Talk:John Maynard Keynes - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) at 08:45, 1 June 2013 (replies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:45, 1 June 2013 by FeydHuxtable (talk | contribs) (replies)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Maynard Keynes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

John Maynard Keynes has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 17, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 19, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government / Science and Academia / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sussex High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

British?

Why is he British and not English? He was born in England to English parents. I can almost guarantee you had he been born in Wales or Scotland, there'd be no way under the sun he'd be allowed to be called British. He'd be Welsh or Scottish all the way. Have a look. I've yet to see one Welsh or Scottish person on this website described as British. Yet, at least half the English people I've read about here are labelled British. It appears the poor English seem to be some crude base type or template on Misplaced Pages which all other more worthy nationalities can build upon. A mongrel race or something. Or someone is ashamed to say they are English in case they what? Offend somebody? What's the story? Peter Greenwell (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Russell said that Keynes was very intelligent. Do you really think that this is "reception"? --13Peewit (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No mention of bisexuality?

That's pretty amazing. Bisexuals are ever so more prevalent. Is this a bias issue by WP:RS? Or editors? Anyway, I'll put it on my "Do list" to research and add in if WP:RS found. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Keynes ever identify as bisexual? I know he is sometimes seen as one of the great bisexuals of history, but in his own estimation he was strictly homosexual until meeting Lopokova, and many would probably call that a lavender marriage anyway. It's not something the Bloomsberries discussed in great deal—whether they were gay, or bi, or straight, just who they tended to like—wouldn't a majority of sources just be people saying "I think he was bi", "I think he was gay" and some contemptible "I don't think we can use these terms" people. It's tricky because we can't see inside his living mind, and the only personal attestations he made as to his sexuality were to the effect of saying he was proudly gay, barring speculation about whether or not he fancied Costelloe.Zythe (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You're mostly right there Zythe, though let me qualify a little. In his teens and twenties Keynes did indeed seem to be as gay as can be. His diary's and letters have detailed accounts of homosexual encounters with dozens of men. To the best of my knowledge there's no unambiguous evidence he had full sex with a woman as a youth, or a self identification as a bisexual. As for Lydia, you're right many might infer it was a lavender marriage. But according to Lydia's own letters, she was in fact very sexually satisfied (admittedly she does make references to things like Keynes "magic finger" , but they did also have quite frequent full sex in at least their early years, with medical complications preventing a pregnancy carrying to term.) And also multiple statements from third parties confirm the marriage seemed very happy.

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

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

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

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

I don't think it's a question of "averaging".... bisexuals by definition are people who are attracted both to men and women. The order in which that occurs isn't really relevant. Whether he self-described as bisexual doesn't seem terribly important, as long as someone else does. The terminology to describe sex has varied quite a bit over time, and obviously we need to be careful about labelling people's behaviour in the past by modern standards, but it would seem to me to be entirely appropriate to say that he was bisexual, with a pronounced preference for men as a youth. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying that would be correct IMO, but there's also the matter of due weight. Major biographies don't describe Lord Keynes that way, and we ought not let ourselves be overly influenced by the recent media storm caused by a historian who despite spending years attacking LK's legacy, admits he forget the only reason Keynes was childless is that his wife miscarried and was then advised by Drs she would be unable to carry. On the other hand, if a majority of you want a more prominent statement I've no strong objection. Its great for the LGBT crowd to claim arguably the 20th century's single most positive influence as one of their own. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If found three book sources describing him thusly and a couple mentioning it. I'll have to study and see if those are stronger than the WP:RS on homosexuality and thus need section title change; or if they are just an addendum that others also call him bisexual. Will check in next few days. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Better late than never, 3 high quality refs mentioning his bisexuality (i.e., describing him with that term); more are found with google search of his name and the term. Maybe I'll put in a little something with the refs if no one else wants to.

John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace,Indo-European Publishing, 2011, ISBN 160444116X, 9781604441161. Back book notes
Milo Keynes, Editor, Essays on John Maynard Keynes, Cambridge University Press, 1979, ISBN 052129696X, 9780521296960, p. 65
David Warsh, Economic Principles: The Masters and Mavericks of Modern Economics,Simon and Schuster, 2010, ISBN 1451602561, 9781451602562, p 3. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carol, I amended the text so it includes the word bisexual. Its only a passing mention, but our article now gives more coverage than is present in major book length biographies. The word doesn't appear in Harrod. I only have print copies of Skidelsky and Clarke, but the word certainly isn't in the indexes, and Im over 50% confident it's not in the text (having read them back to back several years ago). Searching Moggeridge electronically, 'Marriage' appears 20 times, 'sexual' 17, 'homosexual' 7, but 'bisexual' not once. Given the specifics of Keynes life, I still don't think it's a natural way to describe him, even though it's correct. Nothing to do with bias IMO. (There are tens of thousands of RSs on Keynes, so of course there will be exceptions.) But thanks again for opening my eyes to a new and valid perspective on this, and for helping to improve the article with source based discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Relationships/Marriage

