Talk:Greek love/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Davenant

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)

Who gets to edit and when?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Summary of an opposing view

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)

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)

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)

Overview

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)

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)

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)

Continuing protest

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)

The article has a good many problems but it is far better than it was some months ago. I believe you are still trying to battle against your perceptions and misinterpretations of pederasty and pederast. You are far too detached from the subject and are reacting and not even seeing past you own comfort level. The subject is real even if the article breaks a few wiki rules and seems to give undue weight in the lead to one author it doesn't come across as simply. I know others have spent many countless hours explaining that wiki doesn't censor and that the images, while certainly pushed here to be displayed on what some might call a rather frail reasoning, others might see as being worth the lesser quality of the article by wiki standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now replaced the two images I objected to. There is no necessary reason to show a child being abducted for sexual purposes, or a juvenile being sodomised, when there are so many less objectionable images to choose from. It is appropriate that WP should show discretion in its choice of images. The article is still a loose amalgam of researches from different scholars working in different fields, it still has issues of original research, and thus the confronting images were downright provocative. They belong in other articles but not here. There is an article on the Warren Cup and links are enough - why reproduce the same pictures and the same information? Of course all the sections in this article are basically recycled from other articles but at least the other sections don't offer up sexualised images of children. McCronion (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? The images are from real works of art, and I'm sorry that you feel offended by them, but that's no reason to exclude them. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your sympathy but put it this way: if the article had issues about content forking and original research, but we changed the content so that it was offensive to those who currently support it, it would have been deleted years ago. You're happy with the content, you are happy to overlook those issues and you really don't give a damn about the offense it causes people like me, so long as you think I am powerless to stop you. The article is basically a lane where a gang feels strong enough to dominate in defiance of WP guidelines and rules. That is one more reason why I feel strongly opposed to it. McCronion (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Put it this way. You don't have to read the article if you're offended by it. If the article had issues about content forking and original research, but we changed the content so that it was offensive to me, but did not violate policy, I wouldn't read it and wouldn't lose sleep over it. There are a lot of things that offend me, and I find it best to avoid those things. Can you point to a policy that suggests we should not include the images? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Others read the article and it is not about a value-neutral topic like igneous rocks. It's about pederasty, where the distiction between homosexuality and pedophilia gets blurred. The article has a history of promotional edits. Articles like this damage WP's credibility. So long as I edit WP, and so long as this article is on a large scope that is far in advance of anything found in scholarly literature, I'll be opposed to it. McCronion (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Promotional edits? Can you clarify that? Again, I ask, can you point to a policy that suggests we should not include the images? You're entitled to your personal opinion, but personal opinions are neither policies nor guidelines. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

essay tag

Could you bullet-list some characteristics of this article that would make it a "personal essay"? I wrote a great deal of it, and I don't see it as employing any methodologies or stylistic effects that I don't use in every other article on a conceptual topic, and sure doesn't express any of my personal views on anything: virtually every sentence has a citation. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you one, just to start with. Where is the term 'Greek love' employed in any discussion on the Warren Cup? I'd like to see a quote thankyou. I might add that the article on the Warren Cup is hardly more than a stub and the info you are putting here belongs there instead. McCronion (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: "On the Warren Cup, however, I would suggest that this ideal concept of Greek love is transformed into a master-slave relationship that was in keeping with the social and sexual norms of Roman lovemaking" (The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver: John Pollini: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 21-52) Looks like a good source for the article, we can expand that section a bit. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. By all means use the quote! However the pictures are already displayed atThe Warren Cup and almost all the material that is cited here belongs there. Use a link. That is what links are for. McCronion (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason not to have the images here, that's the nice thing about bits--doesn't cost anything to reproduce them. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The image showing the abduction of Ganymede is already at Pederasty in ancient Greece and there is no need to reproduce it here, especially in light of the concerns I have already expressed. The Warren Cup images also don't need to be reproduced here when you can link instead. The article already links there so why reproduce the pictures? There is a suspicion that some people enjoy the spectacle of a boy being sodomised and you can allay that suspicion by not allowing the image to proliferate. McCronion (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to point to a policy or guideline supporting your position. These are works of art, not porn. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia: offensive material:

A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors do not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, it is equally true that Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts.

Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship.

The duplication of material with a pedophile association is gratuitous and there are better choices. McCronion (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you can't produce a bullet-list of personal-essay characteristics that this article exhibits; in fact, it's the kind of expository writing one finds throughout WP articles on literature, the arts, and philosophical concepts. A "personal" essay uses, for instance, first- and second-person pronouns (hence "personal"), and it expresses the opinions of the writer. I can assure you, as I have assured you before, that I found it personally disgusting and upsetting to write about the puer delicatus. (I'm appalled by the marriage of 12- and 14-year-old girls, too, since I'm the mother of one; and where's the indignation for the many paintings of women stripped naked in the presence of clothed men as a preliminary to rape? This is a frequent trope of mythological painting, and I don't go around deleting them all if they are apt illustrations of the myth and its continuance in the classical tradition.) As for the Warren Cup, you assert that this artifact promotes "pedophilia" and that it is merely offensive, not illustrative. Unless you can produce RS which characterize this cup as pedophilic, and which dismiss its aesthetic and cultural value, that's only your personal opinion. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The essay tag was put there by Amadscientist, not by me, but I can see what he is driving at. The article is an original synthesis of material: there is nothing like this in its ambitious scope in the scholarly literature. It should be titled The history of the reception of ancient Greek pederasty as understood by some anonymous contributors to Wikipedia using multiple sources that are in fact about other subjects. Look at the cited sources and their titles. You are certainly engaging in original research. You might think highly of yourself as a scholar but if you are editing WP you are a mug punter same as the rest of us and quite frankly I don't trust WP editors to mediate something as complex and value-loaded as the reception of pederasty unless they are following in the footsteps of published scholars. The image of a boy being sodomised is offensive to me as the citizen of a country where pedophilia is a crime (like your own country in fact). Given the right context, the cup is acceptable and even admirable as a piece of craftsmanship. A museum is the right context. An article published by a scholar is the right context. A WP article on The Warren Cup is the right context if it is scrupulously written. Anal intercourse is not the right context. 'Random' images generated by LGBT is the wrong context when the sodomising of the boy becomes the centre piece (which was the motivation behind my post on the LGBT talk page). And this article is not the right context in view of its history, its present state and its likely future. I have to laugh when Peter Cohen reverts my edits and accuses me of bulldozing (article History page). One individual who has never engaged in an edit war versus a group of people that has bulldozed through WP rules prohibiting original research and content forking so as to set up an article like this! It's like Frankenstein's monster - bits and pieces of other articles warmed up under a new name. McCronion (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(Good to see you back, McCronion.) I can't really tell if this thread has to do with the article's being an essay or with the Warren Cup, but nothing about the cup's current presentation on this page is "extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous", given the fact that there is sustained commentary upon its contents. It is a major piece in the first chapter of the narrative of Greek Love, and an objection that it is "extraneaous etc." seems more an objection to the article per se than to the inclusion of the cup itself. I understand that McCronion is opposed to the article altogether, which is his (I assume from the patronymic) position to take, but I have to disagree with his view of the cup. On the article's topic, a new Cambridge Companion is under contract that will surely have a couple chapters that give a better picture of "Greek Love", but anything that Cynwolfe can do to improve the material after Rome in the meantime certainly won't be the work of a "mug punter". The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cardiffchestnut. I wouldn't object to this article if it had appropriate sources. The reception of Greek pederasty is a topic best suited to the end section of Pederasty in ancient Greece and it could then link to other articles. The available sources would justify that approach. There are no sources to justify what we have here, an entire article on the history of the reception of Greek pederasty, with content forks throughout. This ambitious article is purely a Wikipedia invention. I don't know Cynwolfe. She is just an electronic signal at this end. Regarding the image of the boy being sodomized - the image is presented here with a link to The Warren Cup, where the boy is sodomized for us a second time. What's the point of reproducing that image here? Are readers too lazy to click on the link? Its presence here is unnecessary and therefore gratuitous. McCronion (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please list the sources used in this article that (A) don't meet RS guidelines, and (B) don't discuss the historical use of a Greek homoerotic model for intellectual or aesthetic purposes with reference to the term "Greek love" (you will find examples of B in the Greek background section, since nearly all scholars use the term "Greek love" to refer only to the trope or discourse, and not to the actual practices or attitudes of the Greeks themselves). The sources do not treat "Greek love" in homoerotic discourse as simply or only as code for pederasty, as this article indicates, but this does seem to be the preoccupation you bring to the article the aspect you choose to focus on to the exclusion of desexualized friendship and "homosocial" ideals in the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras. Readers who reference this article in the form of a PDF or print format wouldn't be able to see the images if they were only linked to, and online shouldn't need to toggle back and forth between articles. The Archaic Zeus terra cotta doesn't depict an explicit sex act; as you surely know, male nudity is pervasive in Greek art. The image of Ganymede and the eagle substituted earlier doesn't illustrate the article, which isn't about the theriomorphic aspect of the myth, but rather the Zeus-Ganymede myth as taken as a model for human relationships. The "Roman" side of the Warren Cup makes me uncomfortable, but compared to much Roman "pornography", which often focuses on the penis penetrating quite explicitly (or sex scenes on Greek vase painting, for that matter), the artist has chosen not to make this scene as graphic as he could've. The act of penetration is left to inference, not presented to the gaze, as it often is in Roman wall painting and other media. The tonality of that "for us" indicates that you should probably stop looking so long and hard at the image. As I'm sure you're aware, your witticism in your last edit summary could be taken as lacking civility. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Several things. 1) re the implication that I'm a closet pedophile/pederast - speaking against a practice always leaves the speaker open to that kind of accusation. I'm self taught, so I am not insensitive to how things appear to the general community, the way scholars can become insensitive. So I'm your insurance against blinkered insensitivity. 2)the eagle, as you know, represents Zeus and it is absurd to say that it is irrelevant to Greek Love—there you give us a glimpse of your arrogant presumption that you are qualified to make judgments on this topic, synthesizing ideas as you please. That brings me to the next point. 3) There is no scholarly literature that attempts such an ambitious synthesis of 'Greek love' material as we find in this article. The sources are overwhelmingly narrower in their scope. You expect me to accept you as an authority on this subject, able to bring together all this disparate material? I don't know you that well. But I reason that a top rate scholar doesn't have much time for WP. Your efforts here come under the policy against original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented.

Your sources support many different arguments and just by bringing them all together as if they all support a single argument you are advancing a thesis. Yes, some amount of synthesis goes on with any article, but it must be of the kind that is typical within the literature. Here there is an absent of literature that guides us to that judgment. You are making all the decisions as our resident if anonymous expert. The closest source you have to an article this size is one chapter of Blanshard's book published last year and yet you are expert enough to advance even beyond his treatment. That's original research. And 4) readers are more than capable of going from one article to another by clicking on links. Many of them, like me, would rather not see the same images a second time. McCronion (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood: I meant that the subject is upsetting to you, and you clearly care very much (perhaps too much to be neutral) about the threat of pedophilia. I sincerely apologize if you understood it the other way; I thought our previous interactions would have assured you of this, but I struck my wording because I thought that others could read it in the wrong way. I was trying to say, as I hope I will now say more clearly, that you're so emotionally involved with this subject that maybe you should stop dwelling on the image and an imagined reality behind it that seems to cause you real pain. Again, I apologize for not making that clear.

As for matters that pertain to the article, again I can only point out that when asked you are unable to list the sources that don't meet the standards for RS or that fail to deal with this topic. No one who's read the article by Ramsey MacMullen, the relevant portions of Eva Cantarella's Bisexuality in the Ancient World, or the "Greek love" section in Caroline Vout's book, not to mention Crompton's Byron and Greek Love (a very widely cited book) and numerous other sources such as Williams, could find anything even slightly original stated here. You are welcome to point out synthesis: please list sentences that draw or imply conclusions that are not explicit in the sources cited. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again a number of issues need to be considered. 1) Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources states that reliability is established by context. What is the context for the ambitious scope of this article? Blanshard's book seems to be the context you are working within but you go far beyond him. I believe his approach is epoch-centred. Your approach provides additional epochs, personalities and issues (thereby coincidentally generating many content forks). If Blanshard had wanted to include some of the issues, epochs and personalities you raise here, he might have chosen a different context, based on a selection of themes and significant debates, where your choice of sources is irrelevant and unreliable. You are not supposed to be in advance of the scholarship. You are supposed to be following it. Thus I would list all your sources as unreliable since they are supporting original research. 2) Consider the pretexts you and Nujin have given me for retaining the pedophilia-like images: I look too long and hard at the images (the recent history of this and similar articles on pederasty actually shows that I am not alone in my concerns about gratuitous images and content); using the link to The Warren Cup would compromise the reading experience (links actually enhance the reading experience and that's why there are so many of them in WP articles); Zeus must appear as a man in a 'Greek love' context (he is regularly represented as an eagle in relation to Ganymede). Why are you taking refuge in such flimsy pretexts? 3) My rudeness has a purpose and I don't object to yours in the circumstances. One of the banes of WP for editors like me is the Facebook style of 'friendships' that develop within projects like the CGR, allowing the cult of personality to influence articles. Your 'friends' have faith in this article because they have faith in you, and yet your judgement is actually astray in this case, when looked at objectively. So let's consider who or what we really are at WP. For all you know, I might actually be a pedophile playing an elaborate game with you, and I can't be sure that you really are the grandmother you claim to be. So it's important for people at WP to look objectively at articles and at their sources, especially when the topic is as controversial as 'Greek love'. Sometimes it is necessary to be rude and insulting to keep a proper perspective on things (as the Greeks themselves well knew!) This article fails any objective test. McCronion (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a grandmother; don't know where you got that. I always assumed your good faith, but if you're only playing an elaborate game, that would explain why you can't simply state what startling new thesis is supposedly advanced here that isn't in the sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

McCronion, I would point out that your rudeness is in direct contradiction with WP:CIV. And I don't think that our dislike of a topic or image should be a guide, as that does violate NPOV. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead does not reflect article

Why doesn't the lead summarize the rest of the article? Seems to have some undue weight problems.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Some issues

On my talk page, Czarkoff asked me to list some issues I see as remaining with the article.

• The second AfD (linked at the top of the page) generated a list of possible RS, and recommended a chronological approach. Some sections in developing a period-by-period chronology are still underdeveloped or missing. The AfD is a good place to review the issues pertaining to this article.
• The section on Ancient Rome is proportionally too long; I've been trying (as this diff indicates) to develop the article Homosexuality in ancient Rome in a way that will allow some of the section to be presented in more summary form.
• Two crucial sections are missing, on Oscar Wilde's use of the trope and on 20th-21st century criticisms (Foucault, Davidson, Blanshard) of the (mis)use of the trope to justify or "glamorize" present-day pederasty. Others are underdeveloped, or in need of better sources.
• The topic is both highly conceptual and controversial. It has been difficult to describe the literary and artistic uses of the trope, as represented in the scholarship, while making sure the article isn't used for lifestyle advocacy. However, since I was first introduced to the article at the time of the second AfD, I've encountered far more scholarship on the subject than we imagined at that time. For instance, Caroline Vout, Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome, deals throughout with how the Romans conceptualized and labeled as "Greek" certain forms of sexuality or gender identity. The sources for the topic are often interdisciplinary, dealing with comparative literature and the literatures of specific cultures or languages, history of sexuality, classical studies, and art history. What they have in common is their treatment of "Greek love" as an aesthetic or intellectual trope.

I see the challenge as constructing an encyclopedia article on a concept that changes over time, depending on the aesthetics, sexual attitudes, and intellectual trends of the given historical period, and not misconstruing "Greek love" as an item of lexicography with a fixed meaning. Among others, User:Nuujinn has brought welcome expertise in comparative literature to the article. I haven't worked on it in a while because I've been involved with related articles, such as Homosexuality in ancient Rome and Sexuality in ancient Rome, and contributing to some LGBT-history articles with sections on antiquity. It's a slow process for me because my background in the history of sexuality is fairly limited and I don't usually deal with LGBT issues, so I've been trying to familiarize myself with the broader discourse in order to deal with the excruciating difficulties this topic presents. Thanks for your interest, and any help or suggestions. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a chance....as remote as it may be, that the article is too cerebral and has become an essay on Greek Love AS a trope. Which is why the suggestion of renaming this article may be appropriate. Has the article moved past the subject and into speculation of events and people from their poems and writings with almost no direct link to the subject past the inspiration it may have given the artist.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that the missing link on this article could well be the lack of LGBT history that draws everything together to be more understandable in relation to how the mentioned writers and artist were inspired more than in a literary sense...but within their own sexuality.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted a notice about the GA review to the four projects that bannered this article. I wonder whether you would consider waiting to make edits until we have some outside perspectives. I hope we can focus on reading and sharing what the sources say (we have a large bibliography), and discussing how to present that material in the article. Keeping this inflammatory topic coldly cerebral may be a way to check any impulse toward lifestyle advocacy, which has been identified as a concern in the past. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone may edit this article at any time. There is no need to "wait".--Amadscientist (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course, but you seemed to be saying that you made the GA nom not because you thought it was ready, but in order to get some perspectives and feedback from previously uninvolved editors. The article's been subjected to only light edits the last few months, so what's the use of starting to edit frantically until we hear what they have to say? I would hope also that you're checking sources and thinking carefully about whether they're summarized accurately, because you edited the error into this direct quotation that has now been corrected again. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a simple mistake. At a glance it caught my eye and thought it was a spelling error. Thank you for correcting it but let's not jump to conclusions. Also it's best to not assume what others may seem to be saying.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I should actually say thank you to User:Cardiffchestnut for the correction actually. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Image issues

I went through the images to check on license, and summary information and updated a few that were missing source information with the same image in larger files but the John Addington Symonds image could not be located so I left a message for the uploader to see if he could update the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Symonds, John Addington.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Resolved

 – source found

<span id="

Resolved

 – source found

">{|

|- | | An image used in this article, File:Symonds, John Addington.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

• If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
• If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC) |} This is auto generated from the tag requesting source information. It isn't actually nominated for deletion and I am certain if the uploader is unable to respond, it can and will still be saved. If anyone does know the source for this please let us know!--Amadscientist (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the source, but it seems like something that would come from a collection, with the signature and its significance to literary history. There shouldn't be any copyright issues that would cause its deletion, however; Symonds died in 1893, so it has to be well over 100 years old. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Library of Congress, Feinberg-Whitman Collection. — the cardiff | chestnut — 03:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Cardiffchestnut! I should have known that!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad the file issue is worked out and Winkelmann's still enjoying the wettest dream. But if any of you ever catch me actually editing this article for content, remind me that I'm built for editing articles about poems which nobody reads: such peace and quiet.

Not rated as B-class, much less a GA candidate

I'm wondering whether it's appropriate to submit a start-class article for a GA review? The article is tagged as still missing important aspects of the topic, and no project has rated it as even B-class. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, this article isn't start class, its rating just hasn't been updated. It might be a C, which would be fine to nominate in my view. Of course, whether or not this can pass as a GA depends on whether those maintenance templates still belong, or if they are outdated and can be removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The ratings probably should be updated, by someone not too involved with this controversial page. The "missing information" tag is supported by the "this section requires development" tags; I don't know whether the top note is needed with these or not. Significant gaps in coverage usually keep an article from being B-class. One of the major gaps here is a section on Oscar Wilde's use of the trope, for instance. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a big gap. Some of the other sections tagged as needing expansion seem rather large for that tag, though. Of course, I'm not evaluating it that closely, and I don't plan on picking up this review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It probably wont make it, but it is important to try. The article can certainly use more eyes on it and GA nomination is a good way to start. If an editor does feel the article is lacking they may well give some insight as to what it needs.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

True the tags will keep this from GA, which is why I question the need for them. Major gaps? I think that would be difficult to prove with this subject as many people still think the article as it is isn't even about the subject in many ways.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"It probably wont make it, but it is important to try" is the wrong attitude for nominating an article for GA. An article is supposed to be as close to GA as possible when nominated. The GA process is not for pointing out what needs fixing. For that, I suggest taking this article to peer review. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Tags don't seem to be needed. Article is quite large and expansion is no longer required. It can always grow larger, but the tags are not needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be better to take this to WP:Peer Review first than to overburdon GA with an article that in your own words would probably not make it. The lead is very weak at the moment and at the very least should be fleshed out. AIRcorn (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. The article has received a great deal of peer review through the AFD discussions.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Afd is to decide notability, theoretically quality should not come into it. They were also conducted over a year ago. Looking at the recent activity on the talk and article page this article is currently unstable. It might be a good idea to at least wait until the current issues are sorted out before nominating it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't see any instability problems at all in the article itself or the editing history for the short term. There are no issues that I am aware of at the moment. Even my thought that Cynwolfe was editing warring no longer seems to be true.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GA?

There is seriously a discussion about nominating this article for GA status? Please do go ahead with that! That would be useful in pointing out the article's faults to those here who still don't understand or don't want to understand. Problems include extensive content forking, lack of an over-arching literature to bring all this together, and the ad hoc accretion of material according to the self-guided preferences of WP editors. It's been divided into historical periods because that's the only obvious way to collate the material without clear guidance from published scholars and that's also how the content forks have become established here. I also notice that images from linking articles are still reproduced here, even those that have pedophile associations. Yes by all means get some judgement on this article from people who have not yet been involved. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has been nominated and there is a good deal of work ahead for all of us I am sure. Please help improve the article with your input. I do think it is a bit harsh to say there are images with pedophile associations. I for one went through this article at one point and did indeed find some very questionable links and removed them. But the images here now have no known pedophilia associations that I am aware of. Remember that there is indeed a difference between "pedophilia" and "pederasty". While they do have some connection the two terms do have different meanings. One being an illegal act condemned as rape and the other a tradition that was not forced upon an unwilling partner, and at a time when such morality simply did not exist. Yes the images of the Warren cup can be disturbing to some and perhaps they are given undue weight and perhaps the descriptions are a bit too...forgiving in what it illustrates, as if it were common. But that is from an honest attempt by editors to make it cut and dry and not sound as if to embrace the subject matter. In one way I am in agreement with Cynwolfe that the Roman section may be too large, but...on the other hand it is the Romans that first looked back at the traditions of the Greeks with either disdain or approval to form their own sexual identity or push it away, in anything close to a modern interpretation. As long as the images are not there for impact alone they should serve the articles purpose. But I for one think that it may be undue weight to the cup to show both sides in two different images. this is the one time I am in favor of combining images for a single illustration. That certainly would solve the undue weight to that subject. However...I am also a little confused by the mention of the cup and the way the section is written. The section is not written in as cerebral a manner as the rest of the article and in fact loses almost all credibility at the end with "[I]ts antiquity has been challenged." Somehow, I can't help but wonder why we need that if it's not completely credible.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search does come up with some disturbing information that would lead me at least, to keep it off the article: "strongly held suspicions that, far from being a "vessel, probably found at Bittir, near Jerusalem, AD5-15", the Warren cup actually dates from the early 20th century, and was made to satisfy an American collector, Edward Warren, who had an appetite for erotica (he commissioned, among other things, as MacGregor tells us, one version of Rodin's Kiss)." [1]. Even the subjects Wikipedia article itself has a section on more recent studies that claim it is a fake: The 2008 article for Bollettino d’Arte by M.T. Marabini Moevs. But this needs to be discussed. What are the thoughts of others?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this at Talk:Warren Cup#Question of Authenticity. Some have wanted to delete the section on the Moevs article (my view is that it should actually be expanded, especially if we can get RS discussing the pros and cons of the study); some have seemed to want the article to assert that it's a fake (given the current state of the scholarship, that to me would be WP making a scholarly decision that would be OR); currently the goal is to aim for balance. My view on using the cup as an illustration for a given article is that it can be used with a note on questions of its inauthenticity. If the balance of RS should tilt toward inauthenticity (which the single article can't do), it should be removed from Homosexuality in ancient Rome, for instance, or any article in which it purported to illustrate ancient Roman culture. But if it becomes presumed fact that the cup was manufactured for the turn-of-the-century pederastic market who idealized classical antiquity, ironically the object's inauthenticity would make it an ideal illustration for this article, as a visual artifact of the "Greek love" craze in the era of Symonds. (It would be moved out of the Roman section, and into the appropriate chronological period; if that happened, I would support only using one side, and not the puer delicatus side that has disturbed Eyeless for so long.) I also share Eyeless's reservations about ever making the article a GA, because I doubt that its problems can ever be fully resolved to the satisfaction of all, but hope that the review process can pave the way to a B status. It's been structured chronologically because that's the conventional way to structure an article that deals with the history of something, and because the sources deal with the topic in the context of the reception of the classical tradition. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of the Warren cup

I agree with User talk:Eyeless in Gaza as well... in that the GA should go through, as that is actually what the member stated. As for the Warren cup being used on this article it might be a bit of levitation in attempting to give more weight to it being legitimate. The balance in the scholarly information is missing and the sections use is unbalanced at this time. This leads me to believe the images themselves are here specifically for the impact of showing the sexual act itself. But the fact that this questionable object is being illustrated twice (regardless of the two sides) also adds to the imbalance of reputable sources that contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. This may actually have equal sources or it may have more sources stating it's fake. This will need to be looked into a bit, but right now the object is being given undue weight.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The two sides are meant to illustrate the Roman section by contrasting the Greek pederastic tradition and the Roman, a contrast which lies at the heart of the Roman section. The Greek relationship was between freeborn social equals, with some difference in age; Roman pederasty was unequal and exploitive, since the puer was a slave. Anyway, this is very much not the place to discuss the balance of sources regarding the authenticity of the Warren Cup; please join the discussion at Talk:Warren Cup. If you have additional RS on the question of authenticity, they would be much appreciated there. But see what I said above about the cup and this article: if it was manufactured for pederastic circles in the time of Symonds, the cup is actually more central to the subject matter of this article—though as I said above, the so-called "Greek" side would be sufficient for that. It's as an illustration of the Roman section that both sides are useful; if only one is used for the Roman section, it would need to be the so-called "Roman" side, which shows the child, so I'd rather not show that side without the other side for context. Pollini, Clarke, and Butrica (who I don't think is cited here) all treat the cup as authentic, though Butrica takes the older youth as the boy grown up. I hope we can base our discussions quite specifically on what the sources say. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss the Warren Cup being mentioned in THIS article. Please stay on topic. The balance of scholarly mention is in regards to the prose on THIS article. The fact that there is such doubt to it's validity may give it's mention here, in such length and with two separate images illustrating it undue weight and may also lend some credence to the previous statement that some illustrations may have pedophile associations. If it's a cup commissioned by Warren himself in 1900 there are some that might view it in a modern and contemporary sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Then setting aside questions of authenticity, the cup as currently used is an illustration of arguments presented in this article, mainly of Pollini, whose article is thoroughly cited; Clarke, who also characterizes it as a depiction of the Greekness of certain Roman views of male-male sex in his book on Roman erotic art; and Butrica, whose interpretation of the cup differs slightly from that of Pollini (I believe Butrica is still largely absent from this article). These three sources discuss the cup specifically in connection to "Greek love"; Pollini and Butrica use the exact phrase, and Clarke does not, and though he deals with the concept I have therefore relegated him to a footnote. If it's a cup commissioned by or made for Warren, it belongs to the era of Symonds, and if we have a source for that, it could be dealt with there. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I erred on one point. Butrica discusses the Warren Cup, but does not use the phrase "Greek love"; I was confusing Butrica with another contribution in the same volume that discusses "Greek love". Cynwolfe (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Mainly? Only. The entire paragraph of the Warren cup entry is only supported by two inline citations from the same source. One which I think is a bit over used, but that's another discussion. Where are these references you mention to support the claims you just made. They're not in the article I am reading...unless these are authors being used in other references I just don't see listed at a glance.

We are discussing this passage in the article:

The reception of Greek pederasty at Rome thus had a dual character, reflected on the piece of convivial silver known as the Warren Cup. It has been argued that the two sides of this cup represent the two pederastic traditions at Rome, the Greek in contrast to the Roman. On the "Greek" side, a bearded, mature man is mounted by a young but muscularly developed male, probably meant to be 17 or 18. A child-slave watches the scene furtively through a door ajar. The "Roman" side of the cup shows a puer delicatus, age 12 to 13, held for intercourse in the arms of an older male, clean-shaven and fit. The bearded pederast may be Greek, with a partner who participates more freely and with a look of pleasure. His counterpart, who has a more severe haircut, appears to be Roman, and thus uses a slave boy; the myrtle wreath he wears symbolizes his role as an erotic conqueror. The cup may have been designed as a conversation piece to provoke the kind of dialogue on ideals of love and sex that took place at a Greek symposium, but its antiquity has been challenged.

References

You have placed notes into the reference which hides this information from view a bit. If these claims in the notes are actually supported as stated and this isn't synthesis or OR then why not place these separately into the body of the article or notes and use the sources and authors as the reference to the claims. But all of that is simply convenience links right now and doesn't add weight to Pollini. It's your opinion or that of the person who wrote the note. You can't make the claim "the subject matter depicted on the cup would express a dual Greek-Roman tradition of pederasty" without a reference for that or it's just OR. And Clark does not support that, just that it is 'valuable for art history precisely because of its "relatively secure date."' and since it has no context to "Greek love" it just seems gratuitous.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So basiclly there needs to be a reference to the claim in the article as well. If Pollini is stating "The reception of Greek pederasty at Rome thus had a dual character, reflected on the piece of convivial silver known as the Warren Cup." then we need a citation for the claim. Clark is simply adding weight to dating as authentic and not even in the body of the article. The authenticity is only mentioned in passing and referenced with Pollini.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say, to be honest. This is a summary of Pollini's description of the cup. Pollini says the cup expresses a dual tradition of pederasty, the Greek and the Roman (Butrica disagrees with this, but when I review his description, it seems tangential to this article, and would belong rather in Homosexuality in ancient Rome). Clarke writes about the "Greekness" of the cup without using the phrase "Greek love"; the comment from him here pertains to authenticity. I've made an effort to represent the sources accurately, but I can't read the scholarship for you. I don't see how you can disagree with how the material in this article is represented, proportionally or otherwise, if you haven't actually read the scholarship. It's unclear to me whether you have. Now, if the wording is unclear, that's another matter, and I can try to write more clearly, once I understand your concerns. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Clark=useless to argument. He's not a reference. It's not Greek love it's Roman art to him.

Pollini Claim is not referenced directly next to the content in article. Summary is not as well. Per Wikipedia MOS, even notes must be referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Bottum line, the use of the Warren cup on this article is undue weight to the object and to the author Pollini and is unbalanced by any OTHER scholarly reference formatted as an inline citation.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

More specifically, the line in the note "Thus the subject matter depicted on the cup would express a dual Greek-Roman tradition of pederasty, as received and interpreted in another cultural milieu." That is original research. It needs to be referenced with more than the convenience link to the Clark book but where exactly this claim has been published.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is all relative to this really being clearly connected to Greek Love which I am looking into. I have read Pollini's piece before and i am rereading it, but as yet to find him place this scyphus squarely as a work related to "Greek love".--Amadscientist (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That was actually a pretty good read and unless I am missing something, Pollini says:

On the Warren Cup, however, I would suggest that this ideal concept of Greek love is transformed into a master-slave relationship that was in keeping with the social and sexual norms of Roman lovemaking.

There is no mention of "[G]reek pederasty at Rome [having a] dual character" in relation to "Greek love" or pederast imagery on the cup. Doesn't go into that at all. His only reference to Greek love and the cup are in a complete different context. The claim is not supported by the reference. It cuts off online. Is there more about the description past the dating section?[2]? if so could you provide the exact quote this is based upon? Clark may well go into this detail but it's not mentioned by Pollini when he gives his mention in the journal piece. Clark is not relevant here accept for the dating which could well be good for adding in prose with an inline citation as to not loose the reference work and information.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope I got the rest of it. Let me finish. If it has the information I'll strike out above.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

notes suggestion

I think we need a separated notes section. I would like to do this directly as written to the section without any changes right now. Nah, it would be better to start a notes section with new notes when needed. Separating would surely make some feel the move is changing their original context. Adding a notes section and if there are some that need moving it could just be discussed one at a time. If another user has notes they made and wish then they can do so as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Claim of dual Greek/Roman comparison not supported by Pollini reference

No, I'm sorry Cynwolfe, but that is not at all an actual claim, but one of many.....and I mean many theories and ideals that he presents as NOT being conclusive. There is no use of the term "Dual" because Pollini speculates that there was a mate...and even possible two full sets of two cups. And this guy is VERY thorough. Here is what he actually says in direct context to both Greek and Roman sexual practices:

If there is any contrast between Greek and Roman in the scenes of this scyphus, it would be based on sexual mores and traditions, that is, the classic form of Greek lovemaking between freeborn Greek males, as contrasted with the more socially acceptable Roman custom of lovemaking between a (dominant) Roman male and a (passive) sex slave or foreign-born male.(159) All these points of comparison and contrast would serve as visual clues and points of departure in any symposial disquisition on the nature of making love.

Given the imagery of the bearded and beardless pederasts, could there also have been here some commentary or comparison evoked between Greek and Roman homosexual lovemaking and/or typical contemporary Greek and Roman poets as generic types, indulging in the pleasures of homosexual love? Homosexual lovemaking was, after all, a theme celebrated and practiced among contemporary Greek and philhellenic Roman poets. The pederasts wearing crowns of myrtle might even have been intended to symbolize Roman and Greek poets who wrote homoerotic poetry of the sort we find in the Anthologia Palatina. Homoerotic love would have been an appropriate theme underscoring the benefits of Imperial rule that ushered in a period of peace and tranquillity, when time could be spent enjoying song and various forms of lovemaking.

He then he goes on to finish with:

What I have proposed are only some of the possible discursive roads that a hypothetical symposiast might have traveled, sparked by the images and visual clues on the Warren Cup. Within certain limits, of course, we are not constrained by the cup's imagery to fix on only one interpretative reading. Other "symposiasts," beckoned by the imagery of the Warren Cup, would have their own songs to sing.

So, no, we cannot say "The reception of Greek pederasty at Rome thus had a dual character, reflected on the piece of convivial silver known as the Warren Cup." Because he was comparing every possible piece of work on every conceivable type of similar art and even text of poems and stories, but he is not making these as actual claims. He isn't even arguing that the bearded man was Greek for heavens sake. He goes into great detail of Roman men of the period with these types of beards including military and some we might refer to as "Dandies" so it isn't even his intention to actually say the bearded man was Greek. He also makes clear and continues to discuss the crown of myrtle being worn by BOTH of the two "Pederasts" (master to submissive). The last part at the end of the piece is a question. It is simply asking could it be, but it isn't even his conclusion of all he's own detail. It's not even really speculation of the single ideal as he speculates on a great many things in a very clear way. Great work by the way. I actually really enjoyed reading it. But it doesn't support Pollini as claiming there is a "Dual" comparison of Greek and Roman pederast practices being depicted on the Warren Cup. He actually, quite strongly suggest it is a homosexual drinking cup for conversation that may have had a mate with two other forms of homosexual acts and possibly another matching set with two forms of heterosexual acts on each.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the "Ancient Rome" section on the Warren Cup to reflect the the speculative manner of the reference as to not be conclusive and removed some small descriptive detail that sounded less than encyclopedic for a more neutral tone. I also removed both images as undue weight for the section that had somewhat misleading text in their summaries. It also seems somewhat gratuitous to use the images with the level of mention the item receives in the section along with it's possibly being a fake.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Section headers

The article itself is very detailed and in the past I have argued that it went to far abroad and lacked focus. But I have decided, with a little help from reading some of the various posts and rereading some of the references that what the article lacks is focused direction, not focus in general. In other words each of the sections relate and go into good detail and seem well focused on the section at hand, but over all the direction seems choppy and guided by chronology divided into historical periods alone. Section heading devided into the actual reference points might work better. It doesn't really require any change to content but simply a slightly different reference point. I propose more unique section titling. Instead of "Renaissance" we use "Judaeo-Christian rediscovery". This places the beginning of what we would see emerge as a significant literary trope, but not really a full renaissance for the idea of Greek love. For "Neoclassicism" we would use the header "Homoerotism and "Greek love" in Art history". This really fits much better than Neoclassism and I seem to remember actually thinking hard when I placed that originally if it wasn't too narrow and now I am sure of it. "English Romanticism" should stay as is, but the Victorian era should not be a new section but a subsection within the other and the "Symonds and Greek ethics" section as a sub subsection as would be an Oscar Wilde section--Amadscientist (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Blanshard reference clarification

What book is being referenced here on Ref# 47? This needs more information.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Cup images

I agree with the removal of the cup images. Regarding Cynwolfe's theory that the cup would still be relevant to this article even if it is a fake—who is the authority for that opinion? As far as I know, one chapter in Blanshard's book still provides the only overview of 'Greek love' in mulitple historical settings. That's the only road map you have for this article. He doesn't mention the Warren Cup. Most of this article, as far as I know, is mapped out by Cynwolfe. This is her research. I'm currently working on Horace's Reception in multiple historical settings so let's compare my work there with what we have here:

• The reception of Horace is largely a literary phenomenon. The reception of Ancient Greek pederasty is a multi-disciplinary phenomenon. i.e. Greek love is a much more complex issue
• My over-arching source is the Cambridge Companion to Horace, specifically four essays by top scholars co-ordinated by an editor; this article's over-arching source is...?
• My other sources are almost all cited by the Cambridge Companion. This article's 'other sources' are cited by...?

Ponder those comparisons. Then consider this:

• The reception of Horace is the end section of Horace. Greek love should be the end section of Pederasty in ancient Greece. A paraphrase of Blanshard's chapter will fit there easily enough.
• Would you like me to research Horace's reception without guidance from top scholars? It's a complex assignment, far beyond my skill level. So of course you wouldn't! Yet here at Greek love, a far more difficult assignment, it's OK for anonymous WP contributors to map out the territory and to decide for us what belongs here, what doesn't?

It's not just the images of children being sodomized and abducted that pisses me off. The fact that this whole article has always been an original research opportunity on the theme of pederasty—that is what I can't abide. This kind of article belongs in a magazine on a coffee table in a brothel, not in the world's encyclopaedia. If a team of scholars ever gets around to writing a source book for this article then by all means report their findings. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you have actually given us a good deal of direction and are spot on in at least one major area, that the article has been used for original research on the theme of pederasty. It's not the direction it has always taken though. I had this article within a reasonable framing of the context to homosexuality and within the frame work as a mostly modern term with all ancient references merely reflections of traditions from the distant past meant to justify their own sexual feelings to themselves and society of the time. But this article has traveled a great distance since one editor was banned. I had wandered away and suddenly it goes back to being more heavily filled with the literary "trope" and examples of the inspiration "Greek love" has given certain poets of distinction. Not to knock the poets...but this isn't an essay on the inspirational feelings of the artist. That just seems to be synthesizing original research that does start to go beyond what the articles subject is. It's Greek Love....not what Greek love meant to Byron, or Shelly or even Oscar Wild. These are people who have their own interpretations of the subject and deserve mention of due weight remembering that the subject is outside of the individual reasoning behind each artistic expression.

I'm no scholar and I don't even play one on TV. But I can read. I have interest in these areas and have spent hours pouring over information by many different authors about this subject. But, yes...it's not a simple subject, but it is also not impossible to look at in a disinterested manner and see where it comes from and how it is applied throughout history. I think, the reality is, that the over-arching source are the LGBT historical references. We can see this strongly in so many of Louis Crompton's[3] works being used here. That is my opinion. Is Greek love about Pederasty. I say no, not in the since that it is about men who wanted to have sex with boys, but who wanted to have sex with other men of varying age. They many times took the literal meaning or historic meaning of "Platonic love" of an older teacher figure to love a younger student/learner. And this was not even a sexual relationship most of the time.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, as much as I respect your self-belief and integrity, I still have to point out that you are simply presenting your notion of Greek Love. Another WP contributor, such as Cynwolfe, has a different notion. I'm not interested in what you or Cynwolfe think. You're bums like the rest of us. I want to know what published scholars think and Blanshard is the only one who gives an overview of this topic. Nobody here has even read the relevant chapter of his book, apart from Google Previews. That book is just being used as a fig leaf to hide the embarrassing fact that this article doesn't really have any sources. None to justify an article of this scope. The sources cited in this article specifically relate to other topics and are used here only because those other topics can be understood by you or Cynwolfe or some other anon WP contributor to have some relevance here, as individuals may be thought relevant to a species. But who decides what's relevant and what isn't, or what emphasis to give this or that part? Who defines the species? Blanshard never mentioned the Warren Cup and maybe he knew better than to mention it. Likewise, there are other things being mentioned here that a scholar like Blanshard might reject. We don't know. This is not a value-neutral topic and WP contributors need to be cautious about it. The article should be deleted and its content can then be directed to other articles, where it belongs. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not that other editor and do not share their framing of this article. As for Blanchard, you'll excuse me if I don't rush to review his work right now. But as for who decides, you do, in collaboration with others who may edit in the future. Look...it takes everyone working together even if you don't agree. If you have a problem with the over arching sources then you should edit the article in whatever way you feel strongly about. I suggest trying as the article seems very much ready for work of ANY kind and I for one welcome whatever you want to do as long as you don't expect me not to add input of some kind be it an edit or on the talk page. You sound like you may have been pushed away in other discussions but I haven't had any strong input here in quite some time due to an over zealous effort that I decided I din't want to deal with again, at the time. This is just an encyclopedia and information is just information. I beg you not to under estimate editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation but I never edit unless there is consensus. There can never be consensus about this article. The topic is controversial and there is no literature dedicated to a multi-disciplinary overview. You guys are making it up as you go along. You select and prioritize the sources to suit yourselves without guidance from anyone. That's not how information is presented. That is how misinformation gets presented. The fact that there are no scholarly overviews of this topic, apart from Blanshard's glance at it in one chapter of a recent book, indicates to me that scholars don't think such overviews are appropriate or possible or timely. I'm unable to get that point across in this forum. Waste of breath. Good luck! Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[This reply has been edited for clarity] I don't think you have proven your point to be honest. You make claims about the author I have not even bothered to look into. It's not as if I can't just ask a University Professor what the best overview of the subject would be or if he or she might know who to ask. You seem to be coming across as not agreeing with the over arching sources by bringing up Blanchard but not mentioning any of the other authors and sources. Are you just against this as an LGBT article and how it relates to people as used as a phrase, an idea or tradition?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mode of citations

I found that the mixture of citation styles has led to excessive unnecessary duplication in references, while the bibliography list is incomplete. I'm proposing use of the ref name system for multiple citations, with inline page numbers, and have made a start on this. However, there's a lot of work to go. Please either help out or bear with me! Bjenks (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I take back all comments here

Let this be whatever anyone wants as I could care less now.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with sock

==Untitled== The articles is what it always was: a set of content forks and an opportunity for original research, owned by a gang of individuals from quite dysfunctional and almost moribund "projects". It deserves a third AFD nomination, hopefully drawing on a wider, less one-eyed group of people. McOoee (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Go for it. I am tired of dealing with this mess of POV.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC) OK but some groundwork needs to be done first. Nobody wants to lose any referenced material and it is best to involve as many people as possible in the fate of this article, so my thinking at the moment is as follows: Oh...I think I can help with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 1. Most of the referenced material should be transferred to linking articles where it would be more relevant and useful (or it can simply be deleted if it is already in other articles). A good portion of this can go to Neoclassicism.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 2. Edit summaries should detail each transfer e.g. "Transferring this to The Warren Cup" Any merging of content must have a linkback in the edit summary to the article content originates from when placing in the new article! This is a minimum requirement. Please do not merge content on the Warren Cup. I dispute this information. Almost all of it. I have detailed my concerns in the history but the article was returned to this version out of frustration. It clearly has only silent consenus for this version, no different than the other version before it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 3, Anything that remains after that process will be suited for inclusion in Pederasty in ancient Greece (Greek love deals with reception of ancient Greek pederasty and it could occupy as much as a third of that article, I estimate). Agreed, as long as the material didn't already originate from that article. A few editors had been doing cross over work on those and a few other articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 4. I'll nominate this article for deletion once it is ready for tranfer to Pederasty in ancient Greece. You need not do this. Merging of content does not require a consensus or a deletion but a simple redirect. It can be done with a bold edit or a merge proposal can be made for a more solid consensus to keep it redirected. It's already been moved but moved back for more discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) 5. There is no need to rush into this: the longer this takes, the more people can be engaged. By giving notice to the projects, especiall Classical greece and rome, you should get a reaction.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Let me know here what you think of these proposals. I'd appreciate your help with it. That's up to you. Thanks. McOoee (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Overall I would be cautious about what you merge. this article has so much POV that it could seriously upset some editors to introduce this content. I would suggest an explanation after and merging of content. I also highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the merging process at WP:WPMERGE.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Good advice. The transfer process could be very slow and tedious. Another option is to transfer material to article talk pages and let contributors there decide how best to use it. I'll try to transfer something every day, either to articles or talk pages. McOoee (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Re tag about merging English Romanticism section with Romanticism article: No I don't agree with that. The section as it is now is well suited to inclusion in Pederasty in ancient Greece as part of a larger reception section for that article. McOoee (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC) However, there is no reason why you shouldn't leave a note on the talk page for Romanticism letting contributors know that this material is here and that you are considering this merge. McOoee (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, I'm not at all concerned with those specifics really. Feel free to make that what you feel is appropriate!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I also disagree with your proposal to merge the Renaissance section with other articles. It's well-balanced and well fitted to Pederasty in ancient Greece#Reception: Greek love, where this whole article properly belongs. That is how I am editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McOoee (talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC) merging with Romanticism is a very bad idea. No historian of Romanticism gives one tenth that much attention to Byron & this topic. Rjensen (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose all these mergers, which have not been posted properly, including the target articles. Agree witrh comments above. What is going on here? Vast chunks have been removed without discussion at the target article, or consensus here. If there are felt to be problems with the text, shunting it off to another article is no solution. Even if it is merged, why is it then removed here, where it is clearly most relevant? Would a rename to cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism help with the unhappiness some editors evidently feel with the article? If you want to merge, both History of homosexuality and LGBT history are fairly weak. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Uhm...yes to the last part. I agree with the change to Cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Support future merging of the current edit with Pederasty in ancient Greece – 'Greek love' concerns the reception of ancient Greek pederasty and it should therefore be the end section of the other article. However the other article is now in worse shape than this one and I don't think there is a general willingness to improve it. So any attempt to merge seems premature for the moment. Oh and I was User:McOoee previously. Now I am Sir Gawain McGarson (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)