Talk:James Buchanan

Some confusing wording

"As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away."

Huh? Far away from where? Does "reinforcement" refer to additional soldiers? food? ammo? Did the reinforcements get there? Why bring up the issue of the Star of the West if only in order to drop it so suddenly?

It was a boat with both troops and supplies, didn't get there. Hopefully it's clearer now - [1] would be good source for a Star of the West article with all the details. Stan 17:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second, the first shots of the civil war were fired under the Lincoln Adm. and Lincoln secretly supplied Ft. Sumter, this article is factually incorrect.

Since the article remains intact, I'll assume no one took the above (unsigned) comment seriously. Just to clarify, South Carolina seceded form the Union in 1860 and the attack on the Star of the West occurred in January 1861, two months before Lincoln assumed office.

Sexuality

Here are the dueling accounts of JB's sexuality:

Buchanan was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D. C.. Rumors and speculation that the two had a homosexual relationship began at the time and have periodically been revived by historians, but decisive evidence one way or the other seems lacking.

Versus:

- Buchanan's sexuality has been the subject of academic debate. He never married; but he was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D. C. At the time, King was referred to as the President's "better half" and "his wife". When King was sent as an envoy to France, Buchanan was reported to have said: "I have gone wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any of them." Professor James W Loewen, in his 1995 work "Lies my Teacher told me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong", supports the thesis that Buchanan was homosexual.

The first is an even-handed summary, the second is original research/interpretation, and the second is NOT npov. So I think the first should stay and the second must go. NP

I think we can find some middle ground here. I'm inclined to agree that the first is superior, but there is no reason that we can't include some details from the second version. (Incidentally, I'm puzzled by singling out Loewen for special mention there. Great book, but I don't recall him doing any original research on Buchanan and he's not such a towering figure in history that his opinion deserves noting like this.)

Also, please sign your posts, which you can do with four tildes (~) and that automatically slaps up your user name and date in this format: Gamaliel 17:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In response to User:Kscottbailey's blanking of the cited information about Buchanan's possible homosexuality: The section is only disgusting if you find homosexuality disgusting. And it is presented with the requisite acknowledgment that we can never know for certain. While wikipedia is no place for unfounded rumors, it is also not a place for priggishness. There is citable, academicly supported evidence suggesting both men engaged in homoerotic behavior. There's likely a reason the press called him "Aunt Fancy," and why an older man of wealth shared his home with another never married man for the rest of his days. In Buchanan's case the evidence is strong enough that C-SPAN's special on Buchanan included it. And in it Brian Lamm, C-SPAN founder, discussed the subject in a forum of presidential historians. Bona fide heterosexual historians, Michael Beschloss for one, have found evidence that Buchanan was homosexual. Most often pronouncements of of a subject being "disgusting" says far more about the person making that declaration than the subject. Reverting, blanking, or attempting to undo edits usualy ends in an opposite effect of what was desired. Why not edit rather than blank out an entire section? Cite your sources and join the conversation. CApitol3 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what he meant was "disgusting" in an academic way - as in dishonest, disreputable, disingenuous, pop-history "research." Given that history only records three instances of JB's contemporaries suggesting a homosexual relationship, and that includes politically inspired mud-slinging and no direct evidence from either individual, I'd say that this subject should be relegated to "pop-culture" at best. Rklawton 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote

To resolve the sexuality debate, I am proposing a vote, as on the similar controversy on the Lincoln page. I would be inclined compromise by including certain details, but those details are just more speculation and are too specific for a biographical article. NP

All in favor of the first account vote here:

NP

All in favor of the second account "Buchanan's sexuality has been the subject of academic debate"(plus or minus the special mention of Loewen), vote here:

152.71.20.183 10:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Article on Buchanan's Sexuality?

Maybe it would make more sense if a whole new article was done on the controversy. Something like Buchanan Sexuality Controversy or something similar. That way, all of the various theories and ideas could be heard out in one article.Mr. Blank 12:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless the "controversy" can be sourced reliably, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.K. Scott Bailey 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well none of us are going to find the man in flagrant. There are publications, newsweeklies, books, and possibly still info on C-SPAN's website. The premise is possible or potential and mention of it, or discussion of it is not an indiciation of defamation. If we're keeping score here, he's not exactly what many would call a sterling president, I don't think gay folks are really eager to "claim" him as one of their own. Moreso, the discussion is to better know the man, and his pal/partner. CApitol3 19:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article is not the place for unscholarly speculation. Period.K. Scott Bailey 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Served as Minister to Russia from 1832 to 1834.

I'm trying to translate this article into Spanish. But, does minister hear mean "ambassador"? If not, it makes non sense. Thanks --Javier Carro 13:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure. I think back then they had ministers who handled major countries, instead of an ambassador for every single one. For your translation, ambassador might be most suitable. --Golbez 13:17, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. After searching for a lot of dictionaries, I found one where they explained that minister is a lower title than ambassador, but I am not sure the equivalent in Spanish, so I think I will translate it as "diplomático" which is more general. --Javier Carro 08:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wheatland?

Is there any danger of confusing a music festival with a dead president's estate? That line seems superfluous to me. JeremyToday 18:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed gay back to bachelor since no one has given any resources on support for 'gay' and 'bachelor' is true either way.

Niece/Spouse

The template should be changed, listing his niece Harriet Lane as his wife even though she acted as First Lady is strange. (Alphaboi867 07:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

Involvement with 2nd Bank of US?

The Second Bank of the United States article says that Buchanon was once a manger of the Baltmore branch of that bank, and was a "partner in crime" in bad banking practices. No mention of that here. One of these articles probably needs updating. 68.49.236.45 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC) -gsu

Board of Trustees ?

I don't know what date is intended to be hyperlinked. Obviously it is not 2008. "In 2008]], Buchanan was named president of the Board of Trustees of Franklin and Marshall College"Johnor 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Utah War?

I noticed there was no mention of the Utah War in this article. Should such a section be added?

NPOV

How do you nominate an article to have its neutrality checked?

You place the template {{NPOV}} in the top of the page, or the template {{NPOV-section}} within a disputed section. studerby 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific assertion or section of the article you believe is problematic? Newyorkbrad 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your oppinion about merging

Do you think that merging the article Sexuality_of_James_Buchanan and the appropriate section in this article is a good idea? The separate article isn't much longer than the section in this article.

I went ahead and merged it.

Impeachment

I put a paragraph on the 1860 Covode committee hearings. With the Democrats about to take Congress tomarrow, it's very important to study this important precendent.

Term of vice presidency

In one section of the article it states:

After his fiancée’s death, Buchanan vowed he would never marry. For many years in Washington, D.C., prior to his Presidency, James Buchanan lived with William R. King, who was later Vice President under Franklin Pierce for 15 years [3].

The 15 years has to be an error, doesn't it? According to the information on King, he died shortly after taking office. Just trying to be helpful. What a fantastic site! MMD.

It's been changed - what is meant was that Buchanan lived with King for 15 years, not that King was Vice President for 15 years (no one has ever been Vice President more than 8 years). Newyorkbrad 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Descended from kings?

I never knew that. This means I am also directly descended from James I of Scotland (I'm his 7th cousin!).
Stop the war!!! Stop the madness!!! 20:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan's sexual orientation

Do you not understand that including such a section, where nothing more than rumors are reported--completely unsourced by any reliable source--is against all that Wikipedia stands for? If you continue to reinsert unsourced rumors into the article, I will continue to remove them. Either find reliably sourced material that references Buchanan's supposed homosexuality, or stop inserting them. And an opinion piece from Salon.com does NOT count as a reliable source.K. Scott Bailey 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Rklawton 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A hundred and fifty years from now, maybe only homosexual people will edit online encyclopedias (who knows why... it's in the future). By implication, would that then mean that all of Wikipedia's editors today might be reasonably suspected of homosexuality? That's the problem we have when evaluating behavior 150 years ago by today's standards. I agree that if we include a section on Buchanan's sexual orientation, it should be based entirely on scholarly work(s), and Salon.com doesn't quality. Rklawton 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many rules Wikipedia has for keeping editors from violating NPOV by unilaterally carving out what they don't want to hear, they can't close up all the loopholes. As a result, rather a few editors seem to choose to judge the reliability of a source by whether it says what they don't want to hear. I've seen an editor claim that the Washington Post (the paper that broke the story of Watergate) was a "tabloid", when the Post published something he didn't want to hear. I haven't yet seen someone try to claim that the New York Times is a "gossip rag" just so that they can keep an issue from being presented to the reader for the reader to make their minds, but maybe I'm about to.

Scott misdescribes the section in question: he says it is "nothing more than rumors", when in fact there is plenty of information about Buchanan's personal life that is a matter of public record -- his engagement to Ann Coleman and her suicide, his taking of an adopted relative of First Lady. Did Scott make any attempt to separate the claims he regarded as extraordinary from those that are public record? I see none. Does Scott really believe that suppressing all discussion of an issue that any reasonable research would indicate is widespread, at the cost of removing perfectly good information from the article, is what "Wikipedia stands for"? Well, that's news to us all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a read through the debate here, and I come away wondering: if there were indeed rumours about Buchanan's sexuality, either then or now, then why not include that information? It would be, after all, a fact that the rumours existed, whether they were true or not - certainly care would have to be taken to ensure that it's clear they were only rumours. That said, there was no such thing as sexual orientation in those days, so I think one should be careful labeling him as "gay" or "a homosexual" here in this article - that's a speculatively applied, rigid definitive from a modern context (and besides, if true, it seems he'd more be bisexual by our standards). If someone has said he was gay, then it should be stated "Mr. Bobbles (or whomever) has said James Buchanan was gay." As well, certifiable sources need to be found for some of the claims, and/or some of the claims need to be referenced in the proper format. --G2bambino 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem including it. Find sources that comply with WP:RS that mention these speculations (not the Kitty Kelly-esque, Lies Across America or a Salon opinion piece), and I'll leave them in. Otherwise, such poorly-sourced speculation will be removed. Weasel words that imply the speculation (such as calling King his "companion" instead of the less-weasely and more accurate "friend") will also be removed.K. Scott Bailey 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any need to be so abbrasive? I didn't notice the friend vs. companion issue, and I'm not sure it really matters; calling someone a companion does't automatically denote any intimate relationship. Anyway, friend seems fine. As for sources: if Lies Across America is a published book, then it's contents are a source. Also, the Salon article isn't an opinion piece, but more a review of some guy's book; the only reference to Buchanan at the end talks about what the press at the time said about the man. Of course it's all gossipy rumours, but the point is that they were, and still are, out there - shouldn't a biographical article include the rumours that have circulated about a person? I think the paragraph in question makes clear that these claims are only theories and not fact. --G2bambino 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's being abrasive? I said very clearly, if a reliable source can be found, I am not against including the speculation. I view books like Lies in the same light as Kitty Kelly's trash about the Bush family. It's simply not a reliable source. It's gossip and rumor with no basis in reality. And it has no place in an encyclopedic article. If you look at the other presidential pages (and the majority of THIS page) they are sourced to scholarly, or semi-scholarly, works. I have looked for sources for this speculation, and the best I could find was one line in Brittanica that refers to the speculation almost in passing. I have other concerns with the "Personal Relationships" section, as it seems to have been lifted almost verbatim from a source I remember reading. I have yet to find the time to identify the source, but I am investigating it.K. Scott Bailey 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether you deem a book to be trash is only a matter of your POV; others may well see Lies Across America and Kitty Kelly's stuff as good quality work. Further, the sources needed to verify there were rumours about Buchanan don't need to be political-science or historical texts; the contents of newspapers, essays and articles in journals will verify whether there were rumours or not; and, remember, we're not saying here that the rumours were true, just that they did and/or do exist. That said, if someone did want to go into more detail about the subject, they could make the effort to pull out the actual press publications from the time. I don't know about any plagirism; the section is my own work based on the contents of the cited articles. I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be identical to someone else's words. --G2bambino 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

