Talk:Agatha Barbara

LGBT?
I've read in a recent book by Chetcuti, "Queer Mediterranean Memories", that Barbara may have been gay. Can anyone help with finding out more and confirming whether it is or is not the case? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any ISBN or other data on Chetcuti's book online, only some press articles. Does anyone know where to get the book? The articles say the book is a "collection of stories and anecdotes" where he "speculates" about (among others) Barbara's sexual orientation. So probably not hard data, but still interesting. Especially in such a hyper-Catholic country. Update: found ISBN and updated article 88.73.7.145 (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But should we really have her in the category if it's just a claim of one book? If she, or family, does/did not claim it could the living relatives feel this is mislabeling?--T. Anthony (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But the problem is that if it is not labelled as LGBT then we are effectively making the claim that she was heterosexual/ straight. And I can't find any sources I'm afraid that state that clearly. So I suggest we go with the one that at least gives us something - unless you can find a counter source? And really - should we actually care about "living relatives"? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is not labeling as LGBT necessarily meaning straight? And yeah we should care about people.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you perhaps suggesting that she was asexual? Interesting. Would happily add that as a category if you can find a source. Would be wrong to label her as heterosexual otherwise, it could give offence to her friends and family. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was too hesitant before. As I understand Wikipedia, and I've been here like seven years, putting an LGBT category on is supporting an assertion. Not putting one on, however, does not mean we are supporting the idea they're straight or asexual. It can simply mean we don't know. That James Buchanan or Cary Grant have no LGBT category is not an assertion they were straight. It's just we don't know enough to categorize them. (Although I see both are in an LGBT Wikiproject, going by their talk pages, and that might make sense for this woman even if we're uncertain of her orientation. Maybe that could be a compromise?) I think you're potentially being "too cute" with this, but I'll leave the category on.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. After over a year it still looks to be limited, in the article, to one author's claim. That author, apparently, speculates that Paul the Apostle and George Preca had "gay tendencies". This book is not deemed sufficient on those articles. We don't categorize people unless it's something more solid than that. Not categorizing as LGBT does not mean she wasn't, it can mean we don't really know. Sorry if that offends you, but I'm pretty sure that's policy. If it's not you'll need to show that. So yes I will remove the category if it is returned as the addition seems against policy as I understand it.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also I guess they found letters by her to a man that were deemed "romantic" by some so I added that. I don't really know which way she was, or whether she was bi even, and I think the letters could be read as just a strong friendship. Still "romantic" is in the source and there's enough uncertainty on the matter to not justify categorization as lesbian IMO.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The comments about Paul the Apostle and Preca are irrelevant. And are you a Roman Catholic priest? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm Catholic, but not a priest. The real issue I feel this one source is insufficient as the writer appears to be neither historian nor really a noted biographer. He does not have an article in any Wikipedia. She is not in LGBT categories in other Wikis I've checked and there are reports she was attracted to a man. As a compromise I'm removing the lesbian category, but keeping the LGBT one. If you have a problem with this you can take it to arbitration.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lesbians could never write "romantic letters" to an airman right? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And she can't be bi because? Look I compromised. I was going to take off all the LGBT things as I don't think it's a well-sourced claim and your "taking it off means saying she's straight" notion doesn't even fit how this place works. Show me that this book counts as a reliable source or take it to some dispute resolution deal or whatever.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The source looks perfectly reliable to me. Do you have another source that states unequivocally that she was heterosexual? If so then by all means add it to the article and we can re-categorise. Or is the assumption that all people are heterosexual without evidence, and lesbianism/ bisexuality requires sourced evidence? Sounds like double standards to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The source looks to be a book published by Lygon Street Legal Services which is the law firm Mr. Chetcuti works at. And not categorizing as LGBT does not mean categorizing as straight. WP:LGBT--T. Anthony (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look up what counts as RS. If others agree this counts I'll demure. But it sounds potentially close to self-publishing if it was published by his law firm.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will return it to what you wish, as you have maybe more experience on Malta articles, but I do think it's questionable this book counts as RS. Furthermore For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality I do not feel this one book is a "broad consensus" even if it is about the only source on her sexuality. So even though I'm withdrawing I hope my issues will be considered. (For the record I'm not saying she was not a lesbian. I'm saying I don't see a consensus on her sexuality.)--T. Anthony (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll show good will. Let's drop the lesbian tag. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion at the time, but for the record WP:BLPCAT does limit categorization as LGBT to two specific cases: for a living person, they must have come out as such in their own words, and for a dead person, there must be a consensus of scholarship on the matter and not just the claims of one person which are contradicted by other evidence. I mean, sure, alleged romantic letters to a man don't inherently prove that she wasn't lesbian or bisexual, but neither does the fact that she never married a man inherently prove that she was lesbian or bisexual — and if we don't know, we simply don't put her in LGBT-related categories until the sources for that get better. In a case of dispute about a person's sexuality, it is not "in the LGBT categories until proven false", but "out of the LGBT categories until proven true". (Just for a comparable example, we don't file Charlotte Whitton in LGBT-related categories either — because even though there's some evidence that she was, there's been debate about it and thus historians have not established a consensus the evidence is conclusive enough.) One book making a claim that isn't confirmed anywhere else simply is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's standards. And just a reminder that I'm an openly gay man, so this is not a homophobic "trying to push people into the closet" issue — Wikipedia has to meet considerably higher ethical standards than other websites, and one of those standards is that we're not a platform for outing people whose sexual orientation hasn't been definitively established by a consensus of sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC

 * I have concerns on whether this is being properly categorized, if the source is reliable, etc. I haven't done this for awhile so I hope it's okay.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're asking if this page should be categorized under biographies and politics, I would have to agree that it is under the right categorization. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This RFC is confusing. What is that you are seeking input on? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - this RfC isn't in a format that I am able to provide an opinion. Flat Out  '' talk to me 04:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)