Talk:Nicolo Giraud/Archive 1

Untitled comments
If only known for his relationship with Byron (and even not among Byron's well-known relationships), then he is not notable. This is not sufficient for including in an encyclopedia. There are many famous people who have relationships with others, homosexual or otherwise. We don't need an article for everyone of those non-famous people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturnalsleeper (talk • contribs) 02:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability criteria doesn't include the issues for which you removed the speedy delete tag. Context and refs do not relate to notability. Notability from what I can tell is stuff like is this person important enough to have his own encyclopaedia article. Saying he's a relative by marriage to an assistant of Lord Elgin and that he was one of Byron's lovers (and not even the famous or infamous ones like Lamb). Just being a lover is not notable. Did he influence Byron's writing in a meaningful way? Did he have an impact on culture or history? Just mentioning him in the Byron article should be sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturnalsleeper (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure a fairly full account of his life can be written from the various bios on Byron--and possibly from t he fictional treatments of this also. The probability of the later makes al l the more reason for keeping. DGG (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of sources

 * This diff claims "Nicolò Giraud (1795-?) is known for being the pederastic beloved of Lord Byron at the age of 15 or 16." - Drummond Bone, The Cambridge Companion to Byron p.111

pp. 111-112 actually states: "Byron facetiously declared that he would contribute only a single chapter to the book, on 'the state of morals and a further treatise on the same to be entitled "Sodomy simplified or Paederasty proved to be praiseworthy from ancient authors and modern practice"' (BLJ, 1, 208). Although Byron's 'chapter' never materialised, remarks in his correspondence from the Levant often read like a series of 'queer' footnotes to Hobhouse's travelogue, in which the celebrated predilection for homosexuality amongst Albanians, Greeks, and Turks is tersely glossed over during a discussion of Albanian misogyny. Despite the fact that Byron waited until the disapproving Hobhouse left for England efore cultivating his boy lovers, Eustathios Georgious and Nicolo Giraud, his interest in Levantine homosexuality was not just the frisson of the sexual tourist, but an integral part of his interest in comparing Eastern and Western manners."

As you can see, there is no "pederastic beloved" used and no "known for being" used.


 * "As a result of their copious couplings, the boy developed an anal rupture"

As I have demonstrated from sources, this was a rumor and yet presented as fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be unaware of what you are saying. In your own quotation above, you confirm that the source I used identifies Giraud as his boy lover. That makes him his pederastic beloved. If you are not aware of what pederasty is, why do you interfere in this article?
 * And, now that you have called me a vandal and I have called you a censor, by what rights do you presume to delete the relevant category of "History of pederasty" when this person is discussed in the literature as Byron's pederastic beloved?! Who are you to stand in the way of the reader who is interested in past events related to pederasty and say, "No, you shall not know about this because I have decided that by my standards this is not pederastic enough!"
 * Why don't you get out of the way and let people decide for themselves, instead of shoving your uninvited and uninformed opinions down their throats? Since when is Wikipedia an authoritarian playground? Haiduc (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He shows himself perfectly capable of printing the word pederast. He does not. Therefore, you are miss-attributing quotes and applying original research, which is one of the worse things you can do in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, your "category" is not a real category as it does not have proper determiners and criteria for acceptance. You cannot claim that since two people speculated that Byron might have been in a pederastic relationship that it was true, nor can you say that Giraud is a pederast. You don't seem to know what pederasty is, and that is why you are unable to come up with a real definition of it, but still add it to as many articles as you possibly can with vague assertions. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Homophobic monomania rules the day. I am not surprised that you should consider the discussion of a personage's pederasty as a smear. There are some who think calling someone a jew is a smear. And just as that posture categorizes them, your position categorizes you as a homophobe. Your "denunciation" thus reveals you as a bona fide member of this fag bashing crowd that ideologically purges the documentation of pederasty, a homosexual subtopic, from Wikipedia. Why do you not delete the LGBT tag at the head of this page, while you are at it? What is it doing here if not confirming that we are discussing homosexuality between a man and a boy???
 * You also fail to understand that a category on the history of pederasty does not only include "proven pederasts" but actually encompasses ALL discussions of pederasty in history. This is not an ecclesiastical court documenting confirmed sinners for future immolation, but an academic category in which we gather items of interest to the topic. Your judgmental approach is out of place here, this is not junior high school nor some fundamentalist backwater. And do us all a favor and try to correct your previous less-than-intelligible post, so that we may be sure of what it is you are trying to say. Haiduc (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, cut it out. There is plenty to discuss here without calling each other names, and both of you have been warned about this behaviour in the past. Stick to discussing the content and the references used to support the content without speculating on each other's motivations. Having worked with each of you before, I am certain that both of you are incorrect in your assertions about the other. If you cannot support your argument without calling your colleague names, then you probably don't have a good enough argument to stand alone. I'm going to link this post to each of your user talk pages, and ask you to refactor the personalised comments. Continued behaviour along the lines I see above will be considered disruption rather than commentary, and will be treated as such. Risker (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Might I suggest three things:
 * Chill? The comments above border on personal attacks.  Take a breath before responding, and talk about content, not other editors.
 * There are plenty of sources that discuss the pederastic relationship between Byron and Giraud. I can only read a snippet of the first one through Google Books, but the second two are clear. I suggest adding one or more of these as refs and re-adding the appropriate categories:
 * It sounds like the description of the Category:History of pederasty needs some clarification.
 * -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Satyr, most of those sources are seen by actual literary critics and biographers as fringe sources, single purpose, and wrong. As you can see from most of the critics on the page, they state that there is not enough information to actually go off of to do anything more than wildly speculation. Furthermore, the term "pederasty" used by them is quite different, and pederasty is not the same as homosexual. The term "pederasty" was used by Byron to talk about young child, but most of those that Byron was ever involved with, if you were to say that there was actual sex, were above the 16, which at the time "legal minors" but still viewed as adults, failing the definition of pederasty. Was Giraud gay? No one knows. Was there a possibility that he was emotionally attached to Byron? A strong one. Is there a possibility that Giraud had a sexual relationship with him? Yes. Is there the ability to confirm either of these, let alone his actual age and apply a 20th century term that was different than Byron's use of it back onto Giraud (not Byron, mind you)? No. Giraud was not a pederast. He is not important to the "history" of pederasty. And there is no definition that can acceptably include him into the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the description of the Category:History of pederasty needs some clarification.
 * -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Satyr, most of those sources are seen by actual literary critics and biographers as fringe sources, single purpose, and wrong. As you can see from most of the critics on the page, they state that there is not enough information to actually go off of to do anything more than wildly speculation. Furthermore, the term "pederasty" used by them is quite different, and pederasty is not the same as homosexual. The term "pederasty" was used by Byron to talk about young child, but most of those that Byron was ever involved with, if you were to say that there was actual sex, were above the 16, which at the time "legal minors" but still viewed as adults, failing the definition of pederasty. Was Giraud gay? No one knows. Was there a possibility that he was emotionally attached to Byron? A strong one. Is there a possibility that Giraud had a sexual relationship with him? Yes. Is there the ability to confirm either of these, let alone his actual age and apply a 20th century term that was different than Byron's use of it back onto Giraud (not Byron, mind you)? No. Giraud was not a pederast. He is not important to the "history" of pederasty. And there is no definition that can acceptably include him into the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ottava Rime, perhaps you could address each source if you feel they aren't appropriate? Words like "most of those" and "most of the critics" mean there's some weasel wording going on. Since I know I've seen Crompton and Aldrich used as reliable sources on various articles, I'm reluctant to put much stock in the statement that they are wrong unless you fully address the source directly rather than painting with a broad brush. Furthermore, if a reliable source calls their relationship pederastic, Wikipedia (which relies on what sources say) can and should call the relationship pederastic. If you're arguing that the definition of "Pederasty" is different today than it was in 1795, this is not the place to do it. Here we need to report what reliable third-party sources have said, not change or make up our own definitions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the sources are addressing each other on the main page. If one source says that a couple is pederastic, it does not mean that the couple is pederastic. There is a difference between knowing something and having one person claiming something, especially when there isn't a solid, academic definition used. And Satyr, I find it troubling that you claim that there are "weasel words" when there is only one phrase that could be construed as it, "Many critics disagree with the speculation over Giraud's and Byron's relationship", which is followed by a list of critics that disagree. I would suggest you rereading the page and then you can see the academic argument. Three recent critics already pointed out that the only critics who have made claims about pederasty have based their claims on possibly unsupportable ideas, or are one sided and biased. There is literally no evidence to make a certain claim about the relationship that Giraud and Byron had, especially without knowing the exact age of Giraud, which makes it impossible for someone to claim that it was pederastic and this has been pointed out by many important critics who are cited on the page. It is speculation, and the category is not "speculative pederastic couples". I feel that you completely misconstrued the argument, and insinuated as if there was original research being performed by anyone besides Haiduc, which is clearly not the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more specific. If you have a problem with a source, would you describe which one and why? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with any source. I have a problem with Haiduc taking "love" and "boy", especially when boy is vague and without an age, to mean "pederast", when the definition of pederast is far more specific. I also find it biased to label someone as part of a pederastic relationship when there is dispute as to the nature of the relationship, and therefore completely one sided. I further find it inappropriate to apply a label to a set of people without first establishing a rigorous definition, as such a loose term with an obvious poor interpretation in many circles, including hetero or homosexual circles, could be deemed as a smear against certain figures. The use of the term also does not differentiate between the sexual and non-sexual definitions of the term. Finally, using the term as a label generalizes and fails to discuss the actual nuances and information on the relationship. The section now discusses the many, many possibilities. It would be fine if this was put in a standard LGBT category based on its focus on within the "queer theory"/homosexual studies branch of cultural criticism in Literary criticism, which is why Giraud became an important figure. He represented one of many idealized male youths in Byron's life that blends poetic desire, experience within nature, and masculine virility and has been used to explain the manifestation of Byron's male longings as one aspect in his very complex sexual/romantic understanding. Byron is an extremely complex figure, literarily and relationship, and his constant adoration of masculine figures (young and old), frequent indulgence in prostitution, high levels of intimacy within a large circle of friends that may or may not have led to sexual experiences, and even a pseudo-incestual encounter with a half-sister that may or may not (according to the females in Byron's life, definitely did) have led to the birth of Elizabeth Medora Leigh. He is an extremely controversial figure and people will claim many extremes about him. It is not Wikipedia's duty to pick a side, but to simply explain the complex arguments that have developed over 170 years and leave it at that. Yes, there are probably some arguments missing, but on both sides. I have not yet put up the biggest Byron biographers, but I also ignored some of the more general "queer theorists". I tended to only put the ones who particularly deal with the controversial details, instead of those who gloss over and just make a claim without pointing to particular evidence. I feel that the argument over specific details is the most important to discuss, so people can make up their own mind over how to interpret which specific aspect. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the use of the Category:History of pederasty doesn't apply to Giraud. As you say, "Giraud represents one of the many male youths in Byron's life." And "Giraud has been used to explain the manifestation of Byron's male longings."  It doesn't matter whether they had sex or not, we can point to many sources that say they had a strong relationship, and we can point to many sources that discuss whether or not it was pederastic.  That right there is grounds for including the article in the History of pederasty.  That does not indicate that their relationship was pederastic - simply that the relationship is part of the history of pederasty. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ":I fail to see how the use of the Category:History of pederasty doesn't apply to Giraud. " Really? Then where is Giraud a pederast? Where is the proof that there was a pederastic relationship? Where is the proof that his relationship was influential in the history of pederasty? To say that this one person who has only been talked about in the minority, without any full biography, could be important to the history of pederasty, a term which is viewed as immoral and even criminal by many simply because it was suggested by a minority of critics that he could have been involved with an older man, is really inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, censoring an article because some people might consider it immoral or criminal is not a factor. Second, the discussion you and I (and the several sources in the article) are having about the possibility of a pederastic relationship is grounds enough. Third, being in the History of pederasty category, as I said, does not imply that they were in a pederastic relationship, but rather that their relationship is obviously interesting from that point of view. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can throw out the term "censoring" all you want, but I am the one that actually put in the nuances about his relationship. It is inappropriate to claim that this figure represents anything of historical importance, especially with a category that is completely inappropriate as it lacks clear inclusion standards or even a basic definition. I feel that your argument lacks any merit because you resorted to claims of censorship and that you will not get any further response from me on the issue, because I have bent over backwards providing a neutral point of view on this article, which includes the whole perspective, and it is completely inappropriate for you or Haiduc to push a completely vague and one sided perspective into the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously claiming "It is inappropriate to claim that this figure represents anything of historical importance"? That statement invalidates everything in the article, including that it belongs in the encyclopedia!
 * Once again, if you have an issue with the definition of pederasty, this is not the place to discuss it. If you have an issue with the standards of inclusion for Category:History of pederasty, this is not the place to discuss it.
 * As it stands, WP:CONSENSUS says that there are at least two editors that have provided reliable sources to back up their claim that the category is pertinent. Please provide any sources that say Giraud is not related to the history of pederasty? Or perhaps we should bring in a WP:3O? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "That statement invalidates everything in the article, including that it belongs in the encyclopedia!" Notability does not mean historically important. Notability means that he is notable. He is not "ground changing" in the history of "pederasty" nor is there any argument that can be made. I don't need to provide any sources that he is not important to it, because there are no sources to say he is, and you must prove that he is important to pederasty, which has not happened. He is notable for his relationship with Byron which a minority of scholars label as pederasty, which negates any claims that can be made. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer the article to be in the Category:Pederasty? That makes less sense to me.  Since Byron is a pretty important historical figure (please don't make me source that), and since Giraud is his lover (in whatever sense of the word you choose, there are several sources that agree on that), *that* indicates membership in the category.  Furthermore, there are references that support the "importance" argument - for example "Friendship with particular boys thus inspired some of Byron's poems" (Aldrich, p. 74)
 * Or try this (rather long) quotation about pederasty and how Byron's love interests affected England:

"Byron's sexuality itself became the subject of legend. Some years after his death, a poem entitled Don Leon was ascribed to Byron when it was published in 1866. Although quite definitely a fake, the poem purports to be a catalogue of Byron's homosexual interests - with references to the Greeks and classical literature, the attractions of foreighn climes and clandestine loves, the affairs with Edlestone and Giraud, who are identified by name, and an eloquent plea for law reform and the emancipation of homosexuals in England. Even in a forged work, therefore, Byron had become a symbol for a particular kind of love in English letters and a basis for appeals to change the laws which made it opportune for men like him to seek homosexual satisfaction overseas. (Aldrich, p. 74)"
 * Since I see you've recently added some info about the Don Leon poem, maybe there is more about how it (and Giraud) have contributed to the history of Pederasty? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Giraud is not a pederast, nor can anyone claim such. 2. The minority have ever used the term pederast within the same work that Giraud is mentioned. 3. His age and relationship with Byron are unknown. 4. Little is known about Giraud, so there is no ability to claim he can represent any kind of important figure in any kind of movement, let alone pederasty. 5. Your continued actions are extremely tendentious, represent the pushing of a minority opinion, and are completely unscholarly. 6. Your quote from Aldrich is factually inaccurate, as it was not Byron, nor ascribed to Byron, but to Colman, and it is a myth that it was ascribed to Byron. 7. The Don Leon poem is not about pederasty, but a satire that mocks society for criticizing Byron over his failed marriage and is not factual. It is also, as a poem, fiction, which invalidates it from being used as any kind of historical evidence. 8. Not only have you attempted to use blatantly incorrect sources, you are pushing a completely POV and controversial view point in a manner that is completely unbecoming and I would recommend your questionable actions, along with Haiduc's, to be put up in AN or AN/I for review, because this disturbing trend is utterly destructive to any kind of integrity that Wikipedia would seek to claim as an encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to take part in any argument but if I may put in my 2 cents. First, it's amazing how this article has changed over the last few hours! Without reading the pages and pages and pages you guys have said so far except the last few entries, I think that there would be no concensus because it would be pretty even with Ottava, me and Nandasuka being against the category and SatyrTN and Haiduc for it. But it doesn't matter what we think because based on the writers Ottava included as reference in the article even they can't agree. I think it would be pushing the point to put in the category. It would be like putting the category "wife-murderers" for O.J. Simpson. Theres probably a better example but I can't think of it. I think as long as both sides are represented in the article and presented validly from good and accurate sources then everyone should be happy. Just my 2 cents here.--Costagne (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a pity that people with the intelligence of some of the contributors to this article are so invested in battling the association with pederasty. And it is a pity that the tool used for this campaign is an attack on homosexual relations between men and youths, relations which range the gamut from chaste to carnal and from legal to illegal. But the essence of this attack is precisely a denial of that reality, and an attempt to impose a reductionist (and false) image of pederasty. It is an image that is fundamentally denigrating of same sex relations between males, and that flies in the face of history as well as modern understanding.
 * Over the weekend I gathered some more information, which I posted at the pederasty article. It shows in crystal-clear fashion that 1. the reductionist definition of pederasty (buggering children) is not the only one presented in dictionaries (as if we were somehow obligated to genuflect to mere dictionaries, which we are not) and 2. that definition is regarded as incorrect by at least two prominent sexologists. Notwithstanding all that, multiple definitions of a polysemic term in no way give us an excuse to not examine and document it, in ALL its aspects. Haiduc (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You make interesting points but the text that you point out if anything gives us reason for otherwise. What I mean is you have the biggest British English and American English dictionaries telling you that it is a sexual relationship. Then you have two big sexologists acknowledge that this is the common definition but they personally disagree. By doing so they are admitting that their personal opinion is different than the mainstream definition. You can have two big people in a field disagree with the mainstream opinion, which I bet happens a lot, but that doesn't mean it overturns the main opinion.--Costagne (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "is an attack on homosexual relations between men and youths" Haiduc, what are you even arguing here? That Pederasty should be seen as an acceptable practice, even though by definition it is illegal? Are you seriously trying to say that the illegal act of pedophilia, i.e. sex with an underaged child should be seen as normal and acceptable on Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your two posts are an exercise in power. Not in truth. THAT is the main point. Haiduc (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth? Where is the proof of age? Proof of relationship? Proof that he is important in the history of a topic that you have not given clear definitions for? You have no right to talk about truth when you haven't bothered to address these questions. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Historians do not work with proof. They work with texts. The texts we have, the information on relationship we have, the age we have, and pederasty has been exhaustively defined. All you are offering is obstructionism, and your tool is force, as anyone can see who can see through your posts. Haiduc (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has misunderstood. You made it clear that you are trying to make pederasty normalized and are using Wikipedia to achieve this ends. This is POV pushing of the worse kind, especially when you are trying to hide the fact that pederasty deals with children and pedophilia by blurring the definition to try and make it seem acceptable. Not only that, you are trying to further make it seem like common practice by branding as many biographies as possible as related to pederasty without any hard evidence to back up the assertions. And historians speculate all the time. People get paid to publish opinions and push agendas. Your assertion above is extremely dishonest. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your war on pederasty, and repeated insertion of child sex themes where they do not belong are YOUR affair, my dear boy, not ours. They begin and end with you, and do not interest me or anyone else here. They will not be resolved in Wikipedia or on the internet. You will have to address these matters elsewhere, preferably not in public. Good luck. Haiduc (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, your actions are completely unfit for an encyclopedia. I have already provided a lot of evidence that says that pederasty is having anal sex with male children. The fact that you keep trying to justify it as a normal act is not what Wikipedia is for. I would suggest that you move onto an encyclopedia that is more accepting of promoting illegal activities instead of pushing your POV here. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My dear friend, you are engaged in a culture war which is inappropriate here. The "definition" that you are touting is one of many, and has nothing to do with what we are discussing here (Byron possibly excepted, since he did seem to get rather intimate with NG). This is not about Haiduc, it is not even about pederasty. It is about history. Drop you campaign, please. And as far as me trying to "justify" something or other, give me a break. I am documenting historical events and texts, with the purpose of informing not "justifying." But I at least honor the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to make information free. You seem to be worshipping some other god, that wants to cover up information. Haiduc (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Culture war? No. This is an encyclopedia. If there is evidence of something from a reliable source, it goes in. However, you are bluring distinctions and purposely putting for vague ideas to promote an ideology. That is completely inappropriate. Not only is it wrong, your acts are deceptive in your attempt to first claim that this was about homosexuality, which it is not, then trying to pass it off as if I am engaged in some kind of war, when it is you who are making these pushes across many, many pages, and I have only talked to you on two. Furthermore, there are dozens of editors who have already directly complained about your use of vague terminology, your reliance on Original Research, your constantly misstating what sources actually say, and many, many other problems that would normally result in a block or at least a prohibition from editing in such articles again. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see it that way. I take a neutral view of pederasty, as a phenomenon that is inherently neither good nor bad, simply another aspect of history that can be documented. And I document it, in all its aspects, which is the whole purpose of our being here.
 * You on the other hand take a polemical approach, claim that pederasty is a negative, illegal phenomenon, and assiduously try to erase any mention of it from Wikipedia, in a misbegotten (if idealistic) campaign to presumably save children from child abuse.
 * THAT is what culture wars are all about.
 * The claim that the terminology is vague is not valid, we have definitions and the material largely stays within the scope of those definitions. Human experience however is not like solid geometry, and pederasty clearly shades into pedophilia at one extreme, and shades into androphilia at the other extreme. That lack of rigid boundaries does not mean it does not exist. Think of an electron cloud.
 * I spend a lot of time seeking out my sources, and as often as not I double check the secondary sources by referencing the original Greek or Latin texts. The topic is difficult to document because it has been the target of censorship and misrepresentation for centuries. Witness the burning of Byron's memoirs. But it is not impossible. The spurious claims of misuse of resources come from individuals who tout a simplistic, reductionist definition of pederasty and then accuse me of misrepresenting texts to assert that this or that personage fit within those simplistic boundaries. But that is a perversion of my work here. I consistently use the anthropological definitions of pederasty, which have room for various manifestations of pederasty that do not fit the "child buggering" model so insistently and tiresomely touted by you, Nandesuka, and other people with the gaze fixed below the belt.
 * I am genuinely sorry to see you taking this approach, not just because you have damaged a great deal of my work here that now I have to try to repair, but because I really think that our aims are not that far apart. We are both idealists, or else we would not be here. Well, that better world we are working for will not come, in this respect, from covering up the evidence of past pederastic relations, but from showing the whole gamut of such relationships, both the good and the bad, so people can study these examples and learn how to love each other in a civilized way that does not lead to hurt or indignity for either partner. And that will not come from ignorance, it will only come from knowledge. Haiduc (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I take a neutral view of pederasty" I'm sure dozens of people would disagree. You are one of the biggest promoters of Pederasty and have gone so far as to obscure what it really is, pretend it is part of main stream homosexuality, and have use the term in the worse situations and without proof while acting as if it is normal. You haven't sought out sources. You haven't done anything but push your point of view everywhere, and this encyclopedia will not be encyclopedic until you are banned for your Original Research, constantly POV pushing, edit warring, constantly doing things against consensus, and your extreme abuse of other editors by claiming anyone who opposes you is homophobic. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Without regard to whether Byron was or was not a pederast, it seems to me that we are bound by our policies to state such, as fact, only if there are reliable sources that make the claim, and only if such sources are not presenting a fringe view. While I appreciate that you feel you know pederasty when you see it, your opinions (nor, indeed, mine) are not a proper source for this encyclopedia.  Nandesuka (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since your personal opinion of what is and is not fring is something you need to keep to yourself and keep out of this forum, I will only accept that a source is fringe when it is so identified by a legitimate source. Not an internet nobody. Haiduc (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That has to be one of the most revolting things I have honestly seen written in Wikipedia. It is a slap in the face of anything that could be considered encyclopedic integrity and is POV pushing of the worse kind. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what you do or don't accept -- only reliable sources are appropriate for Wikipedia. The standard of inclusion is that if you want to use a source in a citation, it needs to be demonstrated to be a reliable source.   If you're unclear on this, our content guideline on reliable sources and our core policies of verifability and no original research should help refresh your memory.   Specifically, remember, as WP:V says  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."  I hope this clears up any lingering misconceptions you have on this topic.  Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Haiduc AND Ottava Rima, you have both made personal attacks. If I see another one, I will ask for an administrator to see if a block is necessary. Please focus on the material at hand and do NOT engage in personal attacks.
 * With that in mind, I've now presented material several times that not only calls Byron and Giraud's relationship "pederastic", but I've also shown that, due to the poem Don Leon, Giraud belongs in the Category:History of pederasty. The only objection I've seen is a long-winded response that missed the point - their relationship is specifically mentioned in the poem, which was (at least in part) a plea for law reform (and I've provided a reference for that).  Are there valid objections I've missed?  If not, can we add the Category:History of pederasty? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Satyr, which sources were you referring to? The only one I saw was Aldrich, which doesn't call Byron and Giraud's relationship "pederastic" anywhere I saw, and which notes that Don Leon was "definitely a forgery", although ascribed to Byron some years later.  Did I miss one?  Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found the other sources you're referring too. There are a few problems with the Haggerty source in particular.  First off, Haggerty does not characterize Byron as as pederast.  He characterizes him as a pedophile.  So if we're going to use that as a source, we should make sure we represent the source accurately
 * Secondly, in labeling Byron as a pedophile, Haggerty misconstrues Byron's relationship with Edlestone. This is a controversial claim, and one which is hotly contested amongst Byron scholars (see the talk page for Byron, where this topic has been gone over within the past few months).  That Haggerty simply glosses over this is unfortunate.  But be that as it may, I don't see anything in Haggerty that warrants the label "pederast", unless we are using the more commonly understood definition of "pedophile" that Ottava mentions.  I guess I'm just one of those darn reductionists!
 * I will look at the other sources as I find the time. Nandesuka (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If I attacked anyone I am not aware of it, unless you are referring to my pointing out that a Wikipedia editor, any Wikipedia editor, is an internet nobody. That's what we all are, we have no authority or legitimacy, but published authors do. And we cannot dismiss them as "fringe" unless we have proper evidence. Else we are just bandying words around and wasting everyone's time. As for your suggestion that the Historical pederasty category be reinstated, I am in favor. This topic merits inclusion since it has been discussed in that light, and since it involves a love relationship between a man and an adolescent boy, which fits the anthropological definitions of pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply understand that Wikipedia's policies baldly state that the burden of proof of reliability is on the shoulders of the Internet Nobody -- in this case, you -- who wishes to introduce a source to an article. Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once we know that a man and a boy were lovers, we also know that their relationship was pederastic, as per the academic definition. We do not need to be told so by anyone. Your bad luck is that you chose to make your stand with a couple whose love has been widely discussed, so here there is no question that the relationship took place, that he boy was an adolescent and that the older partner was an adult. Haiduc (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Clear indications of pederasty

 * Mapping Male Sexuality by Jay Losey, William Dean Brewer, p.75 (ISBN 0838638287), (please google it) is quite explicit. The Seduction of the Mediterranean by Robert Aldrich, p.72 (ISBN 0415093120) is also quite clear. Haiduc (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ''To judge from Byron's letters, the monastery was a hotbed of pederasty, and the English lord was welcomed with hospitality by both priests and boys. One young Signor Barthelemi sat down beside Byron as soon as he arrived, told him he was the most handsome of visitors and planted a kiss on his cheek.
 * But my friend, as you may easily imagine is Nicolo, who by the bye, is my Italian master, and we are very philosophical. - I am his 'padrone' [master] and his 'amico' [friend] and the Lord knows what besides.'' -- Aldrich, p. 71-2




 * Byron's "Caesar of sexuality," a phrase that describes his pederastic relaiton with Nicolo Giraud. --

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bruhm citation seems like a reliable source, describes the relationship as pederasty directly, and doesn't require any original research on the part of "I know pederasty when I see it!" internet nobodies. I'd support its use as a source.  Nandesuka (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It took you long enough to admit that pederasty can be something other than buggering little children. Now that we have established that, I assume that you will spare us any further airing of your anal theories. As for needing other sources to specify explicitly that a relationship is pederastic, that will not be necessary since we have widely accepted (now even by you) definitions of the phenomenon. Haiduc (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I have no idea what the heck you are talking about.  I'm willing to accept this relationship as pederastic because a reliable third party source describes it as thus.  Frankly, I don't think it's appropriate to accept your word for what something is or is not regardless of the topic.  Any more than it is appropriate to accept mine.
 * My objection has been, from the start, that you are trying to promote novel theories through original research. SatyrTN's source addresses this concern by providing a third-party reliable source that makes the claim.  It's that simple.  If you want to publish original research on what you think pederasty is, by all means, be my guest -- you just can't publish it on Wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Man, Haiduc - that (again) is close to a personal attack. By tone, if not in the actual words.  And this is when the argument is swinging your way...  Please try to moderate your tone?
 * Nandesuka hasn't actually said much on this article, so I feel like a previous argument is being brought to this page. Given that people are starting to come together in consensus, could we all try to pause before posting, re-read what we're saying, and remain civil?  Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No attack implied, the man has been trying to impose reductionist notions which he has now implicitly repudiated. That needed to be pointed out.
 * If by consensus you mean that the relationship between LB and NG was pederastic, then I concur. If however, you mean what Nandesuka is pushing, that though we know that a relationship between a man and a boy is of a homosexual nature, we still need someone to tell us it is pederastic, that is an opinion that has no bearing on this or any article. Haiduc (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Verifiability are not opinions. They are two of our three core content policies, and adherence to them is not optional.  Relevant to this discussion is the introduction to WP:NOR:  "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." [emphasis in original].  That doesn't just have a bearing on this article: it has a bearing on every article.  To the extent that one chooses to ignore these core content policies, she or he will find themselves to be a less effective, and a less well-respected, editor. Nandesuka (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Couching your antipathy to pederasty in official language fools nobody. The Wikipedia standards nowhere enjoin us to be morons. If we are told by a valid source that two males were in an erotic or sexual relationship we can file it with homosexual topics, without having to scramble around for someone to explicitly call it homosexual. Haiduc (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's an uncontroversial statement that a given relationship is of a certain nature, then properly sourcing it should be trivial. We're only in this pickle because you've insisted on applying this label to relationships for which multiple levels of extraordinary inference were required.  Which brings us by commodious vicus of recirculation to our third core content policy, WIkipedia: Neutral Point of View.  The relevant test here is simple and elegant:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * Regarding your "and when exactly did Nandesuka stop beating his wife?" statements that I have some antipathy to pederasty as a topic for the encyclopedia, they are of course untrue.  My only antipathy is to sloppy editing and sloppy sourcing.  In return, I observe that you are consistently rude and insulting to a level rarely seen at Wikipedia; that you haven't been blocked yet is, to me, truly astonishing.  Throughout the course of our interactions never once have you paused even momentarily before emitting a constant stream of vile (and ignorant) insinuations about the sexuality, politics, age, or religion of those you are in content disputes with.  If I encountered your scattershot insults as an uninvolved admin, I would frankly block you without a moment's guilt.  Alas, I edited the articles in question before understanding the depth of the behavior problems here.  I touched the tar baby.  So now I must engage you as a responsible editor, trying my best to clean up your messes.   All I can do is my best. Nandesuka (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on. Right now, Haiduc has provided that these books use "pederasty". Did he also quote how they define it? Has he matched it to the same definition as each other? And then has he matched it with the definition used for the category Pederasty? Just because a term is the same does not mean that the definition as use are the same. Furthermore, none of this proves that their view points are mainstream or credible. I have already cited multiple scholars who say that there is literally no evidence to base claims off of. That would mean that any claim is pure speculative, and therefore cannot be used to claim any definite status of an individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I have to say that this line: "To judge from Byron's letters, the monastery was a hotbed of pederasty" is demonstratively wrong. There have been plenty of sources which pointed to this interpretation as being completely biased, not based on fact, and pure real life point of view pushing. To claim that this comes from a reliable source is like saying Mein Kempf is reliable when talking about Jews. This is pure bias and conjecture, nothing more or less, and plenty of authors quoted on the article have already pointed this out. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what your definition of 'is' is. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Nandesuka's lament: What audience are you playing to? And why do you think people are so naive as to fall for your spin? And as far as making a mess, I will only point out that in this instance, with Giraud, and in the previous, with Epaminondas, after all the sturm und drang settled down, my position was vindicated and yours was overturned. See to your own messes, my good man, and don't rattle your administrator credentials quite so loudly, this is not opéra bouffe. Haiduc (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Repetition does not equal truth, and comments like ( "my position was vindicated and yours was overturned" ) are preposterous. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Category redux redux
Clearly I'm missing something. Would someone please put forward a reason *not* to have Category:History of pederasty on the article? Because I was pretty sure we covered the reasoning *for* it above. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the above conversation that only you and Haiduc think its a good idea, and that your proposals violate most of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. Your current response right now is tendentious at best. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be obtuse, but would you outline exactly what your objection to the category is? Because the above discussion convinced Nandesuka, and at the moment, you seem to be the only person objecting.  If there's anyone else, please speak up? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe that Nandesuka does not object to the category being added, then I really don't think you actually read what he wrote. Everyone except for you and Haiduc has stated that there is 1. no evidence for the category, 2. that this is a fringe POV, and 3. that the category is fundamentally flawed, especially when Haiduc has been misconstruing what pederasty actually is by blending multiple definitions and relying on various definitions at different times in order to dodge any kind of real point. Its quite clear that Haiduc does not belong on this encyclopedia, and your defense of him is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I ask you to keep to the subject of the article and to refrain from personal attacks.
 * The direct quote above, from Nandesuka, is SatyrTN's source addresses this concern by providing a third-party reliable source that makes the claim.
 * Since the above discussion *does* provide evidence for the category, and since multiple sources have addressed the issue (and therefore it is not "fringe POV") and since discussion of the category belongs on the category itself rather than here, I'd say your concerns have been addressed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Satyr, you are completely abusing the definition of "personal attack" in order to misconstrue and level your own attacks. You are also violating the rules of consensus, to reliable sources, to verifiability, and the rest. You are completely uncivil, and this will be your last response from me. If you continue trying to push your POV onto this page like you have been doing, I will simply file a complaint on the admin's forum. There is no evidence for anything you claim. There is no consensus for anything you claim. You can continue to claim on and on ad nauseum, but your actions are completely meritless as with your comments. You have done nothing here except for join in and support Haiduc's meritless claims in a manner completely unbecoming a Wikipedia editor. Good bye, Satyr. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to see where Satyr has misconstrued Nandesuka's words, please realize that Nandesuka was talking about "I'd support its use as a source." and not saying he would support it as a source to be used to declare that there is pederasty beyond a minority opinion. A minority opinion, i.e. a fringe opinion, grants no ability to claim beyond a doubt that something is true. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Making my position clear: SatyrTN's citation is clearly adequate to be used to support the statement in the article that some commentators characterize Byron's and Giraud's relationship as pederastic. I express no opinion on the category (yet) because I don't understand what the criteria is for inclusion or exclusion. If someone can explain that in adequate detail, I'd be happy to express an opinion on it. Is it simply a list of pederasts and/or their partners? Or is it intended to be more specific? Nandesuka (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The history of pederasty is an academically studied phenomenon. Anything end everything that bears on pederasty and that may be of interest to a reader studying the topic has to be included. Thus any information or speculation on erotic or sexual relationships between men and adolescent males, and materials discussing such, have to be listed there. We are providing a service to readers, not sitting in judgment. On what grounds would you deprive a student of pederasty from access to information on Byron and Giraud? Haiduc (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The history of pederasty is an academically studied phenomenon" No, it is not. There are theorists who use different definitions and try to justify their works based on linking those definitions. However, the use of pederasty by someone like Byron, by someone like Foucault, and by a group like NAMBLA are all different. Thus, you cannot use one word to describe these, otherwise, you are being 100% encyclopedically and academically misleading. You haven't even picked either Pederasty involving sex or Foucault's version of pederasty that would not allow sex to be an aspect of the relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google scholar returns 4170 listings for the topic. Somebody is studying pederasty. And yes, it includes a number of different aspects. As does, say, quantum physics. Alors? Haiduc (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Anything and everything" is not an acceptable answer to the question "What is the criteria for inclusion in this category?" If a category can contain "anything and everything", that is in fact a pretty good reason to delete it.
 * Would anyone else like to take a crack at answering the question? Until someone can explain to me what the category means, I can't support its application to this page.  Surely not every pederast one could think of would warrant mention in a book called "The History of Pederasty".  What is it about Giraud that makes the category relevant here?  How was he significant to the "History of Pederasty", beyond simply being in a relationship?  We wouldn't put Judi Dench in Category:History of marriage simply because she is married.  Nandesuka (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Category:History of pederasty should, as I understand it, contain articles pertaining to pederasty, the history thereof. Am I missing something?  Is it not fairly self evident?  This particular article would qualify due to the pederastic relationship (as is noted by several sources) of Byron and Giraud, as well as the historic nature of the poem that mentions Giraud by name and that was used as an historic and "eloquent plea for law reform and the emancipation of homosexuals in England" (Aldrich, p. 74).  Another book actually calls Don Leon "the first book on homosexuality ever published in English" . -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently your source would back up him being included in history of homosexuality, not pederasty. Or, are you trying to say that the two are equivalent? Also, your sources are wrong. Don Leon was a poem, not a book, and it, not Giraud (who was just a figure in the poem) was used as an attack on moral values that criticized Byron for his failed marriage (based on alleged incest with his step sister, not for homosexual activities). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a Category:History of homosexuality? It sounds like this would be perfectly appropriate there, based on the Kellogg citation.  I appreciate what you're saying, but I just don't see how merely being in a relationship qualifies one for membership in a "History of..." class (compare and contrast to the article on Shudō, which is perfectly apposite for the category). Nandesuka (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time, actually, it was "sodomy", and age didn't matter. At least that's how I understand the situation - I may be wrong on that. Would you prefer we add the article to Category:LGBT history or Category:LGBT history of the United Kingdom instead?
 * And you're right about the poem - the Kellogg source was referring to a book mentioned in Don Leon called something like "A Free Examination into the Penal Statutes, xxv Henr. VIII, cap. 6 and v Eliz. c. 17, i.e., addrest to Both Houses of Parliament". My bad - it's not the poem that is being referred to as the first book on homosexuality. Don Leon refers to that book in one of the notes in the poem - I got confused. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely support adding the article to Category:LGBT history, that's clearly apropos. History of England probably isn't apropos here because he wasn't English (but it might be apropos for Byron). Nandesuka (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. True. Though Don Leon was important to UK history. He probably doesn't belong in Category:LGBT history in Greece, either. Hm. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He is definitely a figure in understanding current homosexual relationships (and their relationships to society) and such a category would not require specifics on the actual nature of the relationship between him and Byron or his age. It would also reflect standard inclusion into the LGBT Wikiproject. He could be included in one of the Category:LGBT people categories because there is no debate that there was a relationship with him and Byron, even if it may be platonic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Other than his French parent, there's no mention in the article of anything about France. It does say he lived in Italy, but I don't know if he would be considered Italian. I'd favor leaving the "people from Greece" category, but removing the "people from France" cat. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nandesuka, pederasty is a subset of homosexuality. Did you think it was a heterosexual behavior? Haiduc (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we have consensus, then: add one of the LGBT History cats (optionally one of the country-specific ones), and not the History of pederasty cat. Glad to be able to see this through to a decision. Nandesuka (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a non-sequitur. The same objections that you raised for inclusion in the History of pederasty category could be raised for inclusion in a History of LGBT category. But you support the former and oppose the later. To me it smacks of censorship. Haiduc (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that reliable sources (and not just unimportant Wikipedia editors like you and me) specifically invoke Giraud (or rather, the book about him) as being historically significant to gay history, whereas no such source does the same thing for pederasty. Likewise, the LGBT history category seems to be limited  to people, documents, and events that third party reliable sources have deemed historically significant, rather than just being an "anything and everything" laundry list with no particular criteria.  That's not censorship.  That's editing.  Nandesuka (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claims fly in the face of the work that has been done so far, which shows that the relationship has been understood as pederastic - a subset of LGBT. The fact that it is significant to history, as is evident, qualifies it for inclusion. As far as you opposition to "anything and everything," that is a legitimate standard for a higher-level category, unless you can specifically show me where in the Wikipedia rules that is otherwise indicated. Haiduc (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "A subset" is in no wise "identical to." Until you find a source explaining the historical significance of Giraud with respect to that topic, the consensus here seems to clearly be that you can't apply it here. As for "where in the Wikipedia rules that is otherwise indicated," WP:NOR is obviously on point.  Cheers, Nandesuka (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a common case of gasoline is oil but oil is not gasoline. Plus, to some, Pederasty is a subset of homosexuality. To others, its a subset of pedophilia. Regardless, look at the LGBT category page. It has clear inclusion standards at the top. I suggest such should be determined before the Pederasty category is expanded. Also, Satyr, if you want to remove the French, feel free. However, this page is part of Wikiproject France, so I thought that there was enough based on that and his French origins for inclusion. There are two identities, which is more than enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation?
I am concerned that the language in the article may be skewed. It is a common practice to label "speculation" statements we do not agree with. So, in order to ensure that there is no improper editorializing, please substantiate the contention that historians' assertions that the relationship between the two had a sexual or erotic dimension are mere speculations. Haiduc (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are bothered by the term speculation, then I suggest you take it up with Webster instead of vandalizing this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speculate: "to engage in thought or reflection; meditate", "to indulge in conjectural thought." Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can y'all chill over the speculation fact edit war? If the word "speculate" is a problem, reword the sentence.  But it is properly attributed and sourced, so I don't believe the tag is necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No edit war, just a question of where best to place the tags. I am sure that you will agree that there is a fundamental difference between "speculate" and "describe." Haiduc (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Describe requires there to be actual evidence. There is none. We don't even know his actual hair color because there are conflicting accounts. I really think you need to back away from this page before you are blocked for your constant edit warring. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take exception to your threatening behavior and your indiscriminate reverts of legitimate corrections. I will simply note that you are imposing a skewed picture of the relationship, by using terms connoting vagueness where that is not called for, and misrepresenting the evidence. If there was "no evidence" there would be no discussion, don't you think? Haiduc (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of UFOs, but people have been speculating about them for a very long time. And my "threatening behavior"? If you don't like being warned about policies, then perhaps you should go to a wiki system that allows their users free reign and to edit war until they get their way. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The substance of my late edits was different from my early edits, so I contest your 3-rv argument. And your deletion of legitimate corrections is simply abusive. Furthermore, you will note that my corrections were made as a result of a previous talk page suggestion by SatyrTN. I really think your vehemence is out of place. This article is not your personal fief. Haiduc (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not mean a right to revert 3 times, and putting in different forms of the same dispute is the same revert. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Softpedalling his sexuality
A typical example of the puritan slant of this article is the generous use of the term "many" to describe those who reject a sexual interpretation of Byron's relationship with Giraud. Longford, yes, she is clear on it. Christensen?! He seems to support, not reject, the sexual interpretation. How else to read his "...Nicolo Giraud, Eustathius's replacement in Byron's affections, was employed as 'dragoman and Major Domo', a position that almost certainly entailed payment in love and money"? And then you grasp at Ethel Mayne, a woman writing in the early years of the 20th c. as an example of rejection, but she does not disagree with anything, she simply beats around the bush and claims Byron willed the boy an enormous fortune in exchange for Italian lessons. ?!?!. So, in conclusion, your "many" turns out to be ONE. Haiduc (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, did you even read what was written? They are disagreeing with aspects of the speculation, and this does not include the many, many critics that have chimed in. Included in the previous sections are disagreements from Nigel Leask and Fiona MacCarthy about various aspects. Leslie Marchand, the most reknown Byron biographer is not yet quoted, but she definitely disagreed with the speculation. Now, where dies Christensen say that there is sex? He only mentions love, which is part of the attacks on the speculation that there was a wild sexual affair between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add Paul Douglass's discussion about how Crompton's interpretation has been criticized by many academics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your comment about Ethel Mayne. Why is her gender relevant? Please elaborate. Nandesuka (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I was saying, before I got interrupted:
 * You asserted that "many" critics contest the sexual/pederastic interpretation. However, Christensen does not contest, he supports. He is specifically talking about "sexual arrangements" when he talks about love, at least as quoted by you in the article.
 * Neither does Lesak contest a sexual interpretation. He says (at the page you cite) that "Byron waited until the disapproving Hobhouse left for England before cultivating his boy lovers." (Emphasis mine) Are you contending that cultivating "boy lovers" has no sexual implications?!
 * As for the others, please be kind enough to quote them as appropriate to make your argument.
 * The count for the "many" still stands at ONE.
 * PS Ethel? An early 20th c female biographer discuss male homosexuality?! I think you are asking a bit much. Haiduc (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused by your comment about Ethel Mayne. Why is her gender relevant?  Please elaborate.  Nandesuka (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time she was writing the topic of homosexuality was taboo, a taboo broken only by a few male writers, to the best of my knowledge. So it is a bit much to expect her to hold forth on Byron's proclivities with boys. But I am mentioning this as an aside, entre nous, rather than as some editorial policy. Haiduc (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, I've asked you countless times. Stop. Misquoting. Me. Now. I made it clear that these authors contest ASPECTS. No, Christensen does not say that the two had sex. He does not say they are pederastic. He says there is no evidence, but the position Byron was in would easily allow for there to be a love relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Better categories
In a separate discussion, LGBT History in Greece and History of pederasty are being discussed. Any comments? Haiduc (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that without a source that clearly identifies their relationship as pederastic, the History of pederasty category is inappropriate, as applying it requires original research on our part.
 * I have no strong objection to "LGBT History in Greece". I have a very minor objection in that there is clear confusion among editors here (including me!) as to which of the various country tags is appropriate.  From that perspective, I'd prefer the more general LGBT History cat to the more specific one.  But if there is a consensus that one or the other of the country-specific categories is appropriate, I wouldn't object to that. Nandesuka (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From a post above, the clear indication:
 * "Byron's 'Caesar of sexuality,' a phrase that describes his pederastic relaiton with Nicolo Giraud. -- Bruhm, Steven (2001), Reflecting Narcissus: A Queer Aesthetic, U of Minnesota Press, p. 183, ISBN 081663551X"
 * Having said that, I hold that we are entitled as of right to tag articles documenting erotic/sexual relationships between men and adolescent boys in the appropriate category, just as we are as of right entitled to list an erotic/sexual relationship between two adults as LGBT or homosexual without being told specifically that it is that. You yourself have subscribed to this view, since you have upheld the inclusion of this article in the LGBT category without any specific verbatim documentation of such. Haiduc (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Adolescent boy? Adolescence is a modern phenomena. Furthermore, Giraud would be over 16, so you are obscuring your definitions again. However, we now have you on record to suggest that pederasty is sexual in origins. Therefore, we can now use that to remove pederastic claims in areas without proof of a sexual relationship. I think we should immediately get on that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And Haiduc, when did you have to have sex in order to be Gay or Bisexual? And who is to say that Giraud is not bisexual? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I previously requested, do not put words in my mouth, least of all ones I did not utter. "Adolescent" comes from the Latin, as you will find if you ask someone who knows that language. Not so modern after all.
 * Giraud over 16? Not what the article says.
 * In your haste to further damage this encyclopedia, don't forget to explain to the rest of us the real reason you claimed "many" critics contesting the sexual interpretation of the Byron/Giraud riendship, when you only could document ONE. Haiduc (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Adolesence is a psychological category, something that the Romans would not have understood. Your conflation is just indicative of the overall problem of your language here. The article says that Giraud met Byron when 15-16, but that was the first trip and their relationship started the next year when Byron returned to Greece, i.e. 1 year plus 15 year would be at least 16. And you are the only one claiming there is just one contesting. As everyone can see, I have listed at least 6 people contesting various aspects or say there is no real proof to make any claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haiduc, I would invest time reading carefully before trying to rewrite what Christensen says. It is obvious that the first line says that all we know about Giraud comes from Byron and makes it clear that Byron didn't make the relationship clear. Hence, he wasn't "vulgar" enough to. This is an important distinction which you have failed to acknowledge. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know exactly how to use language, and can tell when it is being used to misinform and obfuscate. Adolescence is a stage of life separating childhood from adulthood. If you will google "adolescent" with various species names you will find that the word is commonly used to describe pre-adult animals. Presumably no one is thinking of their psychological state.
 * However, we are not interested in whether Byron saw Nicolo as an adolescent. We are interested in whether a modern reader studying pederasty should be informed of this episode or not. It seems that you think that readers interested in GLBT topics should be led here, but readers interested specifically in pederasty should not. There is no logical basis for that position.
 * Finally, the fact that some critics contest the pederastic aspect in no way makes the article of less interest to the history of pederasty. That position is based on a misunderstanding of the use of categories. Haiduc (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haiduc, you made it clear that you came here to promote Pederasty, a non socially accepted topic and one that is represented by those like NAMBLA. This means that your view is a fringe view, and your claims of bias only further represent such things to everyone else not coming here with a clear agenda. Furthermore, the term adolesence, when used in sexual situations, refers only to psychology. Your lack of historical and psychological awareness on the subject is only one of the many problems that you introduce into any page you edit on this topic and part of the systematic problems you are introducing that any other person would have been banned over by now for. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very well aware that I am editing a topic that most people find distasteful, and I am very comfortable with that situation. Nonetheless, I have to object to your repeated attempts to associate me with NAMBLA and to your assertion that I am "promoting pederasty." They are inappropriate ad hominem attacks (and calumny as well), and the only reason that you are getting away with them is because it is fashionable to attack anyone and anything associated with pederasty, a fashion which seems to trump the code of behavior enforced here in all other cases. But what you are doing is clearly against the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia, and if I were to do anything like that in return - not that I have any desire for such acting out - I would pay the consequences of my bad manners and my rule breaking. I would also advise you to leave off speculation on my level of insight. It is the sort of thing that an impartial observer might deem hubristic, and that might set you off in a worse light than your target. So please try to restrain yourself in the future and restrict your comments to the topic at hand, rather than considering this a free for all against Haiduc and pederasty. Putting all that behind us, we are left with the fact that you continue to take it upon yourself to arbitrarily categorize this article under LGBT categories, thereby conceding the point that we are dealing with a homoerotic event, but you obstruct its correct listing under "pederasty," by means of a redefinition of pederasty to suit your purpose. Your refusal to address the points I raised, your ad hominem attacks, and your obstructionism, coupled with your anti-pederasty polemic, and your assertion that it is a "smear" to associate a historical personage with pederastic practices makes it hard to believe that you can be an objective contributor to this article, or any involving pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I am very well aware that I am editing a topic that most people find distasteful" Lets not play word games here. You are editing other topics to promote a topic by pushing a fringe view of that topic in order to use Wikipedia as a base to further your own agenda. This is against NPOV and Fringe guidelines. This is also against SOAP and what Wikipedia is. I think your own admittance of your actions and purpose here warrants a topic ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What you think does not really matter, does it? What are you referring to, in citing my "own admitance" of actions and purpose? Please furnish diffs. Haiduc (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words
I'm realizing, due to BigHaz's unrelenting reverts and Haiduc's recent block, that this article is full of weasel words. The second paragraph in the lede is entirely weasel. Can we reword this? My suggestion is to change that to one sentence, and add it to the previous paragraph:
 * Giraud and Byron shared a loving relationship, which was described in George Colman's poem, Don Leon, an entreaty to change laws regarding homosexuality in England.

Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should reread the definition. A "weasel word" is a phrase that doesn't have specifics listed after and do not have citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - so I feel totally caught between rock and hard place here, and all I'm trying to do is to help make the article better. Ottava Rima seems to think no changes are needed, but BigHaz and Haiduc think it's not clear. I give up - I can't help this article, I can't seem to work with others towards consensus, and everyone on this talk page (and the edit summaries) is combative. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that the article doesn't need to be improved. Don't put words in my mouth. You misattributed a guideline of Wikipedia, and misattributions are one of the biggest problems right now. My computer died a few days ago. I have to finish my other work before I can rebuild other additions and expansions. Marchand isn't even yet on the page, s that shows that there is a lot more to add. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation vs. Discussion
Haiduc, the reason I reverted your "speculate/discussion" switch is two-fold. First, your edit summary indicated that you seem to be persuing this for personal, rather than source-based, reasons. Second, the words in each case are supported by the sources: Christensen, for example, says "we know little more than what Byron tells us," indicating that this is an area where the sources are speculating. I urge you to rely more on sources and less on instinct. Your instinct is not serving you well. Nandesuka (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC) I will also note that I compromised in my revert and left out the introductory sentence to one paragraph that you removed, as it seemed extraneous and removable on copyediting grounds. Nandesuka (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protected
According to the article history the only edits have essentially been bickering over speculate and implications, instead of I dunno, improving the substance of the article. Settle the dispute, do it here, and let me know when you're done.--Tznkai (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Focus on the edit not the editor.--Tznkai (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have extended the protection of the article, as I have seen no progress in anything resembling a discussion here. Perhaps the application of some outside opinions from the relevant literature and LGBT wikiprojects would help.
 * In addition, I've noted the hostility between parties, and I am extremely displeased. That is an administrative note, not a personal one.--Tznkai (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Giraud and Byron as an example of pederasty
Pederasty is clearly understood, in one of the uses of the word, as an attraction between a man and a boy. See this and this. The age of the boy is clearly defined as adolescence, and the degree of sexuality is not of the essence of the relationship. By these standards the relationship between Giraud and Byron is a textbook example of a pederastic relationship. The rationalizations used to prevent the association of Byron/Giraud with pederasty, that pederasty is anal sex with a child, that Giraud could not have been an adolescent since adolescence is a modern concept, and that their relationship has not been officially declared as pederastic, are spurious on their face, and a gaming of the encyclopedic process. To the extent that they associate homosexual expression with morally repugnant activities, they are also homophobic, indicative of a heterosexist power play at work. The result of this obstructionism has been a degradation of the functionality of this article. Unless these matters are addressed in a reasonable matter, I will put this out for input from more members of the community. Haiduc (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not understood as an attraction. It is understood as a sexual relationship. Stop this nonsense. The boy is not defined as "adolesence" because that is a psychological category that did not exist until after WW1. Instead, pederasty is based on physical development. Either use a mainstream psychological definition or just stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not pitting my personal opinion against your personal opinion, neither of which belong here. I have cited authoritative definitions, which trump what you or I may think. Please address the evidence, not me. Haiduc (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? Avoiding the clearly biased religious sites I've found it's an attraction involving a sexual relationship on Britannica, Answers.com etc. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448460/pederasty#tocpanel=sectionId~toc448460main%2CtocId~toc448460main

http://www.answers.com/topic/pederasty-paederasty

http://www.mootgame.com/ballast/N1401F.html

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=825382

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/udbh/1999/00000020/00000002/art00001;jsessionid=1du0ts60amm56.alice

Costagne (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those definitions you three love so much are deeply rooted in puritanism an sensationalism. Please keep having a lot of fun by telling us the same nonsense over and over again! Fulcher (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because "puritanism" is the reason why psychologists across the world agree that those under the age of 16 don't have the capacity to agree to sexual relationships and why child abuse is seen as a problem. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * would a psychologist, who isn't totally dumb or just an extreme opportunist use that definition, which makes people believe that, "yeah pederasty is mainly about anal intercourse"? Besides that... 16 is fine for a lot of pederasts. Fulcher (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Costagne, Haiduc has already expressed his contempt for the dictionary definitions of the term which reflect the same thing. I have only pointed out that in doing so and not positing a psychologically correct definition, he is only further pushing a view which does not fit in which Wikipedia guidelines that we have pointed out constantly. Haiduc has made it clear that he is uncomfortable with society not accepting pederasty so he is using Wikipedia as his soap box to try and make it seem normal by including as many individuals as possible and making the definition vague enough to further this goal. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I expect your abusive behavior to cease immediately. Haiduc (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect everyone's abusive behavior -- including Haiduc's -- to cease immediately. There is no need for us to speculate on the motives of any editors when we can simply discuss their edits and the sources that they are (or are not) based upon.Nandesuka (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not try to create equivalence where there is none to be found. Haiduc (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nandesuka is on target here, and everyone else should follow his/her/its lead.--Tznkai (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Costagne's defintions are indeed on point. The Oxford English Dictionary also gives a surprisingly direct definition: "Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner." Likewise pederast: "A man who has or desires sexual relations with a boy. Also in wider sense (chiefly derogatory): a man who practises anal intercourse; a male homosexual."

These definitions seems to directly contradict Haiduc's wish to use a more loosey-goosey definition that (by my reading) includes even nonsexual relationships between men and other men. I don't doubt that some authors have used the term thusly, but at a certain point we have to ask ourselves if using such ethereal definitions is simply giving undue weight to a fringe definition. And allow me to head this off at the pass: Wikipedia is not, under any circumstances, going to adopt the derogatory terminology wherein anyone who is homosexual is called a pederast. So please don't even suggest it. Nandesuka (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hard to know how to make sense of your latest post. Your OED does not give a "surprisingly direct definition." It actually gives TWO definitions, the first very general, and the second very specific. It makes it very clear that the word is used in more senses than one. The first definition in no way contradicts the ones offered by sexologists, it actually is almost analogous, in that it has room for erotic relationships between men and boys which can be copulatory or not. After all, homosexual relations could be anything that homosexuals do, hold hands, kiss, fondle, what not. The second definition also does not "contradict" anything, it is included within the sexological definitions but is much more narrow, in other words a special case. I have never opposed the inclusion of that special case, but I have always opposed the reduction of pederasty to that or any special case.
 * I do not know why you have repeatedly attempted to insert this special case, namely men having anal sex with boys, as the principal working definition of pederasty. And I do not know why you are attempting to privilege (some) dictionaries over more professional sexological definitions. All I know is that you have not made your case, and in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which posits pederasty as a general category of erotic relations between men and adolescent boys, I do not see how you possibly could.
 * As for your repeated attempts to drive a wedge between homosexuality and pederasty, they are also a case of tilting at windmills. I could give you countless counterexamples proving you wrong, but just for the fun of it I will point out that "pederasty" is a topic in the http://www.glbtq.com/ encyclopedia. What is it doing there, pray tell, if pederasty is not included in homosexuality??? Haiduc (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If your accusation is that I favor standard reference sources, such as the OED, over less well-regarded sources, I plead guilty. Wikipedia's policies generally support, and indeed encourage, such favoritism.
 * I don't really know what you're talking about with regards to the other issue. I certainly don't ever recall arguing that our definition of pederasty should be limited to "men having anal sex with boys."  I have, rather, simply argued that we should defer to reliable sources instead of our own prejudices, and not define people as pederasts when no reliable source has done so.  Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
 * I do, however, reject your loosey-goosey definition of "homosexual relations" as "anything that homosexuals do."  You won't find any reliable source, anywhere, that tries to cast such a wide net.
 * Regarding "trying to drive a wedge between homosexuality and pederasty", I believe you are mischaracterizing the debate. If we believe the Nick Lowe song, all men are liars; this does not mean that all liars are men.  One can accept the proposition that all pederasty is homosexual (by definition) without accepting the proposition that it seems to me you have promoted, at times, that all homosexuality is pederasty.  If I have misunderstood you in this regard, and you in fact agree with me that all homosexuality is not pederasty, then I'm sure I have misread you.  Nandesuka (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The accusation is that you misrepresented or misunderstood the material, that you are using sources selectively to make a point, and that you are privileging generalized and unprofessional sources over more specific ones that speak authoritatively on the topic. I expect a retraction of your mischaracterization of the OED material. "Homosexual relations" is a very general term, and is juxtaposed to a specific one of anal sex, which makes it crystal clear that the dictionary editors were presenting two separate concepts.
 * "All homosexuality is pederasty"??? Why would I say such a stupid thing? Too much Cabernet Sauvignon? Please provide diff.
 * I will retract my accusation that you have repeatedly promoted the "pederasty as anal sex with a child" slur. I cannot find any evidence of that at the moment. I may have been someone else, as you suggested. My apologies. Haiduc (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously characterizing the OED as an "unprofessional source"? Really? Nandesuka (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, your suggested reading of the OED is erroneous on its face.. The entry I quoted was not two different definitions.  They were multiple clauses within a single definition.  The OED is quite clear about delineating separate definitions when they intend to, as you would expect of the dictionary of record for the English language.  It's part of their style guide, and well understood by anyone who cares to understand it.
 * For example, consider the definition of obdurate:

1. a. Hardened in wrongdoing or sin; stubbornly impenitent; resistant or insensible to moral influence. Obs.

b. Hardened against persuasion, entreaty, the feeling of pity, etc.; obstinate, unyielding, relentless, hard-hearted.

c. Of a thing, phenomenon, etc.: resistant, intractable; not responsive to human endeavour or persuasion

2. a. Physically hardened or hard. Now rare.

b. Harsh or disagreeable to the senses. Obs. rare.

B. n.

1. With pl. concord. With the: obstinate or unyielding people as a class; (formerly) (also) hardened sinners (obs.).

2. A stubbornly impenitent or unyielding person; a person who is hardened against entreaty or persuasion. Obs.


 * (quotations omitted for brevity). The point is, that when multiple clauses appear in a single definition -- when not separated by a qualifier, such as "also" -- they are understood to refer to each other and to be understood in light of each other.  Your proposed reading of the OED, where multiple clauses in a single definition should be read as being somehow opposites of each other, is not a common understanding.  It is an extraordinary understanding, and not one that should be used, in my opinion, by anyone, ever. Nandesuka (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the OED is not a sexological text.
 * You misrepresent what I said, the definitions are not "opposite of each other" but a more general and a more specific one. Why do you persist in mis-stating and mis-representing my words, as well as mis-reading and mis-representing the OED??? Since you main argument - that the OED contradicts the sexological definitions of pederasty - has been shown to be a fallacy, can you for once admit you blew it? Haiduc (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that Wikipedia relies on reliable, mainstream sources. If a viewpoint (or in this case, definition) is held by the majority, then it should be easy to cite commonly accepted reference texts.  If a viewpoint (or, in this case, a definition) is held by a significant minority, then it should be trivial to name prominent adherents.  If an idea is promoted only by an extremely small or vastly limited minority, then it should not be in Wikipedia at all.  In citing the OED (and, as other editors have done, other definitions), I have demonstrated that commonly accepted reference texts use a certain definition of pederasty which, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, is much more narrow than the one you want to use (this is evident, I think, from the very nature of your argument in the paragraphs above: daring to put words in your mouth once more, I read it as "The OED doesn't say that, and if it does say that, well, it's not a sexological text!").
 * So I am perfectly willing to believe that there are other definitions of pederasty that may be relevant here. But given the mainstream definition found in commonly accepted reference texts, I think the burden of proof is on anyone wanting to propose that we use a minority definition to demonstrate that the definition is (clearly) used by prominent adherents.
 * And, if you really want to pursue the idea that OED is somehow not germane here because it's not a "sexological text", man, I have to tell you that you have chosen a seriously long row to hoe. Nandesuka (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have demonstrated nothing, other than that you are reading into the OED what you would like it to say rather than what it is really saying. The OED is in keeping with the authoritative sources, it gives a general as well as a specific definition, and your narrow reading of the OED is contradicted by . . . the OED itself. All this stuff about viewpoints is irrelevant. The only one with a minority viewpoint is you, because you are trying to stuff words into the mouth of the OED just as you tried earlier to stuff words into my mouth. Why not just relax and try to read what the source REALLY says, instead of forcing it into your favorite straightjacket. As you did Rictor Norton too, just now. Haiduc (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For whats it worth here's some more dictionary definitions.

1. Merriam Webster goes with "one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pederasty

2. Princeton University which is a very good school has "sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner)"

3. Dictionary.com goes with "sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor."

4. The American Heritage Dictionary has "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy."

5. The Online Etymology dciontary has ""sodomy with a boy," 1609".

These are all at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederasty

-Costagne (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is really an analysis you should be pursuing at the anal sex article, which is where we discuss these things. At the main pederasty page you will see some dictionary definitions which limit the use to anal sex with a boy, and some others, like the OED provided by Nandesuka above, which do not, showing quite plainly that anal sex is not of the essence of pederasty. Also, common academic usage often discusses abstinence or chastity within pederasty and does not, to the best of my knowledge, treat pederasty as synonymous with anal sex. So, unless you aim is to stifle discussion of pederasty per se, we are wasting our time here. Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to bring this section to a close: it looks to me like the consensus here clearly rejects the catch-all definition of pederasty as "an attraction between a man and a boy", which could mean anything at all. All of the sources provided seem to focus on the sexual relationship aspect, as Ottava initially posited. There might be other sources, but it seems no one is interested in actually providing them, as opposed to simply asserting that they exist. Unless there's more source-based (and not editor-based) discussion, I think we can agree that we're done here and move on. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hit and run tactics will not serve you well if you want to be respected as an editor here. I am providing below the material from the pederasty page, to save you the bother of clicking a link. Haiduc (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty has been defined as “The erotic relationship between an adult male and a youth, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection.” Another, more detailed version indicates likewise but stipulates: "Pederasty is the erotic relationship between an adult male and a boy, generally one between the ages of twelve and seventeen, in which the older partner is attracted to the younger one who returns his affection, whether or not the liaison leads to overt sexual contact."

Academic (historical, anthropological, and sexological) usage notwithstanding, some modern dictionary definitions restrict the meaning of the word to copulation between males. Some borrow the terminology of religious discourse, such as the Oxford Compact Edition, which offers “Unnatural connexion with a boy; sodomy”. Others refer to the mechanics of copulation, such as the Merriam-Webster (on-line edition): “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy”, or "sodomy".

Other dictionaries offer a more general definition, such as "homosexual relations between men and boys" or "homosexual relations, especially between a male adult and a boy or young man." The limitation of pederasty to anal sex with a boy is contested by sexologists. Francoeur regards it as "common but incorrect," while Haeberle describes it as "a modern usage resulting from a misunderstanding of the original term and ignorance of its historical implications."
 * Funny you should mention that -- I was just editing the Pederasty article to improve and correct its "etymology" section, which seems to badly fail NPOV (and contain a number of serious sourcing errors, besides).  I welcome your contribution on the talk page there.  Nandesuka (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "No, the OED is not a sexological text." Actually, the OED is a Lexicon and one of the most respected ones in the world, so its definitions are key to every field. Furthermore, "sexological" is fake. The only definition appropriate would be psychological. Psychologically, pederasty is part of pedophilia and not connected to mainstream homosexuality. The "homosexual relations" above is OED use of "same sex having sex". It deals nothing with culture or the rest, but straight to the act itself. The reason why Haiduc has not quoted any mainstream psych dictionaries is that they would all verify that Pederasty is a mental disorder and involves pedophilic actions between men and young boys. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Memory can often deceive us, so I always like to move discussions like this from broad assertions to specific brass tacks. Do you have a citation to a specific, ideally commonly accepted psychological text (eg, the DSM-IV) that defines pederasty as being part of pedophilia in the way you describe?  As this entire conversation reveals, this is obviously a sensitive topic and it will serve us well to rely on impeccable sources rather than our own beliefs. Nandesuka (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just got my computer back today, from it being down for the past week and some. It will take a while for me to catch up on many things. However, I will try to stop by the library tomorrow and find a few texts for you. But for right now, Nandesuka, compare what Haiduc says above and on other pages with this. It is obvious that the link is from a fringe group.
 * Also, PsychINFO database, when searching for Pederasty, provides Pedophilia as a grouped term. Here are some nice entries (abstracts):
 * Lewis, Brian. "Review of How to do the history of homosexuality." Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC. Vol 2(3) Sep 2005, 71-73. "Reviews the book, How to do the history of homosexuality by David M. Halperin (2002). The author identifies for anyone exploring the history of male homosexuality four simultaneous pre-homosexual traditions of discourse: effeminacy; pederasty or "active" sodomy; friendship or male love; and passivity or inversion. Homosexuality itself, he contends, combines and absorbs three quite different things: a notion of orientation, a notion of object-choice, and a notion of behavior. He further argues that homosexuality fails to distinguish both between active or passive and between normatively or deviantly gendered sexual partners, treating them as equally "homosexual." In short, he believes that homosexuality is clearly distinct from and irreducible to the pre-homosexual sexual categories."
 * Bloch, Enid. "Sex between men and boys in classical Greece: Was it education for citizenship or child abuse?" The Journal of Men's Studies. Vol 9(2) Win 2001, 183-204 "Argues that for most of the past 2,000 years, no one would discuss ancient Greek pederasty directly, and the innumerable references in ancient literature to erotic relationships between men and boys were ignored or suppressed. The situation has changed in recent years with the publication of books about sexuality in the ancient world, but despite the openness of modern discussion, the author argues that the question has yet to be raised whether Greek pederasty was good for the young boys who were the object of adult male sexual attention. It is noted that modern scholars have tended to accept without question or doubt the rationale of the ancient pederasts that their activities were beneficial to boys, that they were educating boys in the habits and ways of manhood and of citizenship. The current paper discusses sex between men and boys from the perspective of the child rather than the adult, drawing evidence from ancient literature and from modern psychiatry and medicine to reveal how deeply troubling and damaging the pederastic experience must have been for many Greek boys."
 * Adams, Kenneth Alan. "Japanese pederasty and homosexuality." Journal of Psychohistory. Vol 30(1) Sum 2002, 54-66. listed under Pedophilia.
 * Durkin, Keith F; Bryant, Clifton D. "Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles." Deviant Behavior. Vol 20(2) Apr-Jun 1999, 103-127. "Although pedophilia has been the topic of an extensive research effort, the preponderance of this research has used Ss from clinical or correctional populations. This constitutes a major empirical concern as most of the academic knowledge on this topic is based on data gathered from either incarcerated offenders or probationers in treatment. However, such offenders constitute an unrepresentative sample of the larger population of pedophiles. Accordingly, there is a large number of pedophiles for whom little information is available. Computer networks offer a unique opportunity for the study of those pedophiles who are not in a correctional or clinical population."
 * Lascaratos, John; Poulakou-Rebelakou, Effie. "Child sexual abuse: Historical cases in the Byzantine Empire (324-1453 A.D.)" Child Abuse & Neglect. Vol 24(8) Aug 2000, 1085-1090. "Although the punishment provided by the laws and the church for cases of child sexual abuse were very strict, a number of instances of rapes under cover of premature marriages, even in the imperial families, are revealed in these texts. Furthermore, cases of child prostitution, pederasty, and incest are included in the historical texts and some contemporary authors confirmed the presence of many such cases in all classes of Byzantine society."
 * Radbill, Samuel X. "Children in a world of violence: A history of child abuse." in Helfer, Ray E (Ed); Kempe, Ruth S (Ed). (1987). The battered child (4th rev. & exp. ed.). (pp. 3-22). xxiii, 470 pp. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press. "(from the chapter) right to live /// exposure and infanticide / child labor / overlaying / alcohol /// sexually abused children /// pederasty /"
 * etc etc etc Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we are going to reduce academic topics to dictionary definitions (which vary anyway). As for your insistence that pederasty = pedophilia, it is such a bizarre contention that it is not even worth a reply. It is true that the word has been used in many ways, and there may well be instances of linguistic (or even actual overlap) but that is simply not the sense in which it is used in history, anthropology, etc. As for your attempt to explain the OED, please, spare us. As for your "mainstream psych dictionaries," even if they were to use the term, the real question is which of its meanings they are using. And the same applies to any other text you might want to drag in, like Enid Bloch (above). You have to show what it is these people are talking about, rather than just bandy the word around to suit your polemic. Haiduc (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting -- I hope! -- that the dictionary definitions of pederasty are the only valid definition. Rather, surveying them is important to the process of evaluating whether the definitions that WIkipedia uses throughout our articles is a majority definition, a definition used by a significant minority, or a definition used by an extremely limited number of people.  This analysis is important because it helps us identify -- and, more importantly, eliminate -- fringe views whose presence in the encyclopedia violate our core editing principles of no original research and neutral point of view.  The question "which of the meanings of pederasty is wrong" is, in fact, precisely not the question.  The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability.  I hope this helps explain why your fellow editors are exploring the issue, and why it's important.  Nandesuka (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Wikipedia Reliable Sources would demand that, going on a definition, we do not include any of the fringe sources, except to say that they have a wrong understanding of the word that they use solely to promote their own agenda, which is similar to the problem with Haiduc's edits in general. Otherwise, you are giving Undue Weight to unreliable opinion pieces that have no relationship to what is academic. As you can see from the many citations above, psychology sees pederasty as part of pedophilia and as child abuse. It also makes it clear that there is no connection between pederasty and homosexuality. Anything else is unreliable fringe opinion that is set to manipulate and promote a political agenda, and the inclusion of such would violate WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This conversation probably more properly belongs on Talk:Pederasty - can you survey the psychological definitions there, when you have the time? One caution is that by my reading,  I do think that you're making the same sort of synthesis that I think Haiduc often makes, albeit in a different direction.  I think the psychological definition of pederasty is of course relevant, as are others, but it doesn't serve Wikipedia well to make inferences from database categories, rather than seeking unambiguous statements from unimpeachable sources.  Our job is to evaluate the quality and overall weight of the sources, rather than to interpret for them. Nandesuka (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nandesuka, but unlike others, I only care about the literature pages. I need to get Giraud and Byron settled so I can finish the Byron page and move onto the other biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Byron and Giraud ARE settled, as per the discussion above we have determined that their relationship IS pederastic as indicated by critical commentary as well as elementary common sense, and the only thing that is hanging things up at the moment is that fact that Nandesuka has shot himself in the foot by bringing in the OED definition of pederasty, with its two meanings, which renders it impossible for SOME editors to use "the dictionary meaning" to essentialize boy buggering as the determining characteristic of pederasty.
 * As soon as I have a free moment I will re-enter into this article MacCarthy's quotation from Byron's letter which someone hastily removed, which contained Byron's revelation that he was engaging in coitus with the boy (coincidentally fitting the SECOND meaning in the OED definition, the one that SOME editors have tried and failed to essentialize). We also need to discuss in the article the rumor that he tore the boy's ass. It is, after all, a historical fact that the rumor existed, and exists. Why are we covering it up???
 * As for your attempt to identify pederasty with pedophilia, I wish you the very best of luck! Haiduc (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you do not know, but the pronoun "we" is used in the plural. What you are looking for is "I", and only "I". There are many, many works that have dispelled both any certainty that there was sex, or that Giraud was young enough to fit into the definition of a pederastic relationship because he was older than 16, which would mean that he is no longer a child. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please show us where it is stated that 16 is too old for a pederastic relationship, since you have been shown that the upper age is commonly understood to be seventeen. And as we have seen, thanks to Nanedesuka's OED definition, "certainty that there was sex" is not necessary, all we need is "homosexual activity." And he was not "older than 16," he WAS 16, not that it matters, but I do not want you to confuse matters any longer. Haiduc (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Physically and psychologically, a human is not a child after the age of 16. I have never pointed out anything that said the upper age is 17, and have always said 16 and under. And being 1 day after your 16th birthday is older than 16. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, so people who are sixteen are actually older than sixteen. OK, I get it. And you are now going to create this entity which you are going to call pederasty and which you will define as including individuals younger than sixteen (who must by your definition include those who are sixteen, since those who are really sixteen are actually older than sixteen) and who you will describe as "children". . . forgive me, I think I am losing track of all this. What do you say you set aside your theories and simply go by professional, verifiable definitions? Haiduc (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Or we could follow Wikipedia's policies, and only go by reliable, non-fringe, prominent sources that characterize the relationship as pederastic. Nandesuka (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But we are not following Wikipedia policies here, we are following Nandesukapedia policies, of saying and doing whatever we please. One day you declare that the sources are fine, the next day (or as per your post above) you declare that they are not. It must be very fulfilling to wield such power! Haiduc (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What in any of those diffs implies that I was saying Bruhm wasn't a good source?  I was replying to your suggestion that we could "derive" or conclude whether the relationship was pederastic from various aspects of their relationship.  We can't.  Once we have reliable sources, we can evaluate what we say based on those sources in light of the available scholarship and Wikipedia's policies on undue weight.
 * The biggest problem with the Bruhm citation isn't the who, but the what: it's an offhand reference in a footnote referring to another source (I forget the precise details). Ottava, if I recall correctly, had some strenuous objections.  But this is why we have talk pages.
 * Also, I'd appreciate it if you would knock it off with the ad hominem attacks. You are making this a very hostile place to edit.  For what it's worth, I also would appreciate it if anyone who is making ad hominem attacks on Haiduc would knock it off, too.  It doesn't help. Nandesuka (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I made it clear above that I have many sources that say that 1. pederasty is child abuse and thus unconsentual, 2. that it is pedophilia and not a relationship, and 3. that it is not homosexual activity. Regardless, there is a question over the sexual nature of the relationship, and pederasty would require anal sex. Thus the term "pederast" and "pederasty" cannot be used unless it meets these four aspects according to the actual psychological (and thus standard critical) requirements of such. Any other use of the term would fall under a neologism("To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term") now, since the encyclopedias that Haiduc use are 1. biased, 2. not peer reviewed, and 3. non-academic and serving a minority opinion, especially with trying to connect pederasty to mainstream homosexuality, it would seem that their understanding would fall under neologism. Thus, they are unfit for standard Wikipedia encyclopedic use. Now, this is in addition to the fact that none of Haiduc's sources have given a "definite" and "factual" analysis, but only an opinion based on a few letters, and thus cannot be used to declare a relationship beyond opinion and they can only be used when attributing the author saying them. Since this is true, labelling the relationship based on a fringe determination (regardless of the merits of the actual word choice) would be a violation of NPOV and WEIGHT. So, I think it is clear that there can be no argument to label this under the category Pederasty, or that such a term is improper to use, except when attributing it to the opinion of another, but not giving any particular weight to that term or saying that their use of the term has any specific meaning. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Maurois
Because this is part of Wikiproject France and Giraud is French, here is a famous French biography (translated).

Maurois, Andrew. Byron. trans. Hamish Miles. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1930.

140 "He had conceived one of his protective passions for young Nicolo Giraud, a new Edleston, a French protege, a Greek subject, who spoke Italian and taught Byron that language. 'I am his 'Padrone' and his 'amico' and the Lord knows what besides. It is about two hours since, that, after informing me that he was most desirous to follow me over the world, he concluded by telling me it was proper for us not only to live, but morire insieme.'

The days were long peals of laughter. Byron was roused in the morning by these young Italian sprites crying, ' Venite abasso! ' - to which the voice of the brother gravely replied, ' Bisogno bastonare.' Intrigues were past counting."

141 "Naturally he had to swim across the Piraeus. The boy Nicolo was a poor swimmer. As Byron was diving from the breakwater an English voice hailed him from a vessel near by. It was the Marquis of Sligo, a Harrow friend, who was on board a brig that belonged to him, in company with Lady Hester Stanhope...."

144 "A few weeks after the valet, the master himself embarked on the Volage frigate, Nicolo Giraud accompanying him as far as Malta. He brought home two Greek servants; one of the Albanian servitors, whom he had to dismiss, rushed from his room in tears. 'For my own part, when I remembered that, a short time before my departure from England, a noble and most intimate associate had excused himself from taking leave of me because he had to attend a female relation to a milliner's, I felt no less surprised than humiliated by the present occurrence and the past recollection.'

161 "He drew up a curious testament, whereby NEwstead would pass to George Anson Byron; Rochdale was to be sold, the proceeds of the sale being devoted to a payment of the enormous sum of 7,000 to Nicolo Giraud, of Athens and Malta, on his majority, while Fletcher, Joe, Murray and the Greek servant, Demetrius Zograffo, would each receive 50 a year, and Robert Rushton the same sum as well as 1,000 on his majority"

379 "The Venetians were already viewing him as an accepted ornament of their city; and, thanks to the Divine Comedy and young Nicolo Giraud of Athens, he spoke Italian fairly well."

555 "Distance had given her clearer understanding. Yes, what Byron was capable of loving in another was a certain kind of innocence and youthfulness - whence Mary Duff and Margaret Parker, whence Edleston and Nicolo Giraud, or later, Teresa Guicciolo and the page Loukas. Caroline herself, for a few days during 1812, must have pleased him with a sort of pureness. But how quickly she had tired him."

There are many more to go. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More sources

 * MacDonald, D. L. "Orientalism and Eroticism in Byron and Merrill" Pacific Coast Philology, Vol. 21, No. 1/2 (Nov., 1986), pp. 60-64

"Falling in love is learning a new language, often quite literally. The great love of Byron's Eastern tour is Nicolo Giraud, a young Athenian whom Byron first describes to his friend and travelling companion Hobhouse as 'my Italian master.' Merrill's poem 'To My Greek' is addressed ambiguously to a lover and to a rudimentary command of the language

Writing to Hobhouse about how he spends his time with Giraud, Byron peppers his letters with phrases and quotations in Italian, Frenc, Greek, and Latin, of various degrees of correctness: 'I have as usual swum across the Piraeus, the Signore Nicolo also laved, but he makes as bad a hand in the water as L'Abbe Hyacinth at Falmouth, it is a curious thing that the Turks when they bathe wear their lower garments as your humble servant always doth, but the Greeks not, however questo Giovane e vergogno [which should be vergognoso: this young man is shy]. . . . I have been employed the greater part of today in conjugating the verb.... [which should be... embrace] (which word being Ellenic as well as Romaic [ancient as well as modern Greek] may find a place in the Citoyen's Lexicon [the Citoyen was their radical friend Charles Skinner Matthews]) I assure you my progress is rapid, but like Caesar... why should Byron want to hide the fact that Giraud wore swimming trunks? It is partly an opportunity for Byron to play on the word conjugating, and on the sexual connotations of Greek. But it seems to be indulged in largely as entertaining and erotic in its own right, and the incorrectness of the foreign phrases contributes to the effect by stressing that they are foreign. Byron is showing off not his expertise but his lack of it, as when he writes to another friend...." pp. 61–62


 * Neff, D. S. "Bitches, Mollies, and Tommies: Byron, Masculinity, and the History of Sexualities" Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul., 2002), pp. 395-438

"In Greece, Byron was infatuated with three Athenian sisters, but he also entered into an amorous relationship with Nicolo Giraud, who was fifteen years old at the time. In Turkey, Byron and Hobhouse made visits to 'buggery shops,' where Turks would have sex with Jewish and Greek yemakis, or dance boys" pp. 408–409

(note, this is wrong according to biographies - 15 is the earliest age for Giraud when Byron met him, but they did not have a relationship until the second time Byron was in Athens a year later)

Discussion Don Leon "However, young Nicolo 'Giraud, whose beauty would unlock / The gates of prejudice,' satifies a 'wish, long cherised, long denied' (II. 639-93). The poem's persona also showcases his own effeminate qualities by associating himself with 'hags [that] are found yet weird enough to burn' (II. 1026-27), and he blithely essays the most dreaded role in the Molly's repertoire by turning..." p. 421

Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! 16 instead of 15 - that makes such a huuuuge difference! Fulcher (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are 2 immediately above your post and another above that, so your math is off. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you want to tell us then? That a sexual relationship between an adult man and a 17 years old "can't be pederastic?" I have the feeling that it's mainly the word "pederasty" that makes you so uneasy.... Fulcher (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources say that 1. Pederasty is only for those under the age of 16 and 2. involves a sexual relationship. The majority of sources about Giraud say that he was clearly over 16 and that there is no ability to claim that there was ever sex between the two. Your slurs and insinuations cannot override WP:Verifiability. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The majority of sources" - absolute nonsense. Pederasty is a homoerotic relationship between an adult man and an adolescent teenage boy - period. Show me all these scholars that would tell me I'm wrong about that. Only ignorants truely believe that it would suddenly stop being "pederastic" at the 16th birthday. Fulcher (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim?
I have removed the following material: However, Paul Douglass points out that Crompton's approach to Byron has many dissenters and that Crompton's work, Byron and Greek Love "focuses Byron's life around a single issue, rather than attempting to create a larger view. Such studies prompt negative responses from those who feel the writer warps Byron to fit the theme, presenting a one-sided account.Douglass 2004 p. 22 since I cannot find anything by Douglass on Crompton discussing the "many dissenters." Also, the criticism of Crompton is irrelevant to the discussion since it does not question his accuracy on this topic, and only addresses his focus on homosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, my quote was a direct quote. Now this is completely false: "Crompton's work has had a "significant impact upon later studies,"Now his claim that such a quote as he put in its place appears on page 22 is a direct fabrication according to this, the actual page. I think Haiduc's willingness to remove directly cited material and include false citations in their place should deserve punishment, especially since he has a history of doing just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be obvious that the middle paragraph discusses the dissenters to the claim that Byron was bisexual. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange. I wonder whether we may be using different editions. I can find nothing of the sort in the one I have consulted, here. Please be so kind as to provide the direct quote and the page number, if indeed your material was a "direct quote." The material I contributed came mostly from page 23. Come to think of it, I should have amended the reference to reflect that. Haiduc (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its nice to see that you admit to improperly citing material. And if thats the edition "you consulted", then there would be no access to page 23. Furthermore, I guess you don't understand what a "Greek name" refers to. It means anal sex, and it was a dispute over if Byron ever indulged in it. Then it talks about people who did not want to claim Byron as bisexual. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. My edits erred in referencing p. 22 instead of p. 23, but they correctly indicated that subsequent biographers accepted Crompton´s conclusions. Your edits correctly cited p.22, but falsified the sense of the passage, misleading readers into thinking that Crompton had been criticized and rejected by subsequent scholarship. What is worse, to give correct information and make an inadvertent minor mistake in the page ref, or to get the page ref right but mislead the readers into a perverted view of the facts?
 * 2. I am still awaiting the source of your claim that Crompton had "many dissenters" or, failing that, and apology and an admittance that you made that up out of whole cloth. --Haiduc (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The quotes below reveal who is making up what. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting my last edit. Indeed Crompton did influence later biographers, as I said, and was not isolated and rejected, as you claimed. Still no answer from you on your mysterious "many dissenters." Where on earth did you get that, and what was your reason for inserting it when the sense of the piece you were quoting was exactly opposite?
 * As for my understanding that the relationship was pederastic, of course it was, as many have pointed out, just not pederastic in the narrow and offensive way you want to interpret the term. Haiduc (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for supporting my last edit." By "support" do you mean "Douglas disproves my previous assertions that people accepted Crompton's views on Pederasty", then perhaps. It is clear that Douglas points out how these biographies were equally debted to three biographies that say there was no sexual relationship with Giraud, thus, you cannot say that they were in Crompton's debt about Giraud nor accepted the term "pederasty" nor were they influenced on his views about sex. Furthermore, I don't think you are reading the term "sombre" clearly, as it deals with emotions, not sexuality. And it is clear to everyone else I've talked to that I have already proven that there is dissent against Crompton's approach and his take on Byron's sexuality. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Clear to everyone?!" You would do well to choose more discriminating interlocutors. I cannot at the moment get a view of Grosskurth on the net and I will not be near an English language library for a while as I am on sabbatical and traveling, but I can get Eisler. She has indeed accepted Crompton's sexual revelations about Byron and Giraud, a fact that disproves your contention that her acceptance consists of some sort of emotional psychobabble. On p. 273 she calls Giraud Byron's "favorite," says he was "seriously attached" to Byron, and recounts Byron's note to Hobhouse in which he says they spent the better part of the day conjugating the verb "to embrace or kiss." She says they had not yet copulated but Byron promised to report upon its achievement. On p. 274 she discusses Byron's mention of ejaculating and climaxing with the boy while sick with fever and later reports having copulated over two hundred times (without specifying whether all of the events were with Giraud, or with him and someone else as well). So please have the decency to remove your grossly misleading paraphrasing of Douglass, who can speak very well for himself and says the very opposite of what you are putting into his mouth. And your "dissent" excursion is obviously made up out of whole cloth, and cannot be defended with the reported opinions of anonymous "everyones." Get rid of it. Haiduc (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What Haiduc claims - I said: "clear to everyone". What I actually said: "clear to everyone else I've talked to". This is just part of a larger trend of Haiduc missquoting people and scholarship.
 * More falsities by Haiduc: "accepted Crompton's sexual revelations about Byron and Giraud" yet Eisler never uses the term "pederasty" nor claims any such thing. And MacCarthy disproved Eisler's claim that Byron was bragging about having sex with Giraud, so reliance on Eisler would be impossible on the issue, especially with Douglas stating that MacCarthy wrote "A more even-handed and better-researched biography" according to the below quote. Furthermore, Haiduc's claim that "says the very opposite of what you are putting into his mouth" is absurd, as you can see below Douglas makes it clear that "the exact nature of those relationships remains elusive", which makes it 100% impossible to make any claims about pederasty. I think it is clear that Haiduc needs to be topic banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please address the topic, not my imagined crimes. So now that I have refuted your erroneous claim that Crompton was rejected and that Eisler was "not" talking about sex when she most certainly was, instead of apologizing for your misleading edit you try to quickly change the subject. I am not playing along. Change the out of context quote you stuck in the article first. --Haiduc (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can make as many claims as you want about this being imaginary, but everyone can see from the above and the rest of this page that you have missquoted and misstated many, many important points and what others have said in a very harmful manner that is destructive to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, you have not refuted anything about Eisler, as Eisler never uses the term "pederasty", and she is a she, and before you were attacking females who disagreed with Crompton, so it is further ironic that you are using a female now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that you cannot divert attention from your misrepresentation of the sources by personal attacks against me. Your latest accusation, about my "attacking females," is really the last straw. Please provide evidence of your charges or apologize. Furthermore, since you have ceased to discuss the substantive issues I will make the necessary changes to the article myself and if they are reverted by your or your collaborators we will have an RfC. --Haiduc (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Please provide evidence of your charges or apologize." - If you are going to hide from what you said, please don't do it when it is clearly visible above: "And then you grasp at Ethel Mayne, a woman" from here. You attacked one of the leading biographers on Byron because she was a woman. You misquote. You misattribute. You pull things out of context. And you are repeatedly claiming to say what you didn't say when it is clear that you previously said it. You are violating almost every policy on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you expect a lucid discussion of male homosexuality from a woman author writing in the early years of the 20th century, then you are unfamiliar with the subject you are trying to edit. That is not an attack, that is a recognition of cultural limitations. Enough of this. Expect an RfC. Haiduc (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but is that your apology for claiming that I was wrong about you making such statements before? Its kinda hard to tell, but your double standard in regards to women (i.e., if they can be made to seemingly agree with you, then they are okay) is rather troubling. You can claim that I am unfamiliar with Giraud. However, it is clear that from my adding in the sources and actually making this page what it is, I have more of a grounds to make a claim of understanding Giraud than you do. Especially with their being no proof to back up any assertion that there was a sexual relationship, as pointed out by countless studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where this absurd idea that women in the early part of the 20th century are somehow unaware of or not able to comment cogently on homosexuality comes from, but it bespeaks a stunning ignorance of both culture and literature. Nandesuka (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am willing to be proven wrong. Please give me an example who is contemporary with Byron's biographer, and who is a woman, and who wrote openly about male homosexual behavior. Haiduc (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone have to write openly about homosexual behavior? Byron certainly didn't. Few people did. Mayne was quite certain to point out Byron's rampant sexuality and his constantly visiting prostitutes, along with many negative characteristics of his, so even if she saw homosexuality as wrong or whoring himself out, she could have easily added that. Furthermore, if you are to say that she removed the idea because of her personal POV, then it is far easier to say that Crompton wants Byron to be gay, which would be a POV that legitimizes anything he could say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than being "willing to be proven wrong," I suggest you try to find some source for your extraordinary claim that women in the early part of the 20th century were somehow unaware of or unqualified to comment on male homosexuality. No such source exists, of course.  But you're welcome to try to find it anyway.  From the time of the Wilde trial onward, male homosexuality was written, talked, and even danced about, as anyone with an even passing familiarity with the period well knows.  Feel free to try to find a reliable source discrediting Byron's biographer, but don't be surprised that no one here will just take your personal word on the matter.  Your personal prejudices about what women can and cannot do are not a reliable source. Nandesuka (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The news that homosexuality was openly discussed and written about in the early years of the 20th century will be very exciting to queers studies scholars. At any rate, I will not allow you to change the topic. The problem here is the odd way in which Ottavia represented (or as some might say, misrepresented) Douglass. As I said, expect an RfC. Haiduc (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By "queers studies scholars" you mean people with a fixed point of view who look at an issue in a very one sided way that is controversial? Douglass makes it very, very clear that Crompton's study was extremely biased and came under attack for it. Furthermore, people did talk openly about sexuality. People knew that there was homosexuality. That is why there are tons of books discussion how Turks would participate in sodomy. dating back to the 18th century. The poem Don Leon is enough to prove that Byron scholars would know about homosexuality. To claim that people in the early 20th century didn't have any understanding that two guys were capable of having sex with each other is extremely inaccurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(un-indenting). Wait, you're the one who brings up the nonsensical nonsequiteur of "Women can't talk about homosexuality," (specifically asking that the topic be addressed) and I'm "changing the subject" for responding to your request? Sorry, no: if you want to disqualify a source, you're going to need to find a source that does it for you. Wikipedia is, quite simply, not going to take your word on this subject. And if you're saying with a straight face that you're unaware of any of the scholarship or commentary on male homosexuality that was written in the early 20th century (or the 19th for that matter), then I despair of your writing knowledgeably about this subject. Nandesuka (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The two of you could teach a graduate seminar in straw man argumentation. I will not bother to refute the obvious. However, I note with satisfaction that one of the most egregious claims by Ottava has been quietly removed, the bit of nonsense about the "many dissenters" to Crompton. Why so quietly Ottava? And buried in all those changes! I almost missed it. Anyway, no matter. By doing that you have spared yourself an RfC. Whoever told you to get rid of that phrase gave you good advice. I also want to commend you on your speedy response. You made that change less than four hours after I threatened to initiate the RfC. Next me we have a disagreement I will know what to do. Haiduc (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If threats are being exchanged, the next time anyone threatens someone, especially admits to it, they will be blocked, RfC'd, and community banned. Back to your corners.--Tznkai (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

More quotes from Douglas
 * By "quietly removed" you mean adding four more sources that further isolates Crompton with his terminology and expanding on what Douglas states to further contradict Eisler's claims in addition to him undermining any credibility Crompton's could have had, then perhaps you are correct. But now it is 100% impossible to make any claim that pederasty is an appropriate term to apply to page based on academic disagreement over the exact nature of the relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"The acknowledgement of Byron's bisexuality would seem to resolve disputes about his relationship with lovers like Edleston, Lady Caroline, Lamb, Claire Clairmont, and his wife, Annabella Milbanke. That is not really the case, however, for despite the greater certainty about his sexual ambivalence, the exact nature of those relationships remains elusive" 22-23

Grosskurth and Eisler "have accepted Crompton's conclusions and employed them to create a much more sombre picture of Byron;s character than that offered by Marchand. These two biographies are deeply indebted not only to Crompton but to Marchand, as well as to Doris Langley Moore and Malcolm Elwin. They nonetheless break new ground, exploring Byron's relationships more fully and openly. They have also added a significant and fresh perspective on certain episodes of Byron's life. For example, Eisler writes compellingly about Byron's marriage. Grosskurth writes with insight about his childhood. As is indicated by their subtitles, however, these books return us to the bad, dark, Gothic Byron. A more even-handed and better-researched biography has now been written by Fiona MacCarthy and published by the descendants of Byron's old friend, John Murray." p. 23

As you can see, Haiduc tried to make it seem as if Douglass was saying that pederasty was accepted or influenced in those two versions, when Douglass clearly points to it being personality, not sexuality. Furthermore, Douglass dismisses any ability to make claims about Byron's relationships. I think these is more evidence that Haiduc should be banned from editing this page, especially with his missattributing page numbers, removing direct quotes, and the such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem that Haiduc's addition: "According to Paul Douglass, Crompton's work has had a "significant impact upon later studies," and two recent Byron biographers, Grosskurth and Eisler, have accepted his conclusions." is unacceptable, since it quotes a point Douglass makes in passing while ignoring his actual dismissal of the substantive point.  Put simply, it's cherrypicking in the extreme, and no reasonable reader of Douglass would synthesize his article down to that particular point.  You don't cite someone who says "Ice is cold" and then imply that they were saying "Ice is hot." Nandesuka (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not so complicated. Ottava represents Douglass as depicting Crompton as dismissed by other scholars: ... has many dissenters and that Crompton's work, Byron and Greek Love "focuses Byron's life around a single issue, rather than attempting to create a larger view. Such studies prompt negative responses from those who feel the writer warps Byron to fit the theme, presenting a one-sided account<-blockquote>
 * Douglass´ real words of course say the very opposite, that he was taken seriously and influenced later scholars. Nandesuka would like to sweep this under the rug by claining that Douglass said this "in passing." That has to be the most preposterous claim I have ever been subjected to, on a par with "the dog ate my homework" type excuses. You want to claim that, my dear? Find a citation to that effect, then we can discuss it. Until then your notion is just an opinion, and of no value here. --Haiduc (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Douglass's real words are right there above. And it makes it clear that these people were influenced by Crompton's approach to Byron's emotions, not pederasty, especially when they never use the term. Furthermore, he makes it clear that they were just as influenced by Marchand, a man who makes it clear that Byron was not gay, nor a pederast, so that removes any possibly claims that you could make to the contrary. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava RIma, I am afraid that you cannot use Douglass's review of Crompton as a reason to exclude Crompton's views from the article. I can give you three reasons off the top of my head. First, you may not understand how academic book reviews work but many academics feel that in any review they must try to provide both positive and negative comments about a book. All fields of academia move forward through debate, and the fact that one scholar finds a shortcoming in the work of another scholar does not mean that the latter scholar is unimportant, or that the book is not worth buying or reading. I have read countless reviews where the reviewer provided criticisms of the work but concluded that it was a valuable and important study. Second, Douglass goes on to make clear that Crompton's views, whatever their shortocmings, are significant. Finally, even if Douglass completely and strongly rejected Crompton, our NPOV policy would actually view that as a reason for us to include Crompton. NPOV demands that we include different, including and especially contrary, points of view. It shouldn't matter what you or I think of Crompton since editors should never put their own views in articles, but even if you thought Crompton's book the silliest or stupidest book you had ever read, as long as it is significant (and it is clearly a significant work).

I also think it is at best weasily to add as a criticism from Douglass the point that Crompton's work "focuses Byron's life around a single issue, rather than attempting to create a larger view. Such studies prompt negative responses from those who feel the writer warps Byron to fit the theme, presenting a one-sided account." First of all, if we are to intorduce Douglass's view at all, we have to provide his view accurately. This means that we would also have to include his praise for Crompton's book. But I find this particular summary weasily in another way. First, most scholarly books focus on a single or small set of issues. This is a function of expertise and the fact that one can write two or thre hundred pages before exhausting a particular theme. Few academic expects one book to provide a holistic and balanced view of a subject, and this is especially true for Byron and any other notable literary or historical figure. Why? Because there are LOTS of other books on the subject. Scholars gain a holistic and balanced view by reading severa books, not just one. Good college professors teach this to students in their first year: you must look at multiple sources to get a balanced view. It is even echoed in our NPOV policy. Reading Douglass's review, it seems to me that Douglass is struggling to find negative things to say about Crompton to balance the positive, and can only come up with fairly weak criticisms. Finally, Douglass may be right that there are scholars sho think Crompton warps Byron to fit his theme. But I do not think that Douglass's review is a good source for this claim. We need to know that the people to whom Douglass refers are notable. If they are notable, they would have published their own books and articles. I think your argument (i.e. the critique of Crompton you wish to include) would be much stronger if you could cite the actual books and article written by other scholars making these criticisms. I really encourage you to do this not only because those would be more reliable and truly verifiable sources for your claim - in going over those books or articles you will probably discover that their criticisms of Crompton are far more nuanced and interesting than simply saying he is narrow, or distorting. If you read these books and articles you will discover more specific criticisms about how Crompton warps Byron, and what are the alternative (and better) interpretations. Adding that stuff to the article would not be weasily, it would be specific and clear and actually educate us more, much more, about Byron and about debates among academics. It would be a real contribution to the article. Douglass's review is helpful if it points you to specific books and articles on Byron you can read to get other views besides Crompton. But his review itself is not a good source, because he doesn't present the criticisms with any specificity, and it is unverifiable. We need to know the sources we can go back and read for ourselves to get the other views! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. Not once did I say that Crompton's view should not be mentioned. All I have ever stated is that Crompton's view is not the final say, that it is biased, and it can, in no way, determine that Giraud should be put in the "pederasty" category. Please get your facts straight. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I am trying to use Wikipedia policy to make constructive suggestions. Dismissing anything I say because I know absolutely nothing about what I am talking about seems awfully aggressive and hostile. I am sure you are editing in good faith, are you saying that you are not assuming I am commenting in good faith?

As to the point, I was responding only to your apparent resistance of the removal of this:
 * However, Paul Douglass points out that Crompton's approach to Byron has many dissenters and that Crompton's work, Byron and Greek Love "focuses Byron's life around a single issue, rather than attempting to create a larger view. Such studies prompt negative responses from those who feel the writer warps Byron to fit the theme, presenting a one-sided account.Douglass 2004 p. 22

Which as I have said is vague and not a verifiable source for the claims it makes (although I would be all for including the actual views and sources Douglass refers to). I was also responding to your claim that this is completely false: "Crompton's work has had a "significant impact upon later studies." In fact, Cromton's work is significant, and Douglass says so.

Can you tell me where anyone has said that Cromton's view is the final say? You seem very upset by and hostile to that claim. I can't find where anyone has said that Crompton's view is "the final say." But I am assuming good faith on your part, which means I just must have missed it. I would be grateful if you could provide the edit diff. or point me to where someone said this. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, your statement right there is absolutely absurd. Your desire to remove a directly quoted critique goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for. Furthermore, you aren't even quoting what the current page even states. Nor have you demonstrated that you have actually read my arguments as to why Haiduc's attempt to insert that is 100% misleading and deals nothing about the view on sexuality, especially when Douglass points out that they were equally influenced by Marchand who does not accept pederasty as part of Giraud or Byron's relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article. In its particular context, the quoted material to which you refer is a non-sequitur. Crompton is cited to make a very specific claim. Then there is a quote that some people have problems with Crompton's work. Thyat is hardly the kind of "opposing view" a good Wikipedia article needs; what would be good would be a quote like "Scholar x rejects this specific claim by Crompton for reason y and based on evidence c" That would be a quote I would vigorously defend! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can try and demean the wording if you want. However, a critique on method is 100% appropriate, especially when it is followed up by 'Douglass points out that "despite the greater certainty about his sexual ambivalence, the exact nature of those relationships remains elusive."' It is very pertinent to analysis of biographies to point out those that are non-critical and have unreliable support or major POV issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ottava, I think that it would be more constructive for you to neither defend your work nor attack Slrubenstein or myself. We are all trying to improve the article, not defend personal territory. I agree with Slrubenstein that we need to have more specific critiques of Crompton´s work, and that his being one-dimensional is irrelevant to the validity of his arguments. We also need to have a more accurate description of Douglass´ take on Crompton. --Haiduc (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless the word "improve" suddenly means pushing a fringe POV, taking speculation as fact, blatantly misconstruing what an author states, miss-citing information, and removing directly cited excerpts, while not contributing at all to the actual content of a page, then I don't think you are doing anything even close to what the word "improve" would allow. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was expecting a more serious response from you. Please address the issues, not my vocabulary. --Haiduc (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how this page is on Giraud, not on Crompton, an analysis of Crompton would violate WP:WEIGHT. If you would like to create a page on Crompton's work, please feel free. Then you can include all the notes about works it influenced, reviews on it, etc. You have two works on this talk page that do just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything you have just said about Crompton is equally applicable to Douglass. The point here is not for us two to invite each other to go play elsewhere. The point is to accurately represent the critics we are discussing, something that in the case of Douglass is lacking. --Haiduc (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Everything you have just said about Crompton is equally applicable to Douglass." 100% correct. That is why I limited Crompton and Douglass to having roughly the same amount of lines devoted to them. Douglass makes it clear that he does not believe there is enough evidence to have any certainty about Byron's sexual habits. WP:OR states that you cannot put out anything that would lead to the denial of this, as that would be original research - synthesis. Nothing else that Douglass states is pertinent to Giraud. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem remains that what you say about Douglass re Crompton is misleading. Let´s see what others have to say. --Haiduc (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Misleading how? Are you honestly going to attempt to argue that Douglass believes that Crompton's view is not one sided and that others point this out, especially when he makes it 100% clear that he believes that there is not enough evidence to determine his actual relationships? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviews on Crompton and Eisler
Reviews on Crompton:

Lynch, Michael.Victorian Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 129-131 p. 130 'Crompton's method combines archival digging with the interpretative assumptions of a diffuse liberalism. He traces the legal history of sodomy, tracks down the pilloryings, combs personal papers for clues to social attitudes, recovers Bentham's celebrations, and ferrets out hidden details not only of Byron's life but also of his biographers' ploys -- and when he emerges from the archives with these papers in hand, Crompton makes his major contribution to our study of Georgian culture. His interpretative liberalism is less helpful. The history of Western homosexuality, as he sees it, isa history of benightedness versus light. Blending all sorts of behavior into "homosexuality," reifying homosexuals as entities, and taking "taboo" as a ready explanation of silence, Crompton portrays Bentham's enlightened rationalism as heroic. He treats Bentham's project much as he treats the Napoleonic Code, which decriminalized sodomy, and a lesser subsequent legal reforms. Indeed, he characterizes his own project as part of that same "business unfinished by the Enlightenment" (p. 381). To speak out from secrecy, to remove the taboos on behavior, to end the repression of a "minority" - these constitute his more-light agenda.'

p. 131

'Crompton is willing to assume that Kinseyan categories apply retrospectively - he even uses "modern statistics" to determine the size of the "gay male minority"' in Georgian England!... Over the next few years literary and cultural historians of Georgian and Victorian England will be unable to ignore these two books. But they will face a curious challenge if they try to draw from both'

Shilstone, Frederick W. South Atlantic Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter, 2001), pp. 226-229

p. 226 "A central principle of the Platonic philosophy of love (of whatever variety) is that physical sex is little more than foreplay, a gratifying of bodily necessity as a brief prelude to the far more essential meeting of minds and souls. This credo is obviously not taken very seriously by Benita Eisler, or by herimmediate predecessor in Byron biography, Phyllis Grosskurth... or by a host of other writersof recent 'popular,' trade-published examinationsof literary lives... The study currently under review leads one to wonder how Byron's alleged persistent monisexuality left him anytime to write, or at least to write about anything other than sexual obsession or tension or release or revenge. The sort of priority set in this pervasive psychosexual biography is reflected, as a first example,inthe fact that, given the length and complexity of their relative discussions here, a reader might assume that Byron's long, acknowledgedmasterpiece, Don Juan, is no more significant a life episode than the youthful lord's flings with his servants May Gray and Susan Vaughan. Other important works (for instance, The Two Foscari and Werner) are barely mentioned, but we are spared no detail of Byron's homosexual affairs with his Harrow classmates, with John Edleston, and, late on, with the Greek boy Loukas Chalandritsanos (nothing new -those details have long since been made public by Leslie Marchand, Louis Crompton, and others, sources that Eisler raids liberally, with sketchy attribution). Only sporadically is she concerned with the meetings of minds and souls."

p. 227 "Popular literary biography is generally short on hard aesthetic analysis... When literary criticism does appear in Byron: Child of Passion, Fool of Fame, it is often highly speculative, sometimes eccentric, and not infrequently factually incorrect. The commentary on Manfred is a case in point... In addition to such poorly supported speculations, there are many small but serious factual errors in Eisler's book: saying 'as Don Juan would observe' (263) about a comment clearly made by the ottava rima poem's omnipresent narrator; missing completely the irony in the voice of the speaker of the puff-piece 'The Waltz' (367); calling Don Juan's father Don Alphonso, even though a quotation in the next line correctly identifies him as Don Jose (612). There are a number of similar errors in, especially, the book's concluding section, 'Afterlife,' where, in a discussion of artistic reactions to Byron after his death, critical accuracy truly suffers."

I think it is obvious that reviewers are able to see the bias in these two authors (Crompton and Eisler) and how they are extrapolating and guessing at unimportant things in order to push their own views. They also point out how uncritical and unreliable they are, especially with their factual inaccuracies and their blatant guessing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Douglass
What is stated in the article:
 * Crompton also claimed that biographers like Leslie Marchand ignored the nature of Byron's relationship with Giraud. However, Paul Douglass points out that Crompton's work, Byron and Greek Love "focuses Byron's life around a single issue, rather than attempting to create a larger view. Such studies prompt negative responses from those who feel the writer warps Byron to fit the theme, presenting a one-sided account".

What is stated in the original:
 * "It would be almost twenty-five years before Lewis Crompton extended Knight's charge, arguing that Marchand had consistently failed to explain and describe Byron's involvements with male lovers, like his page Robert Rushton and the Greek youths Nicolo Giraud and Loukas Chalandritsanos. Crompton's Byron and Greek Love (1985) exemplifies a type of biographical study that focuses Byron's life around a single issue, rather than attempting to create a larger view. Such studies prompt negative responses from those who feel the writer warps Byron to fit the theme, presenting a one sided account." p. 22

As you can see, the statement is directly in relationship to Crompton's take on the relationships including Giraud's and is faithful to the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that Crompton focuses on the single issue of homosexuality does in no way undercut his arguments about homosexuality. Douglass' criticism is irrelevant to this aspect of the discussion. Please see older comments on this subject, above. Also, please refrain from threatening me, as you did at my talk page. One of the reasons I have lately held off from involving myself in this article has been your behavior and your attitude, but if you will now presume to submit the article for GA status the least I can do is to try to make it a bit more balanced. Haiduc (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No where does it say that Douglass is undercutting anything. It simply states a fact that Crompton is focusing on a single issue and that there is a dispute between what a Byron biography should be - Crompton gets to say Marchand's side is incomplete and Douglass gets to say that Crompton's is too. Douglass's criticism is 100% relevant because the lines clearly state that it is in reference to Crompton's take on the gay relationships of Byron within Crompton and singles out Giraud among the list. And my threat will stand - if you continue to remove content, I will push for you to be topic banned as your actions here for many, many months were inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will leave others to determine the appropriateness of my actions - and yours. They speak for themselves and need no interpreter.
 * Crompton's focusing on a single issue is a problem if one is looking for a rounded bio, but an asset if one is examining that single issue, which is our case here. The only visible result of your forcing that text into the article is to appear to discredit Crompton, in this case inappropriately. Haiduc (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You put solid factual evidence into a speculation section, disrupted the chronological progress of the debate about the relationship, and removed cited information. You are also known as a POV pusher on the pederasty issue and edit war multiple pages. I, on the other hand, am a literary scholar who has put forth all of the scholarship on the page. I think it is obvious as to who is here for the proper reasons and who is going out of their way to damage the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it is not at all clear who or what either of us is, I suggest you leave aside all discussion of yourself and other editors and focus on the article itself. Haiduc (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your actions in pushing fringe views on "pederasty" related topics is well known. You tried it here for a long time also. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What is his name?!
Is it Nicolo or Nicolas? If he is French, it should be Nicolas. That is supported by MacCarthy, who says (128) that Nicolo was a nickname given him by Byron (who seems to have Italianized the name of his Italian tutor), as well as by Gross in Cather Studies, Volume 7, p.135. Haiduc (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No biographies state that his name is Nicholas. Please reread the WP:RS and WP:V on this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two sources claim his name was Nicholas. Haiduc (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Link? Or actually willing to state the two? I can list 15 that don't. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gross and MacCarthy. See the first message in this thread. Also, if you have objections to my edits I would request that you list them here with specifics, rather than leaving vague accusations in the edit summary. Haiduc (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gross who? There is no Gross cited. Do you mean Phyllis Grosskurth? There are only a few hits for this Giraud (Grosskurth and Cather studies) as "Nicolas" but there are many other French people with -that- name. Nicolo Giraud, however, has many hits to him, especially in Byron's Will reading "Nicolo". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that adds Grosskurth to the group, making three sources. For Gross, see here http://books.google.com/books?id=MfK7YMIM23QC&pg=PA135&dq="Nicolas+Giraud" . That Byron would call him by his nickname seems understandable. That a French boy growing up in Greece should have an Italian name seems odd. Haiduc (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gross quotes the will, which states Nicolo. Thus, Gross's source directly changes the original without an explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not need to redo the footwork of legitimate sources. Haiduc (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do need to verify if it is a reliable source. Seeing as how it contradicts its source material, that source is not verifiable. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The boy was also an Italian teacher, so having an Italian name would not be surprising. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He was not an Italian teacher when he was baptized. Haiduc (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Produce the baptismal records then. Wikipedia is based on what Reliable Sources state. The vast majority call him Nicolo Giraud. Thus, he is called Nicolo Giraud. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have a very reliable source that states his name was Nicolas, and that Nicolo was a nickname. MacCarthy. She is backed up by two other sources. None of the sources using his nickname of Nicolo contest that his real name was Nicolas. They are silent on the topic. Thus there is no contradiction. However, since he has entered history under a nickname I am not suggesting we change the name of the article, that would be counterproductive. But we need to present this fact in the biography. Haiduc (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two reliable sources cannot contradict 15 reliable sources. Please read the WP:FRINGE guideline. You can add a note saying that some refer to him as Nicolas, but you cannot rename the page as such, because he is known as Nicolo as per the only written document on him. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems we are in agreement. We shall not rename the article, but we will indicate that the name of Nicolo is a nickname given to him by Byron, and his birth name is Nicolas. Haiduc (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have the page number where it states that it is his birth name? I can look it up and see. Otherwise, I think it would be best to say "Nicolo Giraud, also known as Nicolas Giraud,". We don't even know when he was born, which is why I am reluctant to make any claims about him. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Placement of the will
The information on the will is 100% factual. The section on the relationship is 100% speculation by scholars. Putting the will in that section is problematic. It also looks ugly having the blockquote in that fashion. Furthermore, it removes the citations from the biographical section, which is inappropriate. You take a cited paragraph, remove half the info, and remove the citation. That is damaging the article and violates MoS. So yes, the action is vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem whatsoever with the placement of the will in the bio, I have put it there but if I did not put it where you want it please do as you see fit.
 * On a separate note, I have a feeling that there is a lot more in MacCarthy about this. Is there a reason why you left it out (the book is not by my side, or I would be more precise)? Haiduc (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The MacCarthy is only about 3-4 pages. I can take copies if you would like to see everything. Most of it deals with Byron and others, and not Byron with Giraud, so there is quite a bit of extraneous detail. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a very kind offer, but I do not want to put you out. I should have my copy in hand by early next week and then I'll be able to discuss this more intelligently. Have a good weekend. Haiduc (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting read. There are 6 or 7 decent biographies that use research since 1990. MacCarthy admits to having a more "gay" take on Byron. Those like Grosskurth (1997) look at him as "dark". Eisler tends to look Byron as a very sexual being since he was 11 and uses that to connect all of Byron's relationships. Unfortunately, most of these are pop biographies (written with an emphasis on selling at bookstores) and very few are traditional literary biographies, so if you want any actual analysis of Byron as anything but a guy running around having sex with everyone and anyone (including animals and trees), there is little out there. By the way, in a little bit I will put forth what Grosskurth states about the Giraud times (not that much different, but not yet in the bottom section) and we can figure out if we should expand with some more of the details. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How much?!
The interpretation in modern coin of the willed sum seems paltry in comparison with money's worth in those days. See for a useful tool, and consider that we are not looking just at purchasing power but a comparison with what people were earning then. By those standards the sum approaches 7.5 million US dollars, a sum considered by historian Robert Aldritch to have been "enormous." Haiduc (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Either way, it is a lot of money. I wonder if Byron even realized it at the time. He was rather out of it mentally by then (too many illnesses and fevers). He only gave one "favorite" 50 pounds a year, which was tiny in comparison. 7,000 pounds would normally earn someone at least 200 pounds a year in interest or 700 a year if they were like most that thought they would live for only 10 years (tended to happen quite often among inheritors). I know that by 1890, 50 pounds a year could provide for a modest living while 250 pounds a year would be decent middle class. 70 years earlier and more than that would have placed Giraud at a high middle class income from interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think your figure was calculating interesting. The figure for retail price index is the inflation/purchasing power amount. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see there is some code calculating the figure in the article. Can you guide me to the source? Haiduc (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the code. It might explain its background. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Beckford, etc
I have added links to our articles on William Beckford and William Courtenay. The latter almost certainly was homosexual; the former was suspected of being so, but - whatever the truth of his relationship with the young Courtenay - it is more likely (imho) that he was bisexual, as our article on him says. I was tempted to add a fact template: do we have a source that positively asserts that Beckford was homosexual?

I also added a link to Talleyrand, who is mentioned in Don Leon on the immediately preceding line ("Ask crippled Talleyrand, // Ask Beckford, Courtenay ... ) If Beckford and Courtney were "well-known homosexual men", the inference has to be that Talleyrand was also, which does not seem appropriate for a notorious womaniser; nor, indeed, was he treated unfairly, as far as I am aware.  I am also unsure how mention of Talleyrand supports the claim (undoubtly true though it is) that "England is hypocritical when it comes to sex".  Can someone more knowledgeable clear this up for me?  -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is fully sourced. The section is discussing what the -poem- claims, not what is historically true or not. The section even begins "The poem's references". Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is generally well sourced, no doubt, but I am interested in the sources for this particular sentence.


 * I am not sure I understand what you mean by "what the -poem- claims". Are you saying that the text of the poem itself claims that Talleyrand, Beckford and Courtenay are "well-known homosexual men"?   Please can you show me where it does, because I can't see it.  That seems to me to be an interpretation of the poem that needs a source.


 * Do you have a source that says that these three people are "well-known homosexual men", or a source that says the poem refers these people in order to "talk about the unfair treatment of homosexual men who had committed no real crime, and [to demonstrate] that England is hypocritical when it comes to sex"?


 * Is this sentence Fone's opinion, perhaps, like the rest of the paragraph appears to be? If so, we should make it clearer that Fone thinks the poem is referring to "well-known homosexual men".  It would also be interested in why he thinks that. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole paragraph is cited to Fone and begins "Byrne Fone, a historian of homosexuality-related issues, emphasizes how the poem...". He makes those claims (actually, he only makes claims about -two- of them, you added in the third without it being in the source). This is the source. Only parts of it show up. The wiki paragraph is cited to that page and the pages before (all on one page in the other version) back until the beginning of the section. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So the citation at the end covers the whole paragraph?  OK.  Sorry, but I can't read it at that link.  I am still unsure how how Talleyrand fits into Fone's analysis - perhaps he does not mention him at all, despite him appearing as the first of the three men, in the line before - but I have had another stab at clarifying my area of concern.  Feel free to change it if it misrepresents Fone's view (no doubt you have access to the source).  -- Hyphen8d (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima "undid" my change here with the edit comment "I could not see anything in the source to justify this, nor is the section about them but about Giraud."

Unfortunately, as I explain above, I am unable to read that source through the link given above. However, following the discussion above, I think it is necessary to explain (i) that Talleyrand, Beckford and Courtney appear in adjacent lines of the poem, but (ii) (as I understand it) Fone's argument is only informed by the latter two (and does not seem to take account of the first).

It is certainly necessary for the article to stop stating that Talleyrand was a "well-known homosexual", and to clarify the end of the sentence, "The poem's references to well-known homosexual men, including [...], used both to talk about the unfair treatment of homosexual men who had committed no real crime, and that England is hypocritical when it comes to sex". What does the "and that" relate back to?

I have tried again, but please can we try to disuss a suitable wording here: I would rather you do not just revert me again.

Incidentally, that paragraph is not only about Giraud - it is about the peom and Fone's view of it. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The current change is fine. The previous change added far too much that was outside of the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that change is acceptable to you, but I would like to see if we find further agreement on adding something about Talleyrand and Beckford and Courtney to explain *why* Fone thinks what he does, based on the historical record.

The main difference between my two formulations is the sentence:
 * "Talleyrand was a notorious womaniser; Beckford became a social outcast after scandalous gossip suspected him of a homosexual relationship with the youthful Courtney."

Fone may say nothing about the lives of Talleyrand or Beckford or Courtney, but these bare facts are the sorts of commonplaces that can be found in many places (on the covers of books, not just within them - see the links above).

Would you agreed to putting something like this sentence back in, with some citations? -- Hyphen8d (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more appropriate to create an actual page on the poem for the above. Would that satisfy you? The poem is notable enough to warrant its own page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure an article could be written on the poem, but I am not the person to do that. As I mentioned above, I wanted to correct the bald assertion by this article that William Beckford and William Courtenay are "well-known homosexual men" (the latter was; the former was reputed to be, but the evidence is equivocal) and make it clear that they are mentioned in the same breath as Talleyrand (who almost certainly was not, although he had other peccadillos). Rereading, I was also unsure how to parse the last part of the sentence that ends with "and that England is hypocritical when it comes to sex." I think all of these are clearer now - although I would prefer to be more explicit about the allegations against the three men mentioned - but the statements of opinion are now clearly attributed. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can write an article but I will need a month or so before I have time to do it. The poem alleges that Byron and Giraud were having sex also but there is no way that he had any actual evidence. So, the poem does quite a bit that does not have specific historical evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)