Talk:James Buchanan

Image overcrowding

I have removed the following image due to overcrowding. File:Buchananmural.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Buchanan's Ulster heritage is celebrated in a mural on Belfast's Shankill Road. Hoppyh (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image due to overcrowding. Image:James Buchanan in 1860 - Meade Brothers.jpg|200px|right|thumb|Buchanan as photographed by Charles and Henry Meade in 1860. Hoppyh (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The following image was removed due to overcrowding. File:eagle.JPG|thumb|Editorial cartoon in Republican newspapers, 1861. Hoppyh (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following to eliminate overcrowding.File:Hand-colored lithograph of James Buchanan.jpg|thumb|left|Hand-colored lithography|lithograph of Buchanan by Nathaniel Currier. Hoppyh (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are the LGBT project and portal really necessary here?

There's no definitive proof that President Buchanan really was a homosexual. Even the source in the article states that the claim is simply based on speculation. There are plenty of actors, musicians, and other modern celebrities rumored to be homosexuals as well and the project isn't included on their pages. Including the project on this page seems to me like including President Harding in WikiProject African diaspora. RG (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It is overreaching.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

qnotes has an article entitled, "James Buchanan: America’s first gay president?". It quotes James W. Loewen, a historian with a long list of published books. Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Loewen is a sociologist and has not published any scholarship on Buchanan, which wiki rules say we need for a RS. Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

From the Jean Baker biography:

• "As for Buchanan, his reasons may have involved sexual preference, for there has long been suspicion that our only bachelor president was a homosexual" (p. 20).
• "So intimate was he with the handsome Alabama senator, who was known as a dandy in his home and an "Aunt Fancy" in Washington, that one congressman referred to the two men as "Buchanan & his wife" in reference to their bachelor status, which also hinted at their homosexuality."
• "Buchanan has been dubbed America's first homosexual president". (p. 25) Kauffner (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I was active on Wikipedia. But I have a hard time understanding why Loewen (including Loewen's more recent article) is not considered an RS, whereas the Baker quote -- which, incredibly, implies it's plausible to deduce Buchanan's serum testosterone levels from his facial features (?!) and from that deduce whether or not he was asexual (?!?!) -- is. Jean H. Baker was not a physician, psychiatrist, or biologist, as far as I know, and no reputable medical or psychological expert would draw such inferences. Can anyone explain the reason for the apparent double standard that seems to frame incredibly scientifically dubious evidence that Buchanan wasn't gay as reliable, while rejecting clear historical evidence that he was gay? SparsityProblem (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(no comment on Baker...I reverted the Loewen piece) The Loewen writeup is an opinion piece which does not have academic merit. It attempts to deceive readers into thinking that there is consensus amongst historians on the subject which is false. "Today, I know no historian who has studied the matter and thinks Buchanan was heterosexual." And with statements like "There can be no doubt that James Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House. Moreover, the nation knew it, too — he was not far into the closet.", we can safely dismiss this from being anything other than his opinions. It doesn't count for much.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for any of your assertions about the Loewen piece? SparsityProblem (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

the difference between Loewen and Baker?: Baker is a leading historian and specialist on the 1850s with many books and studies on the period. (Loewen is a sociologist who specializes on 21st century museums and has not done historical research on Buchanan). Baker has written a full biography published in a distinguished series edited by Schlesinger. Loewen has written one paragraph on the topic of JB's sexuality which is not footnoted and seems to be a paste-up from published sources written by non-specialists. So I restored the Baker quote....it will not do to claim that some unnamed scientist might possibly think the passage is "unscientific"--there is no such scientist and the sourced text was removed based on personal POV. Rjensen (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit confused now. Why does a historian making scientific/medical/biological claims fall within RS while a sociologist is posited to fall outside RS because he's making historical claims? Sociology is closer to history than history is to medicine. Again, I haven't edited Wikipedia very actively in a long time and I'm just trying to understand what the norms are now. SparsityProblem (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Historians make medical claims all the time about the people they study. They discuss any number of diseases, conditions, psychiatric conditions, causes of death, etc. It's part of the biographer's duties. In this case Baker is well-known for her scholarship on psychiatric issues in the 1850s-1870s. The Sociologist is doing fine when he talks about how museums operate today--that is his research--but he did not do any intensive historical research on Buchanan. Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I re-removed the quote from Baker. You stated that you had restored it because "some unnamed scientist might possibly think the passage is 'unscientific'" is not evidence enough for removal, given the fact that no scientist was cited. Well, the quote is discussing physiognomy, which is in fact a pseudoscience. Baker's accomplishments as a respected historian do not qualify her scientific claims (there's a big difference between a historian saying "so-and-so was often lethargic because he had typhoid fever" and "Buchanan was not interested in sexual intercourse because he had distinct facial features and a low hairline."). Furthermore, the burden of proof falls on those making the claims, not the person discrediting them. If you believe the quote has merit, you should provide scientific evidence that backs it up. Simply including it and asking for proof that it's wrong before it's removed is not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, I could include a quote stating Buchanan was an alien, and insist it stays on the page until a scientist discredits the claim. In any event, I agree with you that Loewen's quote also shouldn't be included. What's there now outlines both sides of the debate regarding Buchanan's sexuality, without delving into opinion or pseudoscience. Thank you. EDIT: Sorry, forgot to sign. 173.11.63.241 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The only burden that needs to be met is that the material is properly supported by a reliable source for the subject. In this case Baker is, without any doubt, a reliable source for the subject of Buchanan's life. Trying to obtain scientific evidence, either to support or refute her analysis, would be original research and is prohibited by wikipedia policy. What would be permissible is introducing material FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE that specifically addresses Baker's contentions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

