Talk:Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir/Archive 1

Lesbian
Someone inserted the word "LESBIAN" all over the place, can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.70.41 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Protecting Article
Now that this is on the front page, it will probably attract vandalism from homophobic bigots and people who say that "it doesn't matter about her orientation", so maybe semi protecting it would be an idea? Just a suggestion buddies. 82.69.80.47 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll wait to see whether anything serious actually happens. Give people the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. — Verrai 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The LGBT issue (2)
Why is it even newsworthy? Is it meant to be a sign of progress? Who cares? Much more important is whether she is any good. So I recommend deletion, or we should insert every time there is a change of government '... and yet another straight man becomes PM ...'? Some Scandinavian nations do seem to have a tradition of electing silly women, like Norway's Gro Harlem Bruntlandt whose government famously banned boxing.
 * We actually do often post the results of elections on the Main Page, especially if it results in a change of power. In this case, there was no election, only the collapse of a governing coalition and its replacement, but Johanna's ascent would probably make the Main Page even without her sexual orientation. Of course, we don't usually mention sexual orientation in such leadership changes, but that's because sexual orientation is not usually notable. For the first gay head of government in the world, it is (from a global perspective, although thankfully the people of Iceland seem not to care). — Verrai 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this isn't news worthy. Why wasn't Sara Palin listed as the first women to lose the race for the vice presidency? If we start doing this we are going to have a very bad website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyjap100 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether you think it's newsworthy is irrelevant. It's regarded as important by multiple reliable sources, which is our criterion for inclusion. As for Sarah Palin: (1) Defeat is less notable than victory; (2) US-specific firsts are less significant than world-wide ones; (3) Vice-president is a less significant post that a prime minister who's head of government; (4) Geraldine Ferraro was the first credible female US vice-presidential candidate, and her article says so. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the roll of the president of the united states is less important than that of iceland? Can iceland destroy the world with the push of one button? No! And what you think is irrelevant because your a twat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyjap100 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. Iceland has a governmental system whereby there is a President who is head of state, but the Prime Minister is the head of government. I never referred to the President of the United States - who as the head of government and head of state of a large and powerful nation is obviously one of the most notable people in the world - but to the Vice-Presidential role. The Vice-President isn't head of government, and isn't head of state. I'd say it's reasonably apparent that people who are heads of state, or heads of government, in independent nations are more significant than people is otherwise similar political roles who lack those key distinctions. But this is irrelevant, because the person who really was the first woman to run for vice-president in the name of a major party is correctly identified. Remind me what this has to do with Jóhanna, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Content & References
I don't seem to be able to add the following information to Johanna's profile http://eng.forsaetisraduneyti.is/minister/cv - Johanna's official CV from the PMO's website http://www.iceland.org/info/news/pmo/nr/6654 - As Good as Our Words, Johanna's first speech to the Althingi, February 4th 2009 http://www.iceland.org/info - Information on the actions taken by the Icelandic government in response to the financial crisis in Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorlaug (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The letter ð
Mentioning the pronounciation of the letter ð in the article seems to me a little off-topic. People who want this info can find it on ð at any time. Rkarlsba (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Nightstallion 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Premature promotion
There have been several editors changing this article today to say that Jóhanna is Prime Minister: she isn't yet. As of 17:32 UTC, negotiations were still continuing. All the time that the Icelandic media are referring to her as tilvonandi forsætisráðherra, she is exactly that, the future Prime Minister. Physchim62 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that; I was one of those. A misleading source apparently meant to say she'd been installed as the coalition leader, but somehow made it read that she actually was PM. Thanks for stepping in. Radagast (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They seem fairly certain that the negotiations on the new government can be finished Friday, and that the Cabinet will be sworn in on Saturday. Nevertheless, there could still be a last-minute hitch or two. If we have a full list of Cabinet members, it probably means that the deal is done. Physchim62 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First openly gay head of government in the world
might be better put as "...in the modern world", considering people such as Philip II of Macedon. if no one registers an objection i'll change it--Mongreilf (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You could say the first gay prime minister, which is what CNN has done. Sennholmes (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CNN actually says first gay premier, which is the exact same thing as we have in different words. "Prime Minister" would be an understatement in any case since many countries do not have prime ministers but all have never had gay leaders. I don't even feel "modern" is necessary, since, while people such as Philip of Macedon may have been gay, they weren't openly such in the sense the term is used today. ("Openly" is the real operative word here, not "modern".) — Verrai 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At any rate, it's not accurate. See Per-Kristian Foss - openly gay, and although briefly, he was the acting premier of Norway in 2002.--83.109.227.195 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So brief that he isn't mentioned anywhere except in his own article. Dubious, especially since the same man, Kjell Magne Bondevik, would have been Prime Minister on either end of his supposed term. That Foss was the first gay cabinet minister in Norway is not at issue, but that he was ever Prime Minister is in doubt. — Verrai 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, Germany at this moment has two openly gay heads of government (Ole von Beust, of the city state of Hamburg, and Klaus Wowereit, of the city state of Berlin), both of which have been in power for years. The sources don't support the current strong statement, either. The BBC calls her "the modern world's first openly gay leader", a term that is very ambiguous, and "the first openly lesbian head of government in Europe, if not the world - at least in modern times", a term that is much more specific. Time writes about "the World's First Openly Gay PM" and later "the world's first openly gay female head of government" . So "female gay" or "lesbian" might be a good enough qualifier, or possibly "prime minister". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We could qualify with "head of national government", but that seems absurd. People know what "head of government" means--head of a nation--and it doesn't include the mayor of Berlin or various other designations. There are dozens of those worldwide, if not more. If the national tag is arbitrary, well, nations are arbitrary. But that's a political discussion. The real problem is the difficulty in finding a cohesive term to describe all Presidents, Prime Ministers, and other leading national government figures worldwide; head of government works well enough. — Verrai 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Modern world" has no relevance here. The concept of homosexuality is a product of the 19th century, even if individuals in pre-modern times have had relationships, sexual or not, with people of their own sex. I'm removing it.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But now it gives the false impression that no head of government has openly enjoyed romantic or sexual relationships with a member of their own sex/gender before; the fact that the modern construction is just that - modern - is an academic point. There are plenty of historians writing about past figures using modern terms; one only has to pick up a modern book about, say James I of England, or the Emperor Hadrian, to see this. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To me a part of the problem is that we actually know very little about what Jóhanna thinks about this all. As far as I can tell she never gives interviews about her personal life, let alone about her sexuality. I'm not even sure she is, strictly, "openly gay" though she is definitely "openly married to a person of the same sex". We really have no idea if she considers herself lesbian or bisexual or whether she thinks those are unnecessary labels or inappropriate modern constructs or what. Maybe she'll open up about this at some point and write a memoir or something but until then we really don't know. The only comments I've seen from her on LGBT issues have been written in her capacity as minister of social affairs and make no reference to her personal life. Haukur (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently Wikipedia's main page has "modern", the article doesn't. I was hoping that using the word modern was something we could all agree upon, it doesn't exclude the possibility that she is the first of all time, and any redundancy in using gay and modern together is probably acceptable when weighed against clarity of meaning to those not au fait with the history of identity politics. Basically it just seems a sensible edit--Mongreilf (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed the qualifier modern or in modern times should be used. Any non-informed reader would interpret the current version of the article as "till now every head of state was straight or hiding his sexual preferences" which is wrong. --Xeeron (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have questioned the dubious use of "modern" on the main page already. There's no proper support for its usage other than historical conjecture and a headline of one BBC article. The main page wording was added based on the wording in this article, not the other way around. Using that as an excuse to keep the wording here is a circular argument. You seem to be assuming that a whole package of modern ideas are applicable to any random culture in human history. The modern concept of homosexuality (or, rather, non-heterosexuality), heads of governement, the relation between politicians and the press: they're all altogether incompatible with the distant historical examples you are talking about here.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * firstly part of my argument was for consistency, this is not circularity as it could mean neither article nor main page use the word modern. and i'm not assuming anything about modern ideas' applicability, as reading the posts above would have told you. it boils down to a semantic argument about what "openly", "gay" and "government" mean to the historian and to the laymen. apparently 25 greek lawyers were involved in lawsuits against oliver stone's film of alexander the great because of this clash of notions of sexual identity. if you want to clutter the article with "same sex erotic relationship" or other more accurate terms, or delete the whole thing, then be my guest. be bold--Mongreilf (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I examined the histories of this article and Template:In the news, and it seems I was wrong about the sequence of events. ITN was first with "in the modern world", and was added to this article a few hours later. User:BorgQueen was the one who added it, and I've asked her for clarification.
 * Modern day Greeks getting upset about Alexander the Great having had sexual or romantic relationships with men is a perfect example of the confusion I'm trying to discuss. They were projecting concept of sexuality relevant to themselves on the past, which makes the actions of historical figures appear more outrageous than they actually were. This is far more than just semantic cleverness. Even laymen have to accept that modern day openness about a type of non-normative sexuality simply isn't relevant in pre-modern contexts. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is in the news because she is a) a head of government (a very modern concept, I might add) who is b) not hiding her sexuality to her surroundings, including the press and c) is living in a period where a specific view on private vs public life as well as sexual preferences have very specific connotations, especially to someone who fulfills criteria a) and b). None of these criteria can be fulfilled by the historical figures suggested so far, simply because these ideas didn't apply to how they were perceived in their own time.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i think you miss the point that we are excluding possible dubious comparison with historical figures when using the phrase "modern", by setting chronological bounds upon the universe of our discussion, leaving any comparison with earlier notions of sexuality, openness and government unstated. this was one of my intentions, if you read my second post in this section, as well concerns about the casual synonym of gay with same sex erotic leading people to say "but what about...". i'm trying to avoid the arguments about whether certain ancients were or weren't gay that would arise if we said "of all time", or, by omitting it, implying it. i pointed to historical figures as the kind of objections people would bring up, not as my own objection. the only really applies if we can find other modern openly gay leaders of governments, as with the current phrasing we are saying nothing, neither to argue or refute, about any gay leaders before the modern era. --Mongreilf (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be first openly lesbian head of government, not gay, gay is for males, lesbian is for females. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyjap100 (talk • contribs)
