User talk:Wordoflight

Hello, Wordoflight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! BSTemple (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Platonic relationship
I commend the diligence in the phrasing but not sure I agree that taking out the word 'homosexual' is indeed redundant? Without it the sentence becomes a bit meaningless. The text illustrates that scholars have examined the nature of the Tennyson-Hallam relationship - but to what end? To examine whether they were romantically involved or if the relationship was a homosexual one; hence the conclusion that it was 'close but platonic'. Why else state that is is platonic? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to boast but as a English scholar with multiple publications to my name, I am telling you that the sentence is convoluted with the unnecessary inclusion of the word "homosexual". Nothing against the word itself of course, but its inclusion is a real oddity in an otherwise flawless sentence. It is unidiomatic. If some assert that the relationship was not "close but platonic", what else could they possibly believe it to be? For these reasons it is unnecessary and awkwardly phrased. This is an example of improving by removing; without that small part, it is a highly polished, concise piece of prose writing that would be difficult to improve upon.--Wordoflight (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Really your own qualifications are of little interest to me. The sentence might very well be 'highly polished' but with due respect that is not the point. Historians and biographers have examined the relationship between Tennyson and Hallam to determine whether they were in love. That needs to come out in the text somewhere - I don't care how but it does not make sense simply to describe the relationship as 'close but platonic' as that implies it could have been something else than platonic. But it would not be clear for the general reader as to what that means. I have suggested re-wording the sentence. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, historians and biographers have at times considered this and many other topics. However, this has generally not been given much attention as there is overwhelming evidence that it is not a tenable theory.  There are a few writers who pop up every now and then who still propose it, but all in all it is a decidedly fringe view.  The right course of action is not even to include it, given how non-representative it is.  However, given that Wikipedia seems to be all-inclusive, or perhaps even overly inclusive, I think my original proposal is most ideal both stylistically and in terms of accuracy of presentation.  And to answer your concern more directly, if it is not platonic, really the options are fairly limited.  Wouldn't you say?--Wordoflight (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that your references are littered with inaccuracies and omissions: parts of titles are missing, and somethings as essential as the names of journals have not been included either.--Wordoflight (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I had thought to leave this issue as I wasn't sure it was worth banging my head off a brick wall but I think I've been quite good-natured in this exchange despite your patronising, insulting and frankly sneering attitude.


 * You've reminded us that you're an "English scholar" - well good for you. I myself am a historical scholar so I can lay claim to know just as much as you do; and I think it's wrong to attempt to dismiss this as "fringe". If my references are "littered with inaccuracies and omissions" then perhaps it might be most sensible for you to flag up what they are rather than gloat. I'm not interested in putting others down, I just want to make sure that articles are most helpfully and sensibly put together.


 * And I will not take orders from you as to what I will and will not do. I notice you're rather new to wikipedia - I suggest you try engaging in a courteous way with other contributors rather than assuming your way of doing things is right. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am moving this to my talk page for two reasons. This has strangely turned into a personal dispute, which was never my intention. Given your tendency to interpret things in the most negative and hostile manner possible, putting it on your talk page is clearly out of the question.

I mentioned my background so as to say I am not pulling this out of the blue. As I mentioned before, it was not to boast. Yes I am new to wikipedia, but I am not new to civility. Again, my intention was never to get into a personal dispute. My intention in pointing out the mistakes in your citations was merely just that so you may correct them. If I were trying to be combative, I would be pushing for the complete removal of the passage, given its undue focus. Instead, I have been sticking to my original focus which is one of style. I do notice in looking at your history that you do take things negatively when others on wikipedia disagree with you. I do not know if this is a result of a negative earlier experience, but not everyone here is out to get you. Differences in opinions should be intellectual, not personal.--Wordoflight (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we got off on the wrong foot. Looking back through the debate I agree I may have been overly-defensive. I think, on balance, you were right to temper some of the enthusiastic suppositions around the relationship between Tennyson and Hallam. My interest in wikipedia has been in topics relating to LGBT issues. Unfortunately you would be surprised at the open hostility you often get when you try to cover sexuality - even though the contributions made (I think) are generally reasonable and evidence-based. It can be hard work to fend off criticisms of 'revisionism', 'bias', 'political activism' etc. Hence the defensiveness on occasions (although I don't agree that it's inherent trait...) I was worried Tennyson/ Hallam were following that pattern - but they weren't. We shouldn't have made it personal and so I apologise for that. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)