With your comments about Kitty Kelly's "work", I am left with but two options: (1) Either you have never read said work, or (2) You have an ax to grind. I am no Bush family fan, but KK is a hack. Nothing more, nothing less. It explains a lot that you would consider it qualified as a source under WP:RS. Please do not continue inserting the information sourced unreliably until and unless you find some reliable sources. I will continue to remove it.K. Scott Bailey 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I've no particular axe to grind, though I am highly suspect of your adamant desire to sanitise articles about US presidents. Patriotism is a good thing, however, erasing all reference to there having been rumours about someone - only rumours! - seems a little over-the-top. You have claimed, for some time now it seems, that the sources provided do not meet WP:RS, as though you are the sole expert and judge on these matters. Well, honestly, I've only seen limited information about Lies Across America, and can't compare it to anything by Kitty Kelly, who's name I've never heard before. But, I don't think it really matters. The book, and the Salon article, are both clearly secondary sources written by either a journalist or other researcher - which is allowed as per WP:RS. Now, WP:RS says these authors should be "reliable" - but what does that mean, exactly? All WP:RS specifies is that they can't be the opinions of other Wikipedians (which would be original research). If one has a book sold to and produced by a publisher with its own ISBN, and someone else has an interview with another author and a review of the author's work published in a regular periodical, then why shouldn't they be considered reliable authors under WP:RS? Again, I'm not saying the claims in the publications have to be proven as true or false, we should simply use these sources to support the assertion that something was said about Buchanan, both during his life and after. Besides, do you honestly believe the author of the Salon piece would completely fabricate some story about Andrew Jackson calling William King "Miss Nancy" and the press circulating rumours about King and Buchanan? --G2bambino 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether Buchanan was gay or not. Pop history is not a reliable source. Neither is a Salon article. Especially without further primary sourcing from proper reliable sources. If you find such information, I have no problem with inserting it in the article. You can be "highly suspect" all you want, it doesn't change my motives. My only interest is in improving presidential articles. As an example, there are reliable sources that at least hint of rumors about Lincoln's sexuality. You'll notice I haven't touched that article in those regards. So your accusations against good faith on my part are clearly unfounded. As far as "rumors" go, they don't have a place in an encyclopedic article. We're not working on pop history here, we're working on an encyclopedic article. The sooner you realize that, the better the article will be.K. Scott Bailey 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Scott, we also have reliable sources that do more than hint of rumors about Buchanan's sexuality, they come right out and call him "the other president sometimes thought to have been gay". However, your questionable actions, such as violating 3RR and falsely claiming that it doesn't apply in this situation when this is in fact exactly the sort of situation it is for, doesn't lead to a lot of confidence that you would actually accept any source provided as a reliable source instead of, oh, changing your standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I request that you retract the above statement, regarding my supposedly changing my standards at a future date. My standards are what they are. I again refer you to the Abraham Lincoln article. There are actually some decent sources for the speculation regarding Lincoln. I have seen no similar sourcing for the Buchanan rumors. If you're claiming that pop history and Salon.com are "reliable sources", I would ask tht you provide evidence that they are viewed as such by scholars. Until then, I would ask that you refrain from accusing me of things you could never know, and doing so in clear violation of the Wikipedia guidelines that ask us to assume good faith.K. Scott Bailey 04:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You say "my standards are what they are" but the question is whether your standards are Wikipedia's standards, or whether you are applying a standard that is far more restrictive than WP:RS. You must know, certainly, that you would not be allowed to say "I personally know the allegations about Buchanan's sexuality to be untrue and therefore because I personally know that to be the case I will remove anything about it from the article violating 3RR in the process." Yet you seem to think it is acceptable to say "I personally know that every source thus presented as a source for the fact that there were contemporary allegations and current allegations about Buchanan's sexuality is an unreliable source and therefore because I personally know that to be the case I will remove anything about it from the article violating 3RR in the process." You claim that Loewen's book is merely "pop history"; that's not a description often applied to a volume written by a professor of history who has previously won the American Book Award for his historical writings. I doubt you'd be able to find a reliable source to support your contention that Loewen is so inaccurate that nothing he says can be trusted, not even the existence of rumors. And yet your wholesale deletions of any reference to any speculation at any time about Buchanan's sexuality cannot be justified any other way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note - the American Book Award is for pop writing - not academic writing. Rklawton 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone--whether noted professor or simple hack--can write pop history. It is YOUR burden to show how inclusion of information sourced only to volumes such as "Lies" and a Salon.com article actually makes the article James Buchanan better.K. Scott Bailey 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I would ask that when referring to me, you use my Wikipedia username. My friends call me "Kevin." You are not my friend--at least as yet. As such, I ask that when you refer to me, and address me directly that you use my username. Thanks. (And BTW, very few people other than my grandmothers call me "Scott.")K. Scott Bailey 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

K.Scott, perhaps what we need you to do is explain to us why it is you are to be considered the definitive and unchallenged authority on what is a reliable source and what is not. I may well be missing something, but it seems to me that the two sources you insist are not good enough to base any Wikipedia content on actually conform to the WP:RS you keep refering to; there is no requirement what-so-ever that secondary sources be accompanied by primary ones. Aside from repeating yourself again, can you illustrate exactly why it is we must accept your command that these sources do not meet the WP:RS requirements? Further, I have to point out that your aggressive editing, and subsequent 3RR violations, threats of further direct reverts, and escalation, as well as your brusque manner, overshadow any gains you may have made by allowing mentions of speculations about Abraham Lincoln elsewhere. --G2bambino 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me at all whether or not you find me "brusque." All that matters to me is what's best for the presidential articles I follow, which include all pre-JFK. Also, you should know that the burden of proof falls on those arguing for inclusion. Additionally, I should point out, I don't find speculative pop history--or Salon.com, for that matter--reliable, even as a secondary source. If I implied--or mistakenly stated--otherwise, it was my mistake. Please demonstrate where Brittanica or another noted encyclopedia--or any scholars of note--rely on pop history or Salon.com as primary or secondary sources for research on scholarly and encyclopedic articles. Until you've done so, material so sourced should be removed.K. Scott Bailey 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it seems you've not read any of my words again. I have already presented my reasoning for why the sources conform to WP:RS; however, I shall repeat myself for your convenience: each is a secondary source written by a journalist or other researcher; one is produced by a publishing house, while the other is published in a regular journal; neither is self-published, neither is without editorial oversight, neither is published by a fringe or extremist group. Now the burden of proof on you, sir, to convince us of why we are wrong; but two things first: 1) There's been no misunderstanding about your personal opinions on Salon or Lies Across America, however you'll have to put aside your POV and argue rationally and only about how these sources don't meet WP:RS. 2) Britannica and other conventional encyclopaedias are exactly what Wikipedia is not, therefore your requests for comparison are moot. --G2bambino 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AH YES, the Historical Revisionist are a busy bunch[[2]]. Innuendos, rumors, & gossip are their tools. For more of their questionable research & accusations see "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" [[3]] Tinosa 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The short of it is this. This is an article working its way toward featured article status. It includes information and references from well respected academician/historians. Adding new information based on anything less is simply not appropriate - whatever the subject. Rklawton 05:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well--and succinctly--put, Rklawton. It's difficult to see how the proposed additions would help the Buchanan article on its way to FA status.K. Scott Bailey 16:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If the sources can be proven to be unreliable and against WP:RS, then yes, the information herein based on them should not be included. However, it seems that so far editorial bullying has trumped rational explanation - as I've seen the former, and am still waiting for the latter. --G2bambino 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been "rationally explained" to you that pop history and salon.com articles do not benefit the overall quality of the article. Please read the very succinct explanation offered by User:Rklawton above. It's your burden to explain why the article would benefit from material sourced only to a book of pop history and a Salon.com article. You have not yet done so.K. Scott Bailey 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your accusation of "editorial bullying" is against WP:AGF. A retraction of this accusation is necessary.K. Scott Bailey 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but it has not been rationally explained why the two sources do not meet WP:RS - all you've done is repeat, over and over, that Lies Across America is "pop history" and Salon is... well, apparently just not up to your standards. If you cannot give a definitive argument as to how these two sources violate WP:RS (and, if I might suggest, actually using some of the points contained therein would be an improvement), then you have no reason beyond your own personal biases for not using the two pieces. For my part, I'll even go so far as to shed some further light on the works in question: Lies Across America is, as has already been pointed out, written by a professional author, historian and professor, and is considered reliable enough to be included as a resource in the US Library of Congress and 60 public library catalogues across the United States. As for Salon, it's own Wiki entry seems to verify that it's a regularly published, edited journal that focuses on American politics, as well as reviews and articles about music, books, and films. Again, both meet WP:RS standards. These sources provide information that contributes to the Wikipedia reader's overall view of John Buchanan - that was an easy one to answer. As for the accusation of bullying, no retraction is necessary, or granted. Your edit history and threats are evidence enough that the charge is not completely unfounded. --G2bambino 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Violating WP:AGF doesn't matter to you, then? I don't engage in "editorial bullying." My edits are only aimed at improvement of a given article. You are required to assume this according to WP:AGF. As such, your refusal to remove your baseless accusations stands in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. This is noted. And you again have failed to understand that the burden of proof is not on me, but on you. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Professors can--and do--write pop history all the time. Show me how inclusion of such poorly-sourced material improves the article. The rest of the article--as pointed out by User:Rklawton--references far more reliable sources. Until you have shown how the addition of such poorly sourced information improves the article, the information remains out.K. Scott Bailey 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So, by evading the request, yet again, your're saying you can't prove how Lies Across America and Salon are not allowed to be used as sources as per WP:RS? (BTW - I didn't say your motive wansn't to improve articles, my comment was directed towards the pompous, confrontational and pushy way you go about it.) --G2bambino 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am currently sitting at the library reading Lies Across America, as well as two other biographies of Buchanan. The references in Lies to his purported homosexuality cite an article in a gay advocate magazine, as well as Loewen's own OPINION that the "James Buchanan's house" is in denial over the purported fact of his homosexuality. One telling line that completely disqualifies Lies according to both WP:RS and WP:NPOV follows: "It may be more important to understand what the historical landscape gets wrong than what it gets right." Prof. Loewen has a clear agenda to prove everything we think we know about history wrong. See his book, Lies My Teacher Told Me. He is more concerned with that agenda than with fairness and accuracy in reporting.

Contrast his style to that of Jean H. Baker, who writes of the King relationship in James Buchanan, which is part of the "American Presidents" series, from Time Life Books (copyright, 2004).

While the existing correspondence between King and Buchanan conveys the affection of a special friendship--in one Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his roommate--so do the letters of many notably heterosexual men. Absent the discovery of new material, no one will ever know whether Buchanan and King (the only man to whom his name has ever been erotically connected) had sexual relations.

All of the encyclopedic articles I have been able to find on Buchanan mention the rumors not once (World Book and Brittanica). Perhaps that is because an encyclopedic article is not the place to speculate about rumors. And perhaps it is also because this "controversy" is almost wholly of the invention of current revisionists like Loewen. Buchanan was, for his time, a rather effeminate, asexual man (per Baker). This, combined with insulting comments ("Aunt Nancy", et al) from a couple of his rivals is hardly enough to warrant inclusion of speculations on his sexuality in an encyclopedic article. If you wish to compose an essay on the subject, you're free to do so. But expounding on the speculations of Prof. Loewen is hardly appropriate in an encyclopedic article.K. Scott Bailey 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, let me repeat, I care not one whit what you think of me personally. You may find me "pompous", "confrontational", and/or "pushy." That doesn't matter to me at all. What matters to me is improving the article. The sooner you can retreat from your personal attacks on me and focus on that (improving the article) the better off we ALL will be.K. Scott Bailey 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for taking the time to locate that detail. However, though Lowen's research may draw him to a different conclusion than Baker's (and Baker's words would definitely make a good addition to the article here), because his is different does not mean it's invalid; WP:RS makes no mention of barring opposite views. In fact, his opposing stance adds to the complexity of this biographic article. Further, we also strive for balance at Wikipedia, not merely sanitised or uncontroversial, one-sided content; WP:NPOV doesn't refer to the POV of a source's author, but to the POV to the Wikipedia editor. Nobody has yet sought to speculate on Buchanan's sexuality here, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. All that's desired is to include the points that there are those who have speculated (for whatever reason), and that a certain personal relationship of his attracted derisive comments and rumours in the contemporary press. Hence, something along these lines could be stated in the article:

In a modern context, historian and professor James Loewen, in his book Lies Across America (ISBN 0-648-87067-3), expressed his belief that Buchanan engaged in homosexual relations. However, Jean H. Baker, in the book James Buchanan, said: "While the existing correspondence between King and Buchanan conveys the affection of a special friendship... so do the letters of many notably heterosexual men. Absent the discovery of new material, no one will ever know whether Buchanan and King (the only man to whom his name has ever been erotically connected) had sexual relations."

See, the Baker quote you found works perfectly to provide an NPOV balance to the article, while still acknowledging that there has been speculation about Buchanan's relationships (and obviously there've been enough to prompt Baker to at least briefly address the topic). --G2bambino 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Isn't this interesting. You know, I was going to save this until Kscottbailey (talk · contribs) had gone into a bit more detail on what he would accept as a reliable source. But that's changed, now. Let me quote in full, with certain portions emphasized:

So intimate was he [Buchanan] with the handsome Alabama senator [King], who was known as a dandy in his home state and an "Aunt Fancy" in Washington, that one congressman referred to the two men as "Buchanan & his wife" in a reference to their bachelor status, which also hinted at their homosexuality.

On the basis of slender evidence, mostly the circumstances of his bachelorhood and three asides by contemporaries about his effeminacy, Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president. Referring to his femininity, Andrew Jackson once called him an "Aunt Nancy." In an age when women could not vote, such a charge held political as well as sexual implications. There is also evidence that Buchanan's niece Harriet Lane and King's niece Catherine Ellis destroyed their uncles' letters to each other when Buchanan became president. While the existing correspondence between King and Buchanan conveys the affection of a special friendship -- in one Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his roommate -- so do the letters of many notably heterosexual nineteenth-century men. Absent the discover of new material, no one will ever know whether Buchanan and King (the only man to whom his name was ever erotically connected) had sexual relations.

The source for that? James Buchanan, by Jean H. Baker, Henry Holt and Company, copyright 2004, pages 25-26. The bold portions, of course, are those that contain exactly the material that Kscottbailey (talk · contribs) has removed over and over and over as supposedly not being attributable to any reliable source. The italicized portion are, of course, the only two sentences out of that entire discussion of Buchanan's sexual orientation that Kscottbailey (talk · contribs) thought it worth mentioning. How curious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the entirety of the section that she wrote about King, her conclusions were similar to mine. And such speculation by his political enemies doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Check Brittanica and World Book. It just does NOT belong in an encyclopedic article, no matter how much you might want to see it there. There's no evidence that he was homosexual, and putting speculation about it into an encyclopedic article is irresponsible.K. Scott Bailey 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"If you read the entirety of the section that she wrote about King, her conclusions were similar to mine." Exactly. You are arguing "the source that I have chosen to regard as reliable comes to the same conclusion that I do regarding the evidence and therefore the article should reflect that conclusion, not the conflicting views that I feel have been sufficiently discounted." And that, of course, is not how Wikipedia works, because Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." The point of view that Buchanan may have been homosexual is indeed a significant point of view, significant enough to be published not just in your favored source but in the New York Times and the National Review. Your argument that because these are the conclusions Jean H. Baker draws, we should surpress any mention of any evidence from which anyone might draw a different conclusion, flies squarely in the face of NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm curious as to how you all reconcile the fact that none of the two major encyclopedias (World Book and Brittanica) give even a passing mention to the rumors around his friendship with King? Or have we forgotten that we're not writing an essay or a term paper about Buchanan, but an ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE. There's a LARGE difference.K. Scott Bailey 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, here's my personal opinion: I think it's quite possible there was some type of more intimate relationship between Buchanan and King. However, my personal opinion doesn't matter, and there's no EVIDENCE of this (other than speculation and innuendo by hostile contemporaries), and as such the claim doesn't belong in this article.K. Scott Bailey 03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Britannica are not the same thing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort governed by its own regulations and policies, as I know you are aware. Antaeus has correctly drawn your attention to some pertinent Wikipedia guidelines that state conflicting views on a subject should be presented fairly. You state conflicting views can't be inserted here because there's no evidence to support one side of the argument; but the mission here isn't to prove which of the views is correct - we can't, after all, as there's no evidence at all to undoubtedly support the claim the two men didn't have sex! The issue is presenting two contrary views - not our own, but those of others - about the man who is the subject of this article. I think you know full well that the evidence laid before you here, even out of a source that met your stringent standards of reliability, affirms without a doubt that there were circulated rumours and personal jibes centering on Buchanan's relationship with King. That you continue to turn a blind eye to what is existent in front of you clearly demonstrates that your intent here is to censor any information about Buchanan's life that you find personally offensive. --G2bambino 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So, if I make up something about X-dead person (say, Andy Rooney--oh, he's still alive, sorry!), and I write a book about my speculation--or I include it in a book about related topics, as Loewen did--does it belong in a Wikipedia article, since it can be sourced to my book? Say that I claim that John Lennon had an illicit affair with his best friend as a teenager, and I cite the fact that some kids that didn't like him called him "gay" or some such thing. Does that then belong in Lennon's Wiki, just because I speculated on it in a book? That's akin to what Loewen is doing.

Additionally, you make the absurd statement that "there's no evidence at all to undoubtedly support the claim the two men didn't have sex." That's ludicrous on the face of it. I can't PROVE that I didn't have sex with my best friend when I was a teenager, but I didn't. There's no DOCUMENTATION that I did not do so. However, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me to prove that I didn't, but on the person claiming that I did. If I were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about me after I die, I would hope that the people composing it would seek evidence--hard evidence, not speculation from, say, people whom I didn't get along with in high school--that I had actually done that before including it in my article. There wouldn't be a huge problem if I had, and there were some evidence--perhaps some letters, e-mails, etc. that confirmed (not implied, but confirmed) such--with including it, but absent that, I would hope people wouldn't include speculation from say homophobes who didn't like me and called me "gay" or whatever as "evidence". It's the same for Buchanan. Absent hard evidence--which doesn't seem to exist--these speculations do not belong in an encyclopedic article about him. The only people who seem to have speculated about his preferences were those who didn't much care for him. That simply doesn't pass the smell test for inclusion, as indicated by the tone taken by Baker in her analysis of the matter. We're not writing a full-length book here--as was Baker--but rather a concise article. That is why I argue for exclusion of material that is nothing more than speculation on the part of some of his contemporaries who didn't care for him.

Finally, I will ask you one last time to stop violating WP:AGF. You claim that, "your intent here is to censor any information about Buchanan's life that you find personally offensive." That is simply not true, as I have stated numerous times. I don't find homosexuality "personally offensive." I have friends and relatives who are gay. I have even stated what my OWN personal opinion is on the matter regarding Buchanan, which puts the lie directly to what you claim in your offensive accusations against good faith on my part. I ask once more that you stop violating WP:AGF.K. Scott Bailey 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't pass whose test? Frankly, it seems nobody's but yours. You've been asked to verify why the sources are not up to WP:RS, and you couldn't. Now you're trying to argue that the sources' sources aren't up to... well, really, just what you deem is proper and what is not, all while simultaneously saying it's factual that the rumours existed, but they shouldn't be mentioned here for the sake of abbreviation. Well, if you acknowledge now that the speculations and comments were indeed existant and public, but want to keep this article concise, then perhaps you'd like to reinstate the article that dealt solely with Buchanan's sexuality? After all, though there are loose guidelines that deal with the length of articles, there is no limit what-so-ever to the amount of information Wikipidia can contain. --G2bambino 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't pass the test of historical accuracy. Including rumors and speculations FROM HIS ENEMIES is irresponsible. You dealt with not one single aspect of my examples I proposed. Should random speculation from a person's enemies be included in someone's article? Because that's the only "evidence" present regarding Buchanan's sexuality. Common sense would seem to dictate that information gleaned only from the speculations of the enemies of a person not be included in the encyclopedia article about that person. Again, we're not writing a book, but an article. If you want to include such speculations, perhaps you should start an article titled something like "Speculations on the Sexuality of Historical Figures" or some such thing. In it, one could have short summaries of all of the historical figures that are either known to be gay or bisexual, or that are suspected of such, along with supporting evidence. Actually, that would be quite an interesting article, and I would support the creation of it. Finally, you also continue to refuse to withdraw your accusations against good faith that you have made toward me. Please withdraw these accusations.K. Scott Bailey 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem horribly confused by this whole affair, still going on as though I'm trying to prove that Buchanan was gay using some rumours that were spread about him as evidence. That is not the case, nor has it ever been the case. Succinctly, the point of all this is: it is a supported fact that Buchanan lived with King; it is a supported fact that the press published rumours about the Buchanan/King relationship; it is a supported fact that Andrew Jackson called Buchanan an "Aunt Fancy"; it is a supported fact that a congressman once referred to the two men as "Buchanan & his wife." All of these facts relate specifically to James Buchanan, and even more specifically to one of his personal relationships; thus, there is absolutely zero reason to preclude them from any articles on James Buchanan. Further, there isn't enough volume to flesh out a separate article; thus, there is absolutely zero reason to preclude them from this article.

Frankly, to me, your continuing illogical and cyclical arguments with the motive of banning certain information from an article doesn't give me any reason to assume good faith on your part. You aren't even willing to entertain the thought of composing a well cited, NPOV section on the rumours about Buchanan's relationship with King. It's your way or no way. Where's the good faith in that? --G2bambino 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not confused in the least. I am not opposed to having a NPOV section in the article that references King as far as what the actual facts in evidence allow us to know: they were great friends, who were also roommates for 15 years. That's all we know for certain. And you continually refuse to address my examples of including rumor and innuendo about a subject based only upon the speculations of a subject's enemies. Such speculation--even if it was picked up on by yellow journalists of the time--is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. We should stick to the facts in evidence alone.K. Scott Bailey 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't have to give you a "reason" to Assume Good Faith. It's a requirement of Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps you should read up on it at WP:AGF, and then desist on your assumptions of bad faith on my part.K. Scott Bailey 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here should avoid speculating about the motives of other editors. Focus on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback · † · 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He's been speculating in bad faith about my motives for practically the entire discussion. I've asked him to stop, and to withdraw such speculation, but he has explicitly refused to do so.K. Scott Bailey 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, you also accused other editors of having "an axe to grind". Let's all just focus on the article, not on each other. -Will Beback · † · 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not. I said that after hearing him say that Kitty Kelly's nonsense could potential qualify as a reliable source, I was left with two options. One of them was having an axe to grind. The other was that he/she had never read KK's work. When he pointed out it was the latter, I assumed (in good faith) that it was true. And why do you point out the one instance where I could have PERHAPS violated WP:AGF, when the other user has violated it repeatedly, and after several requests to stop doing so and retract the statements? I have been working on an assumption of good faith for nearly--if not the whole--time. The other editor has attacked my motives, both by implication and explicitly. I hardly think the two sets of behavior (mine and his/her) is equivalent in any way, as implied by your last post.K. Scott Bailey 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"I am not opposed to having a NPOV section in the article that references King as far as what the actual facts in evidence allow us to know: they were great friends, who were also roommates for 15 years. That's all we know for certain."

But, that's not all we know for certain. We also know for certain that their relationship spawned rumours about them. So, let's get started writing an NPOV section about Buchanan and King that includes the point that their relationship was the focus of some derision and innuendo - from some rather notable people, no less. --G2bambino 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Derision and innuendo" from people who did not like Buchanan is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. One exception would be (potentially) if it were made VERY clear that those who were actually CLOSE to the two men deny that there was ever anything more than a friendship, and that the people making fun of the two (for what else can calling them names like "Aunt Fancy" be understood as?) were no fans of either. Any NPOV "reporting" of rumors and innuendo with regards to the Buchanan/King friendship should include these caveats, and should in no way imply (as does Loewen) that Buchanan was a homosexual. (As an aside, have you read the section in Lies that deals with Buchanan? It is not neutral at all in its POV. Anything reported in this article should be sourced to other books/resources.) K. Scott Bailey 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It was appropriate for inclusion in Baker's book - she put that info in to give readers a clearer picture of Buchanan's life. Of course, as she does, both sides of the view have to be presented, and circumstances explained. In the end, the section should imply absolutely nothing; it should simply present the facts. However, that said, it is a fact that Lowen believes Buchanan at least had homosexual relations. Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, his view of the subject of this article should be included. --G2bambino 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On that point there will be no compromise from me. Loewen has no proof at all of his assertion. None. It will not--as long as I'm watching this article--be cited as a reference for James Buchanan. There are areas to compromise on in this debate. That is not one. Loewen states flatly, "[James Buchanan] was a homosexual." This is not only unproveable, but the facts at hand would lead us to believe it is false. Including the mocking taunts of Buchanan's rivals, as referenced in REAL sources like Baker's book, might be acceptable, with the caveats listed above. Including blanket assertions by pop "historians" that are rooted in his opinion, and not in fact, is NOT acceptable.K. Scott Bailey 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether his assertion is provable or not, what is provable is that he said it. Though he may well have his facts wrong, or right, he's no crackpot radical. He's a published historian and professor; ergo, his work qualifies as a reliable source under WP:RS. --G2bambino 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. "It doesn't matter whether his assertion is provable or not." That's an interesting perspective on WP:RS. It's wrong, but interesting nonetheless. Simply because someone who teaches at a college writes something in a book doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Especially when the facts at hand completely disqualify his opinion from inclusion in the article. I will compromise with you on inclusion of the speculation of his peers. I will NOT compromise with you on including the assertion of demonstrably false information, simply because it was included in a book by a contemporary pop history author. I have taken a step to the middle. It's now your turn to do the same. Inclusion of Loewen's unfounded assertion is a deal-breaker for me.K. Scott Bailey 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts only disqualify his theory from your perspective. Precluding it because you think it presents an incorrect view is a violation of WP:NPOV. And, again, if his book doesn't meet WP:RS, then please explain exactly why. By my interpretation of the guideline, which I've outlined in detail above, the book does qualify as a reliable secondary source. I could say I don't care whether his opinion is included or not - though, I obviously support the notion of including opposing viewpoints for the sake of NPOV - however, I'm sure that if the article is unblocked and a section on Buchanan's relationship with King and its consequenses is composed, then someone else (notably Antaeus) will put it in for the same reasons I'm presenting here. In fact, it was your removal of the Lowen source that started this whole mess; if that isn't resolved then I fear this issue never will be. --G2bambino 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. No other historian that I could find--and I spent a few hours at the library looking--draws anything close to a similar conclusion. Other encyclopedia articles don't mention ANYTHING about the supposed "controversy." Other historians treat the charges with well-deserved dismissiveness. It's not my OPINION that his theory doesn't comport with the facts, it's simple reality. Again, I have compromised. You still refuse to do so. It's apparent that we are coming close to an impasse. You will never convince me that simple speculation by the author of a pop history book belongs in an encyclopedic article. If you can't compromise on at least this point, then our discussion is over.K. Scott Bailey 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think is fair to say that rumors of his sexuality are fair-game. I know the history channel did a piece on it. As long as it is not sensational, you can say that his sexuality is in dispute.. ForrestLane42 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I'm really not trying to be contrary, I'm just waiting for you to cite for me one part of WP:RS that would deem Lowen's book inadmissable as a source for Wikipedia. --G2bambino 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:REDFLAG for my reasoning. It sums it up quite well. If you want me to quote directly from the appropriate sections of WP:RS, of which WP:REDFLAG is a sub-section, I will do so.K. Scott Bailey 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

I'd mean to get involved in this dispute, but there seems to be a debate over rumors. Yet this text is in the article with no sources:

• Conflicting rumors abounded, opining that he was marrying for her money as he came from a less affluent family, or that he was involved with other women. Buchanan, for his part, never pubicly spoke of his motives or feelings, however, letters from Ann revealed she was paying heed to the rumours, and after Buchanan paid a visit to the wife of a friend, Ann broke off the engagement. Ann soon after died, supposedly from an overdose of laudanum. The records of Dr. Chapman, who looked after Ann in her final hours, and who said just after her passing that this was "the first instance he ever knew of hysteria producing death." The doctor theorised that the woman's demise was caused by an overdose of laudanum.

I'm not sure how these (unsourced) rumors and speculations are different from the rumors and speculations about Buchanan and King. -Will Beback · † · 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there is no difference. As for a source, though, there was one: Klein, Philip Schriver; American Heritage Magazine: The Lost Love of a Bachelor President; December, 1955; Vol. 7, Issue 1 However, KScott decided it wasn't up to his standards for inclusion. Hopefully it can be reinserted soon. --G2bambino 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. That material should not be part of the article either, unless and until it can be sourced well. As an aside, I would ask that you warn the above user about violating WP:AGF.K. Scott Bailey 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if that source was deleted by me, it was not intentional. The only "sources" I removed on purpose were Lies Across America and the Salon.com opinion piece.K. Scott Bailey 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, after giving this a few days' thought, I'll put forward a proposal. I do continue to support the inclusion of Lowen's observation; doing so does not give undue credibility to a fringe theory, and adds to the complexity of the article. This is as per WP:FRINGE.

For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with William Rufus King, who was later Vice President under Franklin Pierce, though King died four years before Buchanan became President. This situation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The term "Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men in the nineteenth century.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship. While the nieces of the two men destroyed their uncles' correspondence, eradicating evidence of what relationship the two had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship"; Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time. Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led to modern speculation on Buchanan's sexuality - in particular, authors such as Paul Boller, in Not So!, and James Loewen, in Lies Across America - and his being dubbed "American's first homosexual president," no conclusive evidence exists to support whether or not King and Buchanan engaged in sexual relations. [Note: references have been removed to avoid conflict with paragraph at Bambino's proposal below.] --G2bambino 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments? --G2bambino 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever get a chance to check out WP:REDFLAG? If so, you'll understand why I still feel that including pop history that does nothing more than speculate, and Salon.com articles is out of bounds.K. Scott Bailey 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to cooperate then we'll have to take this a step further. I'll put in an RfC. --G2bambino 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, If I'm not simply going to aquiesce to your view of the matter, right? As you apparently refuse to review WP:REDFLAG, what possible motivation do I have to come over to your side of the fence regarding this matter? I especially enjoy how you wield the RfC like a bat with "if you're not going to cooperate then we'll have to take this a step further." Tastefully done.K. Scott Bailey 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; as tasteful as "If you revert once more, we'll move up a level." At least I gave the issue more of a chance to be debated out to a reasonable solution before wielding my "bat" (and I find it very interesting that you feel bringing others in to add to the discussion is an attack of some sort). You, however, refuse to cooperate - and my saying so does not mean I expect you to automatically aquiesce to my "view"; rather, I mean that you won't even put forward a proposal. Essentially, what your actions communicate is: "I could care less what the section says as long as it doesn't say what I don't want it to." As I said earlier: your way or no way. --G2bambino 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that I have no problem including a section on his personal life, including his relationship with King, as long as it goes only so far as the facts take us: that the press and his enemies speculated about their relationship. Including statements of "fact" from "sources" like Loewen, that are in fact, NOT actual facts is irresponsible. I've pointed you to my concerns per WP:REDFLAG numerous times, and you continue to ignore it.K. Scott Bailey 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said Lowen's work would be presented as fact, only that his work proves the fact that he made a claim. --G2bambino 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a dispute about the content of this article, and sources thereof.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• In order to construct a well-rounded article on James Buchanan it is prudent to include information on his relationship with William R. King, which would include the relevant rumours and/or attacks that it prompted. Modern takes on those circumstances, such as that of James Loewen, should also be mentioned. In accordance with WP:NPOV there should be no attempt to substantiate either view. My most recent proposal is directly above. --G2bambino 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• WP:NPOV quite clearly states that "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." We have reliable sources for it being a significant published point of view today that Buchanan was our first gay president. We have reliable sources for the fact that even at the time this interpretation was being put on Buchanan's relationship with King -- including a source specifically identified as reliable by Kscottbailey (talk · contribs), the editor most vigorously opposed to any mention of Buchanan's sexuality. I can find no other way to interpret Kscottbailey (talk · contribs)'s announcements of his position other than that, because he feels that the evidence for the significant published point of view of Buchanan being gay is weak, he will oppose any attempt to present that significant published point of view (which he terms "demonstrably false") or insist that it be presented only as "the mocking taunts of Buchanan's rivals". -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have no problem with including material that can be sourced to academic works, and not works of pop history. I note with interest that you have failed to in any way address the concerns I have raised per WP:REDFLAG. As such, I will quote directly from a particularly relevant portion:

[c]laims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

If this portion of WP:REDFLAG does not convince you that pop history and Salon.com articles do not qualify for sourcing such "exceptional claims" regarding Buchanan, I don't know what will. I have no problem with including Baker's analysis of the claims, as she is writing sans agenda--unlike Loewen and Salon. She neutrally points out that the press of the day speculated about King and Buchanan's friendship, and that their political enemies got in on the action. Further speculation on the part of contemporary pop history authors (i.e. Loewen stating flatly, "Buchanan was the first gay president") is completely inappopriate for an encyclopedic article.K. Scott Bailey 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally, please refrain from misrepresenting (read:lying) about my position on this issue. You state that I am "opposed to any mention of Buchanan's sexuality." This is demonstrably false, and I'll thank you to stop making demonstrably false assertions about my position on this matter.K. Scott Bailey 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have never seen an edit from you that retained even the parts about Buchanan's sexuality that you yourself do not dispute, attributed to a source that you yourself suggested as a reliable source. On the contrary, I have seen you remove whole sections from the article, including material that pertained in no way to the disputed issue and the sourcing of which had never been questioned, with your edit summaries making it clear that it was the material about Buchanan's sexuality you were attempting to eliminate in this indiscriminate matter. "demonstrably false assertions about [your] position on this matter"? Your actions have demonstrated them true. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I will say again, stop misrepresenting my position. Present a section that includes nothing from Salon.com or Loewen's Lies and then we'll have made some progress. Until then, I ask that you quit ascribing to me positions I do not hold.K. Scott Bailey 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Observation - this is currently a "Class B" article. The inclusion of non-academic sources at this point will not help the article move into "Class A" status. Rklawton 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has yet proposed that a non-academic source be used. --G2bambino 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

James Lowen's book is a non-academic (non-peer reviewed) source. There is a significant difference between something published by an academician for general consumption and something published by an academician through a peer-review process for other academicians. Even within the area of peer-reviewed work, there exists various "tiers" of significance (i.e., some peer-reviewed journals are significantly more respected than others). Lowen's book was written for reading by non-academicians and wasn't peer reviewed at all. Rklawton 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then what I should have said is nobody has yet proposed that a non-academic source be used to make claims about Buchanan. In fact, Lowen's book, at least in my proposal, is only being used to illustrate the assertion made by Baker - which everyone agrees is a reliable source - that "Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president." I'm certainly not trying to say that Lowen's work affirms that Buchanan was gay - far from it! All Lowen's work does is prove that some people currently think he was, as Baker makes reference to. --G2bambino 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Baker is another pop-history, non-peer reviewed source. Time-Life Books pretty much defines pop-history. Rklawton 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that? KScott seems to think otherwise, and he's the one with the issue about proper sources. --G2bambino 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want proven. Rklawton 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That Baker's work is "pop-history," and, further, how such is discounted under WP:RS. --G2bambino 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to Time–Life. It's all popular reading. They certainly aren't part of the academic press. And my whole point here and above is that if editors want to see this article move up to the next higher level, they're going to have to start relying on academic sources. Sure, it takes some of the fun out of it, but this article is about an American president who lived over 150 years ago. Historians have had a chance to kick this around a bit and draw some conclusions. Sure, there are some folks today who want to draw new conclusions based on a modern agenda, but that reflects more on them than it does on the subject and this article isn't about them. What we need are historians who have examined and evaluated these new ideas and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals. Those are the sources we should seek and cite. Rklawton 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[I]f editors want to see this article move up to the next higher level, they're going to have to start relying on academic sources.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance here, but where is it stated at Wikipedia a) what defines an academic source, b) that an article's improved standard is inversely related to the number of "non-academic" sources used, and c) (again) what part of WP:RS deems Baker's and Lowen's work unacceptable as sources? I doubt you'd consider either newpaper and magazine articles, or websites, as academic; yet, they've been used as sources for articles that have reached an FA standard, let alone Class A (I direct you to Anne Frank, Mahatma Gandhi, and Rosa Parks as examples). Why should this article be treated any differently? --G2bambino 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think should reference FA articles featuring people living in the 18th - 19th centuries rather than in more modern times. The short of it is: the more unorthodox the claim, the more reliable the source must be. You'll find this link useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment Rklawton. You may also wish to invite some of the project members to this RfC to gain their input. Rklawton 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I should say that in reviewing Baker further, Time-Life does do pop history. That's my mistake. Based upon how she approaches the subject, without drawing any unsupportable conclusions about the facts at hand, it felt like she was more detached and agenda-free than Loewen. While Loewen states flatly, "James Buchanan was our first gay president" Baker does not go that far. Even so, I agree about pop history, whether Baker's more sedate version, or Loewen's more over-the-top style. It does not improve the article in any way, and does not move it any closer to moving up a grade. As such, it doesn't belong in this article.K. Scott Bailey 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how we need an academic source to support the claim that Buchanan has been called gay. He has pretty clearly been called gay, and this is easily demonstrable, and has been demonstrated. To demonstrate that he actually was gay, we'd need a pretty high standard of sources. But much less to say that he has widely been called gay. john k 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As some here don't seem particularly inclined to actually access the relevant portions of WP:REDFLAG that I've posted now THREE TIMES, I'll repost it again.

• I have no problem with including material that can be sourced to academic works, and not works of pop history. I note with interest that you have failed to in any way address the concerns I have raised per WP:REDFLAG. As such, I will quote directly from a particularly relevant portion:

[c]laims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

If this portion of WP:REDFLAG does not convince you that pop history and Salon.com articles do not qualify for sourcing such "exceptional claims" regarding Buchanan, I don't know what will. I have no problem with including Baker's analysis of the claims, as she is writing sans agenda--unlike Loewen and Salon. She neutrally points out that the press of the day speculated about King and Buchanan's friendship, and that their political enemies got in on the action. Further speculation on the part of contemporary pop history authors (i.e. Loewen stating flatly, "Buchanan was the first gay president") is completely inappopriate for an encyclopedic article.K. Scott Bailey 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is this: is claiming that Buchanan was our first gay president an "exceptional claim" as per WP:REDFLAG? If it is, pop history sources will not do. If it is not, then pop history sources would be fine. It would seem to be self-evident that it IS an "exceptional claim" as the Buchanan house doesn't even acknowledge the rumors. That in itself does not prove the claim false, but it DOES move the claim into the "exceptional" status in my view, which brings it into conflict with WP:REDFLAG with regards to citations of pop history sources such as Loewen's book.K. Scott Bailey 21:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still missing the vast difference between the sentence "Buchanan was America's first gay president" and the sentence "Buchanan has been called America's first gay president." Your favorite WP:REDFLAG pertains to the first, not the second - it certainly is no exceptional claim to say he has been called gay, and nobody in the academic community has ever refuted that he's been called gay. What there is is a contemporary, albeit limited, debate over whether or not he engaged in homosexual relations, and that is what this article should shed the pertinent amount of light on; it is not our intent here to prove or disprove whether Lowen, or his detractors are right or wrong, merely that there are people out there with differeing points of view about the man who is the subject of this article. Of course, you'll argue that the views of those people should not be included in this article because their work isn't up to standard; yet, we must operate by Wikipedia's standards and not our personal ones, and time and time again, two of you now have failed completely to explain exactly why Lowen, Salon, and now Baker fail to meet WP:RS. --G2bambino 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he was "called" the first gay president in a non-academic setting is actually a 21st century issue and not a matter for this 19th century person's biography. Likewise, I wouldn't support a trivia section listing all the times Buchanan has appeared in "Scooby Doo", either. Rklawton 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys really denying that there has been a great deal of discussion over Buchanan possibly being homosexual? This is ridiculous. From earlier discussion, it is pretty clearly that this is an issue which has been addressed by Buchanan's modern biographers. That they do not clearly come down on the side that Buchanan was gay does not mean that the issue is itself a fringe one. It is one that is clearly important enough that Buchanan's biographers have addressed it. Even if they came down on the side of "the evidence is inconclusive," the issue is clearly significant enough to be brought up in this article. john k 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary word "gay" is not the operative word. Gay is a late twetnieth century Western construct, it infers much more than sexual mechanics or choice or orientation of gender for a sexual partner. As several contemporary biographers have discussed the subject it naturally deserves mention in the article. It has never been presented as conclusive, and obviously can't be, but that doesn't prevent it being included. Michael Beschloss and Brian Lamb are mainstream media who can't posibly be accused of a gay agenda. Ninteenth century newspaper accounts, and the personal diaries of Buchanan's contemoraries make references that suggest some people then believed Buchanan to be homosexual. Attempts to discuss this possibility on this page and on the talk pages of editors on this subject, are met with a rush to label it as dishonoring the man, and historical revisionism. I recommend it remain in the article, using the term homosexual, not gay, unless specifically citing a contemporary reputable source.

The opinion of the organization operating Buchanan's home should have no bearing on the subject. These organizations are often by design defensive of a static portrayal of their subject. Consider the formerly reactionary response on the subject of slavery of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association or the treatment of Jefferson's African-American descendants by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (now restyled Thomas Jefferson Foundation). For generations both organizations adamantly refused to acknowledge this part of both men's history to the point of keeping slave quarters closed, then refering to them as the "servants" work areas. Today the context and presentation is different, reflecting the larger society's understanding of slavery, racial segregation, etc. While it's not Wikipedia's business to create new research, it should reflect the range of citable third-party authored research on the subject. James Buchanan absolutely was not gay. But he very well may have been homosexual, and seems to have been homoaffectual as well.CApitol3 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire last sentence is nothing but conjecture on your part. It's simply your interpretation of the facts at hand, and it has no place in a WP article.K. Scott Bailey 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely as you have done regarding which sources are acceptable an which are not. --G2bambino 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he was "called" the first gay president in a non-academic setting is actually a 21st century issue and not a matter for this 19th century person's biography.

The very fact that he continues to be of some interest in the 21st century is in itself reason to include 21st century views, conflicting as they are, of the man. Or, should all accounts of his presence in history end abruptly when he died? I suppose then you feel the "legacy" part of the "Post-presidency, death and legacy" section should be removed as well.

I agree whole-heartedly that Wikipedia should completely avoid using the term "gay" to describe Buchanan - it is indeed a modern, self-identity label with cultural/political overtones - but it should be mentioned that he has been dubbed as such by others, and why. The descriptions of his relationship with Ann Coleman should also, of course, be included. This presents all the facts we have available, and leaves the reader to formulate their own opinions. Anything else is simply censorship. --G2bambino 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My final opinion on the matter is this: as I've stated before, anything that can be sourced to an academic, well-respected source should be included. Anything else should be excluded. If references can be found to support that actual academic sources mention the rumors about him, and discuss them in some way, that should be included. If these rumors can only be sourced to pop history--or, yes, Salon.com articles--they should be excluded. Improvement of this article is my only goal. If the article can be improved with reliably sourced references regarding Buchanan's sexuality, by all means, include them. If those sources can not be found, then such references must remain out, per WP:REDFLAG. Source it reliably or scrap it completely, is how I read WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly isn't the Baker biography a reliable source,again? She's a professor of history, and so far as I can tell, the author of one of only two recent biographies of the man. It's completely ridiculous to exclude her, and appears to be based only on a desire to exclude anything that mentions the rumors about Buchanan's sexuality. BTW, Times Books is not Time-Life at all. It is a division of Henry Holt, a well respected mainstream publisher, in partnership with the New York Times. The series of presidential biographies that they publish had the recently deceased Arthur Schlesinger, a well known historian and public intellectual, as its general editor. The book is perfectly acceptable as a source, and this is all ridiculous. john k 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Good-americans.jpg

Wait, did you say Baker is a professor? That type often has a liberal leftist, gay-leaning bent. And, John, aren't Henry Holt Publishers and The New York Times sort of ground-zero of the liberal biased media? Did you say Arthur Schesinger!? Wasn't he a Democrat? It's anyone's guess why they hate America so much. Most of those New York City types of publishers employ open homosexuals so what can you expect? I've just searched the Fox News web site data base and there's absolutely ZERO mention of James Buchanan being one of them homosexuals. And ditto for the Washington Times and National Review. I guess we can put this whole sad James Buchanan homosexualty issue to bed! Just not with a guy. Seriously, if you have citations, put it up. I'm not interested in additional protests of how I miss the point and keeping this out is not the teensiest-weensiest bit homophobic. Spare me.CApitol3 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that Fox News, Washington Times, and National Review are somehow the sum and whole of all reliable journalism in the United States is an extremely irrational and tenditious argument. I am ALL for presenting two sides of a viewpoint. But to do so, you actually need to....yes, present BOTH sides. Assuming that the status quo must know best and nodding like little sheep going to slaughter is hardly a sign of "loving America". Despite your contention that this should be a platform for your personal views, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. The assertions about Buchanan's sexuality should well be mentioned - and the strength or weakness of those assertions should also be listed. If we do not know something with a certainty, obviously that should be outlined too. Our goal is to list as much information about the subject as possible, without prejudice. GearedBull/Capitol, I understand that you PERCEIVE all this to be a "liberal" slant, but taking out information and pimping your point of view does NOT equal a "fair and balanced" article. NickBurns 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of WP:NPA. I'm a liberal Democrat, for the record--not that it's any of your business, or has anything to do with this discussion. Please stay focused on the issue at hand and refrain from making your own personal value judgements about the motivations of other editors. It not only better furthers discussion, but it also portrays your own intellect in a more favorable light.K. Scott Bailey 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to present the image posted by the above user as exhibit A in who is pushing an agenda here. "Good Americans don't ask questions"?!? So, for you is this just all about "questioning the man" or are you truly interested in whether or not the rumors about Buchanan's sexuality belong in this article?K. Scott Bailey 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad I got your attention. I've been quiet and observed this "discussion" from a distance for 10 days. I sat back and watched your edits, and was not entirely happy but willing to see where you'd take this.

I can't be any clearer. The possibility, likely probability, of Buchanan's homosexuality deserves presence in the article. The posted picture is no more imflammatory than much of the prose here. The environment seemed ardently anti-new findings, and called to mind this image. Kay, I understand you feel strongly one way about this, and have invested a huge amount of time in it. I repsect that. I just disagree on what you find admissable, and even when administrators disagree with you, you dismiss them. History isn't being written here; either by consensus or by one perspective winning an editing war. I don't see anyone presenting their own new research here. If you do a search on ask, google or yahoo on James Buchanan it pretty much confirms the genie is out of the bottle re questions about his sexual orientation. I can likely never know if Abraham Lincoln suffered clinical depression. But if diaries and newspapers and accounts of the time suggest he might have, most scholars would think that is a legitimate part of who the man was. Several Lincoln scholars have writen on the subject of Lincoln's depression, one even seeing it as a part of his genius. Contemporary scholars parsing nineteenth century accounts suggesting Buchanan was homosexual are parallel. The tragedy isn't that people 150 years later are suggesting this, but that if the man were homosexual, that he could not have had an open validated relatisonship in his day. CApitol3 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You claim, "scholars would think that is a legitimate part of who the man was" regarding Lincoln's depression, and then say that contemporary scholars speculating that Buchanan was homosexual is "parallel" to that. I'll tell you what, you find a legitimate, scholarly treatment of these rumors, and we'll include that research. Loewen's book is not scholarly, and does not belong as a reference, nor does a Salon.com article. Find me some scholarly research, then we'll talk. As I've said before, I'll say again. I have no problem with the content, if it's supported by sources not in conflict with WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 19:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll also remind you that the editorial opinion of an admin carries no more weight in a discussion than that of us lowly common editors. You say, "even when administrators disagree with you, you dismiss them." Just because an admin holds an opinion doesn't make it carry any more weight.K. Scott Bailey 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

KSB has, I believe, agreed to include the Baker material. "I have no problem with including Baker's analysis of the claims, as she is writing sans agenda--unlike Loewen and Salon. She neutrally points out that the press of the day speculated about King and Buchanan's friendship, and that their political enemies got in on the action." Since Baker appears to be the most recent biographer, and is a full professor and Ph.D., and since there's general agreement on Baker, why don't we just use that material? -Will Beback · † · 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"I'll tell you what, you find a legitimate, scholarly treatment of these rumors, and we'll include that research." Are you consenting to Baker, or not?CApitol3 19:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor: This reminds me of the dispute about Lincoln's sexuality. Lincoln "supporters" wouldn't allow any mention of his sexuality to be discussed in the main article, even as a "See Also". Ultimately an entirely separate article was written, which the supporters then tried (unsuccessfully) to have deleted. If you look closely at the main Lincoln article a footnote provides a link to the article about his possible homosexuality. Lots of Wikidrama for those with nothing better to do. Is this what you all want to happen here? A drawn out conflict which doesn't improve Wikipedia at all? Sources say he was possible homosexual. Put that in the article as a claim. And if obstructionists try to censor the published claims, then create a separate article about Buchanan's sexuality, with a little link from this article. If it is published, it is verifiable, and that's in line with Wiki's mission statement. Jeffpw 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another comment: We are an encyclopedia, we do not report "truth" we report what others have said and done. Someone above said "Should random speculation from a person's enemies be included in someone's article?" - to which the answer is demonstrably "yes", if it is notable, NPOV, and sourced. See Julius Caesar. Should rumours of a person's alleged homosexuality be commented on, regardless of its truthfulness? Yes, see Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and separate articles Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Hitler's sexuality, and even Jesus Christ's sexuality. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If every modern biographer has seen fit to address allegations of Buchanan's homosexuality, than it should be mentioned, all of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Should WP:REDFLAG simply be ignored then? Apparently "exceptional claims"--which asserting that "Buchanan was our first gay president" as Loewen does would qualify as--require exceptional sources. Loewen's Lies Across America and a Salon.com article do not qualify. Additionally, I think that the focus of this debate SHOULD perhaps shift to the stand-alone article, where the issue could be dealt with in more depth. I would even be willing to assist in reworking that article (which is currently a mess) if that were the decision we reached.K. Scott Bailey 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I also note with interest that the two "examples" you pointed out that supposedly demonstrate how even rumors of a person's alleged homosexuality--regardless of truthfuflness--should be included (Cruise and Travolta) are B-class and Start articles respectively. Perhaps the inclusion of rumors regardless of truthfulness (in clear violation of WP:REDFLAG) is why they are rated thus.K. Scott Bailey 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Snarkiness does not add to the discussion, KSB. The simple fact of the mater is that the majority of articles (aprox 95%) are B class or lower. The inclusion of rumors, if sourced, would not be a reason to lower its rating. I notice from your talk page that you have fought with many people about this issue. If half a dozen people, including administrators, are telling you that your approach to the issue may not be the most appropriate, perhaps you would benefit from listening. You don't seem to understand the policies very well, which is understandable, given how new you are. Allow me to suggest the confrontational approach you have been taking doesn't generally lead to good articles. Further, WP:REDFLAG specifically mentions biographies of living people and historical events, not bios of historical figures. The fact remains that there are sources for the assertions other editors wish to add. WP:RS and WP:V are more relevent policies for this article. Jeffpw 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent two things in your post: my intent in the above post, and the contents of WP:REDFLAG. First, my post was not intended to be "snarky", it was intended to point out that perhaps one reason that the two articles cited as some sort of "evidence" that rumors of homosexuality are appropriate WP fare are rated B-class and Start was because they contain such rumors. Nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, there is no portion of WP:REDFLAG tha precludes it being applied to biographies of historical figures. One last thing: please keep your insults to yourself. It's not yours to judge whether I "know the policies very well" or not. Nor is it yours to determine whether I'm "listening" to the other editors who have disagreed with me on the issues regarding this article. A "half-dozen" editors can be just as wrong as one editor. Numbers do not indicate rightness. And as far as "facts remaining" goes, the "sources" provided are NOT reliable per WP:REDFLAG as I've pointed out numerous times.K. Scott Bailey 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret WP:REDFLAG. --G2bambino 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Among other things, it is not an "exceptional claim" to state that there have been longstanding rumors about Buchanan's sexuality. This is blatantly obvious. john k 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting rumors is always an "exceptional claim", when one of the sources you wish to cite (Loewen) reports said rumors as fact. Find exceptional sources that report these rumors AS rumors, then we'll include them. There's no compromise here. BTW, I especially like how G2bambino writes that I misinterpret REDFLAG, but provides no support for such a claim. I find this not at all surprising.K. Scott Bailey 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One more time: stating that there were rumours is not an "exceptional claim." An "exceptional claim" would be to try and state a fact using rumours as evidence. That is your misinterpretation. --G2bambino 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The rumors THEMSELVES are an "exceptional claim", which require exceptional sources. Rumors unsupported by exceptional sources should not be included.K. Scott Bailey 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The rumours were created outside the scope of Wikipedia, therefore WP:REDFLAG doesn't apply specifically to them. It only applies to material inserted into Wikipedia. As has been said to you time and bloody time again: it is not an exceptional claim to state that there were rumours. It is an exceptional claim to make an assertion here and use rumours as supporting evidence. We wish to do the former, not the latter. Please understand this, and please discontinue this disruption. --G2bambino 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is not the only policy she seems to misinterpret. She seems a tad vague on WP:CIV, as well. Jeffpw 07:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on referring to me as "she"? Not certain how the name "K. Scott Bailey" could be interpreted as a female name. And vigorous debate is not in violation of any WP guidelines regarding civility, so I will thank you to stop claiming that it is.K. Scott Bailey 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WRT rumors, I think Scott pretty blatantly has this all wrong. The question of whether a rumor is significant enough to report in a wikipedia article bears no relation to the question of whether that rumor is true. For a good example of our coverage of rumors, see our article on Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Unlike the rumors about Buchanan's sexuality, which may very well be true, the rumor which states that Clarence was Jack the Ripper is pretty conclusively false. Nonetheless, this rumor has been widely reported, has formed the basis of various books, and is, as such, duly reported as a rumor in the prince's article. Similarly, the issue of Buchanan's sexuality has been an open question for a long time, and a lot has been written on it. Most writers do not actually say that Buchanan and King's relationship was a sexual one, but a whole ton has been written on it, and Buchanan's recent biographers have dealt with the subject (certainly, Baker does). To report on these very significant rumors is not an "exceptional claim." You are simply wrong about what WP:REDFLAG. Further, it would probably behoove you to stop saying WP:REDFLAG all the time, as we all are quite well aware that you think this violates WP:REDFLAG, and we all have, by now, reviewed WP:REDFLAG and disagree with your claim that WP:REDFLAG applies here, since we don't think that any WP:REDFLAGs are raised by this article, and that thus you are repeatedly raising the issue of [{WP:REDFLAG]] for no reason. john k 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Block

I believe that the block should be removed from James Buchanan's page and that no new articles about his sexuality should be added. Their is something I'd like to add to his presidency section that I can not do to the block. I ask that whoever added it please remove it. -The Mystery Man

The block is there because certain users insisted on reinserting poorly sourced rumors and innuendo about Pres. Buchanan with no discussion. It will most likely stay until this issue is resolved.K. Scott Bailey 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're the only one causing the block to remain, KScott. --G2bambino 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I am not the only one who thinks that poorly sourced rumors don't belong in this article. And even if I were, facts are facts: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. And the fact that the moment the block is lifted you or one of your cohorts will summarily insert whatever you deem appropriate into the article--regardless of WP:REDFLAG's demand for exceptional sourcing for exceptional claims--is most likely a MAJOR reason the block remains.K. Scott Bailey 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (2)

I propose that we revert back to what User:Gamaliel suggested over two years ago. The text would be as follows:

Buchanan was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D.C. Rumors and speculation that the two had a homosexual relationship began at the time and have periodically been revived by historians, but decisive evidence one way or the other seems lacking.

This short segment would be sourced to Baker, and/or to the other biography I was able to find (can't remember the name off-hand), leaving off reference to Loewen and Salon.com. It addresses the problem of not ignoring the speculation, while also relegating it properly to what it actually is: speculation. Any problems with the above text?K. Scott Bailey 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• This would be fine. More details from Baker (about, for instance, the nicknames given to King, the claim that he was "Buchanan's wife," the nature of their surviving correspondence, and so forth) would also be appropriate, however. john k 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor - I agree with John K. I think that above is fine, but fleshed out a little more. Our goal on this site is to inform, not just to "hint" at an academic debate. I don't think "teasing" the reader with this information does Wikipedia any good, which is supposed to be the "sum of human knowledge" - and this is knowledge; imperfect knowledge due to the limitations of calling a spade a spade, etc. in Buchanan's day. But let's just come out with it and say what is said about the two men, and arguments for and against those interpretations. Otherwise, what's the point of Wikipedia? --David Shankbone 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• My earlier proposal was similar to KScott's, with the detail that John K and David desire. Though certainly not perfect, is it a step in the right direction? --G2bambino 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think your proposal is very well written, and illustrates the nuance in their relationship and modern limitations on speculation perfectly. I also don't think Loewen or Salon are "out of bounds" and that isn't the case on virtually any other article. I'm not sure why the bar has to be raised so high on this one when reporting on a gray area. --David Shankbone 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I mean no offense when I say this, but why is it necessary to "flesh out" what is little more than speculation? The above proposal notes the speculation, and acknowledges it in a completely NPOV. Adding further details only gives undue weight to the speculation. As I've said before, I'd be willing to work with anyone who wanted to on the stand-alone article, where the issue could be "fleshed out" further. I think the above, completely neutral proposal is very adequate to the perceived necessity of at least addressing the issue in the main article.K. Scott Bailey 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have enough info for a separate article? --G2bambino 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One exists already, and in such a separate article, the rumors could be sourced to some "less exceptional" sources than the main article would require.K. Scott Bailey 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a claim is made more or less exceptional by whether it's in its own article or not. john k 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think such an exceptional claim does less damage when it's confined to its own separate article, in an article DESIGNED to address such poorly-sourced speculation. In a main presidential article, such speculation should be summarily addressed, according to the FACTS at hand. A separate article would entail its own problems and difficulties, but it would allow the progress of the main Buchanan article to proceed sans such debates.K. Scott Bailey 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

KSB, since you're so big on reading policy here (though your grasp of it seems sketchy at best), I suggest you read WP:OWN. You seem to think you have some sort of greater claim to this article which entitles you to direct how the editing here shall progress. The fact is that you don't. If a reference is good enough for one article relating to a topic, it is also good enough for another article on a similar topic. Further, the consensus seems to be that Buchanan's possible homosexuality is A) not an extraordinary claim, and B) the references offered are strong enough. Your edit warring on this topic has gotten you blocked once already. Perhaps you should follow step 2 of conflict resolution, and deisngage for a while to regain some perspective which you seem yo have lost. Jeffpw 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that it is not an extraordinary claim. The evidence is that it 1. was talked about during his lifetime; 2. has remained speculation for which there is some evidence; and 3. is discussed and debated in academic circles, as well as in the popular media. All these things point to inclusion of, at the very least, a decent paragraph and not a mere sentence. The consensus on this page also seems quite clear. I've followed this and it would seem it's time to move on. --David Shankbone 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Show the "some evidence" of which you speak. There is none. The debate is about to what extent this article should deal with the RUMORS. There IS no "evidence" to support the allegations other than the rumors themselves. Thus the difficulty with WP:REDFLAG. As for Jeffpw, please refrain from speculating on my motives, and accusing me of violating WP:OWN with no supporting evidence. My sole goal has been--since the beginning--to improve the article. I'll thank you to not speculate otherwise, and to focus on improving the article alone. It's to the benefit of the article to do so.K. Scott Bailey 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is of the rumors during his lifetime - there was evidence of rumors. I think we should use what G2bambino suggested. KSB, your issues are well-documented here, but really the only difference between G2bambino's suggestion and yours is that G2bambino goes into more detail, while still keeping the speculative nature of it in sight. I don't know why you would have such an issue; yours and his aren't particularly different except as to the amount of detail, which I think most people on here would agree is better than less. I'm not sure why, if you propose mentioning the rumor, you don't want to expound on the reasons for the rumors and what the rumors said. That's perplexing, and not typical of a Wikipedia article. --David Shankbone 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You said there was "speculation for which there was some evidence" which implies that the speculation was founded in "some evidence." Rumors can not serve as evidence of rumors. Should the fact that there were rumors about he and King's friendship be included? Sure. Should it be given undue weight by including authors like Loewen who state the rumors as established fact, and expanding it into a section of its own? I don't think so. A short paragraph should suffice. Three to four lines--perhaps a couple of sentences--should be more than enough.K. Scott Bailey 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scott, you're getting really wrapped up in this. You might want to take a break (which I've had to do on some articles). I am not saying there is "evidence of his homosexuality" I am saying that there is "evidence of rumors during his lifetime". No more, no less. But once you find yourself repeating the same arguments over and over again, it's time to take a break. Repetition isn't going to sway anyone, and right now you are fighting a lone battle against what looks like pretty clear consensus. I think we should go with Bambino's paragraph, which is well-written and fleshes out the issue well. --David Shankbone 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source

There is an interesting review of Salon.com as a source on another article here, where an analysis of its editorial policies, awards, staff, etc. was undertaken. --David Shankbone 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the awards Salon.com has won: http://www.salon.com/press/awards/index.html --David Shankbone 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards don't diminish the fact that Salon is a POV-pushing magazine, and thus inappropriate as an "exceptional source." Do you deny that Salon has a distinct, non-neutral POV?K. Scott Bailey 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the reporting this rumor that has survived through the ages requires the extraordinarily high bar that you feel it does. We are here to report issues to the fullest degree possible, and I find your vehemence perplexing on this matter. Nobody on this Talk page wants to say "Buchanan is gay", which would require the "exceptional source" standard you want; they simply want to include a perception/allegation/rumor (or whatever terminology) held by some during his day, and still an issue of serious academic and popular discussion (thus not requiring "exceptional sourcing"). I also don't think Salon has agenda to prove Buchanan gay, nor do I feel Salon.com has a gay agenda. --David Shankbone 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You never answered my question. Do you deny that Salon has a distinct, non-neutral POV?K. Scott Bailey 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

David's opinion of Salon is none of your business, KSB, and your opinion of it doesn't interest me, as that is inherently your POV. Our job as editors is not to evaluate the POV of a source, but simply to verify the assertions in the article with sources. The reader then looks at the sources, and can decide for him/herself if we have made our case, judging by their opinion of the sources. The fact that you don't seem to grasp this makes your edits here (and elsewhere on Wikipedia) a matter of concern for me. Jeffpw 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

So, can I ask, is there anyone here who actually agrees at all with K. Scott Bailey? Because it seems to me from the discussion above that everyone, except K. Scott Bailey, thinks that the rumours should be included in the article and referenced by his recent biographies.I genuinely can't see anyone that agrees with K. Scott Bailey's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG or views on "exceptional claims", or even stranger claims that the grading of articles can be lowered because of gay rumours. If everyone is arguing against one person, it seems wisest to just ignore him and go with the consensus version. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton appeared to be more unreasonable than K. Scott Bailey, in fact, to the extent of making ridiculous false statements that the Baker biography was unacceptable because it was published by Time-Life [sic]. Nobody else appears to agree, though. john k 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You would do well to note that people can canvas for consensus in an attempt to get POV-pushing into an article. It doesn't make that group right. I have made it clear that I'm not dead set against inclusion. All I would like to see is that it be reliably sourced per WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it's probably not good practice to encourage people to simply ignore WP policy simply because a several people think we should, and only two think we should not. WP policy takes precedence over consensus every time.K. Scott Bailey 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

KSB, Dev was not suggesting we ignore any Wikipedia policies; she was suggesting we ignore you, and I completely agree. Jeffpw 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I missed this little personal attack. Good show!K. Scott Bailey 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bambino's proposal - please vote support or oppose, preferrably with no commentary

For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with William Rufus King, who was later Vice President under Franklin Pierce, though King died four years before Buchanan became President. This situation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The term "Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men in the nineteenth century.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship. While the nieces of the two men destroyed their uncles' correspondence, eradicating evidence of what relationship the two had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship"; Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time. Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led to modern speculation on Buchanan's sexuality - in particular, authors such as Paul Boller, in Not So!, and James Loewen, in Lies Across America - and his being dubbed "American's first homosexual president," no conclusive evidence exists to support whether or not King and Buchanan engaged in sexual relations.

---

Comment: I don't like the idea of support/oppose, etc. Discussion works better than voting for evolving a consensus and the support/oppose sections are unnecessarily divisive. IMO. IvoShandor 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. We have pages of debate here, we have 9 editors (if you include Bambino, whose proposal we are voting on) who think it is a good piece, and we have on editor kicking up a fuss that he isn't getting his way. I disagree that the time for a vote to weigh consensus has not come. There's been plenty of discussion, and as you can see from the tally, it's pretty clear where the consensus is heading. Since arguments were being repeated, with nothing new being said. And I also disagree that the histories, edits and abilities of the editors don't come into play here. Wikipedia's editors have reputations (as the Essjay controversy demonstrated) and our reputations do put weight behind our words. We have little else to go on. Scott is a new editor, and people like Jeffpw have about 3 Featured Articles under their belts. That counts for something when discussing policy, the merits of sources, and the substance of edits. --David Shankbone 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. Fact is, more often than not when people on the Wiki start throwing around statements that weigh to credentials it eventually devolves into a personal battle, which is what should be avoided for civility to be maintained. And in this case it was discussion, not voting that led you to liking my suggestions, with which I am only trying to help. Perhaps the user in question doesn't possess the experience or grasp of policy you or I do but the fact is that the discussion that it brought up has or is going to help the article, the voting just further isolated a user who probably already felt brow beaten in my opinion. IvoShandor

Sorry if that first sentence seemed kind of harsh, it did to me when I reread it. IvoShandor 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• No offense taken, and I'm sorry if I came across as too strong as well. But if this user feels isolated, I suggest he brought it upon himself - the insinuations we are all in cahoots with some undefined aim (after I nicely tried to tell him there is nothing personal) hasn't added to any sense of consensus. None of us have discussed this matter at the outset, or before we voted. Voting is a common tool to discover where consensus lies. It's worth noting that this User would prefer to see nothing in the article about this topic, and he proposed to delete the stand-alone article, which doesn't do much for his good faith. Nor does his conjecture as to our motivations, or the bickering he has undertaken with admins on his User Talk page. His contributions here are turning more to disruptive editing than to consensus building. There are reasons he stands alone, and they weren't imposed on him by anyone on this page. However, your efforts to mediate this lone users issues are admirable; but please keep in mind, there is quite a bit of consensus already and Scott has been blocked for disruptive editing over this issue. --David Shankbone 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just stop. I was not "blocked for disruptive editing." I got a 24-hour for 3RR, which I felt was unjust--and yes, discussed at length with the blocking admin--in the initial phases of the debate. I do not engage in "disruptive editing" and I'll thank you to stop engaging in personal attacks. As for me supposedly bringing this upon myself, and your claim that I would "prefer to see nothing in the article about this topic" both are simply untrue. I think that someone outside the situation would read the above and probably understand why I felt like I was under attack. And for you to claim "it's nothing personal" in the same post where you make it VERY personal is a bit ironic. I have admitted that I could be wrong about concluding that you guys were colluding against me. But I also think that a neutral observer could well read the above debate as a tag-team match, where you guys took turns ignoring every concern I raised, and beating up on me with your claims of "consensus" simply because the other person who had been attempting to reason with you all (Rklawton--who has also come under personal attacks) wasn't available to "enter the fray", so-to-speak. I attempted to offer a two sentence proposal that that fully acknowledged that there had been rumors around the Buchanan/King relationship, without giving undue weight to such rumors. I was summarily shot down, and a competing proposal was drafted that included both of the sources with which I'd stated I had a problem based on WP:REDFLAG. I was told to vote, PREFERABLY without commentary, which was impossible--and I suggest, actually counterproductive--to do. I contend that the "without commentary" vote was simply an attempt to push me into submitting to a draft I felt had some very clear problems. As for the initial delete notice on the "Sexuality" article, I've changed my mind on that--and stated so numerous times--and I actually feel that would be a better place to "flesh out" the speculation than in the main article, much like the Lincoln article does. I think if one examines my ACTUAL position on this matter, it becomes apparent that I'm not engaging in POV-pushing, censorship, or anything other than a good faith attempt to keep the article free of dubious sources. Nothing more, nothing less.K. Scott Bailey 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. --David Shankbone 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
2. --Antaeus Feldspar 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
3. --CApitol3 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
4. --Jeffpw 03:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
5. --john k 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) This is fine, although I'd be willing to accept a version that doesn't specifically mention Loewen, et al, if that would make Scott happy. john k 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
6. --Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
7. --Looks fine, seems to address undue weight concerns and still includes relevant information in context. WjBscribe 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
8. --I can't imagine a less objectionable statement, and it meets the criteria for reliable sources. Apparently, anything less than James Buchanan himself coming out of his grave to verify this information will not please some folks, though. NickBurns 14:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --K. Scott Bailey 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Per concerns with Loewen and Salon.com as "references". I have also never read Listening to America, and would need to review it first. No problems with Baker's treatment of the subject.

   Comment--KSB, If I was concerned before that you were being unreasonable and arguing for the sake of arguing, I am now completely convinced. Loewen is not used as a source in that text. He is mentioned, but not used as a source. It would seem that you will not allow the factually accurate sentence that Loewen mentioned it to be included. leading me back to the conclusion that you think you own the article. Jeffpw 03:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Loewen does not merit mention. You can accuse me of "owning" the article all you want. I have no problem including the fact that there were rumors. I have a problem including Loewen's distinctly non-neutral POV stuff in a summary of the rumors, giving his work--and the speculation--undue weight. I know it would be very convenient for you five if I just left, but I'm not the only one who thinks the inclusion of Loewen, et al is out of line.K. Scott Bailey 03:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   It is not up to you to decide if facts may be mentioned or not, KSB, and it is a fact that Loewen wrote that. You may not censor the information available to readers of this site. The fact that you wish to do this tells me that you are pushing a POV here. I suggest you consider whether or not you have lost your objectivity here. Jeffpw 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Right. What POV is that? I have no problem with including the rumors. I have a problem with including non-neutral POV-pushing "sources" like Loewen. What POV exactly am I pushing? This should be interesting.K. Scott Bailey 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   WITHDRAWN as you have beaten me down with accusations of POV-pushing, though I'm not certain exactly what POV I would be pushing. I don't support that guy who referred to the sexuality issue as "disgusting" and I support inclusion of the references to the rumors that take a neutral POV, such as Baker and other dispassionate biographers. I only have a problem with books like Loewen's and articles like Salon's that seem to have a clear non-neutral POV. As you all seem hell-bent on including such sources--and forcing them through by "consensus"--I will remove James Buchanan from my watch list. Do whatever the heck you want with the article. Include Loewen, Salon, or whatever other non-neutral "sources" you wish to. I don't understand the push to include such sources, when you can get the same general information into the article without including such sources. But the five of you insist, so I withdraw from attempting to stem the tide.K. Scott Bailey 04:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   There just shouldn't be so much emotion in your editing. Nobody "beat you down" - we disagree; that's all. I've found your discussions on this talk page to be odd for the emotion with which you've infused your arguments, and our arguments. Scott, you win some, you lose some. We all do. We all have an interest in creating a good encyclopedia, and we happen to disagree with you on this. There's nothing personal or "hell bent" about it. --David Shankbone 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Right. "Nothing personal." If you say so. You all got your way. Just run with it. Include Loewen if you want. Though inclusion of such clearly non-neutral POV "sources" denigrates the article, you all don't want to believe that, so have at it. After 24 hours, this page will be completely off my anti-vandalism watch list, so you can add whatever the heck you want. I'm done trying to stem the tide the five of you are riding.K. Scott Bailey 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   5-1 doesn't seem kinda, uh, indicative you may be wrong? But whatever, you obviously aren't going to read this...(?) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   No. Consensus--or even unanimity--does not always equal being right. SCOTUS has reached consensus (or even unanimity) on issues in the past, and been wrong. And there are all sorts of other cases in life, as well as here at WP, when consensus doesn't necessarily equal rightness. However, since I've decided to simply let you all have your way, and remove this from my watchlist in approximately 14 more hours, you've gotten your way. Keep up the good work, and have a nice day.K. Scott Bailey 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   BTW, it would appear to be 5-3 now, under the obvious assumption that Rklawton would fall on the side of excluding poor sources like Loewen, Salon, et al. Hardly the overwhelming "consensus" you were touting before.K. Scott Bailey 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Comment:I would appreciate it if we could put something like "Rumours have persisted regarding the nature of their relationship" or something like that in the first few sentences. I just want it emphasised that these are rumours. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Comment Since this article is about a former President of the United States (though a less noted one) you should be using academic sources not Salon. Also, that article is about Lincoln not Buchanan, is there a better reference? IvoShandor 10:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   IvoShandor, you're certainly welcome to find another, more academic source to supplement the ones already found. That said, there is nothing wrong with the Salon reference. And while it is about Lincoln, the reference is to a section about Buchanan. Jeffpw 11:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Just not sure most readers would see that source as reliable because the relevant section on Buchanan was about a paragraph from what I can tell. Has this topic been written very extensively in the by academics? Don't know a lot about Buchanan. I still disagree that Salon is fine, not going to argue about it, but doubt any serious encyclopedia would use it as a ref, I don't know, maybe. IvoShandor 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Unless Salon.com is peer reviewed. Which I doubt. Very much. I do have access to tons of databases, so if you do know of an article you need I can "hook it up." : ) IvoShandor 11:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   See this discussion above. And a source does not need to be Peer reviewed for this sort of article. Jeffpw 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Added note: I think the controversial and rumor nature of the information requires more stringent application of WP:A and better sources than Salon.com, which is why I am willing to help out, see above. Surely you must see that this information is likely to be challenged at some point in the future, don't you think a peer reviewed source would be much better? : ) IvoShandor 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   You're in an uphill battle, Ivo. There's a core group of editors here that are determined to include Salon, Loewen, et al in the main article for some reason. I've given up trying to sway them. I wish you good luck in your attempts.K. Scott Bailey 11:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Not here to battle. Want to help. Have you folks red WP:REDFLAG? IvoShandor 11:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   LOL, I have quoted REDFLAG to them numerous times regarding the inclusion of poorly sourced rumors in an article. Review the above discussion for some lively reading on REDFLAG. They simply wrote it off as not applicable for some reason, though it clearly seems to apply.K. Scott Bailey 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Really? It is policy. IvoShandor 11:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   I know that, and YOU know that, but this group of editors has convinced themselves that this policy does not apply in this case for some reason.K. Scott Bailey 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   I am wondering if some additional input my help from other editors here. RfC? Anyone? I think it might be a good idea. In the meantime I will await your reply before going ahead. IvoShandor 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   There are 4 sources for that section, Ivo. Three of them are print, including the most recent biography of him. Taken as a whole, I think these are references enough for this section...though as I said, if you'd like to supplement them, please feel free. And yes, I think everyone concerned has read WP:REDFLAG. Why don't you have a look at the rest of the talkpage? There's already been an Rfc. Jeffpw 11:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   As he said, they did that above, and SOMEHOW only like-minded editors showed up to comment. Hmmm... And it doesn't seem to matter that two of the sources cited are Salon and Loewen.K. Scott Bailey 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   I have read the talk page, thanks for pointing it out though. I just really think that this article will be a constant source of dispute over undue weight and redflag without some other sources to back it up, I will do some searching, see what I come up with. If I don't I may want to open another RfC to see what happens, can't hurt anyway. IvoShandor 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

   Both undue weight and REDFLAG are very valid concerns. I have mentioned both in the course of the above discussions. The group of editors just don't seem to feel that these two present any problems in this case for some reason.K. Scott Bailey 11:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Ivo, nobody has flagged each other to come talk on this discussion page, and you can check all of our histories if you would like. Scott has a history of hysterical editing, and he seems to think there is some kind of cabal that has formed on this Talk page to put in this information. These rumors are long standing. Redflag doesn't apply because we are presenting persistent rumors that have followed Buchanan in both his day and in history. It is a subject of academic and popular debate. We use four sources for one paragraph about the rumors, and we make it explicit that they are rumors and hard evidence is lacking. If we were saying "Buchanan was the first gay President" on this article, then Redflag would be more applicable. But we are not. We are reporting on long-standing rumors that haunted Buchanan in his day. Scott's behavior on this Talk page, his need to reply to every single comment that is left, and his Talk page history (which shows lashing out at everyone, including admins who blocked him) make it clear that this editor simply isn't getting his way and is "acting out". He is lodging charges that are baseless, against editors who have long-standing histories of substantive contributions, and several of us have drafted articles from scratch that have reached Good Article. We are all familiar with policy, we all want to see a good entry crafted, and none of us want to push POV on to this article. This simply is not the case in this instance, although Scott's hysteria and pouting is not only inappropriate, his behavior is odd. I realize he is new, though. I would welcome a Request for Comment, although I think that is overkill. You will note that the difference between Scott's proposal and the one that five long-standing editors think is better is that that Scott's just says there were "rumors" whereas the other proposal states what the rumors were. It provides details Scott leaves out. --David Shankbone 12:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And Salon.com is peer-reviewed, in that it employs a large, permanent editorial staff and fact-checkers. It is oft-used as a source on Wikipedia, and reporting rumors (as opposed to fact) and the context of those rumors makes it a perfectly acceptable source, along with the three others. And there are not five editors who are supportive of this, there are about eight. Scott hasn't been particularly successful in his canvassing - there are reasons. None of us have canvassed. --David Shankbone 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know Salon has editors, and am aware of the persistence of this rumor. It would just be better to pull some more academic sources because the one author pretty much believes that Buchanan was gay, which there isn't a ton of historical evidence for, if my understanding is correct. I think to some readers (of which I am probably not one) it would appear that, since the author in question (Loewen) believes Buchanan was gay it could be construed as POV to use him as one of the primary sources backing up the claim (by some readers). See what I mean? The more NPOV the better right. Your right, Salon is probably okay, but, of course, should be replaced or bolstered if a better source were to come along.

1. As an added note, I don't know anything about any of the editors involved, I really just stumbled across this page. IvoShandor 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. DSB-Show my "history of hysterical editing" or withdraw the personal attack. Removing poorly sourced information is not "hysterical editing." Most of my other work has been in vandal fighting and in writing the short article for the Scott O'Dell Award for Historical Fiction. I would remind you of WP:NPA. As for histories, mine speaks for itself. I've been a hard worker in my short time on WP, working only for the betterment of the project. Longevity in the case of the "five editors" you speak of does not mean your position is right. If one takes a long view of this discussion page, it becomes clear that--whether intentional or not--you five (or six) FUNCTIONED as a gang of sorts, taking turns dismissing my concerns per WP:REDFLAG and undue weight, and attempting to misrepresent what I was actually calling for. I am not pushing any POV, nor am I engaging in "hysterical editing." I simply want a sober, clear-eyed look at the FACTS, supplemented with what we know of the speculations of his contemporaries, sans Salon, Loewen, et al. This is not asking much.

1. Additionally, you show a clear misunderstanding of what "peer review" entails. Having a "large editorial staff" is not anything LIKE peer review. One last thing: I have not "canvassed" at all. I simply left a note on the talk pages of two editors who had already displayed an interest in the James Buchanan page in the past. That is not the same as attempting to involve editors from outside the discussion. The fact that I have not been around WP as long as you have, and therefore do not have a wide group of associates ALSO does not make your position correct.K. Scott Bailey 13:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am disregarding any discussion that doesn't pertain directly to the matter at hand, i.e. don't care how long anyone has been around, what they do here, there or anywhere. I dont care if Buchanan was gay or not. These rumors have been persistent throughout history. It would be better to have primary sources when we talk about the contemporary press, yes, but a summation should suffice and while peer review is much more stringent than having a large editorial staff, a large editorial staff generally contributes to the reliability of a source, which is why a publication like the NYT or Chicago Tribune would be reliable, Salon does have a reputation as to not sucking. I do like peer reviewed sources as opposed to mass media, but they will do for now, IMO. The Loewden book probably shouldn't be used except to state that he has a book and believes he thinks Buchanan was homsexual, as if this should matter at all. Certainly given the persistence of the rumor some other sources should be easy for someone to find. Not a big deal. I do believe that this information is worthy to be included and better sourcing can go a long way toward silencing those who don't believe it, or think that speculation of this nature is somehow anti-=American or evil. The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiablity and attribution, and this is pretty easily verfiable based upon what I know and have researched over the last couple hours. Anyway, sorry this is so disjointed I feel like I am responding to a thousand people.IvoShandor 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Loweden isn't used is he? Hmm. Don't know about the other books, in general peer reviewed sources are better than biographies. I think that readers should be entitled to see the mainstream historical view when coming to Wiki, which isn't always accurately presented in biographies. But the contemporary press statement needs an inline cite and probably some actual articles from the day as such. IvoShandor 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for seeing that Loewden isn't used as a source. Ivo, I think your suggestions sound reasonable. Would you mind taking a crack at Bambino's proposal with the edits you suggest?--David Shankbone 13:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I will have to search through some newspaper databases, maybe later today?IvoShandor 14:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

More sources can certainly only help, however, after taking another look at the Salon article, I still can't fathom what the problem with it is. In fact, it just seems to support what Baker says in her bio of Buchanan.

• Baker: On the basis of slender evidence, mostly the circumstances of his bachelorhood and three asides by contemporaries about his effeminacy, Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president. Referring to his femininity, Andrew Jackson once called him an "Aunt Nancy."
• Salon: When Kramer first announced at the Madison meeting that he was setting out to get gays their "first gay president," he could have made his job easier by looking to Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan. The only bachelor to take office, Buchanan spent 15 years living with Sen. William King. The contemporary press ridiculed the men's relationship mercilessly, and Andrew Jackson once called King "Miss Nancy."

So, the Salon article doesn't seem to have any more agenda than Baker - who herself has none. --G2bambino 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me a clear difference exists between Baker who qualifies her statement with "On the basis of slender evidence" and Salon which actually AMPLIFIES its statement with (referring to Kramer finding America's first gay president) "He could have made his job easier by..." clearly implying that Buchanan was (or at least was probably) gay. Seems that each couches their discusion in a very different tone. You'll note that even still--pending delving deeper into Klein's lengthy bio of Buchanan, which I now have--I've included the Salon reference in my proposal below.K. Scott Bailey 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #2 from K. Scott Bailey

For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, William Rufus King. King later became Vice President under Franklin Pierce, He took ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan and King's close relation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The phrase "Miss Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men beginning in 1842.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship. While the nieces of the two men destroyed their uncles' correspondence, eradicating evidence of what relationship the two had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship", and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time. Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, no conclusive evidence exists showing that King and Buchanan were, in fact, homosexual.

---

Comments

• This is an honest attempt at compromise. I made a few changes to Bambino's proposal, but nothing TOO significant, I don't think. One change was to reword the sentence that referenced the two men's books that make the factual claim that Buchanan was gay. Another was to remove the quotes from the last sentence, and move the Baker ref tag to the end, as she makes a VERY similar assertion in concluding her short treatment of the subject. I have left the Salon reference in, against my better judgement, as it seems to take as fact that was gay in saying that the guy claiming Lincoln was gay would have a much easier time with Buchanan. It's one of the main reasons I don't think Salon is a truly neutral POV source. I left it in, though, so there shouldn't be too much argument there. Thoughts?K. Scott Bailey 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• In looking at the above proposal, sentence #1 is awkward, and perhaps too long. A reworking of that sentence might be in order.K. Scott Bailey 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any particular issue with this. --David Shankbone 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Jackson call him "Aunt Fancy" or "Aunt Nancy"? --David Shankbone 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Boller in Not So, he referred to KING as "Miss Nancy." A congressman (and political rival) named Aaron Brown apparently referred to King as "Aunt Fancy", again according to Not So. Not So is a very anecdotal book, so I'm not certain where they source these two, but it was apparently in a letter written by Brown, and a comment made by Jackson.K. Scott Bailey 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• It seems it was either "Aunt Nancy" or "Miss Nancy." Perhaps the paragraph should mention both versions and ascribe them to Jackson. Besides the awkward first sentence, and the unnecessary and dubious assertion of "close friend," I have no problem with the proposal. --G2bambino 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Boller reports that the wife of a political foe called Buchanan "Old Gurley" apparently as a slur regarding his effeminate features. I don't think we have the space to report every name that someone called either Buchanan or King in the article, as it tends to lend undue weight to the insults, in my view.K. Scott Bailey 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why is the insertion of "close friend" in ANY way "dubious"? The major biography (500+ pages) by Philip S. Klein, President James Buchanan: A Biography', plus Baker's minor work refers to them as such. Additionally, it troubles me now that I've had a chance to peruse Klein's major work, that he mentions only in passing (p. 111) anything that could be construed as an acknowledgement of the supposed rampant speculation. It makes me wonder just how "rampant" it was. Here's the only thing in the entire book regarding King that could be construed in the way that Loewen seems to take as fact:

He sought out his friend Senator William R. King of Alabama and they arranged for lodgings together. The usual talk about the character of "southern gentlemen" caused a good deal of amusement among northerners, but if anyone merited respect for his personal qualities, it was King. He would now be vice-president if the party had heeded Buchanan's advice, but because of a nonelection by the Electoral College, the Democrats would probably wind up with Col. Richard M. Johnson, a profligate from Kentucky who lived with a Mulatto and gave northerners good reason to sneer at southern pretensions to gentility. King presently sat as president, pro tempore, of the Senate. Washington had begun to refer to him and Buchanan as "the Siamese twins."

That's it. Klein--in by FAR the most extensive Buchanan biography available in my library--makes no other mention of whispers, rumors or what-have-you. It leaves me troubled anew as to the inclusion of any more than a passing reference to the inclusion of the rumors and speculation. If the most extensive biography on Buchanan failed to do more than barely HINT at the speculation, should WP devote even as much as an entire paragraph to it? This is an honest question, and is not intended to in any way inflame anyone's passions.K. Scott Bailey 20:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is worth considering. The reviews I found on JSTOR of Klein's book suggest, additionally that it is well-regarded as the definitive biography of the man, and one review goes to some length to discuss how good Klein's treatment of Buchanan's personal life is. None of the reviews seem disappointed by a lack of attention to the issue of Buchanan's possible homosexuality. That being said, wikipedia is not a judicious academic biography. It is what it is, and if there's not a reasonably full discussion of the issue in this article, people will keep adding it in. It'd be better to work out a carefully stated paragraph on the issue than to remove it and keep having to fight over this over and over again. john k 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I find Scott's proposal to be a good one, and better, I think, than the previous version. I would wholeheartedly support such a version. john k 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. I've spent the better part of this afternoon (I have my own business, so I can give myself time off!) poring through the work available. I have read every scrap in the library that references both King and Buchanan. The only one who seems to speculate definitively is Loewen (it seems in pursuit of a clear agenda), while Boller makes some leaps of logic, but does not seem to be nearly so agenda-driven. Baker deals with the slurs most definitively, and also most dispassionately, while Klein declines to even address them beyond page 111 of a 500+ page book.K. Scott Bailey 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Available References

President James Buchanan: A Biography, by Philip S. Klein

Seems to be a completely dispassionate biography.

Not So!, by Paul F. Boller, Jr., Professor of History Emeritus, Texas Christian University.

Seems to be a fairly dispassionate work of popular history. Prof. Boller draws some conclusions that require some speculation (i.e. That Buchanan wasn't gay in the strictest sense of engaging in homosexual activity, but had "inclinations" that were "unmistakeably homosexual"), but does not seem--in my opinion, at least--to be agenda-driven in any way.

James Buchanan, by Jean H. Baker, Professor of History, Goucher College

Seems to be fairly dispassionate. Discusses rumors and speculation that were spread at the time regarding Buchanan and King, seeming to dismiss them as unproveable. Unlike Boller, she does not proffer her opinion regarding what Buchanan's "inclinations" might be.

Lies Across America, by James W. Loewen, who (according to the dust jacket) "taught race relations at the University of Vermont"

Not dispassionate at all, Loewen begins his Buchanan section with the assertion that "the highest office ever won by a closeted [emphasis in original] gay person was the presidency of the United States..." He proceeds apace, simply assuming what no other source assumes: that Buchanan was "not very far in the closet." He also blatantly mischaracterizes the slur "the Siamese twins" as a veiled reference to King and Buchanan's supposed homosexuality, when Klein makes it clear in his MUCH more extensive work, that it actually referred to how close the two were POLITICALLY. It is my view that this is the only one of the four books that is completely out-of-bounds, even to be referred to in the insertion in the article. Loewen's POV-pushing is SO over-the-top that to even include it in passing as I have above is to give it undue weight in my view.

Listening to America, by Stuart Berg Flexner, former professor of English Literature and Linguistics, Cornell University This is clearly a secondary reference, and only serves to define what "Miss Nancy" meant at the time. I don't have a major problem including it, but I think the phrase "Miss Nancy" has a relatively self-evident meaning, which would allow us to leave out this reference. Either way is fine with me.

I have intentionally excluded Salon.com, as the information found in that article (which is not as bad as Loewen, but seems to have a clearly non-neutral POV) can be sourced to other places, specifically Not So!.

Thoughts on the above analysis? K. Scott Bailey 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I may be offline this evening. Internet connection is currently unreliable. If so, I look forward to seeing some opinions on both my proposed entry, and the above analysis of sources.K. Scott Bailey 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal--Attempt to Establish Consensus

For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, Alabama Senator William Rufus King. King later became Vice President under Franklin Pierce, He took ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan and King's close relation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The phrase "Miss Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men beginning in 1842.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship. While Buchanan and King's nieces destroyed their uncles' correspondence, leaving some questions as to what relationship the two men had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship", and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time. Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led some to speculate that he was America's first homosexual president, currently no evidence exists showing that King and Buchanan had any type of sexual relations.

---

Suppport

• Support. This is fine, although I might modify a bit further, and change around the wording for the end, in particular (N.B. I added to it slightly, so that it explains that King was an Alabama senator.) john k 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Save for the final sentence. "Homosexual" as a personally defining label is a modern concept infused with socio-political meaning that would have been foreign to Buchanan and King, as opposed to acts that are homosexual in nature, which do not depend on time or place for definition. Therefore, I prefer something like the final sentence I suggested earlier: "...no conclusive evidence exists to affirm whether or not King and Buchanan engaged in mutual sexual relations." --G2bambino 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The reference numbers are way off. This is a byproduct of my insufficient formatting knowledge. I apologize.K. Scott Bailey 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)