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

The result was KEEP. well-noted practice; article simply needs more citations and references. --Madchester 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Page contains bias and unsupported claims 66.233.19.170 06:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, The page contains no credible evidence to support the claims made. The article makes controversial and disputed statements as if they are fact. --Cretanpride 06:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)cretanpride[reply]

  This is a brand-new user whose first edits were to the article's talk page and this discussion. Gazpacho 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, While the article needs citation and NPOV, it does cover a subject which would be of great use to the encyclopedia. --chemica 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I was rather disturbed by this page, I find it hard to believe ancient Greeks were well known pedophiles --Cloveious 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree, I was disturbed by this page and as a Greek, I find the article offensive. I have studied Greek literature and Greek history and I have lived in Greece and I find that what this article claims cannot be true.--Cretanpride 07:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't bold your opinion more than once, it doesn't count twice. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article includes references to back up the statements. Moreover, there is ample confirmation of most of the points in the article through the images on classical Greek pottery. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Sappho issue alone is one discussed in university classrooms and is encyclopedic. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add citations. Many sources, such as those listed in the militaries article, show the existence and awareness of homosexuality in ancient Greece. If you think sources do not exist or the article misrepresents sources, you can edit it. Gazpacho 08:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reeks of a bad faith or biased nomination. Sources are cited. More are needed, but this doesn't outright fail WP:V enough to be deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - sources are cited (although some claims may warrant footnotes, but that's hardly a hanging offence). What little I know on the topic tallies with what's there, although I'm hardly an expert on Ancient Greece or homosexuality in history. If anything, this should be tagged for expansion. I don't want to say "bad faith nom", but I'm seriously tempted to. BigHaz 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, appears to be a bad faith nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 09:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete,while the article cites sources, they are not credible. One of the sources is a book review. Article also does not show the other side of the argument. There have been books published that argue against the contents of this article yet this article seems to have strictly one point of view.--66.53.98.122 09:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a point of order/Comment - the book review is of a work by a man with academic credentials in the area, which implies at the very least that what's contained in the work under review is credible. The lack of "the other side of the argument" is not a reason to delete so much as it is a reason to expand the article with sources and information from the books which have been published arguing this other side. BigHaz 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit on this page arguing the other side which repeatedly got omitted because the link was considered an uncredible source. The uncredible source was a book review of the book entitled "Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece", It was also written by a man with academic credentials and showed what was in the book but was deleted. It seems as if, even if someone wanted, could not edit this article to argue the other side.--Cretanpride 09:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contend that the reason that particular citation was removed was due to its placement, more than its content. Further, Adonis Georgiades doesn't exactly leap out as a man with academic credentials beyond those perhaps in the teaching of language. William Percy, on the other hand (the man whose book review we're talking about) is a Senior Professor of History with a wide range of academic publications. Not necessarily a case that "my professor trumps your professor", but it might come close. BigHaz 09:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was more likely removed because the book is vanity-published and the review is right-wing partisan bullshit. Gazpacho 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may also be the case. I was giving the author of the book the benefit of the doubt (not to mention giving my historiographical radar the night off). That said, certainly the most recent removal of the link doesn't say anything about either reason. BigHaz 22:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand/add citations. SatyrTN 09:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SatyrTN Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 09:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a documented feature of classical Greek culture. Weregerbil 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needs improvement but the article itself is useful and relevant. Blowski 10:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a serious encyclopediac topic. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - a good article, could probably have Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece merged into it. --Brianyoumans 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, this is a well-established academic topic, not even debatable except for details. Haiduc 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I thought everybody was taught this in high school, as I was in NYC, mid-sixties. (no not a 'hands-on course') Bustter 12:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inarguably encyclopedic. Bad-faith nom. Daniel Case 14:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Well-documented aspect of ancient Greek civ. I did Classics in uni; I'll help clean it up. -- Merope 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. Ancient ideas about sexuality differed from ours, and I'm not sure the category of "homosexual" as an identity in the current sense meant a great deal in ancient Greece, but ancient Greeks did not uniformly disapprove of same-sex acts. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs a serious rewrite, The article is full of BS, POV, and erroneous cruft, or worse, OR erroneous POV cruf... Sappho was scandalous, and love between adult men was regarded with little more favor than in modern Iran or Saudi Arabia... The subject is worth keeping, the article as it currently stands is not. --Svartalf 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite. The article is clearly of encyclopedic value. It does need a rewrite, but the topic is discussed at length in universities and high schools around the world, not to mention countless History Channel specials, museums, books, and so on. Srose (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although the article does need to be sourced, and criticisms or disagreements are certainly apt where notable (I seem to remember Voltaire making a comment to the effect that, even if he were provided proof that the Greeks engaged in pederasty he still wouldn't believe it). As for use of the word 'homosexual' it is fairly common historian shorthand for "otherwise uncategorized same-sex eros", so I see no especial reason to change it. -Smahoney 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per all above. Well written article. Valoem ^talk 18:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• — Keep per Valoem —Mets501 (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dark Shikari, Daniel Case, Valoem, and others. Good article, so this appears that this is a bad-faith nomination. --Bigtop 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject looks like it covers an important part of ancient Greek culture. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whatever work this article needs to bring it up to the standard of, say, Spartan pederasty, should be done. This should be a vote about facts, not opinions. --Richhoncho 22:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article appears to be drivel (someone read Love, Sex, and Tragedy: Why the Classics Matters and put up the info, or I will when I finish it) but that is no reason to delete it. "Greek love" is constantly invoked in discussion on homosexuality and in the 90s the Colorado state legislature heard lengthy evidence from experts on Plato to try to dicover whether homosexuality was "natural" or not. This article is important. Dev920 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fixup per Dev920. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep This is the standard academic view on this topic (note: that does not necessarily mean that it isn't drivel) and, offended Greeks notwithstanding, the article should be kept. See a similar discussion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Roman Sexuality. JChap T/E 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. -- Samuel Wantman 00:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder why I really need to come here and say Speedy Keep for the love of God. Above and beyond all the discussion listed here so far. What we would call homosexual practices were for the Ancient Greeks not only existent, but crucial to the culture of the era. The offended Greeks should try and crack open a book, perhaps Halpern's book or, dare I say it, anything written by Plato. I'm tired of seeing Wikipedia being thrown to unacademic, anti-elitist dogs. The fact that an article on homosexual practices in Ancient Greece can even come up for deletion shows serious problems with the editorial system here. CaveatLector^Talk 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. -Smahoney 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well put. Perhaps in cases like this there should be a way to designate a page as a "protected keep", To be designated as a "protected keep" a page must garner an overwhelming consensus for being a keep, and would get a tag on the talk page that said "This page recieved an overwhelming consensus of opinion that it should not be deleted at this discusion at AFD. Please don't waste everyone's time nominating it again."

