Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1

Paul Goodman


PG was a major public figure in the 1960s with dizzying breadth across varied and many disciplines. It's likely the challenge that sunk more than two biographies that were in development in the late 20th century. This article is now the best resource on the Internet on his life, and I'd like to make it better—featured, even. Looking for feedback on any blind spots I might be missing before taking it to FAC. Thanks and happy New Year, czar  20:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This PR has been open for a month, but hasn't generated comments yet. Are you still interested in receiving comments? I suggest that you post a request on Wikiproject talk pages, and ask experienced editors in this topic area to comment. I also suggest that you continue reviewing articles at WP:FAC, as it will build goodwill among the editors there and will make it more likely that an editor will review your article when you nominate this to FAC. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you and yes, I'm comfortable leaving it open since this topic area is not exactly flush with editors and peer reviewers czar  02:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like there are some unexplored contradictions here:
 * Goodman supported American frontier culture, which was only possible because of massive state violence and dispossession of Native Americans. Did Goodman engage with this at all?
 * He was pro-frontier but apparently preferred living in large cities?
 * Is "Jeffersonian anarchism" really a thing? Jefferson supported small government, but he also owned slaves. Even without slavery, how is plantation agriculture consistent with Goodman's ideas about individual initiative?
 * I realize sources may not cover these aspects. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions, . I think "unexplored contradictions" is a good summation of Goodman's legacy.
 * Jeffersonian anarchism is more of a descriptive term than a school of thought. Goodman uses it in reference to Jefferson's writings/views on decentralization and liberties more than his life as a model for classical or contemporary anarchists (same goes for other late 19th century figures in anarchism, some of whom are cited for their views but were also antisemites and misogynists). Goodman has only been covered marginally as an intellectual in the last 25 years, so there's comparably little contemporary academic discourse reappraising his social/political thought in light of identity politics. (There is at least some coverage with respect to his treatment of women in his lifetime and in Growing Up Absurd but next to nothing on race.) But back to "Jeffersonian anarchism", there is some history of the phrase dating back to both Goodman (mid-century) and Benjamin Tucker (earlier; "Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffsonian Democrats"). Google Books has some on that and Jeffersonian libertarianism (which as a term was synonymous with anarchism prior to the rise of the late-20th century American libertarian movement). I don't believe Goodman or his critics commented in specific relation to Jefferson's plantation agriculture or Native American dispossession, though another Paul Goodman did. I imagine the former would be covered more as an intenral inconsistency within Jefferson's own social/political thought.
 * Goodman's writing on city planning often touched on a thematic need for urban–rural integration. The line about frontier culture I think is more in relation to his agreement with Jefferson's romanticization of the yeoman farmer. While Goodman grew up in, preferred, and identified with New York City in particular, he did frequently speak about the merits of rural life. Any suggestions on how that might be clarified, if unclear and useful?
 * czar 17:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "While Goodman grew up in, preferred, and identified with New York City in particular, he did frequently speak about the merits of rural life." <- If this can be sourced, I think it would help clarify. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Query by Z1720

This has been open since January, and it has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I recommend that you ask editors to comment or post on relevant Wikiproject pages. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am and I've just alerted a bunch of WikiProjects so we'll see what the wind blows in! Thank you. czar  19:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

FFF review
Hi Czar. I'm new to this process, so I'm very open to nudges if I do something against etiquette.

First skim comments: That's it for now. Pending any wiki or IRL emergencies I'll do a full read-through in the next 36 hours or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Two sources in the References section, Kostelanetz and Roszak, don't have any citations pointing toward them. Perhaps they are being used, invisibly, as general references. If not, they should probably either be mined for content or moved to Further reading.
 * External audio and video boxes should include info on place/date of publication, either in the box or in a footnote. I don't have a PAG to point to but it seems like it'd be an improvement.
 * Might be a matter of taste—personally, I've rarely seen it done this way and the template documentation doesn't necessitate it. In this case, for example, it's unclear what the reader gains from seeing the year the episode was filmed. czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:External media does say "it is essential that the source page be linked too with the date of retrieval", and additional reference info seems like an improvement to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That part is referring to the citation/reference, not the external media link itself, to my understanding czar  01:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Overall organization, sectioning, and length looks good. "Thought" is new to me as a section heading. Not a problem, but perhaps there's an equivalent title that similar articles use? Consistency is not worth all that much, but it's something.
 * I've seen both Thought (Bakunin) and Philosophy (Kropotkin, Proudhon), so I think it has to do more with the type of thinking/philosophy to be covered czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Somewhat beyond the scope of this article: I'm fairly confident Category:Paul Goodman is not placed in the most specific category it belongs to. Once that's properly placed, some categories for the article should likely be removed per WP:CATSPECIFIC.
 * Question: if I find uncontroversial copyedits to make, would you mind my making them?


