Talk:Eleanor Roosevelt/Archive 1

message: There's a body of evidence to suggest that Eleanor Roosevelt had a lesbian relationship with Lenore Hickock; how much support must an idea like this have before it's wiki-gospel? It is a case of survival of the fittest edit?
* I don't know when the above was posted, but I believe the evidence I provide in the paragraph recently removed (and now restored) is presented with NPOV and is well substantiated. I ask that it not be removed without discussion Jliberty 00:50, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
The evidence for her lesbian status has been repeatedly removed, being replaced by various other justifications.  Please place such justifications here, we'll talk about it, and we'll change the actual article when we've decided on something.  It will probably end up supporting both sides, but we'll see.  Luqui 04:33, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
:I agree. The entire article is a mess right now. I hope to work with others to eventually get this article up to featured status, but I'm currently working on other matters. I'll keep an eye on your efforts though and please let me know if you think you need help and I'll try to make some time. - JCarriker 16:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
:: The paragraph on ER's bisexulaity has been there undisputed and well documented for months. I've restored the last removal and will continue to do so. There is ZERO reason to take the position that it is false until further substantiated. If someone has good reason to suggest it is false, place THAT here and we can dsicuss it.  Please do not start with the premise that famouse people are straight until conclusively proven otherwise. Yes, there needs to be some standard beyond gossip and tabloid journalism, but the historical evidence here is very strong.  Jliberty 11:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
:As most people who are educated know, Eleanor Roosevelt was a well-spoken individual and a talented writer. Sometimes when a person reads material, it can be interpreted out of it's intended context and can cause problems when not thoroughly reviewed. The fact of Eleanor Roosevelt's homosexuality hardly seems valid to me. Why or how does a person wait so late in life to discover their sexual preference? Does it take a person nearly 50 years of living to discover they are gay or lesbian? Mrs. Roosevelt or anyone in love with another person both homosexual or heterosexual will significantly curtail his or her schedule to be with the person he or she loves if they are truly in love. Also, why such a lapse of so many years before discovering the possible relationship? There would have been suggestions during the tenure of the two womens relationship to suggest there was a romance occurring and would most likely have been remarked on as being obscure. To publish such material on an individual is considered slander and can truly damage a persons reputation when all that could possibly occurred is a good friendship between two people. If these women were involved with one another it seems a love with another person is worth bragging about and close confidants of both parties would know something of a romance. For many people who don't want to come out or someone who is intensely private, discarding the letters that are indicative of correspondence seems to be the appropriate action to take. More care would've been given to conceal the relationship in my opinion. Since Eleanor Roosevelt died first, it seems she would have done everything in her power to not let word of the relationship leak and she would have destroyed any and all evidence indicative of a possible romantic relationship. I feel by all means that the paragraph suggesting Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt's homosexuality should be deleted until one can prove beyond and far beyond a reasonable doubt that a romantic relationship occurred between these two women. 04:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
:: Your reasons for removing her are not substantiated, while the statements about her bisexuality are well substantiated. You are holding this bit of information to an higher standard than most because you perceive statements about her bisexuality as perjorative; which reflects society's bigotry and nothing about the facts of the case.  To answer your points, no one has suggested she was homosexual (but rather bisexual), no one has suggested she waited until late in life to discover this (for all we know she may have known since childhood). It took time to become public because being queer was hidden in those days (and to some degree in these days). To suggest that saying "Some biographers have suggested that Mrs. Roosevelt had a romantic relationship with the journalist Lorena Hickok whom she met in 1928 and who was an out lesbian" is slanderous is absurd and reveals how homophobic we remain.  Jliberty 10:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
: My reasons for removing her are well substantiated, as I stated before there should be more readings of the two womens' communication before assuming a romantic relationship occurred. Women are very affectionate toward one another, especially close friends. Unless Mrs. Roosevelt or Ms. Hickok themselves made a statement to anyone other than themselves that they had a romantic relationship, this information should not be published. A public icon would shy away from the spotlight if there was any chance that their sexual preference would be revealed if they were gay. Homosexuality and bisexuality in my religion are the same thing. If a person has sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex and the opposite sex, he or she would still be considered homosexual. I feel like you use Mrs. Roosevelt's sexual orientation or her assumed sexual orientation to justify your sexual preference. Eleanor Roosevelt married at an early age and bore six children during her marriage so this alone would highly suggest that she was not gay. Her deep committment to her father and the letters he wrote her are also enough evidence that her main objective was to please and to maintain a relationship romantically with another woman is just the opposite. "Some biographers have suggested that Mrs. Roosevelt had a romantic relationship with the journalist Lorena Hickok whom she met in 1928 and who was an out lesbian" is very slanderous unless a person involved in the relationship informs someone outside the relationship that this is true. No one alive this day knows the true nature of those two ladies relationship with one another. This is a very homophobic nation due to the fact that it does not conform to the natural order of things. The statement is not homophobic, rather it shows how low morals people in our society have based on their sexual orientation. Once again, this information should be deleted because you seem to use Mrs. Roosevelt's assumed sexual preference as a safety net to justify your own sexual orientation. 20:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
:: Your statement speaks for itself as based on your religious perspective and is not NPOV. Further, I won't debate whether bisexuality is the same as homosexuality (clearly and by definition it is not). I will state that your argument that publication of this paragraph requires that one of them told a third party sets an unreasonable and special standard and further that I find your logic a bit tortured if not self-contradictory.  In any case, I will ask for administrative help to stop you from repeatedly removing this paragraph. Also, it would be nice if you'd sign your entries. Jliberty 12:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
: My statement does speak for itself, and I have absouletly no earthly idea what a NPOV is. I do know though that bisexuality and homosexuality are basically the same concept. They both involve sexual relationships with members of the same sex. In my religion, there is no difference. Nowhere have you proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these two ladies had a romantic relationship. All you have been able to say is that there is enough evidence to substantiate a relationship between these women, yet you don't seem to be able to provide any reliable proof of this claim. This is the same concept of a rumor or heresay. Any fool knows that unless you read something that is clean cut and not poetically written as Mrs. Roosevelt often did, you cannot assume they maintained a relationship unless a third party can confirm this to be true. When we read poetry, we always look beyond what we read for a deeper, fuller meaning. There is no special standard rather the truth. It's a similar concept to looking at a person and assuming they are gay with no hard core evidence. None of my statements contradict themselves as nowhere have I stated that I even had an inkling that Mrs. Roosevelt was a lesbian. Whatever the case of Mrs. Roosevelt's sexuality, it was wrong if she was bisexual as you are for yours. I feel like once again that you use Mrs. Roosevelt's assumed sexuality as a security blanket to justify your own psychopath sexual ideas. Honestly, the idea of Eleanor Roosevelt's sexuality provides absolutely no relevance to the paragraph at all or no relevance to anyones knowledge as we know she's been dead close to forty-three years. To state this is very much slanderous and gossip. This shows how ignorant of a person you are and how out of touch with reality you are and anyone else who chooses to continue to assume that Eleanor Roosevelt was bisexual. Good luck in getting me to stop deleting this paragraph and making yourself look more ignorant in continuing to publish slanderous material. As with there being no relevant reason to publish this type of material on Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, there is no need at all for you to know who I am. I will truly pray for someone like you who so desperately needs it. You need Jesus in your life, not a man. Thank You. Case closed. Debi Ann 05:15, June 2, 2005
::NPOV means Neutral Point of View, one of the fundamentals of editing an article here. Your personal attacks are not only impolite (surprising for someone who preaches Jesus) but they are inappropriate to this discussion.  The standard is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but to provide reasonable documentation; that this relationship is confirmed by ER's biographer and again by a childhood friend should be more than enough. Your opionion that ERs bisexuality (and mine) are "wrong" is not only irrelevent, it makes your continuing deletion of this fact more than suspect.  I suggest strongly that you read the guidelines for editing articles and for maintaining a Neutral Point of View. Jliberty 10:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
: I did not attack you, rather point out the fact that you seem to have some sort of insecurity with your own sexuality and use Eleanor Roosevelt's assumed sexuality to justify your own. I will once again say that it is wrong if either you are her are or were bisexual. That is not an attack, rather the truth as is also stated in the Bible. In order to publish material to cause one to wonder about another persons sexual orientation should be factual and provide proof relevant to the statement being issued. I've read statements from ER's biographer and most of her statements are based on personal opinions rather than factual knowledge. ER's biographer in a sense created a scenario to make the relationship possible. People, "friends" included will say or do anything to make themselves look good or to cut down another person due to his or her level of fame and fortune. You still seem to not understand that you should provide proof of this relationship. To make a claim that someone is bisexual is nothing to be taken lightly and should be backed with evidence. If ER was alive today, I'm one-hundred percent sure that no one would confront her about her sexuality. Another point I failed to mention is the fact that ER was so distraught to learn her husband cheated on her and was even more upset to learn he was with the woman at his death. It is highly unlikely for someone such as ER to hold a double standard such as this. The woman had more respect for the institution of marriage to commit an act such as this. The last deletion of the paragraph was not made by me, but the person who took her off of the gay and lesbian category. I truly feel you should refer to the bottom of this page before you consider posting this irrelevant trash again. 07:35, June 4, 2005 (UTC)
:: Okay, let me try one time to clarify.  First, as a bisexual one can love both men and women, so there is nothing inconsistent in ER mourning the loss of her husband and also loving a woman.  Second, one can respect the institution of marriage (I have been monogomously and happily married for 22 years) and still be bisexual.  Third, Friends may do or say anything and biographers may make things up, but this paragraph is substantiated sufficiently (and worded carefully) that to remove it based on your objections is to set a standard higher than generally used, and to do so only because you think that saying that ER was bisexual is insulting (personally, I find it a compliment, but to each his own). Fourth, to say "I feel like you use Mrs. Roosevelt's sexual orientation or her assumed sexual orientation to justify your sexual preference" is personally insulting; don't presume to question my motives or need for "justification."  Fifth, your messages are filled with counter-factual information such as that homosexuality does not conform to "the natural order of things" and that the bible says that homosexuality and bisexuality are "wrong." (see "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak, ISBN: 188636009X) a noted biblical scholar.
