Talk:Nicolo Giraud

sexual abuse

Afterwards, one of Byron's Albanian servants, Vassily, claimed that Meryon diagnosed Giraud with internal injuries and early signs of septicaemia resulting from an anal rupture, an injury consistent with sexual abuse. Where did this come from ? There is no to this in the article. Wow Wikipedia is becoming a real gossip rag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykonosbiennale (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 March 2022 (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;[1][2] Beckford became a social outcast after scandalous gossip suspected him of a homosexual relationship with the youthful Courtney."[3][4]

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)

Sneakily deletion of homosexual references

I was asked by an editor to explain why I reverted the numerous edits by User:Stürmburg and User:Sobamlo. As this dif shows, the edits removed the large sourced section discussing the homosexuality of the poem and the contemporary reception as well as four reliable sources (Fone, Losey, MacDonald & Neff), all dealing with this subject, however none of this is mentioned in any of the numerous edit summaries by the two editors. All their edit summaries do are describing minor copy edits, but the end result clearly shows that that was not their only intention. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you reverted *all* edits regardless of quality. That is reason to do a partial revert, perhaps; however, there is no reason not to discuss this on the talk page of the article. Can you explain why, for example, you feel that the current version of the lead is better than the alternative version? Risker (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at the combined edits. Every single edit is aimed at removing anything that inplies homosexuality. It also appears to distort Kellog's source to also imply that the poem was not about "admiring" Giraud.

It seems to be a continuation of User:Ponobei's removals [5].

Which in turn are a continuation of User:Tunestone's removals [6][7][8][9].

It seems to be a single used using four different accounts.

These edits were already reverted because they were not discussed properly, see User_talk:Ktr101/Archive_3#Undo.

In short, this is repetitive POV-pushing, sprinkled with aesthetic changes. And it removes half of a featured article. The article does not appear to me to be improved at all. If you think that there are edits worth salvaging, then you should separate them first from all the subtle little fixes that try to remove a certain POV from the article. --88.21.146.230 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at a 2008 AN thread and previous edit warring, these could be socks of banned User:Haiduc. See Risker's comment. --88.21.146.230 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And, according to sockpuppet investigation, User:Stürmburg == User:Sobamlo. Which only reinforces my suspicion that this is just one user hitting the same article under several accounts. --88.21.146.230 (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are more likely to be a sock of Haiduc than is the other editor. Haiduc was banned for his excessive emphasis on aspects of homosexuality and paedophilia in multiple articles. You are proposing to reinstate edits focusing on the same topic areas. So let's go line by line, okay? Risker (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong about Haiduc. But the article was heavily edited by User:Ottava Rima and User:Malleus Fatuorum from May 2009 to August 2009, and then it was made a featured article. The FA review mentions that the article had been carefully balanced and worded. This is the version that these accounts are modifying without any discussion and with misleading edit summaries. --Polka et al (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What misleading edit summaries would those be? Please be specific. As well, it's pretty standard to follow the bold/revert/discuss cycle, and there was very little reversion and no discussion by anyone else either, so the "serial accounts" do not have reason to believe that there is an objection to their work. Risker (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't mention homosexuality in any of his edits, but the combined edits show that he was really removing mentions to homosexuality. If you look at Ponobei and Tunestone, which are most probably the same user, they removed the same content, with misleading summaries like, for example, "polish"[10]. User:Tonalone seems to be the same person, and he was told several times in his talk page why his editing was problematic.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. --Polka et al (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I too had a run-in with Tonalone two years ago, with this being what was discussed. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up being the same user, because they all have the same editting pattern here. I am up for requesting that the page gets permanent protection or something, as it would at least cut down on the amount of slow-moving edit wars that occur. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's see. In the FAC nomination statement, Ottava Rima makes it clear that he has carefully negotiated with Haiduc to produce a "stable" version of this article. Haiduc was shortly thereafter banned for his pro-paedophilic and homosexual editing. None of the editors who reviewed the FAC questioned the balance of the article or the use of sources; indeed, as best I can tell, none of them were particularly knowledgeable about the subject. (I'll note that this is not in any way a criticism of either the reviewers or the FAC co-ordinating staff who promote the article; it's simply a fact that is encountered on a regular basis when no editor familiar with the topic area is available or willing to review a FAC. In fact, it isn't even a criticism of Ottava Rima, who had a rather difficult challenge in getting "consensus" for the article, given the known bias of at least one other editor with whom he had to find consensus.) So - going into the FAC, we know that the article has already been weighted in a way to satisfy a heavily biased editor. And read the talk page archives as well: the discussion there points out to the largely speculative nature of the discussion of the relationship between Giraud and Byron. There should definitely be *some* mention of the speculation; however, the extent to which it is discussed is disproportionate to its verifiability, or even to the level that it is discussed in scholarly works. Now - let's focus on the content of this article, and the quality of its writing. Who wrote what isn't really important. We're not talking about the social aspects of editing, we're talking about the quality, accuracy, and verifiability of the article. Risker (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"the extent to which it is discussed is disproportionate to its verifiability, or even to the level that it is discussed in scholarly works." But how do you know this? Which of the sources in the article have you read? --Polka et al (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

step one.

OK ...

• First - Risker has some very VERY valid points here ...
• Second - I personally don't know the subject matter, but I do know and speak to OR, and he does have the source material which supports this article.
• Third - I'll do the best I can to help .. but I'm not much for the whole political process of "FA" .. so bear with me.

Now, this is actually not the "first" edit .. but one of the biggest:

• link. This is a big chunk of info backed by a a published source (Fone - 2001). Should this be in the article? If so, is it properly worded? Is it NPOV? — Ched :  ?  10:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source seems to have good credentials: according to Amazon the author is "Emeritus Professor of English and American Literature at the City University of New York. He has written on eighteenth-century English and nineteenth-century American literature." and the publisher adds that he is also "an acclaimed expert on gay and lesbian history".

And it's an analysis of the underlying meaning of the Don Leon poem, in the section dedicated at that poem.

And it's a secondary source by a scholar specialized in the correct type of literature, so his analysis are not OR.

I don't own the book and there is no preview in Google Books, so I can't check if the paragraph reflects accurately what Fone says. --Polka et al (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it is far too ambitious to start with this particular example. I think we should start small and work our way to the bigger chunks. Risker (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon further consideration - I will no longer be able to help with this article. Sincere best wishes to all. — Ched :  ?  14:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits to this page, so that it is at its present state before it was trimmed and I have also requested full page protection. Guys, please work this out, as everyone who is edit warring here is making themselves look like fools. I am willing to help, as I am getting an earful from one person, but this is getting quite silly and equally pathetic to watch. Again, please figure this out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Ktr101 did it by rollback. Some reason for that?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Folks - and I mean everyone! - please cut out the edit warring over this article. Frankly, I don't care if it is or isn't protected, but I do care that these changes are being made without discussion. Kevin and Br'er, you both know better than to do this. Risker (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not edit warring; I deferred to your version, only restored the clean-up to the other version. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, I am not edit warring, but we're trying to fix this so that we aren't in a constant edit war over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Folks, after two or three reverts in 24 hours, anything further is edit-warring. "Fixing" can be done from the diminished page just as easily as it can from the expanded one. Please don't try to excuse yourselves with that line. And Kevin, you know better than to use rollback to revert when there is a content dispute as opposed to vandalism. Risker (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It was easier than figuring out the right edit. I erred, but at this point we should keep the material there, and hash out what should be removed, not try to admit that the present version is biased, because I am sure others would have called it out by now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You really should figure out the right edit before rolling back; I did ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Risker: I-have-not-edit-warred. I made a clean up edit, saw that you had reverted to the socks' version and so I reverted back to your version and then cleaned it up. When Kevin rolled me back, I simply restored the clean up of the version he'd taken it back to. The two 'reverts' I made were to the very-different versions. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Rebooting to discuss content

So, fellow editors - where shall we start the discussion of the content? I propose we look at the lead first, since there was a sentence in the long version (LV) that seemed to contradict the information later in the article. In particular, can we agree that "probably in 1810" should be replaced by "1809", since that agrees with the sourced sentence in the body of the article? Risker (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well since this appears to be uncontroversial, I will proceed. At the same time I will also correct the spelling of "favourite" in the quote. Risker (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

William Bankes and Henry Nicholls

This couple of sentences in Nicolo Giraud article baffled me "Fone also argues that the 1833 publication of the poem was prompted by the arrest of William Bankes, a homosexual friend of Byron, and the execution of Henry Nicholls for homosexual activity". But who are William Bankes and Henry Nicholls and could they be wikified to relevant pages in Wikipedia? If not , separate articles on both is in order. werldwayd (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've linked Bankes to his article; Nicholls doesn't have an article and I don't know whether he would pass the tests for one. He gets a mention in this book and in this blog, though. Bencherlite^Talk 13:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo?

In the first sentence, should it not be "possible" lover instead of "possibly" lover? "Possibly" is not grammatically correct in its' usage with the preposition "to". Also, because "possibly" is an adverb, and the intended use here is adjectival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:80:39C:7CA7:A642:8F4F:7605 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. But I think what was missing was the indefinite article after "possibly", which I've now added. Eric Corbett 17:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, adding the indefinite article makes it grammatically sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:80:39C:7CA7:A642:8F4F:7605 (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Harvard referencing errors

A fixed some of the Harvard refs in the article, but there are a small number of other mismatches that I do not know how to fix:

1. "Harv error: link from #CITEREFMoore1835 doesn't point to any citation" – Moore's book in the sources section is dated 1839. Are they one and the same?
2. "Harv error: link from #CITEREFKnight1953 doesn't point to any citation" – it appears that no such source listed. Knight's book in the sources section is dated 1952
3. "Harv error: link from #CITEREFMacDonald1986 doesn't point to any citation" and "Harv error: link from #CITEREFNeff2002 doesn't point to any citation" – publication date field has months and I don't know how to rename the ref. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There are red harv ref errors everywhere ... can someone who works with that kind of sourcing pls correct them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Eric Corbett 14:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ... you're a gem :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Done now. I'll have a read through and see if there's anything that needs attention. Eric Corbett 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)