Talk:Stéphane Grappelli

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stéphane Grappelli article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

Jazz Top‑importance

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Pink Floyd[edit]

Wanted to put up a source for my previous statement on his interaction with the band, but it wasn't quite important enough to note in the external sources section I believe.

Details can be found here, in a transcription of an interview held with Roger Waters:

http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/showthread.php?t=1460

Quotations[edit]

Shouldn't the quotation be in wikiquote?

Orphanage[edit]

I interviewed Stephane in 1978, and at that time he confirmed to me he had spent those war years in the care of Isadora Duncan's famous dance school for children. Hardly an 'orphanage'. I don't know why I asked him about Isadora, it was just the first thing that popped into my mind after waiting my turn to speak with him and hearing his emphatic voice through the hotel door telling someone "I don't want to answer any f**king questions about Django!" -- we jazz media people in the halls all shuffled our feet and quickly rethought our strategies, and for me it was Isadora, his then-new Columbia Masterworks release, and his 70th birthday celebrated by circumnavigating the globe three times. That was also, he said, the year he quit smoking. -- garym

ILike2BeAnonymous: :P Dndn1011 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate photo, IMO[edit]

Made me think that Grappelli played cello, which is not true (his instrument was violin)- User:86.57.253.57

?(Mind meal 11:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Silly man, that's a double bass. But I agree, a picture of Grapelli on his own with a violin would be far more appropriate. --Rover Segundo 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 08:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence[edit]

I think there should be more about his influence on violinists and his astounding command of the intrument, both technical and emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.138.107 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre note about unspecified "Archive"[edit]

At the bottom of the Discography section is the following bizarre note, added by 151.202.63.188 on October 20, 2008, and later corrected by other editors for spelling, etc:

Please note that the Archive hold a copy of DJANGOLOGY, a 10" 78rpm on Decca, by "Stephan Grappelly and His Hot Four" on the label.

There is no citation for this information and no indication of what "Archive" is referred to or why this information should be noted. I am going to delete it. If anyone objects, please clarify the note - particularly with regard to what "Archive" it refers to - and cite its source before restoring it.--Jim10701 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Grappelli and other names[edit]

His music on Amazon.com has the spelling Stefan Grappelli, surely this is a significant alternative spelling. I had great difficulty finding this page, there is possibly no redirect from that spelling. LittleBen (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then make one. Seriously, you have to get out of the mindset that your not having made significant edits to this page disallows you from fixing technical glitches in the page. And you really should stop attacking me for doing the same. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When I posted the above, I was unaware that LBW had violated a topic ban by posting this here. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to find a single album cover where his name is not written Stephane Grappelli or Stéphane Grappelli. I can find no reason to believe that any other name was ever used (but of course can't prove that something doesn't exist). There's also no source for that part of the intro. I'll simply put up a "Citation needed" tag for now. Joshisanonymous (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; considering that the editor who added it has been permanently blocked from wikipedia, which raises suspicion, I'm just going to remove it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gay?[edit]

I looked at the two references claiming Grappelli was gay, but as neither provides any corroborating details, I modified the text of our article. Excepting the two off-hand references, all the evidence seems to indicate he was not gay. No mention of gay in the Reuters or Telegraph obituaries; no mention ~~in Dregni or~~ in the Balmer or Smith biographies; etc. I think much stronger evidence is required before we make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. I haven't found a searchable version of his memoirs; does he say he is gay in his memoirs? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Correction: struck Dregni (2004) -- there is a mention of "intimate advances" toward Soudieux, p. 121. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a source makes no mention of the subject's sexuality at all, that cannot be interpreted as "the evidence indicates he was not gay". All it means is that they're not commenting either way. Maybe they neither know nor care. If there's a source that explicitly denies he was gay, or says he was heterosexual, then that's something else. But don't twist a total lack of mention into "this means he was straight". So far, we have 2 sources saying he was gay, and nothing that contradicts that. -- Jack of Oz

^{[pleasantries]} 05:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only 2. Plenty of others out there, it's just disruptive to add every single one. It seems to be common knowledge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first mistake we make is thinking someone's sexual orientation is important, when it isn't. I don't see a problem, if we have to mention it at all, with saying that "Several people have claimed that Grappelli was gay." Saying that he WAS gay, in Wikipedia's voice, is going too far, based on his affair with Sylvia Caro, his daughter with her, and his deep love for Gwendoline Turner. Does he say he's gay in his memoirs? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the statement to the end of the personal section, because the rule is to put facts first, then supposition (however it gets worded). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supposition? Balmer is the only source that even mentions Turner in connection to Grappelli, while numerous evidently-independent sources say he is gay. It is not Wikipedia's policy to have lower standards for claims of heterosexuality than other personal-life claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

71.178.50.222, I've seen this sort of thing dozens of times. First, an editor either denies what a source says, or pretends a source says what it actually did not say. Then, when the facts are pointed out, that same editor retreats to "the issue isn't important anyway". It seemed important enough before. What's suddenly changed? As for Wikipedia's voice, we don't say "Sources say Grappelli was born in Year X", or "Sources say he received his training in place Y". No, it's simply "He was born in Year X" and "He received his training in place Y". We only mention sources when there's some doubt about their veracity, or some dispute about the facts. Where is there a dispute about Grappelli's sexuality? and please don't mention his having done it with a woman and produced a child, because that proves nothing, as millions of married homosexuals can testify. -- Jack of Oz

^{[pleasantries]} 02:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this sort of thing dozens of times, too: An editor wants to associate a famous person with a particular ethnicity, or political stance, or religion, or sexuality, or race, or what have you in order to make some bigger point, and insists that it be included in an article as if it's a fact.

I don't care whether Grappelli was gay or not, and I certainly don't know, but I do care whether the article meets wikipedia style. Without a definitive statement from him or a serious equivalent regarding his sexual status, thinking that somebody else's description of this status is the equivalent of his date of birth - well, that's bad wikipedia style. Hence the dispute. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5+ reliable independent sources, at least one of which even points out that the fact was common knowledge, is well within Wikipedia standards. (ps. re your recent edits: "Grappelli's flamboyant homosexuality was well known," "Grappelli was a homosexual, emotionally reserved, fastidiously tidy pianist and violinist". This is not ambiguous in any way.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the references - I did overlook the relevant statements in each of them (note to self: don't multitask wiki-edit at work) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've nailed it, DW. Agenda-driven Roscelese added the "fact" of Grappelli's sexual orientation to this article. Such editors only care about the agenda, not about the truth, or neutrality, or nuance, or being encyclopedic. (She must have consulted The Encyclopedia of Common Knowledge, which lists everyone's sexual preferences along with his DOB.

). Happy trails! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm going to reverse myself, because regardless of agendas, I think Roscelese has added enough good sources to support keeping this as a statement of fact where it is in the article - down in the personal section. I think it meets wikipedia standards. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the oft-repeated gossip of Grappelli's "friends" meets Wikipedia standards, then it's time to raise the standards. I'm not holding my breath. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about WP:Verifiability, not Truth. Find a source that says he was a happy heterosexual, and we'll have something to talk about. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not campaigning to have Grappelli declared "straight". All I'm saying is that you can't add together several unsubstantiated (and probably unverifiable, unlike a DOB) bits of gossip about a person's sexual orientation and decide you now have a "fact", and are therefore free to state this "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. But that's what we've done here, thanks to Roscelese's agenda. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gay? bis[edit]

As a reader having just stumbled upon this article, I can only say it is confusing to first read he was gay and then read a paragraph about the (female) love of his life. I have read the arguments in the previous title on this subject, but nothing seems to have come from it. Someone should perhaps rewrite it so it says something along the lines of "presumably bisexual because of sources 1, 2 and 3 saying A, but sources 4 and 5 say he was B. If that is impossible, you can as well remove the whole part about his live life, as the current contents simply doesn't make much sense. YellowOnline (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't "presumably bisexual." The sources say he was gay (but had a child with one woman). Gwendoline Turner is not mentioned in any other sources, which Balmer says is because Grappelli was so sad that he never talked about her even with his friends, but which also makes it impossible for us to use Balmer's source to overrule a bunch of other sources that say differently. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article, giving preference to actual cited relationships and changing the wording of the gay bit so that everything lines up in a more rational way ("Numerous sources have said that Grappelli was gay."). If you can't understand why it seems conflicting that the article said the subject was gay and then described the two most significant (or, at least, the only ones cited) relationships in his life as long term romantic relationships with women then I don't know what to tell you. Preference should be given to concrete facts, not innuendo and generalization. The citations about Grappelli being gay that are accessible online are notably weak, one "My French friends said everyone knows he is gay", which has about as much weight as me saying that all my American friends know Tom Cruise is gay, and the other "He was a meticulous, stereotypical gay man with these stereotypically gay playing characteristics...." -- which to me seems insulting and questionable on multiple levels and makes no reference to any authority or source of knowledge about the man's personal life. The other citations, which are not available online, were (like the two just mentioned) also all notably published after Grappelli's death. It's fine if he was gay, if he had a documented gay relationship that was important in his life then that would be great for someone to cite, as it is we have two documented romantic relationships with women one of which led to a child, and also multiple sources that say he was gay, so I changed the article to fairly reflect those things in a non-confusing way. 50.137.55.168 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this, and "source after source confirms he is gay" is not "innuendo" or "generalization." If anything is sketchy here, it's the claim about Turner, which despite her supposed importance in Grappelli's life is reflected in no other source. We treat this extraordinary claim appropriately by attributing it, but it's not necessary to attribute the general consensus of sources as though it's the opinion of a few randos. I'd also be delighted if someone found and added information on any same-sex relationships that he had, but that's because it's information, not because there's something lacking in the sources we have. I'll also add that if you expect every historical gay figure to be 100% gold-star gay with no opposite-sex relationships whatsoever, you are very confused about how compulsory heterosexuality/heterosexism works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have an axe to grind and are diminishing the quality of the article and of wikipedia in general by lording over the article and instantly changing it whenever someone else attempts to make the "Personal Life" section more objective and professional (which has apparently happened several times). Stating as a simple factual matter that some historical figure "was gay" is just as problematic as stating that the figure "was heterosexual" -- it is virtually impossible for such a broad statement of fact about a person's intimate life to be supported in any objective and factual way. This is even more problematic when the sources cited to support the broad statement of fact in this case are themselves highly questionable. Note that in this case there is documentary historical evidence of Grappelli participating in a specific sexual relationship with a woman and having a daughter, but only hearsay to indicate that he was gay. I am just an anonymous passerby, but I truly hope the direction wikipedia is moving is not to begin the personl life section of every famous person with "X was gay." or "X was heterosexual." or "X was bi-curious." or "X was asexual." Broad, quasi-factual statements like this are exactly contrary to the formality and objectivity that is supposed to define this encyclopedia project. 50.137.55.168 (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is someone who insists desperately that Grappelli was gay. It seems she wants to bring flour to his sack. Militancy should not matter more than the truth. Absurd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksartak (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did Grappelli played the saxophone?[edit]

In the instruments sections the saxophone is mentioned as one of the instruments played by Grappelli. Is this a true fact? Any resources? citations? I think it should be removed until any evidence is provided. Shimmy (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stéphane Grappelli. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stéphane Grappelli. 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/20080607111426/http://www.adventuresinmusic.biz/Archives/Music_Makers/Grappelli1.htm to http://www.adventuresinmusic.biz/Archives/Music_Makers/Grappelli1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rumored"[edit]

@DavidWBrooks: "Supported by evidence"? What do you think the cited sources are, chopped liver? Edit: And now that I look back at previous talkpage discussions, I see that you're the same user that insisted that an uncorroborated rumor about Gwendoline Turner was more reliable than multiple independent sources pointing out Grappelli's homosexuality, and needed to be prodded to read the sources to believe that this was more than "supposition." You need to put down the stick, the horse is dead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like...the sources don't say "rumored." The IP editor just made that up, and you're willing to go with something that is not sourced because adding unsourced material to a biography is more acceptable to you than a bio subject being gay? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the statement in your edit summary when you said that his being French and being a violinist were rumors. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to have a friendly conversation, why did you restore the unsourced "rumored" to the article text? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was lazy - the edit summary was inaccurate, so I undid the edit. I have no opinion one way or the other about how or when to describe the sexuality of those public people for whom their sexuality is not part of their public persona. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe demonstrate good faith by undoing your WP:POINTy edit yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly written "Personal life" section[edit]

After beginning by flatly stating that "Grapelli was gay," the rest of the Personal Life section is exclusively devoted to his romantic relationships with women. While his relationships with men may have understandably been hidden, referencing only relationships that were straight, after bluntly stating that he was gay, makes the section seem self-contradictory. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

If there's anything you can discover about his male partners, feel free to add it! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the point. Given the the article's specific information about his personal relationships, ALL of which is about his relationships with women, not with men, it is tone deaf to begin the section by tersely asserting that "Grappelli was gay" and then saying nothing which illustrates this alleged fact (but several things which tend to call it into question). It would be better to say something like "Grappelli is believed to have been gay (source), however . . . 68.0.205.227 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

If you look on this page you'll see that this has been a source of contention since at least 2014. One editor (Roscelese) has consistently insisted on the flat-out statement about Grapelli being gay; nobody else has really taken up that argument, but on the other hand nobody else has made enough of a pitch to change the wording. I have waffled on the question, largely because I don't think it matters much since Grapelli didn't make his sexuality part of his public persona. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it's odd as hell to flatly say in Wikipedia's voice that the guy was gay but then only present stuff about his relationships with women. What's the basis of the assertion? Some secondary source asserting that Grappelli was gay but also giving nothing to back it up?? 68.0.205.227 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

I'm sure a Stephane Grappelli sex tape would be interesting for the historical record, but that's not the standard we are required to meet for biographical claims on Wikipedia. It is normal to use reliable sources for this sort of thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Although if you're going to harp on "nothing to back it up" I'm surprised you have nothing to say about Gwendoline Turner, who not only isn't mentioned in any other sources, but whose supposed importance in Grappelli's life seems to deliberately be written to be unfalsifiable. (He was so worked up over her that he never talked about her even to his closest friends?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're missing the point. The sex tape stuff is nonsense. Do the all the sources that say Grappelli was gay merely make the bare assertion or do one or two of them, at least, provide something to back up the assertion? You speak of the standard we use for biographical claims. The problem here is that "Grappelli was gay" is presented as a cut-and-dried fact; not as a claim made by certain sources. To present it as a claim rather than a indisputable fact, the wording must be changed. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

What "backup" do any of the other sources provide for any of their other facts? How do you know Evelyne really existed - have you met her? What about the burial in Pere Lachaise - have you checked that there's really a headstone there or that it's really Grappelli's corpse under it? It is not Wikipedia's policy to have a higher burden of proof for LGBT subjects than for other subjects. It's the concurrence of reliable sources, which note not only that he was gay but that it was common knowledge during his life - so it's what we go with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I think this is the issue: Being gay or straight or bisexual is an internal matter known to each individual; it's not something that outsiders can determine. Unless the person in question makes statements or public actions that clarify their sexuality - which Grappelli, so far as I know, never did - you're left with suppositions based on things that others think are important. The flat "Grappelli was gay" statement implies that there is solid objective evidence for Grappelli's internal beliefs and feelings, as if he had publicly advocated for gay rights or publicly announced a male partner, and it's obvious that several other editors over the years think the statement overstates what is in the cited sources. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a bunch of unrelated sources, with high editorial standards, just coincidentally happened to completely fabricate the same lie for no reason? You find this statement more convincing than "a dead musician was gay, but not an activist"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that several editors have felt that way over the years, judging from discussion on this Talk page. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Antisemitism also periodically gets people who want the article to refer to anti-Arab prejudice as well as anti-Jewish prejudice. Drive-bys who care more about their personal opinions than about the body of available sourcing are not the be-all and end-all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget WP:assume good faith. Just because people disagree doesn't make them bigots.

Imagine that an article said "Jones was an atheist. In May 1935, however, he entered the seminary and briefly studied to be a priest. He sang in the local church choir for many years." The casual reader would be puzzled, since the first statement seems to be contradicted by all the follow-up.

That's how the Personal Life section in this article looks to the reader who doesn't spend the time to click twice through to hunt down specific sentences in a couple of sources. It's very reasonable for them to want clarification. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(As a side note, you're right that the entry about Gwendoline Turner is too speculative to be here with such poor sourcing. I have removed it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

More to the point, I think, imagine if a Wikipedia article said "Jones was straight, definitely a heterosexual" then went on to mention his romantic relationships with men without saying a thing about any relationship with women. Yes, some sources describe Grappelli as gay, and some, including the newspaper obits (written in the late 90s, not the early 60s) don't. I suspect he was a bona fide bisexual, but what I suspect about his sexuality doesn't matter. I can recognize an awkward paragraph when I read it, however.

Nobody is accusing the the sources for Grappelli's homosexuality of fabricating "the same lie". A few do, however, seem to be doing what Rosceclese is basically doing, which is to assume what they've heard or read about Grappelli's sexuality is true. Otherwise somebody interested in Grappelli's life might have actually taken the trouble to find out something about some specific relationship or relationships that he presumably had with men during his relatively long life. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

@DavidWBrooks: I would not find anything remotely weird about your choir hypothetical, especially if the statement about his atheism had 5+ separate reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Gay[edit]

(non-admin closure) There is a consensus in favor of including content stating that Grappelli was gay. A raw vote count puts it at 13 in favor, 7 opposed, (and one editor who wrote yes and no), with three of the opposed votes including a caveat that they would not be opposed to its inclusion provided that more information could be provided about Grappelli's romantic life in general (a request which appears to have been fulfilled, although most of the people who voted using this conditional also included statements that they wouldn't be following the discussion, so their votes have not been changed). The remaining opposed votes rest on arguments that Grappelli's sexuality is not connected to his notability, but this isn't relevant as notability guidelines do not govern article content. Arguments to the effect of "he was actually bisexual" or "we wouldn't just write 'he was straight'" have been persuasively refuted by editors drawing attention to how sexuality is perceived and reported-on in society. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article state that Grappelli was gay? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article contains multiple reliable sources to that effect from both academic and journalistic sources, some of which even note that this fact was common knowledge during his life. The objections to including this fact are based on the idea that the consensus of reliable sources - the standard to which we hold all other biographical facts - is insufficient when the issue is specifically someone's homosexuality; some of the sources being used to support the statement that he is gay are cited without complaint elsewhere in the article. The only argument against including it seems to be "well, I just can't believe it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sure can believe Grappelli was gay, it's just that I don't find it very relevant or very important information, because Grappelli is known for his music, not for his sexuality. I wouldn't mind at all his sexuality being mentioned as a persnoal life detail in his biography. Not as a key main point. So I'll leave my No But at that below, sorry and good luck. Akseli9 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akseli9: I'm not sure I understand. No one is suggesting it be presented as a key main point! It's listed way down in the personal life section, alongside other minor details like the name of his child. Can you clarify what you think you're objecting to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--or we can say, with proper ascription, "Grappelli's flamboyant homosexuality was well known". Drmies (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. A close call, but no; not directly in Wikipedia's voice. None of the sources that say he was gay go much beyond the simple declaration, and one such source says that it heard this from others. Further, none of these sources, apparently, involve a detailed study of Grappelli's life. They are either brief vignettes about the fellow, or offhand statements in books or article about broader topics. What do the actual monographs on Grappelli say about his sexuality. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]
No - Is his notability derived from him being gay? Did he publicly self-identify as being gay? Was he a prominent LGBT advocate? Just because a trivial mention of his sexuality is sourced and verifiable, doesn't mean it's suitable for inclusion. You know, just once, I'd like to see an editor go to a heterosexual's article and write in their personal life section - He was straight, but we all know that won't happen. Stop with the labels. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does his notability derive from the fact his mother was from St-Omer? Was he a prominent advocate for St-Omer? Non and non, but we still mention in the article that his mother was from St-Omer. Not everything said in the article has to be central to why someone is notable. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. @Isaidnoway:, the sources clearly indicate that he was open about his sexuality when he was alive. Being gay is not a profession and we do not require all personal-life facts to be the basis for someone's notability (is he notable for being Evelyne's father?) You seem to be resentful that we don't write about people being straight, but if we had a bunch of reliable sources noting that someone was straight in contrast to a prevailing assumption that he was gay (as the prevailing assumption in society is generally that people are straight unless there's a "detailed study" proving otherwise), I wouldn't see any problem saying so. What exactly is your argument against following standard Wikipedia practice here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with the simple "Grappelli was gay" statement is that the only "detailed studies" of his life, apparently, are the two by Paul Balmer which (I gather) don't support it, but instead find a more complex sexuality. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

According to Balmer, Grappelli had a secret female lover that was so conveniently secret that he never mentioned her even to his closest friends - so super duper secret, in fact, that he never even dared to write about his feelings for her in a diary! Yet this is considered more plausible than a bunch of unrelated academic and journalistic sources noting that he was openly gay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh out loud indeed! Now why would Balmer, who is used as a source for other facts in the article, just be making up the stuff about a long lost female lover? I tend to agree that there's not enough corroboration about the lady to put her into the article, but there also isn't enough supporting material about male lovers to bluntly state "Grappelli was gay." "Everybody knew he was gay" isn't good enough. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

@68.0.205.227: I don't think that she didn't exist at all, I think that Balmer's assertion that Grappelli never married because he was so sad about his lost love is far more conjectural and unlikely than the suggestion that he was gay, was known to be gay by everyone around him, but didn't have a long-term male partner. (I even just managed to dig up part of SG's memoir where he talks about Gwen to see if there's any indication of romantic interest, and there is nothing of the sort. According to Grappelli, she was Italian-Australian - not English - and had formed a mariage blanc with an Englishman called Turner in order to stay in the country.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it was standard Wikipedia practice to start a subjects personal life section out with their sexual orientation first and foremost - and so bluntly - He was gay - thanks for letting me know. That's piss-poor writing and not encyclopedic at all. It has always been my view that the subjects self-identification of their preference for a description of their sexual orientation should be used, and if no self-identification preference of their sexual orientation exists, then that should be our practice as well. Lately though, the trend here on WP seems to be, sources exist, so let's just label him as being gay, without explaining why that's so important that we have to mention it first about their personal life in such a shockingly blunt manner. Especially when the subject themselves didn't consider their sexual orientation important enough to even mention it at all. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: Uh, if your issue is just with the writing, that's fixable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the prose can be changed. It's a bit of a false analogy to compare this with including heterosexual in bios. Tons of academic literature has been published about the significance of heteronormative culture such that we can pretty much assume it is significant enough to mention. The fact that most reader will assume he was straight unless we mention it is enough reason to include.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going with no, consistent with my views on (e.g.) Joan Armatrading. While it may well be true, there was virtually no discussion of it during his lifetime and the sources are gossipy at best. I am not sure anyone actually cares, at this point. This is not Liberace or Freddie Mercury, where speculation about sexuality was a constant theme. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "there was virtually no discussion of it during his lifetime and the sources are gossipy at best" - Both of these statements are false. OUP, WaPo, and Salon are not gossip rags, and the Salon article even notes that his sexuality was well-known during his life. You seem to be under the impression that being gay is inherently "gossipy" in some way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's everything that the Salon article, written after his death, has to say about his sexuality (please reply if I've missed something): "Grappelli was a homosexual". EddieHugh (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh: Whoops, sorry, the "flamboyant" quote is from the WaPo. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the entirety there is "In recounting this to French friends, they proclaimed me naive, as Grappelli's flamboyant homosexuality was well known". So it was the author's friends who said this... isn't that gossipy? EddieHugh (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh: I think this one is largely there to assuage the concerns of people who feel that Michael Dregni's biography of Django for Oxford University Press, the head of the musicology department at UMiami writing for an ABC-Clio book, etc. are unjustly revealing some great scandalous postmortem secret. The argument that it's all gossip is simply not tenable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have that book; the entirety on p121 is "While seeking Django's musical approval, [bassist] Soudieux fended off Stéphane's intimate advances." Is there anything else in that book? EddieHugh (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh: I don't have access to it; it wasn't added by me. What's your argument against this one? We shouldn't mention it because it might show SG in a bad light? Every source a different reason. At some point, you just need to accept that this is historical fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing "against" any source or saying anything about impressions of Grappelli. However, despite biographies and lots of other writings, as editors all we have found to tell our readers is "he was gay"; there appears to be nothing else to report about that (maybe there will be in future publications, of course). So, in the end, this discussion may come down to one question: is someone's sexuality something worth reporting in a biographical article when there is nothing else to add? EddieHugh (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh: Yes, for a twofold reason. Firstly, there's no real reason to say that a name constitutes "something else to add" and a statement of his sexual orientation does not. Knowing about Evelyne or about Jean Barclay tells us nothing meaningful about Grappelli's music or legacy. Nor do the names of his parents or their hometowns, the cause of his death or the location of his burial... But it's just how we roll on Wikipedia. Sometimes we include things that aren't directly related to someone's career because it is well sourced and gives us a fuller picture of their life. Secondly, it is generally agreed that for a category to be applied so that users may use it to navigate, the relevant information must be sourced in the article in some way or another (for Joan Armatrading as mentioned by JzG it's sufficient to note that she's married to another woman without stating "she's gay", but obviously that's not a viable alternate option here). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My answer to the same question is 'no'. EddieHugh (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Seems well sourced, and this [[1]] wins it for me, it seems everyone knew about it, and he was quite open.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this source, which I just turned up. The statement is already one of the best-sourced pieces of info in the article (both better-sourced and more relevant to his life and career than the name of his mother's hometown, as Bondegezou points out) and it's not even like we're citing all the available sources! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but If you can state something specific - His steady companion was ...; He shared his home with ...; The police were sent to his home because ...; He wrote letters to such n such journal discussing his relationship with ...; In his will he bequeathed ... . You get the idea. Don't declare his sexuality, just let his life speak (or remain quiet) regarding who he was. GeeBee60 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GeeBee60: what about the Jazz Times source linked by Slatersteven, and the fact that his "flamboyant homosexuality was well-known"? Undoubtedly these are life facts that go beyond just a statement, even if we don't know his partner's name. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, I don't have a dog in this fight, opinions were sought I stated my thoughts. I don't even like jazz, and I have no idea who this guy is. But Roscelese, "He was gay" tells me little about this guy. I don't even know if that is being said with affection or contempt, there are plenty of times this phrase is said in anger. I appreciate the other replies that follow, at this point I am going to bow out. Good luck. GeeBee60 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GeeBee60: Oh, hey, before you go, consider changing your !vote as I did turn up the guy who appears to be his partner! (ed. "said in anger"? what? it's a neutral historical fact!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I agree with how GeeBee60 sees it. To me, simple French citizen, Stephane Grappelli = Music, and I didn't even know he was gay before this discussion. We probably have an article that lists who was gay and another article about gays in music etc, but an article about Grappelli is an article about the reason why he was famous, his music, not his sexuality. Akseli9 (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, Akseli9--so because for you "only" the music matters? Would you take the spirituality out of John Coltrane, or the marriages out of Miles Davis? Would you take the gayness (or bisexuality) out of Freddie Mercury? That's not how this works, and maybe his "flamboyant homosexuality" was unknown to you, but not to reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well sourced. The 'no' comments above do not appear to follow any Wikipedia policy. If we know something about a person that is covered by reliable sources then we should cover it too. Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might it fit under the WP:PROPORTION policy? "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." EddieHugh (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. Being gay is not an isolated event. It is not a criticism. A person's sexuality is generally considered a significant aspect of their life (more so than being tall, as below). We have multiple sources on this, demonstrating multiple sources think it noteworthy, and we follow what reliable sources consider important. Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we could be discussing it any more concisely than we already are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are examples: "For example". EddieHugh (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: I think the article should discuss Grappelli's sexuality. If sources are divided as to what that is, the article should explain that debate, as is standard Wikipedia policy. But the article shouldn't be ducking the question entirely. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, per Isaidnoway: we mention that Dexter Gordon was 6ft 6in because he "was also known as 'Long Tall Dexter'", ie it explained something else about him. We don't just say "He was tall" and then go on to another topic; and keeping to Gordon, we don't say "He was straight"... we mention his family (albeit poorly sourced right now). So, but, per GeeBee60: provide the reader with information about Grappelli's life; labels fade in and out of fashion ('deviant', 'homosexual', 'bisexual', 'gay'...), but genuine information abides. As a summary, when Cecil Taylor was asked if he was gay, he replied: "Do you think a three-letter word defines the complexity of my humanity?" EddieHugh (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EddieHugh: @Akseli9: I look forward to your suggestions for other extraneous information that you would remove from this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting removing extraneous information; I'm suggesting adding information that would help the reader see the relevance of various aspects of Grappelli's life. See the list of examples provided by GeeBee60. If there is no such extra information, then the assertion that he was gay isn't worth mentioning, just as "he was straight" wouldn't be. EddieHugh (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we really need a bit more detail as GeeBee60 writes. --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
mild No per arguments of Isaidnoway.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is a rather straightforward WP:WEIGHT analysis: of the sources which discuss Grapelli's sexuality, all of them indicate that he was gay or, in any event, not heterosexual. Any lingering concerns about a precise label can be addressed by fully attributing any statement on the matter or even directly quoting the sources, and then leaving the reader to reach their own conclusions without the influence of the biases of our own editorial corps robbing those readers of the opportunity to make such a determination by first whitewashing this portion of the man's story from the article. That's the heart and soul of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and every other policy relevant to this type of editorial determination: where there is controversy or a mixed record, we present the span of reliably sourced claims and allow the reader to exercise their own discretion. For that matter, if I can head off another argument I often see in these "shall we discuss that they were said to be gay" discussions regarding biographies, I would also not be won over by any hand-wringing over a supposed BLP-ish concern here; being gay is not an implication of something embarrassing, nefarious, or in any way negative or defamatory, such as to trigger such over-the-top precautionary principle concerns. So the argument that we cannot so much as even present the possibility that the man was something other than heterosexual seems to me to have absolutely no basis in our relevant content policies and seems (without meaning offense or accusing anyone in particular) to flow more from WP:systemic bias. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument. The counter is that surely there is systematic bias in reporting that someone is gay but not reporting that someone is straight: it marks out gay as contra-something, so if we want to reduce such bias, we shouldn't mention it (if there's no other info to add to the simple statement), just as we wouldn't mention someone being straight. Same argument, just the other way round. EddieHugh (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the cordial response, but I think there's been a miscommunication about which point I was trying to emphasize; it's really not up to us to decide one way or another what is an "important" part of an individual's identity--the sources do that through their coverage. So long as there is minimal coverage of a topic which provides biographical context, and its about something that might reasonably be said to enrich the reader's understanding of the man, that's sufficient to support a three word mention in the article.

What's more, I disagree that we do not routinely cover the details of a person's sexual and familial relationships in our biographical articles; on Wikipedia, such articles very typically contain this information, regardless of whether or not the sources have explicitly connected these relationships to the main thrust of the individual's notability or have merely mentioned them in passing. And while it surely represents a bias that is beyond our control as editors, the average reader does bring cognitive presumptions into the way they interpret such content; therefore, even though we know that its entirely possible for a gay man or woman to be married to a person of the opposite sex or to be a parent, if we present information on an opposite-sex marriage and resulting children, realistically most readers are going to parse that as an indication of heterosexuality (regardless of the fact that such details are far from a guarantee of the accuracy or fairness of such conclusions). If we present the details of Grappelli's marriage and child (which again, are considered perfectly normal details included in virtually every biographical article on the encyclopedia) without the additional context that he was (according to every reliable source on the subject) gay, then we are clearly painting a picture of the man which the average reader will take to be an indication that he was straight--which would constitute a misrepresentation-by-omission, on our part, of the information discussed in said reliable sources. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. What "marriage"? B. Lots of reliable sources, including all the newspaper obits used as sources here, say nothing about his sexual orientation. C. We get over the problem of the average reader thinking Grappelli was straight as an arrow by saying something like Grappelli was often described as gay, however . . (specific information on his personal life). 68.0.205.227 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

Regarding A, forgive me, I misspoke: not marriage in this instance, but rather a straight relationship resulting in a child--but that still clearly has the potential to impart implications where we do not disclose the full context of reports of his sexuality, marriage or no. Regarding B, I find that argument a non-sequitur; quite obviously, not every source is going to cover every aspect of an individual's life, nor do our policies requiring that in order to include a fact that is nevertheless discussed in some reliable sources, provided there is sufficient weight.

But regarding C, I agree with you. I for one would find it editorially acceptable to describe Grappelli's sexuality by including attribution to the relevant sources, without making a blanket statement; something to the effect of "[According to attributed sources X and Y] Grappelli was gay, although he fathered a child by...[describe relationship, so on and so-forth]." That's a perfectly reasonable way to approach this situation, in my opinion. So to that extent, no, I don't think we need to say "Grappelli was gay" in such a blunt, quasi-empirical manner; in fact, I'd prefer something that introduces the nuances of the situation, ideally through quotes and attribution, that puts the reader in a position to decide for themselves what the probable reality was an whether any given label is accurate. However, if the question is whether or not to mention sourced statements describing him as gay at all (or to omit them in their entirety), I believe it's a given, granted the sources and details here, that we should be making some mention of the relevant information. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow: thank you for the considered response; it's a strong argument. The pity is the sourcing: of the ones I've seen that attempt more than "he was gay", there's mention of a long-term male companion, bits on a long-term female companion (with speculation of it being "a romance"), a sentence on him trying to seduce a man, mention of a female "lover" (with flimsy evidence), and obviously the woman+child (not every reliable source presents him as gay); generally, Grappelli is presented as being very private, so presumably it's hard to find out more. I support your idea of incorporating the information that's available in a less blunt way than "[person] was [category]". EddieHugh (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. However, this compromise indirect approach to describing Grappelli's sexual orientation is precisely what the originator of this Request for Comments has been objecting to. Look at the article's edit history. 68.0.205.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

"He was described as gay, but the facts show differently" is not an acceptable compromise. That "however" reads very differently in the context of a refusal to allow the first basic fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - consider that "according to sources X, Y, and Z" becomes disruptive when it's the consensus of the sources. We use something like five in the article, but that's not all of them, and Eddie, you yourself recently noted that citing all five individually was inadvisable! I can't imagine that "According to Michael Dregni's biography of Reinhardt, the encyclopedia Men and Masculinities, Jazz Times, Salon, the Advocate, etc. etc., Grappelli was gay." Again, I think at some point it becomes necessary to recognize the consensus of the sources on a historical fact, whether or not you personally believe in your own heart that any gay people in history have ever had children. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"He was described as gay, but the facts show differently" is the way you chose to interpret it. Most observers would read it as Grappelli having had some sexual history with women in addition to the likely more common encounters with men. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC) PS: I'm well aware that gay people have had children, many children in fact, thoughout history, but thanks for your concern. Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

Roscelese, what would "an acceptable compromise" be? EddieHugh (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt but there is another practical advantage to saying something like "Grappelli has been frequently described as gay, however . . " It advises the reader that we really don't know much about the specifics of his homosexual relationships, which we don't. To bluntly say in Wikipedia's voice that "Grappelli was gay" implies that we do; that we must be experts about it to state it so plainly. 68.0.205.227 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

@68.0.205.227: That's an unusual, idiosyncratic interpretation of two little words in the English language.

@EddieHugh: the "however" is fine with the current wording because it places the locus of...difference? not sure what word I'm looking for...on the relationship with Caro (although gay, he had a short-lived relationship with a woman) rather than on the fact of his sexual orientation (although everyone writes that he's gay, the reader should understand that that can't be right). If we are to re-phrase this fact as "According to" I don't even know who, we would naturally need to remove the "however". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Compromise' as in changed wording. EddieHugh (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Like removing the "however"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No It seems clear from the sources that the man was bisexual. Also, unless we are going to start adding to everyone's biographical articles "Bob was heterosexual" then we shouldn't start putting "Bob was gay". Mention the relationships he had if they are notable e.g. that he had a daughter. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources state that he was bisexual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, the article already says he "a brief affair with Sylvia Caro", which is cited by Balmer. If he had a relationship with a woman and had relationships with men he was bisexual. You can't argue his relationship with Caro was platonic because they had a daughter... Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually how either homosexuality or Wikipedia work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay means homosexual i.e. sexually attracted to people of the same sex. This seems to be true of him. However it is also clear from the sources that he was sexually attracted to women as well. Therefore he wasn't only gay, he was bisexual. So, in the interests of clarity, one should say he was bisexual, which covers both. Or, instead of picking a label, we can just sidestep the whole thing and not say either but rather mention the relationships he had and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarity" does not entail making up labels for people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Morgan Leigh: I encourage you to read Sexual orientation § Relationships outside of orientation, which states that "Gay and lesbian people can have sexual relationships with someone of the opposite sex for a variety of reasons, including the desire for a perceived traditional family". — Newslinger talk 04:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your observation, Newslinger, but as a policy matter, you're not really identifying the correct reasons why we cannot use Morgan's "he was obviously bisexual" conclusion in the article. Both of you are to varying degrees engaging in WP:Original research, by way of WP:SYNTHESIS. Some mention of the word "gay" will almost certainly be retained, even in a compromise version, simply because this is what is used in numerous reliable sources (while the word bisexual appears in none). It's a very basic principle of editing on this project that we do not substitute alternative wording (nor omit certain details) because our editors disagree with the analysis, conclusions, or statements found in reliable sources. That would be textbook WP:OR.

So some mention of Grappelli being regarded as gay is almost certain to be retained, due to it appearing in a number of WP:reliable sources; the question is, to what degree do we attribute that statement? As such, on the flip side of things, I'd like to say to Roscelese that, while I agree that there does come a point at which sourcing is so absolute that we could feel comfortable describing a subject as merely "gay" in Wikipedia's own objective voice, I don't think that level of sourcing is established in the present case. There is in enough ambiguity and complexity in the sources on this topic collectively that it makes sense to attribute statements about Grappelli's sexuality and use precise descriptions to elucidate exactly what is and is not known, and be clear about where exactly the information comes from.

Again, this description will almost certainly lean heavily on the the multiple descriptions of Grappelli as gay (as a WP:WEIGHT matter) since no source puts forward alternate labels (and as editors we are not allowed to use our own idiosyncratic logic/deconstruction of the facts to arrive at such labels). But that doesn't mean we cannot or should not discuss the additional context available in the sources which has led to some confusion (as a historiographic matter) about the exact nature of his sexuality. Policy is pretty clear about such things: when there are competing perspectives, we present the underlying details and allow the reader to arrive at their own conclusions. As a matter of a reasonable middle-ground solution, I don't see the harm in foregrounding "gay" as the primary descriptor utilized in the largest number of sources while also making it clear to the reader that Grappelli never publicly stated as such and describing the factors which make a concrete determination complicated. It's entirely possible this man was bisexual: the sources don't say as much, so neither should we, in so many words; but completely obscuring the relevant details that might allow the reader to come to that conclusion would be just as non-neutral (and, incidentally, just as close minded) as not mentioning the possibility that he was gay, as an editorial matter.

Now, having described the flaws that I see with the more extreme positions at either end of this discussion, I'd like to make a more general/procedural discussion. Given there is a narrow band of consensus that seems to be forming here, I think it may make sense to start proposing some draft language, rather than just shooting down general arguments in the abstract. I can't say as I am certain that absolutely everyone will be perfectly satisfied with what may result, but I think there's a good chance of coming up with something that most of those who have commented could accept as a reasonable outcome. In any event, it seems like a more productive way forward than both camps continuing to talk past eachother, especially as the !vote here seems to be destined to lead to a "no consensus" result if the two sides cannot bridge the gap between their editorial perspectives. I'd like to recommend that someone begin spitballing some well-sourced, well-attributed content. In my opinion it should heavily foreground the fact that Grappelli has been described as gay (as a matter of WP:WEIGHT) while also making clear that Grappelli was not vocal about his private life in this respect and made no public disclosures about his sexuality, but in any event he was also reported to have had the odd intimate episode with a woman. The best we can do here is try to present the weight of the sources without interjecting too much of our own analysis, and I suggest the discussion shift towards looking at what such content may look like. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I'm not suggesting that we remove Caro. If a reader reads that he was gay but had had a short-lived relationship with a woman and close female friendships, and concludes, like Morgan, that that's impossible so he must be bi, that's their prerogative - ultimately we cannot control how people interpret information according to their own prejudices - but we can and should state the facts as relayed by reliable sources. I'd hold off on drafting new language for a bit, at least until we hear back from the users who were all "we can't mention this because we don't know any specific men he dated" now that...we do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was just a reading suggestion, not an argument regarding the content of the article. Policy-wise, we should stick to what reliable sources say, which in this case includes both the "gay" descriptor and Grappelli's relationships with women. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, why is a man who was described as a "companion" therefore a person "he dated", but a woman who was described as a "companion" not a person "he dated"? The sources given so far don't back up the distinction. (Continuing in the new 'Joseph Oldenhove' section below might be best.) EddieHugh (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The information is reliably sourced and pertinent, and constitutes due weight in the "Personal life" section of the article. The sources explicitly state that Grappelli was "gay" or "homosexual". I see no reason to withhold this information. — Newslinger talk 03:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No (Summoned by bot) The current claim "He was gay" fits badly into its paragraph. Instead, I suggest "Although widely described as homosexual, (list of refs) he also had close relationships with several women." And then go on to the rest of the information about his personal life. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't support phrasing that seems intended to cast doubt on the sources' consensus that he was gay. If what you don't like is the three-word sentence, why not "Although gay, Grappelli had a daughter from a short-lived fling with Caro...."? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not cast doubt, and it was not "intended to cast doubt" on the sources' consensus. Note the presence of the word "also." People are complicated. Planting the flag "He was gay, period" at the start of his personal life is misleading. His contemporaries and friends said he was "homosexual," a word which in those days covered all of GLBTQ (etc.) There was clearly some B and/or Q in there with the G, based on his life. But, avoiding OR and SYNTH, it makes more sense to quote those calling him "homosexual," and tying that closely to the few (complicating) facts about his close ties to women. If we have information about his romances with specific men, that could go in the same section. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - I can support either suggestion, though actually prefer HouseOfChange's. People are complicated, and this is clearly a complex enough case that it deserves some nuance. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - HouseOfChange's wording is quite good. "Also had close relations with women" concedes that he had relations with men. "Gay" should be used instead of "homosexual." 68.0.205.227 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC) To expand on GRuban's good observation a bit further: Wikipedia flatly saying "Grappelli was gay" comes across as Wikipedia having a clinical understanding of Grappelli's sexuality when it doesn't. Those who described Grappelli as "gay" were making pragmatic statements based on their observations. They weren't clinicians or experts on Grappelli's complete sexual history 68.0.205.227 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]
      - Homosexuality is not a disease requiring clinical diagnosis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The cited sources support the statement that Grappelli was gay. That's the obvious answer to the RfC question, which leaves us with how to present the fact to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent edit by @GeeBee60: seems to have solved both parts of the problem. Good. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, GeeBee60. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Oldenhove[edit]

Anyone feel like doing a bit of a Google hunt for Joseph Oldenhove? I've turned up a couple of sources referring to him as Grappelli's companion [ed. in French, "compagnon", or as some sources even specify, "compagnon de vie", is the phrasing of choice to translate "partner" or "life partner"], with other circumstantial detail: [2][3][4][5] (this isn't a usable source IMO but does note that they signed letters from both of them) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A hunt for Joseph Oldenhove? Did you see his name as the last listed source in our Grappelli bibliography? His book on Grappelli is in French but I see that you are fluent in French. Does he describe himself as Grappelli's lover? 68.0.205.227 (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

@68.0.205.227: I read French, but I only have partial access to the book and I'm not sure if he contributed any writing or just collated/edited. If there's anything that anyone wants me to take a look at, I'm happy to. For now, of course, we have all these lovely new sources for those users like you whose reservation was "we don't know his partner's name". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~You don't seriously propose using anything by Paul Balmer do you? Doesn't he invent stuff?~~ 68.0.205.227 (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Block evasion by User:Badmintonhist.[reply]

Luckily this statement, unlike his claim about Gwen Turner, is agreed upon by many other sources! I just found it amusing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I've seen describe Oldenhove as a "companion". The problem is that Jean Barclay (a woman) is also described as a "companion". We can't assume that Oldenhove was a lover but Barclay was not, based on there being other sources saying that Grappelli was gay. That's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. EddieHugh (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not synthesis to say that when we're writing about a gay man, a man who's consistently described as "his companion" is his lover, while a woman referred to in one place as "one of the most important companions of his life" but that he also is noted to have regarded as a sister, is not his lover. Eddie, I really don't think you're taking this discussion seriously. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first line at SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." As things stand we don't have a source that states 'Oldenhove was Grappelli's lover'. We have 'Oldenhove was Grappelli's companion' and 'Grappelli was gay'. You've combined them to conclude 'Oldenhove was Grappelli's lover'. (And, as you know, the 'regarded as a sister' comes from a friend; her actual sister suggests 'a romance' at some stage; the evidence is therefore equivocal on the female "companion".) Anyway, let's get on with finding a compromise wording. EddieHugh (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just paraphrase what I wrote on your talk page: it's ludicrous that you're attempting to elevate the sister's guess that the relationship with Barclay could have been romantic over the multiple sources that state that it wasn't and the other sources which state that Grappelli was homosexual. It is not Wikipedia's policy to give greater weight or less strict sourcing standards to claims of heterosexuality. Your concerns about "genuine information" and a tie-in to the narrative of the article have been addressed: we have more detail, we have the name of a partner ("companion" is extremely common in English for a same-sex life partner, and moreover "compagnon" in French is the word of choice to translate this concept), it even ties in specifically to his career and legacy. If you simply will never be okay writing that someone is gay, do us all the courtesy of admitting it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest withdrawing the homophobia accusation. Read above: I support the addition of material that further substantiates that he was gay. EddieHugh (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akseli9: @Cinadon36: @JzG: @Isaidnoway: pinging you because your "nos" seemed to be explicitly or implicitly based on the lack of other information about his homosexuality; I've turned up the name of his life partner (compagnon de vie), who was also his manager late in life and along with his daughter, represents his estate. Hoping this new information will change your opinion! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not changing my mind. In fact, I'd like to double-down on my No. When you search for "Stephane Grappelli", the first 10 pages yields zero results that discuss or even mention his sexual orientation. None. His bio at Encyclopedia.com and Britannica don't mention his sexual orientation. None of his obituaries mention it, WaPo, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Reuters, New York Times, LA Times. This lengthy bio offers no insight into his sexual orientation. This lengthy piece in Rolling Stone says nothing about him being gay, in fact, it discusses the reason he didn't marry and old girlfriends. Balmers book mentions his old girlfriend. I've seen nary a musical review, Variety, LA Times, countless others, that discuss or mention his sexual orientation. If him being gay was so significant and an important aspect of his life and career, or as quoted above - Grappelli's flamboyant homosexuality was well known - why is this well known claim of flamboyance omitted in these search results and a vast and diverse array of sources. Permit me to tell you why, it's because you specifically and purposefully have to put in the keyword gay and/or homosexual to find any results, that's cherry-picking in my view to label him gay and include an insignificant and non-important detail of his life. Those sources who do gossip about it, pass it off as a trivial detail. To reiterate what I stated above, if Grapelli didn't self-identify his preference for a description of his sexual orientation, then that should be our practice as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't see why not, I mean Freddie Mercury's sexual orientation was mentioned on his article and so was his partner, so I believe it is acceptable here on Wikipedia. --@Boothsift 05:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
YES I love this guy's music, but this is the first time I have heard he was gay. It is most certainly not the most important thing about him but it is something that should be covered if it well sourced (and it appears to be) so long as it is given appropriate WP:WEIGHT. He also had heterosexual relationships and this should also be mentioned. This does not mean having to say that he was bisexual unless there is a source saying that he was. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: there are lots of sources on this, so it's verifiable and significant. As for wording, it is imperative that we say "historians widely accept..." because we don't know how Grappelli would have identified, were he in a culture free from queerphobia or in one with our current language usage. Note that above there is some rather ignorant commentary which bases sexuality on relationships or lack thereof. Sexuality is about one's internal feelings, and in the case of societies where it is illegal and/or taboo to be gay, it is not rare for sexuality to disconnect with actual sexual experiences. Hence it is nonsense say that Grappelli was certainly bisexual (whether it is possible is a matter for historians). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (Summoned by bot) Seems well-sourced and is mentioned appropriately in the article at the current time. Suggest that this RfC be reformatted as the Joseph Oldenhove subhead is confusing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cite template for page number, French source[edit]

So there isn't one source an English that gives this vital information: "Also in the neighborhood was the artistic salon of R-26, at which Grappelli and Reinhardt performed regularly". This is a citation from a book in French but without the page number, and someone has added a "page number needed" template to it. This is the English Wikipedia and I speak English, as do most readers of English Wikipedia. I don't read French, nor do I have a copy of this book. Therefore I can not fix this citation. Have a nice day.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

I see that he is listed as a Gypsy, Manouche or Sinti in some articles but this article does not make clear how he is descended from them. RichardBond (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you reading this? You're not mixing him up with Django, right? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not Gypsy; his father was an Italian non-gypsy and his mother a frenchwoman from Normandy, no gypsy connection there either. The gypsy/Manouches/Sinti connection was entirely from the guitarists he played with in the 1930s (and minimally thereafter). Tony 1212 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big gaps in biographical portion[edit]

Hi, I noticed big gaps in the biographical portion (e.g. post-war to his death) so have started to fill in some of the missing info. More to do - especially details of his extensive touring and increasing public acclaim post-1973 and major concerts (Birthday Celebrations, Carnegie Hall, etc. etc.); also his continued interest in playing the piano (featured spot in every concert plus at least one solo album). I may get to it but others are welcome to hop in. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Adelaide Hall[edit]

We need a source documenting its rediscovery, not just a link to the song. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted again. All the link attests is that the recording exists - and many, many Grappelli recordings exist, so why should we link any particular one unless a reliable source attests that there is something special about it? Wikipedia does not exist to promote anyone's Youtube channel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Warlop[edit]

I've completely lost track of what the gay discussion decided, but I notice that Warlop gets very few mentions anywhere at all. Supposedly Reinhardt declared him to be his favourite violinist, not Grappelli, and others say that was because Reinhardt was homophobic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Warlop And this collaborative album isn't in any discog - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00007M9KX/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 FangoFuficius (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]