That would be nice. However, there are actually legit reasons for renomination sometimes. Maybe it should become standard to put a tag on the talk page saying "this page was nominated for deletion on this day. Unless there have been substantial changes, etc., etc., please do not renominate until this other day." -Smahoney 06:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are serious problems with society if this material is taught in universities. Not everyone believes that it's true. Plato's work is not evidence and even if it was, that is one man, not an entire culture. I read that out of all the vases found, which is in the hundreds of thousands, only 30 have a homosexual theme. That is not enough evidence to support what this article is saying. If it is kept it needs a serious rewrite and possibly a different title and has to include a section about how this is debated.--66.233.19.170 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with society how? That people don't outright reject possible evidence of things simply because some (mainly religious) people might be offended by it? And what would be a more appropriate title for an article about "Homosexuality in ancient Greece" than exactly that? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I beleive a better title would be "Sexuality in Ancient Greece" Even if the content of the material is true, it is not homosexuality in it's present day meaning.--66.233.19.170 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have read Plato's work and other Greek literature such as the Illiad and there is nothing that implies homosexuality. There is no evidence to suggest Achilles and Patroclus were gay. There is no evidence to suggest Alexander the Great was bisexual. It is common sense biology that if you are born heterosexual you will not want to participate in sexual acts with someone of the same sex. A thousand years from now what are people going to say about our culture? Are football and soccer players homosexuals for taking showers together naked and saying gay slang terms to each other? No they are not. I was never taught Ancient Greeks participated in acts like this growing up in Australia and I hope noone else was taught this disturbing material. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece seems a fabricated myth by historians who have their own agenda.--66.233.24.105 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it's a generational thing - I was certainly taught it at school in Australia. Regardless of its status as a fabrication, the fact remains that it's a generally-accepted academic view. If there are scholars who dispute this, the solution is rather to add their work to this article, rather than delete the article itself. BigHaz 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • If you were taught this in Australia then there must have been people who objected since there is a large Greek minority there. Furthermore throughout this discussion and throughout the article noone has even come close to proving the material is true. I beleive, and many others for that matter, that the material is false. Evidence points that way. There is no mention of homosexuality in Greek literature. And if there is a vase or picture found depicting something homosexual, it does not mean the entire culture was. They have pictures depicting warriors fighting three headed monsters. Does that mean Ancient Greece was filled with monsters. They have pictures depicting a half-man half bull. Does that mean they existed in Ancient Greece? The material is false and false material does not belong in an encyclopedia.--66.233.24.105 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was in fact taught it by a Greek-Australian, but that's rather beside the point. The discussion here (as I explain in response to the large number of quotations) is not the place to "prove" that something is true or false. It's the place to talk about whether or not the article should be here. Given that the academic orthodoxy is that the information contained in the article is true, it belongs here. As for the contention that "false material does not belong in an encyclopedia", I would contend that it in fact does under two conditions. Firstly, it must be marked as being false (so an encyclopedia can talk about the idea that the sun revolves around the earth as long as it indicates that nobody in their right mind believes this now). Secondly, this marking of something much be done based on evidence. If there is evidence and scholarly opinion that Greek culture was not as this article says it was, then put it into the article. Don't post it here, because that's the wrong place. Don't try to get the article deleted, either. Write the information into the article. BigHaz 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Of course, by labelling it as disturbing and going on about "common sense biology", you're obviously making it clear that you have no agenda of your own. Insert eye rolling smiley here. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• These were posted on the talk page on the article by an anonymous user but noone responded to them=

