Talk:James Buchanan/Archive 1

message: "As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away."
Huh?  Far away from where?  Does "reinforcement" refer to additional soldiers?  food?  ammo?  Did the reinforcements get there?  Why bring up the issue of the Star of the West if only in order to drop it so suddenly?
:It was a boat with both troops and supplies, didn't get there. Hopefully it's clearer now -  would be good source for a Star of the West article with all the details. Stan 17:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some confusing wording 

message: Here are the dueling accounts of JB's sexuality:
Buchanan was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D. C.. Rumors and speculation that the two had a homosexual relationship began at the time and have periodically been revived by historians, but decisive evidence one way or the other seems lacking.
Versus:
- Buchanan's sexuality has been the subject of academic debate. He never married; but he was close friends with senator William Rufus King, and for some years lived with him in Washington, D. C. At the time, King was referred to as the President's "better half" and "his wife". When King was sent as an envoy to France, Buchanan was reported to have said: "I have gone wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any of them." Professor James W Loewen, in his 1995 work "Lies my Teacher told me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong", supports the thesis that Buchanan was homosexual.  
The first is an even-handed summary, the second is original research/interpretation, and the second is NOT npov. So I think the first should stay and the second must go. NP
I think we can find some middle ground here. I'm inclined to agree that the first is superior, but there is no reason that we can't include some details from the second version.  (Incidentally, I'm puzzled by singling out Loewen for special mention there.  Great book, but I don't recall him doing any original research on Buchanan and he's not such a towering figure in history that his opinion deserves noting like this.) 
Also, please sign your posts, which you can do with four tildes (~) and that automatically slaps up your user name and date in this format:  Gamaliel 17:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps what he meant was "disgusting" in an academic way - as in dishonest, disreputable, disingenuous, pop-history "research."  Given that history only records three instances of JB's contemporaries suggesting a homosexual relationship, and that includes politically inspired mud-slinging and no direct evidence from either individual, I'd say that this subject should be relegated to "pop-culture" at best.  Rklawton 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: To resolve the sexuality debate, I am proposing a vote, as on the similar controversy on the Lincoln page. I would be inclined compromise by including certain details, but those details are just more speculation and are too specific for a biographical article. NP
All in favor of the first account vote here:
NP
All in favor of the second account "Buchanan's sexuality has been the subject of academic debate"(plus or minus the special mention of Loewen), vote here:
152.71.20.183 10:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: Maybe it would make more sense if a whole new article was done on the controversy. Something like Buchanan Sexuality Controversy or something similar. That way, all of the various theories and ideas could be heard out in one article.Mr. Blank 12:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the "controversy" can be sourced reliably, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.K. Scott Bailey 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An encyclopedic article is not the place for unscholarly speculation.  Period.K. Scott Bailey 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article on Buchanan's Sexuality? 

message: I'm trying to translate this article into Spanish. But, does minister hear mean "ambassador"? If not, it makes non sense. Thanks --Javier Carro 13:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I'm not sure. I think back then they had ministers who handled major countries, instead of an ambassador for every single one. For your translation, ambassador might be most suitable. --Golbez 13:17, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. After searching for a lot of dictionaries, I found one where they explained that minister is a  lower title than ambassador, but I am not sure the equivalent in Spanish, so I think I will translate it as "diplomático" which is more general. --Javier Carro 08:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Served as Minister to Russia from 1832 to 1834. 

message: Is there any danger of confusing a music festival with a dead president's estate? That line seems superfluous to me. JeremyToday 18:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheatland? 

message: The template should be changed, listing his niece Harriet Lane as his wife even though she acted as First Lady is strange. (Alphaboi867 07:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niece/Spouse 

message: The Second Bank of the United States article says that Buchanon was once a manger of the Baltmore branch of that bank, and was a "partner in crime" in bad banking practices.
No mention of that here.  One of these articles probably needs updating.  68.49.236.45 20:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement with 2nd Bank of US? 

message: I don't know what date is intended to be hyperlinked. Obviously it is not 2008.
"In 2008]], Buchanan was named president of the Board of Trustees of Franklin and Marshall College"Johnor 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Board of Trustees ?

message: How do you nominate an article to have its neutrality checked?
: You place the template  in the top of the page, or the template  within a disputed section. studerby 13:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a specific assertion or section of the article you believe is problematic? Newyorkbrad 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: In one section of the article it states:
After his fiancée’s death, Buchanan vowed he would never marry. For many years in Washington, D.C., prior to his Presidency, James Buchanan lived with William R. King, who was later Vice President under Franklin Pierce for 15 years [3].
The 15 years has to be an error, doesn't it? According to the information on King, he died shortly after taking office. Just trying to be helpful. What a fantastic site! MMD.
:It's been changed - what is meant was that Buchanan lived with King for 15 years, not that King was Vice President for 15 years (no one has ever been Vice President more than 8 years). Newyorkbrad 20:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term of vice presidency 

message: I'd mean to get involved in this dispute, but there seems to be a debate over rumors. Yet this text is in the article with no sources:
*Conflicting rumors abounded, opining that he was marrying for her money as he came from a less affluent family, or that he was involved with other women. Buchanan, for his part, never pubicly spoke of his motives or feelings, however, letters from Ann revealed she was paying heed to the rumours, and after Buchanan paid a visit to the wife of a friend, Ann broke off the engagement. Ann soon after died, supposedly from an overdose of laudanum. The records of Dr. Chapman, who looked after Ann in her final hours, and who said just after her passing that this was "the first instance he ever knew of hysteria producing death." The doctor theorised that the woman's demise was caused by an overdose of laudanum.
I'm not sure how these (unsourced) rumors and speculations are different from the rumors and speculations about Buchanan and King. -Will Beback · † · 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there is no difference.  As for a source, though, there was one: Klein, Philip Schriver; American Heritage Magazine: The Lost Love of a Bachelor President; December, 1955; Vol. 7, Issue 1 However, KScott decided it wasn't up to his standards for inclusion.  Hopefully it can be reinserted soon. --G2bambino 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right.  That material should not be part of the article either, unless and until it can be sourced well.  As an aside, I would ask that you warn the above user about violating WP:AGF.K. Scott Bailey 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, if that source was deleted by me, it was not intentional.  The only "sources" I removed on purpose were Lies Across America and the Salon.com opinion piece.K. Scott Bailey 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumors 

message: :Okay, after giving this a few days' thought, I'll put forward a proposal.  I do continue to support the inclusion of Lowen's observation; doing so does not give undue credibility to a fringe theory, and adds to the complexity of the article. This is as per WP:FRINGE.
::For fifteen years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with William Rufus King, who was later Vice President under Franklin Pierce, though King died four years before Buchanan became President.  This situation prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy," while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife." (The term "Nancy" was used to describe homosexual men in the nineteenth century.) Further, some of the contemporary press also circulated rumors and speculation about Buchanan and King's relationship.  While the nieces of the two men destroyed their uncles' correspondence, eradicating evidence of what relationship the two had, surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship"; Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate. Such expression, however, was not unusual amongst men at the time.  Though the circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King have led to modern speculation on Buchanan's sexuality - in particular, authors such as Paul Boller, in Not So!, and James Loewen, in Lies Across America - and his being dubbed "American's first homosexual president," no conclusive evidence exists to support whether or not King and Buchanan engaged in sexual relations. [Note: references have been removed to avoid conflict with paragraph at Bambino's proposal below.] --G2bambino 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments? --G2bambino 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you ever get a chance to check out WP:REDFLAG? If so, you'll understand why I still feel that including pop history that does nothing more than speculate, and Salon.com articles is out of bounds.K. Scott Bailey 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you're not going to cooperate then we'll have to take this a step further.  I'll put in an RfC. --G2bambino 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, If I'm not simply going to aquiesce to your view of the matter, right? As you apparently refuse to review WP:REDFLAG, what possible motivation do I have to come over to your side of the fence regarding this matter? I especially enjoy how you wield the RfC like a bat with "if you're not going to cooperate then we'll have to take this a step further." Tastefully done.K. Scott Bailey 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed; as tasteful as "If you revert once more, we'll move up a level."  At least I gave the issue more of a chance to be debated out to a reasonable solution before wielding my "bat" (and I find it very interesting that you feel bringing others in to add to the discussion is an attack of some sort).  You, however, refuse to cooperate - and my saying so does not mean I expect you to automatically aquiesce to my "view"; rather, I mean that you won't even put forward a proposal.  Essentially, what your actions communicate is: "I could care less what the section says as long as it doesn't say what I don't want it to."  As I said earlier: your way or no way. --G2bambino 15:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly said that I have no problem including a section on his personal life, including his relationship with King, as long as it goes only so far as the facts take us: that the press and his enemies speculated about their relationship. Including statements of "fact" from "sources" like Loewen, that are in fact, NOT actual facts is irresponsible. I've pointed you to my concerns per WP:REDFLAG numerous times, and you continue to ignore it.K. Scott Bailey 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I never said Lowen's work would be presented as fact, only that his work proves the fact that he made a claim. --G2bambino 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal