This is an archive of past discussions about User:BigHaz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
More people need to reply to questions on talk pages. Other users need our help!
There is still a discussion under way on what this project should include. Currently, consensus is forming that the project should include the Eurovision Song Contest and the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, but not the Eurovision Dance Contest. Tell us your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Project Scope.
There is currently a backlog of assessments; the project's assessment rate stands at 36.2%. Please add {{EurovisionNotice}} to the talk pages of all Eurovision related articles if it is missing and read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well.
In the coming days/weeks, instructions for the use of all Eurovision templates and descriptions for the layouts of pages will be up and running. As of now, a few templates are already complete: see {{ESC National Year}} and {{Infobox ESC entry}}.
The project currently has 41 members, 22 of which are considered active. This means that nearly half of our project's members have not edited a Eurovision article in the past two months.
We now have a project invitation. Place our invitation template on the talk page of anyone you would like to invite to our project.
New Members
We would like to welcome the new members who joined in August. (alphabetical order)
Welcome to the second issue of the WikiProject Eurovision newsletter! This newsletter has been quite a success so far and I hope it continues to be so. I hope to rotate as much as possible who writes this "From the Members" section each month so everyone gets a chance to contribute.
The process of fully reorganising this project is still under way. A compromise is being formed to re-name this project WikiProject Eurovision Song Contest, but allow it to include the Junior Eurovision Song Contest as it is similar. The Eurovision Dance Contest will have its own project created simultaneously. I personally agree with this proposal, a final decision has not been made yet however.
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 politely18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
The backlog of assessments in the project is still ongoing, with a large number of articles not being rated or tagged with the project banner. If you see articles without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it, or read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess the articles as well. Only 37.7% of articles have been assessed so far.
Instructions for the use of all Eurovision templates and descriptions for the layouts of pages are still in the works. Please note that {{Esc}} has been developed from an {{Inesc}} and is ready for use. Replace any use of the older template with the new one.
Remember to source all information you add to pages or else it may be removed. ESCToday and Oikotimes are great places to find information.
De Toppers were announced as the Dutch entry for the 2009 contest.
Estonia announced its participation in the 2009 contest, despite requests by the Estonian Minister of Culture to withdraw due to the 2008 war in South Ossetia.
Slovakia announced its return to the contest after an 11-year absence.
The Bulgarian national final, "Be A Star", will start October 2 with 45 songs.
Member News
The project currently has 48 members, 22 of which are considered active. This means that 26 of our project's members have not edited a Eurovision article in the past month.
We now have a project invitation. Place our invitation template on the talk page of anyone you would like to invite to our project.
New Members
We would like to welcome the new members who joined in September. (by date joined)
Welcome to the third edition of the WikiProject Eurvision newsletter! This newsletter is surely catching on, and I'm sure that if we continue to rotate the editors' section as much as possible, everyone'll get a chance to contribute and it'll definitely be more diverse.
The project is still in need of re-organising. Nothing has happened in the form of splitting the project between the song and dance contests in over a month, and I feel that we really need to push forward with this. To add your comments just leave a message in the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Project Scope.
Throughout September, a lot of things have happened in relation to the Eurovision Song Contest 2009; the announcement of the return of the jury into the final was the biggest news. However, more news appeared, such as the Dutch representative being announced, as well as more countries announcing their participation at the contest. Before long the national finals around Europe will start, and the countdown will be on to 16 May.
With everything that's been happening, I'd like to encourage everyone to do their best to contribute to all Eurovision-related Wikipedia articles, and welcome our new members to the project.
Is there an article you think we should have? Make a request for it to be made here.
This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.
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 an22:37, 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 an00:19, 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 an01:13, 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 an05:11, 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 an22:34, 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 an00:53, 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 an05:09, 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 an03:59, 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 an07:35, 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 an22:32, 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)