::In any case, this is not the place to argue belief systems, religion, your personal disapproval of bisexuality, the facts of what is the "natural order" or any such tangential issues. The article stands as it does because it provides sufficient support for a relvant and important fact about a significant historical figure. Jliberty 10:06, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:I did not say Eleanor Roosevelt could not mourn the death of her husband and love a woman. To clarify your misunderstanding, I stated that she was upset about him maintaining an affair while the two were married so it seems unlikely she would do the same. I have not set a higher standard to determine ER's sexuality, rather demanded more factual information regarding this issue. ER would have "come out" herself during her lifetime if indeed she was bisexual as we know she had no problem being insulted, so in a sense, no, I don't feel it is insulting to state that about ER as should most likely would have no problem acknowledging her sexuality but no one would dare confront her about it either. I apologize sincerely for the statements I made about your using ER's sexuality to justify your own, but you seem to continue to press the issue that cannot be proven beyond saying there is enough evidence to substaintiate this. I truly apologize. I also must say that a person who studies the Bible publishes studies on his or her perception of what he or she reads. If homosexuality or bisexuality were approved by the Bible then we would have seen more open relationships throughout the course of history. I still stick to the belief that they don't conform to "the natural order of things." Not attacking you, I say that any study saying that homosexuality or bisexuality are acceptable have set their own special standards to justify these sexual orientations. I still believe there must be more evidence before publishing such grave material on a person, especially a issue of much controversy. 12:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenore Hickock

message: In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: I'll post a proposal for changes to the paragraph latter, but sense this debate has been rather extensive let me explain myslef first and make a few points. I'm the person who intially destubbed this article and as such I have been aware of this issue for some time. For those of you who have not encoutered me, I have a list of articles I improve up to featured status, Mrs. Roosevelt is one of my favorite historic figures, as such this article is on that list. I've been avoiding this article because its such a mess in terms of organization. Quite frankly I have been puting off dealing with this issue, because I feel that its mention in a larger article won't have the de facto preeminence that it does in the current rather sparse article. Since the Genie is now out of the bottle, in that its obvious the status quo won't hold, I'm jumping in the debate. I don't know if which, if any, of you have taken the time to do an indepth study of Eleanor Roosevelt— I have. 
The notes:
*First off this is a theory, not a fact. No one knows for sure.
*This theory meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; it's well known, though controversial.
*Blanche Wiesen Cook's work is well known and one of the most important biographies of Eleanor Roosevelt. Cook is a respected scholar and would not be so if she tampered with information.
*Cook's work is not the definative work of Eleanor Roosevelt's life, that honor goes to Eleanor Roosevelt herself, who wrote four autobiographical works. These works do mention Lorena Hickock. The one I currently have access to The Autobiography of Eleanor Roosevelt, which is a compilation of the other three works and thus is abriged, only mentions her in passing. 
*Doris Kearns Goodwin, who won a Pulitzer Prize, for her biography of FDR and ER disagrees with Ms. Cook's assessment.
*I've requested that MikeH weigh in on the categories as he is more knowlegable of that subject than I.
*The vast majority of educated people, including Fundementalist Christians, recognize the difference between Bisexuality and Homosexuality. No one claims she was homosexual.
*Cliff Arsen's citing as a source in this article, is somewhat misleading. As they were not childhood friends, she was an adult friend during his childhood, and also in that his insight into her sexuality is the same as everyone else's, Hickcock and Roosevelt's coorespondence. He provides the relevant excerpts from the correspondence, in An 'Outing' of Historical Proportions. I've read a lot of Mrs. Roosevelt's correspondence, I own a book containg her and Truman's correspondence. The excerpts provided are not conclusive evidence, and are even less so for one familiar with her writing style and personality.
*The references I find for the Gay Almanac, decribe it as "somewhat scholarly."
*Given that the only legitmate source are the letters themselves and Cook. Keep Cook, add Goodwin and the excerpts, move Arsen to external links, and dump Krantz and you should have a balanced view. 
*DebiAnn, Jliberty's sexuality is not your concern, and if you continue to violate our Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks policy you'll likely be blocked. He has also requested that we discuss the paragraph before changing it. This is standard policy for controversial topics, if it is not respected the page will be protected.
I'll post a proposal for changes to the paragraph latter. -JCarriker 12:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:I'll finish reading the entire debate, but I will weigh in on the categories: I think they should go. I think mentioning the possibility that Eleanor was bisexual can go in the article, as well as the list of gay people under "Disputed." The LGBT people category does not fit her because there is no conclusive evidence -- it is a mere theory. So I support removing the categories. Mike H 19:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Gay etc. category (again). Her gay or bisexuality is only a "conclusion", not a fact. I also removed the statement: "Mrs. Roosevelt's bisexuality is substantiated by Cliff Arnesen, a childhood friend and member of the National Bisexual Advisory Board/GLB Veterans of America.."  -- Arnesen might have known her when he was a child but he was not a childhood friend. Eleanor Roosevelt was 64 years old when Arnesen was born and died when he was fourteen. How could he possibly know anything about her sexuality? Ted Wilkes 10:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes 

message: An anon added: Another Biography Eleanor Roosevelt was born in New York City on 11 October 1884 among 7400 upper class families as the niece of President Theodore Roosevelt. At eight, after an operation Eleanor’s mother died of diphtheria on 7th December 1892. Then less than two years later on 14th August 1894 he father died when she was ten years old and then was sent to live with her strict grandmother Mary Ludlow Hall with her brother Hall. At the age of 15 she was sent to Allenswood, a finishing school in England, whose headmistress, Mademoiselle Marie Souvestre, had a great influence on her education. She returned to New York City in 1902 to make her debut in society as a quite independent woman. Eleanor married Franklin Roosevelt on 11 March, 1905 who was her distant cousin. In the next 11 years Eleanor had six children, one of which died in infancy .After Franklin’s election as state senate in 1910 she preformed the social role that was expected. During World War1 she did war work with the Red Cross since Franklin was the assistant secretary of the navy. Eleanor Roosevelt became first lady in 1933. When Eleanor moved in to the white house she was afraid because she thought she would be a prisoner in a gilded cage. She indicted weekly meetings with women reporters lectured through out the United States and had a newspaper column, My Day, which was published in the newspaper daily for many years. After Franklin died on April 12 1945 Eleanor assumed the story was over. Even after saying this for 17 more years she continued her notable public service. In her later she presided over her large family then at the age if 78 she died on November 71962 New York City and was buried at the rose park in Hyde Park next to Franklin Roosevelt
It was awkwardly insered and I'm worried a little about copyright violation.  I'm on my way out, so I can't merge the information in  neat way into the article.  If someone else can that would be great!  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: An editor User:68.95.106.101, editing occasionally as User:Centers, insists on adding place of birth and place of death after date of birth and date of death in the intro. Though he's been pointed to the relevant style guidelines, he seems to want this one to be different, for his own convenience. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. . .Saw the RFC and thought I would take a look.  While the MOS does not suggest including place of birth and death in the intro, it doesn't seem to exclude that possibility either.  I have seen other articles that have the information in the intro, and personally I find it helpful.  Has there been broader discussion of this issue somewhere that lead to the MOS guideline?  TMS63112 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't exclude it, and it also says that the style is flexible. However, when a half dozen editors are saying "stick to the MOS" and one editor says "no, I want it that way for people who just want to read the first sentence of the article", it's at least annoying. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where it would be annoying, and if there is a consensus among other editors contributing to the article then he ought to respect that.  But (again just my personal opinion) I often find it useful to have the information in the intro. 209.145.162.130 19:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro format