Talk:Pigache/Archive 1

Discussion at Errors
The article cites two sources for this; one is the Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, the other, Mills 2015, is a scholarly work that quotes and discusses Orderic's History. So in the first place I'm not seeing medieval historians plural, just Orderic. More importantly, I don't find turning its wearers gay supported by either source. Orderic says that "effeminates set the fashion", "our wanton youth is sunk in effeminacy", and as proof of this he points out that courtiers wear these curly shoes to attract women. It is clear from this, as Mills states explicitly, that Orderic did not use the word "effeminate" to mean "homosexual", but even if he did, the shoes are not represented as causing effeminacy. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ... that medieval historians believed that the pulley shoe (wearers pictured) was used to chase women lewdly while turning its wearers gay?


 * "Gay" used to mean something completely different to "homosexual" in times gone by. I can't figure out what its meaning is in the hook. And the article itself doesn't use that word. Should it?  Schwede 66  02:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources don't use the word "gay", just "effeminate". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Did you know to rally the troops to assemble here. I shall ping those who were involved in getting this hook onto the main page: (nominator),  (reviewer),  (promoter to prep), and  (promoter to queue).  Schwede  66  05:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I remember looking at this when I promoted it and deciding it was OK.  As I recall, I verified that the article supported the hook, but didn't go beyond that because I assume the sources were not available on-line so AGF.  Now that I see the source is indeed available on-line I've put more time into reading the Mills source in greater detail (no small task; it's difficult reading).  It's obvious to me that "Gay" used to mean something completely different to "homosexual" in times gone by. is a red herring.  It's abundantly clear that the source is talking about homosexuality.  What I can't find is where it says wearing the shoes cause you to become homosexual, which is what the hook asserts.  So, yeah, I agree it should be pulled and apologize for not being more rigorous in my review.  I would pull it myself, but I'm not actually sure what the right process is for pulling a lead hook with an image, so I'll leave that to somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources discuss sodomy and homosexuality in addition to effeminacy and various impieties. It's not 'happy gay'. It's 'gay gay'. Just from Orderic: "Foul catamites, doomed to eternal fire... gave themselves up to the filth of sodomy..." isn't limiting itself to 'effeminacy' and isn't remotely unclear about what's being discussed. Mills is blocked by Google at the moment but I don't remember him being unclear either. OP just didn't have time to read the whole pages, apparently. — Llywelyn II   06:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I'm way over my head here but aren't Orderic, William of Malmesbury and Guibert of Nogent all medieval historians? And all three used different phrasing to associate the shoes with homosexuality (or their perception of what that was): foul catamites, inadequately masculine men, Islamic Cordoban-origin (associated in his mind w buggery and effeminacy)? jengod (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and Symbol delete vote.svg the objections above are well meaning but entirely mistaken. This is something where I could've rewritten the article to specifically use that exact wording just to get through the process but, since the reviewer didn't require it, there was no need to have one thing for DYK and then revert to better treatment after the process was over. In addition to those three (3) medieval historians (who incidentally happen to be THE major historians for this period in English history) there are also at least two modern secondary sources specifically addressing the shoes from a homosexual angle. Gimme a sec and I'll list 'em here. Edit: Mills is already linked above, there was a Museum of London website that didn't get used, and there's also Rubenstein in the article who goes through all three of the historians mentioned. They're linked appropriately. There's also the blowup across the church about how awful these shoes were: It wasn't that there were many LGBTQers who happened to wear these shoes; they saw this as an actual threat of a contagion of such 'misbehavior' risking its further spread. OP apparently just overreacted to a partial search. I get the subject being sensitive and subject to extra scrutiny, of course. Good on Sojourner for double checking and, to the extent the confusion is due to not having the exact phrasing in the article, of course, sorry for the trouble. (Not sure how the fear, bans, and 'homosexual rape' didn't register though. xD) — Llywelyn II   06:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)  Oh, it goes without saying that they were wrong, right? —  Llywelyn II   06:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read the sources (obviously) but evidently we're interpreting them differently. As I see it, the claims made in Orderic's book and its analysis in Mills are that (a) effeminacy was in fashion; (b) one aspect of this lifestyle trend was the wearing of pointy shoes; and (c) another aspect of this lifestyle trend was engagement in homosexual acts. I don't find where it says that (b) caused (c). The cited page from Mills says: Effeminacy, represented as a mode of aesthetic as well as social transgression, is characterized as a sodomitic "way of life", yet this is not linked definitively with homoerotic pursuits. In other words, some effeminates wore pointy shoes, some had sex with men, some did both, but the shoes are not stated to be the cause of homosexuality.Whether other sources not present in the article draw a clearer causal link is irrelevant to my original complaint, so it's not really appropriate for you to dismiss my concerns as "entirely mistaken" on those grounds. Nor am I concerned about "exact phrasing"; I understand that the relevant part of the article is contributing to the effeminate men and "foul catamites", and my point is that the sources don't verify that information.Your Museum of London source (not in the article) does come close to verifying the hook, but it doesn't expressly talk about homosexuality, only sexual deviancy (sodomy ... was a catch-all term for any sex considered non-standard). Maybe there are more sources that clarify the point; but it's not enough for such sources to exist, they have to be added to the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with the first remark: the article does not verify the hook. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think there's a subtext of social contagion here that wasn't explicitly explained and seems clear to some but not to others. It's a moral panic fad. There is Sin and there are Shoes and correlation equals causation (y/y?) ergo Sin causes Shoes and Shoes cause Sin. Ban shoes to ban sin. If you managed to prevent sin from existing (sin as defined by medieval monks), no one would *dream* of wearing such flamboyant shoes. See also: video games cause violence and Elvis' hip swivel makes young people have sex. Lastly, it's inherently funny (to my view) because it's ancient, serious, powerful men beclowning themselves over...clown shoes. Or at least that was why it made sense to me! jengod (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jengod So eloquently put it! BorgQueen (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is eloquent and the eloquence hides that it is totally irrelevant because it does not address the principal problem: the hook is not verified by the article. Could anybody quote the text from the article stating that medieval historians believed that the pulley shoe turned its wearers gay/homosexual? Borsoka (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. "Discussions of sodomy [pay particular attention] to the gendered ramifications of sex acts between males ... Orderic presents sodomitic practices as a symptom of the luxury and material [exemplified by the pulley shoe]." From the other sources: "Specifically, it was controversial because the church began to attack pointed shoes as contributing directly to people's sexual proclivities. That's right, the poulaine was seen to encourage what the medieval church referred to as sodomy", and the translation from the third source "effeminates were setting the fashion [of pulley shoes] in many parts of the world: foul catamites ... shamelessly gave themselves up to the filth of sodomy. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does not contain the two statements you quoted above although eligibility criteria states that "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article ..." Borsoka (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your square-bracket inserts correctly represent the sources. On your second quote (from a source not in the article), see the quote I provided above from the same source, which explains that "what the medieval church referred to as sodomy" is not specifically homosexuality. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely, which is why the hook also includes "to chase women lewdly"; which of the square brackets did you feel misrepresents the source? All of them? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: could anybody quote text from the article stating that that medieval historians believed that the pulley shoe turned its wearers gay/homosexual? If the article does not contain this statement, the hook should be changed or removed. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. CTRL+F for catamite. (Wiktionary link if that's murky or arcane... but it's the specific wording the source used so it's better to keep it.) — Llywelyn II   14:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did. The article does not say that the shoes turned people homosexual. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem so. Contributing to catamitism = increasing homosexuality (in their view). As mentioned, we're keeping that phrasing because it's what's in the source. There's a valid enough disagreement over whether Mill and Rubenstein and the primary sources justify that statement (Sojourner feels they're just saying there happened to be an inordinate number of homosexuals at the time and they happened to wear these shoes and Orderic is just generally complaining about kids these days instead of making a point about ending the fashion he's ranting about), but it does already say that, which is what you were asking for. — Llywelyn II   14:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull ( pun intended ) The hook seems too confused and synthetic. Apart from the issues discussed above, which seem to be pulling in opposite directions, the article alias of "pulley shoe" is a muddle.  The article is actually called pigache and that's a type of pointed shoe.  The term "pulley shoe" is an anglicised form of poulaine which is a different article about a later, more exaggerated form.  The term Orderic used was pigaceas – see StackExchange for a detailed discussion of this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree re pulling. Murky, arcane and gratuitously prurient. -- Sca (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not murky or arcane. (The StackExchange discussion linked above was undertaken by me so I already know that it supports the article as written, not whatever Mr Davidson might've misunderstood it as.) There were c. 5 other hooks offered. Reviewer/promoter preferred this one. [Edit: I only now saw this but apparently the originally submitted hook was modified to its current phrasing by someone else. It doesn't really change the part being complained about but fwiw I still prefer my original phrasing, which stayed closer to Orderic's phrasing.] It's already in the article but some people seem to be skipping past what sodomy usually means and what catamite only means. Some people don't like the hook or topic and that's fine but it is very well supported. Similarly, these are the pulley shoes as discussed and cited in the article. Poulaines proper didn't show up for 2 more centuries. Sojourner is trying to take Orderic as saying there just happened to be a lot of homosexuals in the European courts at the time and they just happened to wear these shoes. YMMV but that seems like a poor reading of something Orderic and the numerous attempts to curtail the shoe across the church show as being considered as a contagion. (Wrongly, of course.) —  Llywelyn II   14:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My concern is with the hook, not the article. The article is called pigache, which is fine.  So, why does this hook use a different, more ambiguous name for it?  It seems that LlywelynII themself described the name "pulley shoe" as "bizarre and unhelpful".  More confusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * TBH, I can't understand the hook at all. "Chase" in what sense? Is that a typo of chaste? How do you chase something lewdly? And gay as in homosexual or as in happy? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled There's far too many objections here, and no one has proposed a better hook to fix all of the myriad problems. I have pulled it, and replaced the lead pic with one from another hook.  We can run one less hook for a few hours.   -- Jayron 32 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 17:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there were a half-dozen other hooks offered xD but I guess 33k eyes on the article is still a win. It's a valid point if other people do agree with Sojourner that the 'contributing' is too strong for the current sourcing, but for myself at at least some of the posters above it does seem clear and non-y or y based on the hostility, phrasing, and actions of the church and the ecclesiastical historians of the era. — Llywelyn II   07:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In any case, if it was felt poorly worded/sourced enough to pull, we shouldn't highlight the hook or the long conversation on the talk page either. Moved to an archive to preserve everything without giving it undue visibility. — Llywelyn II   07:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)