Hi community. I have a small issue with the article's structure which I would like to get other editors' views on. I personally feel that Keynes' marriage should be included within a broader "Relationships" section (two paragraphs at the moment) which places the marriage within the context of his earlier affairs, and gradual maturation (the lovely biography quote about renewed zeal for life etc.). There is also the fact that the Lopokova period of his life was not monogamous, but rather overlapped significantly with one of his male lovers, at least pre-nuptials as far as we can tell. I also feel that having the Lopokova relationship follow on from the Keynes quote about his feelings for Strachey provides a nice albeit ambiguous context to the relationship: that Keynes either fell majorly in love with her unexpectedly, or that it was a lavender marriage or in some sense motivated by careerism. Obviously Misplaced Pages shouldn't suggest either, but I felt that the including these paragraphs in one section makes for a much richer context to the marriage. Another editor feels that because marriage as an event is of special significance in itself, the Keynes-Lopokova relationship should have its own separate subsection, whereas I feel it earns its significance by dint of his previous affairs.Zythe (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To understand how to best describe Keynes for our readers, it's close to essential to be familiar with the best secondary sources. At a very minimum, one should have read Lord Skidelsky's one volume biography. I don't see how anyone could have done this and still feel that Keynes had a lavender marriage. As Skidelsky and other major biographers relate, he fell deeply in love with Lydia. Skidelsky and others include numerous quotes showing his ongoing enchantment with her. Yes he still had sex with men for years after their first meeting, but after marrying he remained totally faithful. Lydia was sexually satisfied. The marriage was in many respects more significant than all Keynes earlier relationships combined. Not in sexual terms , but in the overall influence of the relationship on his life. Certainly biographers spend more space describing the marriage that they do all his previous sexual relationships. As well as satisfying Keynes strong desire for affection, devotion and loyalty, the marriage was crucial to Keynes's work, especially in his last years when his health was failing. As Skidelsky describes, Lydia's support was vital to Keynes as he laboured at Bretton Woods to help set up Embedded liberalism , or later when he negotiated post war loans for Britain. Turning to another recent biographer, Peter Clarke (2009) say on p56 that the marriage gave Keynes "a new focus, a new emotional stability and a sheer delight of which he never wearied". It absolutely deserves its own sub section.

All that said, you were spot on with your earlier remarks about the young Keynes being very likely 100% actively and enthusiastically gay. If you want to add a little more emphasis on that, go ahead. But please leave the marriage subsection. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That sectioning looks good to me.

On another note, in the photo labeled Painter Duncan Grant with Keynes. I really am not sure which one is which. They are both tall and both of their noses look shorter than in older photos of Keynes. Could that be explicated? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Carol, 'tis done. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't about emphasising gay love affairs more, as you seem to be implying - I said the alternative to lavender marriage was it was a quite extraordinary case of falling in love with a woman. Both these things are enhanced by the paragraphs being presented in one continuous section. The fact that it gave Keynes "a new focus, a new emotional stability and a sheer delight of which he never wearied" is not in question; indeed, I said that the significance of the marriage is all the more for the context of Keynes' earlier affairs. To say that Keynes earlier affairs were unimportant isn't quite right — through Macmillan he became published, through Strachey he met the Bloomsberries, and so on. "The love of a good woman" isn't especially notable, nor is the love of any of those other lovers - the marriage is not underrepresented by being included as part of a larger section about his various love affairs.Zythe (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not extraordinary for a bisexual to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex. Or for a person who has had one sexual orientation (straight or homosexual) for first 20 or 30 years to find out they really were bisexual the whole time but didn't know it. Let's not impose the strict gay or straight dichotomy on the article since so many people are bisexual and don't know/won't admit it til later in life. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't presuming any such dichotomy.Zythe (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Hey, this discussion made me put a sexual orientation user box up - PANSEXUAL. Bisexual just too limited now a days, more than in his time! :-) Yeah!!! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How about removing the gay stuff from the article?

I think it's worth at most 2 sentences. Do the Ronald Reagan and Werner von Braun articles go on and on about their intimate lives? It's off-topic. SPECIFICO talk 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I emphatically agree. This stuff is not material to Keynes' work as an economist and there is very little public awareness of his lovers, etc. This discussion may be a case of WP:Soapbox. Steeletrap (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Disagree. The present text does not go "on and on". It's basically just two paragraphs, dealing with a fairly complicated personal life, which has some social and political relevance. I don't think it is excessive at all. And if you look at Reagan's article it does in fact have a more or less equal treatment of his personal life. Nowhere does it say we should not deal with peoples' personal lives, as if they somehow don't count. Personal lives are in fact quite important, and could quite legitimately be the subject of a reader's interest for all manner of reasons. Keynes' personal life was in fact just in the news, and it's important that motivated people be able to find verifiable information. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be outrageous to include "bisexual stuff" that is of no relevance to Keynes' work, solely on the pretext that in general references to bisexuality may be underrepresented elsewhere on WP. Such material belongs in articles about bisexuality not Keynes. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

His bisexuality may not have any relevance to his work, but this article is about John Maynard Keynes, not just his work. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's also expand the Bebe Rebozo part of Nixon's article and so forth. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose removing it. Keynes gayness is very notable both to his work and to the history of LGBT people in England, in particular the sheer density of his relationships with other notables of the early 20th century, his strangely statistical manner of tabulating his encounters, his influence on the Apostles. As it is it's about one paragraph, which is hardly over-long. If Reagan had slept with many politicians, writers, philosophers and other such notables in his youth and it formed part of his intellectual background, I think it would be fair game to include all of it with proper sources. The Bloomsbury Group's romantic lives are also very fit subjects for academics and popular historians, much in the same way a modern celebrity might be — a personal life is a personal life, so let's not wash away the gay because to you it seems trivial.Zythe (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

But seriously folks, it is interesting. His sexual life certainly humanized him for me and even reminded me of the one or two things I wholeheartedly agree with him on economically. Also added above three of a number of good refs on his bisexuality - one even on a back book cover of one of his books! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

If I was teaching a course on Keynes I might well not bring it up, depending on what I wanted to focus on. But that isn't to say it isn't an important part of his story that we would be remiss in not covering. Lots of people probably couldn't care less, but it is clearly an issue for some people, so wikipedia has to treat it as it would any other aspect his history. I really don't think we're in danger of slipping into tabloid gossip territory now. I think you could even argue that his sexuality is under-covered given the apparent complexity and multiple interpretations of it.Peregrine981 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you say the same of Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, and hundreds of other public figures? I really am not understanding this -- particularly when his marriage then seems to be of particular interest with no corresponding relevance to anything for which Maynard was notable. JMHO. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The material in the section has good WP:RS. But is it WP:UNDUE? Comparisons to other articles is WP:WAX. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To offer a counter-example to user SPECIFICO's experience in the classroom, one business professor with whom we are quite familiar, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, did speak to his "economics" class about Keynes's sex life. Hoppe implied that Keynes' homosexuality caused him to embrace his "short-term" and (in Hoppe's view) erroneous economics, and also said many economists agree with this view (see: here) and here. Steeletrap (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This opens up an enormous can of worms or bucket of sauerkraut take your pick. I would say that the subject has no bearing on Keynes' work and is therefore worth at most 2 sentences, as similar details are typically treated in WP bios of scholars and scientists. If there is RS to the contrary that demonstrates a connection between these personal matters and his scientific work, I would like to see the reference. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear you on the bucket of sauerkraut. I would say that his stated sexual orientation (if non-heterosexual) is relevant, and that any statements, formal or informal, he wrote in defense of sexual liberation for gays etc would be relevant. But describing his sexual relationships seem largely irrelevant to the man's thought or work (and remember: his economic and philosophical views are what he's notable for, so comparisons with public figures and politicians are, I think, misleading). Incidentally, people confuse the two things all the time; when LGBT people "come out of the closet", they're talking about who they are, not who they've been with sexually. There is a crucial difference.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap: Hoppe's stupid comment really not relevant here, is it? I don't think mentioning this info is an attack on Keynes that will discredit him.

Also, I'm surprised that User:Specifico dismisses such a family section when he created a new section at here, writing: Another section we see in most WP biographies is the Personal and Family Background or some such title. It would be good if we could locate some solid WP:RS material about Doc. Hoppe's parents, their backgrounds, professions, and achievements, and how they influenced HHH in his formative years -- the sort of details we typically find in WP biographical articles. When I read that I went and found info on his wife and put it in. I'm sure if he had some controversial girl friends SPECIFICO or STEELETRAP would have put them in. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point. This listing of his liaisons and the particular interest in his marriage is nothing other than prurient attention to irrelevant detail. It's supermarkst tabloid stuff. Discussion of any views he may have had on sexuality or statements he may have made about societal attitudes or other related matters would not fall in the category of irrelevant gossip. If any of this is relevant to his thought on social or economic issues, we need WP:RS references so that we can evaluate the suitability of the content. Nobody so far has shown that there's any relevance to Keynes' thought. But you're quite right, Keynes or other public figurs, even Yassir Arafat, are not subjected to gossipy public curiousity about their personal lives like, say, Tallulah Bankhead or Rock Hudson. Anyway unless something changes here most of those commenting seem comfortable leaving the content in place. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't read the NYT too often, so I regret that I've missed some of the juicier stories. But maybe I'll pick-up The Life of John Maynard Keynes, his authorized biography. Still, some of the material can be put into footnote format. For example, Ray Strachey (whose article, BTW, does not mention Keynes). – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparison the extra-marital affairs John McCain had while married to is first wife -- note that, unlike Keynes, he was a public figure who actively sought to present himself to the public as a "family man", and was damaged politically in 2000 over his extramarital shenanigans -- are given a total of one sentence on his page. (Invoking the Clinton Lewinsky scandal is inapt because Monica's notability sprang from her (together with Bill) bringing scandal/impeachment to the Presidency.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

McCain is still living, and we quite rightly like to be cautious about including negative material in BLPs. (This is not to say that a unbiased person would consider Keynes varied but non hypocritical sexual experience as a negative) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Categories: