User talk:BigHaz/Archive 21

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - September 2008
This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Quick question...
Hi BigHaz... quick question... A while back there was a nice cleanup of non-single nn songs from Metallica (and others) But since then some, like The God That Failed (song) (an nn album track) have re-appeared after your delete. Wondered if we could do another round of "cleansing"? Have a nice day. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - October 2008
This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

DYK
The hook from Detective Michael Tritter is mansioned in the article's development section, just thought you should know.87.212.181.237 (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicolò Giraud
BigHaz, the discussion on the talk page is on the nature of the relationship. However, as pointed out in the article, everyone, EVERYONE acknowledges that there was a relationship between Byron and Giraud. The dispute is over if it was sexual or not in nature. You can still be bi or gay without having sex. Furthermore, the biography section discusses Giraud's love letters to Byron, which beyond a doubt allows him to be included in that category. One such letter is included in part, which should have been obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what the article says. I'll quote the article here, since it's clearly being misrepresented by the editors in favour of the categorisation. We have phrases such as "a possible lover", Although there is no actual evidence to prove the nature of the relationship, Byron and Giraud's relationship has become a topic of speculation amongst biographers and scholars of Byron", "rumors were spread by a servant that two were in a relationship", "Critics, like Benita Eisler, speculate that Giraud was one of many of Byron's intended sexual conquests", "Others, like Jay Losey and William Brewer, speculate that Byron's relationship with Giraud was modeled on a Grecian form of pederasty" and "A few critics disagree with the speculation over Giraud's and Byron's relationship". Now, speaking here as a historian, I have to tell you that "speculation" and "rumours" don't actually add up to proof that something is true. The fact that there is such speculation is important to mention, and knowing what we know about Lord Byron, I would be very surprised if the speculation were not grounded in fact, but the point remains that it is only speculation. An attempt to claim otherwise without actual evidence is wrong-headed. Saying "Oh, there was a relationship, so he was gay" is just silly and I think you can see that in the cold light of logic.
 * The only letter to Byron quoted in the article is affectionate, certainly, but people do (and did) in fact talk like that. To claim that this is the evidence you need is like those weird theories that Abraham Lincoln was gay because he slept in the same bed as another man - it ignores the fact that people did that sometimes. As I've said before, the category only works if you can find evidence that he was gay. If there is such evidence, stick it in the article. Unless and until that evidence appears, you're only putting him into a category based on speculation, which is the wrong way to go about it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BigHaz, look at the history. I wrote the article. I know what it says because I put it together. If you want me to be far more explicit, then I will be. The relationship part is only about the type of relationship. We have Giraud's letters and they are love letters speaking of his devotion to Byron. There is no speculation about that. That is why those are in the biography section. Giraud didn't have a girlfriend. He didn't indulge in prostitution like Byron did. He never was with anyone after Byron parted. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you wrote the article is neither here nor there. There's a considerable gulf between doing the research into this bloke's life and knowing the material about it (which I don't doubt that you did) and actually writing that material down in a manner that demonstrates what you're saying (which I'm saying that you didn't). What I want you to do is to put something - anything - into the article that is referenced and says conclusively "Giraud was homosexual". Like I said earlier, odds are that he was and I'm certainly not going to be surprised if/when you or anyone else add that information, but unless and until you do, it's not there. There is, at present, only one excerpt from a letter from Giraud to Byron quoted in the article, and while it can (if you want it to) lend itself to that interpretation, I'd also point out that it's the kind of language that other non-homosexual people have used in the past to express deep friendship as well. The lack of a girlfriend or anything else is entirely immaterial in and of itself. What matters, as always, is evidence. Find me something or someone saying conclusively and without any hedging of bets that "Giraud was homosexual" and add it to the article. You know as well as I do that that's how Wikipedia has always worked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is a bit more complex than who wrote the article. We have to ask ourselves, "what is the purpose of categories." Surely, it is to guide readers to articles that are relevant to the topics they are interested in. If they are interested in homosexuality, then they are entitled to have it pointed out to them that the article on Nicolo Giraud contains information on his possible or probable homosexual liaison with Byron. That is all. We can not know what his orientation was, nor do we care. Now it may be that the wrong category is being used. Personally I am of the opinion that "History of pederasty" is more appropriate, because it makes no presumptions about what was in NG's brain or heart. But until we come to agree on that one, "History of homosexuality" or some such will do just as well. "LGBT people from..." does sound a bit anachronistic, to say the least. Haiduc (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue is indeed more complex than who wrote the article. Indeed, Ottavia's explanation that she wrote it is entirely irrelevant to the issue, so we can move beyond it. Now, the point that you're making is potentially a good one. What I'm saying is that if I look in the category "LGBT people from Greece", I expect to see precisely that - a collection of people who are or were known to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered and who are or were Greek. What I don't expect to see, however, is a list