Talk:James Buchanan/Archive 1

Some confusing wording
"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)

Wait a second, the first shots of the civil war were fired under the Lincoln Adm. and Lincoln secretly supplied Ft. Sumter, this article is factually incorrect.

Since the article remains intact, I'll assume no one took the above (unsigned) comment seriously. Just to clarify, South Carolina seceded form the Union in 1860 and the attack on the Star of the West occurred in January 1861, two months before Lincoln assumed office.

Sexuality
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)

In response to User:Kscottbailey's blanking of the cited information about Buchanan's possible homosexuality: The section is only disgusting if you find homosexuality disgusting. And it is presented with the requisite acknowledgment that we can never know for certain. While wikipedia is no place for unfounded rumors, it is also not a place for priggishness. There is citable, academicly supported evidence suggesting both men engaged in homoerotic behavior. There's likely a reason the press called him "Aunt Fancy," and why an older man of wealth shared his home with another never married man for the rest of his days. In Buchanan's case the evidence is strong enough that C-SPAN's special on Buchanan included it. And in it Brian Lamm, C-SPAN founder, discussed the subject in a forum of presidential historians. Bona fide heterosexual historians, Michael Beschloss for one, have found evidence that Buchanan was homosexual. Most often pronouncements of of a subject being "disgusting" says far more about the person making that declaration than the subject. Reverting, blanking, or attempting to undo edits usualy ends in an opposite effect of what was desired. Why not edit rather than blank out an entire section? Cite your sources and join the conversation. CApitol3 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Vote
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)

New Article on Buchanan's Sexuality?
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)
 * Unless the "controversy" can be sourced reliably, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.K. Scott Bailey 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well none of us are going to find the man in flagrant. There are publications, newsweeklies, books, and possibly still info on C-SPAN's website. The premise is possible or potential and mention of it, or discussion of it is not an indiciation of defamation. If we're keeping score here, he's not exactly what many would call a sterling president, I don't think gay folks are really eager to "claim" him as one of their own. Moreso, the discussion is to better know the man, and his pal/partner. CApitol3 19:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedic article is not the place for unscholarly speculation. Period.K. Scott Bailey 19:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Served as Minister to Russia from 1832 to 1834.
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)
 * 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)

Wheatland?
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)

I changed gay back to bachelor since no one has given any resources on support for 'gay' and 'bachelor' is true either way.

Niece/Spouse
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))

Involvement with 2nd Bank of US?
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) -gsu

Board of Trustees ?
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)

Utah War?
I noticed there was no mention of the Utah War in this article. Should such a section be added?

NPOV
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)


 * Is there a specific assertion or section of the article you believe is problematic? Newyorkbrad 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your oppinion about merging
Do you think that merging the article Sexuality_of_James_Buchanan and the appropriate section in this article is a good idea? The separate article isn't much longer than the section in this article.
 * I went ahead and merged it.

Impeachment
I put a paragraph on the 1860 Covode committee hearings. With the Democrats about to take Congress tomarrow, it's very important to study this important precendent.

Term of vice presidency
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)

Buchanan's sexual orientation
Do you not understand that including such a section, where nothing more than rumors are reported--completely unsourced by any reliable source--is against all that Wikipedia stands for? If you continue to reinsert unsourced rumors into the article, I will continue to remove them. Either find reliably sourced material that references Buchanan's supposed homosexuality, or stop inserting them. And an opinion piece from Salon.com does NOT count as a reliable source.K. Scott Bailey 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Rklawton 20:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A hundred and fifty years from now, maybe only homosexual people will edit online encyclopedias (who knows why... it's in the future). By implication, would that then mean that all of Wikipedia's editors today might be reasonably suspected of homosexuality?  That's the problem we have when evaluating behavior 150 years ago by today's standards.  I agree that if we include a section on Buchanan's sexual orientation, it should be based entirely on scholarly work(s), and Salon.com doesn't quality.  Rklawton 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No matter how many rules Wikipedia has for keeping editors from violating NPOV by unilaterally carving out what they don't want to hear, they can't close up all the loopholes. As a result, rather a few editors seem to choose to judge the reliability of a source by whether it says what they don't want to hear.  I've seen an editor claim that the Washington Post (the paper that broke the story of Watergate) was a "tabloid", when the Post published something he didn't want to hear.  I haven't yet seen someone try to claim that the New York Times is a "gossip rag" just so that they can keep an issue from being presented to the reader for the reader to make their minds, but maybe I'm about to.
 * Scott misdescribes the section in question: he says it is "nothing more than rumors", when in fact there is plenty of information about Buchanan's personal life that is a matter of public record -- his engagement to Ann Coleman and her suicide, his taking of an adopted relative of First Lady.  Did Scott make any attempt to separate the claims he regarded as extraordinary from those that are public record?  I see none.  Does Scott really believe that suppressing all discussion of an issue that any reasonable research would indicate is widespread, at the cost of removing perfectly good information from the article, is what "Wikipedia stands for"?  Well, that's news to us all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken a read through the debate here, and I come away wondering: if there were indeed rumours about Buchanan's sexuality, either then or now, then why not include that information? It would be, after all, a fact that the rumours existed, whether they were true or not - certainly care would have to be taken to ensure that it's clear they were only rumours.  That said, there was no such thing as sexual orientation in those days, so I think one should be careful labeling him as "gay" or "a homosexual" here in this article - that's a speculatively applied, rigid definitive from a modern context (and besides, if true, it seems he'd more be bisexual by our standards).  If someone has said he was gay, then it should be stated "Mr. Bobbles (or whomever) has said James Buchanan was gay."  As well, certifiable sources need to be found for some of the claims, and/or some of the claims need to be referenced in the proper format. --G2bambino 20:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem including it. Find sources that comply with WP:RS that mention these speculations (not the Kitty Kelly-esque, Lies Across America or a Salon opinion piece), and I'll leave them in.  Otherwise, such poorly-sourced speculation will be removed.  Weasel words that imply the speculation (such as calling King his "companion" instead of the less-weasely and more accurate "friend") will also be removed.K. Scott Bailey 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any need to be so abbrasive? I didn't notice the friend vs. companion issue, and I'm not sure it really matters; calling someone a companion does't automatically denote any intimate relationship.  Anyway, friend seems fine.  As for sources: if Lies Across America is a published book, then it's contents are a source.  Also, the Salon article isn't an opinion piece, but more a review of some guy's book; the only reference to Buchanan at the end talks about what the press at the time said about the man.  Of course it's all gossipy rumours, but the point is that they were, and still are, out there - shouldn't a biographical article include the rumours that have circulated about a person?  I think the paragraph in question makes clear that these claims are only theories and not fact. --G2bambino 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's being abrasive? I said very clearly, if a reliable source can be found, I am not against including the speculation.  I view books like Lies in the same light as Kitty Kelly's trash about the Bush family.  It's simply not a reliable source.  It's gossip and rumor with no basis in reality.  And it has no place in an encyclopedic article.  If you look at the other presidential pages (and the majority of THIS page) they are sourced to scholarly, or semi-scholarly, works.  I have looked for sources for this speculation, and the best I could find was one line in Brittanica that refers to the speculation almost in passing.  I have other concerns with the "Personal Relationships" section, as it seems to have been lifted almost verbatim from a source I remember reading.  I have yet to find the time to identify the source, but I am investigating it.K. Scott Bailey 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, whether you deem a book to be trash is only a matter of your POV; others may well see Lies Across America and Kitty Kelly's stuff as good quality work. Further, the sources needed to verify there were rumours about Buchanan don't need to be political-science or historical texts; the contents of newspapers, essays and articles in journals will verify whether there were rumours or not; and, remember, we're not saying here that the rumours were true, just that they did and/or do exist.  That said, if someone did want to go into more detail about the subject, they could make the effort to pull out the actual press publications from the time.  I don't know about any plagirism; the section is my own work based on the contents of the cited articles.  I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be identical to someone else's words. --G2bambino 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With your comments about Kitty Kelly's "work", I am left with but two options: (1) Either you have never read said work, or (2) You have an ax to grind. I am no Bush family fan, but KK is a hack.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It explains a lot that you would consider it qualified as a source under WP:RS.  Please do not continue inserting the information sourced unreliably until and unless you find some reliable sources.  I will continue to remove it.K. Scott Bailey 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I've no particular axe to grind, though I am highly suspect of your adamant desire to sanitise articles about US presidents. Patriotism is a good thing, however, erasing all reference to there having been rumours about someone - only rumours! - seems a little over-the-top.  You have claimed, for some time now it seems, that the sources provided do not meet WP:RS, as though you are the sole expert and judge on these matters.  Well, honestly, I've only seen limited information about Lies Across America, and can't compare it to anything by Kitty Kelly, who's name I've never heard before.  But, I don't think it really matters.  The book, and the Salon article, are both clearly secondary sources written by either a journalist or other researcher - which is allowed as per WP:RS.  Now, WP:RS says these authors should be "reliable" - but what does that mean, exactly?  All WP:RS specifies is that they can't be the opinions of other Wikipedians (which would be original research).  If one has a book sold to and produced by a publisher with its own ISBN, and someone else has an interview with another author and a review of the author's work published in a regular periodical, then why shouldn't they be considered reliable authors under WP:RS?  Again, I'm not saying the claims in the publications have to be proven as true or false, we should simply use these sources to support the assertion that something was said about Buchanan, both during his life and after.  Besides, do you honestly believe the author of the Salon piece would completely fabricate some story about Andrew Jackson calling William King "Miss Nancy" and the press circulating rumours about King and Buchanan? --G2bambino 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether Buchanan was gay or not. Pop history is not a reliable source.  Neither is a Salon article.  Especially without further primary sourcing from proper reliable sources.  If you find such information, I have no problem with inserting it in the article.  You can be "highly suspect" all you want, it doesn't change my motives.  My only interest is in improving presidential articles.  As an example, there are reliable sources that at least hint of rumors about Lincoln's sexuality.  You'll notice I haven't touched that article in those regards.  So your accusations against good faith on my part are clearly unfounded.  As far as "rumors" go, they don't have a place in an encyclopedic article.  We're not working on pop history here, we're working on an encyclopedic article.  The sooner you realize that, the better the article will be.K. Scott Bailey 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Scott, we also have reliable sources that do more than hint of rumors about Buchanan's sexuality, they come right out and call him "the other president sometimes thought to have been gay". However, your questionable actions, such as violating 3RR and falsely claiming that it doesn't apply in this situation when this is in fact exactly the sort of situation it is for, doesn't lead to a lot of confidence that you would actually accept any source provided as a reliable source instead of, oh, changing your standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have violated Assume good faith. I request that you retract the above statement, regarding my supposedly changing my standards at a future date.  My standards are what they are.  I again refer you to the Abraham Lincoln article.  There are actually some decent sources for the speculation regarding Lincoln.  I have seen no similar sourcing for the Buchanan rumors.  If you're claiming that pop history and Salon.com are "reliable sources", I would ask tht you provide evidence that they are viewed as such by scholars.  Until then, I would ask that you refrain from accusing me of things you could never know, and doing so in clear violation of the Wikipedia guidelines that ask us to assume good faith.K. Scott Bailey 04:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "my standards are what they are" but the question is whether your standards are Wikipedia's standards, or whether you are applying a standard that is far more restrictive than WP:RS. You must know, certainly, that you would not be allowed to say "I personally know the allegations about Buchanan's sexuality to be untrue and therefore because I personally know that to be the case I will remove anything about it from the article violating 3RR in the process."  Yet you seem to think it is acceptable to say "I personally know that every source thus presented as a source for the fact that there were contemporary allegations and current allegations about Buchanan's sexuality is an unreliable source and therefore because I personally know that to be the case I will remove anything about it from the article violating 3RR in the process."  You claim that Loewen's book is merely "pop history"; that's not a description often applied to a volume written by a professor of history who has previously won the American Book Award for his historical writings.  I doubt you'd be able to find a reliable source to support your contention that Loewen is so inaccurate that nothing he says can be trusted, not even the existence of rumors.  And yet your wholesale deletions of any reference to any speculation at any time about Buchanan's sexuality cannot be justified any other way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note - the American Book Award is for pop writing - not academic writing. Rklawton 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone--whether noted professor or simple hack--can write pop history. It is YOUR burden to show how inclusion of information sourced only to volumes such as "Lies" and a Salon.com article actually makes the article James Buchanan better.K. Scott Bailey 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would ask that when referring to me, you use my Wikipedia username. My friends call me "Kevin."  You are not my friend--at least as yet.  As such, I ask that when you refer to me, and address me directly that you use my username.  Thanks. (And BTW, very few people other than my grandmothers call me "Scott.")K. Scott Bailey 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * K.Scott, perhaps what we need you to do is explain to us why it is you are to be considered the definitive and unchallenged authority on what is a reliable source and what is not. I may well be missing something, but it seems to me that the two sources you insist are not good enough to base any Wikipedia content on actually conform to the WP:RS you keep refering to; there is no requirement what-so-ever that secondary sources be accompanied by primary ones.  Aside from repeating yourself again, can you illustrate exactly why it is we must accept your command that these sources do not meet the WP:RS requirements?  Further, I have to point out that your aggressive editing, and subsequent 3RR violations, threats of further direct reverts, and escalation, as well as your brusque manner, overshadow any gains you may have made by allowing mentions of speculations about Abraham Lincoln elsewhere. --G2bambino 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter to me at all whether or not you find me "brusque." All that matters to me is what's best for the presidential articles I follow, which include all pre-JFK.  Also, you should know that the burden of proof falls on those arguing for inclusion.  Additionally, I should point out, I don't find speculative pop history--or Salon.com, for that matter--reliable, even as a secondary source.  If I implied--or mistakenly stated--otherwise, it was my mistake.  Please demonstrate where Brittanica or another noted encyclopedia--or any scholars of note--rely on pop history or Salon.com as primary or secondary sources for research on scholarly and encyclopedic articles.  Until you've done so, material so sourced should be removed.K. Scott Bailey 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it seems you've not read any of my words again. I have already presented my reasoning for why the sources conform to WP:RS; however, I shall repeat myself for your convenience: each is a secondary source written by a journalist or other researcher; one is produced by a publishing house, while the other is published in a regular journal; neither is self-published, neither is without editorial oversight, neither is published by a fringe or extremist group. Now the burden of proof on you, sir, to convince us of why we are wrong; but two things first: 1) There's been no misunderstanding about your personal opinions on Salon or Lies Across America, however you'll have to put aside your POV and argue rationally and only about how these sources don't meet WP:RS. 2) Britannica and other conventional encyclopaedias are exactly what Wikipedia is not, therefore your requests for comparison are moot. --G2bambino 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

AH YES, the Historical Revisionist are a busy bunch[]. Innuendos, rumors, & gossip are their tools. For more of their questionable research & accusations see "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" [] Tinosa 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The short of it is this. This is an article working its way toward featured article status. It includes information and references from well respected academician/historians. Adding new information based on anything less is simply not appropriate - whatever the subject. Rklawton 05:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well--and succinctly--put, Rklawton. It's difficult to see how the proposed additions would help the Buchanan article on its way to FA status.K. Scott Bailey 16:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If the sources can be proven to be unreliable and against WP:RS, then yes, the information herein based on them should not be included. However, it seems that so far editorial bullying has trumped rational explanation - as I've seen the former, and am still waiting for the latter. --G2bambino 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been "rationally explained" to you that pop history and salon.com articles do not benefit the overall quality of the article. Please read the very succinct explanation offered by User:Rklawton above.  It's your burden to explain why the article would benefit from material sourced only to a book of pop history and a Salon.com article.  You have not yet done so.K. Scott Bailey 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, your accusation of "editorial bullying" is against WP:AGF. A retraction of this accusation is necessary.K. Scott Bailey 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, but it has not been rationally explained why the two sources do not meet WP:RS - all you've done is repeat, over and over, that Lies Across America is "pop history" and Salon is... well, apparently just not up to your standards. If you cannot give a definitive argument as to how these two sources violate WP:RS (and, if I might suggest, actually using some of the points contained therein would be an improvement), then you have no reason beyond your own personal biases for not using the two pieces.  For my part, I'll even go so far as to shed some further light on the works in question: Lies Across America is, as has already been pointed out, written by a professional author, historian and professor, and is considered reliable enough to be included as a resource in the US Library of Congress and 60 public library catalogues across the United States.  As for Salon, it's own Wiki entry seems to verify that it's a regularly published, edited journal that focuses on American politics, as well as reviews and articles about music, books, and films.  Again, both meet WP:RS standards.  These sources provide information that contributes to the Wikipedia reader's overall view of John Buchanan - that was an easy one to answer.  As for the accusation of bullying, no retraction is necessary, or granted.  Your edit history and threats are evidence enough that the charge is not completely unfounded. --G2bambino 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Violating WP:AGF doesn't matter to you, then? I don't engage in "editorial bullying." My edits are only aimed at improvement of a given article.  You are required to assume this according to WP:AGF.  As such, your refusal to remove your baseless accusations stands in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.  This is noted.  And you again have failed to understand that the burden of proof is not on me, but on you.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Professors can--and do--write pop history all the time.  Show me how inclusion of such poorly-sourced material improves the article.  The rest of the article--as pointed out by User:Rklawton--references far more reliable sources.  Until you have shown how the addition of such poorly sourced information improves the article, the information remains out.K. Scott Bailey 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, by evading the request, yet again, your're saying you can't prove how Lies Across America and Salon are not allowed to be used as sources as per WP:RS? (BTW - I didn't say your motive wansn't to improve articles, my comment was directed towards the pompous, confrontational and pushy way you go about it.) --G2bambino 18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am currently sitting at the library reading Lies Across America, as well as two other biographies of Buchanan. The references in Lies to his purported homosexuality cite an article in a gay advocate magazine, as well as Loewen's own OPINION that the "James Buchanan's house" is in denial over the purported fact of his homosexuality.  One telling line that completely disqualifies Lies according to both WP:RS and WP:NPOV follows: "It may be more important to understand what the historical landscape gets wrong than what it gets right."  Prof. Loewen has a clear agenda to prove everything we think we know about history wrong.  See his book, Lies My Teacher Told Me.  He is more concerned with that agenda than with fairness and accuracy in reporting.
 * Contrast his style to that of Jean H. Baker, who writes of the King relationship in James Buchanan, which is part of the "American Presidents" series, from Time Life Books (copyright, 2004).


 * While the existing correspondence between King and Buchanan conveys the affection of a special friendship--in one Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his roommate--so do the letters of many notably heterosexual men. Absent the discovery of new material, no one will ever know whether Buchanan and King (the only man to whom his name has ever been erotically connected) had sexual relations.


 * All of the encyclopedic articles I have been able to find on Buchanan mention the rumors not once (World Book and Brittanica). Perhaps that is because an encyclopedic article is not the place to speculate about rumors. And perhaps it is also because this "controversy" is almost wholly of the invention of current revisionists like Loewen. Buchanan was, for his time, a rather effeminate, asexual man (per Baker). This, combined with insulting comments ("Aunt Nancy", et al) from a couple of his rivals is hardly enough to warrant inclusion of speculations on his sexuality in an encyclopedic article.  If you wish to compose an essay on the subject, you're free to do so.  But expounding on the speculations of Prof. Loewen is hardly appropriate in an encyclopedic article.K. Scott Bailey 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, let me repeat, I care not one whit what you think of me personally. You may find me "pompous", "confrontational", and/or "pushy."  That doesn't matter to me at all.  What matters to me is improving the article.  The sooner you can retreat from your personal attacks on me and focus on that (improving the article) the better off we ALL will be.K. Scott Bailey 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for taking the time to locate that detail. However, though Lowen's research may draw him to a different conclusion than Baker's (and Baker's words would definitely make a good addition to the article here), because his is different does not mean it's invalid; WP:RS makes no mention of barring opposite views. In fact, his opposing stance adds to the complexity of this biographic article. Further, we also strive for balance at Wikipedia, not merely sanitised or uncontroversial, one-sided content; WP:NPOV doesn't refer to the POV of a source's author, but to the POV to the Wikipedia editor.  Nobody has yet sought to speculate on Buchanan's sexuality here, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  All that's desired is to include the points that there are those who have speculated (for whatever reason), and that a certain personal relationship of his attracted derisive comments and rumours in the contemporary press.  Hence, something along these lines could be stated in the article:
 * In a modern context, historian and professor James Loewen, in his book Lies Across America (ISBN 0-648-87067-3), expressed his belief that Buchanan engaged in homosexual relations. However, Jean H. Baker, in the book James Buchanan, said: "While the existing correspondence between King and Buchanan conveys the affection of a special friendship... so do the letters of many notably heterosexual men. Absent the discovery of new material, no one will ever know whether Buchanan and King (the only man to whom his name has ever been erotically connected) had sexual relations."
 * See, the Baker quote you found works perfectly to provide an NPOV balance to the article, while still acknowledging that there has been speculation about Buchanan's relationships (and obviously there've been enough to prompt Baker to at least briefly address the topic). --G2bambino 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Isn't this interesting. You know, I was going to save this until had gone into a bit more detail on what he would accept as a reliable source. But that's changed, now. Let me quote in full, with certain portions emphasized:

So intimate was he with the handsome Alabama senator, who was known as a dandy in his home state and an "Aunt Fancy" in Washington, that one congressman referred to the two men as "Buchanan & his wife" in a reference to their bachelor status, which also hinted at their homosexuality.

On the basis of slender evidence, mostly the circumstances of his bachelorhood and three asides by contemporaries about his effeminacy, Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president. Referring to his femininity, Andrew Jackson once called him an "Aunt Nancy."  In an age when women could not vote, such a charge held political as well as sexual implications. There is also evidence that Buchanan's niece Harriet Lane and King's niece Catherine Ellis destroyed their uncles' letters to each other when Buchanan became president. While the existing correspondence between King and Buchanan conveys the affection of a special friendship -- in one Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his roommate -- so do the letters of many notably heterosexual nineteenth-century men. Absent the discover of new material, no one will ever know whether Buchanan and King (the only man to whom his name was ever erotically connected) had sexual relations.

The source for that? James Buchanan, by Jean H. Baker, Henry Holt and Company, copyright 2004, pages 25-26. The bold portions, of course, are those that contain exactly the material that has removed over and over and over as supposedly not being attributable to any reliable source. The italicized portion are, of course, the only two sentences out of that entire discussion of Buchanan's sexual orientation that thought it worth mentioning. How curious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the entirety of the section that she wrote about King, her conclusions were similar to mine. And such speculation by his political enemies doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article.  Check Brittanica and World Book. It just does NOT belong in an encyclopedic article, no matter how much you might want to see it there.  There's no evidence that he was homosexual, and putting speculation about it into an encyclopedic article is irresponsible.K. Scott Bailey 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you read the entirety of the section that she wrote about King, her conclusions were similar to mine." Exactly.  You are arguing "the source that I have chosen to regard as reliable comes to the same conclusion that I do regarding the evidence and therefore the article should reflect that conclusion, not the conflicting views that I feel have been sufficiently discounted."  And that, of course, is not how Wikipedia works, because Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV:  "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."  The point of view that Buchanan may have been homosexual is indeed a significant point of view, significant enough to be published not just in your favored source but in the New York Times and the National Review.  Your argument that because these are the conclusions Jean H. Baker draws, we should surpress any mention of any evidence from which anyone might draw a different conclusion, flies squarely in the face of NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm curious as to how you all reconcile the fact that none of the two major encyclopedias (World Book and Brittanica) give even a passing mention to the rumors around his friendship with King? Or have we forgotten that we're not writing an essay or a term paper about Buchanan, but an ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE. There's a LARGE difference.K. Scott Bailey 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, here's my personal opinion: I think it's quite possible there was some type of more intimate relationship between Buchanan and King. However, my personal opinion doesn't matter, and there's no EVIDENCE of this (other than speculation and innuendo by hostile contemporaries), and as such the claim doesn't belong in this article.K. Scott Bailey 03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and Britannica are not the same thing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort governed by its own regulations and policies, as I know you are aware.  Antaeus has correctly drawn your attention to some pertinent Wikipedia guidelines that state conflicting views on a subject should be presented fairly.  You state conflicting views can't be inserted here because there's no evidence to support one side of the argument; but the mission here isn't to prove which of the views is correct - we can't, after all, as there's no evidence at all to undoubtedly support the claim the two men didn't have sex!  The issue is presenting two contrary views - not our own, but those of others - about the man who is the subject of this article.  I think you know full well that the evidence laid before you here, even out of a source that met your stringent standards of reliability, affirms without a doubt that there were circulated rumours and personal jibes centering on Buchanan's relationship with King.  That you continue to turn a blind eye to what is existent in front of you clearly demonstrates that your intent here is to censor any information about Buchanan's life that you find personally offensive. --G2bambino 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I make up something about X-dead person (say, Andy Rooney--oh, he's still alive, sorry!), and I write a book about my speculation--or I include it in a book about related topics, as Loewen did--does it belong in a Wikipedia article, since it can be sourced to my book? Say that I claim that John Lennon had an illicit affair with his best friend as a teenager, and I cite the fact that some kids that didn't like him called him "gay" or some such thing.  Does that then belong in Lennon's Wiki, just because I speculated on it in a book? That's akin to what Loewen is doing.
 * Additionally, you make the absurd statement that "there's no evidence at all to undoubtedly support the claim the two men didn't have sex." That's ludicrous on the face of it.  I can't PROVE that I didn't have sex with my best friend when I was a teenager, but I didn't.  There's no DOCUMENTATION that I did not do so.  However, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me to prove that I didn't, but on the person claiming that I did.  If I were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about me after I die, I would hope that the people composing it would seek evidence--hard evidence, not speculation from, say, people whom I didn't get along with in high school--that I had actually done that before including it in my article.  There wouldn't be a huge problem if I had, and there were some evidence--perhaps some letters, e-mails, etc. that confirmed (not implied, but confirmed) such--with including it, but absent that, I would hope people wouldn't include speculation from say homophobes who didn't like me and called me "gay" or whatever as "evidence".  It's the same for Buchanan.  Absent hard evidence--which doesn't seem to exist--these speculations do not belong in an encyclopedic article about him.  The only people who seem to have speculated about his preferences were those who didn't much care for him.  That simply doesn't pass the smell test for inclusion, as indicated by the tone taken by Baker in her analysis of the matter.  We're not writing a full-length book here--as was Baker--but rather a concise article.  That is why I argue for exclusion of material that is nothing more than speculation on the part of some of his contemporaries who didn't care for him.
 * Finally, I will ask you one last time to stop violating WP:AGF. You claim that, "your intent here is to censor any information about Buchanan's life that you find personally offensive."  That is simply not true, as I have stated numerous times.  I don't find homosexuality "personally offensive."  I have friends and relatives who are gay.  I have even stated what my OWN personal opinion is on the matter regarding Buchanan, which puts the lie directly to what you claim in your offensive accusations against good faith on my part.  I ask once more that you stop violating WP:AGF.K. Scott Bailey 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't pass whose test? Frankly, it seems nobody's but yours.  You've been asked to verify why the sources are not up to WP:RS, and you couldn't.  Now you're trying to argue that the sources' sources aren't up to... well, really, just what you deem is proper and what is not, all while simultaneously saying it's factual that the rumours existed, but they shouldn't be mentioned here for the sake of abbreviation.  Well, if you acknowledge now that the speculations and comments were indeed existant and public, but want to keep this article concise, then perhaps you'd like to reinstate the article that dealt solely with Buchanan's sexuality?  After all, though there are loose guidelines that deal with the length of articles, there is no limit what-so-ever to the amount of information Wikipidia can contain. --G2bambino 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't pass the test of historical accuracy. Including rumors and speculations FROM HIS ENEMIES is irresponsible.  You dealt with not one single aspect of my examples I proposed.  Should random speculation from a person's enemies be included in someone's article?  Because that's the only "evidence" present regarding Buchanan's sexuality.  Common sense would seem to dictate that information gleaned only from the speculations of the enemies of a person not be included in the encyclopedia article about that person.  Again, we're not writing a book, but an article.  If you want to include such speculations, perhaps you should start an article titled something like "Speculations on the Sexuality of Historical Figures" or some such thing.  In it, one could have short summaries of all of the historical figures that are either known to be gay or bisexual, or that are suspected of such, along with supporting evidence.  Actually, that would be quite an interesting article, and I would support the creation of it.  Finally, you also continue to refuse to withdraw your accusations against good faith that you have made toward me. Please withdraw these accusations.K. Scott Bailey 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem horribly confused by this whole affair, still going on as though I'm trying to prove that Buchanan was gay using some rumours that were spread about him as evidence. That is not the case, nor has it ever been the case.  Succinctly, the point of all this is: it is a supported fact that Buchanan lived with King; it is a supported fact that the press published rumours about the Buchanan/King relationship; it is a supported fact that Andrew Jackson called Buchanan an "Aunt Fancy"; it is a supported fact that a congressman once referred to the two men as "Buchanan & his wife."  All of these facts relate specifically to James Buchanan, and even more specifically to one of his personal relationships; thus, there is absolutely zero reason to preclude them from any articles on James Buchanan. Further, there isn't enough volume to flesh out a separate article; thus, there is absolutely zero reason to preclude them from this article.
 * Frankly, to me, your continuing illogical and cyclical arguments with the motive of banning certain information from an article doesn't give me any reason to assume good faith on your part. You aren't even willing to entertain the thought of composing a well cited, NPOV section on the rumours about Buchanan's relationship with King.  It's your way or no way.  Where's the good faith in that? --G2bambino 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not confused in the least. I am not opposed to having a NPOV section in the article that references King as far as what the actual facts in evidence allow us to know: they were great friends, who were also roommates for 15 years.  That's all we know for certain.  And you continually refuse to address my examples of including rumor and innuendo about a subject based only upon the speculations of a subject's enemies.  Such speculation--even if it was picked up on by yellow journalists of the time--is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.  We should stick to the facts in evidence alone.K. Scott Bailey 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't have to give you a "reason" to Assume Good Faith. It's a requirement of Wikipedia guidelines.  Perhaps you should read up on it at WP:AGF, and then desist on your assumptions of bad faith on my part.K. Scott Bailey 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone here should avoid speculating about the motives of other editors. Focus on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback · † · 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been speculating in bad faith about my motives for practically the entire discussion. I've asked him to stop, and to withdraw such speculation, but he has explicitly refused to do so.K. Scott Bailey 22:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fairness, you also accused other editors of having "an axe to grind". Let's all just focus on the article, not on each other. -Will Beback · † · 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not. I said that after hearing him say that Kitty Kelly's nonsense could potential qualify as a reliable source, I was left with two options.  One of them was having an axe to grind.  The other was that he/she had never read KK's work.  When he pointed out it was the latter, I assumed (in good faith) that it was true.  And why do you point out the one instance where I could have PERHAPS violated WP:AGF, when the other user has violated it repeatedly, and after several requests to stop doing so and retract the statements?  I have been working on an assumption of good faith for nearly--if not the whole--time.  The other editor has attacked my motives, both by implication and explicitly.  I hardly think the two sets of behavior (mine and his/her) is equivalent in any way, as implied by your last post.K. Scott Bailey 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "I am not opposed to having a NPOV section in the article that references King as far as what the actual facts in evidence allow us to know: they were great friends, who were also roommates for 15 years. That's all we know for certain."
 * But, that's not all we know for certain. We also know for certain that their relationship spawned rumours about them.  So, let's get started writing an NPOV section about Buchanan and King that includes the point that their relationship was the focus of some derision and innuendo - from some rather notable people, no less. --G2bambino 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Derision and innuendo" from people who did not like Buchanan is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. One exception would be (potentially) if it were made VERY clear that those who were actually CLOSE to the two men deny that there was ever anything more than a friendship, and that the people making fun of the two (for what else can calling them names like "Aunt Fancy" be understood as?) were no fans of either.  Any NPOV "reporting" of rumors and innuendo with regards to the Buchanan/King friendship should include these caveats, and should in no way imply (as does Loewen) that Buchanan was a homosexual.  (As an aside, have you read the section in Lies that deals with Buchanan?  It is not neutral at all in its POV. Anything reported in this article should be sourced to other books/resources.) K. Scott Bailey 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was appropriate for inclusion in Baker's book - she put that info in to give readers a clearer picture of Buchanan's life. Of course, as she does, both sides of the view have to be presented, and circumstances explained.  In the end, the section should imply absolutely nothing; it should simply present the facts. However, that said, it is a fact that Lowen believes Buchanan at least had homosexual relations.  Regardless of whether he's right or wrong, his view of the subject of this article should be included. --G2bambino 23:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On that point there will be no compromise from me. Loewen has no proof at all of his assertion.  None.  It will not--as long as I'm watching this article--be cited as a reference for James Buchanan.  There are areas to compromise on in this debate.  That is not one. Loewen states flatly, "[James Buchanan] was a homosexual."  This is not only unproveable, but the facts at hand would lead us to believe it is false.  Including the mocking taunts of Buchanan's rivals, as referenced in REAL sources like Baker's book, might be acceptable, with the caveats listed above.  Including blanket assertions by pop "historians" that are rooted in his opinion, and not in fact, is NOT acceptable.K. Scott Bailey 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether his assertion is provable or not, what is provable is that he said it. Though he may well have his facts wrong, or right, he's no crackpot radical.  He's a published historian and professor; ergo, his work qualifies as a reliable source under WP:RS. --G2bambino 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. "It doesn't matter whether his assertion is provable or not."  That's an interesting perspective on WP:RS.  It's wrong, but interesting nonetheless.  Simply because someone who teaches at a college writes something in a book doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.  Especially when the facts at hand completely disqualify his opinion from inclusion in the article.  I will compromise with you on inclusion of the speculation of his peers.  I will NOT compromise with you on including the assertion of demonstrably false information, simply because it was included in a book by a contemporary pop history author.  I have taken a step to the middle.  It's now your turn to do the same.  Inclusion of Loewen's unfounded assertion is a deal-breaker for me.K. Scott Bailey 01:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The facts only disqualify his theory from your perspective. Precluding it because you think it presents an incorrect view is a violation of WP:NPOV.  And, again, if his book doesn't meet WP:RS, then please explain exactly why.  By my interpretation of the guideline, which I've outlined in detail above, the book does qualify as a reliable secondary source.  I could say I don't care whether his opinion is included or not - though, I obviously support the notion of including opposing viewpoints for the sake of NPOV - however, I'm sure that if the article is unblocked and a section on Buchanan's relationship with King and its consequenses is composed, then someone else (notably Antaeus) will put it in for the same reasons I'm presenting here.  In fact, it was your removal of the Lowen source that started this whole mess; if that isn't resolved then I fear this issue never will be. --G2bambino 01:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. No other historian that I could find--and I spent a few hours at the library looking--draws anything close to a similar conclusion. Other encyclopedia articles don't mention ANYTHING about the supposed "controversy."  Other historians treat the charges with well-deserved dismissiveness.  It's not my OPINION that his theory doesn't comport with the facts, it's simple reality.  Again, I have compromised.  You still refuse to do so.  It's apparent that we are coming close to an impasse.  You will never convince me that simple speculation by the author of a pop history book belongs in an encyclopedic article.  If you can't compromise on at least this point, then our discussion is over.K. Scott Bailey 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think is fair to say that rumors of his sexuality are fair-game. I know the history channel did a piece on it. As long as it is not sensational, you can say that his sexuality is in dispute.. ForrestLane42 04:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42


 * I'm really not trying to be contrary, I'm just waiting for you to cite for me one part of WP:RS that would deem Lowen's book inadmissable as a source for Wikipedia. --G2bambino 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:REDFLAG for my reasoning. It sums it up quite well.  If you want me to quote directly from the appropriate sections of WP:RS, of which WP:REDFLAG is a sub-section, I will do so.K. Scott Bailey 02:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors
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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Proposal

 * 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)


 * Comments? --G2bambino 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)