 * Thank you! And feel free to edit directly—it's much easier to follow edits and their edit summaries than to write out the minutiae in a review. czar  02:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

FFFeedback part 1
Two sections and some broader/misc thoughts to start: Another read-through and more section analyses to come. Feel free to ping me if I drop off your radar for more than 48 hours or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Politics and social thought
 * Jeffersonianism: some amount of duplication between here and §Social criticism is warranted, but I think there's a bit too much
 * "afterlife influence" is likely to lead readers to believe the influence was after Goodman's death
 * I don't think the source verifies "the United States grew increasingly violent in the late 1960s".
 * "counter-institutions": an example here would be nice
 * maybe dashes around "not freedom" instead of commas? In the current construction, it's possible (and not too immediately contradictory) to parse "that human ability to pursue one's own initiative and follow through" as referring to "freedom".
 * "first sold out" → "sold out first"?
 * I'd drop the post-Aristotle "additionally"
 * If the way America misappropriates "John Dewey's pragmatism" can be briefly explained, it'd be an improvement. I'd leave it as is if only a lengthy treatment would do.
 * It's a little complicated to explain in that space, so better to link to the separate article, I think. The article has a few places where Goodman talks about doing things with a useful end in mind, so even if it isn't directly invoked as "this is Deweyan pragmatism", the reader will still get the intent. czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd insert a comma and use "and he was namechecked" in the last sentence unless "his role as a New York Intellectual cultural figure" was the name checked.
 * Psychology
 * "which evolved throughout his life" is a bit unclear. I think what's meant here (based on the following sentences) is that Goodman's views on psychology and his favorite schools of psychological thought evolved, leading his radicalism to evolve as well. Other potential readings are possible. Clarity needed.
 * italics for id and telos? I'm inclined but am unsure what philosophy articles do most commonly.
 * Usually for foreign terms and the like but these are dictionary words czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Unlike the silent ..." sentence is worth breaking apart into two
 * It's mentioned a few times that Goodman's politics are influenced by his approaches to and experiences with psychology. Perhaps the Pyschology section should come before Politics and social thought?
 * The trouble with Goodman is that everything influences everything (he says he only speaks and writes about "one subject"—the human and its environment) so it's a veritable ouroboros of which comes first czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Broader stuff
 * I enjoyed reading this article a lot. I came in knowing nothing about Goodman and finished a reading feeling like I have a solid summary of his life and career and plenty of follow-up questions that I could hopefully answer by following links or digging into the abundant sources.
 * That's so great to hear! In the end, that's what this is all about. :) czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of all the sections, §Reception and influence appears to be the most ripe for expansion. Perhaps its length is a reflection of the weight the sources give to praise, criticism, competing views, etc., but I'd be surprised to learn that there were no more content to glean from the existing references.
 * More images would be good. A non-free lead image suggests that copy-free images of Goodman himself are unlikely or hard to find, but maybe some other thinkers or places?
 * Yep, no free images apart from writing to his estate czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Smaller stuff
 * Some short terms are in quote marks and it's unclear why. I'll bring them up in section comments if you don't take a whole pass through before I get to them.
 * It'd be great if you could do a pass looking for MOS:LQ and MOS:DUPLINK fixes. Some duplicate links are perhaps intentional, but I remember seeing (an not making a not of) at least one that was unneeded.
 * If so, I missed it so let me know if you see it czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The currently present duplicate links are Delmore Schwartz, Id, Free university, John Dewey, Man of letters, and Common-law marriage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done czar  01:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a weak stylistic opposition to footnote numbers in the middle of sentences unanchored to punctuation marks. I'm happy to ignore the mild distaste when something controversial or opinionated needs immediate inline citation, and rewriting to segment that part off would be inapt or inexpedient. Some of the cases in this article don't meet those (personal, arbitrary?) criteria. Ain't no law against it, I'm saying, but I'm sharing my thoughts in case they stir something in you.
 * I'm the opposite, for text–source integrity. Sourcing this article is already a beast and it becomes impossible to add to the middle of a paragraph if it's immediately unclear where each piece of text can be verified. :) czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Reception and influence
 * "Goodman's idiosyncratic celebrity ..." is a tough sentence to get through. Part of it is the vagueness of "idiosyncratic celebrity" and part of it is "physical presence" often being use as a term to comment on someone's stature. I'd maybe start with "while known for" and end with a clear statement about what these characteristics had on his legacy.
 * "waned as quickly as it came": did renown come quickly to Goodman? Is this referring to a rapid increase in renown after Growing Up?
 * Yep czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A rough indication of when Stoehr is writing would be helpful
 * Thanks for the review, ! Made a bunch of adjustments and left some comments where I didn't. If you have time, I would love your FFFeedback when I finish with these current expansions, whether in this peer review or the next. czar  02:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. A few response above. See you around the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Arms & Hearts review
I haven't done one of these in a good while, so apologies in advance for any mishaps or infelicities. I've come here via WT:@, so it may be worth mentioning that I'm reading this article as someone with a fair bit of knowledge of anarchist theory and radical history which might shape my perceptions and interests. In all, I think the article's in very good shape and didn't find any noticeable gaps or errors or identify any vitally necessary changes. There's much here that I didn't previously know about Goodman, and virtually everything's exceedingly clearly written and presented. I've made a handful of smaller changes myself – mostly adding links – so will use this just to highlight other smallish issues. That's all, I think. Don't feel obliged to respond on every point of course. Again, I think the article's in decidedly good shape and there's not much that needs to be changed here at all. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * – would a link to Jews in New York City, here or somewhere else, be useful? (History of the Jews in New York is linked in the body though, so perhaps that covers it)
 * – can we specify either (roughly) when that wave occurred, when those ancestors migrated, or both?
 * feels a bit vague and/or misplaced to me. Maybe something more like "came to feel a strong affinity for Manhattan", if that's what's meant?
 * feels a bit informal to me, though may be less so in U.S. English
 * – can the description be a bit more specific here, or be dispensed with? "academic book" could refer to any number of formats across any number of disciplines
 * – is this an accurate description of the book as a whole? I haven't read it but came across this review which suggests the summer camp theme features in the title story but not the other stories
 * – pedantry but this may not be quite right, as university presses are generally considered independent entities (even if not formally independent) and universities themselves do sometimes publish reports and the like
 * It's what the source said but yes, good call, you're right that it's the university's press czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * – the relevance of the FSM isn't entirely clear here, as this comes a couple of paragraphs before Goodman's own connection to the FSM is introduced. Without knowledge of that connection it feels like an interesting but tangential detail.
 * – probably pedantry, but really we're dealing here with groups who believed themselves to be, or hoped to be, a revolutionary vanguard but in fact were decisively not – so perhaps "vanguardist groups" captures that better?
 * Well it's not a Leninist vanguard so I won't wikilink, but definitely a political vanguard in the lowercase sense czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * – is it worth specifying his age at the time of his death?
 * – per MOS:DECADE these should be written using numbers or capitalised ("Forties," "Sixties"), though the latter looks ugly to me
 * Count me in favor of "40s" and "60s." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the politics of the '60s' New Left—with the leading apostrophe per the MOS—wouldn't work. I disagree with the MOS on this one and think it's a longstanding misunderstanding. Inn our instance, it's lowercase in the source and in the dictionary so I'd argue that it depends on the context. Let's see if someone wants to make a strong counterargument? czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The other option would just be to use numbers in full – "1940s", "1960s" – but I don't think it's worth worrying too much about. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * – what time is this?
 * – not wholly clear to me: does this mean confusing experiences for feelings (and vice versa), or a state of confusion encompassing both, or something else?
 * – given he was apparently definitely bi, shouldn't this just be "bisexuality"? (I appreciate the language of the time would've used "homosexual behaviour" and the like, but we needn't do the same)
 * +1 for just "bisexuality". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * +1 for just "bisexuality"; looking a the context of the statement in question, and considering the sourcing and facts regarding Goodman himself, this definitely seems like the most natural and accurate wording. SnowRise let's rap 22:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See below  czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * – "intellectual for" feels awkward to me; maybe "intellectual associated with" or "intellectual to advocate for"?
 * I like "associate with". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful to link Jewish anarchism, List of Jewish anarchists and/or List of American anarchists under "see also"?
 * Jewish anarchism is a bit of a misnomer but for the other two why not czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * purely curiosity: was Goodman connected to the British anarchist movement when in London, and if so is there a connection to the mid-century UK anarchist tradition worth mentioning in passing? Goodman's influence on Colin Ward, for example, is discussed in Carissa Honeywell's A British Anarchist Tradition and, it would seem, in this article by Honeywell
 * I haven't heard much about his 1967 teaching appointment in London. I would assume it was minor. Colin Ward dedicated Anarchy in Action to Goodman and Ward's book on his influences has a chapter on Goodman. But based on my recollection, their little interaction was more epistolary and well before Goodman's 1967 trip. Did you find something about Goodman's specific impact on UK anarchism? czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing specific (from what I recall), just something that occurred to me when reading. Looking again, it seems as though the most noteworthy aspect of his time in London may have been his attendance, along with a host of big names, at the Dialectics of Liberation Congress (some footage), but I don't know whether that figures prominently at all in work on Goodman. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As fate would have it, after finding the Loftin article last night and upon reading other articles in the journal's Goodman symposium, I happened right into this this anecdote from the Dialectics of Liberation Congress, though it appears to be just an anecdote. czar  13:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Honeywell, I see her "Paul Goodman: Finding an Audience for Anarchism in Twentieth-Century America" is cited in The May Pamphlet, as is Cornell's Unruly Equality. These both seem like they might be useful additions to the further reading in this article. Are they ommitted for any particular reason?
 * No particular reason, but I have hundreds of Goodman sources in my citation manager so just trying to use the best ones and keep it manageable czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd lean towards including Cornell, as it touches on Goodman at various stages in his life and also helps to place him in a broader context of mid-century U.S. anarchism. But keeping the list a sensible size is important too of course. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Left some comments and either adjusted or am working on the rest. czar  03:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Czar – a few responses above, and one below, but changes made all look good. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Query from Z1720
It has been over a month since the last comment on this PR. Is this ready to close or are you looking for more comments? Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Just have some replies I've been waiting to make and will do so shortly czar  15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been another month. Is there anything left to address in this PR or can it be closed? Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sexual orientation
, thanks for your reviews! One of the reasons I left this review open is that I wanted to unpack that dismissed ... for reasons related to his homosexuality or bisexuality part a little more. Yes, it's simpler to just say "bisexuality" but that isn't quite how it's covered in the sources. While his orientation can (and has) been summarized as bisexual, the acts that had him fired appear related more to same-sex interactions in specific.

Goodman was uncommonly out for the first half of the 20th century. He wrote very overtly about himself and his sexuality throughout his life but his most famous writing on his sexuality is "The Politics of Being Queer", from a few years before his death, so it's as close as it gets to his last words on his own sexuality. He writes of himself largely as "being queer" and having "homosexual needs", with one mention of having a "bisexual life". This essay is partially credited with reclaiming the word "queer", which was defined more narrowly than it is today (i.e., to same-sex desire rather than all non-heteronormativity). Throughout the essay, he identifies far more often with his same-sex desire and relationships, yet does make that aforementioned sole reference to bisexuality and another once to women lovers.

After his death in 1972, texts indeed have described Goodman himself as bisexual, by the current definition:

But in terms of the green text, on why he was fired from jobs, I have yet to see an exposé on the nature of the relationships that led to his terminations, but it is more often described in relation to homosexuality than bisexuality. That could mean one of two things: (1) today's sources are simply reusing the terms of the period in the absence of corroborating information about the detail on those specific relations that led to his firings, or (2) the more specific meaning same-sex relationships—and not his bisexuality in general—led to his firings. The latter is more plausible, having seen most of Goodman's oeuvre, noting that his writings on sexuality are almost exclusively about men and, more specifically, young men. His diaries (Five Years) and long-form fiction (Parents' Day, Making Do) are perhaps the best examples of this, with those latter books covered in an anthology of gay literature. Parents' Day is known to be a thinly fictionalized account of one of these dismissals, and it's about his same-sex relations with his students.

These are sensitive claims so I'm mindful of making them accurately. Here's how citations currently in the article put it:
 * Widmer, p. 14: "1943–1944: Taught at a progressive boarding school, Manumit; dismissed for homosexual behavior" [this is the Parents' Day story, which Widmer describes as having "sexual bluntness and reticence" and "predatory sexuality" from a "homosexual teacher", pp. 118–119], "1951: ... "Taught at Black Mountain College; dropped for bisexual behavior"
 * Stoehr 1994b, p. 511: "offered an assistantship at the University of Chicago ... He was also married and had his first child. But Goodman was bisexual, and he continued to cruise the parks and bars for young men. Although his wife did not object, university officials finally did. He was fired when he would not promise to keep his amorous pursuits off campus."
 * Smith 2001, p. 179: "finished a dissertation at Chicago but was forced to leave the university on grounds of 'nonconfirmist sexual behavior', a charge that would again be leveled and cost him a teaching position a decade later at Black Mountain College", "Partisan Review ceased publishing Goodman, however, when they learned of his bisexuality ..."

Ones I haven't used:
 * Parisi 1986, p. 103: "Fatherless, Jewish, anarchist, homosexual, physically unattractive: none of these elements can separately account for Goodman's psychology of rebellion and failure. But, taken together, they do help to understand why he was in som eway both an outcast and a Don Quixote ... It seems, moreover, that among this variety of factors homosexuality played a leading and determining role, the other factors only adding to and intensifying the homosexual feeling of rejection ... Rejected he was indeed—from, among other places, the University of Chicago, the Manumit School of Progressive Education, and even Black Mountain College, although all three institutions were noted for their liberal or progressive atmospheres. For a long time, too, and for similar motives, Goodman found many doors closed in the New York publishing and literary world."
 * Goodman himself, in "The Politics of Being Queer": "I have been fired three times because of my queer behavior or my claim to the right of it, and these are the only times I have been fired. [he names the three schools above]"
 * On being fired: The teacher–student relation is almost always erotic', he wrote, and stifling that eroticism inhibited the teacher and damaged the student. For Goodman, perhaps the greatest sin of the modern American education system was its puritanical refusal to realistically confront the sexual development of students, and instead imbue all discoussion of sexuality with anxiety, fear and punishment. Even a wood shop class, he argued, could benefit from honest discussion of sexuality. ... Ignoring or repressing that sexual energy, he once wrote, caused the work to suffer. Given such attitudes, it is not surprising that Goodman was fired from several teaching jobs."
 * On his general sexuality: "[Goodman's] lust for men was a central preoccupation of his life. It is difficult to find any contemporary American intellectual who so freely, proudly and publicly boasted of his same-sex affairs (aside from Allen Ginsberg, perhaps). ... Kinsey would probably have ranked Goodman a '4' on his scale: primarily homosexual, but with more than incidental heterosexual experiences. ... But he also described feeling genuine attraction to women at times, even if his fundamental drive was towards men. ... By the 1960s, Goodman increasingly used the term ‘queer’ rather than 'bisexual' to describe himself, deliberately casting himself as an outsider and social rebel, not merely someone who had sex with both men and women. ... Somehow, in dozens of books, Goodman mostly ignored women. Goodman’s world is decidedly male, so naturally patriarchal that gender need not even be addressed."
 * On his general sexuality: "[Goodman's] lust for men was a central preoccupation of his life. It is difficult to find any contemporary American intellectual who so freely, proudly and publicly boasted of his same-sex affairs (aside from Allen Ginsberg, perhaps). ... Kinsey would probably have ranked Goodman a '4' on his scale: primarily homosexual, but with more than incidental heterosexual experiences. ... But he also described feeling genuine attraction to women at times, even if his fundamental drive was towards men. ... By the 1960s, Goodman increasingly used the term ‘queer’ rather than 'bisexual' to describe himself, deliberately casting himself as an outsider and social rebel, not merely someone who had sex with both men and women. ... Somehow, in dozens of books, Goodman mostly ignored women. Goodman’s world is decidedly male, so naturally patriarchal that gender need not even be addressed."


 * Kostelanetz 1969, p. 286: "Monogamous at home, he cultivates girl friends on the outside; and in his conversation he often speaks fondly of men he has known, explaining, 'Ever since I was twelve, I have been bisexual. My desperate efforts at homosexual satisfaction have given me some beautiful experiences and friendships, but much more frustration and unhappiness.' One friend adds, a bit peevishly, 'Paul tries to keep a girl friend, a boy friend, and a wife; but rarely does he manage to have all three and then keep everyone happy."

So for these reasons I'm inclined to say both homosexuality and bisexuality in dismissed ... for reasons related to his homosexuality or bisexuality, but I am open to your read of this issue and alternative expressions. czar 22:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful response on this. Given all of the above I definitely don't object to the current wording. My only question is whether it might be worth incorporating a brief explanation of this into the article as an explanatory footnote? I appreciate it might be difficult to avoid OR, but a paraphrase of the second quotation from Loftin, for example, would do a lot to avoid any possible confusion. (Interested to know what Firefangledfeathers and Snow Rise think too.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be remiss if I didn't add, more directly, the subtext that these period sources are conflating his non-heteronormativity with the ethics of his sexual relations with students. Today we'd separate the two and label the latter as inherently predatory. The difficulty is that the extant sources make neither normative claims nor any specific elaboration at all on why he was fired. czar  22:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still on team "bisexual", with any explanation needed in a footnote. My main problem with "homosexuality or bisexuality" is that readers are likely to read this as a statement of uncertainty, instead of a statement on differing word choices in the sources. If our goal is to capture the variety of descriptions in the references, a footnote is the best place for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)