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 have returned the whole article back, including the references that don't support claims etc, except the lead, the infobox and the title of the first section. My reasons for these changes concern an encyclopedic lead that is not written in an over romantic display of prose, please. To stick to what a traditional wiki lead would be per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). It certainly could use more if the article is to be this long and I would like to discuss the copy editing of possible areas. First I will add a good faith edit from suggestions by returning the Greek section.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the badly worded section that falsly claimed that Platonic love was the first English use of "Greek love". It isn't that simple and really looks like it was the choped up version of the original claim with reference I added back from one of the archaic versions of this article. It states accurately that Platonic love "c[a]me to signify the original English use of Greek Love.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I simplified the caption in the Ficino image. This section could use expanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let us build a new consensus. Let us do that by talking about what edits we'd like to make, instead of making sweeping changes repeatedly and even after being asked not to until we have a chance to discuss how the article should be changed. Let's deal with the controversial issues slowly and discuss things. I am not going to revert these changes, but Amadscientist, I ask that you restore material that you have deleted and bring up why you think it needs to be deleted here, and I ask again that we talk about edits before we make changes. I really would like to avoid the kinds of heated discussions we've had in the past.

I would also like to ask everyone to please state in simple language what they see as wrong with the article as a starting point. Amadscientist asked about adding a section on Oscar Wilde, that seems like an excellent notion. I'll be mostly offline the next few days, but I'll get started on Davidson. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's Wrong: The article is supposed to be about 'Greek love'. Focus on the term, use only sources that explain the term, and make this clear in the intro. Otherwise it will go on being a sexual theme park with a Greek flavour, fun for some and an outrage to others. Blanshard's book is the only source so far that warrants a multi-contextual approach and it must be used (it has not really been used so far except as a pretext for creative edits). Said all this before. Don't know why I am saying it again. I was McZeus. I am now just a number. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, you can make suggestions and even if others agree with your strategy of asking others to discuss the edits they wish to make first...I do not and will not support that. This is an open source medium. We don't get to make the rules here. I have returned this article to nearly the exact same place it was with a few alterations....a few. I made edit summaries and took the advice of other editors in returning the Ancient Greek section and made sure all the Byron stuff was put back. I said we should build a new consensus and we shall. That does not mean we are required to discuss what edits we would like to make before we make them. Editors can certainly build on things, remove unsourced material (I have a full paragraph that has no references...why not discuss that and how it could be referenced or that maybe you feel it should be left out until I am able to reference the claims, etc.) and remove and add material. It is only common sense to communicate what you are doing and why, but that does not mean we can control how others edit, here or on any article. I am among the major contributors here and I admit my bold edits recently were not in agreement with consensus. That is why I returned it. Because all editors who feel strongly about the subject should WANT to work together and I know I do. I made a good faith effort to stay within consensus of interested editors here. I will continue to work with editors. I will even not edit for a while to see if others return with the gesture, because I do not want a return to the fighting and the uncivil back and forth that has been this articles history for years.

I will suggest something....but no one need heed the suggestion. Compare this article to Homosexual.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McZeus, I don't think I understand what you mean by "Sexual Theme park". Could you elaborate further. Are you concerned that the article discusses sexuality too much or that it promotes an agenda. The latter has always been my major concern. The article's subject is sexuality so it will almost always be centered on such. "Greek Love" is phrase that means same sex relations. It is....really. But we have had problems in the past with over emphasizing this as a "Greek" thing...it is not. It's an "ancient Greek" thing. A big difference. Also.....Greek love IS NOT Platonic love. That phrase has a different and older meaning. Similar with many of the same influences and a history that even converges or begins nearly in the same spot...but the two subjects have really always had a somewhat slighting different meaning, especially in contemporary times.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh....OK McZeus is Amphitryoniades. OK...at least I know who I am interacting with. I remember you here from the former consensus of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist, you were bold, then reverted, bold again and reverted again, and bold yet still, but I see no discussion. I'm reverting your edits and asking you again to bring specific issues to this talk page. Wholesale reconstruction of this article based on what you believe was consensus month ago is simply not appropriate. 12:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What limit do we feel is appropriate and what may be broad coverage in the positive since. I believe that as a focus issue the article can discuss influences that the subject may have with other subjects and be positive broad coverage. But, how far is broad coverage and how little is a lack of pertinent information. One of the issues we had discussed before was that the term is a rather nostalgic term. It is almost always used in reference to the past. How do people feel about that? And does that pertain at all to a focus of limiting in any way. Is there a truly modern equivalent of it's use in today's English Language?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? [1][2] I don't understand. Is this self published? Is it a published journal or other reliable source?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) It seems like it's a published journal....but I am not sure I am in agreement with using this reference in this manner. Does anyone know anything about the journal and the author as a historian or is this merely an art study?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Nope, that seems legit. Art history. Let's try to improve the in line citation formatting.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)This is the actual publication.[3]--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>{{cite journal |last= Pollini|first= John|authorlink= http://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?pid=1003612|coauthors= |year= 1999|month= March|title= The Art Bulletin|trans_title= The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver|journal= The Art Bulletin|volume= LXXXI|issue= 1|pages= 21|id= |url= http://www.collegeart.org/artbulletin/1_1999|accessdate=2009-08-15 |quote= }}</ref>--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now...do we even feel that the reference needs this or should I leave it alone? If no one objects I will reformat the reference this way.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF is from this book: [4]. Published by an academic entity in Brno, Czech Republic, whose Brno Studies in English seems not coincidentally to be the most easily findable academic review of it[5] -- though not the only one (the very reputable Terry L. Meyers reviews it in Victorians Institute Journal 35 (2007), pp. 315-316, which would be worth getting hold of if an authoritative judgment on the book is needed). Wareh (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Meyers gives it mixed praise, commenting on Kaylor's writing style and the excessive density and length of the work, but I think this shows it a good source: "Nevertheless, Secreted Desires is an erudite and important study that joins a slew of scholarly works on Victorian sexuality and Victorian writers’ sexual proclivities. Scholars working with Hopkins, Pater, and Wilde especially will need to engage it, but anyone working with Victorian sexuality will learn a great deal." --Nuujinn (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you some keep reverting legitimate edits even after I restored most of the bold edits and started slowly. I know...get over and stop trying to own the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple editors with a consensus that the lede should not be changed before the wording is discussed here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And stop accusing other editors of "vandalism." Nobody's vandalized this article for months. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best was to proceed would be to focus on specific issues. We know we need to add material. I think suggesting a change and providing a reason/source is a good way to go given the article's history. I'm still reading and will have some specific suggestions soon. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Davidson, whose book The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece is listed in the bibliography, has an essay in Studies in ancient Greek and Roman society (edited by Robin Osborne) that outlines some of the issues here in a way that complements Blanshard (exact usage of the phrase here). I don't think it's come up before as a resource, but the article provides a more distilled overview of the concept than his book-length treatment, and might be of use to anyone who's trying to get a handle on the difference between an immutable "term", and a malleable concept that's reshaped through time. Davidson has some interesting remarks on Foucault and the consequences of his role in shaping "history of sexuality" as a field of inquiry. Oscar Wilde is probably the most glaring missing section in the current form of the article. Another key (and missing) item would be John Addington Symonds, A Problem in Greek Ethics (1873). One interesting thing about Symonds is that even in those pre-theory days, he was aware that in discussing "Greek love", he needed to establish what the phrase meant within his discourse, and not assume that it had a determinate meaning outside a particular discourse. Symonds used "Greek love" specifically as a socially-acceptable scholarly euphemism for the pederastic relationship, in order to minimize the emotive reaction that might be expected in his time. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added section on Symonds, with a brief nod toward a "Victorian era" intro. Oscar Wilde's name is at least mentioned now. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what consensus exists that says no one can edit without discussion nor the reason to revert contributions with ownership of the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is mushrooming into a set of content forks, as it always will if you keep overlooking its proper scope - focus on the term 'Greek love', not the referent. The referent is where the content forks keep happening. Of course you don't really have the literature you need for an article of this scope. You are bringing together scholars who would never work together (they are specialists in separate fields). Only Blanshard has attempted something this eclectic (as far as I know). That hardly warrants a WP article. It really is quite disgraceful. However, I am silent. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amadscientist, no one is saying you can't edit, but the cycle is BRD, and I think it is safe to say that discussion is a requirement on WP. I don't see much D here, especially in specific terms. 121.223.100.220, for example, is talking about scope, which is helpful to discussion. More helpful would be suggestions of specific changes, such as "I think we should delete sentence X for reasons A, B and C". If it helps illuminate discussion, my take on this is we should approach the topic as a literary trope or motif, and I see plenty of sources to support that approach. Now, we must come to some consensus, and to do that we have to talk about the various problems with the article as it stands. Can we do that? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nuujinn, particularly the discussion of specific changes one at a time. When I was trying to put together a section on Symonds and his use of the concept of "Greek love" (a crucial concept for him), I was surprised at how abundant the sources were. There were many good sources I haven't incorporated yet (from university presses, some of them overviews of "gay history" and some collections of scholarly essays) that touch specifically on what "Greek love" meant to Symonds and his circle. It's a commonplace topic of LGBT historical studies. So it was very educational for me as someone who's worked on history of sexuality primarily as a classicist to see just how much serious work on the "reception of the classical tradition of homoeroticism" there is. All the sources I've used directly label the "reception of the classical tradition of homoeroticism" as "Greek love". A sourced statement should be deleted only if other sources of greater weight indicate that it's wrong or doesn't belong in this discussion. I don't want to feel as if editors are acting on preconceptions without having read the scholarship. To the IP above, this is a familiar argument: "focus on the term, not the referent." The scholarship supports treating "Greek love" as a concept that evolves over time, not a technical term; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; this is an article on a historical topic, not a lexicographical entry. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what either of you are talking about. I don't need to discuss my edits only to have them reverted by you and cynwolfe. Consensus is NOT what you allow...it's what the group lives with in the end. THAT is consensus. I will not lay out everything and have all that work in good faith defecated on in revert after revert. Forget that you hated my first bold edit, returning the page to a drasticly reduced level, but that you would continue to revert over and over, regardless of what or how I edit....because I didn't discuss it first to GAIN a consensus over every contribution. Sorry...but that it NOT how Wikipedia works. Consensus is not a gang of editors bent on pushing an bovious agenda....and yes, you two clearly have an agenda here. You are attempting to push your own personal point of view and establish it as the "TRUE" and ONLY way the article is ever going to grow. I'm sorry, but you don't get to edit this page with a set of rules and then ignore those rules to fit whatever tactic you feel can gain you ground. I am not playing this game with you two.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do need to discuss. You made sweeping changes and argued that you were doing so on the basis of consensus that did not exist, and reverted to your preferred version despite objections. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Greek love" as a phrase does not refer to homoerotic practices or beliefs among the Greeks themselves. That's already covered by Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Pederasty in ancient Greece. To edit this article productively, an editor has to understand the difference between describing same-sex love among the Greeks themselves (that material, other than the missing brief Background section here, belongs in the other two articles), and describing how it was received (see reception theory) as an intellectual and cultural model imaginatively by the Romans, Renaissance humanists, Neoclassicists, Victorians, Foucaultians, and post-Foucaultians. This article is about reception within the "classical tradition" (for the definition of "classical tradition" see two recent books here and here). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, although we need a paragraph or two under "Greek background," what we don't need are erroneous, unsourced statements such as the first sentence in the section recently added/restored: "The history of the concept, predates the term by nearly 3000 years." There was no concept of "Greek love" until it became intellectualized and aestheticized: there was only eros among the Greeks themselves, and paiderasteia; the Greeks didn't think of their sexual and amorous attitudes and behaviors as "Greek love." (For one thing, there's the whole problem of the word "Greek," which is a Roman construct.) The concept doesn't exist until the 2nd century BC, with the Hellenization of Latin literature, when Catulus and his circle start dressing up their poetry in Greek garb, writing homoerotic verse to boys with Greek names. As Craig Williams has pointed out, the Romans didn't need to "learn" same-sex practices from the Greeks; they don't regard same-sex behaviors as imported from the Greeks. This is a literary, intellectual, and aesthetic "costume"; as Williams points out (and Pollini and Clarke confirm with their reading of the Warren Cup), the Roman form of pederasty differed in practice from that of the Greeks, and was something considerably nastier. Williams is reacting to unexamined scholarly attitudes that assumed, perhaps unconsciously, that the "manly" Romans wouldn't have buggered boys unless they'd learned it from the Greeks. On one point, however, Williams stands virtually alone among scholars: as with so much of Roman culture, there is an undeniable Greek influence in the presentation of homoeroticism in art and literature, and Williams errs perhaps in going too far to support his otherwise fine thesis by appearing to deny this, an impression that Nussbaum in her intro to the second edition of William's book gently qualifies. In the later discourse of "Greek love," the concept often includes Roman models, because it means "the reception of homoerotic models from classical antiquity"; Crompton's book on Byron and Greek Love makes little distinction among classical models, whether they're Greek or Roman. So again, it's important not to let one's own preconceptions or limited knowledge dictate what this article is; it's important to read the scholarship (whole chapters at a time, not cherrypicking snippets) and to let the scholarship frame the topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree with nearly any of that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No....your comments are simply original research and point of view to be stating what Greek Love is and is not. You are looking through severe tunnel vision and only want a certain direction and it's all literal biographies that are not the subject. We realy don't need to be so stuck on sources that the entire talk page is limited to a discussion of the sources and authors and NOT the subject of "Greek Love". Look...I have read these books for my research here and I think most of them are not particularly interesting they seem to have a wealth of information but are you taking the overall opinion of individual authors as the basis to what you feel the subject is. Greek Love cannot has a ancient Greek origins. Whether you agree with it or not. It isn't Roman love".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not original research. They're not my comments. I summarize the sources, which are cited in the article. What are your sources for your views on the subject? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Love cannot has a ancient Greek origins. Whether you agree with it or not. It isn't Roman love, can you explain? I cannot parse that? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before seeking assistance with a third party opinion or dispute resolution I thought I would simply outright ask Who gets to edit this page and not have the entire sections removed. You don't have to take out the parts that are referenced...in fact you are not supposed to be removing referenced material just because you dispute the view or direction. You don't get to say what the subject is and what it is not. Seriously. Consensus is not a battering ram, it's not a vote, and no it's not a discussion. Consensus not even what people agree on, but what they can live with. Reverting over and over day after day and then using the talk page like....a message board. Its senseless. The talk page is supposed to be a place where editors have the option of adding to consensus...but you can add to consensus in few words and in many different ways. It is not to hold every editor hostage or blacklist or "secret club house". Editors do not have to be or even be perceived as intellectual equals. This is open source. Please allow other editors to edit this page and make changes ...even if you don't agree with the change. That's called compromise. Right now all I see is dictating what cannot be in the article...and that everything I contributed.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final option is a third Afd a bit further down the track. At the moment, the article continues to mushroom content forks and there is therefore growing evidence that it is unsuitable for WP. It is turning into an essay, not an encyclopaedia article, and the justification seems to be that 'Greek love' is an evolving concept, not a term. I don't understand that distinction and I don't see its relevance. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, AFD is not appropriate. We have a content dispute, and we would need to go through the steps of dispute resolution to resolve disputes. Amadscientist, I have no idea what you mean by "this is open source"--we have policies and guidelines that govern discussion, and we reach consensus through informed discussion. I am asking you to discuss content you wish to change. If either of you wish to remove content, please say what and why either before or after making the edit, but expect that we will talk about changes, and that we will use academic sources to guide discussion. It would be extremely helpful if both of you could articulate your objections and desired changes--I cannot speak for others, but I have no idea what your objectives are. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear too. I would like to see scholarly sources that describe "Greek love" in ways that are contrary to the sources used in this article, or that render the introduction insufficient or misleading. There is much room for improvement, but the more I read, the more I'm confused by why the validity of the topic was ever doubted: the scholarship is abundant. I plan to improve the section on Ficino next, because that seems to be a point of major fumbling. I'd like to invite the IP to participate by opening an account; it's quite easy, and your contributions and your discussion here indicate that you are interested in classical studies and are already familiar with one of WP's most respected editors in that area. Perhaps you'd like to join the Classical Greece and Rome project? (Apologies if you have an account and simply forgot to log in.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted a little bit of Wikidrama going on here. I'm trying to avoid getting dragged in. WP:BRD and similar material does suggest that discussion is where to go if your bold change is reverted. I can't say that I have noted ownership issues with this article. As far as I can tell most current contributors oppose your view. As for the suggestion of another AfD. Not getting your way is not a reason to delete.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. One person's "conspiracy of several others against my improvements" may in fact precisely be "general consensus about what the article should look like and what kind of additions and deletions will help it." I wanted to chime in explicitly and be counted because Amadscientist keeps denying consensus despite the evidently greater numbers against him/her. Wareh (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it is important to say that I, at least, am unsure of what Amadscientist would like to change and why, and I hope Amadscientist will articulate those concerns specifically. The article does need work, and more eyes on this are certainly welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing personal against Amadscientist, and I'm sorry if I seemed to prejudge the admittedly difficult content issues. The article is difficult and will no doubt need plenty of good discussion and reconsideration. I simply think that good and careful work should not be lightly done away with; this B met its R as it certainly should have, and I hope all parties will have at the D part of things as constructively as possible. Wareh (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the idea that Cynwolfe's contributions amount to WP:OR or WP:POV does not pass the laugh test. She's been undeterred & has almost tripled the article's material, out of sheer public-spiritedness, while we've grumbled here. Wareh (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I think another AfD is appropriate if the current edit demonstrates inherent problems in an article of this kind. Arguements get lost and shouted down in AfDs but it's hard to deny that this article looks like a pile of content forks and it could be the best witness for a Delete case. I don't see an AfD happening any time in the next few months but it looks inevitable, I think. It's not about getting my own way - I have abandoned my accounts several times here at WP and that's how I have dealt with my frustration over this article in the past. I don't shove my edits on others and I never edit war. I wish I could say the same for all members of the CGR project, but some of them have a proven history of edit warring. The article in fact is dominated by two projects. Project loyalties make a Delete verdict in any AfD extremely difficult to achieve. So why the constant worry about AfDs? A good AfD defines issues that otherwise can get swept under the carpet. My old account was User:McZeus and I will resurrect it for an AfD for this article, when and if it seems the right thing to do. Does that sound like melodrama? Then it is the melodrama of individual protest. It's just about the only card I have got and I'll play it because I don't break the rules of the game. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup, and, as Cynwolfe has suggested, there are enough academic sources to support an article on the history of the term "greek love" in western culture, starting with the romans through to the present day. I expect we'll find a gap during the medieval period, but perhaps not. I am truly sorry that you feel a need to use AFD to make a "...melodrama of individual protest". You claim that this article is dominated by two project, one being CGR, and make reference to some editors having a history of edit warring, and you obviously have a problem with the article as it stands. My suggestion is that you be more specific all around--I, for one, cannot tell what you think is wrong here, and unless you can clarify that, there is little I or anyone else can do to consider you opinions. Can you cite a particular passage that you feel is a more egregious content fork? Perhaps that way we can begin to discuss the issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would like to examine a particular content fork: what section are we talking about, where should the material be instead. And let's make sure we review WP:CFORK so we're all speaking the same language. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to provide a stopgap "Greek background" section here, to cut down on the noise. I punted and relied mainly on an Oxford UP encyclopedia, to save time and effort. The old section couldn't be salvaged; it was full of non-informative or off-topic statements along the lines of "homosexuality was common in ancient societies." Right enough. More should be said about the literary sources; the translations and commentaries for these are major vehicles of transmission and reception, particularly Plato's Symposium. Another useful piece of info would look at when and how the Greek vases depicting this subject matter were known, for instance, the influx of such pieces in the Victorian era. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a header for the long hoped-for section on Oscar Wilde. I'm hoping someone is planning to write it. I mapped it in because Blanshard provided such a good transitional introductory sentence. There is a great deal of material on this topic; the Wilde article itself contains a direct quotation from a scholar who refers to "Greek love."

I also started a section to bring the topic up to the present, in response to a complaint lodged above. Davidson has some useful things to say about this in the essay I pointed out. Foucault plays an interesting role in what happens to the concept of "Greek love." This section will no doubt prompt the adding of a sentence to the end of the introduction, pointing toward the waning or vitiating of the concept in the postmodernist era.

Currently, the section on Ficino, and in general the relation between "Greek love" and "Platonic love" (or "Socratic"), is not handled with particular dexterity. Winckelmann's importance probably needs to be made clearer, too. I'm willing to try to fill other gaps, or clarify murky points, if I can understand what those are. So it's much appreciated if comments can be as specific as possible. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also took a look at categories. Turns out this article fits in quite a number. There may be others. I don't usually work in the field of LGBT history, except with the area of sexuality of antiquity, so I hadn't been aware of what a range of categories might apply. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that William Davenant has anything to do with "Greek love." His play seems to be satirizing heterosexual Platonic love in its customary modern sense; see The Platonick Lovers. So I'm deleting the reference to him as off-topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a summary of my views about this article at User:McZeus. There is no further need for me to enter this debate. Please don't reply there. There is no need even to reply here. As you are aware, I am strongly opposed to this article, and its current direction indicates that another AfD is appropriate. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your wish not to have others post comments to your user pages. I do need to correct your claim there that most of the sources cited here don't discuss "Greek love" as such. This is absolutely untrue: all the scholars whose works are cited in defining or providing a historical context for understanding "Greek love" use the phrase in discussing the concept. The very few sources that don't use the phrase are provided only for supplemental points (for example, if a scholar or scholars discussing Greek love give one date for a primary source, but other scholars who deal with the primary source note that there are alternate dates) or for preparing the "Ancient Greek background" section — modern scholars don't use the phrase "Greek love" in talking about the ancient Greeks themselves, because it refers to the reception of the concept in other periods, but a background section was felt to be necessary to orient the reader as to why the ancient Greeks came to be regarded as distinctively "homophilic." As repeatedly stated above, editors who actively contribute to or watch this article are more than willing to examine specific sections for wording, sourcing, POV, and other issues. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to modify one thing I've said here. "Modern scholars" do sometimes use the phrase "Greek love" to include the ancient Greeks when they're using "Greek love" as code for what they view as a continual pederastic tradition; this is related to scholarship on sexuality that refers to an "androphilic" revolution of homosexual preference. This is obviously central to the contemporary moral frame for discussion; these scholars point out, rightly or wrongly, that in male-male relations, a preference for a adult partner instead of a youth marks a historical shift of the modern era. Whatever its validity, this scholarly view is easily (and has been) hijacked for pederastic advocacy; Greek Love Reconsidered by Thomas Hubbard (a controversial classics prof at UT-Austin), though scholarly, was published by what is essentially a front for NAMBLA. Since I assume good faith from other editors, I've perhaps been lax in declaring my own, or my own biases: material from even scholarly sources that appears under the aegis of NAMBLA won't be something I'll be adding to the article, just because I don't want anything to do with it. Since it concerns itself with ancient Greece, Hubbard's work doesn't belong here as a source anyway, though it may be of relevance in a short section on modern scholars who are heirs to Symonds, and it demonstrates that "Greek love" is used widely enough to be explained historically in an article. It's extremely difficult at points with this article to distinguish between a historical perspective and advocacy, harder than it was at Pederasty in ancient Greece, where Robin Osborne provided us with a handy quote on the moral issues. But that's why we want to focus on accuracy and neutrality of language in its specifics, and not on our emotional responses. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a 'founding member' of this contentious article, and having absented myself for some considerable time, I am intrigued to find that 'Greek love' is alive and well, and that a new level of debate on the part of one or two editors of real scholarship and discrimination is being achieved. I recognize the restoration of some areas of enquiry I had followed e.g. Byron/Shelley, the Victorians, and the beginnings of an evaluation of modern scholarship on the concept of 'Greek love', the title itself being so hard to pin down. Thus I am sure the article is in good hands: there is clearly an interest in primary sources and a distrust of politically-motivated or personally-motivated bandwagons. Not that all commentators on (for example) historical 'Greek love' should be excluded on account of a perceived fascination with the sexual mores of the ancients (e.g. Percy or Davidson) - after all who else would take the trouble across years of detailed study - but one should if possible research the means of questioning any imbalances or outright inaccuracies by recourse to good scholarly reviews. I mention James Davidson, a populist writer of good academic credentials, whose GL tome has come under fire from reputable critics not only for poor scholarship but more fundamentally from an apparent annexation of the GL concept to represent, it is argued, a modern view of male-male sexuality particularly with respect to age asymmetry. Similarly some writers on Byron depict him as a kind of 'gay' or bisexual icon, when the evidence is at best circumstantial or selective. Fiona MacCarthy in her 'Byron: Life and Legend' presents no such image, though her version of Byron's Greek love bears little resemblance to Crompton's. Cynwolfe crystallizes the difficulty and indeed the danger inherent in any discussion which may cross the borderline of 21st century morality (or political correctness): one must distinguish between historical perspective and advocacy. I believe that this article will stand or fall by that criterion alone. Dominique (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

A minor tweak in the opening para - I hope allowable in the context of recent discussion about the terms of reference of 'Greek love', partly inspired, as I understand, from the essay of Blanshard, but also (I believe) from the acknowledgement that GL cannot completely exclude reference to the culture from which the consciousness and written expression thereof emanates. Alternative nuances may well spring to the collective mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominique Blanc (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good qualification. I'm taking a break from the article to get a fresh perspective, but this is a point where in trying to convey a distinction I have made that distinction too rigidly. This goes along with my comment above, that a certain contingent of scholars view "Greek love" as a continual tradition of pederasty. And then of course at times "Greek love" more vaguely refers to homosexual love, whatever the age of the beloved. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that blurs the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, under the euphemistic banner 'Greek love'. It currently sports pictures of a boy being sodomized and a child being abducted. Congratulations on a job well done! I can accept such an article if it has sound foundations in scholarly literature but it doesn't. It's a murky area, creatively researched by editors here who have pulled together the works of authors in different fields, none of whom have ever collaborated on this scale. Blanshard's book (or one chapter of it), published in October last year, is the only source that takes a wide-brush approach to this subject and it is used here simply as a fig leaf to cover original research. The only content unique to this article is the term 'Greek love' but there seems to be no source that discusses its history and its use across all these different contexts (Blanshard isn't really interested in the term at all). Many of the sources here don't even employ the term. The result is an article that covers pederasty yet again without contributing anything that clearly belongs here and not somewhere else, and which can continue growing at the whim of future editors happy to give some kind of Greek flavour to their abiding interest in homosexuality/pedophilia. There are other better established articles for this material. Anyway, I've fought long and hard against this controversial and unnecessary article and I'll continue to protest against it, if only for my own peace of mind, no matter what the interested parties think. I have changed my user name several times during my opposition to this article but I haven't wavered in my opposition to it. I have been User:Lucretius User:Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest, User:Amphitryoniades, User:McZeus and now McCronion (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]