Talk:John Boswell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Arts and Entertainment work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

It is a bit misleading calling someone a "gay historian", a phrase open to two meanings. John was in fact a historian who was gay, or, with the other meaning, a historian who specialised in writing on the history of homosexuality. Writing "gay historian" makes it sound as though though historians are categorised by gender and orientation. Would we write that John Cornwell is a "straight historian" or "Ruth Dudley Edwards a "woman historian"? If the term "gay historian" refers to his sexuality then it is mischevious. Historians, no more than anyone else, are not categorised by sexual orientation, gender, hair colour, height or any other personal characteristics. If it meant "historian who wrote about gay issues and other topics" then it should be said that way. He didn't simply write about homosexuality. 87.192.19.61 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- Is "gay historian" really a phrase open to two meanings? To me, it seems perfectly clear, just like "lesbian novelist" or "Christian poet." If you want to refer to someone who writes about gay history without bringing up that author's own sexuality, you simply write: "the noted scholar of gay history" or something like that. There is a clear difference between a "Christian philosopher" and "an historian of Christian philosophy."

- But there is much more that is wrong with this article. I find it interesting that the people who wrote this page skip lightly over Boswell's supposed major work ("Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and attempt to focus on the book which actually destroyed Boswell's academic reputation, "Same-Sex Unions."

- I would also mention that, while Boswell did write about other subects from time to time (maybe just one time -- orphans and abandoned children) he was in fact an author with just two subjects: homosexuality, and his other hobby-horse, Christianity. JaafarAbuTarab 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I don't have time tonight to finish this, but please let's not make a one-sided article. Let's not turn Wikipedia into advocacy of the sort that "suddenly discovers that all along homosexuality wasn't really a sin, because the ancient church clearly approved it."

One scholar interprets the icons and rituals one way; another can interpret another way. Hardly a smoking gun.

Besides, an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a "disinterested" source. We must at least take into account the possibility of self-justification here. --Ed Poor

How does that differ from heterosexuals making anti-gay comments or disagreeing with Boswell's claims? What makes them disinterested? -- Zoe
What's an "anti-gay" comment? And are you dividing the scholarly world into (A) heterosexual and (B) openly gay? (Sounds like the fallacy of the excluded middle to me :-) Ed Poor
I don't think I need to list what anti-gay comments. They're all over the place. You might want to visit the Reverend Shelton's website, whose URL I will not repeat here. I wasn't dividing the world, you were. -- Zoe
Creating divisions is one of the biggest sins in the Unification Church, so I better stop doing it. Sorry, Zoe. --Ed Poor

[edit] Mess

Poorly marked up, with two virtually identical versions, not an article about John Boswell, but about Boswell's research on the subject of another article, Christian views of homosexuality, this article is a mess. Ortolan88 17:35 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

I agree completely, Ortolan. It's almost as bad as the homophobia article. I hope I have time in the next 3 hours to fix up the adelphiosis thing, otherwise better writers than I will be stuck with the chore. --Ed Poor

[edit] Interest

"an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a "disinterested" source"

Because straight people are completely impartial on the subject of sexual orientation, because straight people have no sexual orientation, I suppose. Just like only white people should write black history. Really, Ed, I expected better from you. - montréalais

Well, I could claim that "disinterested" and "impartial" aren't exactly the same, but I'd rather just apologize. Sorry, I messed up the article. And I concede that "straight" people can be crooked, dishonest, selfish -- and did I mention devious, twisted and narrow? --Ed Poor

To be fair to Ed, everyone reading the above quote should realize he meant that, "an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a 'disinterested' source [on gay history]."
Still, this is a questionable statement. I would argue that the interest a gay man would have in this area is a plus, not a minus. Firstly because his "interests" are positive, for example increasing safety, and because otherwise how or why else would he be knowledgable in that area?
The question is not does this create "interest" or bias, but does this create inaccuracies? For it certainly does create bias (for example, in California being honest about one's romantic tendancies, "coming out", is often interpreted by the courts as a political statement itself). The idea, though, that a historian at Yale would make up facts or promote false interpretations of those facts in order to advance, in the short term, a cause so personally important, in the long term, seems ridiculous. Hyacinth 00:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] References

Aren't there any references to Boswell as an historic figure, rather than diatribes supporting or attacking his research?

Please sign questions and comments, thanks. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for more information. Hyacinth 00:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

John Boswell (the Laird of Auchinlech) in the year 1600 became the first non-operative (or 'accepted') Mason. He became a member of the Lodge of Edinburgh in Scotland.

[edit] Braudel discussion cut

I cut the following text:

Boswell was an unusual kind of historian. Like Fernand Braudel, he didn't rest with official accounts and chronicles, which tend to document the deeds of soldiers, kings, and prelates in detail but say nothing about the millions of ordinary men and women who make their deeds possible. Both scholars probed more obscure sources to tell the tale of the "forgotten millions." Braudel was interested in the economic life of Europe, about which little was recorded; Boswell focused on personal relations, about which less was recorded.

It's true that Boswell and Braudel both used sources beyond official accounts and chronicles, but so do most historians today. Boswell was a great scholar, as Braudel was, but there is no particular affinity or resemblance between them. Llajwa 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticisms of Boswell

I have included a short section on subsequent criticisms of Boswell's work by medievalists and queer theorists, who habitually take Boswell as an example of egregious ahistorical essentialism. I haven't had the opportunity to add references, but I would welcome anyone who can to expand it and do so (especially those who have had a chance to read the recently-published book from Chicago on the 'Boswell thesis'). 131.111.220.6 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)