Talk:J. C. Leyendecker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Gay

This is an North American slang word that is ironic, in that there is nothing merry about this choice of homosexual behavior. What citations can be referenced to prove that this artist or his brother behaved in this manner? Who was present to observe this behavior? I could say that he was an alcoholic or violent or lazy. Would you believe me? There has to be some proof for encyclopedia articles that include such deleterious attributions.Lestrade 13:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The word "gay" does not appear in this article, but I'll take the opportunity to point out 1.) that the word "gay" is neither "short-lived" or used by "a particular group," and therefore not "slang." It has been in use as a synonym for "homosexual" for at least one hundred years in both US and UK, and widespread for at least the past forty years. 2.) Best current research indicates homosexuality is not usually a "choice." 3.) You can believe what you wish about Leyendecker, but his homosexuality is not disputed, and is based on primary sources such as an interview with Beach which appeared in the New York World-Telegram and Sun in December 1951, a few months after Leyendecker's death. 4.) There is nothing deleterious about this information in the context of Wikipedia in 2006, except in your mind and the minds of those with fears similar to your own. --Kstern999 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fear of what? There is no question of fear in my comments. This article, like many others, needs continual surveillance to deter rabid, fanatical homosexuals from including speculations about sexuality. They are intent on legitimizing and naturalizing their unnatural behavior. One tactic is to characterize opposition to homosexuality as fear of the unfamiliar. User:Kstern999 uses this "homophobe" method, as though opponents of homosexuality are merely similar to children who fear the unfamiliar. Lestrade 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

• Leyendecker's personal life is referred to by noting his relationship with Beach. I think it is neither appropriate nor necessary for this entry to become an argument on the morality of homosexuality.JNW 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • Agreed. But homosexuals do not have the right to use this Wikipedia article to further their intentions and purposes. Schools, television, and movies are already doing enough of that.Lestrade 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

• Again, this is not the place to debate political or moral p.o.v.

JNW 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. So why is the topic even mentioned? Are there any documented facts about this artist's private physical relationships? Is the topic mentioned for a reason?Lestrade 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

• It is, I believe, documented information about the artist's life (Among illustrators, collectors, and art dealers, Leyendecker's personal biography is well known), and probably sheds some light on the fashion and attractiveness of his male subjects. After his death, his friend Beach cut up his paintings and sold the fragments for very little money; very sad, really. But considering how deeply some of the biographical entries delve into their subjects' personal lives, the entry on Leyendecker, as it stands now, is a model of restraint. JNW 23:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)