Talk:Greek love/Archive 2

Greek love
Bearing in mind the confused recent history of this article, I felt I needed to step back before making any judgment on the future direction of the article even after the present title had been retained. At the time the AFD issue was raised, the article was undergoing a ‘radical review’, new ‘draft’ material having been introduced, though no decision had been made about the final form of the article except that a considerably larger and more complex treatment was envisaged. Of course all this has been interrupted during the deletion debate.

I do not however wish to suggest that the original (evolving) plan has been indefinitely postponed but my part in it will of necessity be delayed since I simply do not have time at present to devote to it. My impression so far is that there have been some technical improvements, but the language and content of the revised introduction is questionable. I am not a mind-reader, but I suspect that the current editor (whose commitment and passion are beyond doubt) is not fully persuaded of the core meaning of the article’s subject. ‘Greek love’ – whatever extension of meaning is applied to this title –refers essentially to the ‘love’ practiced by the Ancient Greeks, which as we know from numerous sources, was pederastic, and not ‘homosexual’ as that category is understood today. It is however a term which has a wider connotation within the ancient world, reaching beyond the educational framework of pederasty to embrace not only intense emotional (rather than sexual) relationships between adult males, but a world of social, literary, philosophic, heroic and military interaction and accomplishment which was unique to the Hellenes. Thus Greek love was the driving force behind the ‘Greek Miracle’, as it is known, and has been adopted by major scholars and historians both as a designation of institutionalized pederasty and as an evocative reference to the wider ramifications of the Greek mind and outlook.

The popular notion of ‘Greek love’ – as a euphemism for modern homosexuality – is separate from this, and should receive little attention, if any, in the context of a serious article. But the scholarly application of the term still opens up wider discussion on a number of issues of import to our modern society, as for instance the problem of power differential and ‘abusive’ relationships about which we hear so much these days, or the politics of ‘assimilationist’ gay rights and the ‘marginalization’ of youth sexuality. Here I refer to an important publication (2000) under the title of ‘Greek Love Reconsidered’ edited by Thomas K Hubbard, and in particular Professor Hubbard’s own contribution, “Pederasty and Democracy: the Marginalization of a Social Practice”, which presents a clear and concise overview of the recent history of homosexual consciousness in Europe and its relation to Greek practice.

I regret that I must withdraw meantime from what I have considered an absorbing enquiry, but urge those presently involved or other knowledgeable classicists who have the time and stamina to offer their expertise in unraveling the complexities and paradoxes of this fascinating subject.--Dominique (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Platonic Love
I think the sentence The term itself is interchangeable with other modern interpretive phrases, such as "Platonic love" and "Socratic Love". is confusing as it nowadays platonic love associated with an asexual relationship (often involving people of different sexes). The source suggests that this was a usage of about 200 years ago in German texts, so the usage of "modern" is also confusing. The sentence in the lead is actually far more accurate, but I don't think this term merits mentions there.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In an attempt to stay as close to the wording the reference supports I did lose more descriptive language. I can copy edit to be more specific.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, nearly all academic sources point to the original intention of the phrase Platonic Love. The contemporary meaning is different from the modern. Modern is a relative term associated with many time periods one may not think of in those terms, but the usage of "Common Era" as well confuse people. I can certainly copy edit the line for a better narrative of the claim, but it is accurate. Platonic, Socratic and Greek love all have origins from the same philosophy and they truly are interchangeable.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Careless or dishonest editing
I have restored the original text and references for the Romantic/Victorian section, which was severely reduced on the grounds of poor referencing. I have checked the original references, and found them to be correct and specific in the main, thus answering a number of charges of "Reference does not support claim". I noted some 'Reference removed tags' ( re refs which appeared to have been removed anonymously, though with an identifiable Californian IP address). I have reverted the main images removed - on the grounds of irrelevance to text - noting in one case the related text had been removed in advance. A core definition of 'Greek Love' (by J.A. Symonds) - a topic uppermost in the recent deletion debate - has also been restored. As time permits I shall be looking closely at these irregularities - as I hope others will do - and as necessary file a report to the appropriate WP dept. --Dominique (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhm.......let me get this straight.......you want to "File a report" for my editing irregularities becuase you don't like what I deleted.


 * I do not recall making any mistakes in what was deleted by I will recheck what is there. All images must have clear relevance to what is being discussed. You are welcome to edit the article and contribute relevant information with, or with out proper sources. This is an open source medium and yu are acting like a child throwing a tantrum over the "Direction" you "planned' for this article. I have a better idea.....why don't we stick to the wikipedia way. Consensus cannot be formed by an individual, nor between two or three editors. Consensus is not a vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would request all editors here to maintain the rudiments of Wikipedia decorum. It is inappropriate to suggest that another's editing is dishonest, unless you have evidence to back it up. And telling someone they are childish is also inappropriate. Let's keep our opinions to ourselves, and focus on editing the article. Everybody has a POV, and only by collaborating are we likely to filter out personal bias. Haiduc (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there if you care to look at it. --Dominique (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Posner
Is it really necessary to quote Posner with this much emphasis? He is not a classicist (evidently; we know a great deal about the sexual customs of Thebes and Sparta, and a good bit about Corinth) or an expert on language. The point, insofar as it is not his POV, is linguistic, and essays on it should be at Wiktionary, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I had already earmarked the Posner quote for 'reconsideration' - apart from the 'classicist' angle, it sends out the wrong signals. From the linguistic angle, the use of modern terminology e.g. homosexual, with reference to the Greeks, is misleading. Even the maligned Dover - a brilliant philologist - made this clear (1978), a summary of his position being part of the original extension to this article. --Dominique (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually it is necessary. Here is why. The posner quote fills several reference purposes along with the book reference itself supporting a number of different claims in the lead and overview that are points of controversy, That Greek Love can be in reference to homosexuality, that the phrase Greek Love, is used along with other phrases of a similar natur in brackets and that different phrases are in use by Scholars. The simple fact that Posner is not a linguist is irrelevant to any claim he is making. In Fact a linguistic expert may not be of any help in this article unless specifically talking about the term itself, which posner is. The use is not only needed but crucial.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, a reference for this article is not limited to linguistics, or academics of just classic studies.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot. The Posner quote also explains in very short and diliberat verbage that ancient Greek men were not homosexual. He explains it in fewer words than most, but is also along the lines of other historians. The formal way I refer to Judge Posner may make it stand out to some, but it is a legitimate reference. Leaving out sources just because they are not experts in specific fields does not disclude them. There are other theoris in social economics that do justify his use. The books is relavent to the subject. leaving out other fields, in my opinion, leaves out huge amounts of documentation that is well respected.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While I didn't immediatly agree with the Posner assesment about the sexual cusoms of other city states, it appears he is correct and a little search of both the internet and Google books showed very little on the subject specificaly and what I did find was very short and mostly covered in other works talking about Athens.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Symonds
Now.....is it necessary to have two quotes from Symonds?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not strictly, but if one had to choose, the 'Greek love' definition in the shorter quote, should be kept - after all the squabbling during the last week or so. Personally, a consensus would be helpful, and like some other matters, a decision is not urgent. May I add that the matter of any source that raises queries should be treated seriously. --Dominique (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoid weasel words
Wikipedia should not have a view as to whether a topic or event is amusing, interesting, ironic, (in)significant or (un)fortunate. Avoid using adjectives like these, and their corresponding adverbs, to express an editorial opinion or a personal observation in an article. If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so and why, citing sources to support the claim. If a matter is inherently amusing, the reader should not need to be told.

It may be appropriate to use "ironic" in a context such as "Alabama 3 made ironic use of a sample of a Jim Jones speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent here is that of the artist.

Similarly, whereas "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" is an editorial opinion, the alternative phrase "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be acceptable if it is clear from the context why this was unfortunate. Still, it may be better to avoid the adverb altogether, and simply state "Smith could not attend."

The words "significant" and "significantly" require special care as they make a claim sound authoritative. For example, in "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote", the word "significantly" is unsupported, and should be removed unless it can be attributed, as in "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote", with a citation to support the claim.

In science and medicine the word "significant" means that a statistical test has shown that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance (see statistical significance). Do not use the word in the colloquial sense when this technical meaning might be implied.

Avoid peacock terms
Avoid drumming up interest in facts or trivia by tagging them with editorial remarks. For example, it is generally unhelpful to prefix a fact or development with comments like “interestingly”, “ironically”, “surprisingly”, "the researchers were shocked to find" or “it should be noted” and the like. Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy.

Words to avoid
Wikipedia should not have a view as to whether a topic or event is amusing, interesting, ironic, (in)significant or (un)fortunate. Avoid using adjectives like these, and their corresponding adverbs, to express an editorial opinion or a personal observation in an article. If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so and why, citing sources to support the claim. If a matter is inherently amusing, the reader should not need to be told.

It may be appropriate to use "ironic" in a context such as "Alabama 3 made ironic use of a sample of a Jim Jones speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent here is that of the artist.

Similarly, whereas "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" is an editorial opinion, the alternative phrase "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be acceptable if it is clear from the context why this was unfortunate. Still, it may be better to avoid the adverb altogether, and simply state "Smith could not attend."

The words "significant" and "significantly" require special care as they make a claim sound authoritative. For example, in "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote", the word "significantly" is unsupported, and should be removed unless it can be attributed, as in "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote", with a citation to support the claim.

In science and medicine the word "significant" means that a statistical test has shown that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance (see statistical significance). Do not use the word in the colloquial sense when this technical meaning might be implied.

Undue weight
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader. Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.


 * From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: No original research and Verifiability.

Giving "equal validity"
The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Holocaust never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

Pertinence and encyclopedic nature
For further information, see: Reliable sources Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic. Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, (e.g., in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts) it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source, such as an URL, but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given. Images that are not properly identified, (e.g., images with descriptions such as "a cuneiform tablet", "a medieval manuscript", etc.) are unencyclopedic and hence, not useful for Wikipedia.

Ok, this is a good review for me as well--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OFFENSIVE
Not all greeks are homosexual, This article is biased and should thus be deleted. New references acknowledged. Will have to temporarily suspend my further input due to overseas travel AniChai 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Editing cannot take place on an emotional basis. Material is properly sourced and article makes no assumptions about the sexual preferences of "all Greeks", for which no proper data are available anyway. Haiduc 10:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above strike-out is of a comment I made on 26 March 2007, which appears to have been adopted by another user. The article seems to have lost its way: the original purpose, as I recall, was to find application of the term Greek love in the modern world without however losing its historical perspective.  We had reached the point of considering the Oxford Uranists and their identification with 'pederasty' as an ideal in the context of relationships which were more often androphilic.  J A Symonds actually used the term (GL), but in the ancient sense. To recover the thread may require large-scale deletion. Dominique 23:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Large scale deletion begun untill the realization that the article does not meet notability due in large part to the lack of sources and references that directly refer to the subject of Greek Love. Besides Byrons account, little exists.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is offensive because of quite another reason. Greek love was about love between two 'men' or 'masculine males' or 'straight males' as they're today called in the West (and mistakenly equated with being exclusively or constantly 'heterosexual'). However, the concept of 'homosexuality' and of 'homosexuals' that the 'third gender' males like Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs and Karl-Maria Kertbeny INVENTED in the West, was about the love of a 'third gender' or a 'transgendered male' or a 'half-male/ half-female' which they described as a 'female mind in a male body' -- for a 'man'. These two are vastly different concepts. The concept that two Karls invented is equal to 'catamite' not 'Greek love'.

The concept of 'homosexuality' clubs the love of a man for another man and the love a 'third sex' for another man as one and the same thing. But they vastly different and two different species. They became combined as one in the West, because Christianity was not interested in their gender differences but saw them both as committing sodomy. It was the Christian hatred of sodomy that equated them in the eye of the society. Even when due to politics of manhood, the two groups, at least publicly, indulged in two different kinds of sodomy. While men were the penetrators, the third gender was only the penetrated. The two love cannot be the same. And the entry about Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs, Karl-Maria Kertbeny, etc. is completely misleading. (Masculinity (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

questionable
Amadscientist, why do you persist in replacing "couched in elaborately conceived circumlocution" with "questionable"? Who is questioning and on what grounds? Haiduc (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Please leave Apollo alone with his text (Hyacinthus can wait) which I have restored yet again. And....if I may suggest, directing footnotes to the Reference section is more convenient than in the Notes when a particular point is being expanded. No slur, I should add, on the technical know-how of the editor concerned.--Dominique (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You both need to review wiki policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do as you see fit. Just be aware that you do so over my objection. Haiduc (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand why things are being removed and refuse to follow wiki policy and guidelines don't edit on Wikipedia....period. Reverting all as vandalism. I have discussed this over and over and both of you have reverted legitimate deletions.

My discussion with both of you is over. You refuse to work in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our policy is that consensus discussions determine how policy applies in any given case. Please explain your position to the rest of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

'Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved''. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality – remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.'''


 * Our policy is clear and you are not stating anything I disagree with, however all the changes have already been discussed several times on this talk page, as well as the AFD nomination. The rest of us can read the discussion and ask any specific questions. I am discussing the page with you, Involved editors should be a part of the consensus on the talk page. You can certainly way in, and editors may even take your suggestions as a third party if you were asked to be here, but you have not made any contributions to the article and may be under the misunderstanding that simply editing the talk page makes you an envolved part of a dispute.


 * I appreciate your input and don't wish to push away a good faith attempt to help, but if you wish to contribute to the discussion itself, you should have an argument on how something I did was inappropriate, as should anyone reverting a deleted section should. I made my edit summaries, I discussed the changes before hand and got community input from the AFD. Asking me to explain my position is misleading in that I have no position. I am attempting to contribute accurately and boldly in the spirit of both the site and the article. It also is not specific, and impossible to answer. There are a great many changes that have been made, if you look you may actually have a specific question on a deletion or change, but you do need to go all the way in the discussion and read the section in question, check the reference against the claim and if still unsure ask anything you are confused by. I am not out of the discussion, just not going to play any further games with the two other editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit requires explanation in detail. Questionable is a word to avoid, and it seems particularly vague here; circumlocutions is a specific claim. The rest of these changes appear to be removals of sourced judgments, mostly Perry's; they would be better with page numbers, but why remove the notes at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly. First, no, it is not a word to avoid or similar, in that it is not being used editorially, and it is not among the listed words to avoid itself.


 * Also it replaces "Peacocked terms" that do editorialize the statement but are not attributed as a quote from the reference. The use of "elaborately" is inappropriate and POV. The overall statement "Couched in elaborately conceived circumulation" is saying (translation) "worded in a manner with an elaborate theory using many words to describe something simple". In this context...basically saying he may have made it up or exaggerated. Simply saying it is questionable is appropriate for the statements use.


 * Also the section is not the referenced part but part of the prose and subject to bold editing. If it is attributed to the reference as exact wording it should be a quote.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing sourced was removed unless the reference was improperly used, did not support the claim the refernce was used for or had no context to the article. Is there a specific edit in question?


 * I asked several times about formatting references and received no reply. I took the silence as consensus and organised all notes into a separate section. It is an acceptable move and done frequently. This allowed readers and myself as an editor the ability to see the full weight of the notes within the body of the prose. All notes must be referenced the same as the article and any unreferenced note is subject to deletion. Trimming was also necessary for weight issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I expected, there is a perfectly innocent explanation for this disagreement. "Couched in elaborately conceived circumulation" does not mean what you think it does. It means that Shelley was intentionally using indirect language, alluding to certain concepts without naming them outright. He was doing so because it was not possible, in his day, to speak clearly about male love and sexuality. A great deal of the difficulty we have unraveling the threads of past discourse has to do precisely with that unwillingness to call a thing by its name, and this is an unwillingness that goes back all the way to the times of the Greeks. Haiduc (talk)

The refs
The matter of the missing refs cannot be solved quite so neatly, but there is an explanation. The huge amount of work you put in - moving and re-arranging text, rewriting, creating new categories, and the associated deletions and selective restorations - inevitably occasioned some mis-related paragraphs, unsatisfactory alignments and crucially the loss of relevant references. The impression was that you wanted to do as much as possible and in record time, and I can see the good intentions through the dust and smoke of the heat generated. I have spent some further time looking through the edit history, and rather than give a long-winded account of the complex changes, overlaps and misunderstandings, I offer this brief table pinpointing the main 'discoveries':


 * 24 June 21.09 	(Ref does not support claim) 	Ref to Phaedrus - re many boys would prefer age-mates rather than older  lovers (Hubbard uses this ref) Block of text removed, due to previous removal of Hubbard intro + ref giving main source for the Hubbard position
 * 1.07	        Hubbard Intro + ref removed
 * 20.50  	(Ref does not support claim) 	Ref to Kaylor supports quoted passage from D'ArchSmith.  Text removed
 * 19.44         (Ref does not support claim)	Ref to Crompton - re Shelley's Discourse, already removed (20 June 5.42 as below) Ed summary refers to Dover
 * 19.30 		 Ref to Crompton - removed


 * 20 June 05.42 	Ref to Crompton removed (one of two, the other being ref to Dover's book, only the Dover ref being retained after adjustment) - possibly in error

For instance we have still a bulleted list in the 'Sex and domination' section which appears to belong to Percy, but is in fact part of the Hubbard position which you only partially disposed of. I shall re-correct that in a moment. I was interested to see that you tried to preserve the full text of Dover in the Notes, but unfortunately the Winckelmann material including the Belvedere Apollo went with it. (23 June 3.19) A warning came up in the article - Cite error for damaged ref - this remaining until (23 June 4.39). This was of course the (damaged) Crompton ref to Shelley's Discourse which eventually was deleted along with a further body of text. Winckelmann's material + Apollo disappeared from the Notes (3.33), only to re-appear at the next edit, without the image. Subsequently this entry was reduced.

Apollo has of course made a couple of curtain-calls since then, partly to justify the remaining text (at present unattributed) reflecting W's crush on him. I shall restore the missing text, but will meanwhile allow the god an overdue respite.

I hope that we are able to move on with this article, since I believe that there is some common ground among the various contributors. --Dominique (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disputed edits
 * (cur) (prev) 21:09, 24 June 2009 Amadscientist (talk | contribs) (33,883 bytes) (→Sex and Domination: reference does not support claim) (undo)


 * See edit here.


 * COMMENT - The text was so badly written, the meaning is blurred, but if you read what was wrote;


 * "Hubbard goes on to compare the ‘advantages’ of the older and younger protagonists in the love game: the experience and worldliness of the older lover as against the ‘countervailing power of Beauty’ of the youth – ‘a rarer commodity’ taking into account the demographic reckoning that eligible boys within the transient period of adolescent bloom (about fourteen to eighteen years old) were far fewer than the adults who might pursue them. Even among those eligible, many boys would not be interested, or would be closely guarded by their fathers or pedagogues (slave attendants), not forgetting the evidence of Socrates’ proverb, ‘Youth delights youth’, that they would prefer age-mates."


 * Please explain how a man who's been dead for 3000 years can reference the historian who is researching him? I didn't realise we could reference claims of the historian with the subject. Isn't that supposed to be the other way around? Don't we reference a claim about Plato with documentation from a historian.


 * But read the whole thing. Notice what the reference is for? It's for "Not forgetting a proverb". It quotes Plato and the reference is simply where the quote is from. It does not support the claim the entire paragraph makes or even that Mr. Hubbard did, or did not "forget".


 * The quote fails to illustrate the prose and the reference is only there to reference the quote as being said....no more. Forget about the content, the statement is not supported by the reference.


 * The whole Hubbard section is referenced to his 'Sourcebook of basic documents'. The ref to Phaedrus is within that, and can be considered as a footnote. Dominique


 * Disputed time line 21:07
 * cur) (prev) 21:07, 24 June 2009 Amadscientist (talk | contribs) (34,628 bytes) (→Sex and Domination: Reference does not actualy support the claim of standing back, subject covered in history) (undo)


 * See edit here.


 * COMMENT This edit was for several reasons, first the refence is not formated correctly. I have made fixes to references on this page, but you have to list a page number where the information is found or it simply looks like someone is trying to avoid others looking at the section. If that was all I would have found the relevant section and put it in....but read the actual text placed in the article ( I have highlighted the sections);


 * "Professor Thomas K Hubbard stands back from the dominant/submissive position which as he says ‘has led some scholars to see the active/passive polarity as fundamental to the significance of pederasty as a social institution’. The depiction on Greek vases of the older partner as typically the insertive agent in sexual acts lies behind claims ‘that phallic penetration was an index of sociopolitical empowerment, and that boys, as passive “victims” of penetration (considered isomorphic to exploitation) were parallel to women, slaves, and foreigners as instrumental foils to the adult citizen males who wielded the political franchise and thereby the right to phallic supremacy.’"


 * Where to go first? OK....The very first sentence makes a claim. That Hubbard "stands back from the dominant/submissive position which as he says..." OK....you need a third party published source for this claim....and using the author himself to reference claims about the author is not OK.


 * The way the prose is written makes Wikipedia the authority making the claim. The next part of the prose also makes a claim. That "The depiction on Greek vases... lies behind claims." Again you cannot use the work of the author to reference a claim about the work of the author. It requires a third party published account. Innapropriate use of reference.


 * Since all of this is already covered in another section it is also redundant. It is about an author and not about the subject and trimming away as much irrelevanty material as possible is important. The article has been identified through consensus that the article is overweighted with information about historians researching the subject.

''The wording has been slightly changed (26 June). The 'stands back' phrase was intended to indicate that H. did not engage at this point with the argument except to offer the main points against it. The information comes from his work as referenced; what you are saying about the use of the work of the author requiring third party verification would surely inhibit any editorial function beyond mere quoting and referencing. Incidentally, the passage is about what Hubbard is saying, in the same way as the previous passage was about what Percy is saying. There is a difference between reporting what an author is saying and interpreting what an author is saying. The whole purpose of this section and others to follow is, as stated (16 June talk), to marshall the varying expert positions on controversial issues as a means of maintaining objectivity. So I have no intention of abandoning Hubbard's eloquent voice on this subject or others.''Dominique


 * "what you are saying about the use of the work of the author requiring third party verification would surely inhibit any editorial function beyond mere quoting and referencing".
 * Duh. --Amadscientist (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disputed timeline 20:50
 * (cur) (prev) 20:50, 24 June 2009 Amadscientist (talk | contribs) (40,210 bytes) (→Victorian Hellenism: Reference does not support claim) (undo)


 * See edit here.


 * COMMENT I simply cannot see anything that supports the following claim;
 * "'(A) position which thirty years on found ready agreement in Michael Kaylor's acknowledgment that the concept of the 'homosexual' was inapplicable to the dynamics of 'boy-love'"


 * Here is the link to the pages the reference directs to. Page 15, the preface XVI, and page 58.

''The problem here is that the published page nos. do not correspond with the Adobe Reader header nos. You will find the reference in the Introduction p.15 note 2 & p.16, the Adobe page being 53/54. I append below the complete reference to the text of Timothy d'Arch Smith's letter to Kaylor (October 2001), which will be of interest to other editors.''--Dominique (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will comment on the rest tomorrow.- Amadscientist


 * Neutrality and verifiability
 * A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.


 * In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral. For example, it might be:
 * cited selectively
 * painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate
 * made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present
 * subject to other factors suggestive of bias


 * Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article. (from Neutral point of view)


 * --Amadscientist (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses
See above in italics. The Kaylor quote (expanded):

2 Letter from Timothy d’Arch Smith to me, 14 October 2001 (included as ‘Appendix Two’). In his ‘Introduction’ to Love in Earnest, d’Arch Smith writes: "Adult homosexuality, indeed, has little to do with the themes of the poets here treated who loved only adolescent boys and it is for this reason that I have deliberately eschewed the word ‘homosexual’. It is unpleasantly hybrid and modern psychiatrists would give another term to the boy-lover. This word, ‘paederast’, I have also decided not to employ, not only to remove from the poets the smear which it would undoubtedly place on their blameless lives but also because it is not in common use outside the analyst’s consulting-room and the textbook which treats of aberrant behaviour. [….] The word ‘Uranian’ was chosen because it was much used in the circles in which our poets moved and because it is free from the nuances of ‘homosexual’, ‘paederast’, and ‘calamite’."

Kaylor's comment:

I am in agreement with d’Arch Smith’s comment about the concept of the ‘homosexual’ and its inapplicability to the dynamics of ‘boy-love’. On the other hand, for my own part I have chosen to employ the term ‘paederast’, though usually in the form of a more tentative ‘paederastic desire’ (as with ‘homoerotic desire’, where appropriate). Given the cultural and scholarly changes of the thirty years since d’Arch Smith published the above volume, ‘paederasty’ now seems far more Classical, linguistically pure, and neutral (especially in the sphere of literary and art-history scholarship) than a term like ‘paedophilia’ (part of the polemics of current psychiatry and law) or ‘boy-love’ (part of the polemics of current fringe apologists such as the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA). Besides these, the other available choices are simply too unwieldy, as with ‘intimate intergenerational relationship’, phrasing advocated in Theo Sandfort, Edward Brongersma, and Alex van Naerssen, eds, Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives (Binghamton, NY: Haworth, 1991). While d’Arch Smith might have been duly and aptly followed in his use of the term ‘Uranian’, I have chosen instead to employ ‘Uranian’ mainly to refer to ‘fellowship’ within the Uranian group or an accordance with that group’s themes. ‘Paederasty’, even if it does suggest erotic actualisation, nonetheless serves decently to capture the nature of the desires being considered here, a point that will be explored more fully in ‘Chapter One’.

--Dominique (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor admits original research, point of view, and referencing personal letter .==

Tell you waht. I am going to be blunt. That's all garbage. I don't give a crap about your original research. Keep it in your personal journal. (editing to;) That is all irrelevant as far as I can see. If we could do that, I would be in personal contact with surviving historians and archaeologists myself. You have proven that you are working, not only in bad faith, but are advancing a pseudoscience. There is no following for Greek love as an ideology. What following there may b is academic. It's glory days were in the past and even then it was not a following withint the accepted scientific community I have laid out my full explanation that is within the ploicies of wikipedia. Any attempt to alter changes without staying withing policy and guidlines will be recerted. If any editor objects, they must have a complete and full explanation.....that is within wiki policy to dispute my editing from caonsensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What on earth is going on? The "personal letter" appears to be one from d'Arch-Smith to Kaylor when they were discussing the use of terminology relevant to the subject here and it was printed in Kaylor's book. As someone who is keeping half an eye on this page, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to follow with section headings being time stamps or comments such as "Absurd" rather that a description of the matter at hand. Could editors please WP:Cool down and remember that the talk page shold be easy for passing editors to udnerstand?.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC) (Belated time-stamp/sig)


 * Yes, I can see that now. Thank you, and I owe Dominique an apology for the mistake. I will not make any excuse for it. The time stamp section heading you'll just have to deal with. It is being used to fully and completely explain specific edits that are being disputed. This is the only way, however it does not have to be headings, it just allows comments to each explanation without having to comment at the bottom of a lengthy post about a single edit. I may be trying too hard to go into specifics but at least this way I am making a real attempt not to be mistaken in the same way I just did.


 * By the way. You'd get loads more respect from me and even possibly taking your advice (not unreasonable) if you sign with tiddles. Anonymous posts on talk pages don't really add much to the consensus, even though this one at least served as "read that again" caution .--Amadscientist (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The introduction of level 3 headers instead of everythign being level 2 does make things easier to follow.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK......let me see what I can do.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I reformatted my edits to be more linear, readable and understandable, hopefully to be easier to follow. I did remove one header completely. The "Absurd" header was deleted and the comment after left as the reply.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Dominique Blanc has fixed the reference and pointed out the location of the support. I have not checked these changes but, in a good faith effort, since the section has not been replaced I will d so.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Crap. Hold on....I gotta figure it out first. It was amended in the post but never placed into a reference. Give me a bit on this.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I give up, I still cannot find even what was posted in the response. If anyone wants to take a stb at it...fine, but I still cannot find the information from the pages described by the notes. The claim is still not supported.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I said anything furthr I wanted to find the actual reference itself. I did. it is not on page 15. There are two words in the sentence on page 15 the rest is on 16. The reference should have stated the page as 16 or at the very least as 15-16.


 * The statement being referenced is a claim, that makes wikipedia the authority in narration, stating that "30 years" of "found", "ready", "agreement" with "Michael Kaylor's position.


 * First, that is not what the reference is saying.


 * The note on page 16 refers to "Cultural" and "scholarly" changes of thirty years since d' Arch Smith's publication, and that "Paederasty" seems far more "classical, luinguiticaly pure and nuetral" than the term Paedophilia. In brackets it says (part of the polemics of current phsychiatry and law). It makes absolutely no claim of anything being found. No claim of anything being ready or having been found ready, or implying ready. There is no agreement in the statement or the implication that the author is stating such. Finaly, the author does not state anything to be "inapplicable to the dynamics of 'boy-love'". What he does say is that both paedophilia and man-boy love are terms that paederasty is better for.


 * Also, the person making the staement is Kaylor...and this is not in the spirit of referncing a subject with the subject as source. It is an extrodenairy claim requiring extrodinary references which require a third party source. The book itself is simply not a reliable source. University publication outside the US and England do not reflect the ideals and culture of the English Wikipedia editors. The book is psuedoscience that attempt a "Corrective interpretation, hoping to demarcate the distinctly peaderastic elements often hidden beneath the complex surfaces of text that are highly nuanced and intended primarily for a select group of readers.


 * The formating in this book also is too close to the formating and use of quotes in this article and may violate US copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am rather surprised by what you say here. The university in question appears to be the second biggest in the Czech Republic and the oldest in Brno the main city of Moravia one of the two main units which make up the republic. I'll ask at WP:Czech to see whether there is any reason to be wary of the university press, but as a rule university presses are regarded as reliable sources. "Not published here" does not constitute grounds to dismiss a source.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got a zero knowledge base about the subject of your debate and I also don't know that book. I've studied at the Masaryk University and I know their publishing house - the level is quite good, as far as I can say. The English language department was one of the best there (4 years ago:). However, I can't compare with US and English universities, I'm lacking experience. Btw, This:

University publication outside the US and England do not reflect the ideals and culture of the English Wikipedia editors.

is a strange sentence, Amadscientist. Where did you read it? Is it a part of some guideline here? --Vejvančický (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. There was also another response at the talk page for the Czech project which I quote here:


 * Generally, Masaryk University is State university, second oldest in the Czech rep. and the MU Press is notable book publisher. AFAIK every published book must be in accordance with standard strict requirements, as peer review, academic degree of author etc. Of course print of every book is paid by the University and authors are normally paid (but not so much ,-).For further information see http://www.muni.cz/press/general


 * I cannot see any grounds for rejecting this book as a reliable source. (In answer to Vejvančický's question, I'm aware of guidance to use English-language sources where available, but none about country of publication.)--Peter cohen (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a great many reasons to reject this book and do. There is no guideline stating a university reference outside the US can't be used in the English Wikipedia....I didn't say that. It isn't odd at all, it's a very simple fact. I didn't say anything bigoted, racist or uncivil. I said University publications outside the us do not reflect culture and ideals of English Wikipedia editors. The claim being made requires extraodinary referencing. Using a University publication from a source in the Czech Republic for subject of English literature is a stretch as are the use of the reference and the wording....which oddly enough, is not what either of the two other editors are speaking of now, but taking offense to something and going off to "Check" on what I said and not what is referenced in the article. That is pretty bad.

Sorry, Mr. Cohen, but I have given an example of why I dispute the use of this book as unreliable. Psuedoscience, attempt at "Corrective interpretation" and use of a publication which is both self serving (that is a policy. It has it's own website, using the readable book to push an unsubstantiated theaory not agrred upon by main stream science. ) and may not reflect the same ideals and culture of the subject being referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Wiki does say;

Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability. This includes references, citations, and external links.

While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe idea is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint.

One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research.

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG).

Coatrack

An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate.

Editors are not required to fill out the article so that more time is spent on non-bias matters in order to keep bias content. Instead, editors may fix an article by balancing it out with more facts but are in no way required to do so. It is inappropriate to "even out the percentage of bias" by adding fluff, such as minute details of a subject's life. These are considered scarves, hats, and gloves, and along with the coats, obscure the coatrack, and are also good candidates for removal.

This article clearly falls under Coatrack, "(A) Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject" and Masking the lack of notability.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and Wikipuffery--Amadscientist (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent developments
Since the publication in 1964 of Greek Love by J. Z. Eglinton (the pseudonym of Walter Breen), the term 'Greek love' has been authenticated in Humanities scholarship, being employed in the titles of books by major cultural critics, as, for example, Louis Crompton's Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in 19th-Century England (1985), David Halperin's One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and Other Essays on Greek Love (1990) and James Davidson's The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece (November 2007).


 * The occurrence of the phrase Greek Love in the titles of these books has a lot to do with marketing and can't be taken as proof of the phrase's academic credibility. It's a vague, almost romantic term designed to attract a wide audience. This vagueness leads to a lot confusion within the article - it's often hard to know which particular meaning is relevant. For Posner (in the Overview) Greek Love means a kind of would-be heterosexuality, where a man/boy is substitued for a woman. For Symonds (in the section 'Victorian Hellenism') it is an idealized form of pederasty 'recognized by society and protected by opinion' (whose society and whose opinion?). We are told that the phrase originated in Germany along with terms like 'Socratic Love' and 'Platonic Love' and the Overview even begins one paragraph with "These three terms...". In the section, 'Victorian Hellenism' we are told that Byron and his schoolfriends ...would have had an understanding of the term "Greek Love". Yes but what was their understanding and where is it recorded? Any popular 19th Century novel about a Greek hero could have shaped their understanding of Greek Love. The same section talks about Shelley's 'pioneering work' in this field - which field? The field of 'Greek love', or pederasty, or heterosexual intercourse outside marriage? We all have some vague idea what Greek Love might refer to - it's an allusive title - and this article simply does not clarify the meaning at all. Apparently it is whatever anyone wants to make of it. The article should be completely rewritten - it might be viable as a short dictionary-like article, sourcing different meanings of Greek Love - or it should be scrapped. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Acting on the criticisms sketched out above, I intend to start some major edits of this article. Firstly, I intend deleting the section titled 'Romantic Hellenism'. Byron and Shelley never used the term Greek Love and it is impossible to know how they would have defined it. Thus the mention of those poets contributes nothing to our understanding of this article. Speculations about their attitude towards pederasty in ancient Greece, and homosexuality in their own times, should be addressed in other articles dedicated to those topics - provided of course that the speculation is informed. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now deleted the section 'Romantic Hellenism'. The next section in need of removal is 'Victorian Hellenism'. This section simply looks like an excuse to rehash Uranian on the basis that a Uranian named Symonds came up with his own term for idealized pederasty, 'Greek Love'. It's too thin a connection to justify a rehash of another article. However, I have other, deeper concerns. We are told earlier in the article that the term Greek Love derives from the German grieschische Liebe, the source for which is listed as a book by Susan Gustafen. However, Gustafen doesn't derive the English term from the German term - the translation of a phrase does not imply an historical link between concepts. Gustafen talks about a broad range of terms to describe male-male attractions. In other words, there is no justification for the historical derivation being proposed here in the article - it is somebody's personal inference and it is thus original research. This will require a very major rewrite of the article. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now deleted/reworded the section titled 'Victorian Hellenism' as advised above. I retained the quote by Symonds and I've renamed the section after him. This is a temporary measure and it is necessary because Symonds' quote is one of the few handles this article has on the term Greek Love. Here is the main problem with the article: There are three interpretations of the terms Greek Love and grieschische Liebe. The latter is defined as homosexuality in general and it is associated with a loose assortment of other similar terms used in 18th Century Germany. Second there is the definition by the American magistrate, according to which Greek love is consistent with the homosexual behaviour prevalent in prison populations, where a boy/man is substituted for a woman i.e. it is frustrated heterosexuality. Third is Symond's definition, which is just his personal term for idealized pederasty, a concept abundantly covered elsewhere in Wikipedia articles. These three definitions were formulated independently of each other, they signify very different things and all they have in common is the phrase Greek Love and its German equivalent. In other words, this article is largely based on the coincidental sharing of a mere phrase. It also finds sources for the phrase in titles of books, which is more to do with marketing than scholarship. This kind of coincidental sharing of a phrase is OK in a dictionary but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia.


 * Looking at this article, I find a phenomenon very common in articles about pederasty - the misrepresentation of sources. Consider for instance this excerpt (italics mine):
 * The three terms are associated with educational, civic and philosophical ideals as well as the sexual implications. Relationships often transcended the physical or the erotic, the adult being invested with responsibility for the moral and spiritual welfare of the boy: abuse, exploitation and actual sexual penetration of the younger partner was not acceptable as the youth was expected to mature into a respected and honored Greek citizen. Such was the attitude of the time that submitting to the act would be distasteful and dishonorable, while such fate did not necessarily befall the abuser. .
 * The three terms mentioned at the start of this excerpt are the German words that were used as euphemisms for homosexuality. Yet the excerpt goes on to talk about idealized pederasty, as if it was considering the Symonds' definition. This is either careless or dishonest.


 * I intend next to rewrite/delete the section titled Historical Background - the section is just an excuse to rehash material from other articles and begins with the imposing declaration: The history of the concept predates the term by nearly 3000 years. Which concept are we talking about here? The article isn't based on any single concept Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now deleted 'Historical Background' as it merely concerned homosexuality in general and seemed to have nothing to do with Greek Love. The next section up for deletion is 'Linguistic History' which opens with this unsubstantiated claim (italics mine): The term 'Greek Love' has come to signify the original English use of 'Platonic Love'... Says who? If a scholarly source makes such a connection, it should have been cited.


 * I've been detailing my edits for others to comment on or argue with. The lack of response suggests I should just make my entire rewrite in one edit and then see what happens after that. Eventually I intend reducing the article to its bare foundations - listing the three interpretations of Greek Love as provided by the original editors, minus almost all the irrelevant general information about homosexuality and pederasty. It would then be up to other editors to build on that foundation with specific references to 'Greek Love'. The cited books with 'Greek Love' in their titles might provide some additional material. We'll see. Amphitryoniades (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new version
I propose making this the new version of the article. I've eliminated a lot of general and peripheral concepts as these can be better covered with links. I will try installing this new edit in about week. Please discuss any problems or any omissions that you find here and let me know if you need extra time to consider my edit. Thanks Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Greek love is a relatively modern English term  It has not yet obtained a widely accepted meaning or use and Quotation marks are generally placed on either or both words, i.e., "Greek" love, Greek "love" or "Greek love". However, it is generally relevant in studies of Homosexuality and Pederasty and it features in the titles of books and essays on those subjects. The range of meanings within that context is quite broad and depends on the author. For example, John Addington Symonds was one of the ‘Uranians’, a group of British intellectuals who sought to formulate concepts of homosexuality at a time when homosexual behaviour was illegal. When discussing the topic of idealized pederasty, often associated with ancient Athens, he defined it as follows:

"I shall use the terms Greek Love, understanding thereby a passionate and enthusiastic attachment subsisting between man and youth, recognised by society and protected by opinion, which, though it was not free from sensuality, did not degenerate into mere licentiousness."

A very different use of the term is made byRichard A. Posner, ( author and judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago) in discussing the difference between men who prefer sex with other men, and men who prefer sex with women but were quick to substitute a man or (preferably) a boy when women were not available;

"The first group dominates the homosexual subculture of today; the last group dominated "Greek Love" ( which should really be called Athenian Love because we know little about the sexual customs of the other city states). Provided we are aware of this difference, we shall not get into trouble if we call Greek love homosexual."

The term Greek Love is capable of yet another meaning when translated into German as "griechische Liebe". This term has been found in German writings between 1750 and 1850, along with other terms as "socratische Liebe" (Socratic Love) and "platonische Liebe" (Platonic love), signifying male-male attractions. These are associated with educational, civic and philosophical ideals as well as their sexual implications.

Apart from its perceived historical connotation, no such term is found in any surviving text from any ancient source. Terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Greek Way) have some parallel significance and yet they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but for a variety of Greek practices.


 * Sources:


 * Notes:


 * References:


 * Bibliography:


 * See also:
 * Eros
 * Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

Category:Pederasty Category:Love Category:Sex


 * I'm uncomfortable with such a bold move without hearing anything from the main editor. Also setting a two day deadline also seems like a bad idea, a week would be minimum since so many editors are not here daily. I also think dropping a note at WT:LGBT may make sense - Im looking at doing an overhaul with a draft at the talkpage; could folks have a look and comment, etc. At least in this way we have more of a sense that we have had a chance at at better decision. -- Banj e  b oi   01:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is fine by me. I've changed my schedule to 'about a week' but I can hold off longer still if you want. The article has major conceptual flaws and people need time to realize that for themselves. We have to be really disciplined in our choice of what material to include. Otherwise the article really is just a venue for lifestyle advocates. You are welcome to paste a note for the gays, if you like. My view is that it isn't a gay issue or a hetero issue or a pederast issue - it's an encyclopaedia issue and that's the way it should be addressed. Thanks for your response. Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I've now changed my schedule to "Dunno when". There seems to be a distinct lack of interest from the current editors of this article and almost nobody else has showed any real interest either. I would edit the article myself, as proposed, but the extensive changes would then cause me to be branded a vandal by Cluebot, which would misrepesent the edit and no doubt stir up an immediate swarm of outraged opposition against me. So long as I do nothing, I can at least enjoy a quiet laugh at the absurdity of the situation. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would make sure that the information that you are ommiting, and are relying on links to talk about is actual there. For example, Romantic Pan-hellenism, is not very well covered. SADADS (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sadads. Thanks for your input. No article should be used as a store for information that properly belongs elsewhere. There are many articles about the Romantic period and many of them would be suitable for information about Romantic Pan-hellenism. However, none of the philhellenic figures in the Romantic movement used the phrase 'Greek Love' (as far as I know). The reason for including Romantic Pan-hellenism here seems to be that the phrase 'Greek Love' appears in the title of a book about Byron. If the author of that book used 'Greek Love' to signify 'Romantic Pan-hellenism', then we should mention it as one definition used by a named author, but it should not be used as an excuse to turn this article into an article about homosexuals or pederasts in the 19th century. Similarly the definition by the American judge (that 'Greek Love' is practised by frustrated heterosexuals) should not be used as an excuse to discuss homosexual rapes in the prison system. The article is about the phrase 'Greek Love' and how it has been used by different authors. The uses are quite varied and there is no scholarly work dedicated to this topic - it's original research - but since we're stuck with it, we have to make the best of it. Again thanks for your reply! Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have dropped in after seeing the notice in WT:LGBT. I am somewhat skeptical of the soundness of the proposed edits, since I detect a certain political slant in the present effort. It is perceptible in the broad-brush attacks Amphitryoniades is using, such as I find a phenomenon very common in articles about pederasty - the misrepresentation of sources and branding editors lifestyle advocates. However, looking at the mess this article has become (I just now deleted a lengthy and semi-literate flight of fancy on Greek customs) he could hardly make it much worse, and nothing is irreversible. I will put the article on my watch list and help out as best I can - I have no idea what the article should say, but I do think the topic is worth exploring. Haiduc (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * After finding this discussion mentioned at the Sexology and sexuality WikiProject, I've reviewed the current and proposed versions of the article and done some research to see for myself how the term is used in academic contexts. Based on that work, I support replacing the article with the proposed new version.  The new version minimizes the original research issue compared to the prior version that also includes general comments not specifically connected to the term as noted in sources.   I don't see any reason not to post the new version and continue the improvements from there. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman views of 'Greek' love
If you're trying to establish an historical framework, the Romans seem to be missing. The Romans were obsessed with defining themselves in relation to the Greeks, both admiring the Greeks more than any other non-Romans and yet considering themselves morally superior to the Greeks — in other words, the Romans had a very complex attitude toward the Greeks, and to Greek erotic practices. I've found at least one source that would locate the creation of the concept of 'Greek' love in the Roman Republic:  Roman Homosexuality offers an online preview. Here's a source that looks at Greek love in the context of Hellenization at Rome. Greek Love in Late Antiquity is a potentially useful chapter in another book.

I hope those working on the article realize that the first sentence says almost literally nothing: "Greek love is a relatively modern English term synonymous with other similar phrases." You could substitute a thousand other phrases for "Greek love" and the real content of the sentence would remain the same (zilch). A modern English term for what? The sentence needs to answer that. And although I've only glanced at the material I've offered above, you may find that the Romans spoke of "Greek" love — but this would have to be examined by an editor who understood the Latin involved. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources, Cynwolfe. I've followed the links and this is what I found:


 * Your link Greek Love in Late Antiquity refers to a book titled 'Homosexuality and Civilization' by Louis Crompton. Crompton uses the phrase Greek love in the body of the text without punctuation and I haven't been able to find his definition of the phrase anywhere. I think he uses it as a loosely descriptive phrase for homosexuality and sometimes he seems to distinguish it from pederasty as here (I quote in italics):
 * "...Plutarch, Athenaeus and Aelian recorded the history of Greek love from its earliest times, while poets from Theocritus to Nonnus celebrated pederastic affairs in idylls, epigrams and epics." (page2)


 * Your link Here's a source refers to an essay titled 'Roman Attitude to Greek Love' by Ramsay MacMullen, in a book titled 'Homosexuality in the Ancient World' edited by W.Dynes and S.Donaldson. Here again I haven't yet found a definition of the term Greek Love. Moreover, Macmullen seems unable to make up his mind to call it "Greek love", 'Greek love' or Greek love (no punctuation). I assume he is simply using the term as a loosely descriptive phrase.
 * Your link Roman Homosexuality refers to a subheading titled '"Greek" Love: Pederasty and the Gymnasium' in a book titled 'Roman Homosexuality: ideologies of masculinity in classical antiquity' by Craig Williams. Again notice the confusion about how to label Greek Love! Obviously it is not a term people are familiar with - not even scholars who write at length about sexuality seem to know how to use it.


 * Theses three sources can be mentioned in the article, since they do use the term 'Greek Love' in some way. But, unless we can locate the authors' exact definitions of the phrase, we are going to have problems informing the reader what they mean by it. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not clear what point you are trying to make by focusing on punctuation. I think we can safely look past the punctuation to the sense of the phrases. Also, in your first example, I think you misunderstand Crompton. Quite the contrary, instead of distinguishing it, in that phrase he assimilates Greek love to pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation helps distinguish between You are Green (i.e. your name is Green), You are green (you are the colour green or naieve), You are 'Green' ( (you advocate alternative energies) and You are "Green" (I am quoting somebody else's comment about you). Without the punctuation, you can't be sure which meaning I am employing. The three mentioned authors (Crompton, Ramsay, Williams) use different punctuation and this indicates they have different understandings of the phrase Greek Love. It also indicates that they are not borrowing the term from a common source. Context can help clarify usage but the three authors are writing in different contexts. Ramsay seems to be using the term to signify a specifically Roman view of homosexuality (pederasty?), Crompton a specifically Hellenistic view of Homosexuality (pederasty?), while Williams seems to be quoting somebody else about homosexuality (pederasty?). I am reading the three authors via a Google preview and I cannot find in any of them a definition of Greek Love. Possibly they consider the phrase too insignificant and non-technical to require a clear definition, or maybe they understand it simply as a synonym for homosexuality (pederasty?) - in which case we shouldn't be dedicating an article to it since those terms are already covered elsewhere. Can you find their definitions? Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I too only have web access right now, as I am away from my office. I do not think that punctuation is the key to this issue, and I agree with you that the term can be used in different ways. The real question is whether, after setting aside all instances in which the term is used interchangeably with male homosexuality, pederasty, and anal intercourse, anything is left that is unique. And what is that thing? It is not a question to which I have an answer, and have always deferred to the main editors of this article in the hope that they can produce an answer. The last best hope for that would be the version by Blanc, going back to June 14 of this year. If it is not there, it is not anywhere. Haiduc (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haiduc, for clarity could you express on the idea presented above as to replacing the current version with the proposed version and going forward from that or some merging of the versions? If the proposed version is seen as a good step forward then that might be the way to go. If not are there chunks that can be used to move things forward? -- Banj e  b oi   02:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mediating, Banjiboi. However, Haiduc has been editing this article since March 2007 and yet he admits above that he has no idea what the article should be about. He cannot contribute intelligently to this article until he first works out what it is about. If he can't understand the importance of punctuation, he will never work out what it is about. It is about the term 'Greek Love'. If he continues to regard it as somehow vaguely synonymous with 'homosexuality' and 'pederasty', he will continue to overload this article with peripheral and irrelevant issues. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Homosexuality and pederasty peripheral to Greek love?! You must know something I don't. And yes, I do admit I have come here to learn more than to teach..... I just checked to see who you might be, and I see you are the gentleman with whom I collaborated on the Solon article. I thought we worked together rather well there. Maybe we can repeat that here. Please go ahead with your re-write and I will do my best to assist.
 * Benjiboi, much of the 6/14 piece seems to beg the question. I think it best to have a re-write and then restore anything of value that directly relates to the topic and has been left out. The same approach, of course, holds for the current version. Haiduc (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK first off to Amphitryoniades, please stop perceived, actual and veiled personal attacks. They run counter to building a healthy environment in which we work with each other. My spelling and grammar are certainly not strong points yet I'm often able to help on subjects I have absolutely no knowledge to point out issues that others may have missed. Likewise many editors simply tweak one error and move on. All are welcome to edit and we must be welcoming. This is a part of the nature of wiki or community editing, as a whole we likely will create a better article. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Haiduc has stated it sounds like replacing the current version with a rewrite is generally acceptable and those interested can rescue content that is indeed needed from the old version. -- Banj e  b oi   04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we still need to clear up a few issues. Thus:

4 propositions
There needs to be agreement over what the article is about before we go any further. Otherwise the process of rewriting it will be long and drawn-out, with edit and counter-edit. These are the propositions I think we need to subscribe to if we are to get anywhere:
 * 1. The founding editor does not own this article i.e. we don't need his/her further input or permission to edit this article;
 * 2. The article is not about human sexuality i.e. it is not about homosexuality, pederasty or frustrated heterosexuality. The article is about the phrase Greek love and how it has been used as a term in scholarly books/articles about human sexuality; therefore:
 * 3. The article includes a list of authors who have used the phrase and brief summaries of how they have used it; therefore:
 * 4. Links are used wherever possible so as to avoid reduplication of content e.g. if an author uses Greek love to define pederasty in ancient Greece, we link to articles on pederasty in ancient Greece, or if it defines a specifically Roman view of homosexulaity, we link to relevant articles on homosexuality in Roman times. We do not write sections dedicated to pederasty in ancient Greece or homosexuality in Roman times.

These propositions will result in a shorter article than now exists but at least it will be an article with a clear sense of purpose. Amphitryoniades (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I largely agree:
 * Self-evident and applicable to everyone.
 * Agree to the extent that we do not "know" what it is and we document its usage.
 * Some summaries will be brief when the subject is covered elsewhere. Others may need to be more fully developed.
 * Yup.
 * Haiduc (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we're pretty much in business. However, I'm wary about the option to develop summaries "more fully". There is an ocean of articles covering sexual themes that can be linked to or which can even be expanded later to allow for a link. If by some extremely unlikely chance, we can't find a suitable link, then a stub can be created and we link to that. The stub can then be developed later. My concern is that this article, with a powerful euphemism for its title (i.e. Greek Love), will always attract editors eager to promote an unpopular sexual orientation (e.g. pederasty, pedophilia) - that's why we need to be quite strict about how the article is developed. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually we're talking about doing when simply doing is needed. What Haiduc is referring to is summary style, that is, for example, a list of five Foo kings can summarize each of them if individual articles already exist. If one of those on the list doesn't have one then the list article is where relevant content "grows" until someone feels a separate article could work, then it too is simply summarized at the main list. Please start the follow through and see where the content and sourcing leads. -- Banj e  b oi   23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respects, Banjiboi, I have a right to outline my expectations. The problem with this article all along has been the kind of "simply doing" and the "growth" you are allowing for. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly have the right to outline your opinions on how the article can move forward but it sounding a lot like you intend to exert the very same WP:OWNerish issues you allege others have done. Instead anyone can and should edit, it may be a bit bumpy but likely will work if given a chance. Everyone seems to be coming to the table and looking forward to a better article. Our reader's deserve such and your rewrite looks quite promising. -- Banj e  b oi   23:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the good news is we almost put this article on secure foundations. The bad news is - not quite. Or at least not yet. This is not like any other article. It arose from original research (there is no scholarly text dealing with the history or uses of the term 'Greek Love'). Everyone thinks they know what it means (for me it arouses visions of semi-naked flute girls at a symposium) and they edit accordingly. The result is an article which is about sexuality in general and not about the term 'Greek Love'. Unless we commit ourselves to brief summaries of the various definitions of Greek Love, it will continue to outgrow its proper territory - as it did before it was nominated for deletion. The article is about the term as defined by various authors - that's all it is about. It's silly to talk about developing sections to include topics not covered elsewhere in this encyclopaedia. That puts the article back on the path to failure. I intend editing the article according to the expectations I have outlined here. If my edits aren't supported - fine. I don't engage in edit wars. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

New Edit
I've installed the edit previewed here on the Talk Page. It would be helpful if people discussed any changes here before editing, at least until things get into a settled state. Thanks Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are only 3 more authors to be cited in the article as using the term Greek Love - Crompton, MacMullen and Williams. Crompton in particular seems fond of the term, using it also in 'Byron and Greek Love'. It's possible that he makes identical use of the term in his two books. That would deserve mention. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically good beginning. I am making some corrections and additions, please do not take it the wrong way if I am doing it in vivo rather than in vitro, I think it is simpler all around that way. Haiduc (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc. You added to the lead that GL has been used as a euphemism by Hume and in a study of Aristotle by Gillies in the 18th century. Could you please quote their usage of the term here. Their usage would be interesting enough from a historical point of view to deserve quoting in the article. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I've been googling Hume and GL for an hour trying to find his use of GL but without success. It's an extremely important quote you've located, Haiduc - Hume is a major figure in European thought and his use of the term would validate this article even in the eyes of sceptics. Can anyone else locate it? The lead needs to be rewritten around that quote. If we can quote an obscure figure like Symonds, we certainly must quote Hume. Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've located the two quotes. They do indicate that the term was used, but it's not clear from the texts that the term "euphemism" applies.  The sources do not define the term.  Here are the quotes with links to the full text:
 * -- Essays and treatises on several subjects: in two volumes By David Hume
 * -- Aristotle's Ethics and politics: comprising his practical philosophy, Volume 2 By Aristotle, John Gillies
 * In both, as far as I could find with Google, those are the only uses of the phrase in those books. The Hume quote, based on the nearby footnote, seems to use the term with regard to the practice of pederasty, though the asterisk does not directly follow the term in the text.  In the Gillies text, the term appears only in a footnote where it is described as a perversion but not defined.  Neither source provides direct commentary about the term itself, so care should be used to avoid interpretations that could result in original research.  I edited the lead with this in mind, but there still may be too much assumption regarding the Gillies quote, since pederasty is not even mentioned in that source, so a further clarification may be needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Aristotle's Ethics and politics: comprising his practical philosophy, Volume 2 By Aristotle, John Gillies
 * In both, as far as I could find with Google, those are the only uses of the phrase in those books. The Hume quote, based on the nearby footnote, seems to use the term with regard to the practice of pederasty, though the asterisk does not directly follow the term in the text.  In the Gillies text, the term appears only in a footnote where it is described as a perversion but not defined.  Neither source provides direct commentary about the term itself, so care should be used to avoid interpretations that could result in original research.  I edited the lead with this in mind, but there still may be too much assumption regarding the Gillies quote, since pederasty is not even mentioned in that source, so a further clarification may be needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Hume is such an important name the readers will certainly want to know how he used the term GL. Unfortunately his meaning is a bit obscure and I don't think we can include it in the lead but we should use the quote in the body of the text. We shouldn't interpret it for the reader - we should merely explain the context (an imaginary dialogue). Let the readers decide for themselves if it's a genuine application of the term GL. That's my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amphitryoniades (talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a 1898 edition here where Hume's phrase 'The Greek love' is re-phrased as 'The amours of the Greeks'. Evidently Hume's phrase was felt to be strange somehow. It seems strange even now and I'm wondering if it was in fact a typographical error - maybe it should have been something like "The Greek notion of love". The problem is that Hume uses it only once. It's pretty clear from the context of the dialogue that it refers to pederasty. I think Hume's quote would make a thought-provoking conclusion to the article. An encyclopaedia should encourage critical thinking about sources. Maybe other editions of his essays contain still more variations of the phrase Gl. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how strange Hume's phrase was thought to be. My hunch is that "amours" is an euphemism on top of an euphemism. Though I only included two early sources here, I actually came across several more in my search. I imagine that the phrase and the concept were quite common in those days among the educated classes. After all these people were trained to read the Greeks in the original and could not fail but notice the bent of their tastes in love. Yes, quoting it in full would be nice. Haiduc (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at Book II CHapter 4 in my copy of the Politics, (The Penguin Classics edition translated by T A Sinclair,) the cut section seems to concern how the holding of children in common might lead to sexual intercourse between fathers and sons or between brothers. So "Greek love" refers to some sort of same sex relationship, but it is not clear whether it entails a pederastic element.


 * However, I think these would only merit the briefest of mentions. This article shouldn't be about the customs of the ancient Greeks but about how some authors in later eras up to recent decades thought that the Greek custom was somehow a model for them and their contemporaries. The fact that "Greek love" was used as a euphemism by scholars provides an explanation as to why advocates then adopted the term and is interesting to that extent. If there was some clarity on what Gillies understandign of GL was, it might also give an idea of what his romanticising contemporaries meant by the term. But he found the subject sufficiently unpleasant not to want to go into details. Which means we ahev to fall back on what these romantics said and how more recent studies have explained their writings.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the term GL as used by authors. Hume's use of the term is problematic/questionable but that is relevant in an article about how the term has been used. I think the quote and a couple of sentences will suffice for that (it should include mention of the fact that the term was edited out/reworded in a subsequent edition). If the Romantics used the term GL, cite it. Otherwise, all we have regarding GL in a Romantic context is Cromptom's book about Byron. Crompton's use can be summarized in one or two sentences. I'll be offline for some days. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hume's 'Greek love' or 'Greek loves'
As far as I can yet discover, the rewording of Hume's "The Greek love" as "The amours of the Greeks" derives from the 1874/5 Green and Grose edition The Philosophical Works of David Hume vol.3 (London). Apparently Green and Grose, though generally reliable, edited Hume's writing to correct spellings, punctuation and typographical errors to suit themselves - see here for comments on their work by a modern scholar. I think Hume's The Greek love is probably a typographical error for The Greek loves, a phrase that actually appears later in the Dialogue:
 * The Greek loves...arose from a very innocent cause, the frequency of the gymnastic exercizes among that people;

Green and Grose seem to have arrived at this same conclusion since they reword The Greek love as The amours of the Greeks as if simply paraphrasing The Greek loves.

