Talk:John Boswell

Untitled
It is a bit misleading calling someone a "gay historian", a phrase open to two meanings. John was in fact a historian who was gay, or, with the other meaning, a historian who specialised in writing on the history of homosexuality. Writing "gay historian" makes it sound as though though historians are categorised by gender and orientation. Would we write that John Cornwell is a "straight historian" or "Ruth Dudley Edwards a "woman historian"? If the term "gay historian" refers to his sexuality then it is mischevious. Historians, no more than anyone else, are not categorised by sexual orientation, gender, hair colour, height or any other personal characteristics. If it meant "historian who wrote about gay issues and other topics" then it should be said that way. He didn't simply write about homosexuality. 87.192.19.61 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- Is "gay historian" really a phrase open to two meanings? To me, it seems perfectly clear, just like "lesbian novelist" or "Christian poet." If you want to refer to someone who writes about gay history without bringing up that author's own sexuality, you simply write: "the noted scholar of gay history" or something like that. There is a clear difference between a "Christian philosopher" and "an historian of Christian philosophy."

- But there is much more that is wrong with this article. I find it interesting that the people who wrote this page skip lightly over Boswell's supposed major work ("Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and attempt to focus on the book which actually destroyed Boswell's academic reputation, "Same-Sex Unions."

- I would also mention that, while Boswell did write about other subects from time to time (maybe just one time -- orphans and abandoned children) he was in fact an author with just two subjects: homosexuality, and his other hobby-horse, Christianity. JaafarAbuTarab 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Queer Theorists"
This sometimes-derogatory slang should not be in the article, but I don't know how to fix it, because I don't know if the human who inserted the word "queer" was simply of low intelligence and inserted the word of their own volition, or if "queer theorists" is actually a widely-used term for a specific group of people/stereotype/opinion/etc., in which case in should be put in quotes. ~Rayvn 08:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You wrote this in 2009 and you didn't know what a queer theorist was? A simple Google search would have explained it. I don't even know why you were commenting on this page.

NPOV
I don't have time tonight to finish this, but please let's not make a one-sided article. Let's not turn Wikipedia into advocacy of the sort that "suddenly discovers that all along homosexuality wasn't really a sin, because the ancient church clearly approved it."

One scholar interprets the icons and rituals one way; another can interpret another way. Hardly a smoking gun.

Besides, an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a "disinterested" source. We must at least take into account the possibility of self-justification here. --Ed Poor


 * Well, first of all, homosexuality being a perfectly acceptable way of life is not a "one-sided" theory. Although there are prejudiced people in the world, the prejudists are not considered "normal" or "accepted in everyday society".  For example, would an article on someone who helped to abolish slavery be "one-sided" if it did not include opinions of people who still wish to keep slaves, or an anti-KKK activist of those who are in the KKK other then in direct relation to that particular activist?  Regardless of that, this article does not say whether it "is or is not okay" to be gay.  The only thing it says on that subject is that this man believed it is, and that the ancient Christian church also had no problem with it.  Since that is the truth, how is it biased?  Nowhere does the article say that the current Christian churches are not against homosexuality.                     ~Rayvn 08:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How does that differ from heterosexuals making anti-gay comments or disagreeing with Boswell's claims? What makes them disinterested? -- Zoe


 * What's an "anti-gay" comment? And are you dividing the scholarly world into (A) heterosexual and (B) openly gay? (Sounds like the fallacy of the excluded middle to me :-) Ed Poor


 * I don't think I need to list what anti-gay comments. They're all over the place.  You might want to visit the Reverend Shelton's website, whose URL I will not repeat here.  I wasn't dividing the world, you were.  -- Zoe


 * Creating divisions is one of the biggest sins in the Unification Church, so I better stop doing it. Sorry, Zoe. --Ed Poor

Ed Poor, your comments on this page are some of the worst trash I've seen on Wikipedia.

Mess
Poorly marked up, with two virtually identical versions, not an article about John Boswell, but about Boswell's research on the subject of another article, Christian views of homosexuality, this article is a mess. Ortolan88 17:35 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, Ortolan. It's almost as bad as the homophobia article. I hope I have time in the next 3 hours to fix up the adelphiosis thing, otherwise better writers than I will be stuck with the chore. --Ed Poor

Interest
"an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a "disinterested" source"


 * Because straight people are completely impartial on the subject of sexual orientation, because straight people have no sexual orientation, I suppose. Just like only white people should write black history. Really, Ed, I expected better from you. - montr&eacute;alais

Well, I could claim that "disinterested" and "impartial" aren't exactly the same, but I'd rather just apologize. Sorry, I messed up the article. And I concede that "straight" people can be crooked, dishonest, selfish -- and did I mention devious, twisted and narrow? --Ed Poor


 * To be fair to Ed, everyone reading the above quote should realize he meant that, "an openly gay man cannot be accepted as a 'disinterested' source [on gay history]."
 * Still, this is a questionable statement. I would argue that the interest a gay man would have in this area is a plus, not a minus. Firstly because his "interests" are positive, for example increasing safety, and because otherwise how or why else would he be knowledgable in that area?
 * The question is not does this create "interest" or bias, but does this create inaccuracies? For it certainly does create bias (for example, in California being honest about one's romantic tendancies, "coming out", is often interpreted by the courts as a political statement itself). The idea, though, that a historian at Yale would make up facts or promote false interpretations of those facts in order to advance, in the short term, a cause so personally important, in the long term, seems ridiculous. Hyacinth 00:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think Ed Poor was correct that this article violates NPOV. I understand that you are an administrator Hyacinth and perhaps you know more about Wikipedia’s rules than I but it is my understanding of NPOV  that articles should not appear to “take sides” but at least to me this article appears to take sides (specifically, his side). Basically the article seems to me to make extensive use of “weasel words” or at times basically agreeing with his (controversial) conclusions on a number of topics. For instance, it says he was a “gifted and devoted teacher” that may have been true but it is not only unsourced but I would suggest that it is a bit of a peacock term Manual of Style/Words to watch. Another issue is how in the sections on his books, it does not really give much information about opposing views, after asserting that the work was groundbreaking all it says is that scholarly reaction varied but does not get into specifics, and the only argument against his view is someone who saw it as a whitewash of historic crimes (for the sake of neutrality should it not specifiy that Mr.  Lauritsen and co. see it as a crime, at present it appears that WP is making a value judgement on whatever Lauritsen is specifically referring to. I would also think that specifics about scholarly views of his thesis would be far more valuable than Lauritsen’s who from what I understand is basically a market researcher who has self-published some rather fringy works of literary criticism and is not a specialist in theology or ancient history. The article also says that “More importantly, the book brought forward a fresh emphasis on the crime of rape being the actual sin of Sodom” now that also seems to be supporting his thesis, and after all many disagree that there even was a Sodom let alone what its actual Sin was, so shouldn’t it instead say something to the effect that “Mr. Boswell emphasised in his book” (and is that point really more important than his earlier assertion?  I have not read that book but certainly the prior statement looks like the more important point, with the information about Sodom being more of a secondary supporting element). Regards. Hawjam (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Hawjam

Freemasonry
John Boswell (the Laird of Auchinlech) in the year 1600 became the first non-operative (or 'accepted') Mason. He became a member of the Lodge of Edinburgh in Scotland.

Braudel discussion cut
I cut the following text: "Boswell was an unusual kind of historian. Like Fernand Braudel, he didn't rest with official accounts and chronicles, which tend to document the deeds of soldiers, kings, and prelates in detail but say nothing about the millions of ordinary men and women who make their deeds possible. Both scholars probed more obscure sources to tell the tale of the 'forgotten millions.' Braudel was interested in the economic life of Europe, about which little was recorded; Boswell focused on personal relations, about which less was recorded."

It's true that Boswell and Braudel both used sources beyond official accounts and chronicles, but so do most historians today. Boswell was a great scholar, as Braudel was, but there is no particular affinity or resemblance between them. Llajwa 20:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Boswell
I have included a short section on subsequent criticisms of Boswell's work by medievalists and queer theorists, who habitually take Boswell as an example of egregious ahistorical essentialism. I haven't had the opportunity to add references, but I would welcome anyone who can to expand it and do so (especially those who have had a chance to read the recently-published book from Chicago on the 'Boswell thesis'). 131.111.220.6 (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading through this article for my own research purposes, and it seems a little skewed to reference pro-same-sex marriage commentary on Boswell's work from gay sources, instead of the same criticisms on their own. You're leading the reader a bit by doing this, and it makes the neutrality questionable. Boswell is obviously a scholar who made interesting contributions advanced interesting theories, but both positive and negative reviews of his work should stand alone and "uninterpreted." I am speaking specifically of source # 4. Also, #3 is obviously a dead link. An actual citation would be better. --76.105.212.123 (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AIDS death in the lead
I do not see any reason to put in the lead his AIDS'related death. This is not relevant for his biography. For example in the articles about Michael Foucault or Nureyev there is nothing about their death in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.145.66 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material, which was first fact tagged back in May 2014, from the article to this talk page until it can be properly supported with citations per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:CS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In 1987, Boswell helped organize and found the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Yale, which is now the Research Fund for Lesbian and Gay Studies. His undergraduate lectures in medieval history were renowned for their organization, erudition and wit.To enhance the novelty and high interest in his classes, Boswell would often pen his comments on student papers in perfectly executed Italic script.

Yale Colleagues
Is it appropriate to have such a long list of people who were in the History Department at Yale along with John Boswell?? Is this to be taken to imply approval by these scholars of his work? Or is it just showing off? Why isn't Ramsay Macmullen included? He was a Roman historian. --Vicedomino (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy: information on CLAGS formation
‎The Schulman quote under the last bullet point of this section is an innacurate and inadequately sourced representation of events surrounding the formation of CLAGS. Schulman relies on the hearsay of a single source, Martin Duberman, which directly contradicts material found in the extant minutes of CLAGS meetings and related correspondence between Boswell, Duberman, and other members, all of which are available for consultation in the Boswell collection of the Yale Archives. Lfranner (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Boswell and Yale
Under the "Legacy" section: Regarding the final sentence of Schulman's quote: it is unclear what is being referenced by 'social system.' This should be clarified and contextualized. Boswell received unreserved support from Yale itself as one of its first openly gay faculty members, and far from being abandoned after his AIDS diagnosis, was granted extraordinary privileges such as extended hospitalization at the Infirmary, as a measure of the university administration's esteem. Lfranner (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)