of people who are or were from Greece about whom there is speculation regarding their sexuality. Were there evidence in the article that Giraud were gay, therefore, he'd be a perfect example of an inclusion in that category. There is not. There is speculation that he was gay. Therefore, lumping him with people who are or were known to be gay etc is not accurate. If there were a category of "Greek people suspected to be gay" (which there shouldn't be for all manner of good reasons, but we'll use it as an example), then someone about whom there is speculation would be a good inclusion. That's my point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked around a bit and found this category: "LGBT history in Greece." At the same time I want to point out that an equally good category would be "History of pederasty" since we are documenting an alleged love relationship between a man and an adolescent boy. As these two categories are not mutually exclusive I suggest we use both. Opinions? Haiduc (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LGBT History in Greece sounds sensible, as the rumours about him clearly constitute part of that. "Pederasty" I'm a bit warier of, since there's really only speculation that there was such a relationship. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the crux of the matter, is it not? But the fact remains that it is no more speculation to assert the topic is of interest to those studying LGBT history in Greece, than to assert the topic is of interest to those studying pederasty. The facts determining those listings are the same. The additional fact, and one that - unlike any other fact here - is clearly proven and incontrovertible, is that Nicolo was a boy of sixteen while Byron was an adult. No speculation here whatsoever. So once we agree that the topic has LGBT interest, and once we further agree that one partner is a boy and the other is a man, the rest is automatic. Haiduc (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree slightly there, although I can see your argument. "Pederasty", as defined here at least (in its article) requires a relationship. The relationship need not be consummated, but it needs to exist. What we have in this article are rumours and speculation that the relationship existed. Yes, the odds are pretty darn good that the relationship did exist, but there's nothing expressly saying such. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not called upon to stand in judgment. We are called upon to make the information available to our readers. It is up to them to make their own judgments. To a student of pederasty, this account, this text, this allegation may have historical interest. It contains a constellation of hints, indications, primary sources, second hand accounts, all relating to the dance between a man and a boy. Whatever they may or may not have done and felt, a student of pederasty who remains ignorant of this episode has missed out on a thought provoking and significant episode. How significant? Enough to be preserved in a number of accounts. Haiduc (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we're not called upon to stand in judgement. What we're called upon to do, as you say, is to make information available. The information that is at present available is that people at the time and since have thought that there could well have been this particular relationship. The information that would need to be there for us to justify including this article in the category you want it to be there is anything concrete. We're starting to go around in circles here, which is precisely what I was hoping to avoid. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, instead of reverting and laying out your argument in your edit summary, you could leave a message at the talk page where we can all form a consensus? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the talk page gets bogged down with circular argument, given further that my rationale has been laid out perfectly clearly here, and given finally that "speculation that Giraud was gay is not proof of the same thing" (or words to that effect) is an entirely intelligible reason for removing the categories, I'll respectfully decline the offer. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency that remains is that you think we are entitled to categorize it commonsensically under LGBT but we are not entitled to categorize it under pederasty. Haiduc (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an inconsistency. The rumours about Giraud and Byron's relationship are most assuredly part of LGBT history as it applies to Greece. The lack of conclusive proof that there was a pederastic relationship means that the two of them weren't demonstrably part of pederastic history. By the same token, there is no reason to include Giraud in any "LGBT people from..." category, which is where my initial objection came into the piece. You're welcome to debate the "pederasty" business elsewhere, but since the initial categorisation was and will remain false, I think we know where we all stand on that issue. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Anabela
I noticed you created the page A cidade (até ser dia) by Anabela. The last name you gave her was completely wrong and I changed it; I'm curious as to where you got that name to begin with. You can read more about her in an article I stumbled upon (it needs work at this point): Anabela Pires. Mike H. Fierce! 07:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time I created that - and many other - articles, I was taking my cues from diggiloo.net. As that site now lists Anabela's surname as "Pires" rather than "Teixeira", I can only assume that there was an error on the site at the time and I copied it into the article, or that the site was accurate and I simply made a mistake in my transcription of the information. My money would be on the former, since I can't think how I'd misread "Pires" as "Teixeira", but anything's possible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me so soon. I went ahead and translated her article from pt and added some sources; let me know what you think. Mike H. Fierce! 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Great to see that others have taken up the ESC entry-writing job, since I really don't have much time to devote to doing a proper job on it anymore. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Swaraj
Sorry about that. I thought that someone had arbitarily removed the image. Didn't know that it had been deleted. I just looked at the diff and never scrolled down.--Shahab (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)