Talk:John Laurens/Archive 4

Benemann

I think that most of the version in dispute is probably not usable due to WP:OR issues or WP:UNDUE weight, but I think a sentence or two cited to Benemann (not a massive block quote) would be worth including. Male-Male Intimacy in Early America is a reasonably relevant topic for the section, and at a glance, it provides a usable source to directly present arguments that are currently relying a bit too much on WP:OR (eg. talking about Laurens' apparent lack of interest in women in the context of his sexuality.) I don't think we would want to rely on it too much (one or two sentences might be enough), but it is useful in that it explicitly presents the arguments that the historians are replying to further down, and would let us remove the bits in there that are still reliant on WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally I find the present version already overlong and I do not agree, at least not for this page, especially because Benemann does not seem to have specialized in the study of the life of either John Laurens or Alexander Hamilton like other already quoted historians have done with their biographies. Maybe a separate page dedicated to Male-Male Intimacy in Early America? In any case I will let other editors weigh in in the discussion. Isananni (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And Massey isn't specialised in the field of male-male intimacy in early America yet he is referenced on this matter. Both come to the discussion from different perspectives based on different areas of study. Shouldn't this page reflect both perspectives? Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This page should reflect the facts on Laurens' life. I object to dedicating overlong space to speculations of unproven facts on ALL articles. Isananni (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Laurens' relationship with Hamilton was part of his life. The page already includes "speculations of unproven facts". If we are to include Massey's speculation why not Benemann's? You may want to keep this page completely free of this debate but clearly thats not going to happen (I did not start this debate and if I leave I'm sure it will continue). Again I am happy to move this section into it's own page and link it if length is the issue, but I would like more than one persons opinion before doing so. Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave my reasons, read them. Isananni (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Of the two, I am much more inclined to put weight to Massey than Benemann. Massey is the only academic that I know of who has done such extensive research into the life of John Laurens, never mind that his entire academic focus is on early American history, specifically the Revolution. Benemann is primarily an law librarian and archivist, not a specialist in early American male-male intimacy, and while that isn't to say his research is without merit or weight, he does exactly what Massey (and Chernow, as well as many other historians) warn against—extracting select portions of a document and analyzing them outside of any other context. For further reading on early American same-sex history I'd recommend Long Before Stonewall: Histories of Same-Sex Sexuality in Early America (2007; edited by Thomas A. Foster) which does not reference Hamilton-Laurens, but provides a good overview of same sex relations in early American society.Roving Ginger (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

William Benemann writes in a very scholarly fashion, and one could easily mistake him for a history professor with scholarly credentials – but based on reading the Acknowledgments section of his book, Benemann appears to be a librarian, working in a law school library.

Has there been any debate on this subject among actual historians? Please name the historians who are debating on the side that says Laurens and Hamilton were gay. I still have not seen a citation to a professional historian who takes that position.

• Historians in the 19th and 20th centuries did not write about the issue, treating the letters as raising no question of homosexuality.
• Some recent historians (e.g., Chernow and Flexner) acknowledged that questions of homosexuality have been raised. Chernow and Flexner were not persuaded that Hamilton or Laurens were gay. They only say that the theory cannot be categorically disproved.
• I am not aware of even one professional historian who has written that Hamilton and Laurens were gay, or that they had a sexual relationship.

If there is a debate, all of the reliable sources seem to be on one side of it. The people on the other side of the debate seem to be, for the most part, amateur historians who self-publish their work, or activists trying (for laudable reasons) to create gay heroes based on sincere emotion and speculation rather than on historical facts. And apparently, many many kids who are just Hamilton fans shipping their favorite characters from historical fiction. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If I could put in my two cents — I don't think it's a good idea to make a whole new page, simply because I don't want to make a bigger deal about the issue. I don't think Laurens and Hamilton's (possible) relationship was any more controversial or interesting than any other speculated relationship on any other page, so it shouldn't be given special treatment. It's well enough to just mention that there was possibly a relationship, as the current version does well I think.

I think it's also worth it to mention that while historians may not have debated or talked about this topic extensively, can we agree that it's at least worth it to note that this could have something to do with LGBT topics being notably not really talked about in mainstream, especially in historical contexts? Of course an 1800's or even 1900's biographer might not write about them possibly being romantic, and, with Laurens not being a major historical figure, there is less focus on him in general anyways. Since LGBT topics are being openly discussed in our age, it's to be expected that now people are coming out of the woodwork to say, hey, we think there might have been something here. I would definitely note culture change impacts. Also, yeah. Hamilton. :P Rainyquill (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there’s plenty of homosexual historical figures like Alexander the Great or Roman Emperor Adrian or French King Louis XIV’s brother and historians have never had any problems acknowledging their homosexuality and talking about it. If historians, not self published amateurs, do not acknowledge a homosexual relationship between Laurens and Hamilton, they simply do not find anything to acknowledge, and given the LGBT community already has plenty of historical figures to name as flagships, I do not understand the obsession in branding other people with characteristics they did not seem to possess. Isananni (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool! I didn't say there were absolutely no homosexual historical figures that historians have talked about. I said that in time periods and societies where often violent homophobia was not just the norm but the societal expectation, it's reasonable to see why the topic of homosexual topics would be brought up and discussed significantly less than they are today when there is less stigma surrounding the possibility of someone not being straight. You can't pretend that homophobia has not had a presence in how the topic of homosexuality is handled in mainstream conversations.

What time period are you most likely to successfully write and then sell without censorship or backlash a biography about a Founding Father or another major figure potentially having had a same-sex relationship: 1700's-1800's America with all their fun death penalty laws and an okay likelihood that someone will take very great offense to your claim and possibly attack you in defense of said major persons honor (not necessarily physically), or 2018, when gay people actually have rights and most people are aware that they exist beyond a vague knowledge that they are out there somewhere in their Molly houses and called a sin in the Bible?

Where you more likely to be attacked? Saying "John Laurens might have had a homosexual relationship" to a crowd of people from the 1700's who will take your statement as an insult to the character of a revered veteran, or 2018? And which printing press is most likely to refuse your book? Time and country where they can hang you for having homosexual sex, or time and country where they cannot do that? Time changes culture. Rainyquill (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Laurens and Hamilton

As alreasy pointed out in the previous discussions the article is accurate as it stands, with citations to reliable sources rather than original research as it is being done readding previously removed direct citations from original letters out of context in an effort to provide a biased view that goes against WP:NEUTRAL. It is also balanced, giving appropriate weight to a contentious theory. Please refrain from disrupting the article AGAIN. Isananni (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous discussions mostly concerned a version that was, honestly, very different than the one I saw when I arrived back on this page in response to your email. I've reverted back to that version for now (excluding the quotes) to a bit of a compromise version, since it doesn't appear that the article has been particularly stable since it changed from that, and I suspect that the cavalcade of people trying to change it a bit too drastically in one direction is because it swung too far in the other. First, I'm not sure that I'd call discussion of Laurens' sexuality WP:FRINGE; it is something that (as the section attests to) several reputable historians have touched on from one angle or another. It's possible for us to place WP:UNDUE weight on it, obviously, but one reasonably-sized section is not undue given the number of reasonably well-known historians we have weighing in on it from different angles. Second, it's important that it be clear that the section is partially about Lauren's sexuality, which, again, we have a lot of sources from serious scholars discussing as an open question. I strenuously object to the removal of "sexuality" from the header, since that, combined with changes in the other parts of it, make it sound like it's a vague discussion of his friendship with Hamilton (which is, after all, covered in the biography further up), rather than a specific discussion of it in the context of Laurens' sexuality - whether or not it was romantic in nature (and, if it was, whether it was one-sided or not, etc.) Third, I object to several changes in the structure and wording of the section; the first paragraph establishes the context which the historians further down are addressing, for instance, while Chernow's note about Hamilton's reaction to Laurens' death is an important part of his conclusion. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if you want to prevent people from expanding the section into a huge deal, you have to convince them that it addresses the issue adequately with the space devoted to it - the other version is so circumspect that it barely seems to acknowledge that the debate exists (which it certainly does.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion:I have no objections to your edits, provided you do not condone like-minded SPA editing and the blatant sockpuppetry that has already led to blocking users like @Geekyhistorian: from editing anywhere on Wikipedia, including if not especially this page since it was yet again a case of SPA.

I actually got unblocked, since I wasn't sockpuppeting Geekyhistorian (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It was “just” a case of a bunch of like-minded SPA editors not casually attacking this page on the prompt of Tumblr posts, as has emerged in a separate but related SPI that sounds a lot like WP:MEAT. This is why the protection level of this page has just been raised. Isananni (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant at all, but I'd like to bring this up anyway -- Massey came out and stated that if he'd had a do over at his biography, he would have presented the possibility of a homosexual relationship between the two differently. Specifically, he stated "I should have been equivocal rather than decisive in asserting that the Laurens-Hamilton friendship was platonic. Whether or not their relationship was homosocial or homosexual is a matter of debate that can not be definitively resolved" Geekyhistorian (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Massey

Can we at least include this Massey quote from the preface of the 2015 paperback edition. "In retrospect, I should have been equivocal rather than decisive in asserting that the Laurens-Hamilton friendship was platonic. Whether or not their relationship was homosocial or homosexual is a matter of debate that can not be definitively resolved.” Justanotherhistorybuff (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Checked Massey's 2015 statement, incorporated it into the article next to the assertion to which it refers. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Really minor edit request

Would it be at all possible to add the rest of his siblings to his relations, or is that superfluous? I just noticed his sister was there but none of the others. Rainyquill (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Only independently notable relations should be listed in the infobox (see Template:Infobox military person). Taken strictly, even his mother should have been omitted. Of his siblings, Martha Laurens Ramsay is the only one with an article here that establishes her WP:NOTABILITY. However, the "Early life" section now mentions all the siblings by name. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

Add into relations Alexander Hamilton as boyfriend Hamiltonforlife (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

He was married — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.93.2 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking to homosocial

Can the line defining homosocial be taken out and replaced with simply having the word itself be linked to the Wikipedia page for homosociality? Having the definition there is kind of clunky and messes with the flow of the text. 2600:8807:1180:29C0:3556:F8A2:1662:FAB3 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would appear a bit clunky or flow-disruptive, to readers who are already quite familiar with the meaning of the word homosocial. However, that word is a term of art from sociology, and it's not always familiar to students of history or other disciplines. I've got a graduate degree and I admit that I had to look it up myself. It seems likely that many other readers of a Wikipedia history article would be unfamiliar with the term, or uncertain of its meaning. The visual similarity between the words homosocial and homosexual creates a possibility of confusion between the two terms. For at least those reasons, it seems that including the definition will be helpful to most readers, and that this helpfulness outweighs the stylistic considerations you raised. (See MOS:JARGON.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: See above and MOS:JARGON. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions

John Laurens was not a 'smol turtle baby'. Can the Hamilton fandom please stop tarnishing his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuchoritya (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: edit warning at User talk:Tuchoritya. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton tag

I do not understand why people mark that writing John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton, at least as potential lovers, in their tags is "vandalism". It is not that, in fact, considering we can back the possibility of them having a homosexual relationship with evidence from their letters, and honestly, I don't understand what's so bad about admitting the fact that they had a high chance of being in love. So can we please AT LEAST be able to put them as "possible lovers" on their tag and not say that it's vandalism? We're just stating that this could've most likely happened between these two men and that it's completely fine.

No. Speculation, supposition, rumor, etc., are not valid additions to articles. A debate over the Hamilton-Laurens relationship has been continuing extensively in the Talk archives. Read all of that. David notMD (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Significant other: Alexander Hamilton

Alexander_Hamilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.192 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See previous entries on this talk page, Hamiltrash. Favonian (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's not call people trash. I know that fandoms can be annoying at times, but at the end of the day, the person you're attacking is still a person, and just because they made a dumb (and it was dumb) edit to a wikipedia article, does not make them a bad person and does not give you the right to call them trash. Tornado547 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)