Talk:Måneskin

Section style, personal life and LGBT

There is obviously a need to have a discussion. This edit ([1]) was edited by others with some of the information moved to other sections, articles, or even removed. As argued here ([2]), why should be brought back the previous section style which is not practical and common in the same type of articles? Eurovision already has its fair share of information in the present years of the band's career and more details can be found in other related articles. Why should include private information about the sexuality of such young people, which by the way as stated in edit summaries is "not related to page content and not adding value to Wikipedia article"? Why we should mention some LGBT media if other mainstream references did not write about LGBT media, which by the way never heard off, and it's not like only LGBT media noticed the kiss between the guys, but nothing special among rockers, and there's nothing notable about it in general. Actually, as was stated before, the information about the kiss in the performance was moved to "Zitti e buoni#Performance and reception", while David's sexuality is mentioned in his own article Damiano David#Personal life (update: not anymore). It is not like it is not on Wikipedia at all. Others' sexuality was mentioned in the Band members section, but honestly, this kind of information is out of context here as well. I tried to find some mainstream references which would have more context about it but did not find any. The sentence "LGBT media took note of the kisses given by Damiano to Thomas and Ethan, broadcast during the reprise performance at the end of the show.[33][34] Previously, in a February 2021 interview with a Corriere della Sera newspaper, Victoria self-described as bisexual, Thomas as heterosexual, Damiano as heterosexual but "curious", and Ethan as "sexually free".[35]" looks like a pushover which connects a + b to get a c that no reference mentions at all.--ParoleSonore (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I am trying to gather as many as possible people for discussion who recently made an edit User:Feuerrabe, User:Markworthen, User:Ss112, User:Stee888, User:Alienautic, User:ArturSik, User:Nemo_bis, User:Lk95, User:LaVozSA, User:Unkownsolidier, User:BabbaQ, User:IvanScrooge98, User:Simeon, User:JalenFolf, User:Jochem van Hees, User:IXCat.--ParoleSonore (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a separate subsection about their Eurovision performance, half of which is basically personal information on the members’ sexuality, seems out of place to me. If anything, the latter could be included in a “Personal life” section, but I honestly have no idea if this is common enough in Wikipedia articles about music groups. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried to check and it is not common at all. Articles about bands are always about music career, music style and so on, and never about their personal life or even advocacy. Band members section is always a list of band members and years and nothing else. Take for an example, Dave Grohl is an advocate of LGBT rights but Foo Fighters article doesn't mention anything about it; Rob Halford is one of rare metal names who many years ago openly revealed his homosexuality but Judas Priest doesn't mention anything about it; Freddie Mercury was bisexual but Queen doesn't mention anything about it as well. They don't even have LGBT categories. It is not relevant and is out of place. Another issue of stating their personal sexuality, true or not, is their very young age. In some countries some of them are still not of legal age, also the sexuality in that period is fluid and can change. It is a triviality overall, on the contrary, the big news surrounding Eurovision performance were the false accusations about Damiano's drug use during the final and Damiano's response about the band "not falling into the stereotype of the alcoholic and drugged rock star" with all four of them being anti-drug advocates. That had indescribably far more notoriety in the references. Is that mentioned in this article? No, it is not and shouldn't because it still has nothing to do with the music, the accusations had nothing to do with other band members, and especially because those were fake news. --ParoleSonore (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing the following guidelines and making a consensus decision that is consistent with them.

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Identity

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines

Care should be taken to avoid placing undue weight on sexuality. A person's sexual orientation or activities should usually not be mentioned in the article lead unless related to the person's notability. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any support in the guidelines. Gender identity is out of the question. The band members only expressed their sexual orientation (2x heterosexual, 2x bisexual although "sexually free" is ambiguous and one of the two was in a heterosexual relationship before) while by gender identity they are binary. Their sexuality was revealed only recently in an interview and as such has nothing to do with the band and its member's notability. Any mention of their personal sexuality is or out of place because is uncommon for such articles as shown in previous examples or placing undue weight in sections and overall article.--ParoleSonore (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view; it's not up to Wikipedia to decide what's relevant, the sources do. Sources reported abundantly on the performance and what it meant, so it's appropriate to include that information. Relegating to several separate articles sourced information on the meaning of the most important performance of the group to date does not serve any justifiable purpose. Information from an earlier interview is relevant to avoid WP:BLP violations from potential misinterpretation of less direct sources.

As for the relative space given to various aspects of the participation in ESC 2021, I don't have strong opinions, but I agree that the section could probably be expanded slightly relative to all the others. I've added a section header with a link to Zitti e buoni, where some of the material seems to have been moved, so that it's easier to find the information. The wholesale revert even of such minor formatting changes is a strong indicator of a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, which I encourage to discontinue at once. Nemo 20:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The only one whose pushing the article into a battleground is you. You are the one who's avoiding reaching a consensus and ignoring other editors' opinion and their edits. You are reverting the article section to your own days old revision reusing the same own edit again and again. That is not friendly of you. Review well what's written in the warning about edit warring ([3]) --ParoleSonore (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

What kind of references are Gay News.it, You Movies.it, Globalist.it? Are they reliable references at all? They don't make mainstream news and cannot be used to substantiate the claim of being "widely reported". Also, not all things which are verifiable and "widely reported", in this case marginally, by the way, are notable or relevant enough to be mentioned in the article dealing with the band's music career and music style. Nothing in the guidelines and common editing practice supports your edit.--ParoleSonore (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also see WP:BLPCAT, it emphasizes that public self-identification regarding sexual orientation is not enough because sexual orientation also needs to be relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. There's no relevance and notability for this article. Period. At least for now.--ParoleSonore (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't read the references, otherwise you would have found that the Rai News article supports the claim on "widely reported" (it says "spopolano" etc.). Further improvements to the text are possible; my new edit addressed some of the comments but was reverted altogether nevertheless.

I encourage you to stop this disruptive pattern where other users make edits and you revert them wholesale to restore your preferred version, as you already did with probably a dozen users across several Måneskin-related articles. You can instead engage with the merits of the contributions, finding better references to replace those you find insufficient etc. Nemo 06:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you like this? Why should I engage in supporting contributions which are against guidelines and common practice? I am not obligated to WP:SATISFY you. Please engage in the discussion commenting on the content, not users, and respect the consensus-building process, other editors opinion and edits which don't include only me. The guidelines and common practices are very specific about the issue. As said before, the kiss in the media, which by the way was not in the final performance but winners reprise performance which is far less known, watched, and relevant, did not gain such notoriety and your's connection of the kiss with band members' personal sexuality is nor mentioned nor confirmed in the references. You made a + b = c which indeed would be WP:SYNTH. Not only that, Damiano confirmed in a Vogue interview it was only a spontaneous gesture intended to challenge stereotypes and support the LGBT cause. He didn't mention band members' sexuality at all.--ParoleSonore (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, while you are here making reverts avoiding to build a consensus, at Damiano David you made a revert because of a supposed lack of consensus. Disengenous.--ParoleSonore (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A request for comment was made ([4]) at WikiProject Rock music. Until now in the discussion participated four editors. The current consensus is not in favor for several reasons. Please do not make any edits or revert dealing with the same information or section style until we have more comments and a better consensus.--ParoleSonore (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)