Talk:James Kilfedder

message: Is this article, in this publication, a valid source for discussing the sexuality of James Kilfedder, or should all mentions of his alleged homosexuality be kept out of the article as per this edit? 02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of embarrassing evidence documented by reputable historian in reputable conservative British political journal warrants a POV tag. Haiduc 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your feedback, especially regarding the way to frame McKinstry's account. At the same time there are some problems here. First, this is not a case of pedophilia, the boy was too old (mid to late teens, as he describes it). Secondly, there is no reason to step in as editors and comment on the events by making excuses, or alluding to criminal prosecutions or exposure of pedophiliacs. No attack is implied, either by McKintry or by myself. I do not object, however, to a mention that the practice was common. Again, thanks for your comments. Haiduc 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My intent was to clearly summarize what McKinstry wrote.  I don't believe I added excuses or allusions, but simply summarized McKinstry's article.  My own editorial opinion is that a reference to McKinstry's claims would violate Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.  "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)."  Allegations about Kilfedder's sexuality are contentious.  The only source is a conjectural interpretation of a single source.  The fact that McKinstry expressed his own interpretation is verifiable, what McKinstry conjectured is not (without further corroboration from verifiable sources).  Therefore, McKinstry's comments are not suitable as an encyclopedic source. VisitorTalk 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Please note it is strictly forbidden to suggest personal information (whether true or not), including real life identity of anonymous editors.  Asking a question once is OK.  If the editor declines to answer, then that is where it stops. See WP:BLOCK#Protection. Tyrenius 07:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RL identity

message: Of the above links this one seems to convey the spirit of the situation. Similar to Merv Griffin it was an open secret and only upon his death was the subject readily discussed. We don't have to engage in OR about what Kilfedder's motives were or anything else, simply state the facts as presented in reliable sources. Benjiboi 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, that is a good account, but this line jumps out at me; " It was of course nobody's business but his own..."  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is terribly convenient except if he was victimizing underage men and hypocritically opposed same-sex age of consent laws bringing them in line with non-gay people. Benjiboi 05:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So now we see your agenda...--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not presume your agenda and prefer you not infer what is mine. I never knew the guy nor had I heard of him until drawn here concerning his sexuality being addressed on a biography which I've become more familiar with over time. Let's stick to content and discussing the article. I perhaps could have more delicately pointed out that sources indicate he targeted at least one underage young man and was considered a hypocrite for opposing legislation seen as supportive to LGBT folks. Frankly I don't see this as a major issue and as the bio is quite short a sentence or two toward the end of the article, presuming his death is covered toward the end, would be most appropriate in my opinion. Benjiboi 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it Sir James, in his lifetime, did not want to be regarded as homosexual, his reasons were his own.  I am of the opinion that defamation laws should extend to one's estate, they don't, of course it can be written in the article.  Out of respect, however, I feel there is no need to mention it. On the other hand, the despicable behaviour of Outrage! ought to be exposed.  I would be willing to include the information surrounding his death, which is as follows; letters sent by Outrage!, on to an Ulster MP, no proof it was Sir James, but he died on a train from a heart attack later that day.  The crap written by Leo McWhats-his-name is not of an encyclopedic nature and shouldn't be in. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I do agree largly with what Counter and padraig have been arguing here.  However it is a little strange that the outrage incident isn't even mentioned!   Here is a reliable source that outlines the probability that  Kilfedder was in receipt of an Outrage letter.  I can't get access to the Feargal Cochrane  article at the min, but I'm guessing there ios something there.  There is a path to go down here, it just isn't one that says he was gay.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time it has been emphatically denied that he was gay and that he received any letter. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Closeted issue seems important enough to include