North Shoreman is right. The way Wikipedia works is that the editors are not allowed to do original research to check out the conclusions of the major scholars in the field (in this case professor Baker). The text now gives the main alternatives (a) not enough evidence to say; b) he was gay; c) he was uninterested in any sex). If there is a fourth option please provide it with a citation. The suggestion "I could include a quote stating Buchanan was an alien" seems false--doubtless it is idle rhetoric. Baker is an expert on the psychological/psychiatric debates of the era (see her biography of Mrs Lincoln). Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Baker quote can remain, in my opinion, as long as the reader is fully aware that Baker was not a medical doctor. Putting in any medical information, the reader could falsely assume that Baker is a medical doctor. As long as the reader knows Baker is a historian, rather then a medical doctor, then Baker's "medical" conclusion(s) on Buchanan is/are appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baker did not physically examine Buchanan -- but she did examine all the documentation and that is what we want from an expert. Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Baker is a valid source. I was just mentioning that putting in Baker's appropriate title, such as historical expert, would not give the reader that idea that Baker is a medical doctor. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that we should not add category tags to the article to describe the subject as LGBT. I can understand that the text may not definitively conclude that Buchanan was homosexual. What I do not understand, however, is why we cannot include the article under the LGBT project banner? Surely the subject matter is of sufficient significance to those with an interest in LGBT issues? I'm happy to accept that the evidence of Buchanan's homosexuality is far from clear; but there is enough still there to be of use to those wanting to get a better understanding of the nuances of LGBT history, and to improve the quality of articles where possible. If nothing, the article at least shows us contemporary attitudes to perceived homosexuality. Surely it is up to project users to decide which articles are significant, and which are not? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If Buchanan was an openly gay President, then I would say yes on linking LGBT issues. Historical context needs to apply here. I am not an expert, but from what I understand the LGBT movement may have gotten started in the 1970's in the U.S. not the 1850's or 1860's. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks for clarifying. I'm much clearer in my mind now that the only homosexual men and women in existance were only born after the 1970s. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "homosexual" was developed in 1868. I was refering to the homosexual or gay rights movement of the 1970's. Did Buchanan have homo erotic or sexual relations with men? I don't know. Buchanan never admitted any sexual relationship with men as far as I know. Seems as if Buchanan kept his sexuality to himself. I am not sure how one can state Buchanan belongs in the homosexual rights or gay rights movement of the 1970's. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood (deliberately?) the purpose of the project banner. No-one is suggesting that Buchanan belongs to the gay rights movement of the 1970s. What an odd comment. The banner is there to alert project workers that this article may be of interest and require improvement - specifically in contributing to a broader understanding of homosexual attraction in the historic context. We know as a fact that men and women throughout all periods of history have either been attracted to the same gender, or enjoyed close physical and emotional relationships. The project is to make sure these examples are dealt with in a fair and open handed way. That Buchanan kept himself to himself on the issue of his sexuality is valuable information in itself as it suggests that the risks and penalties for living an openly homosexual life or being found out weighed heavily in the past. But the banner in itself does not make a definitive claim either way.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section

I believe Buchanan's legacy section is a bit harsh. He could have done more as President during the onset of the American Civil War and deserves criticism. I respect British historians, however, putting in that British historians rank Buchanan as the worst President seems a bit overdone. Presidential rankings tend to be generalizations of Presidents rather then the specific actions done while in office. It would be good if some positive statement was made concerning President Buchanan for balance. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Double Standards

Suppose Andrew Jackson had nicknamed him "Brawn, a Tiger with the ladies" and the nieces had, instead of burning them, published the letters as examples of the best romantic ladies'-man attitudes from which young men should learn. Who'd be equivocating now and saying "Oh, that occurred, beyond doubt, Jackson said that, but nobody left DIRECT EVIDENCE (written documentation that they walked in on the man at a moment when he was actually having sex with a woman)! See, what Jackson really meant was [insert absurd reading of Jackson's plain English]. And the letters, well, men in the 19th century, even homosexual men, OFTEN wrote of women in that way, praising the feminine IDEAL, the reference to 'drooling just thinking of your ample breasts, naked, as you rend my clothes from my body, inciting me to frenzy' not NECESSARILY being sexual! Language was different back then! Not like TODAY! So it doesn't rule out that he was really homosexual after all!"?

Not one of you would go to such lengths or demand such evidence (of HETEROsexuality), for you know it won't be found. People of any orientation have tended to have sex, when possible, in a partitioned area where non-participants can't witness. Thus eyewitness experiences are rare, limited to accidental intruders (who refrain from documenting the matter as a courtesy) and peeping toms (who refrain from documenting the matter for fear of the consequences of their admission). So nobody demands a sex-act witnessed in writing before deciding that someone was HETEROsexual. Then why should we need a sex-act witnessed in writing before we decide that someone was HOMOsexual?

