I don't know anyone who has entertained the belief that Bacon had buggered Jonson. As for his servants, that may be a different matter. Bray suspects that it may have been the money Bacon gave them that brought the matter to notice: certainly, homosexual relations between masters and servants were clearly common enough to provoke the satirists. As for the weight allotted to it in the article: this is a classic situation in Wikipedia. Any implication of homosexuality in an historical figure has to be detailed and fully referenced beyond normal expectation, otherwise it is then accused of being an unsupported allegation, with the resulting endless edit war. In addition, the earlier point made on this thread about including it: "Because a significant amount of modern scholarship is focused on how it affected the development of his ontology" is extremely valid. The growth of gay studies departments within universities in recent years, and the flood of research and interpretation, is having a significant impact, and is literally re-writing history. To give a tiny example: the discoveries and interpretations in Crompton's 'Byron and Greek Love' have affected every Byron biography published after 1985. Multiply this a thousand times, and one gets an idea of the tsunami of change. For the homophobic this presents a confronting situation, but it's the reality.