This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Untitled comments
This article seems a bit muddled! Since "Greek love" is a modern term for an ancient practice, it can hardly have been "corrupted" by modern usage. Also, I'm not sure what justification there is for maintaining this article in addition to Pederasty in ancient Greece. I suggest a merge.
I also can't quite figure out what is being talked about, and where the term comes from. Unless someone comes up with a specific entity by this name, cultural or literary, which relates strictly to its modern sense and not to ancient practices, I also suggest it be redirected. I did not noticeanything new that is not already covered elsewhere. Maybe we should just have a mention of the term in the main pederasty article, if we can determine its history and context. Haiduc 00:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As I implied in my first note to the 'Pederasty' discussion, one intrudes upon established discussions (by assessors and editors of undoubted expertise) at one's peril. You will have seen my later comments on how I came to have written the 'Greek love' piece - as a newcomer to Wikipedia - and how, I believe, the title can be justified as a separate entry. I do take the point about a modern term being 'corrupted' by modern usage: you must surely know, however, of J Z Eglinton's 'Greek Love' which treats of the subject according to its original sense, and you may know of L Crompton's 'Byron and Greek Love' which (typically of many avowedly 'gay' writers) conflates pederasty and gay-homosexuality.
So, in that sense, the modern term has been 'corrupted' unless it was originally conceived as referring to adult relationships, in which case Eglinton's book is mis-titled. It may be politic to research the term more rigorously if entries are required to be validated in this way. Even as a popular term, it may still provide a gateway to 'enlightenment' for those for whom the word 'pederast' is vague or meaningless, though I suppose this could be provided by a search 'redirection'.
There remains the question of the content, which I agree is impressively and extensively treated in the 'Pederasty' article. The (brief) reference to modern-day boys' institutions in 'Greek Love' could perhaps find some relevant expansion in the larger article, though I see the application of the Platonic principle in modern education as difficult to argue, ironically when the heritage of Greek educational values is still acknowledged.
While the whole subject deserves impeccable scholarship, again I would suggest that the information can be of use and interest also to the general reader who may find longer articles tiresome to negotiate. Perhaps there is a policy on this? --Dominique 10:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Your point about Crompton and "Eglinton's" works is well taken. I will try to make some time and look for material on the term as such, rather than merely as a synonym for "pederasty". That raises the question of whether the term "boy love" should have a life of its own. A quick look led me to the article on Shōnen-ai, so you might say theres a precedent for your approach. Haiduc 11:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks. I too will give the question more thought and search-time. I was tempted to use the term 'boy-love' in the article, but felt the expression ambiguous and probably mis-leading. The Japanese variant opens yet another can of worms - all quite difficult to get a hold on!
There used to be a boylove article, but it was changed to a redirect to Pedophile activism, where much of the material was duplicated. The Japanese term is not really a variant -- it refers specifically to a sub-genre of comic books, not a sexual practice. DanB†DanD 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
'Variant' in the sense of an offshoot of the main theme, (perhaps 'departure' would have been better?) and as I understand, not irrelevant to our search for clearer definitions of related expressions with however different shades of meaning. I must find out more about what 'behaviour' is practised in the comics!
Note that we have an article about the book, Greek Homosexuality, which covers most of this material. -Will Beback 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Prof Dover's book is outstanding within the field as an unequivocally objective study by a distinguished scholar content to interpret (historical data) rather than speculate or construe beyond known facts. Interestingly he was unhappy with the implied antithesis between hetero- and homosexuality, describing the latter as 'a subdivision of the quasi-sexual or pseudo-sexual'.
Haiduc, I agree that the article needs fleshing out: I have had a preliminary glance at the Oxford Hellenist movement (Wilde et al) and their identification with 'the love of the Greeks'. It would be nice to find that the term (Gk love) was coined in that context, given that it seems improbable that the term did not find its spontaneous way into their parlance. And they may not have been too precise about the age-related aspect...so it may be possible to find a separate existence for the term after all.
Strikes me that the phrase is also slang for anal sex in general, right? With "Greek active" as the top and "Greek passive" as the bottom. This usage doesn't refer to age--and maybe not the gender either--I remember seeing it in a heterosexual context once (trashy novel) but am not sure if this was ever common. In a gay context it used to be common in personal ads, contrasted with "French" for oral. As usual I have no sources for any of this!
Sorry to be tasteless, Dominique, but to justify the existence of this separate article we should be mostly about the usage of the phrase itself, not about the Greeks as a culture (covered elsewhere).
No, not tasteless, since we are trying to penetrate (excuse the expression) the term which refuses to be easily pigeon-holed! There was reference to this in the previous short version of this article, and (from memory) a comparison with other sexual practices, though the emphasis was on the 'Greek' cultural interpretation. (I seem to be having a problem accessing the early pages, so I can't comment on sources.) Note that some dictionary definitions of ‘pederasty’ are given as ‘sodomy with a boy’ or ‘ anal sex’ - not thought to be a Greek practice - so there's another sense in which the terms can relate, if for the wrong reasons. There are differences, however, and Haiduc hit the nail on the head with his introduction of 'euphemism', and as you see, I am interested in tracing usage and possibly origin of the term in the context of the Oxbridge elite. It seems obvious that such a felicitous expression could be arrived at quite naturally among educated homosexual groups anywhere, so it may be hard to pinpoint a specific place, time or person. One might even be tempted to explore the Florentine Renaissance! One other point, 'Greek Love' is a non-technical expression requiring interpretation, while 'pederasty' (pederastia) has precise etymological roots, (and certainly for the Greeks had a specific meaning) though as we see, the latter term can be 'hijacked' to mean something else. In the Victorian context, Gk love would refer to undefined male relations which were criminalised across the board, but for that very reason, the pederastic interpretation would probably be aired within private circles as freely as that of adult-only relations, and possibly more - because of the Classical reference. So far, I have found one clear source for a conscious use of the term i.e. J Addington Symonds' 'A Problem in Greek ethics' who writes:
"In treating of this unique product of their civilisation 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."
and later: "It has frequently occurred to my mind that the mixed type of paiderastia which I have named Greek Love took its origin in Doris." My italics - the author refers to differences among different city-states. The following link is to a review of Neil McKenna’s ‘The secret life of Oscar Wilde’ which highlights Wilde’s friendship for Symonds, and others[1]. Will have to conclude at this point.
Dan, no one will have any idea about the reason for your objection if you do not comment on it here. Haiduc 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Largely it's the OR of applying the phrase to various cultures without anyone having actually used the phrase "Greek love" about those cultures.
Also, though this may seem counter-intuitive, it's unsourced that the general description of Greek sexual practices is in fact what people mean or meant by the phrase "Greek love" -- as I've said before, it's a modern phrase, and my impression is that it was used mostly by modern British people for their own culture's sexual practices which they modelled or wished to model on their idealized/demonized conception of the classical past -- so a description of Greek historical practices may not in fact match the usage of the phrase.
So, at the moment the article pretty much consists of POV/OR, while not actually addressing the topic of what notable sources have used the phrase and what they meant by it.
Also, describing pederasty as having a "capacity for good" might be a teeny bit POV. Might be. Possibly.
Now that I see that list it makes me think he should have started it with Plato. Probably it should be cited better, I for one would have preferred the names of the works, at least. But that criticism is probably valid for the whole piece. Let's hope the original poster decides to finish what he started. Haiduc 21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my absence. I fully intend to return to the subject which certainly deserves more work. I shall take your comments above on board: the 'capacity for good' angle is (I confess) probably POV. My intention is to refer further to J A Symonds whose use of the term 'Greek Love' is significant, and to the Oxford Hellenist movement. Please do not hesitate to address me personally on these issues. Dominique 21:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you and for the picture which tunes in well with the 'tasteful' tone of the article (so far). The Victorian reference may well tune in well with future attempts at finding original usage of the term, Greek Love. Re-reading the early history of this article (then a 'stub') I note the use of 'euphemism' which was fortuitously revived at your hands, thus providing a solution to the problem of introducing the term, Greek Love, which appears (now) to have a wider frame of reference than is implied by the term 'pederasty'. Re the picture - which is entirely appropriate - I had already come across an illustration in a French article entitled 'L'Amour grec et la Muse garconniere' which to my mind perfectly and provocatively (while still reflecting 'le bon gout')illustrates the expression of this 'grande emotion', a classically restrained Romanticism.
Which picture? Jean Broc? Do you know Cory's "An Invocation"? It begins "I never prayed for dryads to haunt the woods again / More welcome were the presence of hungering, thirsting men . . ." and ends with "Now lift the lid a moment: now, Dorian shepherd, speak: Two minds shall flow together, the English and the Greek." I am curious to see where you will go with this article, and will offer bricks or mortar as I come across them; feel free to discard them if they do not fit. Haiduc 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hyakinthos. Cory...just discovered he wrote the Eton Boating song! I appreciate your encouragement, and will welcome your bricks and mortar. An elusive subject, and not to be hurried.
Yes, indeed. I had an incomplete title, but saw H. 'swooning' rather than dying (el amor y la muerte!). I am not entirely comfortable with the insertion of Wilde into the list of writers until the 'pederasty' theme is widened. He may well fit once I have explored the Hellenist idea and its relationship to the burgeoning 'homosexual' consciousness of the period, so he can stay there pro tem. I sense at this point that usage of the 'Greek Love' expression was evolved out of confusion and the excitement of (clandestine) sexual politics which embraced quite different conceptions or outlooks among its adherents. In any case, Wilde's preferences for 'rough trade' and young adult companions places him outside the strictly 'pederast' group. Gide, who of course had met Wilde (N. Africa) had a much clearer view of his own sexuality, and who wrote very clearly about 'pederasts' and 'sodomites' in an extraordinary - for the time - exposition of homosexual 'types'. Both men are sometimes referred to as early 'gay' champions or icons, a description which Wilde would have been flattered to acknowledge, but which Gide would have disowned with compelling, classical lucidity. Dominique 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It is significant that Kaylor, in his Secreted Desires, includes Wilde among the Uranians. He implies a preexisting bias which had categorized the inspired pederasts (like Wilde and Hopkins) as homosexual and reserved the "Uranian" tag for the more forgettably pedestrian poets. Wilde's essential "Greekness" is as clear from his love life (if you are not a stickler for mathematical precision as the main considerent) as it is from his famous statement in the dock which predicates a difference in age as the key to such relationships. Much of his rough trade would, at best, have been in secondary school in our days. And unless I am mistaken he was not a sodomite in bed, alike to Gide, that "pope of a religion to which he did not belong" according to Peyrefitte. And of course we all know what OW and Bosie were doing with Gide in Africa. O, saisons! Haiduc 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There are, however, myriad qualifications in Kaylor's impressive thesis, even apparent contradictions - this from a first, (selective) intensive reading - for instance his reference to Neil McKenna's position favouring Wilde as an 'heroic sodomite', an emphasis on 'androphilic' Uranism, in spite of McK's documentation of Wilde's boyish associates. (This is a criticism of McK's scholarship while accepting the "biography should certainly be considered in any holistic engagement of Wilde’s eroticism".) Kaylor sees Wilde as a flamboyant, decadent 'destroyer' in contrast to the disciplined, sublimated figures of the more recognisably Hellenist 'educators'.
"These two Uranian paths — the conciliatory and the dissident — are the concern of the present volume, though I will focus primarily on the more ‘elevated’, conciliatory path taken by Pater and Hopkins." In terms of 'Greekness', who wins the prize? There are, however, references to 'Greek Love', and I will be seeking out which, if any, can be helpful.
I found one useful description (of 'Greek Love') as being essentially 'assymetric' - not just in terms of age - so that the 'traditional pederasty' concept may still have a life of its own. Certainly, I don't see Wilde as a pederast in the Greek sense (of the 'beardless boy' as object), though he undoubtedly qualifies as a 'Uranian' for whom 'boy' apparently carries some age flexibility as in the case of Bosie. As you see, I am still struggling to get a hold of this subject which suffers from overlapping terminology, and the inevitable baggage of 'homosexual' culture and our modern obsession with identity labelling. Incidentally, for me 'boy-love' properly stated cannot be a 'gay' issue, so maybe I am 'a stickler for mathematical precision...'!
Terminology is the rock this survey will founder on. Is the boy in "boy love" eleven or sixteen? Was Wilde an androphile when he slept with the 17 y/o Ross, who at twenty four could still pass for sixteen? Is his fling with Bosie (by all appearances a confirmed pederast himself who merely humored OW's desire for his own selfish ends) egalitarian? Bosie, who never grew up, the eternal puer vis-a-vis a Wilde both visionary and profound? It may turn out that Greekness is a state of mind rather than an accounting of years, which may be why it was borrowed by both pederasts and androphiles. And perhaps it was a grasp for legitimacy, just like egalitarian pronouncements and the logos of penetration and dominance are a grasp (gasp?) for legitimacy today. Perhaps it will turn out that to be Greek one merely had to claim membership. Asymmetry is a good way to put it, if so can we extend Greekness to the daddy/boy leather scene? Haiduc 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Dunno about that! I have just noticed that a chunk was removed from the article 1 Jan by an anonymous contributor (warned about vandalism). The piece was about modern boys' institutions and their teachers/coaches: I noticed the gap only because I was beginning to think about linking in a reference to the Uranists (as discussed), and the repressive forces at work then and now. I shall probably not re-instate it exactly, since the tentative comparison with the Platonic educational ideal was slightly POV. Was the 'remover' acting out of moral concern, I wonder? I believe, however, that the Greek ideal must still be with us, if it was ever a natural 'virtue' or...! Did you notice the change, by the way? Dominique 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I had not noticed the deletion, and I would certainly not bend with the remover to remove. Haiduc 03:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't think you had anything to do with it. I am now 'on track' and have some interesting sources - Kaylor has been invaluable, and I shall be interested to know your reactions once I have something concrete to contribute. My summary position will however preserve the 'educational' force of pederasty, and hold 'Greek Love' to account for all the ambiguities! One seeks to find a safe anchorage in turbulent waters. Dominique 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It was in my mind to add Breen to the sources, mainly because the title alone gives credence to the usage of our (much-debated) term. I left him out before, since I felt chary about referring obviously apologist material, and also because of his 'notoriety' (which in itself does not invalidate the arguments proffered). But I see the WP article on Breen suggests his collaborator, Warren Johansson, may have done most of the work! Of course, Gide (and others) can be seen as an apologist, but the quality of the thought (and writing) is immense and by no means mono-thematic. Percy qualifies since the book is scholarly and (on the whole) detached, unlike the contributions by other avowedly 'gay' writers, Crompton among them. I may, however, concede the latter as a reference, and not just because of the title link - from his Byron book. Dominique 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. What is his Byron book? Haiduc 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Mentioned above (12 October 06) 'Byron and Greek Love - Homophobia in 19th Century England' where the first chapter, entitled 'Georgian Homophobia', hardly mentions Byron in 50 pages and is peppered with expressions such as 'homosexuality', bisexuality, effeminacy, and even 'gay', though in the introduction to the book the author ventures "if 'homosexual' and 'gay' are both words that would have puzzled Byron's contemporaries, the expression, Greek Love, would have been intelligible to them". In view of the general practice (among WP contributors here) of citing distasteful and apologist sources - avoided by scholars of merit e.g. Kenneth Dover - I don't feel at all sure about including Breen and Crompton in spite of the resonance of their titles. Dominique 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Some critics find Dover distasteful. As for "apologist," you may be hard pressed to find any works on Greek love which are not to some degree apologist. Haiduc 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I put it rather too strongly (late-night logic), but Dover's study is rigorous and emotionally detached in spite of his view of 'homosexual' as 'pseudo-sexual', a position which his (no doubt apologist) critics jumped on. For this reason alone, his interest in the subject stands apart from the rest. My main gripe with Crompton is conflation of categories, which is however still germane to our examination of Greek Love, since I am contemplating that ambiguities among the Uranists may well have contributed to the 'weakening' of the term. (Kaylor provides some interesting refs)
So, I am proceeding carefully, though a draft is taking shape. This dialogue is extremely useful, by the way, since I am anxious to 'test the waters'. Dover of course was not happy with the antithesis of the terms, homo- and hetero-sexual. Pederasty has been seen by some commentators (don't ask me whom!) as the 'natural face of male love' since its practitioners or non-practising 'apologists' are quite frequently capable (and desirous) of normal sexual relationships (with women), the parallel attraction of boys being a function of their 'natural' androgyny apart from the nature of male adolescent sexuality and the (now misunderstood or neglected) need to identify with adult male role-models. Modern homosexual-consciousness seems to have emerged as a result of the various 'labelling' forces - including medical - which developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries, apart from the marginal literary influence of the Uranists and others. From this perspective, 'gay' culture can be seen as an artificial category because of the declared antithesis to normal sexual practice and institutions, a movement perhaps inevitably born out of repression and rebellion as much as anything else. One can only wonder what effect a 'legalisation of pederasty' would have on the male sexual psyche and the balance of sexual practice. Fantasyland, no doubt!
Dominique 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You have put your finger on it
But pederasty is legal. What tells me that we still live in times of "nameless love" is precisely that misapprehension, that pederasty is "illegal." That is well worth investigating, since in most civilized countries pederasty is very legal indeed. As you well know, the age of consent is set in the mid to low teens throughout much of the world. So that what represses pederasty now is no longer its former illegality, but something else.
Dover emotionally detached? I'll say! "Emotionally stunted" might be a better phrasing. Let's grant him that his was a heterosexual's 1970s-type view, one which excluded later materials which illuminate the emotional and passionate side of the relationship. By the same token (his) we might well describe marriage as a ritual designed to facilitate forceful vaginal penetration.
And as for artificial categories, it was not homosexuality that was invented one hundred years ago. Homosexuality has been around since before Sumer. It is the creation of heterosexuality that we have to honor. Before it, to what sane man would it have ever occurred that youths were not beautiful?! The whole moral argument was not that one should not touch that which is repulsive. What is virtuous about that? It was that one should abstain from what is attractive, because it is a sin and we are God-fearing people rather than mindless beasts or pagans, who do as they please. Haiduc 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have touched a nerve....but I thought the child abuse industry was alive and well, and spreading - from Western countries - across the globe. Dominique 21:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What has that to do with legal and legitimate homosexual relations between individuals who have come of age?! Haiduc 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Precisely that the 'industrialists' in question would nevertheless consider many of your 'legal' relationships to be well within their territory!" - I cannot claim authorship of this pertinent reply Dominique 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Opinions and law are two very different matters. Perhaps all this indicates that an excursion exploring the evolution of societal attitudes towards Greek love after its recent legalization may be in order here. Whereas in the past the obstacles were mainly legal, now it appears that internalized obstacles may stand in the way of such relationships even where permitted by law. But sources would have to be found. Inexplicably, research is skimpy. Haiduc 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Society certainly creates obstacles, though paradoxically cultures in which pederasty is endemic e.g. the Middle East, legislate against it. Other more liberal societies such as Buddhist Thailand - an erstwhile Mecca for boy-lovers and molesters - have only recently tightened the law as a result of Western moralist pressure, the 15 year age of consent being confounded by a 'kidnapping' clause, which effectively 'protects' boys under 18. The Thais themselves seem to be exempt from this law. As you will know, there are elsewhere exemptions applying to low consent ages: particular age difference of partners, professional (educational) relationship and so on. The Greek ideal is remote, and perhaps is no longer relevant - not a difficult case to argue after 2000 years! It is no wonder that the Uranists (whom we mustn't forget) were a mixed-up lot and that their representatives a century and a half later are saddled with the same problems of identity, which as we have seen is not so easily subsumed under the 'gay rights' umbrella. All this, however, is grist to the mill of Greek Love, and its practical definition in the face of contradiction and shifting boundaries, but if I am to attend to that commitment, our fascinating excursions will have to be postponed! Dominique 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
By all means attend. However, let me suggest to you that the adoption of the term in question was not only a matter of convenience but a matter of the heart, as apparently our Uranian friends discovered within themselves feelings analogous to those reflected in the ancient texts. So the relevance of the two thousand year old tradition may be as immediate as that of shipwrecked Odysseus' gesture of covering his nakedness with a branch upon encountering the local girls on their outing. Haiduc 03:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Matter of the heart, yes, absolutely! An ounce of feeling is worth a ton of sterile discussion - not ours, I hasten to add. But those hardy and tragic souls who have passed the torch of Olympus down the centuries are heroes as yet unsung. My reckoning is that the light may have to travel another two thousand years before it is perceived in the wider world - just a moment in time, after all.Dominique 10:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The subject in focus
The material I have added has been simmering for some time. There was much debate on the talk pages on how to deal with a subject which fell under the title of a 'figure of speech', though the historical import was clear enough. It then became essential to justify the article as a separate entry i.e. from Greek pederasty, which was done (a) by unravelling the threads connecting the Ancients with modern times and (b) by highlighting the pedagogical aspect of Greek relationships as well as the philosophical and aesthetic, not necessarily associated with 'pederasty' as a basic sexual practice. Here, the Uranians came to my aid! I was interested to find that the article had already been expanded, and particularly encouraged by the decision to retain it. My researches uncovered interesting complications with respect to modern sexual politics, hardly surprising in a field which attracts more opprobrium than impartial evaluation or even merely tolerance.
It is a big subject - as it has turned out - and I have not attempted to round it off or suggest a conclusion is imminent: hence the Further Research content. I have avoided a too easy acceptance of the ancillary meaning of Greek love as being a gloss for male homosexual non-pederastic behaviour, or if so whether such a populist slant warrants much space beyond the initial paragraph. Clearly more work is desirable in probing the term in a contemporary context. The subject does not lend itself to encyclopedic treatment because of the ambiguities - incl terminology - which surround it, and by the paucity of reliable research material and scholarship.
It may be that some further adjustment or re-balancing is needed following the significant expansion of the original text. I have made a slight extension of the first Symonds quote, mainly because of the felicitous concluding phrase. Some tidying up and referencing is required (and perhaps a footnote or two) which I shall attempt at least to begin. Dominique 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Some comments
I have been re-reading the article to help clarify my own understanding of what specifically we should focus on here. In the process, I have come across this sentence: "Shelley did however share the prejudices of his age . . ." At the risk of seeming naive - what exactly were those "prejudices"? Haiduc 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Apart from what Shelley actually wrote, I relied to some extent on Crompton's interpretation that the discourse was 'distinctly marked by anti-homosexual bias'. Indeed, I wanted to append a foot-note (but at the time of writing, I was not sure how to achieve that technically-speaking - especially as the Notes section was devoted to book references) , which expanded on what Crompton describes as 'neo-Tyrianism', an interpretation of Greek Love which denied or minimized its physical side referring particularly to the writings of Archbishop Potter (17th century) and specifically his 'Antiquities of Greece' in which there is a chapter "On their Love of Boys" which enthuses about 'this excellent passion'! Certainly there is no doubt that Shelley responded to the 'aesthetic ideal of Greek pederasty' (Nathaniel Brown 'Sexuality & Feminism in Shelley')- cf Voltaire's view of GL as 'friendship'. Crompton confirms his view that 'S. still shared many of the prejudices of Regency England with respect to physical relations' - by his circumlocution, expressed revulsion to homosexual acts, or his silence on the subject of homosexual oppression - while acknowledging his challenge to the 'taboo of silence on the subject of Greek love.' Of course, there could be an element of fear or discretion behind much of the conventional language S. employed, but the view seems to be that S. was in love with the idea and not the practice, and this is clear in the Discourse.
In terms of 'focus', I intend to consider next the 'gay' scholars - which include Crompton - and the general approach of merging distinctions within the 'field' of male sexual relations, which can lead to a vitiation of practice, thought and historical integrity. I have recently come across some curious assumptions by the vogue scholar, James Davidson, from whom however I filched the expression, 'male bonding' as a way of introducing our subject! (A recent TV program on Athenian society and politics). Dominique 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Does Crompton classify Plato, Lycurgus, Aesop and Aeschines too as neo-Tyrians? Haiduc 23:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not mean to be coy. Can you indicate where Crompton comes up with this theory? I have checked his "H & Civ" and see nothing in the index (maybe he was embarrassed to point to it?). It strikes me that it is not a "neo" anything but rather an accurate reading of the Greeks themselves. It would be interesting to pursue this further, and to examine to what extent a rejection of anal coition was a stock feature of Greek Love in Victorian England. Last I checked, OB was kicked out of Eton for a kiss (and not a Greek one, either) and Oscar Wilde avoided it, as did Bosie, as did Gide. Haiduc 00:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that the source to be consulted for this, rather than Crompton, is John Lauritsen, "Hellenism and Homoeroticism in Shelley and His Circle", Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West / Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 49, Issue 3/4 (2005), pgs. 357-76. Unfortunately, at present, I am away from a library that would have a copy of the JH, so I cannot supply the materials myself. Welland R 12:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, do you know Richard Sha's essay 'Halperin and Shelley on the Otherness of Ancient Greek Sexuality'[2] which may answer the questions raised? (see from para #30 follg, and also the Notes). My source was Crompton's Byron book, which I see others have found 'unreliable' or 'misleading'. Interestingly Sha comments - with ref to 'H. & Civ' - that:
'Crompton's admirably comprehensive study would have been further strengthened had he addressed arguments like Halperin's that are wary of using the concepts of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" to describe sex in Ancient Greece.' Against such a backdrop, Shelley's sexual reservations may be easier to rationalize! Dominique 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all. I am working my way through Sha, who should be fined for overuse of sesquipedalian words. As for "rationalizing," I beg to differ. It is pretty clear that the construction of same-sex relations has varied, with anal relations sometimes being accepted and other times rejected. Thus any argument presuming them to be an essential part of male homosexual relations is on its face a polemic attempting to essentialize such relations. But I would argue that Shelley judged them irrelevant to Greek love, which essentializes intoxication with male beauty (I'll have to see what Lauritsen says about that). Others have argued that it is secondary to homosexuality in general, and anything but a male homosexual act (I know that Martial disagrees), but that may be off topic here. Haiduc 18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Your thinking I would judge to be very much ‘on topic’ if we can be confident (informed) enough to argue (document) a case for Greek Love as essentially ‘non-penetrative’ - as distinct from other forms of pederasty (not to mention adult male love) – this neatly tying in with the ‘aesthetics’ of Shelley and the pederastic educator-philosophers (Uranians), Renaissance artists (& perhaps even Shakespeare) and other illustrious links in the historic chain. I don’t think there is too much risk of ‘re-defining’ the term since, as we were aware from the outset, GL can be seen as specific (to Greece), a beacon to ‘the like-minded’ through the ages, as well as an imprecise or metaphorical usage across the board (of male relations). The last I view as a ‘corruption’ of the term, or a means by which – if I were minded to introduce a further polemic into an already controversial theme - the modern ‘gay movement’ can identify with the noble and the good and claim kinship! I think you may have a case for Shelley’s judgement of ‘abominable practices’ as being irrelevant to GL even if such elevation is really by default. As to ‘secondary to homosexuality in general’, the distinctness implied by such a phrase, was never in doubt. I was interested to find the references (in Kaylor) rejecting ‘homosexual’ as being unsuitable usage, which ironically is not so distant from Shelley’s position – given his abhorrence of ‘unnatural vice’ - of the ‘natural’ allurements of ‘the Ganymede’ or Bacchus and the ‘natural’ orgasmic release of Greek lovers. So maybe more can be drawn from Shelley than the current brief mention in the article. Sha moves to unravel a few knots, in spite of his somewhat turbid terminology. I shall be interested to know more if you find Lauritsen helpful.Dominique 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See Intercrural sex for some interesting terms (eg. "Oxford style") and discussion. Also I understand that "English method" is another eloquent synonym. Haiduc 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reference, and for your headings. One or two sentences may have to be changed, but of course more text will be generated as the material becomes available. I have never heard of "Oxford Style", however. I am awaiting despatch of Shelley's 'Discourse' (as well as related papers by Lauritsen & Davidson from the British Library) from which a quotation on 'practice' might well serve this article. If you have time, meanwhile, I would be grateful for your reaction to the following quotations from Davidson's review of Alan Bray's 'The Friend'[3] which appear stylistic and generalised rather than scholarly, possibly by intention in this context:
"The sex-obsessed historians of sexuality, by contrast, seem now to have been writing perverse histories, separating the sodomitical relationships of ancient Greek men, for instance, from the passionate pairings of Sappho’s Lesbos or the relationship of Achilles and Patroclus in the Iliad, whose (apparently) non-sodomitical same-sex love was deleted from the history of ‘Greek homosexuality’ by Kenneth Dover and David Halperin, as if the fact that a spectacularly homosexualising culture produced some of the most spectacular (but non-sodomitical) lesbian love poetry and has a spectacular (but non-sodomitical) homosexual relationship at the centre of its foundational epic is simply a rather amazing coincidence." and also:
"We have a full description of how the Cretans went about these things. Announced at least three days in advance, there was a public tug-of-war over the prospective boy (usually assumed, for various reasons, to be in his late teens), with the boy’s fan-club (‘the friends’) on one side and the suitor on the other, and much anxiety about the appropriateness of the match..." (Percy says the boy's age was 12). Dominique 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a dawning realization (Davidson, Cohen, etc.) (see also Inappropriate Relationships by Goodwin, Cramer, p.130 - very lucid presentation) that the modern obsession with "penetration" is at the root a homophobic heterosexualization of Greek practices. But I have not read Bray, so I will pass on further comment. Haiduc (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The position you describe apparently underlies Davidson's interpretation of Dover and others, but - as I see it - is hardly 'black and white' on either side of the argument. I presume you're referring to AKT Yip's article - I don't know the book. Does he deal with the Greek problem? Dominique (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is Yip. He does not seem to deal with the Greeks as much as with the illusion of normalcy attached to hetero relationships, and other forms of homophobia. Haiduc (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Renewal
Major changes to the article, not all bad, have been made without discussion. I have made some restoration including the 'examples of scholarly use of the term, Greek Love', a section originally contributed by Ms R Welland, a Yale graduate with expertise in this area. I have also expanded the Byron/Shelley paragraphs, and am currently working on material acquired through recent researches by Davidson, Lauritsen & Percy, which will hopefully improve the overall presentation of a complex subject. Refs will be added. Comments/suggestions welcomed. 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Dominique (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The promised major additions are to be added over the coming weeks, starting today with a section on Dover against whom more recent scholarship can be compared and evaluated. Work on Percy, Hubbard, Davidson and others will follow. References and refinements will be added.--Dominique (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
POV: Kenneth Dover
The Greek love#Kenneth Dover section is worded with POV phrases, such as referring to his "landmark" study, that is was published "to critical acclaim", and that it had "at a stroke" achieved what was claimed. The bulleted list then continues to read in similar vein.
--ClickRick (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Edited what I found, if no other issues are indicated I will remove the tag. Haiduc (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for comment and assistance. This is intended as a comparative study of scholarship to date - the material to be added will refer back to Dover - in more detail than is available in other similar articles. The bulleted list (also for Percy) does not go beyond articulating the findings and interpretations of the author presented.--Dominique (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This comparative study will be valuable. As for Dover, I think it is recognized by now that his merits notwithstanding, he did as much harm as good. It is worth noting he was planning to co-author the work with Devereux before the latter's death, who was a notorious homophobe. Haiduc (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Yes, I am quite aware of Dover's controversial reputation, though still respected in academic circles. I still think however he deserves credit - apart from his unmatched philological command - for opening up the 'problem' of the Greeks, even at the risk of unleashing extremists on both sides of the argument. At least one recent detractor has been publicly taken to task for 'protesting too much'! Homophobe or not, Devereux is quoted by Percy, no less, as one who understood the 'Greek Miracle', which might encourage me to include a mention in the screed to follow. At the outset of this project, I was determined to resist political correctness however disguised as enlightenment or thinking a la mode. After all, sometimes the devil has the best tunes!--Dominique (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Progress
Haiduc, I agree with the thrust of the amendments, but as I said above, the individual presentation representing the essentials of the position (on Greek love) of a particular author should stand unamended, so that various aspects, ambiguities or misreadings can be highlighted with reference to other professional opinion to follow. For instance Dover will receive a bruising in the next entry (from Percy's Reconsiderations about Gk Homosexualities), and Hubbard may well offer a succinct rebuttal of the Spartan's denial of feeling. So in short, all the text for Percy is 'according to Percy', and similarly for Dover & others, this I believe being a more professional way of presenting an author's thesis, which is certainly not the case in other references to scholarly theses in comparable WP articles. Obviously, the finished, balanced result cannot be achieved until we have all the material aligned, which I think is important to the goal of defeating the carping critics (whom I am sure you are familiar with) who are interested only in hammering a one-eyed position which may reflect a personal idiosyncracy. Bless them! At some point, if we feel the amount of formal material imposes a strain on the reader to sort out or evaluate the many nuanced strands of thinking by (after all) exceptional writers, we can possibly come up with a device e.g. inserting comments or amendments, but this would have to be (i) clearly separate from the author concerned and (ii) astute and informed and - most important - absolutely impartial.
Re the Thera 'verbs' designating penetration or 'pedication', you may well have the edge in knowing the precise term applied in the quoted example - oiphein (see below)? Do you have actual images of the inscriptions - or other info - by which we can confirm actual verbs visible or reliably deduced? There are certainly many such, including specific words like binein, kinein, laikazein, laikonazein, pugizein (quite specific: 'to do through the buttocks', Percy) cf. diamerizein, 'to do between the thighs'.
Re the Spartans, may I quote Percy's exact words: 'Xenophon and Plutarch maintained that although Spartans' love for youths depended upon the physical beauty of the male (as it theoretically did not among the Cretans), it did not arouse sensual desires in the erastes.' Percy has to stand accountable for this statement!
Would you agree to a conditional reversion while we explore the options?
Oiphein - which Dover describes as 'a blunt work for sexual intercourse'.--Dominique (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem representing these fellows as arriving at their own conclusions. I would suggest using their exact words in quotes so as not to give the impression that these are definitive statements. As in "it did not arouse sensual desires in the erastes," which will also be useful for later comparisons with other scholars' opinions. The same for their personal impressions vis-a-vis "oiphein."
Re pictures of the Thera epigraphs, photographing them has been on my agenda for years, maybe I will get to it this winter. Haiduc (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
An original (uploaded) image would certainly enhance the argument, esp if you can capture the verb! I note in Hubbard Sourcebook, the epigraph in question is translated using 'penetrated'. There must be a list of the inscriptions in Greek available somewhere.
More about sexual acts later. --Dominique (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[New section title]--Dominique (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Better phrasing, thank you. But why did you reinsert Cantarella, and what is she doing in a section exclusively about Percy?! And where does Percy say that most Greeks fucked their boys up the ass? Haiduc (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion helpful here. The info is taken from the 'Introduction' [Ped and Pedagogy, (Urbana 1996)], section 'What the Greeks did' P7. In presenting this material I have included any refs (in Percy's text or footnote) in the passage quoted, as in the para above re Kilmer. The Cantarella ref is, I agree, not indispensable, since the P. 'claim' is quoted, and there are further (primary) sources mentioned in the ongoing text e.g. comedy, Hellenic and Latin writers, the Thera inscriptions (we need more detail here), and a passing ref to Dover's 'revised position' (1988). Hubbard indicates that for man-boy relations, intercrural contact predominates - more of him later. I am thinking along the lines that any controversial or challengeable claims should be highlighted in some way - certainly further authors will receive focus on these aspects: the history is pretty well covered. Nothing is straightforward, and even established opinion must go under the microscope.--Dominique (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Dropped the Cantarella ref, it seemed out of place, as if we were helping Percy argue his view. Perhaps we should give David Cohen a place at this particular table. May I suggest his papers in Past and Present #117, Nov. 1987 ("Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens") and in Greece and Rome 38/2 Oct. 1991 ("Sexuality, Violence, and the Athenian Law of Hubris")? Haiduc (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. And I have removed the in-line ref also. The critical sentence is clearly Percy's, so it can stand unaided. Next move is a short discussion of Percy's (up-dated) Dover views and others, then we can move on. Yes, Cohen sounds good if distinctive views can be incorporated into the more focussed section coming up.--Dominique (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Greek love is not Pederasty
The term of Greek Love is not to be confused with the term Pederasty which is nearly a direct translation into "boy lover". The two subjects are only slightly related. The term "Greek love" refers to the male bonding of two equals not in reference to a sexual relationship with younger individuals and elders. That is something that is covered by Platonic love and Pederasty in ancient Greece.
The information was not sourced or referenced except for a single citation in a quote that did not reference the claim of the overall comparisons made.
The section 'Victorian Hellenism" appears to cover the subject and confusions well.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
New history section
Unfortunately this article has many references and citations that are not acceptable as citations. One I question whether is even a legal site. A complete rewrite of the history section is required.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Article may not meet Wikipedia standards for notability
In just the last hour or so of looking through this article and its "references", I am not convinced this is a legitimate subject of notable quality. Many of the references so far have dealt with a different subject entirely and one was just a comment and then attempted to use an open source dictionary as the reference.
Research so far shows very little academic information available and what is available is less than trust worthy as a reliable source.
I am continuing to look into this.....but so far, my opinion is, that this should be nominated for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You know.....I am finding that so much material is based on the false assumption that "Greek love" is a form of boy love. I am putting this up for deletion. It is completely POV and OR on the part of the editors here so far (no offense) to link Greek love with pederasty.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This presents a good opportunity to articulate exactly what is being treated here. If I were to theorize, I would say that this is a form of pederasty that is moderate or pedagogic, in the style of the Greek ideal, and that transcends the Greek boundaries and thus can be traced a thread that reappears at various times and places in history, such as Victorian England and perhaps the Middle Eastern shahid bazi tradition (both of which were informed by the writings of the Greeks).
How has the term been used? Google Books is useful here. Out of the first fifteen titles brought up by a search for the term, ten seem to use the term interchangeably with pederastic relationships more or less in the Greek style. The use varies, Eglinton (Breen) uses it in a very general way, Craig Arthur Williams sees it as referring exclusively to pederastic relations with freeborn young men (adolescents, of course). But so far (and I do not have a lot of time to look, at the moment) all discuss relations between men and boys. So this is not a false assumption.
To sum it up, I agree with your point that the sourcing leaves a lot to be desired, but I do not agree that is a reason to delete an article or even large chunks of it. Let's see what the principal editor has to say, but at this time I intend to remove the deletion tag in the next 24 hours and to add some references to support the main argument. Haiduc (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You found 15 titles with this subject on Google books? Interesting, I did not find anywhere near that amount;
Greek love - Page 3
by J. Z. Eglinton, Paul Goodman - Homosexuality - 1964 - 504 pages
In what follows I expect to prove that — so far from being a brief Greek
aberration or a sign of Roman degeneracy — Greek love is as widespread as
mankind; ...
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Ancient Greek Love Magic
by Christopher A. Faraone - History - 2001 - 223 pages
Surveying and analyzing these various texts and artifacts, Christopher Faraone reveals that gender is the crucial factor in understanding love spells.
Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
An incomplete education - Page 262
by Judy Jones, William Wilson - Reference - 1995 - 683 pages
How Is an Ancient Greek Like a Modern Californian? ... What's Love Got to Do,
Got to Do with It? The Greeks wrote the book on forms of affection, ...
Limited preview - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Byron and Greek love: homophobia in 19th-century England
by Louis Crompton - Social Science - 1998 - 419 pages
Byron and Greek Love is at once a fascinating biography and an incisive social commentary; its far-reaching implications for the social and cultural history of...
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Grecian History - Page 72
by James R. Jay - 1900
The freedom of the Greek genius was never fettered by the foreign ideas which it
acquired. From the bare results of thousands of years of thought and ...
Full view - About this book - Add to my library
Grecian History: An Outline Sketch - Page 72
by James Richard Joy - History - 1892 - 289 pages
The freedom of the Greek genius was never fettered by the foreign ideas which it
acquired. From the bare results of thousands of years of thought and ...
Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in Nineteenth Century England
by Louis Crompton - Social Science - 1985 - 424 pages
No preview available - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Primitive Love and Love-stories - Page xvii
by Henry Theophilus Finck - Love - 1899 - 851 pages
Love in Sappho's Poems, 750— Masculine Minds in Female Bodies, 754 — Anacreon
... 781 — Literature and Life, 782 — Greek Love in Africa, 785 — Alexandrian ...
Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
A Problem in Greek Ethics: Being an Inquiry Into the Phenomenonof Sexual ... - Page 32
by John Addington Symonds - Homosexuality - 1908 - 73 pages
This sufficiently indicates, in general terms, the moral atmo- / sphere in which
Greek love flourished at Athens. In an earlier part of his speech Pausanias ...
Full view - About this book - Add to my library - More editions
Ancient and modern images of Sappho: translations and studies in archaic ...
by Jeffrey M. Duban, Sappho - Poetry - 1983 - 176 pages
"Co-published by arrangement with the Classical Association of the Atlantic states"--T.p. verso.
Snippet view - About this book - Add to my library
Only three would qualify and two are already being used, and not in a way that justfies the subject. Greek love is not about man-boy love. This has been brought up before and I am not seeing anything in this article (and I have swept over it several times) to prove the definition as such. The discussion has gone on for nearly two years and it is time to deal with this. Should the tag be removed I will continue to take this either to speedy delete or nomination. Far to much original research and personal point of view regarding Pederasty, which is not the true meaning of this term.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the true meaning of this term, and what evidence do you have to back that up? Haiduc (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
In his book, "A Problem in Greek Ethics" By John Addington Symonds, the author admits on page 16 that "It has frequently occurred to my mind that the mixed type of paiderastia which I have named Greek love took it's origins in Doris". The author admits here that he has simply labeled Pederasty as such. He offers no reference in history to do this and has convinced me this book is speculation, that veers off from others. Even throughout the book the author makes the distinction that not all sources agree with his assesment.
Greek love is simply the male bounding of two people. There is no evidence that I can find to determine that the phrase indicates a man-boy relationship.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably the best argument I have that this is a misleading route to go with this subject, is the work of JZ Eglinton, (Walter Henry Breen). Greek love which from what I can find is basically an attempt to use the term "Greek love" as an excuse for pedophilia. Is this incorrect? As I see it, all sources to his work do not cite it as definite. He is listed as the main person responsible for the idea that Greek love is man-boy love.
This article would require far more than the controversial and questioned work of these authors, and I do not see much to go on.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the table of contents for the book "Greek Love" by JZ Eglinton;
I. Theory and Practice
1. Objectives
2. Some common Objections Answered
3. Greek Love as a Social Problem
4. Greek Love as a Solution to a Social Problem
5. The Theory and Practice of Love
6. Sexual Aspects of Greek Love
7. Some uncomplicated Greek Love Affairs
8. Some Difficult Greek Love Affairs
II. History and Literature
9. Historical Synopsis
10. Boy-love in Ancient Greece
11. Boy-love in Ancient Rome
12. Boy-love in the Middle Ages
13. Boy-love in the Renaissance
14. Boy-love in the Restoration, Enlightement, Romantic Period
15. Boy-love in the 19th Century
16. The 20th Century -- Divergent Traditions
Seems pretty clear what the author was aiming at just looking at this. I doubt i will have any interest in actualy reading this book....or even touching it. (ok...the last part was a joke...no not really)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you believe this use of the term to be incorrect, and that its true meaning is something else. But what I was asking was not to have you try to prove that this is the wrong meaning, but to lay out your evidence for that other, correct meaning that you claim. What exactly is this meaning of the term "Greek love" that you label as "true" and what sources do you have to back it up? I do not mean to be snide, this is how we resolve disagreements and how we improve the articles. Haiduc (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think your being snide. However you are talking semantics now. Try to prove, and lay out my evidence? Isn't that sort of the same thing?
I am laying out my evidence. This subject is not agreed upon by scholars (putting it mildly). There is no definitive work for this that can be used so far as I am seeing that justifies labeling "Greek love" as definitely the sexual relationship between man and boy. Many argue that scholars that do, are confusing subjects. One author, ( I can't remember who now) even went so far as to define Homosexuality as man-boy sex.
Kenneth Dovers book, "Greek Homosexuality" does treat the subject better and goes into detail about the confusion of some previous work.
The article is certainly not workable the way it is. It's use of other work based entirely on Pederasty is unencyclopedic and original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that if both Shelley and Symonds used the term, there's notability for an entry in Wikipedia. I have little opinion on the content but would say
that if the term has limited usage, that should be clearly noted in the article, and
if it's being applied with a broader brush than the sources support, it should be trimmed (to stub length, if necessary).
But deletion seems unwarranted. And unless there's clearly consensus here, it should go for a full AFD review. Rivertorch (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not to sure if Shelly used the term (edit: in more than poetry). I believe it was Byron and I am not sure that makes it notable in itself however as you said I have been trimming and realized that I would be left with very little after removing dead links, inappropriate citations, unverifiable information and the inappropriate use of OR to link Pederasty to the term. In short after looking through the history I have come to very much doubt the accuracy of the article and its notability.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If no full consensus the article will not be tagged for Speedy deletion (not sure it would qualify), and will go to AFD, of course. (unless something drastic happens) Other ways to deal with this may be to simply rename the article, Man-boy love or merge with Pederasty.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think you have responded to my request. You claimed that there was a true meaning of the term that was different from the one applied here, and I asked you to define that meaning and back it up. Instead you continued to attempt to refute the meaning as understood by the main editor of this article, and myself. This is not constructive. Let's see what Dominique has to say. Haiduc (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sir, it's already on the page. It was there before I began editing. I have not ADDED any information that I have to justify at this time. I am justifying the removal of information as I should. I am Justifying the deletion as I should. As I have stated, I am not the only one on this talk page that has questioned it's prose and the direction of the article. It is not as if it isn't something that can't be referenced, what I am saying is so far what references I have seen for this article are very few as far as reliable and appropriate. Both you and the other editor claim to be teachers. You don't agree that this article has become almost exclusively about the subject of pedophilia?
Another thing, I didn't realize that Percy Shelly and Lord Byron wrote nonfiction. I will have to read them. For I had been under the understanding that these two gentlemen were poets. Poetry is not non fiction and can only be used as a reference to directly discuss the poem. Saying that just because Byron mentions "Greek love" in a poem doesn't make it notable in my view. Rivertorch brought this up and I think it is important to mention.
Haiduc said this "If I were to theorize, I would say that this is a form of pederasty that is moderate or pedagogic, in the style of the Greek ideal, and that transcends the Greek boundaries and thus can be traced a thread that reappears at various times and places in history, such as Victorian England and perhaps the Middle Eastern shahid bazi tradition (both of which were informed by the writings of the Greeks)." That is actually Platonic love. It appears that Byron and Shelly may be used in the article in a misleading way. While they may mention the term, it has not been proven that their writings can even be used for more than illustration. They certainly are not reliable sources to say this was an actual term used regarding a specific definition.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't much care whether the article stays or goes but am glad it is going through proper AFD channels. Incidentally—and this has little bearing on the point you were making—poetry is usually considered nonfiction. Rivertorch (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It is now midnight here, and I have just returned from afar to find this sudden onslaught. My intention is to compare the work of reputable scholars whose views vary considerably - the current section will include a reference to J. Davidson's work whose views may be more in line with views expressed above. Personally I do not have much truck with Breen, and I agree that any statements or positions have to be referenced. All in good time. I have no intention of misrepresenting any source, or of using unreliable or apologist material. It is of course a controversial subject - no less today - which will attract both extreme reactions, or a reasoned response: the term itself (Greek love) is being approached in the light of usage by principle writers already highlighted. I have more books and articles on order, and will need time to evaluate. I shall of course welcome guidance and comment from historians or classicists with particular interest in Greek antiquity. --Dominique (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Should the outcome be that the article remains, two additional projects have been added and there may be additional input. I do not doubt your intentions. As the major contributor to the article I am sure you feel strongly about the subject. There are many editors and the tone of almost boosterism eventually creeps into articles. If the article remains I hope that we can broaden the coverage of the subject and not shy away immediately just because we do not agree on everything.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Tags on article
The tags were placed for the following reasons;
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims - The synthesis of the article is tilted and heavily weighted in a manner that may constitutes original research.
The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed - Consensus is not clear on notability for two years. Although silence can be seen as consensus, it was and still is a debatable issue here. OR issues question notability.
It may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia - Possible agenda based editing.
Its truthfulness has been questioned - In short the overall truthfullness of the article and groups of articles including this one, Platonic love, Pederasty in ancient Greece may be compromised by a social and political POV.
--Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Arrogance or Goodwill disguised?
The retention or deletion of this article - as you know - was already discussed in June 2007 under the title (see above) 'Addressing the claim that this article is redundant and unencyclopedic' by R Welland whose credentials for making a judgment are impeccable, and who was personally responsible for listing authors responsible for 'solidifying' the use of 'Greek love' as an authentic term. Mr Madscientist, I am not sure whether your sudden attack on this article is politically motivated, but it certainly lacks scholarly sensitivity. In any event, making large deletions without proper discussion is usually considered a form of vandalism. I am not convinced that you are interested in my rationale for expanding the article: the new section is intended to summarise the background and current scholarship on the subject in order to avoid the very charges of OR, POV, or slant, which you seem anxious to make. This represents a significant amount of research motivated by a desire to present the material comprehensively and impartially, and with necessary references. Included in the material will be a discussion of 'Age-classes' and the 'paedophile myth' of Greek love, the term itself being understood (by mainstream scholars) to embrace pederasty and its institutions, but to extend well beyond this. The 'Controversies' section, barely begun, but deleted as though in anticipation of 'Non-Notability' or 'non-verifiable' claims, is central to the whole project's purpose, that of dealing with some of the issues (which you raise), not in the editor's words, but in the words of the scholars themselves. What could be more non-POV than that, especially if one highlights conflicting views? Incidentally, the Percy critique of Dover will have to be restored for that reason alone. Clearly the repression of controversy will not serve an enquiry such as the present one.
I do agree that the balance of the material is a matter for thought, but this can be done only when the overall scheme is understood. The re-casting of the Intro history is on the agenda, and the possible attenuation of the bullet-pointed background summary (which directly refers to the words of Dover & Percy). Headings under 'Controversies' will most likely be: Sex and Domination (a key point of interpretation), Age-classes (sim.), (Greek love in) Homer, Eros and Philia, Mythology, and possibly others. Nothing can be done quickly, if it is to be done well, and I would shirk the prospect of undertaking such a complex task unaided. It is however important that it is done in a spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation. Yes, I am interested in the subject, but have no particular axe to grind unless it be the desire to uphold "the intrusion of moral evaluation, 'the deadly enemy of science'", as in Dover! It may be appropriate that all preparatory work be done offline, rather than run the risk of inviting immediate and spontaneous interference/editing of an article undergoing radical re-examination - in which case I shall delay the restoration of deleted material. You, on the other hand, will have to be persuaded that you are dealing with editors of quality and impartiality, though like anyone else you are free to raise questions and comments, and hopefully to avoid direct accusations. WP is a marvelous medium, though popular opinion and esoteric thought are usually irreconcileable.
It will be interesting to see whether this enquiry, given due time, will attract positive interest or support. --Dominique (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Motives?
While I have not attacked any individuals, You come here and attack my motive on an article that has clear agenda driven edits. The connections between this article and several others that attemtpt to boost pedaphilia or "pederasty" as a common idea exclusive to the articles, while pushing other definitions with scholarly, and academic work back or reducing them to small notes are clear.
The articles in question include this one, and Platonic love, (where an editor has accussed an academic source as "making it up". But not seeming to notice the blatant misuse of the first couple of references, even sticking in the wording of man-boy inappropriatly, when the authors make no mention of it. There are several more article and they are all linked together with Direct links used above the lede. Wikipedia has been notified through the proper channels.
Call it what you will, but Wikipedia has strict standards that are blatantly being ignored on these and many other articles of similar subject.
The chance that this could fall into an edit war and a heated outright fight with you, is a possibility I am not going to take. You may do and say as you wish. No amount of overweighted attention to one side of any article is appropriate and you know that well. One article is OR and POV and agenda driven editing. Several articles constitutes a conspiracy towards an inappropriate use of social and political propaganda. Who these editors are is easily seen in the history of those articles and this one. What changes are made and what information is used, is within the history of each article and is accessible to all.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Stepping back
I am stepping back from this situation and these articles and will be continuing my own research on these subjects through my personal sub pages. I am gathering references, building a structured article and will split it into the varying subjects over time and eventually edit the actual articles with full references. I tend not to edit this way as instant changes to articles can be perceived as too bold, but sometimes these style of editing is more appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors, Administrators, Please see this!
There is an asserted effort on pages in wikipedia towards a slant to political agenda, I have edited my comments here to not accuse editors here, even unnamed. I do not know that any editors on this page may be a part of other documented efforts, but remind editors to be careful to be more nuetral and edit pages of major interest to them with these subjects with care.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Using off wiki rantings against soem WP:Cabal to justify deletion isn't very convincing. If you have any actual evidence of wrong-doing then present that evidence. Otherwise this suggests an inflated Think of the children witchhunt. Sorry, we don't operate that way. -- Banjeboi 07:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't control what you think, my concern is for the truth and frankly I resent that as blatantly ridiculous, and uncalled for. Give me a break. How about "think about reality". This is an encyclopedia. As for those off wiki "ranting", those are open source sites just like this site, but this is not an article. At least I didn't use an open source link like this as a reference as found on this article and removed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Many special interest groups use Wikipedia to advance their points of view. Just think of the many nationalist edit wars or of what went on around the last American election. It's nto surprising that some groups may want to influence this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A way out of this mess
I do not know if I can keep up with this onslaught, but I will say that I do not see any problem with this article that cannot be resolved in a scholarly manner and with a level head. I will mention, however, that the flurry of recent edits have gutted the framework of the piece, and have made a dog's breakfast of what was shaping up as a complicated but thorough and important article. The present formulation is substandard from any editorial point of view. What needs to be done is to go back to the last complete version of the article and then reference material as needed, without waving red flags or red capes. Haiduc (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Article needs a bold rewrite in a nuetral manner with encyclopedic tone that stays honest with the subject and does not push personal, social or political points of view. I believe you are too close to these articles and may suffer from Wikistress. I suggest that you step back and take a break.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarity is needed on what this article is about. There is already an article on Pederasty in ancient Greece. Therefore, if this article is to remain, it has to be on something else. And that is how modern writers have used their vision of what the practice was in ancient Greece to build a concept (or several concepts) of Greek love as something applicable to modern times.
This needs to take account of the modern conception being a moving target. There have been some mentions above of Greek love as an equal relationship, others of it as pedagogic and therefore necessarily age-structured. Meanwhile Chambers Dictionary defines the term as simply meaning anal sex (without indicating any restriction on the sex of the receiving partner).
And we need to look for critical voices too. Greek Love was written at a time when sexual relationships between male professors and female students passed with little comment. Now it is likely to be treated in many institutions as gross professional misconduct. In Britain, there is a higher age of consent when a caring or similar relationship exists between the partners, representing a different take on things from that of the author of Greek Love.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
A good assessment: it is the lack of clarity, and the (understandable) opportunism of some recent scholar-authors to use the ambiguities inherent in the term, Greek love, to promote a particular interpretation, which provides timely motivation for seeking a viable definition in the article. James Davidson's recent tome is a case in point offering interesting material for the 'Controversies' section envisaged. I like your point about 'a moving target', and I would like to think that there is a way of making that target a little less mobile, even if still centred (as in Davidson) on the diverse phenomena in antiquity. --Dominique (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Very good assessment. There is a complicated tradition here, that is being somewhat fractured throughout the articles on this subject. The Ancient traditions of Greek philosophy, Eros (as a deity with dual traditions and as an idea) and Cupid (the Roman equivalent , Kalos (which doesn't have a proper page but redirects to Kalos inscription, which does at least relate to the archaeological evidence), and the graffiti of the ancients left on walls of stadiums, columns and rocks. These are the actual expressions of love left by real people in love with real people. The inscriptions of pottery and the pottery itself. Then there are the original surviving poetry and oral traditions of the original Hellenistic age and the writings of the many who wrote about or used these subjects as plot device as used in Jason and the Argonauts. Then, there is what the Romans thought.
Could a renaming (move) to "Neo Hellenistic Greek Love" or "Neo classical Greek love" be an appropriate proposal. The article can keep the emphasis on the 19th century movement with an overview explaining the ideology of the original Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians etc. Then begin as the article does and go on to other forms of influence and authors like Evelyn Waugh and Oscar Wild, all the way up to it's influences on LGBT studies as well as film and televison.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
AfD dilemma.: What is Greek love?
‘Indeed, most people who vote to keep the article really have no idea what it's about…’ hardly qualifies as a statement of faith, but which nevertheless may or may not be a fair estimate of the true support for the retention of this article. It may be helpful to those on either side of the argument to consider the complexity of finding an answer to the burning question beyond giving a dictionary-type definition e.g. Greek love = Greek homosexuality.
My quest for a more detailed description has led me to consider the writings and scholarly enquiries of those classicists and historians currently engaged in this very task. Most recently, James Davidson has published a lengthy study entitled “The Greeks and Greek Love – a Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece” (2007), which from the opening page delineates the size of the problem:
“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.”
Four hundred and sixty-six pages later - in the Conclusion section – the author confirms this opening observation, adding: “Such a claim is not incontestable, but I have found no cause to change my mind. Certainly it has been one of the most difficult subjects I have tackled as a modern historian of ancient Greece – elusive, complicated, and hard to fathom – which is precisely what makes it so fascinating a subject to explore.” His elaboration continues:
“…if Greek Love is a knotty subject in the sense of ‘tangled’, it is also knotty in the sense of ‘tying lots of things together’, not merely a junction that is difficult to navigate, but one where many different routes to many different destinations converge, a distinctive feature of Greek art, Greek society, Greek philosophy, poetry, history, what ties the court of Polycrates, archaic tyrant of Samos, to the courts of the kings of Macedon, what ties Hyacinthus, the hero mourned at Sparta’s most important shrine, to Pelops, hero of Olympia…” and so forth.
As a humble WP editor, I quail before the impossibility of coming up with a potted version bound by the limitations of a public forum and confined space. The one thing that I – or other editors – cannot do is to oversimplify the task. My original intention (as stated) was to lay out the material, scholarly arguments, presentations and controversies, so that at least the reader can get a sense of the scale and depth of the subject. This alone would be an achievement, and even a means by which individual readers could be drawn into exploring the lives, beliefs and loves among our distant ancestors whose cultural and, yes, spiritual world still impinges upon our own.
There are controversies all the way, not least as to how Greek Love, as an immutable force, may yet have impact on our modern world. --Dominique (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)--Dominique (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem I encounter with the article and the way it handles the subject is that it is too narrow and does not even attempt at much effort to do much more than discuss scholarly opinion of literary subjects and their views. That just seems somewhat dilluded. While I like the Davidson assesment provided, the book is a new theory which should be treated with due weight. So new that my local library is still pocessing it's addition. I would certainly be interested in reading it and getting a better understanding what new ideas he has.
Nothing is impossible if one sets ones mind to it. This is just an encyclopedia, it's not a school of philosophy or spiritual sanctuary, who's essence must be weighed with each subject and an offering made. I don't doubt your intentions to layout a subject in a very lethargic, and well thought out manner. I just ask what subject it is you are laying out?
I am simply unclear what you want out of the article. Some editors are easy to read, because they wear their hearts on their user page, some even have agenda sections so it is clear. Others have no aimed direction in general or in articles. I know you have a direction for this article. What do you want it to be? Do you agree that the scope should be as broad as is neccesary to cover the subject, it's history, and the findings of accepted and reliable sources?
If that's a yes, then there should be a great article. But I have questions that are legitimate as well. Like about the reference format. Is that a debatable subject for change? Is the renaming of this article a debatable subject with you? Could you give me your thoughts on that?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Dominique, I believe your intentions are good but the identity Greek Love = Greek Homosexuality is the very reason why this article should not be retained. We already have an article on Greek homosexuality. You are obviously trying to create a more nuanced approach to the topic, selecting from various sources, but that appears to be a highly personal selection and nobody really understands the particular criteria you are using. That confusion opens the door for others to twist this article to suit an agenda of their own. The people who are voting to retain this article really have no idea what they are voting for and you need to establish this article's criteria in the current debate before it is too late. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
References
The references next to the mention of each book is intended only to show that the book was published and seems unnecessary. The next reference appears to be the exact same thing, as all references on this section are doing. None of the references justify the section at all and constitutes original research and a ponit of view. I am removing this section and the references attached--Amadscientist (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Article
OK, so I returned the article to the last edit by Dominique as was suggested to use as a starting page to work on the article. I discussed and removed only the blatant errors. We are pretty much back to where we were before...except for another editors removal of a section and the sections that I had removed as having no references before are back.
There are still to be seen if all references match the claims being made. Edits and trimming to conform with consensus that the article is overweighted, have not begun or attempted. Sections lacking context have not been discussed to gain consensus as to their need in the article (like the laundry list of block quotes with no prose).
A, I very much appreciate all the time and effort you are putting into this project. Even though we may not always see eye to eye, I can see that you are taking this matter very seriously and you are trying to do the right thing. I cannot be as involved as you, I just do not have that kind of time, but I do want to lend a hand from time to time, as I am able, and bearing in mind that Dominique had a very good plan for the article, a plan that would be a pity to disembowel. Specifically I am referring to his work of putting together the various interpretations of Greek Love, from Dover to Davidson, and who know who else. That kind of overview would be very useful to any student of the topic, because the philosophy of homosexuality (of which Greek love is a part) and the understanding and interpretation of homosexual history have been evolving very quickly over the last 150 years. It is sheer nonsense to throw all that work that Dominique has done into the garbage, and it could only have happened as a result of a misunderstanding. Like you I am not inclined to play the revert game, nevertheless we have to restore the material so that the article can continue to grow. Haiduc (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Committee for keeping Greek Love
The following users all voted successfully to keep this article and they should all consider themselves responsible for its current state. No doubt some of you would like to walk away from it. However, it was generally acknowledged in the debate that the article has been badly corrupted and it is in need of cleaning up. Obviously you all know what the article is about since you voted to keep it, and now you should work together to 'restore' it to whatever status is consistent with the article's criteria. Personally I don't think it has any clear set of criteria at all and this will make it difficult to protect from POV opportunists but that's your problem, not mine. Will Bebacktalk Peter cohen Haiduc Edward321 Allstarecho Geronimo20 Born Gay Dominique Blanc Mendaliv Dream Focus Mbhiii
Good luck with your endeavours to improve Wikipedia's credibility! Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You appear to have severely misunderstand the nature of an AFD, starting from the fact that it is not a vote in the first place. People who !voted Keep are no more a committee that people who !voted Delete. No one who expressed a view on that AFD, regardless of what that view was, is responsible for the current content of the article. Nor do any of us have any more responsibility to improve the article or keep it from being vandalized than any other member of the project. Someone who thinks the article should be kept has just as much right to walk away from the article as you do. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
AFD is not clean up. It is to determine if an article's subject is notable enough to remain, and nothing more. There are thousands of articles out there that need some help, we all doing what we're interested and capable of doing. DreamFocus 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well this falls under the heading of... WTF. Dude. I've been accused of paranoia, caring too much for the children, being uncomfortable with the subject, and many, many other things due to my AFD nomination of this article......but that is a part of the process. Not everyone is going to have the same ideas as to what AFD is. Some think it is simply about notability, others that it is a strict vote. It is neither. It is a debate within the community meant for the purpose of improving the article and Wikipedia. The AFD will help improve this article just by supplying the needed consensus that problems the article does have, DO need to be addressed. The debate helped editors get a good idea as to how multiple editors view the subject as notable enough to keep but references need verification and checking against claims, etc.
There was no reason to become uncivil, and upset. You have more options than this, one of which is to contribute to the article. I know many people are uncomfortable with that. Many editors are more than willing to defend articles they have no intention of ever editing, but many people critical of the article are just as unwilling to contribute.....maybe more.
Wikipedia has a process. It took me some time to get to understand it, but I know I followed guidelines, kept my cool and persisted with civility. Take a breath, and collect your thoughts and return to the debate when you are not angry.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not consider myself responsible for the state of this article, or under any obligation to edit or improve it. I may or may not do this, as time and my other interests on Wikipedia permit. I would politely ask the user who listed me as part of the "committee" to keep this article not to comment on my talk page in future. Born Gay (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI
I stumbled across this lengthy book review and thought it might be a useful source for those who are working on this article. The review doesn't make clear whether this is a new edition of Davidson's book, but it does go into considerable relevant detail. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There are many more scholars with much more to say on the subject of ancient Greek sexual practices, and the debate to the extent and value given the subject of same sex relations continues, however there are accepted forms of research that specifiably deal with the subject as an idea or concept specific to the use of the term that need expanding. While the actual words "Greek Love" are in the titles of the books, that does not make them the definitive works in the field or make it clear that their use is correct....especially radical new appraisals.
We need to establish the earliest known use of the term, and whether or not it directly translates from any form of Ancient Greek alphabet. Once this is established it needs to be explained how the term is defined in relationship to the ancient Greek practices. Next we have to go through history in reference to the phrase and it's actual use. The Romans are important to this article and should not be under estimated in there possible contributions to these term. The next would be christian doctrines and suppression, the renaissance, 19Th century Hellenism, 20Th century etc.
While all the scholarly and academic references are great, they are not the subject of the article unless it specifies such in the title. As it stands this article is just "Greek Love". It is a very generic term used by different historians for different reasons. Literature is valuable and needs to be discussed, especially as part of the bigger idea of a rekindling of an ancient concept, but just stating that they wrote this line and wrote that line is not encyclopedic. It lacks context as to why it is notable that they wrote "that line". A statement to such, explaining notability of any quote and how it relates to the subject is a must. A published reference verifying that statement is essential.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Accessment of prose and references
I am going to begin going through the article to see if small fixes can be made to any prose or references that lack context. Also some prose may not be supported by the reference. As part of that, I am going to be changing references in quotes to reflect the reference as either just showing the where the quote comes from or if it is supporting a claim.
If the citation is the origin of the quote itself, Quote marks should be used (""). The author should be credited with the book it is from (if the title is in the prose I still add the title next to the credit in the box for at a glance confirmation) and a separate source and reference to any claim being made about the quote.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
History
Here is a book that can be used as a reference to begin the history section in a nuetral manner, indepth and in a similar manner as the section is now, but which would require a bold rewrite in tone.
A start to referencing a few claims being made but with a bit more neutrality and expanding on the thought. Good source of further information in detailed notes from the author.
Now another really good source to history as well as the archaeology is Stephen Miller.
Addressing the claim that this entry is "Redundant" and "Unencyclopedic"
I consider my alterations today to be sufficient to at least begin addressing the claim that this entry on "Greek Love" is "Redundant with other articles on the topic, kind of essay." I would assert instead that the major reason for keeping this entry resides in the fact that it provides – as an encyclopedia should – a decent gloss for a term that might cause some degree of puzzlement and confusion if encountered for the first time in a scholarly or more general cultural context. Besides, it is easy to claim that an entry is "unencyclopedic and should be deleted," rather than to attempt to alter and improve it, as I have here attempted. Given these comments and my alterations of the entry, I have removed the proposal that it be deleted. Welland R 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep the capitalised "Greek Love" if you prefer, but then the title of the article should be changed to match (or else, leave the word in lower case).
OK, I agree. It is clear that all of the scholars quoted do not capitalize "love," so I guess that is the better alternative. I will make the change. Welland R 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)\
What scholars? I find nearly nothing available about this actual subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The Term is hidden and requires creative search terms. One would normaly find a google book search of just the term to return top results and it is....but top results have little to do with this subject. Best researched through Greek and Roman sexuality, LBGT studies and archeology. Literary sources are only encyclopedic for illustration but contain no use of the word and connections may be found through literary historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.13 (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
