Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, without prejudice against the future creation of a policy-compliant article of similar scope.  Skomorokh  01:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical pederastic relationships

[edit]
Historical pederastic relationships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, this page is an example of Original Research about a highly contentious topic whose primary editor (with 809 edits) has just been banned. My reasoning is thus - pederasty and pedophilia are considered synonymous in standard dictionaries and psychological texts. Some historians have differentiated the two but this is by no means universal. We now have a logic jump where a term which is used in some contexts (particualrly classical greece) is now splashed about willy nilly and attached to a whole heap of relationships across continents and times. I contend this violates WP:OR and WP:SOAP - hence is misinformation and the very article needs to be removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is where we get into problems - the OR is in describing these relationships be a word (i.e pederasty) not used in the sources - the word itself is used in an attempt to distance and legitimise some pedophilic relationships (as well as some technically non-pedophilic but actually containing some of the same power differential and abuse characteristics) from pedophilia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Pederasty' is also the preferred term used by pedophiles for themselves. The mere use of the term suggests an agenda. See e.g. here (caution, NAMBLA website) Think of the children (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that there is some disagreement among the sources about the definition of a concept is not at all unusual and does not mean that we should delete an article about the concept on WP:OR grounds. E.g. there is even more disagreement among sources about the definition of terrorism, yet (I hope) nobody would seriously argue in favor of deleting the terrorism article. The issues of variations of the meaning of the term can be discussed within the article itself and its scope can be specified in the lead. In this case the lead seems to fairly unambiguously specify the scope of the article. The topic itself appears notable, the information is sourced (or at least sourceable) and the material appears to be neutrally presented. No compelling reason to delete here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, but I guess I would see the analogy as if there were some militant group espousing terroorism who gave a particular form a different name and tried to promote it as not-terrorism. If you look harde enough you can find all sorts of odd definitions of things....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not trust any of the information that the banned user has put into any articles, and this article was essentially their 'baby'. A quick look through finds very one sided opinions regarding the historical relations. Many of them use sources which are difficult to check (and there are concerns over misrepresentation of those sources) and seemingly ignore other sources which would cast the relationship in a different light. I don't necessarily have a problem with there being an article on this general subject, but it should be a clean start. Quantpole (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has several problems: first, it should be renamed "Historical alleged pederastic relationships": while it seems that all entries are sourced (and some of them are well known, like Pasolini and Davoli), they are rarely proven as such, and in most cases all what can we say is that there is one or more RS discussing their possibility. Also, it is worth noting the controversy on the definition of pederasty, and the article suffers of POV/bias for sure. That said, these seem to me all problems readily solved with editing, not deletion, and the subject, even if quite creepy perhaps, is a notable and encyclopedic one.--Cyclopiatalk 12:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a content fork created, maintained and distorted by a pro-pedophilia account. None of his work is to be trusted; scratch the surface on any of it and it's rife with distortions. Whatever notable historical pederastic couples there were, will be mentioned in tne appropriate article (on whichever of the two was notable, or in the articles of both). These forks are often used to push an agenda (since they hive off information into areas that are less likely to get broader editor scrutiny). This is always a problem, but when it's to push a pro-pedophile agenda, a line in the sand should be drawn.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I picked an entry at random, on a famous 20th century american illustrator. It described him as a "pederast." Well, he was certainly gay, and spent his life with a man he met when the younger man was 17 (not 15, as haiduc claimed). However, no one knows when the two became lovers. The source does not support that.[1]. This article is far worse than a pov-fork and a case of original research. It's distorted and false.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You just demonstrated that problems with the article (that exist, see my !vote above) can be solved by editing instead of deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would have to be reduced down to about 5 entires, all of which are already covered with their own articles. And this garbage -- this false, misleading and deceitful garbage, created to make pedophilia seem more acceptable, will remain in the history.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, first of all pederasty is not exactly pedophilia (even if there are blurred boundaries), second, regardless of the state of the article POV now, there's nothing that makes pedophilia or pederastia more acceptable in listing notable historical cases of it, and last it would be nice if we stay calm and don't let our personal feelings obfuscate our judgement. Now, if about 5 entries it can be, let's trim it to these 5 entries and if they are already covered in their articles, it becomes a reasonable list, as a navigational help. The value of an encyclopedia is not only in collecting information, but also in making it structured in a useful way. --Cyclopiatalk 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • This has nothing to do with my judgment or personal feelings. Almost none of these claimed things are relationships and this original research stretches from allegations that so-and-so slept with a 13-year old child prostitute, to such-and-such starting a lifelong committed gay relationship with an 18 year old. It's all self-definied, by someone who ran with the NAMBLA crowd. Truly notable pederastic relationships will involve notable people and will be examined (if verified by multiple reliable high quality sources and so forth) on the articles on those people. This is SYNTH, OR, and a POV-fork created by someone with a pro "have sex with adolescent children" (since you oppose calling that pedophilia, I'll spell it out) agenda. Encyclopedia's, real ones, never treat marginal information in this WP:INDISCRIMINATE and scatter-shot fashion. They don't allow non-historian activists to be the principal authors for their historical articles, and they summarize the relevant, consensus view information, in the one, right, place, avoiding endless forking, repetition (and, of course, disagreement). Really, don't talk to me about what the value of an encyclopedia is. You have no idea at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • When I asked to avoid personal feelings about touchy subjects like this one coming in, it's this kind of rants I wanted to avoid. Now, your last comment is difficult to answer because it actually makes no real point. I try. The first part is a claim of OR being scattered in the article, which I agree can be for many entries (I don't know actually because I don't know the subject and I don't have access to the books in the references). But you too say "almost" none, and in the comment you said 5 entries could be legitimate. So we have, in your point of view, an article to trim heavily, but not to delete. Second, yes, the guy who did the article had a really, really troubling agenda (even if confusing sentences you used like "adolescent children" mud the waters, either someone is an adolescent or a child, and sex with young adolescents, even if I don't really endorse it at all, is a wholly different beast from sex with children). Yet the motivations behind doing articles have nothing to do with the suitability of the article itself. The last part is more of a rant against the whole Wikipedia model of editing (and a kinda personal attack on me, but let's forget it): given your point of view on who should write articles, you probably would find yourself better in Citizendium. But this is not a reason to delete, again. --Cyclopiatalk 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see what the community's views are on SYNTH, OR plagued articles written by activists pressing for the normalization of sex with children. This one doesn't stand up to even 5 minutes scrutiny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see what the community says, for sure, but it would help both of us (and the community) if you can argument rationally your points instead of using what looks like moral panic. The editor has been banned, and we agree that there are POV concerns. But you yourself said that there could be legitimate entries: why can't we use them? What's objectively wrong with having a list of such relationships (or such allegations), if properly sourced and unbiased? --Cyclopiatalk 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:FORK and WP:V for starters. And stop calling me irrational and putting words in my mouth. You've been consistently arguing for the unkeepable; this is no exception.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know these links, thanks. They again don't make a case for deletion, since you yourself said that the list can be reduced to five genuine cases. And no, I didn't call you irrational: I asked you to argue rationally here, which is a different thing. To my knowledge I didn't put words in your mouth; if I did so, I apologize. As per "arguing for the unkeepable", well, that's your personal opinion. Maybe the community will agree, but apart from that it's hardly a compelling argument against my points. --Cyclopiatalk 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Under most circumstances, I may be concede that the topic is likely notable, and the list can be pruned to fit standard Wikipedia criteria. However, the current article is basically a clusterfuck, and represents a unique sort of situation that requires a unique solution. In this case, it would be entirely more appropriate, should it be determined that the article is needed and notable and relevent, to just start over using properly cited reliable sources and with neutral editors who aren't push a particular point of view on Pederasty. --Jayron32 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had never seen a wikipedia article that is so full of original research. No rs, but lots of pov. Typical fork. Totally agree with nominator. The creator of the article got away with this rubbish for a lot of time, probably because very few people would be interested in these kind of articles, but now he is banned per ARBCOM and his work got noticed. It was time someone saw this scam. sulmues--Sulmues 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix Comment. Casliber's findings of OR and SOAP problems in the article appear on to be on the mark, but deletion would be a stronger response than is required. The topic is one that has been written about extensively by scholarly sources, and it deserves its own WP article. I don't see that it's necessarily a fork, either. Since the current article does have over 200 incline citations (many of which need to be expanded or reformatted) and lists a dozen other sources, I'd strongly suggest fixing rather than simply discarding it. It might be a good candidate for the Article Incubator, which would get it out of article space. Or, if it remains where it is, it could be stripped down to its bare essentials and rebuilt. Yes, the topic is difficult for many of us, and yes, the editor primarily responsible for the article has made bad edits. Let's try very hard not to overreact, though; there's wheat amid the chaff. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (Reconsidered and struck vote per my comment below.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually take largely your position above, however I think that the "delete and recreate" route is actually better in this one case than the "keep and let someone fix it eventually" route. Normally, in 99% of the cases, cleanup is preferential to deleting. However, this article has such huge problems, and we literally can trust NONE of the sources given the fact that the creator and maintainer of the article is known to have widely misrepresented sources, there's really no content to fix here. A complete reboot seems like a better solution than simply letting this lie around waiting for someone to get interested in fixing its miriad problems. --Jayron32 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right. I have had few interactions with Haiduc in my time here, and I think our edits have only intersected on one or two articles, so it's certainly possible that I'm unaware of the scope of the problem. My impression has been that he's often too willing to go beyond what given sources actually say, resulting in novel syntheses and the like. For instance, rather than starting with a source and using it to write a paragraph, he'll write a paragraph and then find sources that, when combined, might sort of back up what he wrote. That's unacceptable, of course, but I've also been aware of some perfectly good edits, including satisfactory sourcing, on his part. So I'm leery about any kind of a purge happening. It would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or cutting out the cancer to save the body... --Jayron32 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes, that metaphor might be just as apt. I'm wavering enough to strike my "keep and fix" recommendation; I still think it would be the ideal way to proceed, but since I have neither the time nor the inclination to contribute to a fix and no one else has offered, it would likely just get stubbed and ignored. That wouldn't do. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Separating the wheat from the chaff would require a specialist library on pederasty (with a special focus on historical scholarship in this area), countless hours of researching and reading, cross-referencing with index cards, and then a full re-write from top to bottom. We'd be left with a well-written and less skewed piece of original research if I did it, but still original research. Oh yeah, since really almost everything useable on this topic is about pederasty in various historical periods and not pederastic relationships per se, there'd be a healthy dose of synthesis to go with it. Were i to take this task on -- a dull and distasteful task, i might add -- i'd nuke the whole article and start from scratch. Of course, i'm not going to take that task on (not least because it will still would require a healthy dosage of synth and it's still a fork from Pederasty and the article where the real scholarship exists Pederasty in ancient Greece.) This is all a long-winded way of saying there is no wheat here and what is here, masquerading as balanced and generally accurate to the uninitiated, does far more harm than good.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for nominating was that the article's very existence is a (subtle) distortion of facts, given the history behind the definitions as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people come for information. It is a very well referenced list that does not hurt the laws of our project. Actually the best advice was given by Cyclopia:"The article has several problems: first, it should be renamed "Historical alleged pederastic relationships": while it seems that all entries are sourced (and some of them are well known, like Pasolini and Davoli), they are rarely proven as such, and in most cases all what can we say is that there is one or more RS discussing their possibility. Also, it is worth noting the controversy on the definition of pederasty, and the article suffers of POV/bias for sure. That said, these seem to me all problems readily solved with editing, not deletion, and the subject, even if quite creepy perhaps, is a notable and encyclopedic one." Bruno Ishiai (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete article created and maintained (800+ edits!) by now banned user who was pushing a "pedantry is perfectly natural" POV. Has been known to twist and misrepresent sources, so this article cannot be trusted. No recreation either. Once the misrepresented stuff has been removed, little remains but a list of individuals unrelated in any way except their sexual preference. better served by categories, or better yet - nothing. ViridaeTalk 02:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Pedantry", huh? Pedantry can be tiresome, but it's hardly unusual at WP.  ;-) Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly as OR with some notability concerns tossed in as well. Unlike most people here I don't hold an IDONTLIKEIT POV with regards to this article, and I think that one dealing with this material can be built up, if given the sources that say that the "history of pederastic relationships" is a single topic and that it is notable. Our personal biases don't need to influence our editing. That being said, I really don't see the underlying scholarship needed to create a timeline about this subject. The similarity between these examples doesn't constitute an encyclopedic topic unless it is a. sourced according to a neutral working definition of pedarasty and b. commented upon by reliable, neutral, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Synthesis by banned user. Pcap ping 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article consists of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which serve only to promote the idea that pederasty is a normal part of life. With six billion people and thousands of years of recorded history, there are bound to be many "interesting" events of sexual excess, and there is no evidence that the list is more than an indiscriminate collection. As an aside, I have to mention that the October 2007 article really gives the game away: the first sentence includes "love affairs between adult men and adolescent boys", and it goes downhill from there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I stumbled on this article from...I'm not really sure where at the time, but it was long ago, and I remember having quite extensive discussions with Haiduc about the quality of the sources he was using, and that supposed "couples" shouldn't be included in the list unless their relationship was discussed to some extent in the article of the noteworthy party. But, really, this article has always, always been a coatrack. It's not a fork, because there is no root article to which it would logically attach. It's just a pastiche of stuck-together information. (I won't call them facts, as there is quite a bit there that is synthesis and OR.) This needs to go. Risker (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that some of the sourcing is very flimsy. For instance, the info about Radu cel Frumos is sourced from two books:
      • a paperback published by Back Bay Books "Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His Times", which only has 16 citations in google scholar, most of them from movie-related publications, rather than other history works [2]. Does not seem incredibly academic. This book is not available online, but a similar one from the same authors is (guess what, vampire-related books sell well). And this is what we can read there [3]: "Gossip accused him, largely because of his good looks, of being one of the minions in the male harem of Mehmed, heir to the Ottoman throne, thus requiring him to be constantly at his master's disposal." pp. 19-20
      • the other source is D. Browne, A General history of the several nations of the world: from the flood, to the present times, 1751. Almost the entire story in the wiki article is taken from there, uncritically.
    • So, it smells a little funny, even if I cannot exclude that the info may be true, and also found in more respectable source. I for one, wasn't able to find any online, except this book about Islam by and Indian journalist (pretty YMMV as a source for anything). Interesting enough someone copied the info, with the first book reference, to the Romanian Wikipedia. Pcap ping 07:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of synth, someone call Dr. Moog. JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too much synthesis and original research. Shadowjams (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with Fire. The possibility exists that this may be an encyclopedic topic. But the reality is that this article is so riddled with Original Research, synthesis, and shenanigans as to make it unsuitable. If we are to cover the topic, it would be best done from a blank article and a clean start. Thus, we should delete this. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COATRACK, synthesis, OR, obvious adgenda need we more reasons.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agenda-driven original research and synthesis of disparate sources. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agenda-driven original research and synthesis of disparate sources (thank you Tarc). Think of the children (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Waste of space - I strongly suspect most of the sources for this have either been partially selected or highly twisted. Time to clean up the crap that's proliferated here. Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The primary editor has been known to use synthesis and OR to twist sources to his viewpoint. Better to start over if someone later decides to build the topic again. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:COATRACK fork. RFerreira (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (With some regret) Keep -- This is an unpleasant subject, and I would love to hear no more of it, but unfortunately, some of it (at least) is dealing with historical fact; at least there is a strong presumption of fact. Since it was all illicit, historical sources can not say that it happened, but strong indications exist. Most of the pairings listed have a source, many of which are (I presume) WP:RS. Since the relationships are illegal, an article that referred to any living person would be potentially libellous, but the representatives of those who have died cannot sue, so that no danger exists there. The article may well need a good deal of pruning, but in so far as the relationships are verifiable, the article appears to be legitimate. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agenda-based original research/synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and treat subject at pederasty. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of this is unsupported. The main contributor of this article has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for contributions such as this article. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonalone (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 February 2010
  • Delete Out out vile spot! The creator of this article has long been a propagandist for pederasty. Nice to see action at last! Amphitryoniades (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are two issues here, which a lot of people here seem to be mistaking. (a) Regardless of who or what the author might be, pederasty is not the same as pedophilia (nor even paedophilia) - pederasty is old man + young man (that's post-pubescent man, not underage boy). Not only is pederasty 100% legal in most places (there is even a 'sugar daddy' subculture among both heterosexuals and homosexuals), but its also historically one of the main forms of homosexual expression (and in ancient Greek homosexual relations, pederasty was the norm). Now maybe he was trying to use it for some slippery-slope type argument, but that's a content/NPOV dispute, not an article-existence dispute. (b) AfD is about subject, not content. The question you should be asking is "is it possible for an article under this title to ever become a reasonable article?" - even if that necessitates replacing 100% of the content - instead of asking "do you want this article as it is right now this second". Newman Luke (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional comment. Don't let the latin in the title mislead you. What you are discussing here under AfD is Historical list of men with sugar-daddies. (In fact, moving the article to that title would probably remove half the problems it has, although it has the downside of not being a very professional looking title) Newman Luke (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're actually talking about is the more general concept, age–structured homosexuality (do a google books search). Pederasty is almost universally defined as involving a boy, even if pubescent; 12–17 years old according to this source. Often enough the contents here overflows the narrower concept of pederasty. Quite a few of Haiduc's articles should be renamed that way (i.e. from "X pederasty" or "pederasty in X" to "age–structured homosexuality in X"). Pcap ping 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per explanations above Avi (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_pederastic_relationships_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136111506"