Talk:Hans Christian Andersen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	Denmark Portal Hans Christian Andersen falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Funeral arrangement 2 Evidence for "everyone knows them but few could tell you their author" 3 Sexuality 4 Vandal's opinion moved from article 5 Princess and the Pea vs. Real Princess 6 Source? 7 Revert 8 Little Mermaid Statue 9 LGBT Category 10 Visits with Charles Dickens 11 Jenny Lind 12 Tuesday 13 Philospher's Stone (Miscellaneous trivia) 14 his personality 15 something 16 Uh....

[edit] Funeral arrangement

Discussing his funeral march with the man who would compose it, Andersen said "Most of the people who will walk after me will be children, so make the beat keep time with little steps".

This sounds apocryphal (and absurd).

Can any source be given? For that matter, was a funeral march for Andersen ever composed? And, if so, by whom?

(The anecdote was obviously created by someone who thought that Andersen was a writer for children only. That was clearly not Andersen's own view - the story is therefore both unpsychological and unhistorical.) Sebastjan

[edit] Evidence for "everyone knows them but few could tell you their author"

Just in case anyone wants it...

Google results:

• "Ugly Duckling" -andersen 85,500 hits
• "Ugly Duckling" andersen 16,900 hits
• "Princess and the Pea" -andersen 15800 hits
• "Princess and the Pea" andersen 4470 hits

It's notable that the Broadway musical, "Once Upon a Mattress," simply refers to the tale as an "old story," is officially credited only to "Book: Jay Thompson, Dean Fuller & Marshall Barer," and as far as I know does not include any courtesy credit to Andersen. A typical review [1] begins "Based on the fairy tale of The Princess and the Pea..." In my opinion, this is a darned shame; although the libretto certainly goes well beyond "adaptation" or "derivative work," it is Andersen's story that supplies the assumed context. It is to Andersen as Brahms' "Variations on a Theme by Haydn" is to Haydn. I don't know the background but I suspect that the creators, at the time they created it, were probably unaware of the story as having an author. Dpbsmith 16:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

The article says he would be considered asexual, and links to the wikipedia article on asexuality, which says:

Asexuality is a designation or self-designation for people who lack feelings of sexual attraction and/or sexual desire.

Andersen admittedly felt desire for Edvard Collin, though it went unrequited. Celibacy isn't the same thing as lack of desire.

I agree that describing Andersen as asexual is inaccurate, and I edited the article accordingly, but it was reverted without explanation. Did I do something wrong?

Why doesn't this article reflect the belief that Andersen may have been gay?

"Danish fairy tale writer Hans Christian Andersen was gay and never acted on his homosexual tendencies. That's the story told by a new biography called "The Fairy Tale of My Life," published to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Andersen's birth. Authored by Jens Andersen, the author claims Andersen fell in love, but could not bring himself to overcome societal strictures against homosexuality. In modern parlance, "he was just not that into girls," the author says. Consequently Andersen channeled his sexual energies into his writing, creating some of the finest fairy-tale fiction ever written. Many of the fairy tales may be read as gay allegories, and some are clearly autobiographical. "The Little Mermaid" was written in 1836 following the marriage of Edvard Collin, who may have been the love of Andersen's life."

His story, "the Ugly Duckling" has been suggested for paralleling the life gay people.

Ec5618 15:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

He was bisexual. He feel in love with both men and woman. It's fairly well documented, because he keept a journal in which he wrote everything. Unfortunately he'd stayed a virgin his whole life, so I think that's why people don't call him gay or bisexual. The article does write he has feelings for several men, so that part isn't incorrect. I'm against the asexual comment, because he didn't choose to not have sex. --Maitch 18:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable sources on this. Who are those "most historians", mentioned in the article? Cmapm 00:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's what the Hans Christian Andersen Centre from Syddansk University in Denmark says about the subject of his being HOMOsexual (which can generally taken to be the authorities on the current academic view in Denmark):

http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/rundtom/faq/index.html?emne=homo

"Det må understreges, at der ikke findes noget som helst belæg for, at Andersen nogensinde skulle have haft, hvad Wullschlager kalder "physical liaisons" med mænd. Det er ligeledes tvivlsomt, om han overhovedet - trods flere bordelbesøg - nogensinde har haft fysisk sexuel kontakt med en kvinde.

Man kan sige det sådan, at Andersens følelser ikke havde noget køn. Hans seksualitet havde det (som det fremgår af mange almanak- og dagbogsoptegnelser, f.eks. dagbogen d. 11. juli 1842: "Sandselig stemt, en Lidenskab i Blodet der næsten var dyrisk, en vild Trang efter en Qvinde for at kysse og omfavne, ganske som da jeg var i Syden", et udbrud, som ingen homoseksuel ville komme med). Andersen var et langt stykke vej en åndelig androgyn (tvekønnet), eller, som Søren Kierkegaard udtrykte det i Af en endnu Levendes Papirer (1838): Han er "som hiine Blomster, hvor Han og Hun sidde paa een Stengel")"

Roughly,

"It must be underlined that there is no evidence for Andersen ever having had what Wullschlager calls "physical liaisons" with men. It is equally dubious if he ever - in spite of several visits to the local brothel - had any physical sexual contact with a woman.

It can be put this way: Andersen's feelings had no gender. His sexuality had (as is evident from many almanac- and diary notes, e.g. 11th of June 1842: "Sensually, a passion in the blood that was almost animal, a wild lust for a woman to kiss and embrace just as when I was in the south", a statement no homosexual would make). Andersen was by far SPIRITUALLY ANDROGYNOUS, or, as Soren Kierkegaard expresses it: He is "like that flower where He and She may sit on a single stem."

(my capitals) 80.167.45.222 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added "NPOV" and "unreferenced" tags, if no sources are cited for the following inf. (which I haven't encountered in any of Andersen's bios):

"The feeling of "being different", usually resulting in pain, is a recurrent motif in his work. One of the most telling stories in that respect is "The Little Mermaid", who takes her own life since she cannot be loved by a beautiful prince. Some biographers think this story exemplifies Andersen's homosexual love for the young Edvard Collin, to whom he wrote: "I languish for you as for a pretty Calabrian wench... my sentiments for you are those of a woman. The femininity of my nature and our friendship must remain a mystery." Collin, who was not erotically attracted to men, wrote in his own memoir: "I found myself unable to respond to this love, and this caused the author much suffering." Likewise, the infatuations of the author for the Danish dancer Harald Scharff and the young duke of Weimar did not result in notable partnerships.

The question of Andersen's homosexuality is a matter of controversy in academic circles. The discussion began in 1901 with the article "Hans Christian Andersen: Evidence of his Homosexuality" by Carl Albert Hansen Fahlberg (using the pseudonym Albert Hansenin) in Magnus Hirschfeld's publication Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufe (Yearbook on Ambiguous Sexuality).

In Andersen's early life, his private journal records his refusal to have sexual relations and his unabashed release through masturbation."

then I'll remove it and incorporate information, provided by you into the article

Cmapm 12:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the sexuality paragraphs from the main article. It’s bad enough you have discussion of this on the talk page. The issue is pure unproven conjecture, and I certainly wouldn’t want any child of mine to be confronted with comments about “Unabashed masturbation” while researching the author of The Little Mermaid. Please keep academic conjecture, early 20th century homophobia against children’s authors, and unnecessary dwelling on sexual issues out of the main article. Wikipedia is supposed to be about verifiable facts. This kind of conjecture is not needed and harmful. Perri Rhoades 09:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is completely inappropriate that the above writer has apparently removed all mention of Andersen's sexuality. There is now only a brief mention of "deviant sexuality". Whether or not he was gay or bisexual cannot perhaps be proven without a doubt, but it is important to mention that there is an ongoing debate on this issue. Obviously the above writer is of a conservative mindset and their removal of this topic can be seen as not neutral. It is important to provide all of the facts about H. C. Andersen, even if certain people find them offensive. Right now the facts are that there is a debate about his sexuality, and there is much evidence to show that he was bisexual. This should definitely be mentioned, as it is highly relevant, considering the effect that his sexuality probably had on his writing. I saw many convincing arguements on this talk page that indicate this to be true and it should be in the article as well, even if it is a matter of debate, because such debates are often mentioned in these articles. It isn't right that some conservative person should revise the facts to fit their agenda. The truth should be heard, even if it offends some people. I personally think it would be great if my child read about Andersen's sexuality, especially if my child was gay or bisexual. Gay and bisexual children need more positive role models, and the rest of the world needs to know about important people who were gay or bisexual. If you don't want your child to read things that you find offensive you shouldn't let them use the internet without your supervision. Honestly, this is the 21st century, we don't need moral censorship in an academic setting. This is a website for people who want to be informed and don't want the "Disney version", there are other sources that are more appropriate for children.

I also seem to remember reading somewhere that he had been a prostitute as a teenager, but i don't know if that was true or not or if I have maybe confused him with someone else, and I don't have any sources. If that is true, it should be mentioned because it is historically relevant and gives insight into his emotional world, even if it isn't "appropriate" for children. One thing that i remember clearly was that he marked in his diary every time he had masturbated, which I think is relevant. Akseli 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Akseli

“Whether or not he was gay or bisexual cannot perhaps be proven without a doubt”

You just crushed your own issue. Wikipedia is about facts, not gossip. I don’t care if the gossip is 100 years old and fills volumes of historical documentation, gossip is still gossip. If you can’t prove it, it doesn’t belong here.

“Obviously the above writer is of a conservative mindset and their removal of this topic can be seen as not neutral”

You’d lose on that assumption. I’m about as liberal a thinker as you are ever likely to meet.

“It is important to provide all of the facts about H. C. Andersen, even if certain people find them offensive.”

We’re not talking about facts here. We’re talking about assumptions that exist in the minds of prejudicial people who have no clue as to the nature of Anderson’s true state of being. You can say he might have been this or he might have been that till the end of time. It will never make your assumptions fact. Do not refer to them as fact.

“even if it is a matter of debate, because such debates are often mentioned in these articles”

It is not the place of Wikipedia to address debates. The most there should be is an external link to the debate, if one exists. The fact that other articles on Wikipedia may also be in error is no justification for this.

“Gay and bisexual children need more positive role models”

There are no such things as gay or bisexual children. Children do not have sexuality. That’s why their children. Teen-agers perhaps, but they aren’t the ones I’m worried about coming across this homophobic prejudicial BS.

“If you don't want your child to read things that you find offensive you shouldn't let them use the internet without your supervision.”

Excuse me, but even if I’m standing over my child’s shoulder, what reason do I have to suspect my child is going to run into anything this controversial researching an author of fairy tales? You’re the one with the agenda, and I don’t want my children subjected to it.

“Honestly, this is the 21st century, we don't need moral censorship in an academic setting.”

Guess what. This is not an academic setting. This is a free encyclopedia that children are likely to be accessing in school. Nor is this really a forum for debate. This is an exhibition of facts. And, especially where it concerns an author children are likely to be researching, it is not the place for unproven assumptions about the author’s sexuality.

“This is a website for people who want to be informed and don't want the "Disney version", there are other sources that are more appropriate for children.”

Is that in the rules somewhere? Point it out to me. If this site is not appropriate for children, why is it not age restricted?

If you want to learn more about my opinion on what you’re trying to do here, my Journal entry on this incident is here. http://otakuoftomobiki.livejournal.com/10702.html Perri Rhoades 09:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Whatever opinion you may have about its educational potential, Wikipedia is not made for the express purpose of educating children or presenting a child-safe venue for the exchange of ideas. Articles about any and all aspects of sexuality are hosted on Wikipedia servers, if you don't want your child to access them, I suggest monitoring their internet usage.

You may also not be aware of the science of human sexual development. Simply put, sexuality doesn't just magically appear at puberty. Children go through several distinct stages of sexual development that starts during infancy (click here for brief overview). As such, many children develop gender identities early on, and homosexual tendencies may indeed be expressed during childhood.

Also, although Wikipedia is certainly not a gossip rag, it would be unfair to categorize the academic references (despite their speculative nature) to Andersen's sexuality as mere "100 year old gossip". The Syddansk University statement referenced above by 80.167.45.222 provides a fair overview of Andersen's sexuality, perhaps we should be more concerned with maintaining neutrality than with censoring any mention of the topic of sex. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I’m not concerned with censoring the truth. If you’ve got iron clad proof that the man had anything worse than a sexual inhibition or that he was anything more than an innocent individual whose life didn’t revolve around sex, then I’d say go to town. But that was not what I removed from the page. What I removed was a distinctly shockingly worded accusation of deviant behavior with a footnote that basically said there is no proof at all of this. And from the notes above I gather that opinions on this dispute have changed several times, and that it is all speculation on journal entries translated from a foreign language whose meaning is by no means obvious. For all I know, the strongest evidence in this case could be the misinterpretation of a joke.

Meanwhile, I don’t need to be a social expert to realize that the symptoms being described in the article add up to far more likely possibilities than homosexuality. Possibilities of a far more innocent nature.

Like I said before, if there’s a debate going on, Wikipedia does not have to go out of its way to take a position on it. Three paragraphs pushing the reader to believe the evidence is all but iron clad is taking a position. One short paragraph is all that’s needed at best. It should say no more than there is a debate on issues of his sexuality with a citation leading to an off-site reference that will provide all the info on it.

Certainly I realize that Wikipedia is not constructed specifically to be a child friendly environment. But it does have certain rules and standards. I edited this article because those standards had been exceeded to a degree that was offensive.

Also, I hate to say this, but academics could pick around bits and pieces of text from various sources and announce with great authority that Christ was gay if they felt like it. For all I know they’ve already done it. Yes, I can indeed call speculative academics double speak for gossip. There either is evidence or there isn’t. And, after 100 years, if there was real evidence there would be no debate. The only thing there is evidence of is what I left on the page, evidence of a man with serious social inhibitions and affection for people of both genders - not sexual attraction, affection. To push the idea that there was any more to it than that is not NPOV. Perri Rhoades 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I never made the claim that H. C. Andersen was gay, and I only stated my theory that he was bisexual (though perhaps not in the traditional sense), and it is not my "issue" to prove that he was, so I think you have missinterpreted me. I merely said that there is an ongoing debate, which was a very big topic in the scholarly community in Denmark last year due to his birthday, and that debate should be reflected here, even if only briefly, because it is a debate that is on a scholarly level, not just "gossip" as the above writer claims, and it seems that the issue has never fully been resolved, as it continues to be controversial. I never said that his sexuality should be presented as fact, not unless it is known beyond a doubt. The facts are that there is a debate. I don't think that it is prejudice that drives the notion that he may have been gay or bisexual, but rather a desire to understand him. From what I have recently read on H.C. Andersen, it seems that he was "spiritually androgynous", and that he had deep attachments to both men and women. Whether or not he was attracted to men sexually cannot be proven without a doubt, as he apparently did not engage in any sexual acts with either gender. Neither is it mentioned in his writings, though he has mentioned his physical attraction for women. That does not prove however that he did have had attraction to men; the religious and moral belief system in which he lived may have caused him to self-censor, for fear of other people reading his journals or for fear of contemplating the issue himself. Considering that he did have physical attractions for women, and that he felt emotional attraction to both sexes, it seems possible that he could have felt sexual attraction for both. Whether or not that exact idea has been put forth by researchers I do not know. It is also possible that his sexuality was even more complex, that he may have had sexual attraction to both genders yet also had a distaste for sex, or that he was even more asexual than that, though what I have read seems to indicate that he did have some sexual desire, even if it was not the same form of desire that most people have. It is possible to be sexually attracted to one or both genders yet have an aversion to sexual acts, which may be considered asexuallity by some but not by all.

I don't know what was written on this page before you erased it, perhaps much or some of it was inaccurate or even offensive, but if it was true or at least part of the legitimate debate on Andersen, then it should remain, even if you find it offensive. Perhaps it was written in an offensive and non-neutral way, and if that is the case then it should not be merely erased but replaced by something more appropriate and neutral. Perhaps the best solution would be to mention the ongoing debate over his sexuality, and mention that such a debate is an attempt to understand his sexuality (which was obviously complex and differed from the etablished norm) and his personal life, as well as his writings. Also, that it indicates the effect that his writings have had upon people of various backgrounds which are considered "abnormal" by society, which thus reveals the enormous emotional impact of his writings, that they are not mere children's stories. He may not have been gay, but his writings have struck a chord in many gay readers, as well as others who are considered abnormal, due to his sense of being an outsider.

"Meanwhile, I don’t need to be a social expert to realize that the symptoms being described in the article add up to far more likely possibilities than homosexuality. Possibilities of a far more innocent nature."

That statement sounds homophobic to me, or perhaps you are opposed to all sexuality? If that is the case perhaps you should make that more clear. I don't suppose you remove all mention of possible heterosexuality from other pages?

"There either is evidence or there isn’t. And, after 100 years, if there was real evidence there would be no debate. The only thing there is evidence of is what I left on the page, evidence of a man with serious social inhibitions and affection for people of both genders - not sexual attraction, affection."

To expect the same hard evidence about a person living 100 years ago, in a time when homosexuality wasn't discussed as it is today, as you would expect from someone today, is unrealistic. And there are many worthy debates that have lasted for ages. Also, to claim (without any sources) that his affection (which seems to be proven, toward both men and women, through his own writings and those of others) was without sexual attraction seems just as bad as to claim the opposite without any evidence. I believe that if scholars are going to debate (not "gossip") their theories based on the evidence that they have, they should not rule out any of the likely possibilies. The information that Syddansk University and the HCA center has (which says that he wasn't gay but apparently not heterosexual either) regarding this should be mentioned, as should the other evidence that has been presented. At any rate, the ongoing debate should be mentioned as a fact, as it is on most Wikipedia pages, unless this is such an important topic as to receive its own page, but even then it deserves mention on this page. It should be mentioned in a neutral way, yes, but definitely mentioned. We can't sweep all mention of a person's possible sexuality under the rug just because it might offend someone, because the truth is that many people in history who are considered, due to historical evidence, to have been non-heterosexual, cannot be absolutely proven as such due to different social norms of the eras in which they lived, and if you demand that there be proof before we can present the POSSIBILITY that for example Michelangelo, may have been gay, etc., then the fact that there is a good possibility of such things will be overlooked, which would be unfortunate as it is important to study the history of sexuality (which includes asexuality and other forms of sexuality) and it would certainly be a manifestation of our society's heterocentric worldview to avoid those historical discussions.

Regarding your comment that there are no homosexual or bisexual children. That is absolutely false, I know from my own experience that that is false, I remember having homosexual feelings, truly sexual feelings, as young as 10 years old, probably earlier, while never having any such feelings for the opposite sex, and I know of other people with the same experience. I am sure that there is scientific evidence to prove it. Children mature at different rates. Unfortunately all mention of homosexuality, including the less sexual aspects (kissing, holding hands, relationships, etc), are typically censored from children's awareness, while less of an effort is made to censor heterosexuality, especially not the more "innocent" manifestations of heterosexuality (who would object if H.C. Andersen had a lovely "fru Andersen"?) That kind of censorship is what causes many homosexual children to avoid exhibiting any obvious homosexual tendencies at an early age. But the children's sexuality is here really irrelevent, as this is, even if you weren't aware of it, a website that attempts to function according to academic standards.

It is not the role of Wikipedia to protect child from being "subjected" to certain things that are not to your liking. Wikipedia should present information in a neutral way, including various debates and theories that have been put forth by legitimate sources. This is one of those debates. I am certain that this website is not meant for young children, I would not allow my young children to use it if I had any, due to various other things that might upset them. It is the parents job to protect the children, to a reasonable extent, but it is impossible to protect them from everything, unless we want to return to a Victorian style society with strict censorship. But that kind of censorship is not what Wikipedia is about, it is about providing a neutral and accurate depiction of a topic, including all relevant discussions of that topic, even if they are not proven, as many things are not proven but are still valuable for consideration. Presenting the debate from a neutral perspective does not amount to Wikipedia taking a stand, it amounts to presenting the available information and letting the reader decide. That includes, as far as I'm concerned, scholarly debates from knowledgable people. Akseli 09:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

“I never made the claim that H. C. Andersen was gay, and I only stated my theory that he was bisexual (though perhaps not in the traditional sense)”

That’s not the question. The question is, “Why does anybody’s theory belong in a Wikipedia article?” A theory is a point of view. You’re not allowed to express you’re point of view in a Wikipedia article.

“and it is not my "issue" to prove that he was”

You’re the one fighting to have this stuff in the article. Thus the burden of proof most certainly is on you. I noted no citations in the three paragraphs I took out. There was no more explanation than “Some think this means that, and some think that means this.” There was not even much documentation of who “some” are. All I see is a lot of people futzing around trying to figure out how to deal with these accusations, while the most authoritative source you’ve got admits that the guy had no sex life. Having no sex life is not a proof of anything.

It’s just a darn shame that people today can’t rationalize that, in those very different times, the role of sex in society was quite different. And you can not simply judge a person of those times by today’s standards. You have shown me nothing but a lot of talk that doesn’t amount to more than speculation on what some rather obscure journal references might mean. And you are obviously being very quick to jump to the worst possible conclusion. I think that is the very kind of prejudice NPOV is supposed to keep out of Wikipedia. You at least have to sight your sources.

“because it is a debate that is on a scholarly level, not just "gossip"“

Oh? Scholarly people don’t gossip? Scholarly people don’t have agendas? Scholarly people aren’t up for creating controversy just to suit their own ends? Scholarly people don’t need to justify their theories and accusations?

“it seems that the issue has never fully been resolved”

And it never will be resolved. You know why? Because the man’s been dead for nearly a century and a half. So it’s not like you could ask him. Nor are you likely to find tons of hidden written confessions about his sexuality. There is only one place this sudden question could have come from at this late date - people trying to judge historical figures by modern standards, prejudice, homophobia and even Gay Pride people looking for new icons.

“From what I have recently read on H.C. Andersen, it seems that he was "spiritually androgynous"“

You haven’t a clue what it’s like to be spiritually androgynous. Spiritually androgynous translates to saintly - a man so unencumbered by sexual distractions that he was free to love everyone equally in a way that most human beings will never understand.

Mocking that state of being with talk of bi and homosexuality only proves the deepest ignorance. You’ve repeated over and over that the only sexual attraction he demonstrated was for females, and there is absolutely nothing abnormal about males feeling deep affection for their male companions. That does not even indicate a possibility of bi or homosexuality. It doesn’t indicate anything. The most there is is a blank that could just as easily be filled in with something positive and virtuous.

Like I intimated before, there’s stronger evidence that Jesus was gay or sexually abnormal than you’ve shown here for Hans Christian Anderson. When it’s cool to go over to the page for Jesus Christ and speculate on this kind of nonsense, maybe I’ll relent out of pure respect for your audacity.

“Also, that it indicates the effect that his writings have had upon people of various backgrounds which are considered "abnormal" by society, which thus reveals the enormous emotional impact of his writings, that they are not mere children's stories.”

I never took out that part. That he was abnormal is a well established fact. That his stories are an inspiration to all types of abnormal people is also an established fact. What I took out intimated that he specifically wrote his stories as an expression of homosexuality, which is not a fact. It’s ludicrous, even as a suggestion.

“That statement sounds homophobic to me, or perhaps you are opposed to all sexuality?”

No, I’m just “spiritually androgynous.” Suffering from the same symptoms being described, I take personal offence at these wildly speculative assumptions.

“And there are many worthy debates that have lasted for ages.”

Translation: there is much gossip in the academic arena.

“At any rate, the ongoing debate should be mentioned as a fact, as it is on most Wikipedia pages.”

Like I said, find a site about the debate and put it in the external links section. In that way you can include the entire debate without us having to argue about it.

“unless this is such an important topic as to receive its own page.”

What is up with you? This is a matter of trivia. What in the world is your agenda that you think we should make a federal case out of the fact that a fairytale writer can’t be shown to have had much of a sex life? This is worth destroying the historical reputation of a man who gave a tremendous gift to the world? This is worth invalidating the foundation of our entire culture?

“We can't sweep all mention of a person's possible sexuality under the rug just because it might offend someone”

Why? Is sexuality suddenly a crime? Is everyone’s sexuality open to public scrutiny? Would I want you nosing into journals and using every ambiguous statement I ever made as a suggestion of my sexuality, even if I’ve been dead for 150 years?

Even posthumously, unless you can prove him guilty of some crime, isn’t Hans Christian Anderson’s privacy deserving of as much respect as when he was alive? Does he deserve to be the whipping boy of every sex obsessed scholar who can’t get his mind out of the gutter?

“Regarding your comment that there are no homosexual or bisexual children. That is absolutely false, I know from my own experience that that is false, I remember having homosexual feelings, truly sexual feelings, as young as 10 years old, probably earlier, while never having any such feelings for the opposite sex, and I know of other people with the same experience.”

You’re supposed to hate girls at 10. If you go around suggesting that’s an indication of being gay, every child in the world will be suspected. Having any kind of sexual awareness before you’re body starts to develop sexually is an indication of some abnormality other than being gay. Possibly abuse or early exposure to things children are supposed to be protected from.

“That kind of censorship is what causes many homosexual children to avoid exhibiting any obvious homosexual tendencies at an early age.”

Dude, get real. Any child of 10 who showed any indications of any sexuality would get a serious reprimand, if not a slap across the room. At 10 you’re supposed to still be enjoying cartoons, playing sports, collecting trading cards, comic books and other innocent things like that. It’s ludicrous of you to suggest that we should encourage sexual expression in children that young. What do you think they have a TV rating system for? Or are you one of those people who advocates inundating our children with our adult sexual agendas as early as kindergarten?

Get a grip. If you had a unique problem at age 10 you were deserving of special attention. That does not give you a right to ruin childhood for the rest of the world.

“But the children's sexuality is here really irrelevent, as this is, even if you weren't aware of it, a website that attempts to function according to academic standards.”

This is a web site that allows you to print any lie you want, as long as you can find it printed in some kind of publication. And you’re outright forbidden from analyzing whether the source is truthful or not. Come to think of it, yes, it’s a great site for academics to pass off their gossip as truth. Once governments figure out how to turn it into a propaganda tool, the world will probably be doomed.

“This is one of those debates. I am certain that this website is not meant for young children.”

Well, you’d better think again. Whether Wikipedia wants to face up to it or not, this site puts itself forward as an encyclopedia, and it comes up at the top of any search for any topic. Therefore, it is presenting itself to students of all ages as a resource and deliberately attracting children without giving any outstanding warning or providing any protection for minors.

Now, I think, if I were to call up some parental activist groups and inform them of this situation, Wikipedia might just find a rather embarrassing lawsuit on its hands. Not that I’m likely to do that, but if Wikipedia doesn’t wake up to its responsibilities, someone surely will eventually.

“It is the parents job to protect the children, to a reasonable extent, but it is impossible to protect them from everything, unless we want to return to a Victorian style society with strict censorship.”

Yeah, but who protects parents from Wikipedia? Why should anyone not trust the most popular encyclopedia on the net? Why shouldn’t they assume their kids are safe here?

Granted, there are some articles that a parent would know not to let their kids access. But nobody expects to find this kind of stuff on children’s literature related pages. You have a moral obligation to keep your academic postulating and your sexual agenda to an extreme minimum on any page that is likely to be accessed by children.

As for returning to the Victorian era . . . Well, it actually had some advantages over today. Certainly we now live in anything but an age of enlightenment, and we are going downhill fast. A little backing up to recapture some of the wisdom, restraint and good sense of earlier times surely would not hurt.

“Presenting the debate from a neutral perspective does not amount to Wikipedia taking a stand, it amounts to presenting the available information and letting the reader decide.”

What I took out was not neutral. It was there to deliberately influence the reader’s believe. Nor was it substantiated with a single citation.

I see vandals all over Wikipedia trying to insert this kind of stuff into articles all the time. If no citation is offered, it generally gets zapped. If you insist on putting things in articles that are going to result in a major “Say what???!!!” you’d better have some serious citations to back it up. Otherwise, don’t be surprised if someone just automatically assumes it’s vandalism and deletes it.

Now, I’m tired of arguing this. I think we’ve said everything that is relative to Wikipedia, and I don’t want to clog the Talk page any further. I’m reporting this discussion in my journal. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, please come over to my journal and do it there. Follow this link. http://otakuoftomobiki.livejournal.com/10702.html Perri Rhoades 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal's opinion moved from article

[Most collections of fairy stories are usually, like the bros. Grimm, or the Arabian nights, popular tales long-long told to children, (who liked it) all collected together for publication. Mr. Andersen is the exception to that rule and writes his very own. At his best, one of the few writers comparable to Aesop, at his worst, still a highly effective and disturbingly imaginative story-teller, full of visual images, and characters, and situations, once read never forgotten. Not to everyone’s taste, a little astringent for many. Is usually pithy enough to translate well, and has been long translated well. Widely and variously illustrated. A body of work that can only be described as a classic, if not the classic of world literature, proof that great stories know no national or linguistic boundaries. 12/10. On film, avoid any Disney version.]

Moved by pt 13:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. At least up until the sentence beginning "At his best", and not including the parenthetical "who liked it" that was strictly factual. Maybe we could restore the first two sentences, suitably edited? Nandesuka 15:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Princess and the Pea vs. Real Princess

Since when is The Princess and the Pea known as The Real Princess in america??

According to Elias Bredsdorff in Hans Christian Andersen, "The Real Princess" is an alternate title for "The Princess and the Pea." However, he doesn't say whether it's common everywhere or in a particular locale. My guess would be that it's a Danish alternate title.--67.189.60.250 05:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)SaraFist

Found a further reference in the same text . . . it is an American translation that features that title, "Both Charles Boner and Caroline Peachey took over a German translator's 'improvement' on 'The Princess and the Pea' so that instead of putting one pea under the twenty mattresses and twenty featherbeds the queen puts three peas. (One can almost hear the skeptical translator arguing, 'Surely, she cannot feel one pea through all those layers!') Since they could not very well call the story 'The Princess on the Three Peas,' they then had to alter the title to 'The Real Princess.'" (335)67.189.60.250 22:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Lang (Scottish) also titled "How to tell a True Princess" (The Yellow Fairy Book) Goldfritha 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

Is there a source for the quotes related to Hans and Edvard Collin in the article? --HappyCamper 02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Unfortunately I still don't see proper citations for this section, and much of it seems quite POV. Come up with proper citations or it may be removed at any time. Either by myself or by others. Perri Rhoades 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit moving the material into its own section because it directly refered to the little mermaid which is mentioned in the proceeding sentence as "This work" and made no sense in the context you had placed it. Your request for citations is enough at the moment, please give Wjhonson (and anyone else) a reasonable chance to add citations before you delete or move the material. Caprosser 01:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny that the only citation I saw added was a plea to stop this very type of gossip spreading. I'm getting really sick of this. There is a tumultuous amount of original research on this page, some of it far worse than questionable. Some time after Sunday I'll check back. If there are no citations for the questioned material, it will be removed as original research. If, after that, it reappears on the page without citation, that's vandalism. Perri Rhoades 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the citation that was added by Avenue I think you've severely misread it (if you're not refering to this than ignore me), Heede was far from trying to stop this very type of "gossip" he says "The decisive weakness in Hans Christian Andersen research circles is that they have been tendentious, ‘heterosexualized’ and narrow-minded in their description of the man. Homophobia has also led to a series of blind spots in the analyses of Andersen’s writing, where central questions about gender and sexuality haven’t even been raised." As well as this I don't see how the information that you have the problem with can be considered "gossip" either, it is both a fairly well documented fact and has obvious importance for the understanding of Andersen's work. Caprosser 04:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of tendentious, “Marked by a strong implicit point of view.” Basically he’s saying people have been talking about this for over 100 years, and the arguments remain in serious question. The most this citation substantiates is the fact that there is a controversy. This does not justify blatant pushing of one side of the argument or the other, which this article currently does. This article is obviously written from the POV of someone who wants the reader to come away thinking the man was gay, when there is no evidence to that effect, let alone a citation.

I see no need to argue about this. If this is not original research I’m giving plenty of time for citations to be found and a proper article written. According to Wikipedia rules, the burden is on those who want this info in the article to find useable citations. If this is factual information there should be no problem finding citations. If no citations can be found, then it’s original research and has to go. It’s as simple as that.

I’m a reasonable guy. I’m even willing to overlook all the rules that were broken when my edits were reverted and my template removed without being addressed. You have till Sunday. Burn up the net and find citations to support this information. Then you’ll have a proper article and never have to hear from me again. But if you can’t back it up, you can’t say it. Sorry, that’s just the way of Wikipedia. Perri Rhoades 04:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First, Perri, thanks for fixing my mistake with the ref markup. The Heede citation was indeed meant to document that there is some controversy about HCA's sexuality. I thought this was what you had requested a citation for here; if I was wrong, please explain what you think is needed. I'm also not clear what you want documented regarding the sentence "Likewise, the infatuations of the author for the Danish dancer Harald Scharff and Karl Alexander the young hereditary duke of Weimar did not result in notable partnerships." Is it his infatuations, or that no notable partnerships resulted from them? -- Avenue 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said before I reverted your editing placing the controversial material in its own section because by doing so you changed the content of the information, the way you had placed it made the paragraph look like it was refering to The Ugly Duckling and not the Little Mermaid which is what it refered to in its original context. This is why I reverted your edit, not to get rid of your not verified tag, so no, there are no broken rules to overlook, if you really want feel free to put your not verfied tag back in the article somewhere, but I personally think that the citations needed tags are sufficient. While I accept that the burden of proof is on the editors adding the content to the article I want to point out that removing information from an article can be as much POV as adding it, and having read your livejournal entry on the matter I'd have to say that your edits were made because of POV and not out of the desire to improve the factual content of this article. Caprosser 06:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The proper procedure for an error in context is to correct the context - not revert an entire major edit that was put up in good faith. And removing a tag like that is a major no no. But like I said, I’ll forgive you for that, for the present. If it happens again I may not be so gracious. As for my journal entry, it merely explains my very good reasons for suspecting this entire controversy of being bogus. It does not reflect my NPOV as a Wikipedia editor. Perri Rhoades 10:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pedantic but your edit is what caused the the error in context, so I did exactaly what you just said is the proper procedure and put it back in its propper context, yes i removed your "this section has not been verified tag" but I also removed the section it was refering to so I don't agree that I've gone against any proceedure here. As I've already said if you really feel that the tag is required put it in the correct section(s). As for your journal and POV you made it pretty clear that you thought Andersen was not homosexual (and was what I think you termed "innocent" which I take to mean some form of asexuality) and your removal and dispute of the sections on his possible/probable homosexuality in this light seems nothing but POV to me, otherwise why are you doing it? Instead of disputing the section completely why don't you add information on what your view of his sexuality (or lack there of) is, which I gather hasn't come out of thin air so there must be sources and references for it and not just your opinion so it would be legitimate material for the article, and we could have an entire section on his sexuality (or lack there of). Sure it would need a bit/lots of rewriting but it could be done and would make for a better article. While I know there are those who disagree with me I'm firmly of the belief that more information makes a better encyclopedia than less information, which is basically why I'm opposing your wanting to remove the material in the first place. Caprosser 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. You reverted the page and undid a whole section, when all you had to do was remove a couple of words, or better still, bring the problem to my attention so I could fix it. You deliberately undid my work. That wasn’t nice. And I’ve seen other editors on other pages get chewed up and spit out for that sort of thing. It’s not proper procedure. And you can thank me for not reverting the page back on you when your tag error wiped out several sections near the bottom of the page. (Assuming it was your error that crashed the page.) I fixed the error. That’s what you’re supposed to do. Not revert.

You asked why don’t I write what I think was wrong with HCA in the article? The problem is working within Wikipedia guidelines. I can’t just write up my analysis of what the symptoms being described indicate and stick it in the article. That’s original research. Likewise, even if I can find a useable item describing the condition I’m referring to, I can’t just apply it to this article unless it specifically mentions HCA.

By the same token, no one else can look at all the conjecture that’s around and stick it in the article worded as to make it seem like fact. That’s what’s wrong with this article. The author of the disputed section uses weasel words and strategically placed unverified quotes to project the POV that there was something wrong with the man that is definitively proven. Which it’s not. More than that, you keep putting this conjecture near the top of the page, rather than the bottom, where items of conjecture should reasonably go.

Another problem is, the more I look at the citations being provided, the weaker the case becomes. The citation that is supposed to justify the comment “Unabashed masturbation” doesn’t bare that comment out. What it should read is something more along the lines of, “One producer of a stage play about the author’s life interpreted certain notations in his journals as indications that he masturbated.” But even this is suspect, because the term “double-sensuous” is subject to innumerable possible interpretations, most of them quite innocent. And though there is a likely possibility that two crosses might indicate two sins to be confessed, it doesn’t indicate what manner of sins. In a person of that period it could be almost anything.

Further, I did a look around at all the other online encyclopedias. Not one mentions a word about this controversy. Thus, all we really have that we can use here is a statement that there is a controversy. We can give a bare bones clinical description of some academic interpretations. But we can’t use POV words like “Unabashed.” And it can’t be put in the same section as documented facts about the author’s life. Perri Rhoades 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the adjective "unabashed" seems too strong, and I'd be happy for that word to be deleted. I've added another reference that tangentially mentions his masturbation records, but it implies people have analysed them in depth - does anyone know where? I haven't come across anything yet that professes doubt about the meaning of those notations, but if you really think they are ambiguous, please find a reference to back this up. I'm still unclear what you wanted regarding the Scharff and Alexander sentence - see my note above. -- Avenue 00:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perri you can hardly accuse me of incorrect procedure when you simply deleted the sections in question the first time round (which is what caused all this controversy anyway) rather than following what you eventually did and adding citation tags. As for my edit crashing half the page and you fixing it but sorry, no. Its a known issue with editing with firefox that other far cleverer people than I are working on to fix so its hardly my fault and besides, you didn't fix the crash it caused, I did myself, within the space of a minute, check the edit history.

The fact that you just said "to project the POV that there was something wrong with the man" in reference to HCA's homosexuality is pretty enlightening. What on earth makes you say that being homosexual means there's something wrong with him? That is a pretty insulting thing to be saying and there aren't any value judgements in the section in question, they are basically arguing that his homosexuality and feeling of being different contributed to his writing, so you've added the value judgement by yourself. And just to point out, I don't "keep" doing anything, most of all moving controverial material to the top of the page, I've edited this page a grand total of twice, and the second time was to correct the page crash my first edit caused, so really, I've only edited it once. Everything else has been purely on the talk page. Not to mention the material in question isn't at the top of the page anyway, its towards the bottom of the personal life section and the last paragraph in the life as author bit.

I agree with the opinion that "unabashed" seems to strong, I'll go ahead and delete seeing as we have some form of consenus on that issue at least.

Avenue I'm going to go ahead and guess the citation needed is in reference to the infatuations with Harald Scharff and Karl Alexander because I'm guessing Perri wouldn't really be questioning that there was no "notable partnerships" between them. Caprosser 06:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Mermaid Statue

I think there should be a mention of the Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen, which is a testimony of his important status in Denmark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.116.210 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] LGBT Category

I don't think adding Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people to this article is appropriate. The category page says that it is for people whose sexuality is "... not debated by historians", but our article states that HCA's sexual orientation is controversial. I'll remove the category from the article. -- Avenue 01:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several reports on his life of late pretty much all of which made his attraction to men quite clear. If the referenced article is actually read in full, it does emphasize that point as well, but warns against using modern labels on the one hand and being influenced by homophobia on the other. --OliverH 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledging his attraction to some men is one thing; categorising him as LGBT is another. The latter is specifically warned against by Heede in that article. "It is anachronistic to regard Andersen as ‘homosexual’ and almost just as wrong to regard him as ‘heterosexual’ or ‘bisexual’." The Hans Christian Andersen Centre, in their FAQ on the subject, say: "To conclude, it is correct to point to the very ambivalent (and also very traumatic) elements in Andersen's emotional life concerning the sexual sphere, but it is decidedly just as wrong to describe him as homosexual and maintain that he had physical relationships with men. He did not." -- Avenue 03:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are tearing the remarks out of context. It warns against regarding him as 'homosexual' or anything else because it doesn't want to apply that label to anyone in that time. Were we to follow that, we'd have to remove many more people from the category. And yes, he did not have physical relationships with men as far as we can tell. But does the lack of opportunity really tell us something about his outlook? Does the fact that he picked the wrong subjects for his desires mean he wouldn't have if he could have? Heede applies an extremely narrow definition of homosexuality that is not reconcilable with the one applied here. The HCA center merely states that he wasn't able to live out his inclinations. There's people who, despite advanced age, haven't had a sexual relationship with anyone, yet they'd not want to have one with people of the same sex if the opportunity arose. Are they any less heterosexual because for psychological reasons, they haven't been able to establish a relationship yet? --OliverH 07:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. The criteria for applying the LGBT category are clearly stated on the category page. The person should either have "publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity" (not the case here), or their sexual orientation should be known and "not debated by historians". The quotes I gave in my last comment above were intended to demonstrate that there is some genuine debate about his sexuality. Both authors state quite clearly that there is some debate about this; perhaps I didn't choose the best quotes, but I don't believe I'm misrepresenting them by quoting them in support of this point. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with their arguments, or whether I agree that HCA was homosexual; what matters is whether there is an ongoing debate on the subject, and there plainly is. -- Avenue 10:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visits with Charles Dickens

This article leads readers to believe that Hans stayed at Charles Dicken's home in 1847. My research indicates that Hans briefly met Dickens in 1847 and was invited to stay for two weeks in 1857, when he overstayed his visit by 3 or 4 weeks. This web site, for one, expresses this view: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/andersen/timeline.html Terry Smith, User: August 21, 2006

• In fact, that is very correct. I found this site (in danish) with quotations of H.C. Andersen himself. Here is the site. Sjalvastefan

I changed the section about Dickens, now it covers both their meetings. It will need lot of fixings because my english is unmotivated bad. Sjalvastefan

[edit] Jenny Lind

Why is it that Jenny Lind is nowhere to be seen in this article? She was H.C.Andersens biggest love. I tried to put Jenny Lind in the sexuality, but the whole section was only to discuss that he was gay that it was almost impossible. I treid my best, someone else may make it better. I also failed the links, someone else fix that to. Sjalvastefan

Now that I think about it, englishspeaking may not know about the love he had for her. I googled "H C Andersen" +"Jenny Lind" +Brother and did only get one source of the top ten, while "H C Andersen" +"Jenny Lind" +Bror got me more sources. It even sais that he proposed to her. I would like someone write these things here, it is over my head. Sjalvastefan

[edit] Tuesday

Is it not redundant to mention which day of the week he was born? --Andreas Müller 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philospher's Stone (Miscellaneous trivia)

"He is the first known person to write a novel about a Philosopher's Stone."

There are two problems with this: 1) "Philosopher's Stone" was a short story, not a novel. 2) As mentioned in the linked article, Christoph Martin Wieland wrote a German fairy tale titled "The Philosopher's Stone" in 1789, 70 years before Andersen published his story. Hiddenriver 10:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] his personality

HCA comes across as a person with a highly sensitive, poetic nature, wearing his heart on his sleeve and seeing himself in sharp contrast to his surroundings: plain, poor, awkward socially and soft, possibly effete. No wonder he was a target to rough people and slightly out of touch. It would be interesting to read a section on his personality all to itself, especially in the context of his life and times. I'd think he had more than his sexual ambiguity that set him apart. I can't remember where I read that he was exceptionally tall and his family cottage was the usual low dwelling with low doorways of those times - does anyone know this reference? Julia Rossi 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] something

should the first two sections be "Personal life" & "sexual orientation"? - anon

[edit] Uh....

I had no idea Hans Christian Andersen was Spongebob. Someone put in a better, non-vandalism picture. --69.11.248.73 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)