Talk:John Maynard Keynes/Archive 5

Keynes was critical in helping to collect and reassemble Newton's texts in 1937. There is no mention of this, and there should be.

Joe marasco (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Joe Marasco (11/25/2011)

How about removing the gay stuff from the article?
I think it's worth at most 2 sentences. Do the Ronald Reagan and Werner von Braun articles go on and on about their intimate lives? It's off-topic. SPECIFICO talk  13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I emphatically agree. This stuff is not material to Keynes' work as an economist and there is very little public awareness of his lovers, etc. This discussion may be a case of WP:Soapbox. Steeletrap (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as long as you leave in the bisexual stuff. It's such a suppressed topic on wikipedia already! ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The present text does not go "on and on". It's basically just two paragraphs, dealing with a fairly complicated personal life, which has some social and political relevance. I don't think it is excessive at all. And if you look at Reagan's article it does in fact have a more or less equal treatment of his personal life. Nowhere does it say we should not deal with peoples' personal lives, as if they somehow don't count. Personal lives are in fact quite important, and could quite legitimately be the subject of a reader's interest for all manner of reasons. Keynes' personal life was in fact just in the news, and it's important that motivated people be able to find verifiable information. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be outrageous to include "bisexual stuff" that is of no relevance to Keynes' work, solely on the pretext that in general references to bisexuality may be underrepresented elsewhere on WP. Such material belongs in articles about bisexuality not Keynes.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * His bisexuality may not have any relevance to his work, but this article is about John Maynard Keynes, not just his work. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's also expand the Bebe Rebozo part of Nixon's article and so forth. SPECIFICO  talk  14:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I also strongly oppose removing it. Keynes gayness is very notable both to his work and to the history of LGBT people in England, in particular the sheer density of his relationships with other notables of the early 20th century, his strangely statistical manner of tabulating his encounters, his influence on the Apostles. As it is it's about one paragraph, which is hardly over-long. If Reagan had slept with many politicians, writers, philosophers and other such notables in his youth and it formed part of his intellectual background, I think it would be fair game to include all of it with proper sources. The Bloomsbury Group's romantic lives are also very fit subjects for academics and popular historians, much in the same way a modern celebrity might be &mdash; a personal life is a personal life, so let's not wash away the gay because to you it seems trivial.Zythe (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But seriously folks, it is interesting. His sexual life certainly humanized him for me and even reminded me of the one or two things I wholeheartedly agree with him on economically. Also added above three of a number of good refs on his bisexuality - one even on a back book cover of one of his books! ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. His private life is relevant and discussed in many reliable sources. Wikipedia is not censored.-- В и к и  T  4:16 pm, Today (UTC+2)