I still think Hume's use of the phrase The Greek love deserves mention, even though it probably a typographical error, but we should include mention of the rewording by Green and Grose (The amours of the Greeks) as well as Hume's own The Greek loves. Hopefully the reader will conclude that sources should never be accepted uncritically. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about Hume's phrase. I find it interesting that after his use of the phrase there is a spate of other such uses both in England and in France. Either it was in common use at the time or he coined it and it struck a chord of appropriateness. As for its being in the singular or the plural, that seems irrelevant to me. We are still talking about the same thing, affections that were inspired by men and boys being naked together. Haiduc (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll include a summary of Hume's use. A few things worth noting here: Hume isn't coining or defining a term. He uses The Greek loves just as he might use The English loves, as a common phrase. Only the context establishes the homosexual(pederastic?) reference. The context does not refer to boys but to males of 'university' age. The word 'pederasty' appears in a footnote associated with 'The Greek love' but pederasty is a word that can refer to boys or youths or young men. It's unfortunate that it confuses such different age groups. Modern laws are very particular about such differences. I think I should also point out that your original reference to Hume actually misrepresented his use of GL - it can hardly be a euphemism for pederasty when pederasty appears in the associated footnote, and indeed his use of the phrase is far more problematic than you led us to believe. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a similar point I tried to make when I first found the quotes. To describe the use as a euphemism would be original research because that is not stated in the source. The source also does not define it as a synonym for pederasty, though it at least does associate the terms in the footnote. It's not clear from Hume what was intended regarding the age range of the relationship partners.  Also, it's not clear whether or not the difference is between the singular and plural forms of the term is significant.  "Greek love" may imply a type or style of love or relationships; but while "the Greek loves" could imply the same, the plural also could imply a set of stories that may have been part of the vernacular of the time.  We should mention that the term was used because it's relevant historically, and there's enough in the source that it can be associated with pederasty or homosexuality in general, but we need to avoid assuming definitions that are not directly stated in the source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hume lumps Greek love, exposing children and marriages as practices that "cannot but strike you immediately." Yet you would fashion it as a "common phrase." Common things are never striking. You go against Hume's sense.
 * Pederasty is indeed a term that refers to youths of various ages, from early adolescence to college age. Hume does not distinguish because what was significant to the English of his time is the relationship itself, not whether it occurred with a fourteen or a sixteen year old. Thus you again go against Hume's sense when you would style these relationships as taking place only with men of university age. Some may well have been that, but any attempt to restrict the age to this or that bracket is doomed to failure, Davidson notwithstanding. You well know that Greece spanned three continents and two millennia.
 * We do not know why the 1898 editors changed the phrase. Maybe by then the meaning had drifted closer to "sodomy" and that presumably is not what Hume was talking about. It seems to me that you are construing Hume's GL as problematic, even using contortions like assuming the man misspelled a term that could not have rolled easily off his pen. Let's not go through all these gyrations and just take it as face value - the man was talking about Greek men's love for peri-adolescent males, a love which he treats in neutral terms to the point of indicating the Greeks held it to be of great dignity. Keep it simple. Haiduc (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See here (p. 44) for a reading of eighteenth century usage of GL as euphemistic. And here (p. 18) for the nineteeth. Haiduc (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are good references, we should use them. But neither of those sources mentions pederasty  - both of those sources describe only (in direct quotes, respectively):  "euphemism for same-sex sentiments" and "one of the available euphemisms for homosexuality". "Keep it simple" as you wrote, is an excellent method, when simplicity is supported by clear sources.  But I don't see in the Hume text, or in the new sources you provided, sufficient support for your interpretation about what Hume meant by the way he used the term.  If there is more in the sources you listed that do support that, what is the page # where that appears?      --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be clear. Exactly what is it you disagree with? Haiduc (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In those two sources, "Greek love" is described as a euphemism for homosexuality as used during those time periods. That is a clear and useful piece of information for the article.  But those sources do not associate the term with pederasty, so we should leave that out when mentioning those sources.  Also, those sources do not comment on Hume's use of the term.  Hume's use is plural and not singular  - you said that was a misspelling, but there is no source for that either, all we have is the various texts of the Hume editions.  I think that Hume's use is important and should be mentioned -  I suggest that we do that by including the unmodified quote from Hume, and without third-party interpretation of what he meant, unless we can find a scholarly source that comments on Hume's use of the term. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with presenting GL as a euphemism for all kinds of homosexuality. Disagree with the sources not commenting on Hume. The source that comments on 18th c usage obviously applies to Hume who was an 18th c figure. That being said, I do not think we need to draw that conclusion for the reader, let him do that for himself.
 * Hume's usage seems to be both plural and singular, and in both cases he is referring to homosexual encounters, in the first instance explicitly pederastic ones, in the second implicitly so (it is simply a historical fact that the great majority of Greek relationships we know about are age-structured ones; egalitarian ones are as rare as hen's teeth). Again we are in substantial agreement - as long as the Hume material is included in toto, the reader can draw his own conclusions about what is pederastic and what is not. Haiduc (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now included a brief summary of Hume's use of GL, relying largely on quotations and avoiding speculation. It's an example of how I think the article should develop, allowing authors to speak for themselves as much as possible without any interpretation by us. I'm not sure how many authors can be quoted on the subject of GL. If there are quite a lot of them, priorities will need to be sorted out. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I expanded Hume's quote a little to demonstrate more clearly that GL is represented by him in a censorious context. I suspect he was not nearly as hostile as his readers to ancient Greek sexual mores but the fact is he uses words like 'blameable' and 'absurdly' to characterize Athenian views on pederasty. The Symonds quote on the other hand is openly sympathetic to Athenian sexual mores because he was writing for a group of like-minded individuals - he self-published. It's worth noting whether or not GL is used as a term of reproach or as a term of approval - emotional overtones are inevitable with such a term as GL, otherwise authors would have restricted themselves to conventional vocabulary like 'homosexuality' and 'pederasty'. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Amphitryoniades, you are skating on thin ice. "However blameable"?! What is he really saying? You see censorious, I see a man speaking to a censorious crowd, covering his ass and dropping double entendres. As a matter of fact, I see a man speaking through the censorious crowd to a more savvy and open-minded audience. My advice is to drop the censorious interpretation for Hume, since we will never agree on it, and keep it for Gillies, who is a much-more one-dimensional author and about whom we are in agreement. Haiduc (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, you said that the term is a euphemism. What's the difference between that and censorious?  The real thing can't be stated, so an alternate word is used to hint around and imply the thing that can't be said right out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Hume really thought about homosexuality. Maybe he was really homophobic but liked to present himself as a dispassionate philosopher. Maybe he was really a raving queen but liked to present himself as straight. For all we know, Gillies too could have been a raving closet queen but that also is mere speculation. Both writers however are at pains to ensure that there is no doubt about which side of the fence they are sitting on publicly - their readers belonged to the British elite at a time when Britannia ruled the waves, God was in his heaven and homosexuals went to hell. Haiduc's original edit declared that Greek love was a euphemism since 1764, citing both Hume and Gillies. If Hume is covering his ass, he is not alone. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "I have no idea..." Exactly. And I have many ideas. All irrelevant. The best way to resolve this is to leave interpretation out. Jack, euphemisms do not necessarily imply censoriusness. When you excuse yourself from the table to go to the "little boys' room" are you expressing moral disapproval??? Haiduc (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Haiduc, there is no interpretation or speculation in the fact that Hume publicly distances himself from homosexuality (pederasty?) with qualifiers like 'blameable' and 'absurdly'. The interpretation and speculation only exist when we wonder how far he really distanced himself from it. Yes we should avoid speculation and No we should not remove statements of fact that are significant for our understanding of how GL has been used. The term/phrase GL often comes with connotations of approval or disapproval and that is what Jack means when he talks about the term having euphemistic/censorious qualities - it can be used either way. If during dinner with Mother I say I want to go to the "little boys' room", it's a euphemism. If I say it during a dinner with my boss, it's a strange alternative to the more usual "I want to go to the toilet" and it actually draws attention to what I am about to do, which might interfere with his continued enjoyment of the meal. The audience and context determine the exact meaning. In Hume's day, the audience and context could hardly admit a euphemistic application of GL. However, I'm happy to consider rephrasing "censorious context" and maybe there is a phrase we can agree on. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I liked the way you phrased it, that "he distances himself." Seems a lot more neutral and encompassing, and we are no longer imputing any motives. Haiduc (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now used the phrasing suggested above and it's time to move on. How was GL used in the Romantic period? I'm certain it was never used as a euphemism in any publication, though it might have been used as a euphemism in private correspondence between like-minded individuals. So far all we have is Crompton's book about Byron. If he quotes from any correspondence, we can quote it also, and then we can summarise Crompton's own use of GL. However, since the original edit of this article included the fatuous observation that the Romantics would certainly have known what GL meant, I suspect that they never actually used the phrase in any clear sense. Who's got the sources for the Romantic use of GL? Could someone please provide some quotes? Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with moving on. I did edit the text to reflect Hume's complex approach. Gillies is in no way equivalent, his reproof is so vehement it neither needs explanation nor should it be treated in the same terms as Hume's. Haiduc (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)