Plato, Euthydemus 282b there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one's lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one's eagerness to become wise.

Platos Symposium,

it is our rule that, just as in the case of the lovers it was counted no flattery or scandal for them to be willingly and utterly enslaved to their favorites, so there is left one sort of voluntary thraldom which is not scandalous; I mean, in the cause of virtue. It is our settled tradition that when a man freely devotes his service to another in the belief that his friend will make him better in point of wisdom, it may be, or in any of the other parts of virtue, this willing bondage also is no sort of baseness or flattery. Let us compare the two rules 184b

Xenophon Symposium 8.8 [8]Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character.

If we continue: Xenophon Symposium [26] Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover's sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character will more probably give heed to virtue. [27] But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent"

Plato's Republic 403b "may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it? No, by heaven, Socrates, he said, it must not come nigh them. Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss1 and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him."

All of these texts give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual as you can see.--66.233.19.170 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. "I". That was said by Martin Luther King Jr., and doesn't refer to racial tolerance as you can see. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All fine and dandy (although bear in mind that we're talking about translations here, rather than the original Greek of Plato, Xenophon et al. Nonetheless, AfD is emphatically not a place to carry on a discussion about the "other side of a debate" in relation to an article which currently exists. The object here is to talk about whether or not the article itself should continue to exist - and a failure to encompass the "no" case in this situation isn't a reason to delete so much as a reason to add such a case to the article. If the article is indeed kept, these quotations, any analysis performed on them by scholars and any conclusions they reach will be handy talking points for expansion of the article. Putting them here merely gums up the works. BigHaz 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I do add a section on the article it will likely be deleted. --66.233.19.170 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have slightly misinterpreted what I was saying. The idea is to find academic sources (historians, linguists, classicists, younameitists) who interpret the passages you've quoted in the way that you just did. Just sticking those quotes in as "proof" isn't going to get you very far and almost certainly will get the section deleted. The reason that this is the "academic consensus" about Ancient Greece is that a bunch of academics subscribe to it are are indicated as doing as much in the article. If you can find one who says otherwise, I'm sure we're all ears (or eyes, in this case). BigHaz 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes are proof. They come from the primary source. How would you interpret them? I feel that they have absolutely no homosexual meaning.--66.233.19.170 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem. Firstly, the quotes may well come from the primary source, but we're dealing in translations here. I don't speak a word of Ancient Greek, although you may well and simply not have revealed it, so we're actually hostage to what the scholars who do speak it tell us. As far as "how I would interpret them" (or indeed how you would interpret them), that's not actually the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original analysis, but rather a synthesis of a series of analyses, which is what makes it an encyclopedia. The article currently has sources indicating that 4 learned scholars interpret things in a particular way, so that's what we're saying is the case. If you can find a learned scholar who interprets it a different way, then insert his interpretation. I'd also point out that the quotes you've posted are only the absolute tip of the iceberg where the writings of the Ancient Greeks were concerned, so it's not a great idea to base an opinion on that much evidence. BigHaz 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on past experience you probably wont, but if you want to understand why your plan wont work, check out WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Smahoney 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no mention of homosexuality in Greek literature." WHAT?! Have you not read Lucian's story of the moon people? Or read ANYTHING about the Spartans? Sacred band of Thebes, Plato's records of Socrates being into young boys, and the whole Zeus and Ganymede thing, how could you possibly say that? Go here, and learn. ΡΑΘΟΣ ΜΑΘΟΣ. Dev920 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [1][reply]

