Talk:Greek love/Archive 4

AfD review

I thought the Afd debate went rather well in spite of some hostility and I think everyone got something good out of it. It cleared up some issues for me. I think the article has a chance of succeding if GL is defined clearly. The article should be about the most notable use of the term - denoting the idealized account of pederasty that was developed in ancient Greece - and the end section should be about its reception in later times and places. That's a coherent structure that would allow all editors to have some clear sense of what this article is about. However, there is a danger that it will go on being an accretion of vaguely relevant or even irrelevant material on a homoerotic theme. McZeus (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Greek love" is not about ancient Greece; therefore, the missing section following the lede will be an outline based on the major secondary sources of what aspects of Greek sexual culture were later influential, not a description of homosexuality in ancient Greece, which has its own article and can be a "see also." The consensus of that discussion was that the topic should be explored historically period by period (outlines were presented), as based on the treatment in the scholarship. Two major sections are missing: the Romantics and the Victorians. "Greek love" is an aesthetic or literary approach to homoeroticism viewed through the imaginative lens of Greek antiquity. It is an aspect of the reception of the classical tradition. As multiple editors looked over the scholarship, this became clear to everyone but you. At the AfD discussion, you explicitly threatened to disrupt the editing process, contrary to consensus. I think you need to step back and give the article time to develop. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My Oxford Classical Dictionary has a very large subsection of Homosexuality titled Greek love. Maybe you should send the editors a letter pointing out their error. I am accused of many things. I have no intention of disrupting edits but I reserve the right to nominate an article for deletion if it is fundamentally flawed and nobody should have anything to fear from that process. I'm encouraged to nominate again by the abuse and slander I have received from various people during recent days. People who are sure of their arguments don't need to employ responses like that. Of course I will allow time for you and others to rescue this article. Good luck with it. McZeus (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A singularly incomplete description of the OCD article, which begins:

No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality, and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behaviour according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in a sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reason of their gender, age, and social status...

and continues by noting that modern terms may be used to interrogate the ancient evidence - but denies the assumption that the inquirer will find what he asks for. In accordance with this, "Greek love" appears only once, as a header in scare quotes over the section (an interesting one), on eros and philia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I need to look more thoroughly at Williams' second edition (I knew him from the first ed.); Martha Nussbaum wrote the foreword and assures that he listened to criticisms. And of course at the moment the Ancient Roman section has taken over. I promised at the AfD to try to make positive contributions, but wanted to begin by dealing with the material I'm most familiar with. I'll try to restore the balance as I can, though obviously it takes a while to deal with a topic that unfolds over the course of substantial essays or entire books. I've only scratched the surface of Blanshard. I'll probably look at the Romantics next, since they're now conspicuously absent, and my university library appears to have copies of Crompton's book on hand. I'll be on the lookout for scholarship that can clarify the jumble of material here on the Renaissance. I do hope others can work on this, as humanist philosophy is not something I dote on. I also expect that a much-needed section on Oscar Wilde will illuminate the topic; as the article shows, the Greek side of the classical tradition was formative in his education, and he explicitly evoked Greek models in dealing with his homosexuality, as Blanshard noted in his introduction to the "Greek Love" half of his book. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

One question that should be dealt with on Wilde, but I'll leave it to you for a while:

At the time of their liaison, Lord Alfred Douglas was in his early to mid-twenties, had presumably begun to shave, and appears to have been sexually active himself. This makes the whole thing more respectable to the twenty-first century, but the Greek model would classify it as cinaedism. It would be interesting to know if the sources note the discrepancy, and where they go with it: I would expect them to say that "Greek love" is not an exercise in historical reconstruction - but there are other possibilities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose all I can say is that if the article didn't exist, on the basis of scholarly usage of the term/concept I would think that it needed to, in order to explain why it means different things at different times. Starting from scratch, however, I would've wanted to draft it offline until I felt that its scholarly armature was in place. I certainly wouldn't have undertaken to write such an article unless I was willing to devote a month to it as my main WP focus. But since I've argued to keep it, I feel obliged to contribute. It requires structure and discipline to stay on topic and simply summarize the sources. These are abundant and take time. I very much hope that others can begin the sections that are currently missing, so that we have the frame for the historical approach the topic requires. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but not this week. It would help if you could suggest a draft TOC, so we can see what sections are missing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the most desperate lack at present is even a little section each for the Romantics and Victorians. At the AfD discussion there seemed to be agreement that the approach should be chronological. I confess that I find working on the topic a little draining. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research is always draining. You have Blanshard's book to work from and it should be straightforward. However Blanshard bases his account on pederasty in ancient Greece whereas editors here have to take the 'Greek' out of 'Greek love' to avoid the content fork with Pederasty in ancient Greece. The result is an article without focus or meaning, cobbled together from divergent texts on a variety of themes. It's a mess and everybody who voted Keep deserves to be saddled with it. Past performance suggests it will be abandoned again and subsequently parasitized by lifestyle advocates. Anyway, I'm off on a holiday for some time. I'll try to have another look at the article later on. My sympathies. McZeus (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A consensus was reached at the AfD that the topic is notable and has sufficient scholarly basis. It's draining because I find it upsetting to read about 12-year-old boys in sexual slavery. I don't apologize for these feelings. Reading then summarizing the substantial amount of scholarship is not OR. (Nor would it be good practice to work only from the partial online preview of B's book.) If you have specific criticisms about the handling of the sources, please offer them, but the taunting should stop. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was meant as a parting shot and, like most parting shots, it was indiscriminate and a bit cheap. Sorry if it offended. But the main points are still valid. The average reader coming to this article will wonder why it is about everyone but the Greeks. You need a Greek section. I suggest you follow the OCD's lead - under Homosexuality it has a number of subsections, including Pederasty and Greek love. You could remove the material from Pederasty in ancient Greece that you need here. That avoids the content fork. Develop the article as 'Greek love and then you can have a long end section about its reception in other times and places. That saves labour and it makes for a coherent article with a sense of purpose. Regarding GL's notability - you should read my nomination for its Afd. Most of the people who voted Keep probably never read the nomination or else my prose style just doesn't register in people's minds in a venue like this. I think you should use Blanchard as a model for how the term GL is integrated across different contexts and then support that approach with other sources. Anyway, good luck with your rescue efforts. McZeus (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep you in mind as I return to the article. Wanted to get some things off my docket that are more in keeping with my usual areas of interest. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Your usual area of interest? You mean the pultifagi barbari? Your contributions to this article certainly reflect that interest and you should ask yourself whether or not the material you have developed here might be better developed at Homosexuality in ancient Rome. There is only one way to develop this article. First restructure Pederasty in ancient Greece so that it concentrates on pederasty (i.e. the sexual pursuit of peri-adolescent boys) and, secondly, restructure Greek love so that it concentrates on the relationship between erastes and eromenos. The focus has to be on Greece or you are going to end up with several content forks. I'll keep an eye on this article and I'll swat any flies that try to settle on it. But they have shown in the past how persistent they are and the CGR project has shown itself to be about as diligent as the Catholic Church in getting rid of them. McZeus (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think Cynwolfe's approach is better. And for what it's worth, I read everything you wrote in the AFD, although I can well imagine many find your prose offputting. Cynwolfe, I can put some cycles in here over the next few weeks. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A few points:

• Once again, McZeus's nasty tone isn't helping matters, though I have no idea what his learned reference to Plautus is supposed to imply here. In answer to his question, if I were to work on Homosexuality in ancient Rome, I would deal with homosexuality in ancient Rome, where the question of any "Greekness" could be dispensed with in a paragraph or short section that would direct here. I began with ancient Rome because that was the material I had on hand and had already read, and so I could put something together fairly quickly. I would rather work on Sexuality in ancient Rome, which is a disaster but which nobody is threatening to delete.
• The article Pederasty in ancient Greece deals with the socially acknowledged relationship between a male and a younger male, both of whom were freeborn. (This in contrast to Rome; what I want to review in the 2nd ed. of Williams is whether he addresses the obvious objection that "Greek love" may have seemed Greek to the Romans in part because the slaves they used sexually were likely to be Greek.) Any problems with pederasty in ancient Greece belong there, not here.
• The section on ancient Rome deals with scholarship that has examined the extent to which the Hellenization of Roman culture influenced the literary and artistic expression of homoeroticism or perhaps even actual sexual practices (WIlliams thinks not; other scholars have thought otherwise). It currently lacks two major points: the way in which scholars have discussed Hadrian and Antinous in light of "Greek love," and a brief mention of how the Christianization of the Empire affected the model of Greek love.
• The consensus at the AfD was that the article should be structured historically, period by period, and that it was about the reception of a model of homoeroticism from Greek antiquity. A substantial bibliography was produced, with several books, the most recent and structurally helpful being Blanshard. The article is a content fork only if it attempts to explain pederasty or homosexuality in ancient Greece, as these topics are already covered, rather than the issue of reception. This is a distinction McZeus seems not to want to make.
• I am very happy to see Nuujinn here. Very happy.
• Two sections need to be added as soon as someone can get to it, and even if they're only in the most rudimentary form: the Romantics (at least Byron and Shelley, the latter of whom wrote an essay on the form of eros he considered Greek) and Oscar Wilde, the linchpin of the Greek love half of B's book. When these are added, the chronological structure of the article will be more apparent, as will the range of the scholarship. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I can take a crack at the romantics this weekend, I've had some education in that area and still have some of the books, I think. FWIW, I think we should migrate this to a summary style article, and keep things short and to the point, and point the reader to more complete treatment in other articles where appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn's plan for a 'summary style article'. I don't think there is any other way to avoid content forks. However, I still don't see how you can have an article titled 'Greek love' without a section on Greece. As far as I know, most of the scholarship on Greek love is about ancient Greece. The OCD makes a distinction between pederasty and 'Greek love' and I think that's a lead you can follow without a content fork, if you are prepared to restructure things. Pederasty is specifically sexual, Greek love specifically covers relationship issues though it can include a sexual component. Whatever way you do it, it is going to be awkward. Once again, good luck with it. McZeus (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you made some edits on Romantic attitudes to Greek love (Shelley in particular). Is the term 'Greek love' actually used in your cited material? There has been a tendency among editors of this article to believe that any historic reference to pederasty or homosexuality in ancient Greece is good enough for inclusion, whether or not the term is used. If the term is used in your cited material, that's OK. McZeus (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Here's a reference to Greek love in the Romantic context by Blanshard. [1] I'd feel more comfortable about your edits if you cited Blanshard since he integrates the term across different contexts and that avoids OR issues. If you have works by other scholars who use the same broad brush as Blanshard, that would be fine also, but I have never found any. McZeus (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. Yes, as I recall one of them does not, but it used to source timing/titles, and the others do use the term. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

But Shelley's essay is precisely what this article is about: how later periods use a Greek model to talk about sexuality, mainly homosexuality. Crompton uses the term in regard to this essay. Since this is not a dictionary entry, the article is about the concept, not merely defining the term. Blanshard himself titles half his book "Greek Love," but that doesn't mean he's going to use the phrase in every single paragraph; the exact phrase "Greek love" may or may not appear on any given page in which he discusses the reception of a Greek model of homoeroticism, but its absence doesn't mean he's suddenly stopped talking about his stated subject. If another scholar states "I prefer not to use the misleading term 'Greek love' to talk about the reception of Greek homoeroticism as an aspect of the classical tradition," and proceeds to argue against others who do, that doesn't mean we go "oh, can't use this guy," when the scholar has explicitly stated he wishes to examine the concept conventionally referred to as "Greek love" without resorting to what he regards as a misnomer. Williams, for instance, is writing about Roman homosexuality; his adamant stance on the error of "Greek love" as a label has to do with his purpose in showing Roman homosexuality in its own cultural context, but he acknowledges that the term "Greek love" has a history of usage that he sets out to clarify and correct; that's why he's a relevant source here. But since he's less interested in any Hellenizing influence than in examining what the Romans themselves were about, his isn't the only, last or main word.

The "exact words" argument can be overly reductive. To make an analogy: the exact words "the right to privacy" indeed do not appear in the U.S. constitution. However, there is an established legal history for construing the right to privacy, and it would unhelpful in an article about right to privacy (or more specifically, Privacy laws of the United States) to exclude constitutional questions on the grounds that (a) the exact words don't appear in the Constitution, and (b) some legal scholars argue that the concept itself is a mirage. We have to present the full range of views, on the basis of WP:NPOV. I would submit that the same principle applies here: the fact that some scholars seek to debunk "Greek love" as a mirage is evidence of its history of usage, which in an encyclopedia article (as distinguished from an essay making an argument) has to be explained. This is not really to disagree with McZeus, but simply to be mindful of the difficulty of the task. I also agree with McZeus that between the introductory section and "Ancient Rome" there will need to be a section that provides an outline of what aspects of Greek sexual culture are "received," but I'm thinking that will be generated by (a) someone like Blanshard, who may provide a good summary, and/or (b) summarizing the themes addressed in the article itself (making it part of the introductory section rather than a separate thing), in accordance with WP:LEDE. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and my choice to start with sources that use the phrase is simply practicality, since it's difficult to argue that a source using the phrase is not about the topic (although I have seen that done on the talk page for Criticism of Judaism). I started with Shelley as I regard his Discourse and Symposium translation as the best examples of that reconception you describe. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And bravo for doing it. I think most if not all of the potential sources discussed at the AfD use the phrase at some point or other; in some cases, they engage with those who use it explicitly, and their points (if, for instance, they're urging caution on how "Greek" any of this is) provide balance. The Shelley essay was a great way to start, IMHO. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Blanshard's book was only published this year and, as far as I know, it is the only book that warrants the broad brush approach that you are taking here. The meanings given to Greek love are just so different e.g. with reference to modern Europe, it often means homosexuality inspired by Greek precedent, but obviously it doesn't mean that when used in reference to Greece itself. Bringing all those different meanings together is problematic, especially when Greek love can be understood as a euphemism for pederasty, or even for anal sex. So sources for this article have to be treated with utmost care - more so than for any other article. There are going to be lots of people who will try to import all kinds of material. Even scholars can be dismissive of each other's work on Greek love - such as the controversy between Halperin-Hubbard-Davidson etc. It's a contentious, awkward subject and I still don't think it's the right time for WP to attempt an article on it. On the other hand, it's hard to argue with people who are making some effort to improve things. It's the editors who come after you that worry me. McZeus (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried, myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Usually people don't worry when others to do it for them. I'll accept a pat on the back but I'm also ready to take a kick on the shins. That's life. {:))McZeus (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

still a mish-mash

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').

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. McZeus (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Warren Cup 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 Pederasty in ancient Greece and Symposium, in order to address your concerns. You are probably unaware of similar efforts at Cyparissus (you'd have to go through the edit history) to create a more balanced perspective. I haven't made my way back to Greek love 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 classical tradition, 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. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2011 (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. McZeus (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The current article on Greek love 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 "reception theory," "classical tradition,","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 Warren Cup 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 Wikipedia, 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. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2011 (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. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2011 (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 Persephone - 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.McZeus (talk) 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? McZeus (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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. McZeus (talk) 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. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nuujinn. I've stated elsewhere my confidence in Cynwolfe's integrity when it comes to editing articles on pederasty, several times in fact, and I'm rather weary of repeating it every time we have a disagreement. If however you are asking me to strike my observation about the article's history - no I won't. It's the article's history that has engaged my attention here and it is what keeps me coming back here to help ensure that it won't happen again. I think it is reasonable to question the value of the image of sodomy if indeed Greek love is a subtly nuanced term. The most common meaning of the term is colloquial for anal intercourse but that, along with some other meanings for Greek love, has been edited out. I also note that the context of Greek pederasty has also been edited out, though that is one area where there has definitely been scholarly debate around the term 'Greek love'. That was edited out to avoid a content fork with Pederasty in ancient Greece. Yet here we have an image demonstrating the buggery of a peri-adolescent boy - a superb piece of craftsmanship yes (the boy's pain is brilliantly depicted in the clenched fist), and one that only Greeks could have manufactured at that time, but it is not appropriate for this article bearing in mind the content that has been excluded. The cup's relevance to Roman sexuality is already touched on in Homosexuality in ancient Rome and there is another image from the same cup there. I note also that images from this cup already appear in Warren Cup. I am not accusing Cynwolfe of sinister intent nor am I saying the image has no place at WP. It doesn't belong in this article, that's all. As for my "issues" with pederasty - if I had some sort of constitutional intolerance to the subject of pederasty, I wouldn't be studying Greek literature, certainly not Greek lyric, where the theme is almost omnipresent. These "issues" of mine are trotted out regularly by people who want to ignore my arguments. So let's get on with editing this article. I'm happy to lend my opinions about your work here. McZeus (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

McZeus, I'm not objecting to you arguing about the image, or the content, but your characterization of other editors in general (and not of Cynwolfe in particular). I simply believe that to imply that _any_ editor is a paedophile or pederast is inappropriate and does not generate consensus. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping by because I'm taking a WP break. McZeus is welcome to suggest other images. I confess I don't see consistent arguments here: McZeus says the article doesn't use Blanshard as a structuring principle, when in fact the introductory section is based on his overview, and the historical structure was derived from him. Material that was unsourced or poorly sourced was removed from the article, but without prejudice; if McZeus wants a section on the contemporary usage of "Greek love" as slang for anal sex, he's welcome to provide that — while, I hope, preserving the chronological structure that's been agreed upon through the AfD process. I'll almost certainly be confining my future contributions to the historical portions, particularly the Renaissance. I'm also intrigued by the stubbish section on the Enlightenment or Neoclassical model of "Greek love" as a form of homosociality having nothing to do with buggery. The point is precisely (to anticipate a frequent objection) that the aesthetic or intellectualized use of the "Greek love" model is part of the evolving classical tradition, and just as Racine's use of Greek myth differs from that of the pre-Raphaelites, the looking back at Greek homoeroticism takes on different guises at different times. (McZeus is also wrong about the proper treatment of myth in the classical tradition; there are entire books that deal with nothing else but, say, mythological painting, or how a myth was received in various art forms, and WP doesn't serve its readers well in not providing more information about these topics instead of the minutiae of theological disputes in antiquity over the birth of Dionysus — Dionysus in the tradition of European painting being just as valuable and arguably more useful to WP's readers as a topic. But I digress.) I recognize that today many people have an ahistorical way of thinking, and that my own bias is to find it interesting how concepts change over time, continual and under the same name, but not the same. But again, this is Blanshard's point as well, so since McZeus advocates that book as a guide to structure, I expect we agree on this. (Two side notes: I also agree that the Roman section needs reorganized; it was a hasty job. And despite the implication above, I haven't refused to use Blanshard further; I just haven't been able to obtain the book.) Cynwolfe (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll make my own efforts to obtain Blanshard's book. Till somebody gets hold of the only book that addresses Greek love in the broad-brush manner attempted in this article, it's just a merry-go-round of hobbyhorses. Regarding Cynwolfe's preference in thematic books, such as something on the theme of Persephone—what has that got to do with an encyclopaedia? In fact, what is this 'article' doing here? It was set up some years ago as an opportunity for original research (read the initial exchanges on this talk page) and it has persisted in that manner ever since. Two AFDs failed to put an end to this nonsense and the last AFD was set for a resounding NO even before Blanshard's thematic study turned up. Shame on everyone. Shame on Wikipedia. McZeus (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't afford the Blanshard book - it's over $100 and it will take some years yet for it to come down in price as a used book. So that's that. Is anyone else going to buy it? Not any time soon, I think! McZeus (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have requested it through my uni library..... --Nuujinn (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nuujinn. My university library doesn't have a hard copy, and offers it electronically. Since I'm a non-affiliated user, my access to electronic resources is restricted in ways that make it impractical for me to use them. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks very much, Nuujin. This is beginning to look promising. McZeus (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Warren cup picture

I removed the Warren Cup picture as discussed above. The reader only has to clink on the Warren Cup link to see the same picture. McZeus (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Some pages hide potentially offensive images so that the user has to click to view (the principle is the same as hide/show with the TOC). This is sometimes used, for instance, with images on articles pertaining to Islam that might not be in accordance with Muslim restrictions on certain kinds of religious imagery, but that are informative or appropriate viewing for readers who don't share these restrictions. That might be an option here. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A hidden page still duplicates a picture that the reader can access by the Warren Cup link and I can't see a need for it. However, you must know by now I never engage in edit wars and I thank you for not reverting my edit. Incidentally, we have yet to find out to what extent the term 'Greek love' is applied by scholars to Roman sexuality. The term Mos Graeciae is mentioned in the article but, as the article also points out, that term refers generally to any Roman borrowing/adaptation of Greek practices. The article is about the term Greek love and how it has been used by scholars - it is not about how different cultures have responded to Greek sexual habits. I'll be very interested in Nuujin's editing of the article, since he is the one with access to the relevant text. McZeus (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't a definition of a term, which would be a lexicographical entry. It's an article about a cultural concept. "Greek love" is a concept within the field of reception theory as it pertains to the classical tradition, not a technical term of scholarship. Reception studies deal (in part) with how artists or intellectuals receive a concept and reinterpret it via the aesthetic or intellectual movements or ideals of their own time. "Greek love" is not a scholarly term; that is, it isn't a term like "structuralist" or "narratological", a way that a scholar analyzes a text. It's a concept that artists and intellectuals make use of, and that scholars observe, not exercise, within texts or works of art. It's about the history of a concept within certain times and places.It's like Byron dressing up in Greek clothing. In some ways, it's like an article on Neoplatonism: your goal isn't to arrive at a single definition of Neoplatonism that applies to all times and places and everyone who uses the word, which would be a reductive and misleading enterprise, but precisely to make sure that a reader who looks up "Neoplatonism" comes away understanding that the meaning of this -ism, which has it source in Platonism, varies depending on which Neoplationist you're talking about. This is what B. makes quite clear is also the case with "Greek love". Cynwolfe (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article is used to develop reception theory in reference to Greek pederasty/homosexuality/male bonding, it becomes a set of content forks (other editors will develop the same arguments in related articles, where indeed they should be developed, rather than all bundled here as samples of reception theory at work). The only way to prevent content forks is to reserve this article for the term/concept 'Greek love', as actually used by scholars in a multi-contextual approach (eg Blanshard). WP editors have always used this article to suit their own preferences and that's why it has been such a problem. We have to rest it on the right foundations or the problems will just continue. McZeus (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's primarily about how artists and intellectuals have recourse to a Greek model in creating a discourse that they themselves regard as "Greek love." Whether scholars use the term "Greek love" in every paragraph when they discuss this phenomenon is irrelevant, as long as what they're focusing on is the construction of a Greek-influenced model of homoerotics and they call it that, or discuss the usage of the term, at points in their argument. Besides, there's a list of approved sources on which to build the article. There's no way to argue that a book called Byron and Greek Love isn't relevant. It doesn't matter whether the author uses the term "Greek love" in every single sentence in which Byron's construction of his Greek models is discussed. Besides, WP:SPINOFF specifically endorses positive kinds of content forking. A discussion of the concept of "Greek love" as it developed among the Romantics Byron and Shelley: exactly where else would Wikipedia describe this concept? It would be undue weight, or structurally disproportionate, to discuss it fully in the individual's article, or under "English Romantic poets," or under "Pederasty," and it would be completely off-topic in "Pederasty in ancient Greece." The article is not being "used to develop reception theory," which requires no development. It's an article that presents information about a particular topic within the classical tradition, which is about the reception of ideas or aesthetic models from classical antiquity, in this case "Greek love" as a way to talk about how the Greeks have been referenced by artists and intellectuals in creating discourse about homoeroticism. That this has sometimes taken the form of justifying pedophilia is distasteful, sad, and wrong, but it's only one aspect of the reception of Greek homoeroticism as a model. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to explain your views—the arguements you have put here I think are the very best that can be mustered for a broad-ranging article that you envisage. However, put it this way: Is there an article dedicated to the reception of Plato's ideas throughout history? No, the scope is too large (Platonism and Neo-platonism would just be a small part of it). Is there an article on the reception of Nazism? No, the scope is too large. Anything that has ever been said, sung, painted or expressed in any medium on the theme of Nazism since 1945 would belong there. Why is Greek pederasty the exception? Apparently because the phrase/term 'Greek love' appears in many different disciplines, and yet even that is not a criterion according to the arguments you've made here. The article has to be about the term 'Greek love' and how scholars have used it, not about the reception of Greek sexual habits, simply as a pragmatic necessity. McZeus (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow you. There are indeed overview articles on Neoplatonism and Neo-Nazism. These overviews don't preclude more narrowly focused articles on aspects of the reception of Platonism such as Platonism in the Renaissance, Neoplatonism and Christianity, and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (just as there are articles dealing with manifestations of Neo-Nazism in particular times and places, not to mention Nazi chic, horribile dictu, which is precisely about the reception of Nazism as style); the existence of these more narrowly focused articles does not argue against having the overview articles Neoplatonism and Neo-Nazism. As I said above, "Greek love" is not a technical term of scholarship; it's a shorthand for "concept of homoeroticism that makes use of Greek models." That's precisely why scholars interrogate the term, or place "Greek" in quotation marks, or place the phrase itself in quotation marks: the perception of what homoeroticism was in ancient Greece depends on what time period and intellectual/aesthetic movement you're dealing with. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that scholars are still interrogating the term is the very reason why this article should be about the term - otherwise nobody really knows what goes here. An article like Platonism actually has a clear focus and it's spelt out clearly in the introduction: "Platonism is the philosophy of Plato or the name of other philosophical systems considered closely derived from it." That definition rules out systems that are not closely derived, such as Hegel's philosophy, just to name one - just as well, since Plato's influence in philosophy alone was so large! The definition there also rules out his ideas about education, philosophic method, literary style, human sexuality, and so on. In [Greek love], however, the article's definition is so generalized that anything about homosexuality/pederasty/male bonding belongs here since they can all be thought to have a Greek model and they don't even have to refer to the term itself. It has to be based on the term. We should not be citing any literature that doesn't employ the term. That approach also prevents the proliferation of content forks. McZeus (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow either. Can you clarify what issue is troubling you? --Nuujinn (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that this article has been set up to be almost boundless and anything on a homerotic theme can be included on the basis that it has been thought or felt by anyone anywhere to have some relationship with ancient Greece. The article should instead be about the term itself and the way it has actually been employed by scholars - it should not be citing sources that don't even employ the term. You won't find an article dedicated to the reception of Greek religion throughout history, or the broad historical reception of Greek architecture or Greek clothing or Greek philosophy - you can find articles like Greek Revival architecture that deal with a specific period or school, but not the whole reception. Greek homoeroticism seems to be an exception for some reason and the result is a problematic term like 'Greek love' that varies from context to context and even from one scholar to another when applied to the same context. Since the term is so problematic, it's actual use has to be the focus of the article and the reader should be made clearly aware of that. McZeus (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All the sources do use "Greek love," though some (like Williams) explain why they think it's inaccurate or misleading, which is what I meant by interrogating the term. Having made it clear they're addressing this topic, they then reframe the discourse in language they find more accurate or useful. Blanshard discusses this.

You don't find an article on the reception of ancient Greek religion throughout history because Christianity replaced it and it went away; you do find an article on Greco-Roman mythology or classical mythology, and Greek mythology in western art and literature (the latter has problems because it confuses the broader classical tradition with classical mythology, with which it needs to be merged). WP needs an article on the classical tradition as a topic of intellectual history, for which there are excellent recent sources in addition to classics such as Gilbert Highet's Classical Tradition; I hope to write such an article within the next several months. "Greek love" is a theme of the classical tradition. So there's a kind of stemma: to give the clearest example, the broadest overview article would be Classical tradition; one of the major forms in which the classical tradition is manifested is Classical mythology, another overview article, presently insufficient; there are virtually endless articles and list articles within "Classical mythology" on reception, as the incomplete "See also" list at Classical mythology indicates (such as Icarus imagery in contemporary popular music). Multiple books have been written on the reception of classical mythology by Shakespeare, and so Classical mythology in Shakespeare would be a sound topic. As another example, the article on Roman law deals not only with the legal system of the ancient Romans, but its influence on later law. All these are enormous topics. I should think, for instance, that it would be quite impossible to write an article called Religion, and yet we have to have one, and we do. Surveying period-by-period the intellectual and aesthetic uses made of Greek homoerotic models is quite manageable by comparison, because our list of sources is relatively limited.

Your concerns that this article not advocate for pederasty are of course right and justified. No WP article should advocate for a lifestyle, much less criminal activity. But WP provides many opportunities for this; I've seen people vent misogyny, and believe me, articles on ancient Rome seem to attract more than their fair share of editors with delirious fantasies of power and domination — you can almost hear their lips smacking as they contemplate using slaves for sex any way they saw fit. Not exactly encyclopedic language. But as was said at the AfD for this article, poor quality or POV is not grounds for deletion if the topic is notable and has a sufficient pool of scholarly sources to draw on for improvement. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When I read a section like Greek love#Ancient Rome I can't see that the term 'Greek love' is being addressed at all until right down the bottom, where it mentions that Williams regards the term as a misconception, and even then there is no explanation of the term's application by others or why he thinks it is a misconception. The section looks like it is about the reception of Greek homoeroticism in ancient Rome.The broad ranging articles you mention (Greco-Roman mythology or classical mythology and Greek mythology in western art and literature) are rudimentary overviews of their enormous subject area. I can't imagine that they can ever be anything but rudimentary overviews since otherwise they would generate content forks. Religion is of course a battlefield. Roman law is almost entirely about law in ancient Rome with a small end section on legacy. I did suggest once that Greek love should be an end section for Pederasty in ancient Greece and I still think that's the best approach.

This article however is about the term 'Greek love' and its subject area should be quite confined. Unfortunately, the term keeps getting confused with its referent, the reception of Greek homoeroticism, and the referent keeps getting developed out of its proper context, so that we always end up with a collection of POVs and hobby-horse interests. I think its because people really don't have the relevant literature to hand so they just write about the reception or just about pederasty. That's going to continue unless we make it clear at the outset that the article is about the term 'Greek love' and how it has actually been used and 'interrogated' by scholars. The scholars should be named in the body of the text, they should be quoted for definitions or key points. That's the only way to keep this article on task. McZeus (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have struck out a comment I made about the section on ancient Rome as my observation was mistaken. Sorry about that, Cynwolfe. The section could be rewritten so that it doesn't start about Mos Graeciae and there shouldn't be so much emphasis on the Warren Cup since we can easily link there. However, two authors are mentioned by name in the section and their views are explained. Those two authors should be the basis of that section. I guess its my turn to take a rest. McZeus (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The structure of this article was determined in the AfD, as was the relation of the phrase "Greek love" to the concept. The Warren Cup is treated here only as an object that embodies a comparison of Roman and Greek pederasty; the article on the cup of course should deal with it as an object, and with its controversial history, and so on. I don't agree that we should exclude relevant scholarship. Articles sometimes generate or are the result of legitimate content forks; this is good practice because it keeps an overview article from going into too much detail about one aspect in disproportion. Greek love is not a section of Pederasty in ancient Greece, because when people have used the phrase "Greek love" they haven't always been talking about using boys for sex. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actual employment of the term Greek love should be a boundary condition for this article. Otherwise 'relevant scholarship' is as long as a piece of string. However I can't think of one occasion over the years when my efforts at persuasion have worked in any article talk page. The more I try to talk people around to my point of view the more empowered they feel and the less responsive they become. I'm not prepared to play politics. I'm not prepared to engage in edit wars. I really do have better things to do with my time. McZeus (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Now hold on. I'm sorry you feel ineffectual, but you have certainly been listened to, treated with respect, and your concerns addressed in buckets of prose both on talk pages and through editing the articles to which you've brought your objections. I even located and revised another article that raised the question of handling pederastic themes in due proportion, because you made me aware that a now-banned editor had been promoting the topic in an exploitive manner. I don't see how this is being less "responsive" to you, and all good-faith editors should feel "empowered" to participate on WP. You implied above that editors come here to promulgate pedophilia; you imply here that other editors are motivated by unspecified "politics" and are willing or trying to engage in edit wars (diffs to support that, please). No one who's edited this article since the last AfD has promoted pederasty, pushed a politicized POV, or engaged in an edit war. I'm not sure there's even been one edit reverted as such. Within the WP community, these are serious accusations, and they shouldn't be tossed around lightly — for one thing, it creates a hostile environment that discourages fresh editors from contributing. I mean, who wants to work on an article if it gets you branded a pedophile sympathizer? You were asked above not to cast these kinds of aspersions on your fellow editors. I can only agree that you should have better things to do. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor. It's not an offensive image, it's on overweight and focus issue. We do not need to go off topic to discuss every detail of ancient roman view when there is nothing at all about ancient Greece which began the actual traditions of eros and pederasty.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is essay

I see the article has been ripped apart and put back into an essay article that lacks focus again and uses literary works that do not have a direct context to the subject. What do editors feel about taking this article back to a place where consensus had originaly agreed it was accurate?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd like to think about it a bit. BTW, what consensus? And can you suggest some changes you'd like to make? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article had been written this way before and the consensus was that it was an essay that deviated from the encyclopedic. Also your use of twinkle is questioned as that wasn't vandalism, but a bold edit to return the article back.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article had not been written this way before. Please review the last AfD discussion, where it was agreed that the article is about the reception of a classical model of homoeroticism, to be structured chronologically period-by-period. In particular, it was agreed that Alastair J.L. Blanshard's 2010 book Sex: Vice and Love from Antiquity to Modernity provided a workable model for how to structure the article conceptually. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course some sections are still underdeveloped; currently the English Romantics are disproportionate to the Renaissance and Neoclassicism. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhm no. The Article for deletion made it clear only that the article should remain. It was not a consensus as to what the article is about....even if I agree with the assessment. That aside there are a number of items returned to the article against the consensus of contributing editors of which I am one.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the discussion produced a list of recommended sources, as well as arriving at a consensus on an approach and a chronological framework. Are you sure you read the second AfD? Cynwolfe (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The AFD does not override consensus by contributing editors. Again AFD is for delete or keep only. Suggestions are nice but are not a part of AFD consensus. Also...yes, the article looked and read very similar as it did back a ways. Check the history--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Past is past. Amadscientist, my use of twinkle did not label your edit as vandalism, so there's no issue there. And there has been no discussion about changes to the article recently and certainly no consensus for major changes--if you want to change the scope of the article we need to discuss that first--Since you were bold, and reverted, we're supposed to discuss. It is not, as you acted, BRRD. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus"

Amadscientist is announcing that his/her edits are backed up by "consensus of contributing editors." I agree that editorial consensus is the standard we want to apply, but I disagree that there is consensus for Amadscientist's proposed reversions. I for one support retention and development of the removed content. Do we need a straw poll to clarify how much consensus is or isn't on each side? Wareh (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope not. I'll be of limited availability for a few days. I have in hand a copy of Davidson's Greeks and Greek Love, and I'll put some effort in with that while I'm off. The introduction may be helpful to us, as he begins by distinguishing various terms and aspects of those terms related to Greek conceptions of love. I confess I've been avoiding coming back to this one since the AFD was so tiring. Certainly the article needs work, but given the prior levels of heat, we should move slowly and discuss changes/deletions of material. Additions, such as a section on Wilde would certainly be welcome. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the remedy to "Why does the article cover X but not Y?" is to add Y, if it clearly fits in, as Wilde could here. Wareh (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Look it you wanna be wise guys and bat my name about go ahead if it makes you feel good. But the consensus of this article was developed over a long period. Simply reverting back to November before the major essay on Bryon and Shelly I suggest perhaps splitting this article into "Greek Love" and "Greek love in literature that will take a while, but I am in no hurry and I see no reason to be. I made bold edits and explained my changes You just reverted back so explain why we need to keep article this way. Explain why the lead should deviate from the norm, or why saying Platonic love is the first English spelling of Greek Love and expalin the illustrative pics. The article isn't garbage, it's just not about Greek Love....almost at all. Why the poetry? It's an expression of individuals and how they were inspired....GREAT....but it ain't Greek Love. I had a very detailed Greek section and spent hours researching it.....and the article just deleted it. It was all the basic information about Eros and the Greek traditions of male love of the athlete and had details about carvings still found in ancient Greece that some believe inspired the modern interpretations of the Greek traditions. It explained the fake abduction and how these traditions were upheld as part of male a great complement to the captive and how it was only at the urging of the pretend captive that any physical contact was made...blah blablaba....big deal. It was deleted for this indepth dissection of Byron's love life. This article is a near copy of Haiduc article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And Oscar Wilde was in this article you guys took it out top discuss a silver chalice in ancient Rome. Hey...I 'm all ancient Rome....in the ancient Rome articles. What does the Warren cup have to do with this article...it's off topic. Just because it has a Greek and Roman illustration of same sex relations does not make it Greek Love and even the small amount that it does does not mean the article disusses it in such detail. It goes off focus and I do have to wonder if the justification of keeping it is not just because it has something to do with the subject, but in the overall study of Greek love how much space should this be given and how is it really linked to this subject at all? Not all male erotic imagery was Greek Love on the traditons being spoken of. Is that Original research?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote by the way and you don't get to say...we vote you to stop editing this article in your interpretation of MOS. No. I will make changes and expalin them and when you revert them back you will explain why you think it should stay. If I remove something as unreferenced and you put it back....it will just keep geting removed. Maybe not more than the three revert rule but...yeah guys...you tell me to all this stuff....and it was already done and it seems you guys think it can't be changed AT ALL even withing guide lines....yeah....the lead is supposed to be a summary of the aricle. You guys know that. So...we are here. lets get to work. At least explain why you think something you want to keep should stay that was removed. That's working together...not standing here and saying "Oh no you din't" cause...yes I did and I will continue....becuase this is an open source editong site. I don't own the article and I am working in good faith. I hope you will too.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Focus

The article has a focus problem that is easy to fix, but ...it also cuts off short at the romantic period. There are more parts to it's history up to today. We need much more on other aspects of the subject. Byron and shelly are of cource important but so much from a single or few authors is not good for any article. This isn't a poetry article, or the Byron or Shelly biographies. It's about Greek love. All history pertaining is important but before adding so much to one section we need to expand the ancient Greek section which was blank and go on past the 19TH century. What about Oscar Wilde. What about contemproary uses etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An Oscar Wilde section would be fine, why do you start one? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I went ballistic. One last rant before I slink away and finish sulking: nobody said the article was finished. Nuujinn and I had been working on it as we had time and could obtain sources. When I obtained Crompton's book, I had a great deal of material to digest. It was, after all, an entire book. Some of that may need to go away, and believe me, there's nothing I'd like better than an Oscar Wilde section, which Blanshard is a good source for. I myself was interested in developing the section on Renaissance humanism and perhaps Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment. Winckelmann's work on Greek art has emerged in multiple sources as an important influence, and is inadequately accounted for. So the disproportionate emphasis speaks to a lack of development in other sections (the Roman section, though in need of improvement, is required for setting up Crompton's take on "Greek love," which includes both Greek and Roman models, that is, "Greek love" is shorthand for "the classical tradition of homoeroticism"); hence the top tag of "missing aspects."

Really, as always I'm sorry when I lose it, but the material was all carefully sourced; in particular, the introduction was based on Blanshard's definition of the concept (which is not a "term"), and even McZeus, who in general opposed the existence of the article, agreed that Blanshard was fundamental to the presentation. The article makes no sense without being framed by the concepts of "classical tradition" and "reception theory." That's where it had gone wrong before, and what Blanshard articulates. The point is precisely that "Greek love" has no meaning in isolation; it doesn't refer to what the Greeks themselves did, which is covered by Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Pederasty in ancient Greece, and its meaning changes depending on who's using it and why, which is why the article must not try to arrive at some lexicographical "definition" that will rigidly apply to all times and places. For instance, Byron and his circle used references to classical homoeroticism as allusive "code" at a time when gay people could not speak openly about their desire or their love. Allusive discourse is obviously going to require some explication. It isn't a matter of scientific terminology; that's the wrong analytical model. You can't create your own definition, impose it on the topic, and then exclude what doesn't fit your desired scope. That would be like defining Platonism as "the philosophy of Plato" and then saying you can't talk about Platonism or Neoplatonism in Ficino because he says things that Plato didn't. There are many Neoplatonists, and while they may point back to the authority of Plato (as "Greek love" proponents point back to classical precedents), they aren't in and of themselves accurate reflections of Plato's philosophy in its particulars, nor are they all alike in their claims and applications.

I've also suggested above that at points this topic in its most morally questionable guise—Byron and his pals hunting "Hyacinths"—is rather like "Nazi chic." The repugnance a decent person might feel toward any real life actions is beside the point of describing "Greek love" as an intellectual or aesthetic "costume," which is what this article is about. If I understand at all why gay men might be opposed to the article (and as a heterosexual woman I don't assume I do), it would be the homophobic assumption by some people that gay men are likely pedophiles, and therefore, if I were a gay man, I would be concerned that this article, by including the pederastic aspects of "Greek love" as it's been conceived of at various times, perpetuates that vile prejudice. I'm not attempting to represent any one editor's motives or reasoning, just saying that I've tried to keep that concern in mind while providing an honest description of what the scholarship says about the topic. I also recognize that some people like to say "hey, the Greeks did it, it must be OK." But the Greeks and Romans did a lot of things that are not OK, like burying unchaste Vestals alive and crucifying people, and although these things are horrifying we describe them anyway. Believe me, I took a long break from the article after reporting on the puer delicatus, to give my stomach time to settle. And although I don't think Wikipedia should be gratuitously obscene, ancient art is as valid a source as ancient literature; for instance, I've just begun to work on Sexuality in ancient Rome (therefore, it also suffers from disproportionate coverage of some aspects, and omits some very major things, like, uh, female sexuality and marital sex), and provided examples of Roman erotic art, which often stand in contrast to assumptions in the text because the scholarship used often cherrypicked attitudes from literature. The point is, I have tried not to do anything other than represent the full range of scholarly discourse on this conceptually difficult topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That was very gracious of you.

I wander if perjaps, it may be too much to make Blanshard's definition of the concept, the main focus of the lead. It is probably in the article and if so could be mentioned in the lead. I only feel that, as an encyclopedia the basic formatting we are shooting at is a Wikipedia standard. So, would you edit the lead from where I copy edited it (the rest of the article has basicly returned with very minor changes or alterations but ...are a starting point) and add portions that consern you and we can discuss what we both have writen and see where to go from here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's build a new consensus

I have returned the whole article back, including the references that don't support claims etc, except the lead, the infobox and the title of the first section. My reasons for these changes concern an encyclopedic lead that is not written in an over romantic display of prose, please. To stick to what a traditional wiki lead would be per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). It certainly could use more if the article is to be this long and I would like to discuss the copy editing of possible areas. First I will add a good faith edit from suggestions by returning the Greek section.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I did remove the badly worded section that falsly claimed that Platonic love was the first English use of "Greek love". It isn't that simple and really looks like it was the choped up version of the original claim with reference I added back from one of the archaic versions of this article. It states accurately that Platonic love "c[a]me to signify the original English use of Greek Love.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I simplified the caption in the Ficino image. This section could use expanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let us build a new consensus. Let us do that by talking about what edits we'd like to make, instead of making sweeping changes repeatedly and even after being asked not to until we have a chance to discuss how the article should be changed. Let's deal with the controversial issues slowly and discuss things. I am not going to revert these changes, but Amadscientist, I ask that you restore material that you have deleted and bring up why you think it needs to be deleted here, and I ask again that we talk about edits before we make changes. I really would like to avoid the kinds of heated discussions we've had in the past.

I would also like to ask everyone to please state in simple language what they see as wrong with the article as a starting point. Amadscientist asked about adding a section on Oscar Wilde, that seems like an excellent notion. I'll be mostly offline the next few days, but I'll get started on Davidson. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What's Wrong: The article is supposed to be about 'Greek love'. Focus on the term, use only sources that explain the term, and make this clear in the intro. Otherwise it will go on being a sexual theme park with a Greek flavour, fun for some and an outrage to others. Blanshard's book is the only source so far that warrants a multi-contextual approach and it must be used (it has not really been used so far except as a pretext for creative edits). Said all this before. Don't know why I am saying it again. I was McZeus. I am now just a number. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, you can make suggestions and even if others agree with your strategy of asking others to discuss the edits they wish to make first...I do not and will not support that. This is an open source medium. We don't get to make the rules here. I have returned this article to nearly the exact same place it was with a few alterations....a few. I made edit summaries and took the advice of other editors in returning the Ancient Greek section and made sure all the Byron stuff was put back. I said we should build a new consensus and we shall. That does not mean we are required to discuss what edits we would like to make before we make them. Editors can certainly build on things, remove unsourced material (I have a full paragraph that has no references...why not discuss that and how it could be referenced or that maybe you feel it should be left out until I am able to reference the claims, etc.) and remove and add material. It is only common sense to communicate what you are doing and why, but that does not mean we can control how others edit, here or on any article. I am among the major contributors here and I admit my bold edits recently were not in agreement with consensus. That is why I returned it. Because all editors who feel strongly about the subject should WANT to work together and I know I do. I made a good faith effort to stay within consensus of interested editors here. I will continue to work with editors. I will even not edit for a while to see if others return with the gesture, because I do not want a return to the fighting and the uncivil back and forth that has been this articles history for years.

I will suggest something....but no one need heed the suggestion. Compare this article to Homosexual.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

McZeus, I don't think I understand what you mean by "Sexual Theme park". Could you elaborate further. Are you concerned that the article discusses sexuality too much or that it promotes an agenda. The latter has always been my major concern. The article's subject is sexuality so it will almost always be centered on such. "Greek Love" is phrase that means same sex relations. It is....really. But we have had problems in the past with over emphasizing this as a "Greek" thing...it is not. It's an "ancient Greek" thing. A big difference. Also.....Greek love IS NOT Platonic love. That phrase has a different and older meaning. Similar with many of the same influences and a history that even converges or begins nearly in the same spot...but the two subjects have really always had a somewhat slighting different meaning, especially in contemporary times.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh....OK McZeus is Amphitryoniades. OK...at least I know who I am interacting with. I remember you here from the former consensus of editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, you were bold, then reverted, bold again and reverted again, and bold yet still, but I see no discussion. I'm reverting your edits and asking you again to bring specific issues to this talk page. Wholesale reconstruction of this article based on what you believe was consensus month ago is simply not appropriate. 12:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Focus vs broad coverage

What limit do we feel is appropriate and what may be broad coverage in the positive since. I believe that as a focus issue the article can discuss influences that the subject may have with other subjects and be positive broad coverage. But, how far is broad coverage and how little is a lack of pertinent information. One of the issues we had discussed before was that the term is a rather nostalgic term. It is almost always used in reference to the past. How do people feel about that? And does that pertain at all to a focus of limiting in any way. Is there a truly modern equivalent of it's use in today's English Language?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

References

What is this? [2][3] I don't understand. Is this self published? Is it a published journal or other reliable source?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) It seems like it's a published journal....but I am not sure I am in agreement with using this reference in this manner. Does anyone know anything about the journal and the author as a historian or is this merely an art study?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Nope, that seems legit. Art history. Let's try to improve the in line citation formatting.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)This is the actual publication.[4]--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite journal |last= Pollini|first= John|authorlink= http://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?pid=1003612|coauthors= |year= 1999|month= March|title= The Art Bulletin|trans_title= The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver|journal= The Art Bulletin|volume= LXXXI|issue= 1|pages= 21|id= |url= http://www.collegeart.org/artbulletin/1_1999|accessdate=2009-08-15 |quote= }}</ref>--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Now...do we even feel that the reference needs this or should I leave it alone? If no one objects I will reformat the reference this way.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The PDF is from this book: [5]. Published by an academic entity in Brno, Czech Republic, whose Brno Studies in English seems not coincidentally to be the most easily findable academic review of it[6] -- though not the only one (the very reputable Terry L. Meyers reviews it in Victorians Institute Journal 35 (2007), pp. 315-316, which would be worth getting hold of if an authoritative judgment on the book is needed). Wareh (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Meyers gives it mixed praise, commenting on Kaylor's writing style and the excessive density and length of the work, but I think this shows it a good source: "Nevertheless, Secreted Desires is an erudite and important study that joins a slew of scholarly works on Victorian sexuality and Victorian writers’ sexual proclivities. Scholars working with Hopkins, Pater, and Wilde especially will need to engage it, but anyone working with Victorian sexuality will learn a great deal." --Nuujinn (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Severe ownership issues and a lack of good faith

I don't know why you some keep reverting legitimate edits even after I restored most of the bold edits and started slowly. I know...get over and stop trying to own the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple editors with a consensus that the lede should not be changed before the wording is discussed here. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And stop accusing other editors of "vandalism." Nobody's vandalized this article for months. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the best was to proceed would be to focus on specific issues. We know we need to add material. I think suggesting a change and providing a reason/source is a good way to go given the article's history. I'm still reading and will have some specific suggestions soon. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

James Davidson, whose book The Greeks and Greek Love: A Radical Reappraisal of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece is listed in the bibliography, has an essay in Studies in ancient Greek and Roman society (edited by Robin Osborne) that outlines some of the issues here in a way that complements Blanshard (exact usage of the phrase here). I don't think it's come up before as a resource, but the article provides a more distilled overview of the concept than his book-length treatment, and might be of use to anyone who's trying to get a handle on the difference between an immutable "term", and a malleable concept that's reshaped through time. Davidson has some interesting remarks on Foucault and the consequences of his role in shaping "history of sexuality" as a field of inquiry. Oscar Wilde is probably the most glaring missing section in the current form of the article. Another key (and missing) item would be John Addington Symonds, A Problem in Greek Ethics (1873). One interesting thing about Symonds is that even in those pre-theory days, he was aware that in discussing "Greek love", he needed to establish what the phrase meant within his discourse, and not assume that it had a determinate meaning outside a particular discourse. Symonds used "Greek love" specifically as a socially-acceptable scholarly euphemism for the pederastic relationship, in order to minimize the emotive reaction that might be expected in his time. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Have added section on Symonds, with a brief nod toward a "Victorian era" intro. Oscar Wilde's name is at least mentioned now. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what consensus exists that says no one can edit without discussion nor the reason to revert contributions with ownership of the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that the article is mushrooming into a set of content forks, as it always will if you keep overlooking its proper scope - focus on the term 'Greek love', not the referent. The referent is where the content forks keep happening. Of course you don't really have the literature you need for an article of this scope. You are bringing together scholars who would never work together (they are specialists in separate fields). Only Blanshard has attempted something this eclectic (as far as I know). That hardly warrants a WP article. It really is quite disgraceful. However, I am silent. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Amadscientist, no one is saying you can't edit, but the cycle is BRD, and I think it is safe to say that discussion is a requirement on WP. I don't see much D here, especially in specific terms. 121.223.100.220, for example, is talking about scope, which is helpful to discussion. More helpful would be suggestions of specific changes, such as "I think we should delete sentence X for reasons A, B and C". If it helps illuminate discussion, my take on this is we should approach the topic as a literary trope or motif, and I see plenty of sources to support that approach. Now, we must come to some consensus, and to do that we have to talk about the various problems with the article as it stands. Can we do that? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn, particularly the discussion of specific changes one at a time. When I was trying to put together a section on Symonds and his use of the concept of "Greek love" (a crucial concept for him), I was surprised at how abundant the sources were. There were many good sources I haven't incorporated yet (from university presses, some of them overviews of "gay history" and some collections of scholarly essays) that touch specifically on what "Greek love" meant to Symonds and his circle. It's a commonplace topic of LGBT historical studies. So it was very educational for me as someone who's worked on history of sexuality primarily as a classicist to see just how much serious work on the "reception of the classical tradition of homoeroticism" there is. All the sources I've used directly label the "reception of the classical tradition of homoeroticism" as "Greek love". A sourced statement should be deleted only if other sources of greater weight indicate that it's wrong or doesn't belong in this discussion. I don't want to feel as if editors are acting on preconceptions without having read the scholarship. To the IP above, this is a familiar argument: "focus on the term, not the referent." The scholarship supports treating "Greek love" as a concept that evolves over time, not a technical term; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; this is an article on a historical topic, not a lexicographical entry. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what either of you are talking about. I don't need to discuss my edits only to have them reverted by you and cynwolfe. Consensus is NOT what you allow...it's what the group lives with in the end. THAT is consensus. I will not lay out everything and have all that work in good faith defecated on in revert after revert. Forget that you hated my first bold edit, returning the page to a drasticly reduced level, but that you would continue to revert over and over, regardless of what or how I edit....because I didn't discuss it first to GAIN a consensus over every contribution. Sorry...but that it NOT how Wikipedia works. Consensus is not a gang of editors bent on pushing an bovious agenda....and yes, you two clearly have an agenda here. You are attempting to push your own personal point of view and establish it as the "TRUE" and ONLY way the article is ever going to grow. I'm sorry, but you don't get to edit this page with a set of rules and then ignore those rules to fit whatever tactic you feel can gain you ground. I am not playing this game with you two.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to discuss. You made sweeping changes and argued that you were doing so on the basis of consensus that did not exist, and reverted to your preferred version despite objections. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What 'Greek love' is NOT

"Greek love" as a phrase does not refer to homoerotic practices or beliefs among the Greeks themselves. That's already covered by Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Pederasty in ancient Greece. To edit this article productively, an editor has to understand the difference between describing same-sex love among the Greeks themselves (that material, other than the missing brief Background section here, belongs in the other two articles), and describing how it was received (see reception theory) as an intellectual and cultural model imaginatively by the Romans, Renaissance humanists, Neoclassicists, Victorians, Foucaultians, and post-Foucaultians. This article is about reception within the "classical tradition" (for the definition of "classical tradition" see two recent books here and here). Cynwolfe (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For instance, although we need a paragraph or two under "Greek background," what we don't need are erroneous, unsourced statements such as the first sentence in the section recently added/restored: "The history of the concept, predates the term by nearly 3000 years." There was no concept of "Greek love" until it became intellectualized and aestheticized: there was only eros among the Greeks themselves, and paiderasteia; the Greeks didn't think of their sexual and amorous attitudes and behaviors as "Greek love." (For one thing, there's the whole problem of the word "Greek," which is a Roman construct.) The concept doesn't exist until the 2nd century BC, with the Hellenization of Latin literature, when Catulus and his circle start dressing up their poetry in Greek garb, writing homoerotic verse to boys with Greek names. As Craig Williams has pointed out, the Romans didn't need to "learn" same-sex practices from the Greeks; they don't regard same-sex behaviors as imported from the Greeks. This is a literary, intellectual, and aesthetic "costume"; as Williams points out (and Pollini and Clarke confirm with their reading of the Warren Cup), the Roman form of pederasty differed in practice from that of the Greeks, and was something considerably nastier. Williams is reacting to unexamined scholarly attitudes that assumed, perhaps unconsciously, that the "manly" Romans wouldn't have buggered boys unless they'd learned it from the Greeks. On one point, however, Williams stands virtually alone among scholars: as with so much of Roman culture, there is an undeniable Greek influence in the presentation of homoeroticism in art and literature, and Williams errs perhaps in going too far to support his otherwise fine thesis by appearing to deny this, an impression that Nussbaum in her intro to the second edition of William's book gently qualifies. In the later discourse of "Greek love," the concept often includes Roman models, because it means "the reception of homoerotic models from classical antiquity"; Crompton's book on Byron and Greek Love makes little distinction among classical models, whether they're Greek or Roman. So again, it's important not to let one's own preconceptions or limited knowledge dictate what this article is; it's important to read the scholarship (whole chapters at a time, not cherrypicking snippets) and to let the scholarship frame the topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't agree with nearly any of that.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No....your comments are simply original research and point of view to be stating what Greek Love is and is not. You are looking through severe tunnel vision and only want a certain direction and it's all literal biographies that are not the subject. We realy don't need to be so stuck on sources that the entire talk page is limited to a discussion of the sources and authors and NOT the subject of "Greek Love". Look...I have read these books for my research here and I think most of them are not particularly interesting they seem to have a wealth of information but are you taking the overall opinion of individual authors as the basis to what you feel the subject is. Greek Love cannot has a ancient Greek origins. Whether you agree with it or not. It isn't Roman love".--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My comments are not original research. They're not my comments. I summarize the sources, which are cited in the article. What are your sources for your views on the subject? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek Love cannot has a ancient Greek origins. Whether you agree with it or not. It isn't Roman love, can you explain? I cannot parse that? --Nuujinn (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek background

Have tried to provide a stopgap "Greek background" section here, to cut down on the noise. I punted and relied mainly on an Oxford UP encyclopedia, to save time and effort. The old section couldn't be salvaged; it was full of non-informative or off-topic statements along the lines of "homosexuality was common in ancient societies." Right enough. More should be said about the literary sources; the translations and commentaries for these are major vehicles of transmission and reception, particularly Plato's Symposium. Another useful piece of info would look at when and how the Greek vases depicting this subject matter were known, for instance, the influx of such pieces in the Victorian era. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline

Have added a header for the long hoped-for section on Oscar Wilde. I'm hoping someone is planning to write it. I mapped it in because Blanshard provided such a good transitional introductory sentence. There is a great deal of material on this topic; the Wilde article itself contains a direct quotation from a scholar who refers to "Greek love."

I also started a section to bring the topic up to the present, in response to a complaint lodged above. Davidson has some useful things to say about this in the essay I pointed out. Foucault plays an interesting role in what happens to the concept of "Greek love." This section will no doubt prompt the adding of a sentence to the end of the introduction, pointing toward the waning or vitiating of the concept in the postmodernist era.

Currently, the section on Ficino, and in general the relation between "Greek love" and "Platonic love" (or "Socratic"), is not handled with particular dexterity. Winckelmann's importance probably needs to be made clearer, too. I'm willing to try to fill other gaps, or clarify murky points, if I can understand what those are. So it's much appreciated if comments can be as specific as possible. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I also took a look at categories. Turns out this article fits in quite a number. There may be others. I don't usually work in the field of LGBT history, except with the area of sexuality of antiquity, so I hadn't been aware of what a range of categories might apply. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)