Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
4,575
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + +
Copied from Andy's talkpage
Gaveston and the Despensers get guernseys in History solely for their relationships with Edward. Unless one is to do the WP thing and mention ''everything'' it is simpler to leave them where they are. I will put them into Search though. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Gaveston and the Despensers get guernseys in History solely for their relationships with Edward. Unless one is to do the WP thing and mention ''everything'' it is simpler to leave them where they are. I will put them into Search though. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:47, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Query
Hey, I just saw that the Edward II article was pretty bad, and I have access to a number of sources on him at the moment so I was going to fix it up a bit, providing I have enough time. I have a question though: in your manual of style or somewhere it says that we should avoid mentioning a person's sexuality unless they have self-identified as something. As it stands the entire article basically spends it's time skirting around the issue of his sexuality, without either addressing it directly, or talking about anything else. The question I was wondering was how should I fix this? As I see it the options are to remove mention of it completely (this is the less satisfactory option as his sexuality was considered politically important at the time and also in modern works) or to move discussion of this part of his life to a separate section where I would (very) briefly outline the arguments in recent scholarship both for and against his supposed homosexuality (or bisexuality or whatever they had back then) and why this is at all relevant. If you could tell me which would be more appropriate from a policy standpoint that would be good.Cmurphynz 06:57, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
This post should really be at the relevant talk page. From my knowledge of Edward II I would say that his possible sexuality is relevant because rumours of it had a big impact on his reign. He was clearly very close to certain men who then took on important roles within his administration. I should caution that there is no real credible evidence that he was actually homosexual - rumours and innuendo were apparently as rife then as they are now, and all "accounts" of his homosexuality tend to come from much later biographers. I would put it in a section at the start, and then tie in the issue to his administration and its legacy later on in the article. --DamianJohn 08:16, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
The above has been copied and pasted from[[User Talk:Aschlafly]] [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:08, 21 July 2012 (EDT)