Talk:Hendrik Christian Andersen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV Claim/ relationship with Henry James

The prior version of this article stated that James and Andersen had a "close, loving and homoerotic bond ..." The word "homoerotic" was removed with an edit summary claiming that it violated the NPOV rules. I ask how. The letters between the two clearly demonstrate the homoerotic bond between the two. The article made no claim that the two ever acted sexually based upon that bond; it merely stated that their relationship was "homoerotic" James' own words in a letter to Andersen demonstrate this when he says that he wishes Andersen to lean on him as "a brother, as a lover." Wikipedia's own page on homoeroticism states:

The term homoerotic (and its companion term lesboerotic) carries with it the weight of modern classifications of love and desire that did not necessarily exist in previous eras. Homosexuality as we know it today was not codified and pathologized until the mid-20th century. Prior to that time, it was common for men and women to spend a great deal of time in the company of their own sex. As a result, close associations between members of the same sex formed, most notably in the "romantic friendships" documented in the letters and papers of 18th- and 19th- century men and women. These romantic friendships, which may or may not have included genital sex, were characterized by passionate emotional attachments and what modern thinkers would consider homoerotic overtones.

Clearly the two had such a bond. That is not to say they had sex, merely that they had a "homoerotic" relationship. Saying so does not violate the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. Unless, some suport is offered for the claim that it does, I shall edit the article to reinclude the adjective, while keeping the remainder of the most recent additions to the article. Franklin Moore 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• • No problem. I deleted the adjective because I thought the implication of an actual sexual relationship was too strong and unsupported by the evidence we have. But then I did a lot of other NPOV nudges on the article, so I now think "homoerotic" can be added back in without a necessary implication of actual sex. Edel used the adjective in his biography even though he couldn't conclude one way or the other on what he called the technical inquiry. We'll probably never know for sure, though I have my doubts about any actual sexual relationship. When Hugh Walpole, who James met far more often than he ever did with Andersen, suggested a physical affair, James supposedly recoiled with an "I can't, I can't." (That's in Edel's biography, too.) Anyway, the adjective doesn't lean the article too far out of NPOV balance now, so I added it back in. Casey Abell 03:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I am glad you agreed with the homoerotic adjective, and further agree that the James/Andersen relationship is, like all relationships of the dead, incapable of absolute certainty. I have no objection to the current state of the article, but still do wonder why you find that the prior article had NPOV issues. As written the article stated their relationship was "subject to controversy." That is no less true than your version that it is unknown and indeed unknowable. A goggle search would clearly support the claim that their relationship is subject to controversy. Neither you nor I know whether they had a physical relationship. Neither you nor I, said they did or did not. The only difference is that you have said that I violated the NPOV guidelines. While I do not know whether James and Andersen engaged in sexual relations, I do know that the article followed all such guidelines, in the past and does so now. You could have added the material you added without the appelation NPOV. Afterall, as it reads now, some will feel they had no sexual realtionship and others will feel that they did, and had a few arguments along the way. In truth we shall never know. Franklin Moore 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Let's face the fact that the adjective "homoerotic" is a charged one. Yes, technically, the adjective may or may not imply an actual sexual relationship, but it's a strong word that could well leave an impression that some kind of physical relationship was going on. Whether the adjective actually breaks NPOV standards is admittedly a subjective judgment. But the adjective's now been restored to the article, so the dispute is moot. As for the adjective "controversial," I just wanted to clarify what the controversy is about: the exact nature of the relationship, and the inability to pronounce definitely one way or the other as to whether there were actual physical relations involved. I could have quoted from James' letter of January 12, 1901 to Andersen: "How jolly it must be to be restored to Rome & the old life & the old light, at least, & the old loves—I mean, more particularly, as regards the last-named, the pure & independent passions of the mind & of the imagination (emphasis mine). But instead I decided to quote from what I though were more important letters that state James' views on the necessity of realism, proportion and judgment in art. And since there doesn't seem to be much actual disagreement on the article as it now stands, well, I'll let the article stand as is. Casey Abell 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the person who left a request...

.. in my page in the Italian Wikipedia: please do write in English, second, you may of course use my pictures in Commons (as many as you want) for this page: I uploaded them quite for this very reason. Third, I have some pictures of him, but the copyright status of them is unclear, not having the author name for any of them. As soon as I find one which is in the PD, I shall upload it. Currently, I have none, sorry,. best wishes. And please remember to always sign your messages or put a link to a page for your answer G.dallorto 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC) [reply here].