 * Not true. 'Lesbian' is sex-specific; 'gay' isn't. And we call people 'men' and 'women' rather than 'males' and 'females' where I come from. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Style question (name)
I note that the subject is referred throughout the article by her first name not her family name. It appears too familiar for an encyclopedic article - what does the Styleguide say? 71.110.69.155 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the italic text at the top of top article. -- Nricardo (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is standard practice throughout all our articles on Icelandic people. In fact, we use the same practice whenever there is no family name (e.g. with royalty on many occasions). Icelandic practice in English varies – for example the subject of the article uses Sigurðardóttir to refer to herself in the third person in English as if it were an English surname – but Wikipedia has preferred to have a consistent style across all Icelandic biographies. Physchim62 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true, practice varies. Wikipedia tends to follow local practice more closely than most other information outlets. This extends both to the use of diacritics and to the use of given names rather than 'last names'. It's not just Iceland, of course, Malay names work the same way. So the article on Anwar Ibrahim refers to its subject as 'Anwar'. Haukur (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Supplying entire categories of articles with pedantic hatnotes and insisting on this type of localization is more or less overkill. The article is about a person, not a name. For pre-modern people it would make sense to insist on just the first name, but here it just seems like a rather annoying distraction from the actual article topic.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary problem is some people are too dumb to understand not everyone has surnames so without the explaination we will get a lot of complaints. Even with the explaination at the top, we still get a lot of complaints as this one shows. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling people "dumb" because they're not familiar with those customs is the kind of argument that forces these annoying hatnotes on thousands of articles. Even readers who aren't familiar with certain naming customs are perfectly capable of understanding biographical information. This should be solved with reasonable compromises, not condescending lecturing.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think putting the hatnote on every single article about an Icelander may be overkill but it seems reasonably appropriate here. This one is clearly getting a lot of hits from people not previously familiar with Icelandic customs. Haukur (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can presume even a majority of people reading articles about Icelandic people are going to be familiar with Icelandic names. Yes it's likely a greater percentage will be but it's also likely many people will not. I myself was not aware of Icelandic naming customs until somewhat recently despite being familiar with Malay (and many Malaysian-Indian) names and therefore the concept of patronyms. Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to be not familiar with customs. It's quite another to modify articles, or complain because you're not familiar with customs. The hatnote is for the later. And I stick to my comment. People who don't bother to try to understand and instead complain or damage articles because they don't understand are dumb. More to the point, the reader has no hope to learn if there is no explaination offered. Whether the hat note is the best solution, is perhaps a valid question, but clearly not one to be held here particularly since it's so widespread in a variety of forms, including with Chinese names. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the hatnote is a bit distracting though I note that the Malay get it too (again, Anwar Ibrahim) and the Vietnamese get something similar (see Đỗ Mười). On the other hand the Thai seem to have escaped it, as do such luminaries as Mengistu Haile Mariam, Saddam Hussein and Megawati Sukarnoputri - all of whom we refer to by their given names. Haukur (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The hat note was added for Malay names relatively recently precisely because of the problem we had with people changing articles and/or complaining because they didn't understand. Arabic names are a somewhat complicated issue since they vary a lot, and some people do use their patronym as a surname. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with anything you've said. There are certain trade-offs here, the hat-notes have some non-trivial advantages (they explain things) and some non-trivial disadvantages (they're a bit distracting). As for following local usage conventions more closely than many other sources do, I think that's a part of the Tao of Wikipedia. My horizons on these issues have definitely been broadened by using Wikipedia. Icelanders seem to commonly believe that we are the only people in the world to have a patronymic naming convention. That's probably because we're the only ones in our general neighborhood. I imagine things are a bit different in south-east Asia, where several different systems exist in the same area. Haukur (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The italic hatnotes are quite ridiculous and unprofessional. This is not the article to teach people about Icelandic names or characters, and hatnotes are simply a poor way to 'prevent' any editor mistakes, bearing in mind 90% of visitors are not even editors. The standard way is for a talk page header. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the justification of 'people are dumb' condemns their use quite well. MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 'People are ignorant; let's not inform them'? Or is that not what you meant. I think both hatnotes are just fine, and your low opnion of human intelligence doesn't persuade me otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you got it wrong. I am disputing that anything can properly be justified on the basis 'people are dumb'. If you have any other examples where these kinds of 'informative instructional notes' are actually ever added to articles as hat notes, rather than sensibly as talk page headers, I'm all ears, as this is the first time I've ever seen it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So what, she has no family name at all? Only the first name and a patronimic? --RossF18 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Her name is Jóhanna.  The second name, Sigurðardóttir, literally means "daughter of Sigurður."  This is standard in Iceland.  -- Palthrow (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Until I read the Icelandic name template at the top of this article, I was unfamiliar with Icelandic names, even though I knew the conventions for Tamil and similar names. I can understand not adding the template to every article, but for one as highly visited as this one, or any other national leader, I see no reason why one wouldn't add the template.  It's not like there's any horrible result that comes from adding it.  At the very least, can a footnote be added to the infobox? Mnmazur (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Also, there's the hatnote on Ásta Ragnheiður Jóhannesdóttir, another Icelandic minister, so why not for the Prime Minister? Mnmazur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC).

Style question (LGBT)
O.K. so she is a lesbian. Why use the word gay instead homosexual? Is gay suddenly more proper?66.249.192.209 (talk)
 * The word "gay" is not currently used in the article, except from use in the cited sources. For them, you need to talk to Time, the BBC, et al., not to Wikipedia editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed "gay" back to "homosexual", because the article gay is - as the header disambig note sais - "... about 'gay' as a term. For the sexual orientation, see homosexual orientation". --88.79.152.148 (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of homosexual when not referring to a scientific usage is generally considered pejorative. The phrase openly homosexual is almost exclusively used by social conservatives in a disparagement towards LGBT people. Openly gay encompasses lesbians as well. -- Banj e  b oi   09:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The naming of an article does not dictate how you use terms in other articles. As Benji says, the term gay is preferred. It may or may not be better to use a piped redirect however Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Homosexual" is disparaging while "gay" is not? Nonsense. It's an issue of formal vs informal language, and encyclopedic texts should generally be formal. It's no different than "job" vs "employment" or "candy" vs "confectionery".
 * Peter Isotalo 10:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not nonsense, this is well accepted style guideline. If you consider a basic Google News test "openly gay" nets 5,235 article results while "openly homosexual" nets 111. We should not be in the vanguard to promote divisive language, it's unhelpful to our reader's understanding of the subject, who is a living person not a formal specimen for study. -- Banj e  b oi   10:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Benjeboi here. The usage of "homosexual" in English is in no way comparable to its usage in other languages, where it carries (as you correctly state) a more formal and yet still neutral tone. It is not comparable, for example, to the differences in Swedish between "homosexuell" and "bög". Check out the terms used by social conservatives such as Homosexual agenda, Homosexual recruitment etc. Using "homosexuality" in a scientific context is a different matter, but I would argue that this is not the tone required by this article. Intesvensk (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you the same one who was arguing about this in IRC? Anyway it's not nonsense, read our articles or any number of other sources. It's well established that the term 'homosexual' is often considered offensive in a context such as this. This is easily shown by the large number of sources using openly gay as opposed to openly homosexual. If you don't feel it should be that's as irrelevant as those people who claim that negro or even 'nigger' shouldn't be offensive. Incidentally, both job and candy should be used in a number of circumstances in wikipedia, although that's a different issue. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "gay" was *invented* as a slur, like "nigger". Gay/homosexual people using the word is, in principal, just like blacks using the word nigger. Personally, I don't have a problem with either gay or homosexual being used for this article. The problem here, from what I gather, is that in other languages, their translation of "homosexual" has a negative connotation, something unfamiliar to English speakers (at least in the US). And this *is* an English-language encyclopedia.
 * However, my vote goes to using the word "gay", for several reasons. 1) In Icelandic, "homosexual" may be an offensive word(?). 2) "Homosexual" is a rather specific term, more specific than we have evidence to indicate. As someone mentioned above, we don't know how this woman identifies, only that she's married to another woman. Its broad definition is the word's main strength. 3) The meaning of the word "gay" as used here is well-established. 4) According to some, using "homosexual" would be seen as offensive to some, while the argument that "homosexual" is more technical and thus preferable doesn't seem very compelling. -- MQ Duck 06:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not vote on wikipedia. The history of the words gay, 'nigger' and negro are irrelevant. The point is that in most contexts outside of a medical or scientific discourse, using the word 'homosexual' particularly as an adjective is offensive. In a similar way, negro and 'nigger' are offensive in most contexts. The reasons they ave offensive should not be any of our concern and the reluctance of some contributors to accept that they are offensive is likewise irrelevant. BTW, you seem rather confused by the situation. The term homosexual IS offensive in English including to most US readers. The translation for homosexual is evidentally not offensive in some other languages but that is not our concern, as this is an English language encylopaedia. About the IRC comment, Peter says he has never been on IRC in a long time an I accept that. It was simply an innocent question since there was a person on IRC who was similarly unwilling to accept that homosexual is an offensive word despite repeated assurances and all the sources saying the contrary, the use of the word gay or lesbian instead of homosexual by nearly all RS about Jóhanna and the similar inability of that individual to provide sources saying the using the word homosexual in that context was not offensive. I was wondering if he was the same person, since Peter seemed to be acting in a similar way to me, but apparently not and I accept that. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Vote" was used as a figure of speech (and, by the way, we do vote sometimes, it's just not considered binding). I don't see why you're getting upset, and I get the feeling you didn't read everything I wrote before replying, or misread it. You may not have noticed that one of the reasons I "voted" for "gay" over "homosexual" was specifically that "homosexual" is offensive to some - even though I didn't understand why. -- MQ Duck 23:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! Nil Einne, you seem to have overstated your case a little. When you write about "all the sources" saying that the word 'homosexual' is offensive, you seem to have missed the Oxford English Dictionary (considered an authoritative source amongst people who check the facts to see if their claims can be substantiated) which provides no usage caution for the word 'homosexual' (unlike the warning it gives that the word 'nigger' is 'strongly racially offensive'). In fact, only one of the seven definitions provided for the word 'homosexual' at Dictionary.com mention that the word is 'objectionable', a far cry from offensive, while the five definitions of 'nigger' are marked with words like 'Extremely Disparaging and Offensive', 'vulgar derision' and 'ethnic slur'. You are greatly mistaken if you sincerely believe the words 'homosexual' and 'nigger' are, as you write, offensive '[i]n a similar way'. As to your claim that 'most US readers' find the term 'homosexual' offensive, I can only pray for the day when it will be so - but while gays can't serve openly in their country's military, get married in most states or adopt children in some, feel safe walking the streets of their hometown hand in hand (how many hits do you get in a Google search for 'gay bashing'?) or feel fully accepted as gay-Americans everywhere, I don't think most US readers will find the word 'homosexual' offensive; if they do, as likely as not it's because they find homosexuals offensive. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus about the origin of the word 'gay'. There's certainly no agreement as to whether it was originally a slur or not. I think part of the problem is that 'homosexual' as a description of behaviour is unproblematic, but as a description of a person, it's at best medicalising and at worst dismissive and offensive. 'Gay' is a generally accepted term (both colloquially and in academic literature) which at least can be regarded as covering both homosexual and bisexual behaviour (and those who exhibit this behaviour), as well as the wider category of those with an acknowledged attraction to their own sex but who are not 'actively' engaged in homosexual behaviour. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, she has children, but is now married to a woman. So she might actually be bisexual. Thus stating homosexual might even be technically wrong. (Although one can get children even if one is not attracted to the opposite sex.) While the terms lesbian and gay can mean both homosexual or bisexual, thus they are more inclusive choices of wording. Lesbian is used exclusively for women. While gay mainly means men, but is also often used for both men and women when one needs a single word. In this case since we mean she is the first openly bi/homo head of state, no matter man or woman, then "gay" seems the best choice of word. So I fully agree with the current wording in the article, which is:
 * "She also became the world's first openly gay head of government of the modern era."
 * I also like the qualifier "modern era" since there have been some well known queer heads of government further back in history.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you really wanna be technical, a bisexual person *is* homosexual. What distinguishes them is that they're also heterosexual. -- MQ Duck 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mqduck: Nope, that is not how those terms are normally defined. The terms homosexual or heterosexual can not be used for bisexual persons. Homosexual means persons that are only (or mainly) attracted by persons of the same sex as themselves. And heterosexual means to be only (or mainly) attracted to persons of the opposite sex. That is, both homo and heterosexuals are "monosexuals". While bisexual persons are attracted by both sexes. (But I see what you mean, since in a sense a bisexual person is both homo and hetero at the same time.)
 * Of course, it is a sliding scale, some persons are mainly attracted by one sex, but has some liking of the other sex too, thus are somewhere between bisexual and monosexual.
 * And things can be even more complicated: Some only fall in love with one sex, but are sexually attracted to both sexes. And some can fall in love with both sexes, but are only sexually attracted to one sex. (Which gets messy when such a person falls in love with a person he/she are not sexually attracted to.)
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it depends on which definition of "homosexual" you're using. Anyway, human sexuality is one of the most fascinating subjects out there. Culture boxes and demonizes and ostracizes and categorizes sexualities, but people keep wanting to love and fuck who they want to love and fuck. -- MQ Duck 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem - Per-Kristian Foss
According to and several other sources (do a search for Per-Kristian Foss) Per-Kristian Foss who was briefly the PM of Norway (according to  it was for a day) was the first openly gay head of government (our article on Foss also says so). While many sources do say she is the first openly gay head of government, given that we have sources that say she wasn't and no sources that deny Per-Kristian Foss was the first, I think we need to change the article, even if Foss was more of a technicality. IIRC, the same thing happened with David Patterson the governor of New York state in the US; who was blind but there had been a blind governor briefly before Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking into this further, he's not listed at List of heads of government of Norway. Kjell Magne Bondevik is listed as the PM for the entire time. I'm guessing Foss was simply acting PM while Bondevik was for whatever reason unable to carry out the duties of office so potentially we don't have to change anything major. Maybe just say something like "she is also usually considered the first openly gay head of government although openly gay Per-Kristian Foss was acting Prime Minister of Norway for a day." with appropriate references? Nil Einne (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest using a note like we did on Barney Frank, see the end of the first paragraph. We use the note to drill into this nuanced detail which directs our readers to other relevant articles and yet don't muck up the article at hand needlessly. -- Banj e  b oi   10:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording ("first gay head of government") is clear, unambiguous and correct. I don't think a one day interim counts as being head of government: Foss would have had no discretion as to how to act. If you answer the telephone when the boss is away, it doesn't make you the boss! Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's something to that. Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir was acting prime minister during the last hours of the previous administration (Geir had gone abroad for medical treatment) but she won't be remembered as our first female PM. For some footage of the old ministers giving the keys of the ministries to the new ministers see here: Some annotations: Jóhanna and Þorgerður trade a few words about Geir and what a nice chap he is. Geir sent Jóhanna the flowers on the table. Árni Matthiesen notes that "the geologist takes over from the veterinarian" and everyone laughs. Þorgerður tells Katrín that if she had had to pick her successor out of another party than her own she would have picked Katrín. The rest is an interview with Katrín, whose birthday it was. Haukur (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per-Kristian Foss was acting prime minister...ACTING. Politically speaking, an acting officer is neither the true nor official title holder, only the executor of the duties of the office.  For example, if a US Cabinet secretary seat is vacant and the under-secretary is "acting secretary of _____", he/she is not in line of succession as the secretary would be.  It is correct that Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is the first openly gay HEAD OF GOVERNMENT in these modern times.  She holds the position and title in full.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirkevinalot (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Name pronounced
Could we have her name pronounced, please? 131.111.216.140 (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the pronunciation of Icelandic is that it's more or less the same as in English. The exception, of course, is the letter ð, which is pronounced like a hard "th" (as in "them" as opposed to the soft "th" of "thing"). Also, "j" is always pronounced as "y" in Scandinavian languages. So Yohanna Sigurthardottir. — Verrai

01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

if like to here her name go here http://www.hexia.net/hexiaweb/vefthula.do put in the text and click lesa it is a icelandic web reader

--Andri12 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Orthography
I realize that most Icelandic names in Wikipedia use the eth and thorn when present in the name. But is that really appropriate for an English encyclopedia? Most English-language media refers to the new PM as Johanna Sigurdardottir (including the English Web site of the Icelandic goverment; see ). It’s one thing to expect an English speaker to cope with familiar vowels with unfamiliar diacritical marks, but completely foreign letters like eth and thorn seem to be pushing the boundaries of “English” to me. (Please check my user page before assuming this comment comes from a viewpoint of American chauvinism.) I also realize that this is a question about general Wikipedia practice, but I found nothing on the Icelandic name article, and this is the highest-profile article about an Icelandic person, currently. —  crism ( talk )  04:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy has always been to use all auxiliary Latin alphabet letters in all Wikipedia projects in all Latin alphabet languages. Ultimately, ð and þ are somewhat more distinct and less familiar to the average modern English speaker than, say, ñ or á, but we can only really use all or none. — Verrai 05:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A transliteration could be included, either in note or in the main (see Eidur Gudjohnsen). The main problem I see is that, if somebody hasn't seen the name in English speaking media, then that letter appears a slightly alien (is it an O? a D?). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The foreignchars template addresses my concern nicely. I am not sure that the auxiliary Latin policy is a good one for an explicitly English text, but I am not inclined to argue the point. —  crism  ( talk )  18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like seeing the foreign characters. It sets the tone, which is about Iceland. Of course, following it with an English spelling would be preferable, and no matter which spelling you use primarily, the true spelling must be given. Perhaps we should start a Wikiproject Make Words With Goofy Letters Pronounceable for problems just like this. -- MQ Duck 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Character warnings
The opening warnings are horribly excessive; I know I'm not the only one who thinks that. And the templates are very strangely worded. Most readers don't care about using last names vs. patronymics, most editors don't care. Can we change them to a footnote like this:

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (born 4 October 1942) is an Icelandic politician and the current Prime Minister of Iceland. She had previously been Iceland's Minister of Social Affairs and Social Security from 1987–1994 and 2007–2009. She has been a member of the Althing (Iceland's parliament) for Reykjavík constituencies since 1978, winning re-election on eight successive occasions. She became Iceland's first female Prime Minister on 1 February 2009; she also became the world's first openly gay head of government of the modern era.

...


 * 1) This name is usually spelled in English-language press as Johanna Sigurdardottir.
 * 2) This is an Icelandic name; the last name is a patronymic or matronymic, not a family name; the person is properly referred to by the given name Jóhanna.

—Werson (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ogg audio?
Is there a an ogg audio file anywhere with the pronunciation for her name? 71.132.194.32 (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just go to http://vefthulan.is/lesa-texta/ and type in her name (w. Icelandic characters), and press the "Lesa" button. -- Palthrow (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian Chiefs of State
Is there a category for this? Shouldn't there be? Il Castrato (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest Talk:Eiður Guðjohnsen → Eidur Gudjohnsen
I thought it'd be interesting to see what other wps did to a less famous icelander, the footballer who is also nominated for RM ca:Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen cs:Eiður Guðjohnsen da:Eiður Guðjohnsen de:Eiður Guðjohnsen et:Eiður Guðjohnsen es:Eiður Guðjohnsen fr:Eidur Smári Gudjohnsen ga:Eiður Guðjohnsen gl:Eiður Guðjohnsen hr:Eiður Guðjohnsen id:Eiður Guðjohnsen is:Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen it:Eiður Guðjohnsen lv:Eidurs Gudjonsens lt:Eiður Guðjohnsen hu:Eiður Guðjohnsen nl:Eiður Guðjohnsen no:Eiður Guðjohnsen pl:Eiður Guðjohnsen pt:Eiður Guðjohnsen sq:Eidur Gudjohnsen sk:Eiður Guðjohnsen fi:Eiður Guðjohnsen sv:Eiður Guðjohnsen tr:Eiður Guðjohnsen. What does this tell us about how accepted Icelandic names are in Europe? Or what does it tell us about how our Euro-WP colleagues consider what is "encyclopedic" style in this international age? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The LGBT issue
Can't we just simplify and go with "First Lesbian PM" like Pink does? As for 'interim', Jóhanna is likely to serve some three months. Haukur (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian one was PM so shortly he doesn't even show up on the Wikipedia list of PMs. — Nightstallion 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the rather technically incorrect nature of calling a woman "gay", I've switched it to "lesbian". While gay is used generally, using it to describe a woman is an incorrect usage of the term since gay refers to a male-male relationship. Lesbian or homosexual is more precise. --Pstanton (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is less ambiguous to use 'gay' as an adjective here (which is not technically incorrect), because 'gay' encompasses both males and females; 'gay male' is used for male-male relationships in formal speech. To say first lesbian could imply that there were other first gay male PMs! Noble Spear (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, I see your point, perhaps "homosexual" would be a better term? I don't know why this is such an issue for me, but I guess I'm just a stickler for using formal speech conventions on Wikipedia. --Pstanton (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Homosexual" has acquired negative connotations in English outside of medical usage. See the discussion below. — Verrai 02:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As an Icelander, I don't see why a country's PM, President, etc's sexual orientation should even be a matter of concern. I feel this is a private issue. I don't go telling everyone I meet that I am a "heterosexual". What gives with a;; this lesbian and gay traffic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.48.40 (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd suspect that the articles on Barack Obama and Stephen Harper do out them both as blatant heterosexuals. They just do it in a slightly different manner... instead of tagging them to "WikiProject Heterosexuality" on the respective talk pages and category:Heterosexuals in the United States of America and category:Heterosexuals in Canada in the article page, they just list that Barack belongs to Michelle and Stephen to Laureen. The implication is clear enough. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir → Johanna Sigurdardottir

– Per common guidelines at Wikipedia (WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:MOSBIO, etc. etc.): "use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". She is known internationally as Johanna Sigurdardottir . Also, the Icelandic letters are not readable by most international and English people. Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per New York Times, Reuters, BBC, The Economist, AP, and Houston Chronicle. WP:ENGLISH says: "use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)." Kauffner (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not sure any version of her name could be said to be in common use in English. The anglicised spelling redirects here, and I don't have a problem with that. It also bugs me, because 'ð' and 'd' are different letters, with different pronunciations. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Britannica (WP:NOT) and the subject's preference (WP:BLP). Even some non-reference works, like The Guardian, Financial Times, New Statesman and The Independent, get the spelling right occasionally. The Chicago Manual of Style also supports the use of the eth: "Authors should use the correct Unicode characters for the ligature and for edh, thorn, and yogh...". Dropping the accent marks would be inexcusable in an encyclopedia, but I think WP:UE favors retaining the eth here as well. Prolog (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - firstly WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:MOSBIO, etc. etc.): don't actually make the US or UK press the standard, and WP favours diacritics per WP:MOSPN the case needs to be made why French accents are good, but eth and thorn (letter) as "non-Latin alphabet" are not. At the moment I'm now thinking, why? Why is it so important that ð be removed from a small number of articles that only those interested in Iceland will look at? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a bit ridiculous. Can English-language people read these Icelandic letters? No they cannot. Is the title of this page therefore useful and purposeful? No it isn't. Is there an alternative? Yes there is; again the Wikipedia guidelines: "use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English. Persons with Chinese or Arabic names do have the same problem, but at Wikipedia and internationally those names are translated into names with Latin symbols. Otherwise nobody can read those symbols. Although even those translations are sometimes not always perfect. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not some Icelandic one. Again, its should preferably be accessible in the English format, not written with symbols that non-Icelandic people cannot read. I said preferably, thus when it is possible. And this is, since she is internationally known as well as Johanna Sigurdardottir. Dr. D.E. Mophon (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eth is a Latin letter and The Chicago Manual of Style considers it recognizable to educated English speakers. You keep quoting Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). How on earth is this guideline relevant here? Prolog (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the English-language speaker. Most speakers of English speak it as a second language. Native speakers are a minority. (James Stanlaw Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact 2004 Page 280 "The British Council as early as 1986 recognized that the majority of English speakers were not 'native'.") In ictu oculi (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given above. There is already a redirect for the non-scholarly spelling of convenience (Johanna Sigurdardottir). Doremo (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage," according to WP:UE. An article title is not for scholars, or for readers who want to learn Icelandic. It is to help the ordinary reader find the article. When the title appears in a list, such as a Google result list, it should provide a cue to the reader that this is the right article, or the wrong article if he is looking for something else. So it should be as recognizable as possible. The most recognizable name is typically the most common form found in the reliable sources. From a readers' point of view, Wiki articles appear as stand-alone items. Book and magazine article titles are generally even more conservative about diacritics and unusual letters than the text they title. Google doesn't use our redirects, so they are not usually a major factor in traffic patterns. Kauffner (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way exactly and specifically could anyone "have trouble finding it"?? (entering Johanna Sigurdardottir into Google immediately brings up Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, entering Johanna Sigurdardottir into WP immediately brings up the same).
 * Out of interest, Kauffner, can I ask do you accept François Mitterrand being at François Mitterrand? Because if not, shouldn't this objection, if this is the objection, be made at a RM for François Mitterrand? The only extra issue here is that ð is an alphabet extension. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support "ð" is not an accent, and not an English language letter. English Wikipedia is not the European Wikipedia. If we should have articles at titles recognizable to most English speakers, the population of India has the most English speakers, and they recognize Hindi and Sanskrit, so those should be allowable titles by that standard. Either (1) we use English lettering, or (2) we become European Wikipedia. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The main problem for me is that the eth is not a version of the letter d; it just looks like one to someone who doesn't know what it actually is. Although the eth has long ago disappeared from British English scripts, the sound remains and is different from the thorn. People with a surname (to take a random example) of 'Boothroyd' which has an eth in it, get annoyed when people mispronounce it as though it had a thorn. I am not convinced that the frequent anglicised transliteration to 'Sigurdardottir' is entirely due to a clear decision that this is an official anglicised version; I think it is frequently to be found because people either lack knowledge of the eth or lack access (or easy access) to a keyboard and typeface which can produce the correct version. I don't know what is different about the eth as a letter and the use of accents in names, which are frequently dropped in English but are invariably present in their article titles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On this point it is good to look at source #16 in the article . This seems to be an Iceland based English language magazine. They write her name with a "d" while keeping the diacritics on the "o". This suggests that "d" is the proper anglicisation for this rare character and it also shows that even Icelandic sources aknowledge that this eth is poorly recognizable and unnatural for its English language readers. Wikipedia has its own criteria for article titles WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. While "Sigurdardottir" is in line with our WP:UE policy, it also wins on the "Recognizability" and "Naturalness" criteria while being "Precise" enough to identify the topic of the article. So the proposed move satisfies more criteria than the native spelling at which it is currently kept. "Accuracy" (= precision) is only one of the criteria we are supposed to weigh for AT. On that point wp clearly differs from the standards that some print encyclopedias use. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For same reason as Sam Blacketer above -- Palthrow (talk)
 * Comment. The first footnote in the references for this article already states that her name is usually spelled as Johanna Sigurdardottir in a lot of English-language sources. So that should be the title for this article per WP:UE. I do not think there are many examples (if any) of words where this Icelandic "d" has entered English language usage. It is difficult to read, even for English language users who are not visually impaired. So it is better to handle it like Nguyen Van Thieu, which was also moved to the non-diacritic title. Accuracy is not an argument against this move, because WP:NAMINGCRITERIA only requires the title to be "as precise as necessary" to identify the topic. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Britannica. I'm now convinced that it is a bad faith RM by the same people messing around (at least they moved away form the IPIN registration system non-sense this time).  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  11:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sam Blacketer - makes you wonder why some people wanted to shut down the anglosaxon wikipedia. Agathoclea (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The inability of many people to type the letter for dh is no reason for changing the correct spelling. The existence of redirect should mean that editors are not inconvenienced.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, as this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per accuracy. There can be a redirect in place for those who don't know diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per common English spelling, usage, and sources. There can be a redirect for those who don't know the English alphabet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I could see doing this if the original name were in a non-Latin character set where the transliteration is not obvious to someone who doesn't speak the original language (for instance, 鄒至蕙 as a Toronto federal member of parliament) but for "Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir" this isn't a transliteration, it's just accents being omitted because the ð is missing from an author's keyboard. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Dropping diacritics does not magically make a name English. The redirect is sufficient. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sexual orientation
Are we sure our sources are correct by calling her homosexual? She's been very private and I doubt she's personally stated her preference but she was married to a man and even had two children by him. Wouldn't this make her bisexual? Just because her current spouse is a woman doesn't mean she's now a lesbian, does it? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. She doesn't seem to have publicly stated how she self-identifies anywhere, so this article is partly based on assumption; perhaps 'non-heterosexual' would be a better, though somewhat awkward, description. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the problem. Personally, I think the lead should keep 'first gay head of government in modern times', but the body text should flesh this assertion out a bit, to indicate that she hasn't made personal statements, and that her orientation has been widely inferred in media sources from the fact of her same-sex civil partnership. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's partly based on assumption to say that she hasn't said it as well. I doubt it would have made the news when she did come out; just because we are lacking in primary evidence doesn't mean it can be ruled out. We'd therefore be guilty of the same thing we're trying to be vigilant of (making an assumption without any evidence) were we to try and fill in the gaps. The news sources seemed pretty certain, although I realize that one error could be printed over and over, and that it makes a good story from their perspective. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless she's referred to herself specifically as gay/lesbian as opposed to bisexual and/or stated that she was really never at all heterosexual even though (for whatever reason) she was married to and had children with a person of the opposite sex, then she should be referred to as "the first openly bisexual etc etc". Otherwise I don't see how it makes sense to refer to her as a lesbian and not bisexual just because her current relationship has been with a woman.  I suspect the common reference to her as gay or lesbian may be due at least in part to the press choosing to identify her that way based on a common (heterosexist, yet nevertheless subscribed to even by some gay people) tendency by many in society to default anyone not completely heterosexual to "gay" no matter how much actual evidence there is to suggest otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrigon (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From a point of view of "what's actually true" I agree that it makes at least as much sense to use bisexual as lesbian. However, as a matter of what Wikipedia is and is not, we have to base our article on reliable sources. It's not ridiculous, many gay and lesbian-identified individuals have former opposite-sex partners. Every source I can find in the press uses gay or lesbian, and so, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, we're stuck with what the press says.  --j &#9883; e deckertalk 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Former opposite-sex partners" does not necessarily infer any intention to pursue an opposite-sex partner ever again. In some cases, the attempt at an opposite-sex pairing may have failed as the attraction just isn't there... at all. It happens. Unless the subject is actually still expressing any interest in both same-sex and opposite-sex partners in the future, I can't see the "bisexual" label being of meaningful use here.66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Publishing A book about them being homosexual guy is probably a statement.. Well, didn't read the book (by her partner), named "Við Jóhanna" (Johanna and I Me and Jóhanna ), but Jóhanna writes the postscript. comp.arch (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Did some searching, Jóhanna seems to be quiet about the book except I found (if its really her) Facebook

Her partner: "Hugmyndin að bókinni kom frá Jóhönnu" (The idea for the book came from Johanna). Article/interview with her partner (about herself mostly it seems):

Speaks of prejudge ("fordómar") being a very descriptive word. Raised where homosexuality and sex were not discussed.

In the book her partner explains why she disliked ("andúð") the word lesbía ("lesbian"). Since her mother couldn't even say the word. (Í bókinni segir Jónína að þarna hafi líklega verið upphafið að andúð hennar á orðinu lesbía. Fyrst mamma hennar gat ekki einu sinni tekið sér það í munn hlaut það að vera alveg agalegt.)

I felt homosexuality was completely unrelated to me (Mér fannst samkynhneigð vera algjörlega ótengd mér.)

Another (or translated from above?) interview/article: comp.arch (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)