Talk:James Kilfedder

Discussion of his alleged homosexual interests
The following text: "His lovers, if any, remain unknown, though he is reported to have shown erotic interest in a school boy at the Portora Royal School. " was deleted with the comment that it is an "attack." That is somewhat confusing, since it is nothing but biographical information, sourced from an article written by a man who does not seem to bear a grudge against JK and actually treats him quite kindly. It is also a first-hand account from someone who Kilfedder courted.

While the insertion of the material is demonstrably not an attack, its removal clearly is a defense. Allow me to point out that defenses have no place in an encyclopedic project. Haiduc 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And do you really think one person's interpretation of an incident (ie. that Sir James was behaving in a homosexual way towards a school boy) is encyclopedic? I hardly think so. --Counter-revolutionary 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all we have, really, personal interpretations. In this case it is a first-hand account, and quite a graphic one, of a long-term relationship. It also corroborates the allegations about his being blackmailed. And it is published in a newspaper of record. Let's make sure we do not let ourselves be led astray by our OWN interpretations, that would be unencyclopaedic. Haiduc 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you best not let your opinions get in the way either. The information you are seeking to include is crass and not of encyclopedic merit; wikipededia is not the place to air such information. --Counter-revolutionary 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been a long time since biographical information about the same-sex attractions of notable personages has been considered "crass." You have not brought any cogent objection to the inclusion of this material other than to call it an "attack", which it is not, or to call it "crass" which is an imposition of your own point of view on an objective description of events in the life of JK. I am sorry that this topic is disturbing to you, but what does that have with compiling an encyclopedia article?! Is there some way we can rephrase this material to make it more acceptable to you? Haiduc 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think a serious allegation involving a (potentially underage) schoolboy is crass, and, more importantly unencyclopedic, I really cannot imagine Britanica including such information - especially when we only have one such source offering the information. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "attack" originally but I really think this ought not to be included, and, if Sir James were still alive, it certainly wouldn't pass WP:BLP standards. --Counter-revolutionary 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We are trying to balance here two points of view, yours, which considers information about JK's romantic interests crass, and mine, which considers the present variant prissy and dishonest. And balance is the key here, since the article in question goes into a lot more detail which, if incorporated into this article, might be excessive. A mention of this testimonial however is completely in keeping with standards. Please bear in mind that instead of seeing this material as a "serious allegation" we can instead view JK as a double victim, first of puritan dogma and then of selfish and insensitive militants. Things are not nearly as cut and dry as you would have them. Haiduc 11:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand all that. These Outrage people ought to have been put into gaol.  I just think describing one specific incident (only ever recounted by the accuser) is not the sort of thing to put into an encyclopedia. --Counter-revolutionary 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place for idle speculation, there is no evidence to prove he was homosexual, so it shouldn't be included in the article.--padraig 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Padraig, if you think this is idle speculation, you have not done your homework. Please read the referenced article.
 * C-r, I am still hoping that we can come to some kind of useful compromise. The article as it stands now is deceptive and pov in that it tries to "defend" JK. He needs neither defense nor attack. I will attempt another edit, let me know what you think. Haiduc 01:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read the article I also remember the time it occured, but there is no real evidence within the article to prove if it is true or not, it is full of suggestion and very slim on facts, I would not be a fan of Kilfedder or his brand of politics, but I detest tabloid journalism even more. So unless there is evidence to support these claims, then they are speculation.--padraig 07:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, if you wish to make exceptional claims then you need to provide evidence, not taboid speculation.--padraig 20:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The deletion of any mention of Sir James's homosexuality smacks of Nortnern Irish small mindedness of the worst kind. There is a published firsthand account of his homosexuality from a reliable source. To ignore this is revisionism. This is not supposed to be a fan site to the now long dead man. The man is a footnote in Northern Irish history, but even footnotes should be accurate. If the man was a hypocrite, who hid his sexuality from others while depriving gay people of their rights, this should be noted. (mllsskb2)    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllsskb2 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It ain't reliable, it ain't biographical, it has been removed. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel a bit like I am in a communist state. Everytime a reference backed up by a published source is made to Sir James' homosexuality it is removed by those who wish to hide the truth. Fair enough if that is what makes them happy. The ironic thing is that the cover up has lead to such a huge discussion on his sexuality on this page that it draws considerable attention to it. The turth always find a way of getting out. I would make one last suggestion, that the site is marked up as being disputed. I would do it myself but one gets a feeling even that would be deleted. However, I suppose we shouldn't get so exicted over a man who was not that important anyway. Indeed in some ways it is kind of sweet that he has his devoted followers, trying to protect his reputation. Like the other contributors who tried to get the truth out there I will leave it at that. --Mllsskb2 (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons why this shouldn't be included. Personally I think it's disgusting to write this sort of thing about someone who can't defend themselves, especially if they tried to hide such tendencies during their life; but this is irrelevant to wikipedia.  The reason wiki. doesn't include it is because it is not encyclopedic!  Secondly a claim such as this would require much more than one, fairly trivial, and barely reliable, source. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have inspired me. As a researcher on gay parliamentarians, I have been looking to do some indepth research on a particular person and I think it would be very interesting to do one on a northern irish politican. Anyway I have info on Sir James already, but anyone who has any information feel free to message me on here. I will get back to you all when I have finished and I hope you will allow me to make reference to the work which I hope will be published in a reputable enough source that you will not feel the need to delete it. Hopefully this will settle things once and for all. Many thanks 'counter' for inspiring me. --Mllsskb2 (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pathetic. It's people like you that killed him. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well good luck with your research, but remember to try and find real proof for these allegations, not re-cycled speculation and hearsay.--Padraig (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that you know what the words 'speculation' or 'hearsay' mean. The account in the Spectator was a firsthand account. Thus it was not speculation nor hearsay. It was a reliable source telling how Sir James made numerous sexual advances on him, so why it is being deleted i do not know. We also know from his voting record that Sir James voted against gay rights on numerous ocassions. Anyway I will endevaour to get a number of firsthand accounts together. I will be sure to pass on my findings to you and 'counter' who both seem so determined to conceal the truth. --Mllsskb2 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in concealing any truth, the article was pure speculation based one one source, with nothing to backup his claims. If Kilfedder was gay, I'am sure there would be something more solid in regards to evidence to back up this claim.   If solid proof did emerge then I would support putting reference to it into the article.  And there where a number of gay politicans in Northern Ireland during that period, but Kilfedder wasn't one of them.--Padraig (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this is not the usual method but let me quote the section of the spectator article which refers to Sir James in full:

"During my time there, the school was visited by the independent Unionist MP Jim Kilfedder, a surprisingly flamboyant, cosmopolitan figure for the hard world of Ulster politics. Unfortunately, the search-light of his flamboyance settled in my direction and for several years he was an awkward presence in my youth. Though a decent and in many ways honourable man - who died of a heart attack in 1993 when gay rights activists threatened to expose him as a homosexual - I was never under any illusions about the nature of his interest in me, especially after one embarrassing evening when he took me to dinner at the House of Commons. Having imbibed rather too much claret, he cried out in a loud voice, 'I can't bear to have this table between us any longer,' a statement which rather shook the Northern Labour MP at the table next to ours. Through a cowardly unwillingness to avoid a confrontation, I allowed him to remain a friend, though I rejected all his anguished attempts at greater intimacy." --Mllsskb2 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This idiot believes he was under no illusions, he may well have been wrong. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already read it numerous times, it provides no proof to support him claims, and the fact that he died just just when these alleged letters where sent out proves nothing, is there proof that he reieved one, is there proof that they where ever sent at all. Gay right activists never mentioned him by name they claimed to have written to a number of MPs threatening to expose them, one of whom was from Northern Ireland.--Padraig (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I have no particular issues with the accuracy of the statements made, but verifiability must be adhered to on such a controvercial topic. I would be surprised if there were no reliable sources on the issue, but until one is found this cannot remain.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From "Kilfedder's homosexuality was one of the most public secrets in Northern Ireland politics." Kilfedder almost certainly had homosexual tendencies but I don't think for now that we have enough reliable sources to include it - just hearsay and speculation. If these ever turn up then it's certainly relevant given his voting record. Valenciano (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The POV should not have been removed as the issues have not been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.220.13 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They have not been raised for some time. How have they not been resolved? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you can ask that question in good faith. Just because you have gotten your way on the page does not mean there are a lot of people who dispute its contents. The length of discussion clearly demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. It is only proper that anyone reading the main page is made aware of the fact that it is disputed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.220.13 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why someone's sexuality (unless they are Peter Tatchell or similar) is relevant to their article, especially if it is based on a conjecture which they never specified. Fact is, if he didn't say he was a homosexual he isn't one; surely one defines one's own sexuality, it isn't a decision made by others! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guessing you are a conservative Christian with strong views about homosexuality. That is fine. You are entitled to your viewpoint. However, I have to say that your views on sexuality run counter to a liberal intellectual understanding of the issue. You can disagree with this perspective, but the least you can do is acknowledge its existence and respect those who hold this view. From this position people do not 'choose' their sexuality. A man who sleeps with other men is a man who engages in homosexual activity. He may not define himself as 'gay' or even 'homosexual' but if he turns round and votes to enshrine discrimination against homosexuals, it is right that people question his integrity. I am not proposing at this time to get into an editing war with you by changing the text of the article, but I do think it is proper that attention is drawn to the arguments on this page.       —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.220.13 (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really have strong views on this issue. We do not mention in articles when people are heterosexual and, thus, I believe it would be contrary to enlightened liberal intellectual thought to do so for homosexuals.  I have never seen in Hansard where Jim spoke out against gays.  --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree but the point at hand here isn't that he was gay, it's that he was consisently voting against equal rights for gays, while allegedly living a gay lifestyle himself. If that can be proven then it should certainly go in. Valenciano (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Where's the evidence of his votes. Furthermore, if he was attracted to men (that's an if) he certainly wasn't living a gay lifestyle. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters try here, which lists him as voting against lowering the age of consent in both 1992 votes. So if sources do turn up which go beyond mere rumour then it should go in. They haven't yet. Valenciano (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to lower the age of consent isn't anti-gay. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Counter but I have to worry about your intellect if you cannot see that voting against lowering the age of consent would be viewed by many people as homophobic. You are living in cloud cuckoo land. You need to get out more.
 * Party whip? I'm sure lots of Catholic MPs have voted against their faith, does that make them apostates? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack through association

 * If this is to stay it needs to be backed up by more than one persons musings on a social history website. It really does need rigorous reliable sources. Nuttah68 06:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, such an incident cannot be included unless widely referenced. --Counter-revolutionary 10:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. There is a consensus of editors on this page that this material should not be inserted in the article, so it doesn't go in, unless that consensus changes. Tyrenius 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)--Counter-revolutionary 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)--Counter-revolutionary 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will look for further references. But let it be a matter of record that to label discussion of an individual's same-sex desires "attack" is an essentially homophobic act. Haiduc 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. He was not a homosexual and protected his privacy thus, perhaps it cost him his life. --Counter-revolutionary 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.--Vintagekits 10:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we get this protected in some way to stop this accusation being continually put in? It really is not an encyclopedic entry! --Counter-revolutionary 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So please do not re-add it, Haiduc, without some real refs. IMO your attack on Counter-revolutionary, labelling him homophobic, is completely unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia of everything and not everyone thinks or has to think about homosexuality in the same way you do without being subject to attacks, SqueakBox 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If Haiduc's going to play that game; feeling the need to mention his sexuality at all, as if it is something odd, is surely homophobic! --Counter-revolutionary 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Put it up for protection.--padraig 19:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a similar problem at OutRage!, see here, SqueakBox 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tabloid journalism, there was never any proof that he even recieved one of those letters, just because he had a heart attack at the same time dosen't prove anything, which is what they are trying to use as proof.--padraig 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)--Counter-revolutionary 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, we meet again! Take that! But seriously, how can you stand there and defend the position of someone who calls a mention of a notable figure's putative homosexuality an "attack." What if I had come in here with an account of JK's delighting in fresh-picked strawberries? Would that be deemed an attack as well? Why is pointing to someone's love of males, at this project, in 2007, seen as an aspersion?! Have we all gone mad?! How can you (of all people) imply that I should not expect all users here to take an impartial view of same-sex desire?! I do, just as I expect them to take an impartial view of interracial marriage, religious freedom, and the abolition of slavery, or even of negative things like murder, dictatorship or child rape. I understand that not all feel that way, but them's the rules here. Am I wrong? Haiduc 20:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're claiming he's a pederast, effectively! This is an aspersion. Also the whole this is not encyclopedic! --Counter-revolutionary 20:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not authorized to filter information according to your opinions, and you are simply repeating an objection that is meaningless. People's love lives are absolutely encyclopedic. Have you looked at the rest of the Wikipedia? Haiduc 20:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not encyclopedic when it was never proven. Do we mention in articles about unmarried men that it is speculated that they had desires for the opposite sex!? no. Wiki. requires multiple valid sources for this sort of comment. --Counter-revolutionary 20:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Haiduc, if you wish to make exceptional claims then you need to provide evidence, not taboid speculation.--padraig 20:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By whose standards is The Spectator a "tabloid"? Haiduc 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article certainly is. This McKinstry chap could have totally misinterpreted what was said/done!--Counter-revolutionary 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have overstepped your bounds. And he's a lot more respected and valid a source than any editor here. Haiduc 20:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please answer this honestly; are you Leo Mckinstry? --Counter-revolutionary 20:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. No comment. Haiduc 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are there could be a Conflict of Interest here. --Counter-revolutionary 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have said as much as can be said on the topic of identity, as anyone with half a grain of sense could surely see. At any rate, it is irrelevant. The statements in question are documented, and by a third party, the publisher. The cockamaimie notion that commercially published autobiographical material is excluded from the compilation of an encyclopaedia is simply too preposterous to refute. And if we are to exclude first hand accounts, let's throw scientific papers into the dustbin while we are at it, shall we? I must say that in all my years writing for the Wikipedia, the rebuttal I have met with at this article has been the most insipid and intellectually dishonest by far. Whatever his qualities may have been, and I am sure he had many, Sir James has clearly engendered a culture of hypocrisy that has outlived him. Good day all. Haiduc 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned if this is enclyclopedic material. Could you ever imagine reading this is Britannica? --Counter-revolutionary 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?
An editor claims that being called gay or as having same sex desire as an 'attack' (kinda hard to assume good faith after that one, you know?). We have several editors pop out of nowhere with ridiculous looking responses. We have a couple of well respected editors calling The Spectator (of all things!) a tabloid, then Haiduc gets 'accused' of being an incredibly prolific writer (out of the blue, mind you)...has the wiki gone mad at the locus of this article? I mean honestly! As far as WP:V goes, per the discussion of first-party sources being inadmissible, that interpretation is rather silly for a couple of reasons. If you cannot contest the source, or its reliability, with anything more than 'it's tabloid' (which is a false claim) or that this is somehow an 'attack'. Neither are terribly convincing, nor do they actually meet the requirements for contesting such a source at WP:V. (A note: My past experience has told me I should make clear that the above has healthy doses of sarcasm, meant to take the edge off rather than add it, and that this sometimes fails.) CaveatLector Talk Contrib 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This does more than calls him gay; it calls him a pederast - besides, if all it does is discuss his sexuality it is not encyclopedic...as you always argue sexuality ought not be a "big deal". So, would we include in other wikipedia articles comments such as it is speculated he may have been interested in members of the opposite sex, hardly! --Counter-revolutionary 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that sexuality was not a 'big deal'. It is a notable part of somebody's life, it's just not 'outrageous', and 'attack', or an 'accusation'.  Neither is being a pederast (a pedophile yes, a pederast, no). CaveatLector Talk Contrib 14:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we mention that he may have been interested in women too, given that he was never openly a homosexual? --Counter-revolutionary 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole claim is based on speculation, that because certain MPs are supposed to have recieved letters threating to out them as gay, and Kilfedder had a heart attack on the same day, that his heart attack was a result of him recieving one of these letters, it has never been proven that he did recieve such a letter or that he was one of the MP refered to. Therefore it has no place in an encyclopedia.--padraig 14:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is very true. --Counter-revolutionary 14:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And would be completely relevant if that wasn't original research. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it WP:OR there is no proof provided that he was one of the MPs involved or that he recieved one of these letters, to speculate otherwise is original research on your part.--padraig 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is not OR to say that it is uncertain whether he was the named MP! --Counter-revolutionary 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We must be c lear that homosexuality and pederasty are not the same thing, one is a consenting adult choice while the other is criminal behaviour. Some editors on the meerest gossip and specualtion want to accuse Kilfedder of having been a criminal on the basis of said rumours. If Kilfedder were alive this whole debate would be closed down very quickly as a gross BLP violation. It is simply not acceptable for us to be bringinbg this kind of muck-raking into the encyclopedia, its not about whether The Spectator is tabloid its about the fact that wikipedia is not a tabloid encylopedia, SqueakBox 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I totaly agree the allegation should be removed from the article.--padraig 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I'm confused again. So the Spectator is not a tabloid, but these are 'tabloid' claims...but what is that claim based on? Homosexuality and pederasty are, indeed, no the same thing, but that really isn't the issue here. I'm just bamboozled as to why this information qualifies as 'tabloid' when it is in a respected publication written by a respected author. What is it about this inclusion that breaks WP:RS? Keep in mind that I'm not making any speculations here, myself (in fact I have very little interest in this article past that of an everyday editor concerned about the policies involved). If information about somebody that is unsavory comes out, and it is notable, especially if its not a LP, shouldn't it be included in an article. Is it just the nature of the information, not its factual accuracy or the trustworthiness of the source, that is causing these reversions? This is the question that's in my mind, and its the apparent answer that is bothering me. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tabloid describes a genre rather than just where that genre is generally found. Not everything in The Sun is tabloid news and not everything in the Spectator isnt, its the genre we are talking about. If he was a convicted pedersast i would be the fiorst to insist on incl;usion but this is gossip aboyut criminal acts and its not the same, SqueakBox 22:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The criminality here is all in your mind. In the first place, there is no indication that JK either committed any crime, or was contemplating committing any. It is simply being reported that he fancied a young man. Furthermore, you seem to be sadly misinformed about pederasty - there is nothing intrinsically illegal about it. It can be illegal if it involves an underage youth in forbidden activities, or a youth above the age of consent against his will. It is not illegal if it involves a youth above the age of consent in consensual activities, or a youth below the age of consent in activities not proscribed (say, holding hands, or going to the movies). As for the presumption of setting yourself up as arbiter of what is and what is not "tabloid," I think you don't get the culture of Wikipedia: we are not here empowered to be self-styled critics, we are here to compile facts by certain clear rules, and nowhere in those rules does it state that individual editors may capriciously declare any publication to be a tabloid according to their whim.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to repeat speculation and that is what this is; the author only speculates as to JK's intentions, they could've been entirely innocent and certainly not "erotic", which the source doesn't even spell out. This is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. --Counter-revolutionary 23:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec with CR) At that point in time the AoC was 21 in the UK and while I think that was a bit silly this youth was clearly below the age of 16 when the events he described began and the fact that to be sexual with an underage youth is against the law is absolutely relevant to this gossip, and to the reputation of any politician, now or then, not quite sure why you think otherwise. I think you'll find I do understand the culture of wikipedia very well indeed and the reality is this is an issue that has united the Brit and Irish regulars whereas normallty we just dispute how articles should be, so I personally am not being an arbiter of anything and the consensus here is very clear, SqueakBox 23:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not empowered or qualified to declare McKintry's writings as gossip. He is a somebody, you are a nobody (as are we all). Thus insinuating yourself into the literary and historical conversation, especially as JK's champion, riding to his defense, is nothing but hubris. Consensus?! Two say you are wrong, and my charges of homophobia have not been refuted. (I wonder whether they have even been understood.) Haiduc 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obviously gossip and speculation as one can never be sure of what actually went on! The author admits JK was never explicit in his apparent desires!  In my opinion it is homophobic to feel the need to even mention his sexuality, especially when JK protected his privacy vehemently. --Counter-revolutionary 23:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling me a nobody, Haiduc, and in comparison to some sleazy journalist, is a personal attack. I suggest you desist such ridiculous comments before you say something you regret. I find your comparison between me and this character deeply offensive so stop knowingly and deliberately offending other editors please, SqueakBox 00:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Haiduc was not only calling a spade a spade in this case (you are a nobody compared to an internationally published journalist, and as Haiduc said, we all are) but 2. You might not want to go around calling a living person (WP:BLP a sleazy journalist). Are you, btw, familiar with a 'sleazy' history of McKintry that I am unaware of, or did you merely make that comment out of anger?  CaveatLector Talk Contrib 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Is this article, in this publication, a valid source for discussing the sexuality of James Kilfedder, or should all mentions of his alleged homosexuality be kept out of the article as per this edit? 02:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify for those commenting; the source is entirely speculative, and such a claim (of "erotic" interest in an underage schoolboy would need multiple sources due to its gravity. --Counter-revolutionary 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'll judge the source for themselves. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Removal of embarrassing evidence documented by reputable historian in reputable conservative British political journal warrants a POV tag. Haiduc 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The author was acting in his capacity as an individual telling anecdotes of his youth, not in the capacity of a professional historian. The newspaper did not make an assertion to the validity of the author's claims, merely allowing them to be published.

Here is the entire text of the only paragraph in the article that refers to Kilfedder: "During my time there, the school was visited by the independent Unionist MP Jim Kilfedder, a surprisingly flamboyant, cosmopolitan figure for the hard world of Ulster politics. Unfortunately, the search-light of his flamboyance settled in my direction and for several years he was an awkward presence in my youth. Though a decent and in many ways honourable man - who died of a heart attack in 1993 when gay rights activists threatened to expose him as a homosexual - I was never under any illusions about the nature of his interest in me, especially after one embarrassing evening when he took me to dinner at the House of Commons. Having imbibed rather too much claret, he cried out in a loud voice, 'I can't bear to have this table between us any longer,' a statement which rather shook the Northern Labour MP at the table next to ours. Through a cowardly unwillingness to avoid a confrontation, I allowed him to remain a friend, though I rejected all his anguished attempts at greater intimacy." The author's conclusion: "None of these men did me any real injury, though I did find some of them a little creepy. Yet if such advances had occurred today, and I had spoken to the police or social services - especially about the organist - their careers would have been ruined, their lives destroyed. Some might say that would have been no more than they deserved. I feel, however, that we should be a little more tolerant, particularly if no exploitation or abuse takes place."

The author's claims in a nutshell: 1. Kilfedder was a flamboyant homosexual, yet terrified - literally scared to death - of public "outing." Source: Leo McKinstry's personal opinion based on McKinstry's own reminiscence. There is no evidence of McKinstry having compared his recollections and conclusions with other students at the time or, for that matter, with anyone else. 2. Kilfedder made approaches to McKinstry that McKinstry took as clearly homosexual solicitations, although Kilfedder put them in ways that were either ambiguous or within generally accepted behavior of the time. Again, the only evidence of Kilfedder's behavior, and of the intentions behind it, is McKinstry's opinions of his own recollections. 3. Despite being dismayed by the solicitations, and not responding to them, McKinstry did not speak up against them, did not report them, does not consider himself really injured by them, and would consider today's political landscape of instant career destruction for such activity to be harsh and unjust. These are also all McKinstry's opinions based solely on his own recollections.

I believe that at most, the relevant one entry in the Wikipedia article should have section title "Claim of pedophilic homosexual interest" and should read: "Irish journalist Leo McKinstry claimed in 2005 that when McKinstry was a teenager in boarding school, Kilfidder visited and made suggestive comments that were reasonable for McKinstry to interpret as homosexual solicitations. McKinstry reports having the view, both during his school years and in the present, that these types of solicitations were engaged in by several other men as well, and, though socially awkward, caused no real harm.  McKinstry reports indirectly rebuffing the alleged solicitions, while maintaining a friendship with Kilfidder throughout several years.  McKinstry has not provided any third party support for his claims, indicated a disinterest in criminal prosecution or career-threatening exposure of the alleged pedophiliacs. No comparable allegations about Kilfidder, either from or pertaining to other students, is known to exist."

If used as a source, the McKinstry article should more appropriately be cited at the Spectator's web site directly, rather than a third party article aggregator. Here is the link: http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/13807/harmless-old-buggers.thtml.

VisitorTalk 07:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your feedback, especially regarding the way to frame McKinstry's account. At the same time there are some problems here. First, this is not a case of pedophilia, the boy was too old (mid to late teens, as he describes it). Secondly, there is no reason to step in as editors and comment on the events by making excuses, or alluding to criminal prosecutions or exposure of pedophiliacs. No attack is implied, either by McKintry or by myself. I do not object, however, to a mention that the practice was common. Again, thanks for your comments. Haiduc 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My intent was to clearly summarize what McKinstry wrote. I don't believe I added excuses or allusions, but simply summarized McKinstry's article.  My own editorial opinion is that a reference to McKinstry's claims would violate Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.  "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)."  Allegations about Kilfedder's sexuality are contentious.  The only source is a conjectural interpretation of a single source.  The fact that McKinstry expressed his own interpretation is verifiable, what McKinstry conjectured is not (without further corroboration from verifiable sources).  Therefore, McKinstry's comments are not suitable as an encyclopedic source. VisitorTalk 02:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Coverup of evidence of homosexual interests
Removal of embarrassing evidence documented by reputable historian in reputable conservative British political journal warrants a POV tag. Haiduc 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please merge your comment into the RFC discussion section above. Also, please note that McKinstry was writing as a memoirs author, not a professional historian, and the Spectator made no claims of authenticity of McKinstry's story (unless you can find a specific editorial in which the editor or publisher made an assertion about having validated the story). VisitorTalk 07:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc, you state your agenda on your user page. Kindly stop pushing it here. It's clear that other editors do not agree with including this information - remarkably, editors who are well known for normally strongly disagreeing with each other. Your insistence is becoming disruptive. If this is important, then it will be covered in other sources. If you can't find them, then drop this subject. Tyrenius 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius, you are out of order. My "agenda" is to document history, and I specialize in one particular aspect of history, as do many of us here. However, to imply that to do so accurately and in accordance with Wikipedia regulation is "pushing an agenda" is a smear and a distortion of the English language. We all have an agenda. Some are conscious of it, some are not. Some are open about it, some are not. Some pursue it according to the rules of Wikipedia and of intellectual integrity, and add to the total sum of knowledge here, and other do not do so, distorting facts in order to present an inaccurate picture of history.


