Talk:Frank Schuster (music patron)

Schuster also had many heterosexual friends.

I removed the sentence "Schuster also had many heterosexual friends" because 1. who doesn't 2. it is the opening line in a paragraph about Elgar. Scholarship over the last 20 years has cast doubt on Elgar's exclusive heterosexuality, so it seems better to stay out of it until there is consensus.

This change was reverted without explanation. I am not one to participate in prolonged conflict on wikipedia but it seems that holding on to that sentence does not improve the article Wickedjacob (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on wickedjacob, You have changed the status quo, you need to provide a citation.

You, right up above here, make the point that many people have heterosexual friends. The subject, do forgive me if I have this wrong, is Frank Schuster and not Elgar. I think you are mistaken to exercise yourself like this about Frank Schuster's friends in an article about him and not about Elgar or Elgar's friends. Aren't you just a very little tangled up here? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is mainly about Elgar. The inclusion of that sentence heavily implies Elgar was heterosexual. Its an unproven claim at odds with some scholarship. Why include it? Wickedjacob (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it again I have the impression it is meant to contrast with the preceding paragraph which begins by stating he (Schuster) was homosexual. Are you unable to provide a citation supporting your concerns? Can you develop some phrasing that would leave in the phrase under discussion but satisfy your sensitivities about Elgar?

Read what I wrote on your talk page. The conversation is ongoing in the scholarly community. I prefer to not make a claim in either direction until academia hashes it out. Wickedjacob (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did glance at it before I deleted it - its the wrong place to discuss an article. Remind me of the point you made. If you prefer not to make a claim then don't, just leave it until "the scholarly community" makes up its mind and gives you something to quote here. Eddaido (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third and final paragraph of the first version dated 1 April 2007:

"Schuster also had many heterosexual friends. He was a close friend and travelling companion of composer Edward Elgar, and helped foster Elgar's popularity in the years leading up to World War I. Adrian Boult and Edward Elgar first met at Schuster's house in 1905."

So its been there 14 years. Yes, I do know the world changes its opinions, just pointing it out. Eddaido (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" If you prefer not to make a claim then don't" Exactly. I removed an unsourced claim that is at odds with several sources, including a 2000 article, a 2004 book, and a 2011 Guardian article. Seriously, this is ridiculous. It is the defender of the positive claim that has the burden of proof. You are arguing that making a claim needs no citation but deleting it does? Entirely backwards. Wickedjacob (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying you deleted a passage which had been there since 2007 without any comment. That's 14 years. You can't change it without giving good reason. Do you want me to search out the WP rules? Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My interest is improving the article. It's been unsourced for 14 years. That's not unheard of. My suggestion would be that if you find that sentence so important, you move it away from Elgar so it doesn't seem to imply anything either way about him. I personally find it a useless sentence that should not be kept just because its been there forever. It adds nothing, as everyone has straight friends. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You fix the article like I suggested way up above on this very page and we'll see if we can both be happy. I quote me "Can you develop some phrasing that would leave in the phrase under discussion but satisfy your sensitivities about Elgar?" Eddaido (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply remove the useless unsourced sentence. I don't understand why you have a problem with that. What exactly does it add? Wickedjacob (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its an encyclopaedia, it cannot assume a reader has knowledge of homosexual habits about their choice of friends. Eddaido (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are you for real? Is the sentence "he had a number of heterosexual friends" a common sentence in biographies? Of course not. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an insulting inanity. Removed. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]