Jump to content

Talk:Stéphane Grappelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.0.205.227 (talk) at 18:13, 20 November 2018 (→‎Oddly written "Personal life" section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Pink Floyd

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

Shouldn't the quotation be in wikiquote?

Orphanage

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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?

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

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?

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]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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"

@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

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)[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)[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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stéphane_Grappelli&oldid=869837730"