Talk:Lucio Dalla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
WikiProject Italy  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Dalla best.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Dalla best.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What is meant by an "evergreen"?[edit]

I'll probably delete that and replace it with something more unambiguous like "this composition" instead of "this evergreen" unless someone can actually explain what this means?

Evergreen is used in Italy to indicate plants and trees that do not lose their leaves in the winter (such as pines), as well as songs that remain popular for an extended period of time (decades). Any translation suggestion is appreciated. S.mereu (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It's used in the same sense in England, but is a judgmental term indicating supposed popularity over a long period of time, and not really suitable for an encyclopedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


Recently a phrase in an Italian television reportage about his life cought my attention, it was talking about him having a male partner when he died — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I do wish User:Guido Lonchile would knock this off; the reliable sources say he dated a bloke for ten years. That's sort of a hint that one isn't straight. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, before I take this to dispute resolution or something, does _anyone_ other than User:Guido Lonchile feel what they're doing is sensible? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
a hint that one isn't straight: is it enough to become "LGBT people"? Dalla never spoke about his sexuality, and his presumed partner (who was probably like a son to him) doesn't want to be called his partner. So, I really can't understand why we should define "gay" a man who didn't want to be considered gay.--Guido Lonchile (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If I wear a hat, I am a hat-wearer, no matter if I want not to be considered a hat-wearer. Likewise, that's what "gay" means, a chap who's attracted to chaps. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I've no idea what angle you're pushing, but the current situation is absurd. The article says he had a male partner of ten years, and then goes on in your words to say he was "suspected" of homosexuality. And "lived far removed from the gay culture" is pointless; obviously someone who doesn't publicly acknowledge their sexuality doesn't go on Pride marches!
Digging only a little finds - "Lucio Dalla was gay". "Lucio Dalla was a formidable artist. And he was also gay." (Indeed, that article says it was an open secret; so much for being "suspected").
The only thing the article needs is a mention of the controversy produced by his death as mentioned in the BBC source. He lived with a man, he had sex with a man (at least one), no source seems to indicate the slightest interest in women; what exactly is wrong with "gay"? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
he had sex with a man (at least one)??? I don't think there can be a source for this! That's why you can't say that Dalla was a "hat-wearer". And it's not exact that no source seems to indicate the slightest interest in women. Perhaps you don't know any source, but Dalla's relation with Angela Baraldi is known, for example.--Guido Lonchile (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You're right, it is entirely possible he had a male partner for ten years and they just had tea and biscuits. Also, the Moon might be made of green cheese. But either way, I doubt it.
More seriously, respect the consensus, please. It's perfectly clear from your persistent edit warring that no other editor wants your curious wording here. Let it go. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should have respect for people (and also dead people), not only for the consensus. If journalists have no respect for dead people, it's not a good reason to do the same.--Guido Lonchile (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd be fascinated to hear exactly why calling someone who was gay "gay" is disrespectful. It's almost like (in fact, it quite obviously is the case that) you think there's something wrong with it.
But in any case, no, consensus is how it works. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Let's get down to specifics. With which of these statements do you disagree?

  • That the article should reflect the unvarnished truth about Dalla, as far as we know it from the sources available. (From Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_comprehensive, Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects.").
  • That Dalla was in fact gay, not merely "suspected" of being so. (Alternatively, is there a source to show he was bisexual?)
  • That since he was gay he was necessarily an "LGBT" person.
  • That, in English, "gay" and "homosexual" mean substantively the same thing in this context.
  • That he did not publicly acknowledge his homosexuality, but he was unequivocally outed at or shortly after his funeral.

As far as I can see all of these are true, reflected by the sources, and hence the article ought to be in accordance with these.

(Additionally, I think it is worth looking at other sources - eg those on - to see if the claim that his sexuality was an "open secret" is justified).

Pinkbeast (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Absent any response, I intend to change the wording to "Lucio Dalla was gay, but did not publicly acknowledge this fact. He was outed shortly after his funeral, a source of some controversy in Italy." Pinkbeast (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree. I have already explained that there's no evidence that Dalla was gay. You should write that journalists said he was gay.--Guido Lonchile (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That's absurd for two reasons. Every Wikipedia article sourced from newspapers is "what journalists say". That's how sourcing from newspapers works. The second reason is that manifestly having a male partner for ten years is very good evidence he was gay; no-one in their right mind would bet a wooden shilling that he was not. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I have already explained that Dalla never spoke about "partners", and Alemanno doesn't want to be called his partner. Alemanno himself said that journalists had no respect for Dalla after his death.--Guido Lonchile (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Obviously Dalla didn't speak about partners, because he was in the closet. None of the rest of what you have written seems to have the slightest bearing on the point here, which is that the reliable sources cited in the article say that Dalla was gay and that Alemanno was his partner. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that journalists were not in Dalla's bedroom, so I'm not sure that sources are reliable.--Guido Lonchile (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia uses the expression "reliable source", so that's a non-argument. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I intend to seek dispute resolution on this. You're simply ignoring the usual way reliable sources are used, and constructing an absurd page which says he dated a man for ten years but won't come out and just say he was gay even though every source says he was. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on discussion above[edit]

I'm inviting comments on the discussion above as to whether it is more appropriate for the page to say that Dalla was "suspected to be" gay, or that he "was" gay. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Sources are easily sufficient to say he was gay. While that is clearly reason enough, "suspected to be gay" sounds like being gay is something bad. Not very reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The verb "presumed" probably presents the most accurate picture. He was gay and was presumed to be gay. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I disagree (predictably). It seems to me that "presumed" or "suspected" is exactly what the sources don't say; there is no indication in them that he was, during his life, believed to be gay. (I wouldn't be surprised if it was an "open secret", but that's OR.) I also feel much of this "far removed from the gay culture" stuff is basically a rather roundabout way of saying that he was closeted. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as categorizing individuals:
"Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT). For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay.
Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion" (Wikipedia:EGRS) Liz Read! Talk! 17:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a nice statement of principle of several topics related to the way we should write about the sexual orientation of people in our biographies in general, but how do you believe it applies to this article, which is being asked after all? In this case, I believe we're firmly in the verified consensus camp that he was, in fact, gay. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there any necessity to say either? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no necessity, strictly speaking, to have anything, but if we want to have comprehensive coverage, and I think we do, we should strive to give a complete description of the subject, as covered in reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I suppose my point is, why do we have to include this specific personal detail? It seem to me that it is because there was some doubt or controversy over the point. That would be a good reason for not saying anything. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Controversy was limited, I suppose. During his live, he never identified as gay, and even if the sourcing than had been what it is now, I'd agree with you that we should respect that. He is, unfortunately, no longer alive, and we are no longer in the situation where our coverage can have real world influence on his live. Comprehensiveness of coverage is the only remaining concern and would suggest inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Coverage can never be comprehensive; we do not give his height, weight, shoe size, and many other personal details. My question is why must we add the particular fact of his sexual orientation. Is the assumption for all bios that the person was straight unless stated otherwise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Because one of the notable facts about him is that he was outed after his death and this caused political controversy in Italy. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case should the wording not reflect that fact. As in, 'He was alleged to be gay by xxx'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so (although my proposed wording does say that he was outed after his death) because none of the sources (even the homophobic Malta Times one) suggest for a moment that the allegation is not true - unsurprising when it is also accepted as a fact that he had a male partner for ten years. The sources state that he was gay and was outed, not that it was suggested that he was gay.Pinkbeast (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
How about something like, 'He was outed as gay after his death by xxx'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems entirely reasonable to me. Er, on reflection, I jumped the gun there; it's still a bit wishy-washy about a fact that the sources don't actually dispute.Pinkbeast (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This really won't do. We've had an RFC, and I've edited the page in accordance with that discussion - specifically avoiding the wording that Martin Hogbin disliked, even though I favour it. Bang, revert by User:Guido Lonchile, no discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
While I'm at it: all say it. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The entire argument here is whether Lucio Dalla's homosexuality is certifiable or not. One cannot confirm his sexual orientation based on an op-ed piece, third hand accounts, and no other substantiation from a reputable source. In fact, there seems to be only one source to whom all proponents of his homosexuality turn to, the reporter Lucia Annunziata. She in turn cites Marco Alemanno's eulogy as her sole piece of evidence. I have no problem with Mr. Dalla being straight or gay, but the point is that you cannot claim his sexuality on his bio unless if you know for certain. Since none of us know, this entire element should be left out. (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Er, except that (for example) the current references have Catholic figures who knew him well discussing his life in the closet. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Seconding this; the sources are not denying that he was gay so much as whether anything should be made of it, but we can't ignore the debate. What we can do is present it neutrally and briefly; and I believe in this respect quoting his own statement is more neutral than formulating in our own words how he presented or concealed his sexuality - which is the nub of the debate presented in the sources. Hence I have just reverted back to the version with the quotation. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest absurd revert[edit]

He was outed after his funeral by Lucia Annunziata - that's in at least. I don't know where this idea that that was in 1979 has come from. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Also see my comment at the end of the above section. The issue was first raised publicly in 1979, but for him to be outed requires it to be true. And "disciple" is a non-neutral term and an odd one in English (and the term "homosexual" has become politicised in English), whereas "associate" and "partner" are both primarily non-sexual in meaning. The two versions are not far apart in intent, but Guido Lonchile may not realise that the other version is more neutral. Also the sources do say he was gay by inclination, and that he had a long association with his partner, so we need to reflect those two things in our account. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


The sources - such as the BBC article - are clear that he was gay and was posthumously outed. Therefore he does in fact belong in the category: LGBT people from Italy. See the lengthy discussion above. So long as the topic does not overshadow other facts about his life and career, tehre is nothing wrong with noting this, and in fact we need to, and the category is not obtrusive. So I have re-reverted its removal. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the edit summaries reflect exactly the same spurious argument; "no evidence", never mind that it is very well sourced. As such, I think the category belongs on the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's seems some italian people, as well a Mussolini, still think "there is no homosexuals in Italy". Mardochee1 (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Mussolini? You probably meant Ahmadinejad ("There are no homosexuals in Iran"). Anyway, maybe it's true that the category belongs on the article, in fact the article is wrong! It's wrong that Lucio Dalla was outed as gay after his funeral. He was "outed" (as you say) at least in 1979, and his reply was "I don't feel homosexual". I really can't understand why we should define "gay" (or "LGBT person"!) a man who didn't want to be considered gay. Just because now he is dead and he can't reply? We should have respect for dead people!--Guido Lonchile (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, Mussolini really said "there is no homosexual in Italy", he was not very clever as you know. Homophobic people are not very clever, that's why Ahmadinejad said exactly the same silly thing. Mardochee1 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Because that's what reliable sources say (and there is nothing wrong with being gay.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree in that there's nothing being gay, and here is how we should proceed; whatever Lucio Dalla had thought is the only factual representation needed. Sexuality is obviously only determinable by the singular person so if he "felt" gay or not needs to be sourced back to a diary or a statement of the man himself. The stirrings after the funural may have given way to false articles being produced in order to portrait a certain view that isn't right. This wouldn't be new or surprising, because it happens all the time. If he didn't want to be considered gay, then he simply wasn't. However, if he was making statements to save face but has had proven allegations (not that homosexuality is a crime by any stretch, mind you) that he had relations with someone, well then there you go. At what point do we draw a line to believe first person data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Complete turing (talkcontribs) 17:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia simply summarizes what reliable sources say. We cannot and should not require first-person statements; that would make us into something other than an encyclopedia. This is not a big point in his life, but a brief mention of it is appropriate, since reliable sources made a point of it; and it should be based on those reliable sources. That's why it is in the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't agree that self-identification is the only metric. An obvious counterexample is that many coming-out stories start with the person in question identifying as straight - eg, because they have grown up in an environment where other possibilities are never mentioned. It's not unreasonable to infer that Dalla faced considerable social pressure to appear to conform.
But that's besides the point. The sources cited appear to be reliable; one might argue that eg the Pink News article didn't consider the situation critically (which is why I didn't use it as a source), but these are multiple major newspapers (and quoting prominent Catholics). As mentioned before, the Malta Times article is particularly telling because of its homophobic tone; they clearly have no desire to admit Dalla's sexuality, but cannot deny the facts. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you: that article is particularly telling, especially when it speaks about journalists' appalling incivility!. Just like the incivility of this ideological category, applied to a man who didn't want to be considered an "LGBT person".--Guido Lonchile (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
What matters is not whether it is uncivil (fatuous as the idea of being uncivil to dead people is) but whether it is true. Since (and spare me the smokescreen) multiple reliable sources confirm that he was gay, that is not really in dispute, much as you might hate the idea. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories that keep getting removed[edit]

Stating for the record here that insofar as reliable sources state that he was gay and Catholic (including at least one source that mentions both, so there is no synthesis), the categories that keep getting removed are appropriate. Removing them reflects bias, while we should be neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In particular, the removal from this article on the grounds it's contradictory is essentially a call for the removal of the category itself. If the category exists, it applies to Dalla; if it should not, the editor should make that point about the category. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What to do about this?[edit]

I'm not sure what to do about this. Request semi-protection? But it's not vandalism, it's a content dispute - an inane one, but a content dispute. Editor's talk page? They come back with a fresh IP address every time. This talk page? Done. Sock puppeting? Nope, they just happen to be on dynamic IP. Edit warring? The template is to report one user, not a host of IP addresses. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pinkbeast, it is vandalism; it's a longtime socker. I have semi-protected indefinitely since it's getting tiresome. The editor has only one interest--this article, this subject matter. Go through the history, if you like, to find the "original" account. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I suspect know the original account all too well. I tend to feel it's an inane content dispute, but I'm certainly not going to argue the point - either way, we've had the problem for years and any anons with bona fide suggestions to improve the article can use the talk page.
Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lucio Dalla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lucio Dalla. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

☑Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I said "Second link seems completely broken - this might be an interface to the same database", which was marked as "helped" because "no query" - technically true but I rather hoped the message would linger in case someone who speaks more Italian feels like sorting out that link. So... here it is again. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucio Dalla. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)