Talk:Piers Gaveston Society

Removal

This article is terrible. It is barely sourced, makes a number of assertions without citation and misses basic information (not even a founding date). Even assuming that its contents are accurate, the article contains little information and nothing that makes inclusion in an encyclopaedia worthwhile. The society certainly exists but it simply is not as notable (by history, membership or current status) as others (e.g. The Bullingdon Club). The fact that a few (now famous) people attended parties held by the society in the 1970s is no reason for this article's existence.

Then, given the state of the article and its pointlessness I plan to nominate it for deletion. Does anyone wish to respond? FloreatAntiquaDomus 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus (talk • contribs)

I feel sorry for the poor pig! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:84DE:A057:C9BD:17AB (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the page needs top stay as the society is in the news, and so people will want to know about it, even if it is just am over view. Maybe past members could be deleted, unless they are very vocal in their membership. Fairysweetness (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto

• Fane non memini ne audisse unum alterum ita dilixisse

This seems to be the way it is quoted in all the sources I've found, but that last word is misspelled and ought to be dilexisse; see wikt:diligo, also Google Ngrams, which finds no dilixisse. This probably is just going to have to annoy me, right? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

dilixisse looks like a variant spelling of dilexisse that might occur in medieval latin. On the other hand "fane" looks like a corruption of "sane".N p holmes (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's from a life of Edward II "Monachi cuiusdam Malmesberiensis" p. 168 of Stubb's edition (Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I. and Edward II.. 2, Commendatio lamentabilis in transitu magnis regis Edwardi. Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvan auctore canonico Bridlingtoniensi. Monachi cujusdam Malesberiensis vita Edwardi II.. Vita et mors Edwardi II. conscripta a Thoma de La Moore / ed. from manuscripts by William Stubbs, 1883) "Sane non meminisse me [ne is another misprint] audisse unum alterum ita dilexisse". Something like "At any rate I don't remember hearin that one man loved another so much". N p holmes (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job - thanks for tracking that down. I suspect this is a case of an incorrect version being copied and pasted. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well done. How embarrassing that such a garbled thing was copied so often in 'respectable news outlets'. Wodorabe (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

David Cameron

User:Reaganomics88 is cutting David Cameron from the "alleged members" list because it's "still only made by a single and unreliable source": an unofficial biography. Does it not make a difference that many press sources have reported on (and to some extent investigated) this claim? --McGeddon (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, because that would make Cameron look bad and Reaganomics has clearly decided that he must Right the Wrongs against Cameron here and elsewhere. It matters not what sourcing is, or policy, Cameron is to be defended at all costs. At #piggate he's removing big sourced sections, again just because they're uncomplimentary to Cameron, or they present the notion of illegality within the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If they're just reporting the books accusations verbatim, I don't know if that changes anything. If they actually investigate it somewhat, maybe. —ajf (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Toby Young has a quote from one of the society's founders commenting on the suggestion that Cameron was a member of the society. I've restored it with that as a source and added a paragraph of context. --McGeddon (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the Valentine Guinness story? (it's another question why Valentine Guinness isn't here, but a much better one is why all discussion of him on WP gets promptly blanked by the obvious two admins) The trouble with that is that, as told by Guinness, it tries to imply that Cameron wasn't part of Piers Gaveston. Everyone wanted to go to the parties, they were pretty open. Even at a provincial uni on the other side of the country I'd heard of the Piers Gaveston balls: every plump Sloane with a taffeta ballgown to fall out of was angling for invites and they were to be had (as were many of the guests). It's implausible that any Bullingdon member couldn't have got themselves to a Gaveston ball if they had the inclination. The society itself though, that we just have Ashcroft's word on it so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If he wasn't a member, perhaps he shouldn't be grouped with those who were? —ajf (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no reason not to believe Ashcroft's claim that he was. However the overt Guinness statement shouldn't be read as implying that he was (as it was being used here). We do though have to be careful not to read too much into it, as a statement made after #snoutrage could well be aimed to throw the listener off the scent. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The section is titled "Alleged members". Looking at the sources, I can't see a single instance where anyone has self-identified as a member of the society. (And the single Boris source seems weak, he's just briefly namechecked along with Grant and Hislop at the end of an article about Gaveston as a historical figure.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Boris

Anyone object to me removing Boris? In light of Hislop's removal, the cite that we're using for Boris is suspect. I've not found any source that predates that article; indeed, there's even an alleged former Bullingdon member who indicated way before the current interest that neither Cameron nor Boris were Piers Gav members.[1] Bromley86 (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll be removing Boris later in the day if no one objects. Bromley86 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This Times piece, reprinted in The Australian, explains the related Hislop situation. He attended a party or two (he's quoted saying that), but that doesn't make him a member (as per his denial on HIGNFY). Bromley86 (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Alleged members

The very title of "alleged members" instantly paints that section as a WP:BLP problem. Either we know the person to be a member, or we do not, and under our policies, we should not be hitting them with rumors. Additionally, much of the sourcing is problematic - the Daily Mail is rather regularly considered an unreliable source at WP:RSN, the National Geographic source doesn't state in NG's voice that he was a member, merely states that someone else stated that he was a member, etc. As all but one of the people listed is still a Living Persons, it's probably best to do away with this section except in cases where the sourcing is strong enough to take away that "alleged." --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As Bromley asks above, I object to the removal of pretty much all of these challenged members (which I guess would have to include Hislop too, although I see him as the least likely).

"WP's voice" is not stating that these are members, it is stating that their membership has been alleged. Their membership has been alleged, and we can source that it has been alleged. It has been alleged by substantial sources, where even if we may find them contradictory or unconvincing for absolute truth, we still see this as a significant fact that such a source would state so. For Boris it has been alleged by the Daily Telegraph, usually seen as RS on matters Tory. For Cameron it is alleged by Ashcroft's book, a source so notable that WP has declared it worthy of its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the Boris point, that source mentions the alleged members tangentially. One of those alleged members has categorically denied membership, and thus been removed. That source is, therefore, suspect. If there's a serious source that's looked into it, like Toby Young, then I'm all for inclusion.

I'm less comfortable with including honorifics just because it then looks like WP is trying to make a point in a way that it shouldn't (say it, or don't) E.g. in this case, Count Gottfried von Bismarck vs. Gottfried von Bismarck. Bromley86 (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If we're not saying they're members, and we're not saying who is saying they are members or why the allegations are being made, what is the point exactly? Why are we trodding both on WP:BLP and WP:ALLEGED? In order to attach these people to this society whether or not we have any reliable sources to do so? Wikipedia is not here to pass on rumors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove the "alleged" members. If membership may be "contentious" (which appears to be the case at hand) then listing living persons in here is contrary to WP:BLP from the start. Note we even manage to have David Cameron bluelinked twice in this sad excuse of an article. Collect (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well there seems to be both consensus and policy behind removing either the whole section or many/most entries in it. And in respect of Cameron's inclusion, even the source cited repeatedly asserts, citing in turn people who should know, that he was almost certainly not a member. Yes that still makes him an "alleged" one, based on the Ashcroft book, but I can't believe anyone thinks that logic gets you past WP:BLP or even basic encyclopedic standards. N-HH talk/edits 21:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

see Long s

Until the end of the 19th century, and also found in some newer fonts as revivals, the "long s" and "f" were easily confused. The "Fane" v. "Sane" issue is clearly one of font and not of fount. I have parenthesized the likely correct word, and removed the "sic" which, truth be told, is likely not correctly applicable. Collect (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:Hi Collect. I spotted that, but left the sic in (and the source note) because of the dilixisse vs. dilexisse misspelling. Bromley86 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP Concerns

I noticed this article was listed on the BLP Noticeboard. I already see some very capable editors are handling these matters. I have reviewed the article and its well written and sourced. It needs some photos, but I don't see any BLP concerns, particularly not with Bromley and Andy on the job. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

translation

Sadly, the "translations" all fail first-year Latin <g>.

The best translation I can come up with is

"Surely, I am not aware of having heard of one esteeming another this much"

where "diligo" is usually not translated in the sense of carnal "love" at all, nor is the gender of the two persons actually established here vide the Wiktionary translation of the Vulgate "and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me" as an example of the normal usage. The Italian modern cognate "diligere" is "to respect."

Now the Oxford schoolboys might have intended a carnal meaning, or might simply be playing with language, but the newspapers which give the "translations" should actually have someone actually "translate" <g>. The normal word for "love" in Latin is "amo, amare"

"Amo: love (to friends, parents, etc.; and also in a low sense; hence in gen., like amo, while caritas, like diligere, is esteem, regard, etc.; hence amor is used also of brutes, but caritas only of men;"[2] Lewis & Short, Latin Dictionary.

I hope this helps here. Collect (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Poker, Despenser, etc.

Any objection to me using the Hugh Grant: The Unauthorised Biography to support the titles sentence? It seems, from that book, that The Guardian may have been in error when they said that members were given the name "Catamite": "Each member had a Minion or a Catamite who was suppose to take over the title of his 'master' when the latter graduated" Bromley86 (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, we have no actual solid fact source for saying anything whatever about names used. And the Guardian is also a weak source at this point, alas. Collect (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, as it turns out that the biography was written by an ex-girlfriend who, as far I can see (which isn't far, in her case), has not had a journalistic career. Bromley86 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)