Talk:Sexuality of James Buchanan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
"Buchanan actually wrote long, intimate letters to King while in the White House."
Didn't King die before Buchanan became President? Or maybe he wrote these letters "to" King as a way of sorting out his own feelings...?
- I think your first supposition is correct, that the letters were written while King was alive, and therefore this sentence of the article is incorrect. The same paragraph in the article has other "time line" problems, when it seems to refer to events between Buchanan and King but says that King had been Vice President "earlier." Earlier than what? King died while Vice President, in fact he died less than two months after taking office. So some research on what happened when is definitely called for. 6SJ7 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] "Buchanan was a homosexual"
Since the word "homosexual" was not found in any language until the year after Buchanan died, would it not be more accurate to say he was attracted to men? I don't know if the concept of slicing up the population by sexual orientation was even about much until Buchanan was already an elderly man. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
- This source [1] fails WP:RS
- Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong is an excellent example of pop-history; whereas the Buchanan article relies primarily upon the work of academicians. Why should this article be any different? Rklawton 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Yet another point that argues for deletion of the article.K. Scott Bailey 22:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is going to be a one-source article, then perhaps we should just make the article about the book (or its author) instead. Rklawton 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Loewen is an academic. His work has been praised by many serious historians. He is careful about referencing sources. It's true that he works in a popular idiom, but I don't think that that is, in itself, a reason to dismiss his work. Also, this isn't a one source article; it points to several books.NoahB (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I will attempt a rewrite
I will attempt a rewrite of this article at some point in the near future, basing it solely upon scholarly works, rather than the speculative pop history of Lies Across America. When I have completed it, I would appreciate your help with formatting, Rklawton, as I'm not very adept at formatting references, and linking to other appropriate articles. Would you be amenable to doing this?K. Scott Bailey 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Using Loewen As a Source
It has been suggested that James Loewen is not a respected source because he is "pop history". There is no evidence for this statement. Loewen's books are popular, but they also maintain academic standards -- he is meticulous about referencing sources, for example. Loewen himsels is an academic (he taught at the University of Vermont.) His work is reviewed appreciatively by Eric Foner at this reference [2]. Foner is one of the leading living American historians. Other favorable reviews from historians are easy to find; for example [3]
Loewen is a notable author, widely reviewed and discussed. I can see no reason not to consider him a valid source. If you have a reference that indicates that his work is not reliable then you can certainly *include that in the article*, along with a reference. But there is no reason to remove info that comes from Loewen. He is a perfectly acceptable source.
Please discuss any changes here before altering the article so that we can come to a consensus. Thanks. NoahB (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
