Talk:Greek love/Archive 3

Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum
I have restructured things so that readers can more easily follow the evolution of the term. Hopefully the subsections can be further expanded. I have not yet come across much of interest from the Romantic period, when we do we will have to separate that out as well. Haiduc (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, your latest edits are a big step backwards. You have now used the introduction to expand the separate topic of Mos Graeciae (and you refer to the plural as More). This article is not about Mos Graeciae - it is a quite separate term with a very different history. You say it has 'parallel significance' but that's your personal opinion - you are in effect defining GL as a form of Mos Graeciae. Who are you to define it? We need quotes by authors. In fact, your edit distracts us from the next step forward, which is to identify quotes showing how Romantic figures used the term GL. Amphitryoniades (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sloppy on "mores," I stand corrected. But let's see how we got to the Romans. As you will recall, the previous version had:
 * ''==Ancient historical use==
 * 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 Way of the Greeks) have some parallel significance and yet they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but for a variety of Greek practices. 
 * That, as it turn out, was wrong (Davidson should have stuck to writing about ladies of pleasure and sea food). I corrected it on the basis of the new references, and stuck the text in the intro, to provide context. It need not be there if you think it distracting, it could go in a separate section, before the others, to show how the Greeks had been used in the past. The relevance is there since Hume and the others were surely conversant with Roman literature. Also, look at Williams, 63 and 291. Cicero's text foreshadows Hume's, to say the least. I think the material is important and provides background. It was not all that distracting before, when it was wrong, I think it is even less distracting now, that it has been corrected. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in original research. You are being careless with sources again. Comments about Mos Graeciae were previously attached to the bottom of the article and that's why they were not distracting. Moreover the previous comments did not include your personal selection of ancient sources. You have expanded the comments outside their proper scope. You'll need to revert to my last edit. Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, trying to follow your arguments in relation to your source, Williams, it appears that you are actually citing Williams to support one argument about Mos Graeciae (that it was never code for pederasty) and then citing him again to prove how he has somehow misunderstood his own sources (Williams makes some references to pederasty as Mos Graeciae). In fact you seem to think this discrepancy has something to do with the difference between singular and plural. I think the apparent discrepancy comes down to this - when Williams says Mos Graeciae was never code for pederasty, he means it was never exclusively used for pederasty. Mos Graeciae could refer to any Greek custom and that could include a very Greek kind of pederasty, as defined on page 63(italics mine):
 * ...it is not homosexuality but specifically pederasty in the Greek sense of publicly acknowledged relationships between adult citizen males and freeborn adolescent males (future citizens) that constituted what from a Roman perspective was peculiarly Greek in matters erotic; precisely this erotic configuration will be the referent of the term pederasty throughout this study.
 * So I think there is some support in Williams for the position that Mos Graecia has some parallel significance with a very Greek kind of pederasty. However since Mos Graeciae refers to anything that the Romans considered typically Greek - such as toasts at a symposium, excluding honourable women from dinner parties, using olive brances in supplication, torture devices, etc etc etc - the parallelism is actually very small. Your present edit exaggerates the association of GL with Mos Graeciae - the Romans very rarely used Mos Graeciae to refer to pederasty:
 * In sum, ancient writers both Greek and Roman, display no preoccupation with pederasty as a distinguishing characteristic of Greek culture. page 72
 * In other words, if you had mentioned 'Mos Graeciae' to a Roman, pederasty is one of the last things he would have understood you to mean. You need to read your sources carefully otherwise you will continue to misrepresent them.
 * Oh and here, for the record, is your current edit, which you've included in the introduction to the article:
 * Roman terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Way of the Greeks) predate it and have parallel significance. Though according to one modern view they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but only for a variety of other Greek practices, the term (in its plural form, More), was in use in Roman times as a pederastic reference. Cornelius Nepos applies it to the youthful indiscretions of Alcibiades, and Cicero to the pederastic relations of the Greeks in general.  (references 1,2 and 3 are all to Williams)
 * I've spent several hours sifting through all this stuff and I would much appreciate it if you spared me the need to do it again. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above analysis and conclusion. Also, Williams goes further on page 72: "Neither do the surviving texts preserve any phrase like 'Greek love' "  He concludes the section with this clear and unambiguous statement: ''" 'Greek love' is a modern invention. "
 * It's significant for this article that ancient writers did not use the phrase "Greek love".   And, if we were go venture beyond Williams' specifically-related statements into the wider area of ancient writers' comments on Greek customs in general, ie, the "Greek way", what we can get from Williams as a source,as Amphitryoniades noted,  is that those phrases were not codes for pederasty but rather referred to a wide range of practices of which sexuality was only a part. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I have removed that paragraph from the article. It's not even about the term that is the title of the article; it's about other terms, with other meanings, that were used in ancient times. The article is about a term of modern usage, and the source that we have regarding its use in ancient times says clearly: it was not used. Unless there is another source that says the term was in use in ancient times, we must use the reliable source that we do have. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've continued to consider whether there is a way to include Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum in the article. There may be enough basis in the Williams source to mention the terms, but we need to come up with a way of expressing it that is stays tight to the source and does not result in undue weight or synthesis.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Verifying sources for l'amour grec
The sources did not verify for the following text; I have modified it in the article and removed a duplicate source:


 * In French we find it as "l'amour grec," referring to Greek pederasty, as early as 1776.[12][13]
 * [12] ^ Encyclopédie OU DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL RAISONNÉ DES CONNOISSANCES HUMAINES. Mis en ordre par M. De Felice. SUPPLÉMENT. TOME VI; p667; Yverdon, 1776
 * [13] ^ De l'homme: de ses facultés intellectuelles, et de son éducation By Helvétius; p21

Regarding the Felice source: Here is a link to the relevant page. It displays the same text regarding Plutarch word-for-word that appears in the Helvetius source, so it's not a second reference, it's a duplicate. And the cited use does not mention pederasty anyway.

Regarding Helvétius: There are two uses of the term "l'amour grec" in the book, on pages 203 and 246. The page listed in the article, p21, does not include the term. Neither of the uses in that source refer to pederasty. Here is are links to the relevant pages: p.246 and p.203. By the way, while Wikipedia policy allows the use of sources that are not in English, it is preferable to use English sources when they are available. In this case, the book has been translated. Here are the links to the relevant pages of the English edition: p.196 and p.237 Here are the two quotes, translated from the French, where the phrase "l'amour grec" appeared (the unusual spelling and typos are in the original):

The second quote is a footnote to the first quote:

Neither of those uses define the term as related to pederasty. It's possible that's what was intended, or simply same-sex acts in general, but whatever was meant is not defined in the text. All that is supported by this source is the fact that the phrase was used by Helvétius, but it's original research to interpret what he meant by it.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, did you read this: If in his laws, fays Plutarch, he exprefly forbids flaves to perfume themfelves, and the love of young people, it is, adds the hiftorian, that even in the Greek amours Solon did not fee any thing difhoneft. (In the original, "aimer les jeunes gens")??? This is the reference to pederasty, and this is the standard reading of Plutarch and has been so for two thousand years. I am not drawing any original conclusions. Please restore "In French we find it as "l'amour grec," referring to Greek pederasty."
 * As for the material on the mores Graeciae, I apologize for my rushed edit, I misread the sources. Here is a corrected version:
 * In Roman times, terms such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Way of the Greeks), when applied to a man's relations with male adolescents, were understood to be indicators of pederasty. Cornelius Nepos thus describes the youthful indiscretions of Alcibiades, and Cicero the pederastic affairs of Dionysius. 
 * It is important, as I mentioned above, to show this continuity of association between Greek ways and male love, and it is important to do so in chronological order. This term did not appear in a cultural vacuum. Haiduc (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The quoted phrase "the love of young people" is vague and non-specific and could refer to many different practices. It does not say "love of adult men with boys".  Also, it's part of a longer quote with a wider range. And in the footnote, Helvétius mentions same-sex love but does not limit it to age-structure.  Applying an interpretation based on ideas from your prior studies to a source that does not directly state the same interpretation is a synthesis, a form of original research.
 * Regarding Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum, those terms are not the same term (or translations of the same term) as the title of the article. That content is reviewed in the prior talk page section above, where it is noted that in Williams where those terms are discussed, the author specifically states that the term "Greek love" is modern, not ancient, and that those other terms do not specifically refer to pederasty.  If you want to continue the discussion of those ancient greek terms, please do so in the appropriate section, so we don't have the same conversation in two places at once.  Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, when he mentions "the love of young people" Helvétius is discussing Plutarch's comments on Solon's approach to pederasty. Here are Plutarch's writing on Solon, as to exactly what the slaves were forbidden to do: "He also wrote a law forbidding a slave to practise gymnastics or have a boy lover, thus putting the matter in the category of honour and dignified practices, and in a way inciting the worthy to that which he forbade the unworthy."(Gk: καὶ νόμον ἔγραψε διαγορεύοντα δοῦλον μὴ ξηραλοιφεῖν μηδὲ παιδεραστεῖν This Helvétius renders (in my translation) as "If in the laws, says Plutarch, he expressly forbade to slaves to perfume themselves [NOTE: In the original, xeraloiphein, "to rub dry with oil," a practice associated with gymnasia.] and to love young people, it is, adds this historian, that even in Greek love Solon saw nothing dishonest."  As you can see there is nothing vague about that, and refers specifically to adult men's love of boys (paiderastein, if you prefer not to read Greek). This has nothing to do with my prior studies, this has to do with not assuming that Helvétius misunderstood Plutarch's use of a common and obvious term, παιδεραστεῖν (paiderastein, to love boys) which would be a novel interpretation of history that you probably should not make here. I question the utility of a discussion style that instead of offering substance substitutes rote pointers to Wikipedia regulations, but if we are to quote chapter and verse, you will note that we are specifically enjoined not to allow blind obedience to regulation to interfere with intelligent article writing. Nonetheless, after a closer reading of the footnote, where I agree with you that Helvétius discusses practices (the Peruvians) that can be described as male love rather than pederasty per se, I will amend the text that needs to be restored to the article to read: "In French we find it as "l'amour grec," referring to male love, including specifically Greek pederasty."
 * It is of no importance that Mos Graeciae and Mos Graecorum are not the same term as the title of the article. They are related, and show that in certain instances "Greek way" could be a signifier of male love. This was discussed as such in a modern text on male love (Williams'). Thus they are relevant here. While they do not specifically refer to pederasty, they were used as indicators of pederasty in the instances cited. As long as we do not claim anything more than is claimed by our sources, we are within our rights to mention the matter as a matter of editorial discretion.
 * Finally, please do not delete again my reference to the Enlightenment. Both Hume and Helvétius are acknowledged Enlightenment figures, there is nothing controversial about this material having come out during this period, and I fail to see how you are serving our readers by obscuring this fact.
 * Amphitryoniades, I agree that Crompton's use of the term says nothing about Byron. We need to continue looking, it would be hard to believe the term died out at a time when male love was in ressurgence (Byron, Shelley, etc.). Haiduc (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Mos Graeciae, that term will of course be explained when we quote Williams towards the end of the article, where he says that Mos Graeciae was never code for pederasty and that there was no Roman equivalent for GL. It belongs at the end because that is where we are going to quote contemporary authors. Mention of Mos Graeciae certainly does not belong in the intro since it has very small relevance for GL except via the work of Williams. Haiduc you should stop worrying about small nuances in phrasing and get on with the hunt for sources. This article is dead unless we come up with more sources. We've got one use of GL by Hume (which later editors clearly interpreted as a typographical error for Gls), we have a quote from Symonds (who self published) a quote from Crompton (who apparently never studies GL at all), a quote from Williams who says GL is irrelevant within the Roman context, a quote from an American judge who defines it as heterosexual frustration - and what else? Amphitryoniades (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure (and the Romantic period)
Haiduc, it is too soon to divide the article into sub-sections. Yes chronological order is a good way to set out quotes but we don't know yet if we have enough info to fill the sections you have earmarked. Let's gather the info first and then work out how to structure it.

The Romantic period is next in chronological order after the quotes by Hume and Gillies and that's what we should concentrate on. I have found here a pdf copy of the introduction to Crompton's book 'Byron and GL' and it's very disappointing. It's clear from the intro that Crompton is engaging in speculation - scholarly speculation but speculation all the same. He talks about 'decyphering the code' of Byron's correspondence and he admits there is danger in reading too much into it but, worst of all from our perspective, Greek love is clearly a marketing tool and he doesn't have anything meaningful to say about its use. I quote:
 * "But if homosexual and gay are both words that would have puzzled Byron's contemporaries, the expression 'Greek love' - which I have used in the title of this work - would have been intelligible to them and would have carried resonant historical and literary associations...to anyone as intimately familiar with the classics as Byron was, the phrase would have brought immediately to mind such poetic or historical traditions as the legends of Ganymede and Hyacinth, the exploits of Aristogeiton and Harmodios, and the story of Antinous." page 11, Introduction.

This is hardly more than an apology for using 'Greek love' in the title of the book - if he had anything meaningful to say about Byron's use of the phrase GL, 'would have' would have been unnecessary. Also, I don't know why Crompton assumes that a phrase like Greek love would only have stimulated homosexual/pederastic visions in Byron's mind, especially since Byron was bisexual even on Crompton's own admission. I could equally well assert that Greek love would have brought to Byron's mind visions of Philocleon and the 'torch' (i.e. female flute-player) in Aristophanes 'The Wasps', or any other male/female encounters that stud Greek literature.

Obviously we are not going to get anything more out of Crompton's book than a speculative interpretation of the possible significance of GL - the quote I have given here is probably the most we will get from his book. Can anyone come up with some clear use of GL in a Romantic context? Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has certainly suffered the agonies of trauma, near-extinction, and unexpected re-birth. It is now of course struggling through a second infancy and at this stage one can hardly predict a healthy life to follow - though I am impressed with the commitment and energy of the editors whose previous (abortive) work I recall with varying degrees of pleasure and frustration!  At least one was part of the 'Move to delete' faction, which of course does not mean that his current researches are valueless. It may be worth recalling the status of the article at the time of 'trauma' [earlier version]. At the time I was attempting a comparative study of up-to-date scholarship on the Greek love topic, and had barely begun to amass the raw material when the Vandals moved in.
 * The term itself is essentially as it appears: it is used with reference to male love as practised by the Greeks, which was sufficiently extraordinary to attract the interest of scholars and historians throughout the ages. The broad context of the meaning we understand, and today scholars vie with each other to find new facets and forms of words to unravel the complexities which surround the term. In his introduction to his massive study: 'The Greeks and Greek Love - a Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece' (2007), James Davidson writes:


 * "For centuries, Greek Homosexuality or Greek Love - what the Romans referred to as 'the Greek custom' (mos Graeciae, mos Graecorum) - has been one of the knottiest problems in all of Western history." (Incidentally he gives clear sources for the description: Nepos Alcibiades, Cicero Tusc.) He allows himself 600 plus pages to unravel this knot.


 * The in-depth work of minds such as Dover, Hubbard, Davidson who treat of this subject must form the basis of any understanding of the topic and the huge concept it stands for. It is the authoritative voices which must be listened to if we have any chance of coming up with an acceptable summary of an intriguing cultural phenomenon.  It is the only approach which makes sense to me, if indeed I can contemplate any further work here in the context of WP. Dominique (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Dominique (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me cover a number of disparate points here.
 * 1) The advice to not worry about small nuances is wise, but the problem I am concerned about is the usage of the letter of Wikipedia rules to reduce and dumb down the article, counter to the spirit of Wikipedia rules. So while the points in question may be minor, the issues are not. We have a chance to set down here a clean, stable, and solid foundation for the article, let's keep it that way.
 * 2) As for continuing with the Romantics, I find it fascinating that after the initial English spate the discussion shifts to the continent, with a flood of Romantic period mentions in French and few if any in English (I have not yet checked the Germans in detail). That aside, I suggest that we work on the various chronological section as we find material, rather than in order.
 * 3) I would not worry too much about the past history of the editors here. We are all reasonable and rational people, I am sure we will be able to sort things out very well. As for the substance of the article, we need to be careful not to assume that it was/is used for male love as practiced by the Greeks, but that rather it was simply the common denominator of a number of different views on male love, perhaps one euphemistic in nature, and one used to tag constructs that resembled to greater or lesser extent what the Greeks actually did, which itself is not a unitary thing but a very wide panoply of customs, practices, and infractions of those customs, spanning more than two millennia and the whole of the Mediterranean basin. Many arrows, some hitting and some missing a moving target. Compare, for example, Davidson's and Breen's ("Eglinton") projections. Maybe we should title this "Greek loves." Haiduc (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Haiduc and Dominique
Dumbing down the article, Haiduc? We have cut the article down to the sources on which it is based in order to avoid original research. Original research is outside the scope of an encyclopaedia. Dominique, you made this apology for the article in your comments above (italics mine):
 * It may be worth recalling the status of the article at the time of 'trauma' [earlier version]. At the time I was attempting a comparative study of up-to-date scholarship on the Greek love topic, and had barely begun to amass the raw material when the Vandals moved in.

In fact, Dominique, this article has been around since 23 December 2005 and you have been editing it since 8 October 2006. That's a long time to amass the 'up-to-date' raw material needed for this article. Evidently the raw material is hard to find and maybe it isn't even out there. Let me quote you again from your comments above, where you are quoting one author:
 * "For centuries, Greek Homosexuality or Greek Love - what the Romans referred to as 'the Greek custom' (mos Graeciae, mos Graecorum) - has been one of the knottiest problems in all of Western history." (Incidentally he gives clear sources for the description: Nepos Alcibiades, Cicero Tusc.) He allows himself 600 plus pages to unravel this knot.

Perhaps you haven't read Haiduc's mis-interpretation of Williams's work (see further above) or the subsequent comments by myself and by Jack-A-Row. Mos Graeciae is not the Roman equivalent of Greek love. Williams makes that point very clearly (and that's after he cites passages from Nepos and Cicero, whom you rely on). Mos Graeciae referred to anything that the Romans considered distinctly Greek and they hardly ever used it in relation to pederasty or homosexuality.

Also I'll draw attention to the identitiy you make in the phrase Greek Homosexuality or Greek Love - if Greek love is to be identified with Greek homosexuality then this article should be merged with articles on Greek homosexuality. However, this article is not about Greek homosexuality - it is about the term Greek love. I started editing this article with an open mind, trying to find out if indeed we are dealing with a notable term. On the sources I have seen so far, I have to say NO, Greek love is not a notable term. It is a set of terms, all with different meanings, most of them defining homosexual/pederastic behaviour in ancient Greece (for which we already have articles), and with some uses being user-specific (eg Symonds and Prosner). Point me out a source that clearly shows that Greek love is a term in fairly wide use outside the context of Greek homosexuality. That will silence my doubts. Amphitryoniades (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is risky to keep on batting about replies to what I think you meant in reply to what you think I said. I will simply implement the changes to the material to which I am objecting, and we can work at a practical, rather than a theoretical level. I also would not harp too much on my mis-interpretations. I am constantly learning as I edit, and if I make a mistake I am happy to correct it. You too did a great deal of learning at the time of our collaboration on the Solon article, learning that is all to your credit. Haiduc (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have addressed what I characterized as a dumbing down of the article. I will defer to you for the moment and hold off restoring the material on mos/mores. That need not follow my formulation of above, but will need to show that by labeling "Greek" a male love relationship the Romans sexualized, indeed pederastized it. Haiduc (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Source clarification - Nepos Alcibiades 2.2: ineunte adulescentia amatus est a multis more Graecorum; Cicero Tusculanae Disputationes 5.58: haberet etiam more Graeciae quosdam adulescentis amore coniunctus Dominique (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, Helvétius applies the term "amour grec" to the Peruvian rites, in the footnote. As far as the Japanese bonzes, you are right, he only mentions that they loved men and not women, thanks for picking that up, I will correct it. Haiduc (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We need more sources
It's clear that GL has been used as a paraphrase for Greek homosexuality but will somebody please point out a source that shows GL in wide use in some other context. The nearest I have come so far is this Google preview supplied by you Haiduc, which is a forward by Norman Page to an edition of Wilde's novelette on Dorian Gray (page 18), and I quote:
 * The use of Greek mythology and art as a fertile source of allusions may imply an awareness that homosexual affection and practise was a well-established feature of ancient Greek society; in nineteenth-century England, "Greek love" was one of the available euphemisms for homosexuality. Later examples include Ganymede and Hylas...

Page then gives an example of the use of 'Ganymede' as a term for a sodomite but he gives no example of GL as a euphemism for contemporary homosexuality and it isn't even clear if he is actually referring to contemporary homosexuality at all. So this is hardly more useful than Crompton's lame-ass comment that the Romantics "would have known" what GL meant. I also found this comment in Gustafson's book about German intellectualism and homosexuality in the 18th century, where she comments on Haggerty's book 'Men in Love':
 * Haggerty demonstrates in Men in Love how the eighteenth-century obsession with "Greek love" (and the cult of friendship associated with it) became a model of love between men for for upper-class intellectuals and poets of eighteenth-century England (page 32)

However, this text includes a footnote, as follows:
 * See Haggerty's introduction for a summary of the scholarly debates about the nature of eighteenth-century quotations of "Greek love". Many scholars consider these quotations of male friendship to be stylistic (see the collection of essays by Mauser and Becker-Cantarino, for example). I agree with Haggerty that in cases such as those of Grey, Walpole, Beckford - and I would add Winckelmann, Goethe and Moritz - invocations of Greek love and male friendship are appropriated precisely in order to facilitate the expression of desire between men. (page 229)

Notice these things: 1)Gustafson uses Gl as a term in her own book and it is by no means obvious from her comment here that Englishmen in the 18th century actually used the term themselves; 2)scholars disagree about what the Englishmen actually meant by their choice of language; 3)Haggerty and Gustafson only identify three Englishman they think used the language to express homosexuality. In summary, it is hard to locate and interpret uses of GL outside the context of ancient Greek homosexuality. The sources I've seen thus far are vague and unsubstantiated. This is a real worry and I'm still waiting for an answer. Does anyone have access to Heggarty's book and can we have a quote from it please? Is there any reliable source that shows GL in wide use as a term for modern homosexualty or pederasty? Amphitryoniades (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Greek love - something of a tease
Doing my own online researches, I'm coming to the conclusion that 'Greek love' is not really a term that authoritative scholars take seriously. Consider how it has been used in the titles of books:
 * 'One Hundred Years of Homosexuality: and other essays on Greek Love' by David Halperin, in which the author argues that male citizens in ancient Greek states used sexual penetration of women, slaves and boys as an expression of political empowerment, and in which he admits that he uses 'Greek Love' in the title as something of a tease - page 4 here
 * 'Greek Love Reconsidered' edited by Thomas Hubbard, comprising 4 essays in response to Halperin's thesis
 * 'Byron and Greek Love' by Louis Crompton where the author justifies his use of GL in the title on the basis that Byron and his contemporaries would have known what it meant, in the intoduction page 11 here (code for "actually I haven't studied their use of the term at all")
 * 'The Greeks and Greek Love' by James Davidson, whom Dominique quotes with great respect but whose standards of scholarship are castigated in this review by a real scholar, Thomas Hubbard, here

Is 'Greek Love' a term that deserves an encyclopaedia article all to itself? We need more sources that show it is not just a joke nor just a marketing gimmick nor just a synonym for ancient Greek homosexuality nor just a translation of a German phrase nor just slang for anal intercourse. We need sources that demonstrate its wide use as a notable English term. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your analytic approach, and so far it has served us well. The only thing I would criticize is your implied argument that "Greek love" needs to be a particular thing. As I indicated above, there is no question that it is anything but. The best we can hope for in this article is to document the shifting nature of its uses and meanings. I see that as a useful exercise. It seems to me that any concept that has been around since Roman times and has been used by major personages in literature and philosophy, and has been taken up by many major European languages would be of interest to historians of sexuality at the very least.
 * Davidson does come across as a real piece of work. See the va et vient in the BMCR. Haiduc (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Davidson defending Davidson is not so significant as Hubbard demolishing Davidson but thanks anyway. Your edit providing sections for Gl in different eras (e.g. Victorian age) is inappropriate for the material we have. Here is a more appropriate division:
 * 1. Homosexuality and pederasty in ancient Greece: dealing with GL as a synonym for these and including, for example, Hume and Gillies, as well as Davidson's 'soft' interpretation of pederasty, his quote about Mos Graeciae, followed by Williams' more scholarly analysis that Mos Graecia in not code for GL, and then by Halperin's 'tough' view of pederasty - the section will show that GL has been used as a critical, a euphemistic and an ironic term for ancient Greek homosexuality/pederasty.
 * 2. Greek love as a title in essays and books: dealing with the books/essays and the issues I raised just above, developed from Halperin's ironic use as mentioned in the previous section and including Crompton's speculation that GL functioned as a de facto term when words like 'homosexual' were not available
 * 3. The German usage: dealing briefly with speculative analysis of 18th century developments of a homosexual language in Germany (Kuzniar and Gustafson) and some possible parallels in England (Haggerly).
 * 4. Specific definitions: dealing with the personal definitions by Symonds and Prosner

This division is appropriate for the material we have. We must continue to be careful to let the authors themselves do almost all the talking so that we can avoid straying into interpretation and original research. Even with this arrangement, however, it is possible that this article is a mistake - we have no scholarly overviews of our subject and that makes this OR, no matter how much we try to avoid it. Amphitryoniades (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This new outline looks like a solid improvement. The prior scheme in chronological sequence supports a synthesis that the term represents a unified concept that developed over time. But there are no sources telling us that. The term is used in various ways depending on who used it and in what context. Organizing by type of use rather than time period would help to avoid  synthesis. That makes it a better approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as no information is lost I have no objection to trying another organizational scheme, though it seems a bit of an arbitrary imposition to me, and I fail to see the significance of the usage of the term in titles. It is a bit like studying marriage and making a big deal of the fact that books about marriage feature the word in the title.
 * Jack, I have no idea where you getting your notion of synthesis from. We both seem to describe the topic in the same terms, as a fluid term that has seen a number of usages, but you see synthesis and I don't. If anything, organizing by time is a neutral, hands-off approach, while organizing by topic in this case is the very essence of synthesis, since we are pigeonholing the various authors into little boxes of our own making. Haiduc (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

drive-by contribution
I don't have a lot of time to contribute to what is clearly a very involved discussion, but I thought I would share two quotes the editors of this article might find interesting.


 * From Neil McKenna, The Secret Life of Oscar Wilde, : "In his privately printed and cautiously circulated A Problem in Greek Ethics, John Addington Symonds wrote: 'The Dorians gave the earliest and most marked encouragement to Greek love. Nowhere else, indeed, except among the Dorians, who were an essentially military race, living like an army of occupation in the countries they had seized, herding together in barracks and at public messes, and submitting to martial drill and discipline, do we meet with paiderastia developed as an institution.'" This shows a 19th-century writer using the term "Greek love" as an equivalent for Greek pederasty.


 * Oliver Taplin's review of Davidson's The Greeks and Greek Love in the Guardian : "The Greeks and Greek Love is an extraordinary achievement, ranging far and wide across times and places, across cultures and disciplines." A favorable review, though of course Taplin also finds some faults. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, oh what a surprise. You'll have to get out of your chariot if your are going to hit the target! No srsly. We already have this quote from Symonds:
 * 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. 

Why would he define GL in this manner if it were already a term widely in use? Especially, why would he define it in a self-published work clearly designed for like-minded individuals who might be expected to be familiar with GL already, if indeed it happened to be widely in use? As for Taplin's review - here is a quote:
 * This is so much more stimulating than the caution that is conventional in scholarly publications (mind you, it is a caution that most of us are right to observe, since if we tried to flourish such panache as Davidson we would merely look silly.

Yes and Davidson does in fact look silly after Hubbard's demolition.

I'll wait a few days before restructuring the article. I would like this article to succeed, simply as a project I have got involved in, but truly I think the sources we are using would be better employed in other articles, where there is no danger of OR. There is no road map for what we are doing here. Amphitryoniades (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No road map? I think that is a subjective assessment that you could make about any article. There is never a road map, if there were you could probably computerize this whole process. Also, you ask, "Why would he define GL in this manner if it were already a term widely in use?" Since we are playing with ideas on this page, I might opine that he defined it as he did NOT because the term was not in wide use, but because the term WAS in wide use but had many meanings, most of them negative as they were filtered through the Christian bias. In this instance he is pointing to a positive interpretation, the moderate and legitimate eros (sophron and dikaios) between man and youth which IS erotic but stops short of degrading practices (I am representing the Greeks' view here). This is something that needs to be elaborated upon in the article so that the reader will understand what Symonds was talking about. Haiduc (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Glissement sémantique
One overall characteristic of the continuing discussion so far can be described as 'piece-meal source reliance'. If this is a big subject - which is now assumed - editors really have to read more. The impression I have is that while there is assuredly a flurry of activity in acquiring information e.g. uses of the term GL through recourse to snapshots of references gleaned from the Internet (nothing wrong in that), these are too often limited to reviews or selected lines therefrom, rather than the books themselves, or such quotations that are readily available and suit the purpose of the moment. We are dealing here with a subject of contradictions - rather than one that has many meanings - and judgments have to be made on the basis of the wider context, rather than a couple of lines happily alighted upon. The chatter about Davidson is a case in point: a simplistic definition in the Intro can hardly convey the riches to follow (and the huge resources called upon in the discourse), and nor should one expect it to.

And what of the subject? That has to be the starting point, and whatever 'interpretations' are put upon the form of the title, it is the concept which must prevail over secondary 'definitions' and slang usage. Before being accused of pre-empting an agreement on this point, let me say simply that the body of historic, literary and scholarly support for the interpretation of Greek love as 'amor more Graecorum' is overwhelming, and that writers who assume this - including those, like Shelley, who go to great lengths and complicated language to disguise what they wish to reveal - are confident in that assumption even if there are strong disagreements about this or the other historic, linguistic or political aspect. Talking of Shelley, his 'Discourse on the Manner of the Antient Greeks relative to the subject of love' is certainly relevant, even if his title departs (only) slightly from ours, and even if he raises controversial issues e.g. the enslavement of Greek women and the superior beauty of Greek males. As for less illustrious writers who - for reasons of religious or moral orthodoxy - present a severely negative view e.g. of pederasty, or to try to obscure the 'age factor' either for reasons of disapproval, personal distaste, or even - as one suspects these days - to promote a 'respectable' gay agenda, a collective decision to relegate these few transgressors to an appropriate place in the hierarchy of acceptable sources should not be difficult to achieve. Hubbard has interesting things to say about this.

As to the form of the article, that will emerge and cannot be set in stone at this point. History, philosophy, aesthetics, linguistics, literature must all be drawn upon in the creation of what must surely result - if the laws of probablity have any relevance here - in a fascinating study which would attract the attention of a discriminating public and even its approval.--Dominique (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dominique and Haiduc - I'm happy to stand back and let you two get on with your edit. You should try to find a source that covers the subject area: GL and its many uses throughout history. Otherwise it is original research. Good luck. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Amphitryoniades, you have stepped over the line, by presuming to lump me with another editor. I have points of agreement and disagreement with every editor I work with, yourself included. Edit or not as you see fit, but don't make assumptions about my associations. Haiduc (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted complete rewrite
Wow....just wow. The balls some people have to completely dump the work of editors especially after a a lengthy debate. (edited as being to much a civil debate) I remember the threat to just wait me out and then come back and shred it. I see that is what was done. I am reverting back to the previous version the bot returned to when the major change occurred. I believe the major changes at that time were not done in good faith and since no one bothered to simply tell me on my talk page I am a little disapointed.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK....I am going to try and assume the changes that were made may have at the very least some good intent. I have begun removing sections that were there ONLY because it was what was being lived with at the time. Now that the rticle has been reduced to nearly nothing in the past few weeks I don't feel bad removing large portions. Give me a bit if you see this today as I am working towards a goal of replacing actual information about Greek Love and remove what consensus clearly shows is not needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Layout, a bibliography is standard. Replacing it with further reading is not in the guidelines, but ADDING one is. Will return further reading section.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The original section


 * Apart from its perceived historical connotation, no such term is found in any surviving text from any ancient source. While there are terms, such as Mos Graeciae (Greek custom) and Mos Graecorum (the Greek Way), they were never deployed in reference to pederasty, but for a variety of Greek practices.[1]


 * was appropriately written as it pertains to the subject and to the reference as it was used by the original author.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This section, that I contributed many months ago;

''In a German university of the late 18th century, a journal began circulating with the writings and letters of students. The journal centered around the philosophies of Plato and Socrates. In one journal a letter is published from a student proclaiming his attraction to other men. Citing both phrases in German ( "socratische Liebe" - Socratic Love, "platonische Liebe" - Platonic love), the author of the letter also coins the phrase "griechische Liebe" (Greek love).''

I had a reference for it, but I am not able to find it now. Should a reference for it be located it should be added back. I do locate a discussion by an author on the actual letters and the journal it was in and exact dates, however it does not reference the claims that this is where the term or terms originated as the original reference did.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This section from the other version;

The term Greek Love appeared around the same time in other languages. In German, as "griechische Liebe," it has been found in German writings between 1750 and 1850, along with other terms as päderastie, Socratische Liebe (Socratic Love) and Platonische Liebe (Platonic love), used as an indirect way to refer to male-male homosexuality in general, not limited to sex between men and boys.


 * Has an unreferenced claim unsupported by the two refernces used. Using the weasal word "Around" is a bit misleading and may constitute original research. The text read closer the original way I had presented it, but without the word "Beginning", being replaced with "Coexisting". To be more accurate to the refence.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed overlinking.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Regular contributor here banned.
I've just seen that User:Haiduc has been banned. I dont know whether anyone wants to reopen any of the past threads here.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

My own feeling, after trying my best to develop this article, is that it can't be done without original research. I believe it should be deleted accordingly. It's a shame because it's a fascinating area of research. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to take some time to consider what we have here. Its been a while since the article referenced child-molester Walter Breen's pseudonymous promotion of his preferred euphemism.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine by me. If you want to try developing the article from scratch, I'll even be your cheer squad. But once you wade into it, I'm pretty sure you'll find that it leads you into unsupported conclusions. You could try what Jack-A-Row and I tried - reducing the article to a bare list of alternative meanings for GL - but there is nothing to stop other editors expanding the summary as they see fit, in which case the article grows very quickly into a set of POVs. It needs a scholarly overview or roadmap and there is none out there. Amphitryoniades (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Going forward
A complete rewrite may not be need since I have removed nearly every unreferenced piece of origianl research and personal point of view. It could even be chopped down further before being built up.

Here are some of my concerns with what has happened in the past with this article;

Suppositon- Far to much expansion on a reference that takes away the original reason for the citation by adding additional information to the claim.

Eassy writing- There was a habit here of posing rhetorical questions and writing long essay like sections with very little to know actual inline citations...which leads me to....

Illustrative citations- Should always accompany an actualy reference that supports any and all claims made by editors. Making a claim about an authors intention or attempting to rashalise a point of view and then adding an illustrative reference that merely shows the author's actual quote and what book it is from. I think that's reference stuffing. Trying to make it look like an inline citation is properly added to support the claim whn all it does is show the quote.

Point of reference- Greek love is not something that has a true modern meaning. There is nothing today that can be seen as true "Greek love" in modern society, The actual traditions must also be accompanied by the region that these traditons are held. While "Greek love" has inspired many after the fact....it is still not the actual traditions that are being discussed but the perception by those admirers. I feel that any discussion about literature and poetry from modern times be dealt with in a seperate article or at the very least in a very controlled and fully referenced manner that seperates the ancient traditions from the perceptions of the modern poets.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Amadscientist, you have already dominated this article for quite some time. It was proper for you to take that role in order to stop Haiduc and others like him but now please leave others a chance to contribute. I'm happy to stand back and let someone like Peter try this article out for size. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect. Please mind your own business if all you are going to do is tell me to leave an article alone. I will edit any article I wish and no one has the right to tell others to let anyone have an article for themselves or that they should not be a part of the discussion. Feel free to contribute, discuss the article here or leave.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've finally got around to this after being diverted by having to update someone elses article to maintian its GA status. On looking at Google books, Sex: Vice and Love from Antiquity to Modernity by Alastair J. L. Blanshard seems like it would be a good source looking at the development of the concept of Greek Love down the ages. This is a secondary source that discusses Breen/Eglington's book and other writings in retrospect. Of course, the nature of the preview facility is such that it is good for checking matters of fact but makes it hard to be sure of the thread of an author's argument. I'm not in a position at present to acquire these books and do not have access at the moment to a univerity or good reference library. I dont know whether anyone else feels able to chase these or similar sources up.


 * I also noticed that we are in danger of accusations of plagiarism. The first citation in the article actually seems more like a quotation than a reference and the rest would need checking.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reduction to redirect without discussion.
I've rolled back a recent series of edit which lead to this article becoming a redirect and the blanking of the talk page and links to the archive. Such drastic steps need to follow process. If someone wants the page turned to a redirect, then afd or a merge proposal is the way to go.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! And good luck with your research for this article, though I think the source you've come up with re Breen is probably just one more use of the term 'Greek Love'! Anyhow, I'm keeping out of it and only popped in to express support for your roll-back. Amphitryoniades (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags
The article is presently wearing two tags, both of which say they are explained on the talk page. Neither of them is explained; neither of them has an obvious explanation. I will be perfectly happy to wait 24 hrs, to see why McZeus claims either
 * That this article contains unsourced information; his last argument. was that it should contain sourced (badly sourced and nonsense, but sourced) and irrelevant information - so this can hardly refer to that.
 * That this article contains unencyclopedic information. What? Following the link, one finds Wikipedia is not censored, which hardly seems to be encourage this tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a debate/discussion leading up to an Afd nomination and the tags are part of the process. The synthesis tag relates to the present edit in so far as the lede cites a book about Lytten Strachy but the book is not about Greek love and the term appears with other terms such as 'Higher Sodomy' and 'New Style of Love' in a chapter titled: Brotherly Love: The Cambridge Apostles and the Pursuit of the Higher Sodomy. The meaning of the term is not at all clear from this book and it appears to be conflated or synthesized with other terms. The lede also cites a source about German writing between 1750 and 1850, and then the article goes on to talk about 18th century artists and Rennaissance artists and various notions of Platonic love. It's a synthesis of divergent material. There have been other edits of this article that have concentrated on still other meanings of Greek Love and those edits also were an original synthesis of divergent material. The unencyclopaedic tag covers a range of issues - WP is not a dictionary where we list various meanings of a widely used term, it is not a place where we engage in original research, or where we decide that a term means only one thing when clearly the literature shows that it means many things. The article is and always has been a content fork. It needs to be properly rationalized. Deletion and replacement with a disambiguation page is my preference. A merge is possible though there are many articles that could be merged with it and it's hard to understand why one should be selected rather than another. McZeus (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you nominate this article for AfD again, I will consider whether a topic ban is warranted. This has already been rejected for a worse form of the article; and your only argument here is fallacious. If you spelt Lytton Strachey correctly, you would find several sources - not merely Taddeo - discussing him and "Greek love" in the same context. This is not particularly surprising.


 * This is specious; it will fail. If you have nothing better to say, your tags are unjustified. If you have a grievance which is not recognized by Wikipedia, you have my personal sympathy within limits; but we are not censored for the assuagement of ethnic pride either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting comments. I just looked at your 'several sources' and it amounts to two Google pages, mostly referring to Crompton's book 'Byron and Greek love'. The others include phrases like "Greek love of wine", "Greek love for modern students", and "Both Greek love and birds singing in Greek - including perhaps her love for Violet - were on (Virginia) Wolfe's mind." As fas as I know, Crompton never cites the use of the term Greek love except as a phrase whose meaning might have been known to Byron and his contemporaries. I suggest you look at my list of sources for 'Greek love'. Please stay focussed on the argument - 'play the ball and not the man' is a term used in various codes of football and it is apposite here. The debate is too important to be lost in niggling feuds. McZeus (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of tags: I have just now noticed that the tags have been removed. I will reinstate them and if they are removed again I will place an appeal on the admin noticeboard. We seem to be approaching the unfortunate point where a referee is required. McZeus (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * These tags are poorly justified and I have removed them. If Mr. McZeus wants to make a post at WP:ANI, that's his business; but I doubt it will help the sad situation here much. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This topic is not OR
I find it incomprehensible that the topic of "Greek love" should be considered OR by even the strictest WP application of "original." I really don't want to get into a pointless argument, but I don't see how anyone could look at this book, for instance, and imagine that there's something original about presenting the history of scholarship on "Greek love" as a way to conceptualize homoeroticism. I mean, the title of the book is Same-sex desire and love in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the classical tradition of the West. The historical usage of the term "Greek love" is explicitly set forth as a topic, and explored as one strand in the classical tradition. The book covers Greek and Roman antiquity, the Renaissance, German classical philology of the 18th and 19th centuries, the Romantics, and so on to 1965. It shows how the concept of "Greek love" changes and is responsive to attitudes in various time periods; what is perceived as a classical model is shown to be a reflection of those who would do the emulating. This is a well-defined topic of intellectual history. (And no, quotation marks are not placed around "Greek love" in the book.) That said, the WP article is pretty poor, and should proceed like the book above, section by section historically. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's OR either. It does have considerable overlap with other articles that exist or ought to exist on WP, but I don't see any articles that deal seriously with the influence of Greco-Roman same-sex relationships (mostly Greek and male) on modern conceptions of homoeroticism (again, mostly male). The entirety of Linda Dowling's Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford, just to name one book, is a source that ought to be used for this article; as often seems to be the case on WP, the editors who are opposed to the article's form and apparently very existence seem to know little of the topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cynwolfe, every time you involve yourself in one of these debates the level of debate goes up a notch. I thank you for that. However, the book you are citing is a collection of essays by different authors who are considering a wide range of topics under the banner Same-sex desire and love in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the classical tradition of the West. Most of the instances of the words 'Greek love' appear in the references and are just book titles already included in my own list of sources. The essays reflect the diversity I have already pointed out in my list. Let me quote from the editors of the book:


 * The different authors are presenting different meanings of 'Greek love' just as they do in their own published works and there is no attempt by the editors to synthesize the different meanings. There is however an attempt in this WP article to synthesize the different meanings and that is original research. Thus, though the book you cite seems at first glance to validate this article, on further aquaintance, it actually confirms everything I have been saying. A collection of essays on a wide-ranging theme does not justify an article dedicated to the term 'Greek love' when that term has been used in so many different ways. McZeus (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should there be an attempt to synthesize the different meanings? That sounds like truth-seeking. The term "Platonic love" has also been used in many ways; therefore, that article exists to explain the origin, history, and various usages of the term and the concept it represents. (I would argue that "Platonic love" is less well-defined as a topic.) The purpose of the book I cited above is to demonstrate how the complex and various models of homoerotic relations in ancient Greece (including but by no means limited to Pederasty in ancient Greece), referred to sometimes as "Greek love," constitute a topic within what's called "the classical tradition." How do the generations receive, reinterpret, and fashion themselves in light of that specifically Greek model? The book is a collection of essays, but it isn't a festschrift or random assemblage; it explores a coherent theme chronologically, with each scholar contributing within his or her area of expertise. It's a fallacy to say that if the exact phrase "Greek love" doesn't appear in every essay, the essay is unrelated to a model of eros that has been conceived of as Greek, because that is indeed the theme of the book. Now, I tried to contribute in positive ways to fixing the many problems at Pederasty in ancient Greece, and still wander over there once in a while. As Akhilleus notes, there are many problems with Greek love in its present form. So I don't want to engage too intensely in this discussion, because I'm just not feeling Byronic enough to roll up my sleeves and do actual work on the article. But I do want to assert that I think this is a recognized concept in the history of scholarship that can result in an article arranged chronologically by section. Looking at what the Romantics made of "Greek love" makes no sense unless the classical precedent they invoked and reimagined has been explained first. The article needs to exist for the very reason that the concept is problematic. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to continue this debate with you a little longer, if I may, Cynwolfe, since you have entered into the debate in a positive and scholarly like way. One of the many problems with 'Greek Love' as an article lies in the fact that the term is a euphemism for various aspects of human sexuality. I don't think we should be using euphemisms or pejoratives in the title of an encyclopaedia article about human sexuality. The use of a euphemism is OK if there is a compelling reason to use it. I see no compelling reason for it in an article whose subject area is so broad almost anything to do with homosexuality or pederasty (hence 'Greek') appears to be relevant. The article lends itself too easily to editing by advocacy groups of one kind or another and there is no published authority we can consult when trying to work out what does or does not belong here. As we have seen so often in this article in the past, differences are only settled by warfare. McZeus (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's probably not fair to pump you for more arguements. You have helped me formulate some ideas and I'm sure you have used this debate to formulate a response. May the best arguement win and no hard feelings afterwards! I hope to get the nomination going sometime today or the next few days. I've never done this before. Tally-ho! McZeus (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles about pejoratives or euphemisms belong in comprehensive encyclopedias. "Greek love" is not simply a pejorative or euphemism, however; the sources you've gathered illustrate that. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
Following Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I think the first step would be to go to Requests for comment to gain more views on the subject. While heated the discussion does not yet seem to have reached a stage where admin action is needed.--Salix (talk): 07:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this advice. The problem is the edit war that appears to be certain if I reinstate the tags. I never enter into edit wars. The two tags say that the article may have problems. The upcoming Afd will determine whether or not there are problems so I am prepared to let the tags go rather than waste time pursuing a 'heated' debate any further. Those who have insisted on removing the tags should ask themselves whether or not that action has helped their cause. McZeus (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Version of the lead
The following version of the lead seems to me most unfortunate:
 * Greek love is a term in Modern English, and other modern European languages, referring to a type of ancient Greek model of friendship which can imply a male bonding between equals or a spiritual, educational and/or sexual union of males of varying age. Quotation marks are generally placed on either or both words, i.e., "Greek" love, Greek "love" or "Greek love"''. The term is defined in contemporary English as a synonym for anal sex.


 * In German, the term "griechische Liebe" (Greek love) was used in literature between 1750 and 1850 to refer to male-male sexual attraction, along with other terms as pederastie and kanbenliebe (love of boys), sodomiterey'' (sodomy), "socratische Liebe" (Socratic Love) and "platonische Liebe" (Platonic love).


 * ''According to author Craig A. Williams, the term "Greek love" is not found in any surviving text from any ancient source.

Some points:
 * Requesting a citation for use of "Greek love" in other modern European language, when immediately followed by a citation for the use of "Griechische Liebe" is frivolous; German is a modern European language.
 * Yes, "Greek love" can mean anal sex, but it meant other things first and more commonly; this (in the lead) is undue weight - and insofar as it suggests a single definition, carelessness.
 * According to author Craig A. Williams suggests (falsely) that what follows is his position in a controversy. It is not; and it is not controversial; the term is a modern innovation and that is what the article is here to discuss. This is a statement of fact, with a source; in principle, it should be repeated in the article - probably first, as a matter of chronology - and sourced there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Useful source
Doesn't appear to be cited here. Has review. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

structure
I see two main problems here. One, the article has no clear structure. One result of the AfD discussion was the need for a chronological approach. If we deal period by period with the reception of "Greek love" as an aspect of the classical tradition, a lot of the noodling should go away. The "Terminology" section is a stopgap measure; this stuff really belongs in chronological order. (And some of it sounds like pre-writing, or working through one's thought process, instead of a finished thought.)

I believe another positive result from the discussion was an awareness that "Greek love" is a discourse, not a set of behaviors. The article should focus quite specifically on how — to take one example — the Romantics express homoeroticism via a Greek model. I hastily threw in a paragraph on ancient Rome based on stuff I had at my fingertips, but was not prepared tonight to take on some weightier aspects, and I'm not sure how clear I've made what I did put in. So this is just a gesture in that direction. I also used the new book from Blanshard to generate a lede consonant with "Greek love" as a received concept, and not a set of behaviors. (Blanshard was quite the find as a source.) There are others, however, who also make it clear that "Greek love" is an aspect of the classical tradition.

I deleted some stuff I thought was off-topic or personal essay-ish. I wish I could help more right now (if indeed I have helped), as I don't like to complain without rolling up my sleeves and doing the work. Hope to return to it, and hope others will adopt one of the historical periods and contribute a paragraph on it to get things rolling. Cynwolfe (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Philhellenism
Actually, contrary to the note at the top, "Greek love" is as defined in the scholarly sources an aspect of Philhellenism. And the philological recovery of the classical past, with its parsing of different forms of eros, also inspires or comes to bear on the conceptual model. This is perhaps a "see also". Before the section on "ancient Rome," there needs to be a short section from Blanshard et al. surveying the characteristics of Greek (homo)sexuality that were regarded as distinctive. A certain amount of copyediting remains, in addition to covering important missing aspects of the topic. We might want to review the AFD for bibliography. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete article and disambiguate
I think this article should be deleted as original research but we should have a disambiguation page titled 'Greek love', directing the reader to various articles covered by this broad term. There is no scholarly work giving an overview of the various uses of 'Greek Love' and, if we select any one use of the term, we are merely reinventing an article that already exists. Any support for this move? Any arguments against? (Please note: I have been involved in previous discussions about this article but under different user names) McZeus (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be deleted, and I don't see anything particularly original about it. It's a topic of intellectual history, and it's solidly sourced. I guess I'm not seeing grounds for deletion. I think it's illuminating to see how the significance of "Greek love" changes. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The term 'Greek love' conflates many terms and meanings, covered for example by articles such as these:
 * LGBT history: e.g. The article GL says, among other things: The term Greek Love is encountered in other languages. In German, as "griechische Liebe," it 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
 * Anal sex: The article GL once included this well sourced comment: In English-speaking countries, "Greek love" has been used since the 1930s as a slang term referring either to anal sex involving partners of any age, or to pederasty.
 * Prison sexuality: The article GL says: A very different use of the term is made by Richard 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."
 * Platonic love: The article GL mentions that William Davenport first used this term in 1636 but it is not clear what term is meant - Greek love or Platonic love. I have Googled Davenport + Greek love and I got nothing. However, it is clear from the German words above that the two terms were interchangeable at least in Germany.
 * John Addington Symonds: The article GL indicates that he is not using Greek love to identify ancient or modern pederasty but some kind of idealized notion or personal definition: The term was used by John Addington Symonds, 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."
 * Pederasty in ancient Greece: Hmmm - who actually uses 'Greek love' to mean pederasty in ancient Greece? There are passing references, as for example by the American judge, Prossner and Symonds above, both of whom specifically mention Athenian pederasty, but neither of whom actually uses the term in that context. Their representations of Athenian pederasty would not be accepted by scholars, I think, since indeed they are defining their own terms for modern contexts.

Some of these articles don't even mention 'Greek love' and the info here in GL would be more useful there. This article has a troubled history because 'Greek love' can be interpreted so many ways, as indicated by the links. Different sources use it in different contexts and original research is needed to interpret the meanings of the different authors and to correlate the various uses, their histories and origins. The need for original scholarship/research was recognized when the article was first created. Look for example here at the first 3 entries on the talk page. McZeus (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do understand and appreciate the problems associated with the term "Greek love" — but that's why I oppose deleting the article. The article should exist to explain all this. To be more specific about my reasons to keep:
 * The phrase was used in the 19th century, concomitant with a revival of interest in Greek classical antiquity (in this case, as an antidote to more 'repressive' sexual attitudes of the time), and its use embodies a particular intellectual and aesthetic attitude (see, for instance, Crompton's Byron and Greek love: homophobia in 19th-century England, in the bibliography, where the concept of "Greek love" is part of a book title). The classical past was evoked to show that sexual "norms" are culturally determined, as we would put it now. In that context, it has a particular meaning.
 * Craig Williams goes to great lengths to show that Latin authors talk about "Greek ways" with regard to several kinds of behavior that they want to consider "un-Roman," but not — he insists — pederasty. (I don't think 'Greek love' meant the Archaic Greek social custom in the first place.) But Williams himself has to use the term in order to set out to debunk it, because of its longstanding use; he provides a sort of history of the concept, and thus validates the existence this article as a topic in the history of scholarship.
 * Although I like Williams' work very much, I think he goes to extremes with this particular argument, and although he's "owned" the topic for a while, it can't be assumed that his is the last word. From a "history of scholarship" perspective, I have on file, for instance, a pre-Williams article from Ramsay MacMullen, "Roman Attitudes to Greek Love," Historia 31 (1982) 484–502.
 * Williams' argument seems to be that it's wrong to think the Romans had to learn to be gay from the Greeks, or to direct erotic feelings at boys or youths: these are not culturally determined behaviors. Yes — but that isn't the point. There was among the Roman elite clearly a stylistic choice, as distinguished from sexual behavior, that self-consciously shaped the way in which they expressed same-sex eroticism toward handsome youths; see Quintus Lutatius Catulus. This is an aspect of Hellenization at Rome as a literary phenomenon. It's utterly beside the point (I'd call it an uncharacteristically boneheaded argument from Williams) to say that if the phrase amor graecus never appears in a Latin text, then there was no concept of "Greek love" among the Romans, let alone Byron and his set. A concept is not the same as a word. An aesthetic is not the same thing as a behavior.
 * As for a single definition of "Greek love," are we about to delete every article on a term (say, "democracy", or "religion"), because there's no single definition of the term? Can we find a single source that includes every single possible definition and example of "democracy" or "religion"? An encyclopedia article is not a book report; WP is not a collection of abstracts of books and articles. Of course an article is going to combine multiple sources. The purpose of OR is to keep untested ideas and novel approaches out; simply reporting on the verifiable history of scholarship, without drawing any new conclusions, is not OR.
 * Even if we could say with confidence "'Greek love' is a misnomer," to banish "Greek love" as an article from WP would be rather like saying that we couldn't have an article on a geocentric model of the universe because it's been shown that geocentricism is incorrect. "Greek love" is a significant concept in the history of how homoeroticism is intellectualized, and showing how its meaning changes over time, depending on context, seems to me exactly what the article should do. I'm not seeing what it would accomplish to fragment the discussion; some usages don't seem suited to sustaining an independent article at all.
 * The article as it stands may not be successful — there are lots of inadequacies. Those are reasons to rewrite and improve it, not delete it. Material that doesn't belong here (where "Greek love" is not a concept used in the cited scholarship) should go away. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are actually demonstrating the problem with this article. You are engaging in Original Research - there is no scholarly overview of the subject that you can appeal to. Instead you cite a number of authors who use the term differently. McZeus (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support change to disambiguation page.   The term is used to mean various things, and after extensive research and talk page discussion over a long time, we still do not have any reliable sources directly defining the term.  An example of the disparate uses is that modern dictionaries and slang dictionaries define it as a synonym for the act of anal sex, while some of the historical literature suggests it refers to a lofty or even spiritual form of affection that may not involve sexual activity at all. Unless there are reliable sources connecting the various uses,  this requires disambiguation to avoid original research.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Deletion. Cynwolfe says it all.  I'm not an expert in this field, but those are reasonable arguments for keeping the article.  It serves a useful purpose.  I'm also concerned that the proposal is being made by somebody who has repeatedly called for deleting or otherwise removing the contributions of another editor who was a major contributor to this article, and who previously engaged in lengthy battles with said editor over this and other articles.  Articles should be edited in order to improve their accuracy and usefulness, not to promote one point of view or expunge the contributions of others with whom an editor disagrees. P Aculeius (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The other editor has been banned. I resist any attempt to promote any sexual orientation. McZeus (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you keep reminding us. Haiduc was banned for repeated edit warring and disrespectful language towards other editors with whom he came in conflict, of whom you were one.  I note that in the earlier arguments on this page you were both cautioned by third parties.  Contrary to your assertions, he was not banned because of his point of view or because he was improperly promoting anything.  The fact that he is currently banned is not a license for you to expunge all of his contributions, or to sanitize the articles to which he was a major contributor.  You made your arguments for deleting this article last year, and that proposal was rejected.  I cannot find any reason for calling for the same thing again, except for personal animus towards Haiduc.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, PMAnderson, my mistake - you didn't actually vote delete, but this was part of your comment at the Afd and it stuck in my mind as a delete vote (italics mine): "What Peter Cohen recommends would be a good article (if there were enough untendentious material to support one), but this is not it; while I am tempted by deletion as a POV fork (of, say, Romanticism), I will consider merge proposals." The question now is - if you don't actually want to delete GL, what do you want to merge it with? Even a merge is problematic because then we have to decide which article most identifies with the term 'Greek love'. McZeus (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And oppose disambiguation. These are not genuinely distinct terms; they are different spins on a single term, usefully compared and contrasted in a single article. In Greek, they are all eros; if Greek love had a significant proportion of usage meaning Philhellenism or storge or agape, that would be a case for disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who says they are not genuinely distinct? Cite your source. I say they are distinct and so does Jack-A-Roe but we can't cite a source either. McZeus (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd you have not attracted consensus, have you? The burden of proof is on those who would change things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were a Pythagorean, I'd say you were a Sophist. As I am not, I'll only reflect on the fact that, at the last Afd for this article, you very rightly voted delete. Nothing has changed since then except - what? McZeus (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you a Pythagorean, that would be high praise; the derogatory sense is Attic.
 * I did not vote delete: I criticized.
 * What has changed? The article; the falsehood about Shelley is gone, the claim about equals has been changed to a far more limited and accurate claim. 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the question before that is whether I still want to merge it; I don't. It is much closer to Peter Cohen's proposal; the major embarassment remaining is the boxed quote from Posner - not usefully talking about the modern term, not a reliable source on either the Greeks or the Regency, and wrong. I'll remove it.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

t seems to me that this page should be two articles. There is an article about attitudes to homosexuality in ancient Greece and subsequent influence. That article should not be called Greek love as it appears to have been referred to by several different terms. Then there is the article about the specific phrase which could either be very short or a disambig. Just a thought.--Salix (talk): 13:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, there are two articles: Homosexuality in ancient Greece is not even linked to on this page - as Cynwolfe remarks below, it ought to be; this article discusses the modern description of various erotic practices as "Greek". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material
I notice that Posner's definition of 'Greek love' has been removed by one editor because it doesn't fit in with his personal interpretation of the term/phrase. I intend reinstating that definition because at least Posner's definition is very clear. No sourced material should be deleted until there is a decision about the future of this article. Nobody knows yet what it is about. I have already reinstated the popular use of 'Greek love' as slang for either anal sex or pederasty. This is a popular encyclopaedia and the article can hardly ignore the popular meanings. McZeus (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I have now re-instated Posner's definition as well as some other sourced material that was deleted with it. The article is a mess but we can't remove material from it until we agree what it's about and whether or not it is viable. McZeus (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that has emerged clearly from these debates is the need for new articles that might be titled, for example Homosexuality in the Renaissance and Homosexuality in the Romantic period. There is a wealth of literature relevant to those topics and they deserve article status. A 'Greek love' disambiguation page would certainly link to those articles. It would also link to many other articles on homosexual themes (there are in fact various sources for 'Greek love' which are not currently in the article - they were deleted by editors who couldn't work out how to fit them within the context of a single subject). Readers can use the disambiguation page to do their own original research. It's not the role of WP editors to attempt synthesis of such divergent material without guidance from a published scholar. Any comments about this? McZeus (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that Posner's definition of 'Greek love' has been removed by one editor because it doesn't fit in with his personal interpretation of the term/phrase.


 * That is a falsehood, and a personal attack.


 * My reasons for removing Posner are stated above and have nothing to do with the meaning of "Greek love": he's not a reliable source on this subject (his field is American law, on which he is merely tendentious) - and, more to the point, he demonstrates it: which should really be called Athenian Love because we know little about the sexual customs of the other city states is an absurdity. We know most about Athens in any field of social life, because the surviving sources on Greek culture (mostly from Athens or from the Second Sophistic) cared about classical Athens more than any other place or time; but we know a good bit about the sexual customs of Thebes, Corinth, Lacedaemon, and Crete, to name those which come immediately to mind. Of these, three are comparable - and are compared by ancient sources - to Athens.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Posner is defining 'Greek love' as behaviour by heterosexuals who substitute male partners for females and he uses it to distinguish it from homosexuality proper. That is an important distinction by an authority in the legal profession and you have no right to delete it as irrelevant. You have made up your mind about the meaning of 'Greek love' but I see many meanings and so do the published authors, who use it in many different contexts. You have no right to delete secondary sources that have long been associated with this article and I have reverted your edit accordingly. McZeus (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, a tertiary source is being cited for a false assertion, off topic for this article, and this may not be removed because an editor who wants to delete the entire article objects that it has been here for some time. That is revert-warring; it is also one of the very few real examples of WP:POINT: disrupting Wikipedia by insisting on something one does not actually want. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * McZeus also complained (IIRC at the AfD) that this article was pederastic propaganda. I don't think so; but were there any here, it is certainly in the sentence and a half The three terms are associated with educational, civic and philosophical ideals as well as the sexual implications.[7] Relationships often transcended the physical or the erotic, the adult being invested with responsibility for the moral and spiritual welfare of the boy which our revert-monger keeps restoring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You are now editing this article to enforce your own interpretation of 'Greek love' and you are systematically deleting all the sourced material that doesn't fit your interpretation. You are not the first person to edit this article in that pointed way and you won't be the last so long as the article remains. As for being a revert-monger, I have never once broken the 3R rule in all my time editing WP. McZeus (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are now editing this article to enforce your own interpretation of 'Greek love' and you are systematically deleting all the sourced material that doesn't fit your interpretation' That is another unfounded falsehood; I have stated my reasons, and they have nothing to do with the meaning of "Greek love". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted Posner's definition of GL, you have deleted the popular (slang) definition, you have deleted an idealized definition of pederasty that is consistent with John Addington Symonds definition (which somebody else has deleted), and there are many other uses of the term, as for example by David Hume (eg look at this old version here. The article now seems to be about Renaissance homosexuality, apparently because a few scholars have used GL in that particular context and that is the context you want to focus on. Is this a personal attack? It is a statement of facts. McZeus (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, having just looked at the article again, I still can't tell what it is about even after your edits. It still seems to be about anything to do with homosexuality but with more emphasis on the arts and the Renaissance than there used to be, supported by texts that have been Googled for the term/phrase 'Greek love' and which are really about some other subject. This is no way to construct an article. McZeus (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see some sense to the deletion by Pmanderson (diff) because the lead was a little flowery and the section on Posner somewhat unusual for an article (we should give a brief summary of Posner's conclusion with citation). However, the result of the deletion is that the article is meaningless mumbo jumbo, where the lead does not actually say what Greek love is. Also, the [nb 1] note explaining "modern" is ugly and unhelpful (if the lead sentence needs a note so readers can understand it, that sentence needs to be recast). I have not followed the earlier discussion re "delete and disambiguate", but it does make sense to work out what topics (if any) should be in this article before worrying about the wording of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of mere fact, I have restored the lead to what it was when Peter Cohen edited this article, and continued to be until a few days ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see my name has been mentioned a few times here. My position is that
 * There is potential for a properly researched article here,
 * We haven't got that article yet
 * Nevertheless there was some useful stuff last time I looked
 * There is a lot of material published by academics that can be used
 * There is also material by self-interested parties such as that by convicted child-molestor Breen/Eglington
 * The article should not be about what the Greeks actually did but how the term "Greek love" has been used and the sociological factors underlying that usage
 * I am currently sort of on a Wiki-break and am in no mood to write stuff for free while a certain co -founder enjoys jetting around and doing more harm than good to the project.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the lead should provide some information on what "Greek love" actually means, or the different ways in which it has been interpreted by different people. Currently, the lead (and the article) are silent on that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Posner's claim is that Greek male sex should be called "Athenian love" and that we don't know other city-states had the same customs. Since his major defender has cited the OCD section on 'Greek Love' below, I will quote its first sentence: The fullest testimony for Greek pederastic norms and practices derives from Classical Athens, but surviving evidence from elsewhere in the Greek world largely accords with the Athenian model. (In context, of course, this is talking about Greek paiderastia; this is not a source, in any direction, about what Greek love is in the modern world.)


 * The OCD also answers another POV thus: Although some Athenian men may have entertained high-minded intentions towards the boys they courted, it would be hazardous to infer from their occasional efforts at self-promotion ( Plato Symposium 184c–185b; Aeschines Against Timarchus 132–40) that Greek pederasty aimed chiefly at the education and moral improvement of boys instead of at adult sexual pleasure.


 * Both of these appear to be the view of scholarship in general; mentioning that there have been other views - as there have - should be governed by WP:UNDUE. (Although to some extent, the existence of such views is the topic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

List of some sources
Since it is important that everyone understands the muddled dimensions of an article like this, here is a collection of just some sources that deal with 'Greek love': List of sources for 'Greek love'. I hope people will look at the list and think about it. If you select the sources to narrow the subject area, you will find that you are recreating articles that already exist. If you don't narrow the subject area, you will find that the result is confusion. McZeus (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)