Talk:Greek love/Archive 6

Maybe it's the title?

I find the objections of User:Lucretius/User:Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest/User:Amphitryoniades/User:McZeus/User:McCronion more than a little diffuse, but I wonder what would happen if this article were retitled Reception history of Greek pederasty or some such. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be possible, but it would be quite a different article. Among the Romantics, it can be hard to distinguish when they're talking about homosexuality/homoeroticism in general, and when they're talking about pederasty as a specific practice. It's certainly an apt way to approach Symonds. But then you would also have to cut out the Renaissance and Neoclassical background, which desexualized Plato and "Greek love": the Romantics and Victorians reacted to this by pointing to the sexuality in Plato's works (as with Shelley). Essentially the article would become "how pederasts have attempted to justify pederasty by recourse to a Greek model," in contrast to how more broadly an idealized Greek model of same-sex love has been an influence or inspiration on various forms of homoerotic expression in literature and art, depending on the moral, intellectual, and aesthetic preoccupations of the time. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Akhilleus—perhaps the dominant personality of the CGR! I should be honoured, I suppose. The article suggests that modern scholarship takes a holistic approach to Greek love but in fact there is only one chapter of one book that seems to do that. Modern scholars like modern scientists take ever more specialized views and that is clearly the way things are with Greek love with its many different foci. The article's holistic view misrepresents or at least exaggerates the current state of affairs in this field, it amounts to a POV. There is no study of Greek love on this grand scale, as far as I know. The same thing goes for the history of the reception of Greek pederasty.(By the way, I want your comments to stay with the current thread, if you don't mind, and that's why I removed your new section.) McCronion (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the section heading.

I agree that if we changed the title, the entire scope of the article would change. And I am confused by McCronion's apparent requirement that there be some large overarching source. Clearly there is a term "Greek love", and I see nothing wrong about an article about the term. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic in fact does not lack a "holistic" overview, and even scholars who focus on a particular period, movement, or individual often provide a historical perspective on the Greek model as used up to that point, confirming the chronological framework of this article. The Romantics seek to restore the sexual content of Plato because in the Renaissance and Enlightenment it had been suppressed, for instance. The use of the "Greek love" trope in a given period can't really be dealt with in isolation, and the sources don't do so. If I were summing up this article with a sort of eighth-grader's voice, I'd say "Homosexuality was normal among the Greeks. They also didn't think it was wrong to have sex with teenagers. During later times when homosexuality was forbidden, artists and writers have used the ancient Greeks as an example of how relationships between men could be socially acceptable. Sometimes they said these relationships were just true friendships without sex. Sometimes they used Greek poetry and art about gay love as examples of how to express their own feelings, at a time when they weren't supposed to have them. Sometimes they used the Greek example to justify wanting to have sex with boys. Because sex with minors is wrong and illegal for us, some people now think Greek homosexuality is maybe not such a good example." OR and synth mean that a conclusion is drawn or implied that is not present explicitly in the sources used to compile the article, and that the conclusion is contrary to the intention of the sources or a novel expansion. If such a conclusion exists in this article, it should be a straightforward matter to state what that conclusion is. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An entire article dedicated to 'Greek love' suggests to me that a holistic study of 'Greek love' must be quite common in the scholarly literature, but I look at your sources and I see that the authors are working at a very different or localized level, as specialists. All this tells me that the article is still ahead of its time. Maybe scholars will never develop a reflective multi-contextual literature on this subject. Your sources can reliably develop the end section of Pederasty in ancient Greece and some articles that link to it. But you seem intent on pressing ahead with a holistic approach in this article, despite the lack of sources and despite problems with content forks, and you continue to use images that are unnecessary and gratuitous. I can't do any more than I have tried to do. The principles are important but I can only spend so much of my time fighting for them in a forum which seems to have made up its mind about this article years ago. McCronion (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article deals comprehensively with the topic based on the existing scholarship, and you are unable to state what conclusion it draws or implies that is not stated in the sources cited. "Greek love" is a distinct topic from Pederasty in ancient Greece, which is itself a particular aspect of Homosexuality in ancient Greece. The concept of "Greek love" is not based on pederasty in all the periods of reception. Although the article now only mentions it indirectly at one point, there are scholars who point out that the "Sapphic love" trope is an aspect of "Greek love" and has been since Roman times. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from extreme "ownership issues" and is no longer a factual article and is far from being a part of the Greek and rome project. I am re-moving it from the project at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a policy or guideline that supports your deletion of the banner, which I have restored. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same one that allows you to put it back up. You are just editing warring and have major ownership issues with this article and the project.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]