Funny, I studied Keynes in detail for at least 4 semesters of grad school coursework and nobody ever brought up his intimate life. Anyway, all these Brits have their tales to tell. SPECIFICO talk  16:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If I was teaching a course on Keynes I might well not bring it up, depending on what I wanted to focus on. But that isn't to say it isn't an important part of his story that we would be remiss in not covering. Lots of people probably couldn't care less, but it is clearly an issue for some people, so wikipedia has to treat it as it would any other aspect his history. I really don't think we're in danger of slipping into tabloid gossip territory now. I think you could even argue that his sexuality is under-covered given the apparent complexity and multiple interpretations of it.Peregrine981 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you say the same of Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, and hundreds of other public figures? I really am not understanding this -- particularly when his marriage then seems to be of particular interest with no corresponding relevance to anything for which Maynard was notable.  JMHO.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The material in the section has good WP:RS. But is it WP:UNDUE? Comparisons to other articles is WP:WAX. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To offer a counter-example to user SPECIFICO's experience in the classroom, one business professor with whom we are quite familiar, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, did speak to his "economics" class about Keynes's sex life. Hoppe implied that Keynes' homosexuality caused him to embrace his "short-term" and (in Hoppe's view) erroneous economics, and also said many economists agree with this view (see: here) and here. Steeletrap (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This opens up an enormous can of worms or bucket of sauerkraut take your pick. I would say that the subject has no bearing on Keynes' work and is therefore worth at most 2 sentences, as similar details are typically treated in WP bios of scholars and scientists. If there is RS to the contrary that demonstrates a connection between these personal matters and his scientific work, I would like to see the reference. SPECIFICO talk  22:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you on the bucket of sauerkraut. I would say that his stated sexual orientation (if non-heterosexual) is relevant, and that any statements, formal or informal, he wrote in defense of sexual liberation for gays etc would be relevant. But describing his sexual relationships seem largely irrelevant to the man's thought or work (and remember: his economic and philosophical views are what he's notable for, so comparisons with public figures and politicians are, I think, misleading). Incidentally, people confuse the two things all the time; when LGBT people "come out of the closet", they're talking about who they are, not who they've been with sexually. There is a crucial difference.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap: Hoppe's stupid comment really not relevant here, is it? I don't think mentioning this info is an attack on Keynes that will discredit him.
 * Also, I'm surprised that User:Specifico dismisses such a family section when he created a new section at here, writing: Another section we see in most WP biographies is the Personal and Family Background or some such title. It would be good if we could locate some solid WP:RS material about Doc. Hoppe's parents, their backgrounds, professions, and achievements, and how they influenced HHH in his formative years -- the sort of details we typically find in WP biographical articles. When I read that I went and found info on his wife and put it in. I'm sure if he had some controversial girl friends SPECIFICO or STEELETRAP would have put them in. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. This listing of his liaisons and the particular interest in his marriage is nothing other than prurient attention to irrelevant detail. It's supermarkst tabloid stuff.  Discussion of any views he may have had on sexuality or statements he may have made about societal attitudes or other related matters would not fall in the category of irrelevant gossip.  If any of this is relevant to his thought on social or economic issues, we need WP:RS references so that we can evaluate the suitability of the content.  Nobody so far has shown that there's any relevance to Keynes' thought.  But you're quite right, Keynes or other public figurs, even Yassir Arafat, are not subjected to gossipy public curiousity about their personal lives like, say, Tallulah Bankhead or Rock Hudson.  Anyway unless something changes here most of those commenting seem comfortable leaving the content in place.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't read the NYT too often, so I regret that I've missed some of the juicier stories. But maybe I'll pick-up The Life of John Maynard Keynes, his authorized biography. Still, some of the material can be put into footnote format. For example, Ray Strachey (whose article, BTW, does not mention Keynes).  – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparison the extra-marital affairs John McCain had while married to is first wife -- note that, unlike Keynes, he was a public figure who actively sought to present himself to the public as a "family man", and was damaged politically in 2000 over his extramarital shenanigans -- are given a total of one sentence on his page. (Invoking the Clinton Lewinsky scandal is inapt because Monica's notability sprang from her (together with Bill) bringing scandal/impeachment to the Presidency.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * McCain is still living, and we quite rightly like to be cautious about including negative material in BLPs. (This is not to say that a unbiased person would consider Keynes varied but non hypocritical sexual experience as a negative) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Im glad there doesn't seem be consensus for a major change in either direction, as the article is already well balanced. That is, we cover his love life in similar proportions to the major biographies (about the same as Clarke, slightly less than Lord Skidelsky, slightly more than Moggerride). @ S Rich, the Harrod biography you link to was the most authoritative source back in the 1950s, but has since been superseded by Skidelsky. Harrold doesn't explicitly mention Keynes's sexual realtions with men at all. As Skidelsky and dozens of others commentators have explained, this was due to the then prevailing British culture. Upper and many middle class Brits were generally tolerant of homosexuality, but considered it needed to hidden from others. The gayness of Keynes and other prominent Brits was an open secret in GB, publicly referred to only in subtle idiom and allusion, which outsiders were not intended to understand. (specifically not Americans :-) ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Caption of picture Keynes/White
Coïncidentally, I openened both the John Maynard Keynes-article and the World Bank-article. The caption of the picture taken of Mr. Keynes and Mr. White (next to the World War II-paragraph) differs from the caption of the same picture on the World Bank-article; the location of where the photo was taken differs. On the World Bank-article, the caption states that the location of the photo was the Bretton Woods-conference. On the John Maynar Keynes-article, the location is stated as the International Monetary Fund's Board of Governors in Savannah, Georgia. Which one is the correct one?Bleussink (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks like this article is correct, per what seems to be the official IMF caption for the pic. I changed the caption on our World Bank article accordingly. Thanks for advising about the discrepancy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No mention of bisexuality?
That's pretty amazing. Bisexuals are ever so more prevalent. Is this a bias issue by WP:RS? Or editors? Anyway, I'll put it on my "Do list" to research and add in if WP:RS found. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie  16:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Keynes ever identify as bisexual? I know he is sometimes seen as one of the great bisexuals of history, but in his own estimation he was strictly homosexual until meeting Lopokova, and many would probably call that a lavender marriage anyway. It's not something the Bloomsberries discussed in great deal&mdash;whether they were gay, or bi, or straight, just who they tended to like&mdash;wouldn't a majority of sources just be people saying "I think he was bi", "I think he was gay" and some contemptible "I don't think we can use these terms" people. It's tricky because we can't see inside his living mind, and the only personal attestations he made as to his sexuality were to the effect of saying he was proudly gay, barring speculation about whether or not he fancied Costelloe.Zythe (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mostly right there Zythe, though let me qualify a little. In his teens and twenties Keynes did indeed seem to be as gay as can be. His diary's and letters have detailed accounts of homosexual encounters with dozens of men. To the best of my knowledge there's no unambiguous evidence he had full sex with a woman as a youth, or a self identification as a bisexual. As for Lydia, you're right many might infer it was a lavender marriage. But according to Lydia's own letters, she was in fact very sexually satisfied (admittedly she does make references to things like Keynes "magic finger", but they did also have quite frequent full sex in at least their early years, with medical complications preventing a pregnancy carrying to term.) And also multiple statements from third parties confirm the marriage seemed very happy.


 * The best secondary source, with very detailed and graphic accounts of Keynes sex life, is the original 3 volume biography by Lord Skidelsky. Keynes is a good example for modern research into sexuality, which finds that for some, there can be dramatic changes in orientation as we progress through life.


 * So Id be against prominently describing Keynes as bisexual, as while essentially correct, it may give the wrong impression. Our article already treats this aspect of Lord Keyne's life in the same way as most major modern sources – mentioning his active homosexual youth, and then his later faithful and happy marriage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ps. thanks to CarolMooreDC for raising the issue. Always good to be vigilant against bias. It's just Lord Keynes was a most atypical sort of bisexual. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think he was a bisexual at all. For the first part of his life he was exclusively homosexual, then for the latter part apparently exclusively heterosexual and apparently faithful to his wife.  You can't just sort of average these out into "bisexual".  That would mean he was always sexually interested in both men and women, but that was definitely not the case, not at any time in his life.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  11:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a question of "averaging".... bisexuals by definition are people who are attracted both to men and women. The order in which that occurs isn't really relevant. Whether he self-described as bisexual doesn't seem terribly important, as long as someone else does. The terminology to describe sex has varied quite a bit over time, and obviously we need to be careful about labelling people's behaviour in the past by modern standards, but it would seem to me to be entirely appropriate to say that he was bisexual, with a pronounced preference for men as a youth. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that would be correct IMO, but there's also the matter of due weight. Major biographies don't describe Lord Keynes that way, and we ought not let ourselves be overly influenced by the recent media storm caused by a historian who despite spending years attacking LK's legacy, admits he forget the only reason Keynes was childless is that his wife miscarried and was then advised by Drs she would be unable to carry. On the other hand, if a majority of you want a more prominent statement I've no strong objection. Its great for the LGBT crowd to claim arguably the 20th century's single most positive influence as one of their own.  :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If found three book sources describing him thusly and a couple mentioning it. I'll have to study and see if those are stronger than the WP:RS on homosexuality and thus need section title change; or if they are just an addendum that others also call him bisexual. Will check in next few days. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 13:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that he was unquestionably LGBT has nothing to do with the question of whether he was bisexual, which can't be answered. It's not about a gay agenda, FH!Zythe (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is some nuance that I'm missing, but doesn't LGBT include bisexuals? I think it can be said, without too much hand-wringing, that someone who says they are attracted both to men and to women, and acts to the point that they have apparently fulfilling sexual relationships with both, is bisexual, even if they have a general preference for one or the other. There's plenty of sources saying he's bisexual. I'm sure people have spilled plenty of ink discussing whether he was "really" attracted to women, but it seems to me that the preponderance of evidence suggests a bisexual orientation, and that it isn't really up to us to dissect his innermost thoughts. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * But given we cannot claim with certainty his innermost thoughts, other than those he wrote down, can't we just be happy with LGBT? I'm as sensitive to bisexual erasure as anyone - honestly - but at least LGBT acknowledges there is ambiguity around a specific orientation.Zythe (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Better late than never, 3 high quality refs mentioning his bisexuality (i.e., describing him with that term); more are found with google search of his name and the term. Maybe I'll put in a little something with the refs if no one else wants to.
 * John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace,Indo-European Publishing, 2011, ISBN 160444116X, 9781604441161. Back book notes
 * Milo Keynes, Editor, Essays on John Maynard Keynes, Cambridge University Press, 1979, ISBN	052129696X, 9780521296960, p. 65
 * David Warsh, Economic Principles: The Masters and Mavericks of Modern Economics,Simon and Schuster, 2010, ISBN	1451602561, 9781451602562, p 3. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie  14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carol, I amended the text so it includes the word bisexual. Its only a passing mention, but our article now gives more coverage than is present in major book length biographies. The word doesn't appear in Harrod. I only have print copies of Skidelsky and Clarke, but the word certainly isn't in the indexes, and Im over 50% confident it's not in the text (having read them back to back several years ago). Searching Moggeridge electronically, 'Marriage' appears 20 times, 'sexual' 17, 'homosexual' 7, but 'bisexual' not once. Given the specifics of Keynes life, I still don't think it's a natural way to describe him, even though it's correct. Nothing to do with bias IMO. (There are tens of thousands of RSs on Keynes, so of course there will be exceptions.) But thanks again for opening my eyes to a new and valid perspective on this, and for helping to improve the article with source based discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. I put in the refs. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 11:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes was bisexual and this has been mentioned in numerous biographies about him, and it does not matter if the person did not personally identify as being bisexual during their lifetime. http://www.scotsman.com/news/john-maynard-keynes-bisexuality-ballerinas-and-brilliance-at-economics-too-1-1138050173.49.162.164 (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception section
Has two sub-sections devoted to Hayak, but I cba to sort it. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is due to the way we separated out Reception into Praise and Criticism. Not totally standard, but we felt it suited the article, and it did seem popular with readers back in the days when they were able to offer feedback.  Hayek is a special case - a fairly close friend of Keynes, and one of only a handful of economists who approached comparable influence. (Not at all while Keynes was alive, but many sources claim he has similar influence on the 20th century as a whole.)  Hayek had both positive and negative things to say about Keynes, and we felt he deserved to appear in both sections.  I'd prefer if it could stay like this if possible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the whole section could be compressed, with the bulk of the content forming the new article for either the reception of or attitudes to Keynes and/or Keynesianism? It has the potential to expand enormously.Zythe (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I like that idea, as long as the new article is written before any substantial compression of the main article section. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

BA / Tripos?
The article states that Keynes received a 'first class BA in Mathematics in 1904', and also that he 'studied for Tripos in 1905'. But the Tripos was the exam that he would have taken to qualify for the BA. Can anyone cast any light on this apparent contradiction? DaveApter (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Why, some of my best friends are Jews!
From the article: "Keynes had many Jewish friends..." 216.8.170.184 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a stupid inclusion. Btw. it says the same in the biography about Hitler.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. Unneeded. Doprendek (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Last edits
This edit. Obviously, there are many books about this person. They discuss a lot of detail. Here, we have only a brief article. Obviously, it must omit a lot of insignificant detail to be more clear and readable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that several sources have chosen to discuss this topic, and that several editors have found it to be relevant to include. I have not yet seen any argument as to why these details specifically should not be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the argument for not including mention of Keynes' views on race is that those views were completely unremarkable for an educated Englishman of his time. Maproom (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which raises its own set of questions, but true enough. Doprendek (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)