There is no eyewitness PROOF that George Washington was heterosexual, yet we all believe he WAS (and while we could be convinced to the contrary by the recovery of evidence that, as of now, is lost, we couldn't be thus convinced by new arguments based on EXISTING evidence). So even though we lack eyewitness PROOF that Buchanan was homosexual, the logical believe that he WAS homosexual. And while we might revise that belief if lost evidence is later recovered, mere argument based on existing evidence won't dissuade us. As long as there's more evidence that Buchanan was homosexual than there is that he was heterosexual, and as long as there's more evidence that Buchanan was homosexual than the amount of evidence that makes us believe that George Washington was heterosexual, the correct course is to believe that Buchanan was homosexual no more tentatively than (but not less tentatively than) we believe that George Washington was heterosexual. If "preponderance-of-the-evidence", rather than "clear-and-convincing" or "beyond doubt" is the standard that makes us believe that George Washington was heterosexual, then "preponderance-of-the-evidence", not "beyond doubt", is how we should decide Buchanan's sexuality, in which case we decide it "homosexual".

One possible motive for requiring a higher standard of proof for HOMOsexuality is the belief that if we say a man was heterosexual and it turns out he isn't, we have not wronged his reputation any more than if we said his eyes were brown when they were blue; but that if we say a man was HOMOsexual and it turns out he wasn't, we have (because homosexuality is, unlike heterosexuality and eye-color, evil) hurt his reputation, so an untrue assertion of homosexualty delivers an unjust injury, which can be avoided only if we insist on solid proof before we speak. Since logic rejects the idea that homosexuality is evil, it rejects the idea that an assertion of HOMOsexuality requires more proof than an assertion of HETEROsexuality.

We shouldn't be any slower to conclude that, because Buchanan was recognized as homosexual in his day, had mannerisms associated (in his day) with homosexual men (of his day), and wrote of wooing men and a possible sham marriage to a female (in desperation, ONLY to obtain health-care and meals) devoid of ardent or romantic affection, ERGO HE WAS HOMOSEXUAL, than we would be to conclude that, because some man is recognized as heterosexual in his day, has mannerisms associated (in his day) with heterosexual men (of his day), and writes of wooing women and a possible sham marriage to (where legally recognized) a male (in desperation, ONLY to obtain health-care and meals) devoid of ardent or romantic affection, ERGO HE IS HETEROSEXUAL.

Some of you (and some of your sources) say things that amount to this: "No, he's not to be considered homosexual until every possible explanation (no matter how tenuous, no matter how implausible its assertions as to the meanings of his written words, no matter how much relying on pseudo-sciences such as phrenology (Baker)) of what is known about him that can REMOTELY be cobbled to be consistent with his being HETEROsexual has been exhausted. Only then, when all other possibilities are refuted, when backed into a corner, coerced by the hardest of hard facts that can't be laid aside or 'explained' out of existence, can we, as a last resort, admit that he was homosexual." Since nobody would say that about purported HETEROsexuality, it should not be said about purported HOMOsexuality either.

If I flag George Washington as a "significant heterosexual" are you, Rockgenre and Berean Hunter, going to complain that there's no definitive proof that Washington WAS heterosexual? It IS TRUE that there's no definitive proof that Washington was heterosexual, but the lack of definitive proof is not going to matter to you. The surmise of the logical is that Washington WAS heterosexual, based on a CERTAIN AMOUNT of evidence (even though that evidence falls short of "iron-clad proof"). And the logical ALSO surmise that Buchanan was HOMOsexual, based on MORE than that amount of evidence (even though that evidence also falls short of "iron-clad proof").

Are you, Contaldo80, going to say that we can't "definitively conclude" that Washington was heterosexual (which is true, we can't) or that the evidence is not "clear" (which might be true, depending on what "clear" means). It's not that I disagree about the evidence being short of this or that standard, for it IS short. What I say is that it's not RELEVANT that it doesn't meet that standard because the parallel evidence doesn't meet that standard on Washington's HETEROsexuality but nobody's going to object if I tag Washington as a signficant heterosexual. That's what constitutes a double-standard.

The thing that really gives YOU away, RockGenre, is where you say plenty of ... celebrities are "RUMORED" to be homosexuals. You don't say they're "widely believed" to be homosexuals. "Rumored". Have you ever said/written of a celebrity that he or she is "RUMORED" to be HETEROsexual? No, you'd say "widely believed to be heterosexual", because you can only be "rumored" to be something that is neither value-neutral nor good but is in fact bad. You wouldn't object to the "heterosexual" tag for George Washington on the grounds that he was only "RUMORED" to be heterosexual, would you? That his heterosexuality is "only speculation"? (Which is true, it is only rumor and speculation that Washington was heterosexual, my point being not that there's firm proof, but, rather, that you DON'T CARE that people accept Washington to have been heterosexual ABSENT firm proof, but you DO CARE if people accept Buchanan to have been HOMOsexual absent firm proof. How is that not a double standard?)69.86.131.90 (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I don't believe the article should directly state that Buchanan was a homosexual. There needs to be some room for the reader to make their own inferences. If there are any historians that believe Buchanan was a homosexual, then those historians needs to be mentioned specifically in the article, i.e. this historian believes Buchanan was a homosexual. That way there is no blanket statement that Buchanan was in fact a homosexual. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Buchanan was not "openly gay" -- for example his political opponents never made that allegation or spread that rumor. Most historians believe he had little interest in sex one way or the other; Baker has the best RS coverage of this issue, and she examined all the historical documents. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would we not use the word homosexual, even if we determine he wasn't? Why the coyness? Also how reliable can Baker's conclusions really be. Particularly as she has put forward the argument that he was asexual based on photographs which in her opinion show him having a 'low hair line', and thus low levels of testosterone. Hardly resounding evidence. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Separately I also don't like censorship of pople's arguments unless there is good reason. Is the argument of Baker that "Isn't it possible that she has homophobic bias and WANTS to conclude that Buchanan (having attained the US's highest office) wasn't homosexual and so steers her logic and enquiries accordingly?" really a BLP violation? It's not stating categorically that Baker is homophobic, but it's reasonable to consider whether that is a factor. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

. Wiki rules require censorship here. the issue is not Buchanan it's a personal attack on a living person --a nasty accusations of serious bias against a leading scholar, with zero support from any RS. The IP said his accusations are more than possibility--he says are true: "That seems a simple enough explanation to ME as to why she won't say that Buchanan was homosexual." That is a BLP violation that is not tolerated at Wikipedia WP:BLP which says "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." and 6.5: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first...." I reported the violations to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is this passage: 'I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection."' That passage is footnoted to sources 63, 64, and 65. If you consider those to be unreliable sources, then remove the passage. The questions that passage raises are these: (1) If language that could be penned by a man about women would be interpreted as indicating its author's HETEROsexuality, how can that same language penned by a man about MEN not be equally indicative of its author's HOMOsexuality? The question is why the failure to be PARALLEL in interpreting the language does NOT constitute a double-standard. The answer to this question begins with "Chris, it's not a double-standard because ..." and ends with whatever reasoning you might supply. The answer does NOT consist of erasing the question again. And (2) If you believe that this passage in Buchanan's own hand is not sufficient evidence to conclude it most likely that Buchanan was homosexual, then what is your definition of "sufficient evidence"? The answer to that question is "Chris, if [list of evidence] existed I would believe that Buchanan was most likely homosexual. If such evidence is produced in the future I will start believing it then. Absent such evidence I continue to believe that Buchanan was most likely NOT homosexual." Finally there are questions about whether a person who exists only hypothetically (no actual person) has BAD CHARACTER or not. If a hypothetcial person wishing to avow Buchanan's heterosexuality avoids answering my first question above because they know there IS no good explanation of why their failure to interpret Buchanan's passage as strong evidence of his homosexuality is not a double standard, and if they refuse to answer my second question above because they are NEVER going to concede Buchanan's likely homosexuality no matter WHAT the evidence, does that person have bad character or not? And if they erase the questions so that the world will not even KNOW the questions have been asked, do they not have WORSE-THAN-BAD character? Is this or is this not a widely-accepted criterion for "bad character"? 69.86.131.90 (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Wiki rules require that we summarize the scholarly secondary sources . Those scholars have read tens of thousands of letters and other primary sources for the era, as well as all the scholarly studies. We rely on them no some editor's personal reading of one letter. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Those scholars have read tens of thousands of letters and other primary sources for the era". You're making a bit of an assumption there aren't you! I like in general to give the benefit of the doubt to genuine historians and biographers and believe that they reach their conclusions based solely on the facts in front of them. But we have to accept that when it comes to issues of sexuality (and homosexuality in particular), some writers do have a tendency to become a little squeamish and avoid tackling the subject head on. Baker's suggestion that Buchanan was asexual because pictures show him with a high hairline seem poor historical objectivity at best. I'm not saying that these writers are wrong - I'm just making the point that bias inevitably creeps in everywhere. The best approach would be to collect as many sources as we possible can about Buchanan's sexuality/ relationships and sift them to see who says what based on what evidnce. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

" The best approach would be to collect as many sources as we possible can about Buchanan's sexuality/ relationships"--well yes that is exactly what Baker has done. She's also read the medical and psychiatric literature of the day (see her biog of Mary Lincoln) That's why we rely on established scholars instead of anonymous editors who have read three letters and none of the scholarship, and are trapped in the conventional wisdom of the 2010s. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what advantage there is in reading the medical and psychiatric literature of the day - perhaps you can clarify? In any case I think we can acknowledge Baker's position: Buchanan became involved with Ann Coleman. They became engaged in 1819. But, the marriage was called off. Baker believes that Coleman tired of Buchanan’s lack of affection for her. Also, Buchanan was seen in the company of another woman while they were engaged. Baker points out, no one in Buchanan’s time would have identified himself as homosexual. There were just men who sometimes had sex with other men. Also, Buchanan may have just been not interested in sex. Baker tells us that Buchanan never had to shave in his life. He couldn’t grow facial hair. She posits the idea that Buchanan may have suffered from a hormonal imbalance that left him generally uninterested in sex with anyone. In his writings, Buchanan would mention his desire to get married, but only for career reasons. Buchanan liked the idea of a woman who would cook for him and take care of him, but he certainly didn’t want to have to be affectionate or caring or chatty.Buchanan would, for a time, share a room (and a bed) with Alabama Senator William King. The two men were very close and Andrew Jackson dubbed them “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy.” But this is only Baker's opinion - she has reached her own conclusions based on the material she has used. That does not mean there are alternative interpretations. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "alternative" above was intended to be "no alternative", no? Hi, it's me again, Christopher L. Simpson of 313 West 92nd Street New York, NY 10025, formerly of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the "anyonymous editor" who signs every one of his posts with the impenetrably cryptic "Christopher L. Simpson". Medical and psychiatric evidence are OUT OF BOUNDS because homosexuality is NOT a medical or psychiatric condition. No we DON'T need to read thousands of letters from Buchanan before deciding that he was more-than-likely homosexual, and the reason we don't is that we wouldn't need to read thousands of letters from George Washington before concluding that Washington was HETEROsexual. First, 1,000 letters in which Bucahanan doesn't reveal his sex-life mean nothing given the consequences of any revelation of his sex-life to someone indiscreet. Second, ONE LETTER in which George Washington mentions wooing women without success and having some sexless but practicality-serving relationship with a man as a second-rate substitute for a woman would be (if it existed, which I admit is not the case) enough to convince us of Washington's HETEROsexuality (at least as a higher probability than his not being heterosexual, which is all that matters, because of the inherent lack of 100% provability of ANYONE's sexuality). A parallel-but-gender-mirrored letter from Buchanan's hand DOES exist and it, by itself alone (although we do also have Andrew Jackson's relating of the commonly-used nicknames for Buchanan and a lover, but yes of course "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy" just COULDN'T be names for two homosexual lovers), is enough evidence to draw the parallel-but-gender-mirrored conclusion of Buchanan. While I'm here I will self-abasingly apologize for my assertion that anyone here present would concede a probability of Buchanan's homosexuality only when they had an advert in the NYTimes and on a Times Square billboard stating "I, President Buchanan, don't like sex with women and do like sex with men". That was SO wrong. If you DID have evidence of such adverts you would STILL not accept Buchanan's probable homosexuality, and so I retract my scurrilous allegations. 69.86.131.90 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

President Jackson alludes to the maiden aunt -- a common trope in the ante-bellum era that implied they were moralistic (Tom Sawyer's Aunt Polly), fastidious ("Aunt Fancy" -- Sen King was a stickler for fancy clothes) and passionless (asexual). For the images you can read a few thousand letters and diaries, or depend on scholars who have read them, such as Baker, G. Barker-Benfield, The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes toward Women and Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century America (1976) and Nancy Cott, "Passionless: an interpretation of Victorian sexual ideology: 1790–1850," Signs (1978), pp. 219–236. Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The argument on maiden aunt sounds interesting but do you have a clear source to support the argument that it is what Jackson intended? On the issue of Baker, I think we've established what her view is now. That doesn't mean, of course, that she is right or that there aren't opposing views; but it's fair that her comments are reflected as her biography is an important one. Incidentally Christopher I wouldn't make so much of the point of Washington's heterosexuality as some editors may well argue that the concept didn't exist widely before the 1970s (and thus presumably they never existed before then). Contaldo80 (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Jackson alludes to the "Maiden Aunt"? No he doesn't! Jackson alluded to a male homosexual couple known as "Aunt Fancy" and "Miss Nancy", whom Aaron Brown called "Buchanan and his wife". You say that Senator King would be called a "maiden-aunt" because he was fastidious. It turns out he was fastidious in attire. Yes. True. He was. It's because he was homosexual (or, to avoid imprecision, it's because he had a characteristic that has a very high statistical correlation with being a male homosexual). Most (but not all) homosexual men are better-dressed than heterosexual men. And most (but not all) men who dress both immaculately and ornately are homosexual.

Rjensen says "you can read a few thousand letters and diaries, or depend on scholars who have read them". That's wrong, because nobody has had to read a few thousand letters and diaries to figure out that George Washington was HETEROsexual. Ergo they don't need to read that much to conclude that Buchanan was HOMOsexual. You give no acknowledment of the wrongness of demanding a standard of proof for Buchanan's HOMOsexuality that is anything other than the mirror of the standard of proof for Washington's HETEROsexuality. Everyone thinks Washington was heterosexual without deferring to so-called "scholars". Likewise they'll someday believe the same of Buchanan's homosexuality.

If Baker CAN read thousands of letters and diary-entries and still find the wiggle-room (resorting to a pseudo-scientific interpretation of Buchanan's APPEARANCE) to say that Buchanan wasn't likely to have been homosexual, that doesn't help the case against Buchanan's homosexuality. Rather, it hurts the case for reading thousands of letters and diary-entries. Baker did all that reading and STILL would not see the truth. So what good did all that reading do her?

So we have to ask (not ASSERT but just ASK) whether Baker did not see the truth because, a-priori her encounters with the evidence, she did not WANT it to lead to a high likelihood of the homosexuality of a President. We have to ASK that. I've never MET Baker nor read anything she's written other than here, and until I do I will NOT be told that absent evidence to the contrary I am obligated to regard her as credible. She must be aware of all of the evidence of Buchanan's homosexuality that is in this very Wikipedia article, and yet she still writes that he probably wasn't homosexual. That alone marks her as NOT CREDIBLE (and let her sue me for saying so!). Nor is anything quoted that suggests she has gone on record stating "the following hypothetical evidence, which I have not yet encountered, would, if I do encounter it later, convince me of a high likelihood of Buchanan's homosexuality".

For the editors cited by Contaldo80: Nobody being heterosexual before the 1970s? Rubbish. "Heterosexual" is not an empty, circuitously self-referential "concept" like checking the "White" box for race on a form from the Census-bureau, whose only DEFINITION of "White" is "a person who checks the 'White' box on our forms". While humans' self-classification into racial, national, ethnic, and religious catergories rests on shaky logic (for instance someone of 75% European and 25% African ancestry being regarded by themselves and by others as "a black peron"), there's actually some CONTENT to the adjectives "heterosexual" and "homosexual". There are several criteria (each inconsistent with the others but any ONE of them capable of CONSISTENT universal application) each one of which can classify every human who ever lived as "female" or "male". Some schemes attempting this are flawed, such as "'XX' is female and 'XY' is male", because then people of other patterns, say 'XXX', 'XYY', 'XXY', can't be classified. Likewise if anatomy rather than genes is the test it must not be "A womb is female, a penis and testicles are male" because it fails to classify people who have both a womb and testicles, testicles but no penis, a penis but no testicles, an ovary on one side and a testicle on the other, etc. To achieve a dipolar sorting one must define EITHER "female" or "male", not both of them, and then let the category NOT defined consist of all humans who do not meet the definition given for the category that IS defined. One can be consistent by using only ONE of the criteria, because there are 'XY' people with wombs and 'XX' people with testicles, and "XXY" people who could be male if the test is "presence of at least one 'Y'" or female if the test is "presence of at least two 'X's". Once a single criterion constructed to ensure dipolarity is chosen, it is possible to consistently assign one (and only one) of two genders to each person who ever lived. We can then ask if the set of all people with whom you could ever want to have sex consists of ONLY females (and a few rare males who are like females in some aspect that is crucial for your desiring), or ONLY males (and a few rare females who are like males in some aspect that is crucial for your desiring), or does it consist of a mixture of females and males OTHER than females who are like males in some respect and males who are like females in some respect? If the set is as the latter, you are bisexual regardless of your own gender. If the set is only females and you're female, or if the set is only males and you're male, you're homosexual. If the set is only females and you're male, or if the set is only males and you're female, you're heterosexual. If the set is empty, you're "non-sexual". Thus it is possible not only to sort everyone who ever lived into "females" and "males", but also to sort them into "homosexuals", "heterosexuals", "bisexuals", and "non-sexuals" although a different criterion for gender chosen at the outset could result, for some people, in a different orientation-tag at the end. But there's no way that any SINGLE well-formed dipolar criterion for gender chosen at the outset will make it AMBIGUOUS, or INDETERMINATE, at the end, to tell if you are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or non-sexual. This orientation-tag is something objective about you. It has nothing to do with whether you consider YOURSELF to be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. It's simply wrong to say that heterosexuality didn't exist until the 1970s. Large numbers of infants were born in the 1960s. The vast majority resulted from CONSENSUAL acts. Females and males were doing heterosexual things to each other even way back in those days.69.86.131.76 (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson a.k.a. "the anonymous editor".

Re-reading this entire page to find where I made some paragraph-indenting mistakes, I find that it was Rjensen who insisted that the removing of the pseudo-scientific passage from Baker be reverted because it should not have been removed because some "unnamed scientist" thinks it "unscientific" and "there is no such scientist". How do you KNOW that? Do you have an exhaustive criterion that differentiates every living person who "is a scientist" from those who are not? Did you ask everyone alive who meets that criterion? If you have not asked ALL scientists whether or not they regard the passage as pseudo-scientific, you can't say that "there is no such scientist" who regards the passage as pseudo-scientific. I do not argue against you by saying that there IS such a scientist. I'm saying you engage in a fallacy of infinite recursion with respect to "authority". If I were to say that Ms. Smith thinks the passage is unscientific and that Ms. Smith is a scientist so she should overcome your objections, you can counter by saying "Who says Ms. Smith is a reputable scientist?" and then I say "Dr. Jones says so" and you say "Who says that Dr. Jones is a reliable judge of Ms. Smith's ability to reliably judge the scientific validity of the Baker passage?" and I could say "Mr. Johnson says so" and you could likewise need a citation supporting that Johnson is qualified on the question of whether Jones is qualified on the question of whether Smith is a reliable impeacher of Baker. If it's impossible to believe anything unless it is endorsed by authority, and if it's also impossible to believe that any authority's endorsement can be trusted unless it in turn is endorsed by authority, then you, yourself, Rjensen, could not believe ANYTHING, because you'd have to spend an infinite amount of time finding the endorsements by endorsed authorities who endorse other endorsed authorities. We live for only a finite amount of time, so this is impossible to do. Unless you believe nothing at all, Rjensen, you believe something that is not supported by authority in the manner you demand of others. You believe something just because your own thought and experience show to you that it is true and the world be damned if it disagrees. You believe something based on, horrors, "personal POV". Other people are allowed the same privilege, which I shall exercise now: Baker's passage about Buchanan's appearance is unscientific quackery. It is not unscientific only if some scientist (who is a scientist in the world's eyes only because someone qualified on scientists says he is one) says that it is unscientific. It is unscientific as a matter of observable fact, as the tendency of massive objects to move towards other massive objects is an observable fact. There is an objective truth, transcending mere opinion, to Baker's passage being unscientific. The falling tree in the deserted forest vibrates the air-molecules although no "authority" hears it. Those pointing out that Baker's passage is unscientific need only general knowledge of science and its (heavily anti-authoritarian) principles, nothing more. Just who is it, Rjensen, that is "qualified" to tell us that buffaloes can't fly? Is it aerodynamic engineers? Or is it bovine-specializing biologists? Or is it: EVERYONE who's never done a LICK of research in EITHER area! My answer is the latter of the three. 69.86.131.76 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Anonymous Christopher L. Simpson

I'm sorry - I've tried to be sympathetic to your arguments but you're just rambling not. Can I suggest you devote your energies to identifying good clear sources that discuss the issue of Buchanan's sexuality and we can think about how best to improve the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I absolutely WILL NOT identify good clear sources as requested. The sources that make it clear that Buchanan was a noteworthy homosexual are already in the article as it stands. Should I find new sources the same fallacies will be applied in order to ignore THEM as well. I note AGAIN that you have not conceded IN ADVANCE of sending me to search just what it would be that would constitute "good clear sources". If that's not conceded in advance, if you can't pin yourself down to eliminate wiggle-room, then no matter what I might find you'll have an out, some ability to claim "that's not a good clear source" just as you allow Rjensen to claim that Buchanan's references to wooing some men, Andrew Jackson's use of the names "Aunt Fancy and Miss Nancy", and the references to them as a man and wife, living together, and being well-dressed, are not "good clear sources".

The infinitely-recursive game that is being played (in bad faith) in this Talk-page has a parallel well-described at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles

If Rjensen can claim that a source identifying Buchanan as homosexual isn't a good source until that source is so determined to be a good source by a further good source, I can find such further good source and he can take the game into an additional do-loop (or recursive iteration or whatever it is that computer-programmers call it) and deny that such further good source is a good source until so determined to be by a yet-further good source. The remedy is not to chase down the good sources (for Rjensen's game is to never be satisified no matter how many levels of nesting of sources occur). The remedy is to point out that Rjensen's demands consitute an infinitely-recursive fallacy of authoritarianism, a game played in bad faith.

I won't find evidence because I'm not arguing that someone is mistaken and merely needs more evidence to be persuaded. I'm arguing a different thing entirely: that someone is acting in bad faith and, so, won't be persuaded regardless of evidence, which already exists, in the article, in abundance.

I also won't find evidence because I'm not a CREATOR of Wikipedia knowledge, I'm a CONSUMER of it, and when it's self-contradictory I have every right to complain about the inferiority of the product. It's not my JOB to improve the article!

You say, and I quote, "you're just rambling not". Does that mean I'm not rambling? It's an archaic turn of phrase. Why not say "you're just not rambling"? Or did you mean "now" instead of "not"? Perhaps you're frustrated because I'm not trying to resolve a disagreement about Buchanan's sexual desires, as you might be. I'm trying to denounce certain fallacies of truth-finding. The truth is that which is true. It is not that which so-called "experts in the field, who've done the research" agree to concede to be true (the experts being chosen by those who are experts on who is an expert, requiring an infinite chain of endorsements, hence the fallacy of authoritarianism in all its uses for whatever purpose it is cited). ("Infinite chain of authority" fallacies are not only impossible to conclude, but those who espouse them can't really have followed their own rules they do in fact believe SOMETHING that is not endorsed but the infinite chain.) Experts in the field who are not DISINTERESTED in what they find should be, I think, disqualified. When an author draws conclusions from primary sources that contradict those very primary sources they're citing, I need not do ANY further research on the matter they discuss, nor on the background of that author themselves, to conclude that, on the strength of such behavior alone (drawing conclusions contradicting their own cited primary sources), THAT AUTHOR IS UNTRUSTWORTHY. I need not have any sources about Baker nor Buchanan other than what I read in this article to know that BAKER IS UNTRUSTWORTHY because her conclusion contadicts primary sources of which she must have been aware. I will not DO research on Buchanan's sexual desires because I DO NOT CARE about the question one way or the other. I care only about rhetorical techniques that people employ to prevent the question from being decided disinterestedly by evidence and logic.

I admit that the objective way to describe humans as homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, was tedious, resting as it did on the necessity of first describing people OBJECTIVELY as being a member of one of two genders, but it seemed to be necessary against the assertion that sexual desires didn't exist before people gave names to sexual desires. I didn't WANT to input something so long, but it seemed that nothing else would explain (to someone who thinks that all truth is social truth) how it is that homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals existed since before human language existed.

The placing of "scholars" beyond any accountability to non-scholars, who cannot detect errors of fact but who can yet, without ANY knowledge of the FACTS, spot plain old bad reasoning and contempt for logic when they see it, has very grave moral implications for individual freedom, equality vs. favoritism, and accountability vs. autocrats. In Rjensen's world, expert testimony would consist of telling the jury which way to vote and the jury would comply like meek sheep. I will NEVER let that be MY world. Expert testimony is AT BEST scrutinized by people screened to have NO KNOWLEDGE of the underlying fact being attested but EVERY right to probe the expert testimony for inconsistencies and to consider the cross-examiner's attempt to expose the expert's bad motives. Being an expert doesn't give one carte blanche to decree truth. Being an expert should only equip one, better than one was equipped before doing the scholarship, to convince someone who is no less skeptical because an expert IS an expert. It is what an expert has ACQUIRED by becoming an expert, not the fact of an expert's BEING an expert, that should be (if it holds up, which isn't the case here) given weight.

Deferring to Baker because she has read a lot on Buchanan is a slippery-slope to tyranny that reaches far beyond this insignificant little question of whether Buchanan was homosexual or not. If he wasn't homosexual just because the mountain of references that says he was is snubbed by a "recognized expert", then nobody has any right to engage in critically evaluative thinking at all.

I have not yet addressed North Shoreman's comment of 18 May 2012 (UTC). So there's no way to validly point out that Baker's "portrait" quote is unscientific? If one says so without sourcing it, then one gets slapped for lack of a source. But then if one goes out and finds a source saying it's quackery to infer a disinterest in sex from a portrait, then one gets slapped for "doing original research". Damned if one does, damned if one doesn't. You must truly admire the devious insurmountability of the conundrum you have designed. So what I have to do is take the passage in question to an endocrinologist and get them to write and publish an article saying SPECIFICALLY that there is a historian named Baker who thinks she can tell that a President wasn't homosexual by looking at his portrait and therefore she's unscientific? THAT's the only way to challenge Baker's passage? THAT's the way Wikipedia works? And those of you saying that men didn't have sex with men, and women didn't have sex with women, until the 1970s, because the their MOVEMENT didn't exist until the 1970s? (Ergo factory-workers didn't exist before Marx's earliest antecedents? Enslaved American blacks didn't exist before the abolitionist movement was created? Does a phenonemon not exist before (and independently from) humans IDENTIFYING that phenomenon? Does NOBODY here perceive the absurdity of their positions? 69.86.131.76 (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Anonymous Christopher L. Simpson

I'm personally tiring now of these lectures that make little sense and do nothing to improve the article. The point of the talk page is to discuss how an article should be bettered. You admit that you're not interested in doing that so I can I suggest will all courtesy that you now move on, as I do not intend to devote any more time to reading or replying. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Here is how to improve the article: First, restore its membership in the category, or banner, or whatever it was, of noteworthy homosexuals (or interesting homosexuals, or whatever it was) because the article itself makes it abdundantly clear that Buchanan was homosexual, not with certainty, but with a likelihood far greater than that he was heterosexual or non-sexual, and with a likelihood sufficient to tag his page. Second, remove Baker's pseudo-scientific quackery that infers his disinterest in sex from his appearance. That is junk-science and everyone here knows it, and the games being played to support its scientific validity are dishonest. Baker may be an expert on what Buchanan wrote and what was written ABOUT Buchanan. But she can't possibly be an expert on inferring Buchanan's sexual desires from his appearance because it is scientifically impossible for ANYONE to be an expert on inferring ANYONE's sexual desires from that latter's appearance. Since the first "ANYONE" in that sentence includes Baker and the latter "ANYONE" includes Buchanan, ergo Baker can't be an expert on inferring Buchanan's sexual desires from his appearance. That passage MUST go for you to mantain any PRETENSE of good faith. As serious scholarship it is a SHAM. If you won't do those two things, then at least TALK to me about why not. Note WHY I am peeved, not simply THAT I am peeved, and consider whether I have ample justification for being peeved. 69.86.131.76 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

REMOVAL: There is no consensus

The long argument above from several editors shows there is no consensus on Buchanan's private life. Furthermore, the speculation violates two tenets found in the essay "What Wikipedia is Not," specifically: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a battleground. The claims about Buchanan's private life are from books written 150 years after his death, and a blanket statement like "there can be no doubt" about someone who has been dead that long is the height of folly. It doesn't matter if Klein or Loewen are "reliable sources;" they are still expressing an opinion about something they cannot possibly prove. Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Then take away your own emotions and a desire to be right and it boils down to this: there is no evidence - NONE - beyond the speculation of people who never knew the subject. Thus, the section must be removed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a source contemporary with James Buchanan who knew him well. This source says that James Buchanan liked to perform sex acts with men. Here is the text that unambiguously declares the fact that James Buchanan liked to perform sex acts with men: "I am now 'solitary and alone', having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection". The author of that text was James Buchanan, not someone who lived 150 years later and never met James Buchanan.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson