Talk:Benedetto Varchi

Louis Crompton

Almost the sole source for fagtivism on Wikipedia. Everybody famous in history, if only allegedly so, is definitely a secret homo in this author's words. It's a shame that this single source is allowed to destroy Wikipedia credibility on almost every article it is introduced. If it's so true, then where are other corroborating legitimate sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy to hide or cover up history, just one to rewrite it. That's what happens with tendentious editors having the gay agenda. It's about triumphalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly have a polite discussion about whether Louis Crompton is a reliable source. However, the use of derogatory language such as "fagtivism" and "gay agenda" is unacceptable, and constitutes incivility. Please keep discussion here focused on improving articles. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A spade is a spade. I would not criticize the use of Crompton if it were consistently in the majority. In fact, most inclusion of his source is the sole support for allegations about famous individuals. His stuff is used for pretty obscure claims, and very little evidence is found outside of it--mostly unsubstantiated. I can pretty much guarantee it. Look at the articles about James VI/I and Buckingham, etc. Anywhere Crompton is used on Wikipedia, his work is in the minority, and actually blown out of proportion in size compared to all other relevant and pertinent non-sexuality related information, but nevertheless, gay activist Wikipedia editors make believe it is gospel for their cause, and so force the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to shed more light on this issue, I've opened a request for comment below. Please remember that the sole focus of this discussion should be whether the source is reliable, and NOT the character of the editors using it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to make an observation on the fact of tendentious editing. Do you just allow the elephant in the room to go unnoticed? I am not covering my eyes, ears, and mouth on this issue like those three monkeys.

What about homophobic agenda ? Mardochee1 (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Is Louis Crompton a reliable source to assert the homosexuality of deceased individuals? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I assert that Crompton would be reliable if his claims were consistent with other sources taken to be reputable, not simply used to buttress unproven allegations alone and by himself. He comes off as a conspiracy theorist saying all wild claims are true because he said so, and those advancing his claims to be doing the same. Wikipedia ought not be the proving ground for homosexual activism, just like it ought not be a place for Palestinians and Zionists (over terrorism, etc), Germans and Poles (over post-War toponymy) or whatever. A quick Google search reveals Compton to have been one of two, so-called "gay historians" pivotal to their movement. He was doing this in Nebraska, which resulted in considerable controversy at his institute of higher learning, not unlike the Scopes Trial in Kansas. I do maintain that this is a farce considering the background involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Crompton is used, I would respectfully request that allegations about sexuality not be turned into full-blown distortions amounting to not only sections or sub-sections, but spin-off articles, like had been done to James I of England. It is ridiculous, and no highbrow encyclopedia otherwise engages in the exposition of sexuality of public people, legitimate or otherwise. Personally, I have not seen this article before today, seeing some revert warrior indiscriminately remove an NPOV attempt where Crompton is involved. When I saw the name Crompton, I was reminded of several other articles in which allegations of homosexuality were advanced by editors by using Crompton. James I is a perfect example. I don't even particularly care for James I. I am not about to rehabilitate his legacy or defend it. In fact, you could say I am actually somewhat hostile to James I for many reasons, but to smear him with Crompton is wrong, and not only because it is not true, but because it is tendentious editing advancing hostile POV. For instance, most homosexuals in the Anglophone world hate the KJV for its usage against homosexuality. To claim the king himself who commissioned that Bible was himself a secret homosexual is to try to discredit the whole thing, throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is a serious disservice to history and to an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.129.160 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest asking at WP:RSNB, they are good at working out what sources are good for what uses. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Crompton was a respected academic whose two best known books were published by the University of California Press and the Harvard University Press, both impeccable academic houses. I found generally favorable reviews of Homosexuality and Civilization in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, The Guardian, the Yale Review of Books, the Journal of World History, and the Village Voice. Publisher's Weekly called the book a "notable monograph, impressive for its breadth and readability" Although some of these reviewers criticized some aspects of the book, I was not able to find a single overtly negative review. Accordingly, I consider Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization to be a reliable source for this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• In addition, uncited, highly POV pushing remarks by the IP editor alleging "fagtivism", "triumphalism", "gay agenda", "gay activist Wikipedia editors", "conspiracy theorist", "wild claims" and on and on are of no use whatsoever, and ought to be disregarded entirely. I am neither gay nor a gay activist, but I can detect an anti-gay agenda when I see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Benedetto Varchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524083108/http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/v/varchi/due_lezioni to http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/v/varchi/due_lezioni
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524083153/http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/v/varchi/discorso_bellezza_grazia to http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/v/varchi/discorso_bellezza_grazia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524082940/http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/v/varchi/rime to http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it:6336/dynaweb/bibit/autori/v/varchi/rime

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)