 * In this particular instance this man, JK, was dogged in life by rumors of homosexuality, and this aspect has been purged here by individuals who label allegations of homosexual interest as an "attack." Imagine for a second that JK was actually believed to have been Jewish, and at the mention of it some editors jumped up to "defend" him from that "attack." This is what is going on here. And you accuse me of being the one with an agenda?! I utterly repudiate your allegation. Disruptive?! I will willingly disrupt this kind of homophobic agenda, which is properly called an agenda, here and everywhere. As for the actual outcome of this debate, and the form which the eventual discussion of JK's alleged homosexuality will take in the article itself, that is something for the associated editors to work out, and that is why I submitted this to RfC. I am not wedded to any particular formulation, and am interested to see what others have to say. We are all partially blinded by our own point of view, which is why we work together here. This is the process, and it is not disruptive to anything but bias or stupor. You are the one who is disrupting that necessary process. I expect an apology. Haiduc 09:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have put it perfectly: "dogged by rumours". We don't print rumours. You're right they're purged. It's quite clear what the consensus is on this page: the one source alone is not sufficient to include this material. Even noted anti-Unionist editors on this page agree. Please do not accuse editors of being homophobic, when they are simply following WP:VERIFY: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This has not been achieved to date. Tyrenius 10:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. We do not report rumors as fact but we report them as rumors. Otherwise we are complicit in a coverup. If I am guilty of anything here it is of being remiss and not finding more sources. Here are some more:
 * "Kilfedder's homosexuality was one of the most public secrets in Northern Ireland politics." from this article
 * And here is a book that reveals that Tatchell was widely reviled in the media for causing JK's death. "British Social Movements Since 1945: Sex, Colour, Peace and Power" p.208.
 * And as for the homophobia issue, you are once again distorting matters. It is not homophobic to debate the inclusion of material. It IS homophobic do label homosexual allegations an "attack." I would expect more precise thinking from someone said to be an admin. As for consensus, there are two editors, CaveatLector and myself, who feel there is a problem here, and you, if indeed an admin, are charged to look beyond numbers to facts. I am disappointed that you are not able to mediate and guide this debate in a more impartial manner. Haiduc 10:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no cover up. It's up to you to provide reliable sources to convince other editors this material acceptable and its inclusion is also not undue weight. Given the current brevity of the article, this may be hard to achieve. Might I suggest you would be better off for the time being in adding non-controversial material, which must exist in abundance, to give a far more comprehensive view of this person's life, and address this other issue at a later time. Tyrenius 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

,, ,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandLodgeMaster Flash (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tyrenius is an experienced admin. and knows exactly what's going on and what is withing the rules. You say Sir James was "dogged" by allegations of his homosexuality, but where are the explicit sources for this? Finally I do consider McKinstry's account an "attack" as it involves what I, and others, believe to be a criminal allegation. --Counter-revolutionary 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Outdent. Well, Sir James is no longer with us so WP:BLP doesn't apply to him but does to all other living people mentioned so we have to be careful with that. Whether he would prefer to be thought of as king of the world is inconsequential as wikipedia is governed by verifiability not truth. So if we have reliable sources asserting he is king of the world then we can report that. Where we mention his sexuality is more to WP:UNDUE so for some people it's in the first sentence as it is central to their identity and work. In this case I don't support it being in the lede and posit that near the section of his death would be more appropriate as that is when the subject was addressed. Benji boi 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also want to add that it is important to report items neutrally and in this case with have a few sources suggesting the OutRage's outing campaign occurred at the same time as his heart attack and no one has written (that I've seen) that his anti-gay voting record was connected to his covering up sexual desires. Benji boi 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


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