Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian pederasty

A likely hoax. Very bizarrely written and in parts, entirely incomprehensible. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a hoax, but it certainly fails to substantiate its basic premise: that culturally accepted pederasty was a practice characteristic specifically of Albanian society (as opposed to, for instance, Ottoman society at large). I have no doubt that reports by 19th-century travellers and ethnographs to that effect may exist, but then, the 19th century was a time of intense racial prejudice, and we'd really need some sanity filter through modern historical research on this issue. The sourcing is entirely outdated, and mostly from primary contemporary sources, which are rendered with far too little critical distance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously not a hoax. See Google scholar for more sources Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, it's not a hoax although I can't blame the nominator for thinking that it might be something both defamatory and untrue. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate just because I thought the article was a hoax. Lines like "Prof. Weigand, who knew the Albanians well, assured Bethe[3] that the relations described by Hahn are really sexual, although tempered by idealism," make absolutely no sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we misunderstood you when you wrote "A likely hoax." Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - That passage is obviously sticking very closely to some intermediate source without taking due consideration of the context. "X said that Y said that Z...". Demonstrates poor treatment of sources and lack of distance in writing. The article author even took a phrase like "A German scholar who travelled in Albania some years ago(!)", obviously said in one of the sources by a writer in around 1900, and copies it literally into our article so as to make it sound as if it were talking about c.2000. Fail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but edit a bit. I contributed much of the article, but it has been some time and if I did it again now I would change the language. The criticism at the beginning of this discussion, of having too little critical distance is right on the money. The material should have been edited to remove the voice of the original narrator. On the other hand, I do wish that people who start AfD campaigns would do their homework. This is historical material that can easily be cross-checked. --Haiduc (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some rewording. I would strongly urge you to add your true sources to that article. You were evidently quoting those 1900s reports indirectly.
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, if this is kept, I'd suggest renaming to Pederasty in Albania. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Granted, I will have to look again for the sources. Why do you suggest re-naming the article? Haiduc (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is to keep in line with

Cretan pederasty, etc. We should probably stick to one format. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The longer place descriptors really do require a "Pederasty in ..." format, but when the location can be expressed in one word, the other format is more concise and - to my eye - more elegant. I do not think we need force everything into one single pattern, certainly there is no danger of confusion. Haiduc (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My idea about the renaming was that it would be less provocative, to people who'd find "Albanian pederasty" to imply some kind of moral stain on their ethnic identity. "Albanian pederasty", to my mind, carries a somewhat stronger implication that pederasty is something inextricably linked to being Albanian, more so than "Pederasty in Albania", which just describes pederasty as something that used to happen in that place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but I think that in this case it is the other way around. To use another analogy, it is not as if we had "Albanian smallpox" and changed it to "Smallpox in Albania" since smallpox is the same everywhere and can happen anywhere. In this case we had a local pederastic culture, with its traditions, vocabulary, religious rituals, and literature. It was very much an Albanian construction of pederasty. There was no shame to it, on the contrary, it was very much integrated into the honor code and celebrated. Just because someone today wants to repudiate his national heritage I do not think we are obligated to harness Wikipedia to that cart. To my eye it goes against the very culture of impartiality and respect for history that we are cultivating.Haiduc (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are obvious and strong reasons for a standard naming format, though I don't really care which one it is. But I would very much like to see a standard and have articles stick to it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the current de facto situation is that we have two formats to suit two very different requirements. In those case where the pederastic customs are relatively uniform and consistent, we have titles in the style of "Athenian pederasty," since, quite clearly, that custom is unitary and definable. In case where we have a collection of separate pederastic traditions, we have titles such as "Pederasty in ancient Greece". In the present case, the Albanian pederastic tradition is documented as a unitary tradition, with a single vocabulary, and rituals that can be identified as specifically Albanian (vellameria is encountered only in Albania and nowhere else, vlamis is strictly an Albanian term). So I see greater accuracy in the present structure, and a blurring of distinctions if we were to adopt a single format to cover unlike topics. Haiduc (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite from sources and cut back or better contextualize the literary interpretation aspect, which makes it look fantastic. The original Hahn account, translated, appears in full right in A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture, so it's possible to avoid these fourth-hand interpretations. As Hahn notes, the practice appeared to have survived since Doric times. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd be careful about that Hahn account. For instance, the ancient "Doric" connection cannot possibly be much more than pure speculation. A 19th-century traveller who had no other means of researching the issue than by sitting down with a few Albanians and chatting with them could not possibly know anything about such continuity. Also, the fact that Elsie in his modern book just prints Hahn's account literally without any further commentary makes me suspicious. It seems to imply Hahn's report is really the only substantial account we have, and there is nothing else in the way of modern research to check it or corroborate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haiduc. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve the sourcesMegistias (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Haiduc makes compelling arguments. Queerudite (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (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.