Your source also says that the ancient Greeks did not have a term for homosexuality so how could Plato have been quoted to say that. Everything is misinterpreted to support the theory. Its quite sad how history has been defaced.--66.53.98.122 19:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Valid academic subject. Article just needs cleaning. - Davodd 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Offensive and disturbing topic which makes uncredible claims and statements.--66.53.108.59 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment first and only edit, same clear bias and argument style as the previous anonymous users. IP address, as with the others, also belongs to Clearwire, LLC. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, there was an edit conflict, but I was about to point out how weird it is that so many delete votes are coming from IP addresses that start with 66 (also, how many similar edits were made to the article by IP addresses that start with 66). -Smahoney 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment for the win. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Factual evidence of article is disputed and does not cite sources. I google searched the topic and have found no credible sources on the internet. After reading the article, I feel that it is not of significant value to the encyclopedia. --Stan State 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, new account created at 01:47, August 9, 2006. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - invalid reason for deletion, this can be rectified by appropriately editing the article. No evidence of it violating any WP policy or guideline in a way that cannot be fixed. Most users calling to delete the article seem to do so for ideological rather than formal reasons - and this process is strictly formal. Bravada, talk - 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Add more academic citations to improve the article. Zeusnoos 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this has to be the strangest debate I've seen, but I'll say delete because I find it difficult to beleive the Ancient Greeks, or any civilization for that matter, had homosexuality in their every day life every where they go and in every peice of writing they had.--Sac222 04:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, probably the same user. Again. New user, edits tend to center around Greece, and one edit to the World War II article was complete nonsense that caused a link to break. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the World War II edit-I edited that because the content below was regarding to the Yugoslav, Greek, and Cretan campaigns. It did not say Greek on the subject line and I hadn't noticed the link broke. My edits tend to focus around Greece because that is what I am interested in and that is how I found this page. I guess I should be sorry for expessing my opinion.--Sac222 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, the battle is called the Battle of Cretan or whatever. Adding Greece in there was, as I said, nonsensical. The point on your fascination with the country was just to point out that you're likely the same person as all the other "Delete" users here, all of which share that trait with you. I'm not deriding you for having a fascination with the country. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think the edit was nonsense. My Grandfather sacrificed a lot in the war and I figured his story should be remembered even if it is just the subject line. As for me being the same user, I'm sure the others are, but I am not. I made the account today and I started my first edits. I came across this page and voiced my opinion. I was never taught this in school or in anything I have read and natually find it hard to beleive. Making one mistake on an edit which breaks up a link, is not enought to insult my intelligence.--Sac222 07:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • When did I insult your intelligence? Anyways, it's nonsense because it's not called The Battle of Crete The Battle of Greece. I also incredibly doubt your story. Your account was made after I pointed out that all of the IPs come from the same ISP. If it was made before that IP did anything, then maybe it's plausible. Your argument (it is very disturbing and I can't believe it) is also almost exactly what they say as well. Add to all this that you keep using colons instead of asterisks (like the others), and that you actually know what an AfD is and how to sign pages (unlike most users who are less than a day old), and we have ourself a possible sockpuppet. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is a topic with a large amount of academic work that is also well known to the general public and frequently referenced in popular culture and literature, making it a very likely topic of interest. Any balance issues can be addressed by citing notable dissenting voices. --Celithemis 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article may need some work and citation this seems a worthwhile topic for this encyclopedia. -- Nigel ^(Talk) 07:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to clarify So basically, this article was nominated by someone who thinks that Teh gay did not exist in Ancient Greece, even though the entire academic world thinks it did, and has written numerous books, monographs, and lectures on the subject, and the only delete votes, bar one because Cloveious seems his own man, have come from the nominator's ISP with virtually identical addesses.

What are we wasting time on this person for? Dev920 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Strong Keep per all of the above. The nomination is clearly bad faith: one of the nominator's earliest edits is to nominate a long-standing article for deletion after making numerous dubious attempts to change the article to his liking and being reverted by editors there. Why are we feeding this troll? Carlossuarez46 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Keep, and Keep again per Carlos. —Khoikhoi 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'comment the article is not from a neutral point of view. That violates rules. Also noone has argued against the arguments in favor of deletion, rather they have attacked those who have voted for deletion.Cretanpride 07:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction No one has taken the arguments in favor of deletion seriously because they are complete bollocks. JChap T/E 07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is disputed. If you go to Greece and you tell people this they will be violently upset. There is no evidence to suggest the article is true. Everything used for evidence from literature has ambiguous meanings. In other word nothing in the article is proven. None of you are open minded or skepticalCretanpride 07:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. noted practice in ancient Greek city-states. --Madchester 07:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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