Talk:Hector MacDonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Military work group.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force

We need more discussion on his alleged homosexuality. If the allegations were fabricated then why did he not contest them, instead of committing suicide? Having a wife and son does not refute this. PatGallacher 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is all in "Fighting Mac: The Downfall of Major-General Sir Hector Macdonald" by Trevor Royle. Or any other bio of him. I cannot believe that that is "not good enough" for Wikipedia. Claiming him as an LBGT is simply a political act and an outrage. Read the bios of him!

Why is it an outrage? What have you got against LGBT people? Are you simply assuming that a British general of his ability cannot have been gay? PatGallacher 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What have you got against straight people? Why are you so interested in Hector MacDonald? You clearly have not bothered reading any bios of him or have any real interest in him, so why are deigning to have ANY opinion on the matter? Without bothering to do ANY research, are you simply trying to claim that he was gay as a joke?

PatGallacher - in a previous message you stated that it was "suspicious" that someone said MacDonald was married. If this is the level of your contributions to Wikipedia, no wonder it is fast becoming a joke. Here's a clue: go away, do some research on Hector MacDonald, read the EVIDENCE and then come back and contribute. Your knee-jerk claim that MacDonald was gay is clearly based on nothing but a spiteful hate campaign against a great Scottish hero dragged down by English toffs. Hope you are proud of yourself.

[edit] rancor...

Ouch, y'all! Either he's gay or he's not - there's no need to get uncivil about it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that MacDonald had an affair with the son of Governor Ridgeway is the first time that I have heard that one - and I have done a lot of research on MacDonald. I went to the claimed source and Judd does not source his claim at all. It is just stated as being "widely believed". I'm an academic and that is simply not good enough as a source. The claim that he "seems to have cultivated loving relations with boys" again is not sourced. In fact, the expert on MacDonald, Kenneth MacLeod states that there is absolutely no evidence to support the allegations against MacDonald (The Ranker, 1976; A Victim of Fate, 1978). In addition, his principal friend wasn't Alaister Robertson the "Glenalmond schoolboy from Aberdeen". Robertson was simply a pen friend and MacDonald, as a major hero of the Empire at the time, particularly post-Omdurman, corresponded with numerous people who wrote to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.94.254 (talk) 20:51, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon on this one, SqueakBox 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on his contribution, as it is has no bearing on the material presented by Judd, material which, unlike his musings, IS a proper source for an entry here. However, I think we should take into consideration the repeated comments of this individual, evincing aggression, bigotry and a chip on the shoulder. The comments, rather than his message, invalidate his argument. Let no one be surprised if I revert material inserted by this type of individual. Haiduc 02:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, this is a logical fallacy. The comments on your contribution are fairly sourced. It is the message that needs to be acknowledged, not where or who they come from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.251.73.14 (talk) 12:31, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV - Whitewashed article censoring evidence of homosexual interest

While I have no objection to all points of view being presented, I will not agree to deletion of material documenting MacDonald's interest in boys on the basis of spurious opinion and OR. Haiduc 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"MacDonald's interest in boys" has no evidence other than unsourced secondary material. Or your fantasies. Not good enough. The official report exonerated MacDonald but over a hundred years later someone interested in paedophilia knows better? Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.253.234 (talk) 19:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith, and it would help if you stopped hiding behind anonymity. What's wrong with using secondary sources? We should not treat the official enquiry as gospel. PatGallacher 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith? This guy's interests are in pederasty i.e. paedophilia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.253.234 (talk) 20:55, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I am open to persuasion on this issue. However your hysterical tone and ad hominem attacks do not convince me that the allegations of sodomy etc. against MacDonald can be regarded as conclusively disproved. We are supposed to aim for a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. If the discussion continues in this way I may raise a Request for Comment. PatGallacher 21:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem against a perverted paedophile with a track record on other web sites? You bet. If one looks at Haiduc’s history on Wikipedia, it is clear that his whole agenda is to insert references to paedophilia into irrelevant articles (e.g. the Happy Prince by Wilde, Batman etc). There is also a lot of discussion about his activities on other websites.

Haiduc has been previously asked: “You think I should support your efforts to insert references to homosexuality into what seems to be every article on Wikipedia?... I've seen your posts to Passion Histoire, read your comments across the Internet about pederasty on the strangest of websites (the Hindu forums?) and noted that your Bebo account's friends are all under 18. You and I both know why you edit pederastic articles and it's not because of your concern for their welfare.”

And in April 2007 he was asked: “It is precisely because I am "head of the gay pages" that I am trying to make you see what damage you are making to our cause. Your desire to insert pederasty into everything should be curbed because it's not there and it's making us, and Wikipedia, look bad…you are merely forcing pederastic ideals onto other articles. Surely you can see the difference between fighting to include verifiable information and trying to force inappropriate content, images and categories onto articles? And I simply don't believe you when you say that these accounts on other sites aren't yours. They claim to be you, and they write like you, and they provide the same information you have provided here. They demonstrate the same single minded obsession with pederasty, claim to be writing a book on the subject and hold your job. FYI, I certainly do not go hanging around on sites that discuss pederasty in French, I background checked you when you made several dodgy comments over the NAMBLA thing and I got concerned…Basically Haiduc, I am asking you to please cease adding suspect content, images and categories to non-pederastic articles."

But we should "assume good faith".......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.253.234 (talk) 21:19, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I am still slightly suspicious of anyone who gets into Wikipedia controversy while hiding behind anonymity. If you have complaints about Haiduc's behaviour generally then raise an RFC about it, or on his talk page. Just because he raises issues of pederasty on several articles does not mean that all his edits are illegitimate. PatGallacher 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should stick to the topic. It does not matter who or what I am. Personal attacks only open you to scrutiny, as in: why are you so invested in covering this up??? If the information is valid then it belongs, if it is not then I will be happy to discard it. Let's not get attached to pro or con, it is a waste of time. Haiduc 01:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are a paedophile who has been exposed as relentlessly pushing a paedophile agenda on Wikipedia and inserting false references about the non-existent paedophilic tendencies of subjects on a variety of pages. This is but one of them. I beg to differ that it "does not matter who or what you are". What "pros" are there about abusing children, incidentally? I can think of plenty of cons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.105.46 (talk) 21:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I am here to edit, and my edits live or die by their merits. That is all. I am sorry you are so worked up, and I am sorry you feel the need to project concepts upon me which are alien to me. Please join us in editing this encyclopedia on the basis of the rules which we have developed here - if you coupled your passion with your reason you would probably become an asset here. Haiduc 01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been no attempt for some time to add to this discussion, or justify the NPOV flag on this article. I will remove it soon if nobody objects. PatGallacher (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contributed so far but by all means remove the NPOV flag. I'd personally recommend Eachann nan Cath by Friseal. A, Gairm, Glasgow 1979 (Eachann = Hector) to anyone interested in his biography because it take the Gaelic sources into account as well (which are often ignored in spite of the fact that he was a Gaelic through and through). Probably not that accessible to most people but informative nonetheless. Eachann would have been pleased to be able to be open about his sexuality. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)