpretation of the term/phrase. I intend reinstating that definition because at least Posner's definition is very clear. No sourced material should be deleted until there is a decision about the future of this article. Nobody knows yet what it is about. I have already reinstated the popular use of 'Greek love' as slang for either anal sex or pederasty. This is a popular encyclopaedia and the article can hardly ignore the popular meanings. McZeus (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I have now re-instated Posner's definition as well as some other sourced material that was deleted with it. The article is a mess but we can't remove material from it until we agree what it's about and whether or not it is viable. McZeus (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has emerged clearly from these debates is the need for new articles that might be titled, for example Homosexuality in the Renaissance and Homosexuality in the Romantic period. There is a wealth of literature relevant to those topics and they deserve article status. A 'Greek love' disambiguation page would certainly link to those articles. It would also link to many other articles on homosexual themes (there are in fact various sources for 'Greek love' which are not currently in the article - they were deleted by editors who couldn't work out how to fit them within the context of a single subject). Readers can use the disambiguation page to do their own original research. It's not the role of WP editors to attempt synthesis of such divergent material without guidance from a published scholar. Any comments about this? McZeus (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Posner's definition of 'Greek love' has been removed by one editor because it doesn't fit in with his personal interpretation of the term/phrase.

That is a falsehood, and a personal attack.

My reasons for removing Posner are stated above and have nothing to do with the meaning of "Greek love": he's not a reliable source on this subject (his field is American law, on which he is merely tendentious) - and, more to the point, he demonstrates it: which should really be called Athenian Love because we know little about the sexual customs of the other city states is an absurdity. We know most about Athens in any field of social life, because the surviving sources on Greek culture (mostly from Athens or from the Second Sophistic) cared about classical Athens more than any other place or time; but we know a good bit about the sexual customs of Thebes, Corinth, Lacedaemon, and Crete, to name those which come immediately to mind. Of these, three are comparable - and are compared by ancient sources - to Athens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner is defining 'Greek love' as behaviour by heterosexuals who substitute male partners for females and he uses it to distinguish it from homosexuality proper. That is an important distinction by an authority in the legal profession and you have no right to delete it as irrelevant. You have made up your mind about the meaning of 'Greek love' but I see many meanings and so do the published authors, who use it in many different contexts. You have no right to delete secondary sources that have long been associated with this article and I have reverted your edit accordingly. McZeus (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, a tertiary source is being cited for a false assertion, off topic for this article, and this may not be removed because an editor who wants to delete the entire article objects that it has been here for some time. That is revert-warring; it is also one of the very few real examples of WP:POINT: disrupting Wikipedia by insisting on something one does not actually want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McZeus also complained (IIRC at the AfD) that this article was pederastic propaganda. I don't think so; but were there any here, it is certainly in the sentence and a half The three terms are associated with educational, civic and philosophical ideals as well as the sexual implications.[7] Relationships often transcended the physical or the erotic, the adult being invested with responsibility for the moral and spiritual welfare of the boy which our revert-monger keeps restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now editing this article to enforce your own interpretation of 'Greek love' and you are systematically deleting all the sourced material that doesn't fit your interpretation. You are not the first person to edit this article in that pointed way and you won't be the last so long as the article remains. As for being a revert-monger, I have never once broken the 3R rule in all my time editing WP. McZeus (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now editing this article to enforce your own interpretation of 'Greek love' and you are systematically deleting all the sourced material that doesn't fit your interpretation' That is another unfounded falsehood; I have stated my reasons, and they have nothing to do with the meaning of "Greek love". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted Posner's definition of GL, you have deleted the popular (slang) definition, you have deleted an idealized definition of pederasty that is consistent with John Addington Symonds definition (which somebody else has deleted), and there are many other uses of the term, as for example by David Hume (eg look at this old version here. The article now seems to be about Renaissance homosexuality, apparently because a few scholars have used GL in that particular context and that is the context you want to focus on. Is this a personal attack? It is a statement of facts. McZeus (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, having just looked at the article again, I still can't tell what it is about even after your edits. It still seems to be about anything to do with homosexuality but with more emphasis on the arts and the Renaissance than there used to be, supported by texts that have been Googled for the term/phrase 'Greek love' and which are really about some other subject. This is no way to construct an article. McZeus (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some sense to the deletion by Pmanderson (diff) because the lead was a little flowery and the section on Posner somewhat unusual for an article (we should give a brief summary of Posner's conclusion with citation). However, the result of the deletion is that the article is meaningless mumbo jumbo, where the lead does not actually say what Greek love is. Also, the ^[nb 1] note explaining "modern" is ugly and unhelpful (if the lead sentence needs a note so readers can understand it, that sentence needs to be recast). I have not followed the earlier discussion re "delete and disambiguate", but it does make sense to work out what topics (if any) should be in this article before worrying about the wording of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of mere fact, I have restored the lead to what it was when Peter Cohen edited this article, and continued to be until a few days ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see my name has been mentioned a few times here. My position is that

• There is potential for a properly researched article here,
• We haven't got that article yet
• Nevertheless there was some useful stuff last time I looked
• There is a lot of material published by academics that can be used
• There is also material by self-interested parties such as that by convicted child-molestor Breen/Eglington
• The article should not be about what the Greeks actually did but how the term "Greek love" has been used and the sociological factors underlying that usage
• I am currently sort of on a Wiki-break and am in no mood to write stuff for free while a certain co-founder enjoys jetting around and doing more harm than good to the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but the lead should provide some information on what "Greek love" actually means, or the different ways in which it has been interpreted by different people. Currently, the lead (and the article) are silent on that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posner's claim is that Greek male sex should be called "Athenian love" and that we don't know other city-states had the same customs. Since his major defender has cited the OCD section on 'Greek Love' below, I will quote its first sentence: The fullest testimony for Greek pederastic norms and practices derives from Classical Athens, but surviving evidence from elsewhere in the Greek world largely accords with the Athenian model. (In context, of course, this is talking about Greek paiderastia; this is not a source, in any direction, about what Greek love is in the modern world.)

The OCD also answers another POV thus: Although some Athenian men may have entertained high-minded intentions towards the boys they courted, it would be hazardous to infer from their occasional efforts at self-promotion ( Plato Symposium 184c–185b; Aeschines Against Timarchus 132–40) that Greek pederasty aimed chiefly at the education and moral improvement of boys instead of at adult sexual pleasure.

Both of these appear to be the view of scholarship in general; mentioning that there have been other views - as there have - should be governed by WP:UNDUE. (Although to some extent, the existence of such views is the topic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is important that everyone understands the muddled dimensions of an article like this, here is a collection of just some sources that deal with 'Greek love': List of sources for 'Greek love'. I hope people will look at the list and think about it. If you select the sources to narrow the subject area, you will find that you are recreating articles that already exist. If you don't narrow the subject area, you will find that the result is confusion. McZeus (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is presently wearing two tags, both of which say they are explained on the talk page. Neither of them is explained; neither of them has an obvious explanation. I will be perfectly happy to wait 24 hrs, to see why McZeus claims either

• That this article contains unsourced information; his last argument. was that it should contain sourced (badly sourced and nonsense, but sourced) and irrelevant information - so this can hardly refer to that.
• That this article contains unencyclopedic information. What? Following the link, one finds Wikipedia is not censored, which hardly seems to be encourage this tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate/discussion leading up to an Afd nomination and the tags are part of the process. The synthesis tag relates to the present edit in so far as the lede cites a book about Lytten Strachy but the book is not about Greek love and the term appears with other terms such as 'Higher Sodomy' and 'New Style of Love' in a chapter titled: Brotherly Love: The Cambridge Apostles and the Pursuit of the Higher Sodomy. The meaning of the term is not at all clear from this book and it appears to be conflated or synthesized with other terms. The lede also cites a source about German writing between 1750 and 1850, and then the article goes on to talk about 18th century artists and Rennaissance artists and various notions of Platonic love. It's a synthesis of divergent material. There have been other edits of this article that have concentrated on still other meanings of Greek Love and those edits also were an original synthesis of divergent material. The unencyclopaedic tag covers a range of issues - WP is not a dictionary where we list various meanings of a widely used term, it is not a place where we engage in original research, or where we decide that a term means only one thing when clearly the literature shows that it means many things. The article is and always has been a content fork. It needs to be properly rationalized. Deletion and replacement with a disambiguation page is my preference. A merge is possible though there are many articles that could be merged with it and it's hard to understand why one should be selected rather than another. McZeus (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate this article for AfD again, I will consider whether a topic ban is warranted. This has already been rejected for a worse form of the article; and your only argument here is fallacious. If you spelt Lytton Strachey correctly, you would find several sources - not merely Taddeo - discussing him and "Greek love" in the same context. This is not particularly surprising.

This is specious; it will fail. If you have nothing better to say, your tags are unjustified. If you have a grievance which is not recognized by Wikipedia, you have my personal sympathy within limits; but we are not censored for the assuagement of ethnic pride either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting comments. I just looked at your 'several sources' and it amounts to two Google pages, mostly referring to Crompton's book 'Byron and Greek love'. The others include phrases like "Greek love of wine", "Greek love for modern students", and "Both Greek love and birds singing in Greek - including perhaps her love for Violet - were on (Virginia) Wolfe's mind." As fas as I know, Crompton never cites the use of the term Greek love except as a phrase whose meaning might have been known to Byron and his contemporaries. I suggest you look at my list of sources for 'Greek love'. Please stay focussed on the argument - 'play the ball and not the man' is a term used in various codes of football and it is apposite here. The debate is too important to be lost in niggling feuds. McZeus (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags: I have just now noticed that the tags have been removed. I will reinstate them and if they are removed again I will place an appeal on the admin noticeboard. We seem to be approaching the unfortunate point where a referee is required. McZeus (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These tags are poorly justified and I have removed them. If Mr. McZeus wants to make a post at WP:ANI, that's his business; but I doubt it will help the sad situation here much. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it incomprehensible that the topic of "Greek love" should be considered OR by even the strictest WP application of "original." I really don't want to get into a pointless argument, but I don't see how anyone could look at this book, for instance, and imagine that there's something original about presenting the history of scholarship on "Greek love" as a way to conceptualize homoeroticism. I mean, the title of the book is Same-sex desire and love in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the classical tradition of the West. The historical usage of the term "Greek love" is explicitly set forth as a topic, and explored as one strand in the classical tradition. The book covers Greek and Roman antiquity, the Renaissance, German classical philology of the 18th and 19th centuries, the Romantics, and so on to 1965. It shows how the concept of "Greek love" changes and is responsive to attitudes in various time periods; what is perceived as a classical model is shown to be a reflection of those who would do the emulating. This is a well-defined topic of intellectual history. (And no, quotation marks are not placed around "Greek love" in the book.) That said, the WP article is pretty poor, and should proceed like the book above, section by section historically. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's OR either. It does have considerable overlap with other articles that exist or ought to exist on WP, but I don't see any articles that deal seriously with the influence of Greco-Roman same-sex relationships (mostly Greek and male) on modern conceptions of homoeroticism (again, mostly male). The entirety of Linda Dowling's Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford, just to name one book, is a source that ought to be used for this article; as often seems to be the case on WP, the editors who are opposed to the article's form and apparently very existence seem to know little of the topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynwolfe, every time you involve yourself in one of these debates the level of debate goes up a notch. I thank you for that. However, the book you are citing is a collection of essays by different authors who are considering a wide range of topics under the banner Same-sex desire and love in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the classical tradition of the West. Most of the instances of the words 'Greek love' appear in the references and are just book titles already included in my own list of sources. The essays reflect the diversity I have already pointed out in my list. Let me quote from the editors of the book:

"To the best best of our knowledge, Same-sex desire and love in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the classical tradition of the West is the first published collection devoted to same sex-desire and love in ancient Greco-Roman world. For more than a quarter century now, since the landmark publication of Kenneth Dover's 'Greek Homosexuality' in 1978, there has been a steady stream of books, monographs, articles and conference papers, many of these looking at the phenomenon of homoeroticism and homosexuality within the context of sexuality in the ancient world as a whole. The time seems ripe, therefore, for a wide-ranging collection of papers that will demonstrate to classicists and non-classicists alike how much the study of same-sex desire and love in the Greco-Roman antiquity has advanced in the past quarter century." Introductory paragraph

The different authors are presenting different meanings of 'Greek love' just as they do in their own published works and there is no attempt by the editors to synthesize the different meanings. There is however an attempt in this WP article to synthesize the different meanings and that is original research. Thus, though the book you cite seems at first glance to validate this article, on further aquaintance, it actually confirms everything I have been saying. A collection of essays on a wide-ranging theme does not justify an article dedicated to the term 'Greek love' when that term has been used in so many different ways. McZeus (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be an attempt to synthesize the different meanings? That sounds like truth-seeking. The term "Platonic love" has also been used in many ways; therefore, that article exists to explain the origin, history, and various usages of the term and the concept it represents. (I would argue that "Platonic love" is less well-defined as a topic.) The purpose of the book I cited above is to demonstrate how the complex and various models of homoerotic relations in ancient Greece (including but by no means limited to Pederasty in ancient Greece), referred to sometimes as "Greek love," constitute a topic within what's called "the classical tradition." How do the generations receive, reinterpret, and fashion themselves in light of that specifically Greek model? The book is a collection of essays, but it isn't a festschrift or random assemblage; it explores a coherent theme chronologically, with each scholar contributing within his or her area of expertise. It's a fallacy to say that if the exact phrase "Greek love" doesn't appear in every essay, the essay is unrelated to a model of eros that has been conceived of as Greek, because that is indeed the theme of the book. Now, I tried to contribute in positive ways to fixing the many problems at Pederasty in ancient Greece, and still wander over there once in a while. As Akhilleus notes, there are many problems with Greek love in its present form. So I don't want to engage too intensely in this discussion, because I'm just not feeling Byronic enough to roll up my sleeves and do actual work on the article. But I do want to assert that I think this is a recognized concept in the history of scholarship that can result in an article arranged chronologically by section. Looking at what the Romantics made of "Greek love" makes no sense unless the classical precedent they invoked and reimagined has been explained first. The article needs to exist for the very reason that the concept is problematic. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue this debate with you a little longer, if I may, Cynwolfe, since you have entered into the debate in a positive and scholarly like way. One of the many problems with 'Greek Love' as an article lies in the fact that the term is a euphemism for various aspects of human sexuality. I don't think we should be using euphemisms or pejoratives in the title of an encyclopaedia article about human sexuality. The use of a euphemism is OK if there is a compelling reason to use it. I see no compelling reason for it in an article whose subject area is so broad almost anything to do with homosexuality or pederasty (hence 'Greek') appears to be relevant. The article lends itself too easily to editing by advocacy groups of one kind or another and there is no published authority we can consult when trying to work out what does or does not belong here. As we have seen so often in this article in the past, differences are only settled by warfare. McZeus (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's probably not fair to pump you for more arguements. You have helped me formulate some ideas and I'm sure you have used this debate to formulate a response. May the best arguement win and no hard feelings afterwards! I hope to get the nomination going sometime today or the next few days. I've never done this before. Tally-ho! McZeus (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about pejoratives or euphemisms belong in comprehensive encyclopedias. "Greek love" is not simply a pejorative or euphemism, however; the sources you've gathered illustrate that. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please help manage the debate at Talk: Greek love I think the first step would be to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment to gain more views on the subject. While heated the discussion does not yet seem to have reached a stage where admin action is needed.--Salix (talk): 07:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice. The problem is the edit war that appears to be certain if I reinstate the tags. I never enter into edit wars. The two tags say that the article may have problems. The upcoming Afd will determine whether or not there are problems so I am prepared to let the tags go rather than waste time pursuing a 'heated' debate any further. Those who have insisted on removing the tags should ask themselves whether or not that action has helped their cause. McZeus (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following version of the lead seems to me most unfortunate:

Greek love is a term in Modern English,^[5] and other modern European languages,^{[citation needed]} referring to a type of ancient Greek model of friendship which can imply a male bonding between equals or a spiritual, educational and/or sexual union of males of varying age.^{[citation needed]} Quotation marks are generally placed on either or both words, i.e., "Greek" love, Greek "love" or "Greek love". The term is defined in contemporary English as a synonym for anal sex.^[6]

In German, the term "griechische Liebe" (Greek love) was used in literature between 1750 and 1850 to refer to male-male sexual attraction, along with other terms as pederastie and kanbenliebe (love of boys), sodomiterey (sodomy), "socratische Liebe" (Socratic Love) and "platonische Liebe" (Platonic love).^[7]

According to author Craig A. Williams, the term "Greek love" is not found in any surviving text from any ancient source. ^[5]

Some points:

• Requesting a citation for use of "Greek love" in other modern European language, when immediately followed by a citation for the use of "Griechische Liebe" is frivolous; German is a modern European language.
• Yes, "Greek love" can mean anal sex, but it meant other things first and more commonly; this (in the lead) is undue weight - and insofar as it suggests a single definition, carelessness.
• According to author Craig A. Williams suggests (falsely) that what follows is his position in a controversy. It is not; and it is not controversial; the term is a modern innovation and that is what the article is here to discuss. This is a statement of fact, with a source; in principle, it should be repeated in the article - probably first, as a matter of chronology - and sourced there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Doesn't appear to be cited here. Has review [2]. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see two main problems here. One, the article has no clear structure. One result of the AfD discussion was the need for a chronological approach. If we deal period by period with the reception of "Greek love" as an aspect of the classical tradition, a lot of the noodling should go away. The "Terminology" section is a stopgap measure; this stuff really belongs in chronological order. (And some of it sounds like pre-writing, or working through one's thought process, instead of a finished thought.)

I believe another positive result from the discussion was an awareness that "Greek love" is a discourse, not a set of behaviors. The article should focus quite specifically on how — to take one example — the Romantics express homoeroticism via a Greek model. I hastily threw in a paragraph on ancient Rome based on stuff I had at my fingertips, but was not prepared tonight to take on some weightier aspects, and I'm not sure how clear I've made what I did put in. So this is just a gesture in that direction. I also used the new book from Blanshard to generate a lede consonant with "Greek love" as a received concept, and not a set of behaviors. (Blanshard was quite the find as a source.) There are others, however, who also make it clear that "Greek love" is an aspect of the classical tradition.

I deleted some stuff I thought was off-topic or personal essay-ish. I wish I could help more right now (if indeed I have helped), as I don't like to complain without rolling up my sleeves and doing the work. Hope to return to it, and hope others will adopt one of the historical periods and contribute a paragraph on it to get things rolling. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, contrary to the note at the top, "Greek love" is as defined in the scholarly sources an aspect of Philhellenism. And the philological recovery of the classical past, with its parsing of different forms of eros, also inspires or comes to bear on the conceptual model. This is perhaps a "see also". Before the section on "ancient Rome," there needs to be a short section from Blanshard et al. surveying the characteristics of Greek (homo)sexuality that were regarded as distinctive. A certain amount of copyediting remains, in addition to covering important missing aspects of the topic. We might want to review the AFD for bibliography. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Afd debate went rather well in spite of some hostility and I think everyone got something good out of it. It cleared up some issues for me. I think the article has a chance of succeding if GL is defined clearly. The article should be about the most notable use of the term - denoting the idealized account of pederasty that was developed in ancient Greece - and the end section should be about its reception in later times and places. That's a coherent structure that would allow all editors to have some clear sense of what this article is about. However, there is a danger that it will go on being an accretion of vaguely relevant or even irrelevant material on a homoerotic theme. McZeus (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Greek love" is not about ancient Greece; therefore, the missing section following the lede will be an outline based on the major secondary sources of what aspects of Greek sexual culture were later influential, not a description of homosexuality in ancient Greece, which has its own article and can be a "see also." The consensus of that discussion was that the topic should be explored historically period by period (outlines were presented), as based on the treatment in the scholarship. Two major sections are missing: the Romantics and the Victorians. "Greek love" is an aesthetic or literary approach to homoeroticism viewed through the imaginative lens of Greek antiquity. It is an aspect of the reception of the classical tradition. As multiple editors looked over the scholarship, this became clear to everyone but you. At the AfD discussion, you explicitly threatened to disrupt the editing process, contrary to consensus. I think you need to step back and give the article time to develop. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Oxford Classical Dictionary has a very large subsection of Homosexuality titled Greek love. Maybe you should send the editors a letter pointing out their error. I am accused of many things. I have no intention of disrupting edits but I reserve the right to nominate an article for deletion if it is fundamentally flawed and nobody should have anything to fear from that process. I'm encouraged to nominate again by the abuse and slander I have received from various people during recent days. People who are sure of their arguments don't need to employ responses like that. Of course I will allow time for you and others to rescue this article. Good luck with it. McZeus (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A singularly incomplete description of the OCD article, which begins:

No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality, and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behaviour according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in a sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reason of their gender, age, and social status...

and continues by noting that modern terms may be used to interrogate the ancient evidence - but denies the assumption that the inquirer will find what he asks for. In accordance with this, "Greek love" appears only once, as a header in scare quotes over the section (an interesting one), on eros and philia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to look more thoroughly at Williams' second edition (I knew him from the first ed.); Martha Nussbaum wrote the foreword and assures that he listened to criticisms. And of course at the moment the Ancient Roman section has taken over. I promised at the AfD to try to make positive contributions, but wanted to begin by dealing with the material I'm most familiar with. I'll try to restore the balance as I can, though obviously it takes a while to deal with a topic that unfolds over the course of substantial essays or entire books. I've only scratched the surface of Blanshard. I'll probably look at the Romantics next, since they're now conspicuously absent, and my university library appears to have copies of Crompton's book on hand. I'll be on the lookout for scholarship that can clarify the jumble of material here on the Renaissance. I do hope others can work on this, as humanist philosophy is not something I dote on. I also expect that a much-needed section on Oscar Wilde will illuminate the topic; as the article shows, the Greek side of the classical tradition was formative in his education, and he explicitly evoked Greek models in dealing with his homosexuality, as Blanshard noted in his introduction to the "Greek Love" half of his book. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One question that should be dealt with on Wilde, but I'll leave it to you for a while:

At the time of their liaison, Lord Alfred Douglas was in his early to mid-twenties, had presumably begun to shave, and appears to have been sexually active himself. This makes the whole thing more respectable to the twenty-first century, but the Greek model would classify it as cinaedism. It would be interesting to know if the sources note the discrepancy, and where they go with it: I would expect them to say that "Greek love" is not an exercise in historical reconstruction - but there are other possibilities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose all I can say is that if the article didn't exist, on the basis of scholarly usage of the term/concept I would think that it needed to, in order to explain why it means different things at different times. Starting from scratch, however, I would've wanted to draft it offline until I felt that its scholarly armature was in place. I certainly wouldn't have undertaken to write such an article unless I was willing to devote a month to it as my main WP focus. But since I've argued to keep it, I feel obliged to contribute. It requires structure and discipline to stay on topic and simply summarize the sources. These are abundant and take time. I very much hope that others can begin the sections that are currently missing, so that we have the frame for the historical approach the topic requires. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, but not this week. It would help if you could suggest a draft TOC, so we can see what sections are missing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]