| Revision as of 12:09, 13 April 2011 editNuujinn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,599 edits →still a mish-mash: please refactor/strike← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:09, 22 August 2024 edit undoRotideypoc41352 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,917 edits →top: Clear unneeded wikitextTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| (355 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 20 June 2009 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Greek love }} |
|
|
{{oldafdfull| date = 10 November 2010 |result = '''keep and improve''' |page = Greek love (2nd nomination)}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1= |
|
|
{{WP Sexuality |class=Start| importance=Low|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{LGBTProject |class=Start|importance=low|nested=yes}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{Classical Greece and Rome |class=Start|importance=low|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WPGREECE |class=start| importance=low|nested=yes}} |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 17: |
Line 9: |
|
|archive = Talk:Greek love/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Greek love/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD |
|
|
|action1date=00:04, 22 June 2009 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greek love |
|
|
|action1result=keep |
|
|
|action1oldid=297817345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=AFD |
|
|
|action2date=21:39, 18 November 2010 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Greek love (2nd nomination) |
|
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|
|action2oldid=397297667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
|
|action3date=17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|action3result=not listed |
|
|
|action3oldid=473363026 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|
|topic=Psychology |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality| importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Greece| importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{old move|date=3 August 2024|destination=Cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism|result=Not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1239939904#Requested move 3 August 2024}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 3 August 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] ] 05:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== still a mish-mash == |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism}} – The phrase "greek love" is misleading. An alternative option would then be to e.g. move it to "greek love (idiom)", but that too wouldn't be as precise as this previous title - which is now a redirect - used to be. ] (]) 10:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
The article hasn't improved since I last saw it. The last AFD debate uncovered a recently published book that treats Greek Love as a term applying across different social and historical contexts - that's a source that makes sense of this article but it isn't being used. The article continues to be a grab-bag of hobby-horse interests that could have any real or imaginary connection with pederasty in ancient Greece and it is still hardly more than an excuse for reduplicating content. Sources are cited that don't even use the term 'Greek love'. Meanwhile there is a picture of a Roman cup depicting the sodomy of a boy who looks hardly more than 12 years old. I wouldn't object to that picture if it clearly belonged to a well-defined article but this article is still not well-defined and the picture has only dubious relevance at best (in fact, my understanding of Greek love is that it plays down the sexual component of pederastic relationships and that is why it is distinct from the term 'pederasty'). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* I would '''support ]''' as a title. I think the "Cultural impact of" part is excessive. ] ] 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
There is now at least one source that adequately covers 'Greek love' as a multi-disciplinary term relevant in widely different contexts. Hopefully somebody will get around to using it someday. I would use it if I had voted Keep. I voted Delete and I feel entitled to work at other things. ] (]) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::But that isn't the subject (and it should be "ancient" not "classical"). We have ], ] and no doubt others for that. ] (]) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Not sure how "misleading" it is, & the proposed alternative is pretty clunky. Again, it should be "ancient" not "classical" - ] is a narrower term. ] (]) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' that term was used at a time when they didn't call a spade a spade. It has no value other than as a relic of an era. ] (]) 17:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The ] is specifically discussed, and is the subject of the article by John Pollini, "The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver," ''Art Bulletin'' 81.1 (1999), which is cited. In his view, the two sides of the cup (perhaps both should be here) present two different traditions of pederasty, the Greek and the Roman, and he theorizes that the cup was meant to be used as a conversation piece in a Roman "symposium" setting; the cup is therefore in his view a concrete example of the Roman reception of an aestheticized Greek homoerotic model, that is, "Greek love." I contributed a significant amount of time to this article, as well as to ] and ], in order to address your concerns. You are probably unaware of similar efforts at ] (you'd have to go through the edit history) to create a more balanced perspective. I haven't made my way back to ] for a while because I've had other things I've preferred to work on, and because I haven't been able to obtain the book you're referring to. The parts available in preview, however, were used to craft the introductory section. I feel that this will be stronger when we have an article on the ], which is something I very much want to write, but which I expect to take concerted effort over several months. I am truly sorry and even pained that you find this article and the topic in general so upsetting. One problem is that an editor who takes too great an interest in the topic for the wrong reasons is not the best person to write it, but disinterested parties may not be as motivated. As I said above, I find the pederastic aspect upsetting, and can only take it in measured doses. In antiquity, a person was thought to be ready for sexual behavior as soon as he ''or she'' had passed into puberty, in general around 14. We call this having sex with minors; they didn't. We don't have to approve of a social practice in order to describe it in an encyclopedia. It should also be remembered that the use of a reimagined Greek past in some periods was a way to conceptualize same-sex love at a time when it was forbidden — quite a different use of the classical model, one which I find poignant and which I you don't feel obliged to condemn. Whether one condemns or approves however, is irrelevant to explaining the concept as it evolved and responded to different times and places. That has to be done neutrally. ] (]) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Article is clearly mainly about the term and how it's been used, and does not focus only on the Classic period. As Johnbod ] and ] already exist. I see no good reason to move the article too an overly verbose title.] (]) 13:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am critical of the article not of you. The image of a man buggering a boy creates the wrong impression about this article's subject matter. It was made clear here and in the AFD debate that this article is definitely not about anal sex yet the image is a very graphic representation of that common use of the term. The fact that the cup is mentioned in a published article about Roman responses to Greek pederasty doesn't seem relevant to me (does the author of the paper even use the term 'Greek love'?) Unfortunately these are the sort of arguments we will continue to have so long as the article is constructed from a pot pourri of sources whose authors would never dream of collaborating or debating with each other about the meaning of 'Greek love'. We have one author who tries to pull it all together but the article's summary of his position is so generalized that it could mean anything. That's the only source we have for this broadly-based article and it needs to be used properly. ] (]) 06:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:<small>Note: ] and ] have been notified of this discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 01:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
:The current article on ] is unsatisfactory because some periods are minimally present or absent. It needs work. It does, however, in the introduction and in outline follow the book to which you refer. However, it isn't a book report, so it needs to incorporate other views on the topic. I don't see it as my job to use this talk page to explain the terms "]," ,"or what an historical approach is. In structure, this article is no different from, say, looking at how Roman republicanism was interpreted as an ideal (as distinguished from the Roman Republic written about as history) at various times and places, how it was portrayed in art or how it shaped and was a means of discourse. It's the same structural approach as taking a Greek myth, such as the abduction of Persephone, and looking at its reception in art and literature. Such an article would not be about Persephone in ancient Greece, but would obviously make reference to Greek art and literature as it was received and interpreted in the MIddle Ages and Renaissance, and by the Romantics or Victorians, and so on. Nor would I complain that such an article included artistic depictions of rape, even though I find rape abhorrent, and I certainly wouldn't argue that images of the rape shouldn't be used because the article wasn't about rape, but rather about the reception of a myth/concept. I can't think of a better art object than the ] to embody the dialogue between Roman and Greek on this subject. If you have a problem with the notability or suitability of the Warren Cup for Misplaced Pages, you should take it up at the talk page there, or in an appropriate forum. If the community decides that it should be suppressed or censored, then that's fine; I suppose I would understand that. There's also a way to hide exceptionally offensive images so that the user has to click to view them. ] (]) 22:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' for the reasons stated by ★Trekker and Johnbod. This article is about perceptions of ancient Greek cultural attitudes throughout history, and typically described by the term that is the article's title. It's true that the term was a euphemism, but it's a euphemism with a considerable amount of history and cultural significance. I don't see any utility in changing a title that we still recognize to one that would tend to disguise the subject. Since the topic itself is somewhat dated, in the sense that attitudes toward homoeroticism and homosexuality have evolved to the degree that euphemisms such as this and its historical justifications are no longer viewed as necessary, the subject lacks the cultural currency that would tend to result in a new title replacing the existing one. Thus the existing title seems preferable to the proposed alternative, or similar titles. ] (]) 02:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I feel I should also add that I'm sorry I have not put more time into this one--I got sucked into other issues and the BLP drive and then decided to back down my activities here for a bit of a vacation. I'll take a crack at some improvements this weekend. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''': The article already covers the term's history and usage, so renaming it to focus on a single time period seems unnecessary. ]] 15:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
The Classical Tradition link you provided, Cynwolfe, is typical - the three mentions of Greek love are "Greek love poetry", "Greek love of life" and "rather wan 'Greek love' found in Peter and Wilde". What's all that got to do with this article? Regarding any article like ] - the subject matter there comes under a particular discipline: classical studies. It's significance for modern Western art and English literature, for example, can never be anything more than an end section about the legacy of the classical myth. Otherwise such an article would be based on an inter-disciplinary approach and that would need to be modelled for us by a respected author before we could attempt it. Who models that multi-contextual inter-disciplinary approach for us in this article? There is now one text, published last year, that seems to do it and it offers a chance for some agreement. But you don't want to base the article on it because "it's not a book report". OK so find other books that have ''a multi-disciplinary'' approach to the term 'Greek love'. Otherwise, the article should be broken up and its sections should be incorporated in other articles that do have some academic integrity. We live in an age when knowledge becomes ever more specialized but this is an article that completely reverses that trend and lumps different disciplines and contexts together on the basis of a shared phrase/term. It amazes me how it could get past two AFDs - sexual politics has a lot to do with it obviously.] (]) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Oh and regarding the image of sodomy practised on a boy, it's provocative in the context of this article's history as a sandbox for pedophiles and pederasts. There are other more neutral images that could be used. Why insist on that one? ] (]) 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
:This is not productive. By implying that only someone sympathetic to pedophiles could work on this article, you've made possibly the vilest personal attack I've been subjected on WP (as well as misrepresenting homoeroticism as it relates to this article, as not all uses of the "Greek love" aesthetic model are pederastic). After a year of trying to take your concerns seriously because I considered you to be a well-meaning person, I'm forced to conclude that there's an issue here that scholarly collaboration can't address. I'll contribute what I can to this article when I can, but I really don't want to be put in a position of dealing with your personal issues. ] (]) 03:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
If I implied that only someone sympathetic to pedaphiles works on this article then I must be one too, considering the amount of time I have put into it. I have put a lot more time into it than you have. If you don't want to work on the article, that's because you have already finished the part of it you are interested in, not because of anything I have said. And that just proves my point - it's a multi-disciplinary article and you are only engaged with the classical aspect. You are relying on others to bring in material from other disciplines that aren't your cup of tea. It's a mishmash without an authoritative source or else it's a book review, as you yourself said. I can't argue with reliable sources. Find sources that support a multi-disciplinary approach to 'Greek love' and then we'll have an article nobody can argue with. ] (]) 04:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::McZeus, I ask politely that you refactor or strike some of your statements above, particularly "Oh and regarding the image of sodomy practised on a boy, it's provocative in the context of this article's history as a sandbox for pedophiles and pederasts." Characterization of other editors in this manner is not appropriate. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}
