Talk:List of LGBT Academy Award winners and nominees

"Orientation"?
Being Transgender is not an orientation (neither is intersex, although I'm not sure if we will add that eventually or not), I would like if changed it to something else.★Trekker (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, but I personally have no idea what term would be better. Feel free to change it if you think of one. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah something like "type" or "subgroup" seems a little.... dehumanizing. I'll think about it for a while.★Trekker (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "demographic"?★Trekker (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That still sounds a little off to me, but feel free to use it. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it doesn't sound ideal. But I honestly can't come up with anything better right now.★Trekker (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Montgomery Clift
His own Wikipedia page seems to state he was more likely bisexual. Should we change it?★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Should actors playing real people whose orientations are not addressed in their films count?
I feel like when listing actors playing characters who were real LGBT people, at the very least a footnote should be added if the character's sexuality is not acknowledged in the film. For example, I don't believe A Beautiful Mind acknowledged John Nash's bisexuality. It would take going through all of the films where actors were nominated for playing people who were LGBT in real life to make calls, but I think it should be thought about. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If the film doesn't acknowledge them as LGBT, then I don't feel that they should be included at all on this list, and will remove anyone I see fitting that falls under that. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 16:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 nominees
Can someone please add Laura Poitras and Nan Goldin as nominees for All the Beauty and the Bloodshed in the Documentary Feature section? They're both openly LGBT Janjackson3 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023
In International Feature Film add The Wedding Banquet 1993 romantic comedy film directed, produced and co-written by Ang Lee. Also add that is part of the gay demographic. Sunem21 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Grouping for Confirmed/Speculative sections
It just occurred to me while examining it, depending on the list, it can appear rather clunky when one person with several nominations is interwoven so much in between others, because of chronology.For characters, it's essential to remain chronological, to see the evolution of LGBTQ+ representation over time. But for the other two, I was thinking perhaps it might be better off alphabetizing them. What does anyone else think? Curious if this will reach consensus. But this implementation will be easier to follow. Another option: sortable tables. One drawback: I could see the argument for Confirmed that they were not out during the '70s, but were out in the '00s, for example. But that could still be factored into the "Observation" comments.

Character Confirmations
If this ever becomes an issue either, I think another subsection would be suitable for those portraying characters where heavy subtext was muted by Hays Code, or real-life biopics were toned down/written out, can be taken account of for posterity's sake. In many of those instances, even if it wasn't stated, it was still subtly emphasized and suggestive. And thus, it's still of historic interest for LGBT characterization. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 00:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

To edit or not to edit...
The in use template displays "please do not edit this page" while Under construction displays "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." Could you please remove one of these templates to remove this contradiction? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes lol, my apologies. I'm using it right now as a matter of fact! The day was chaotic, so I was away for a stretch, then in use, and sometimes have to drop what I'm doing in the middle of an edit. Better to remain with in use though if I'm mid-edit. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 05:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

About people playing real LGBT individuals
When it comes to actors playing real life people in films, even if the real life person is known to be LGBT, they shouldn't appear on this list unless the film actually references them being LGBT or the actors or filmmakers mention that they were trying to include in subtext, or something of that nature. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 23:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I was actually going to suggest that there be a separate, distinct chart for that. Due to the Hays Code suppression and what could or couldn't be said, a lot of them may not have been able to be properly represented. But they are still significant to both cinematic history and LGBT history. I was working on it in my Sandbox actually. Idk if you are able to peruse that. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 04:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Straightwashing is where those things would be more relevant. Something like Straightwashing in film or Straightwashing in film and television could potentially be split from that article if another references and examples can be found to support it. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you. That's awesome. I didn't even know such an article existed. Appreciate it. You've earned ally brownie points today, with rainbow sprinkles. Sounds good, that it could be a transclusion via that redirect. Add a hatnote here after it's complete, perhaps. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

For people "speculated to be gay"
I strongly feel that the bare minimum for people to be included in the speculated to be gay section is for the speculation to be included on the person's own article. You could probably find gay rumors for just about any actor from the '20s-'40s. If the rumors are actually significant, they'll be included on their page.

Also, people like Rock Hudson who are basically universally acknowledged as being gay and are even categorized as such, can probably be moved to the confirmed section, but I don't feel as strongly about that. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * First, I'm glad you brought Hudson up, because I was going to address that. Hudson and Clift both fall into this category. They've both been well-documented by now, and apparently seldom hid within the community anyhow. I was working on transferring them, before one day my computer died before I saved my progress. Just lost the urge for a while.
 * I think that is a relatively solid approach to take as far as substantiation goes, within reason. However, if legitimate sources rather than gossip blogs or tabloid news sites cover it, they do provide enough. Tracy and Hepburn have both been in that same boat. There's the Bowers book, noted writer Larry Kramer, and some others. I just think nobody has taken the time to update Tracy's page or it has been reverted, which seems potentially a double standard. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 17:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am extremely uncomfortable with the category of "Speculated" being included in this list. This opens the list up to every bit of rumor-mongering. In cases where the "speculation" has been confirmed by reliable sources even though the person themself never came out, I would move that person out of the speculated category, assuring that the reliable sources are cited here. For example, Paul Newman has recently been added to this list of Speculated LGBTQ actors, based on a book in which fellow actor Marlon Brando accuses Newman of being bi, with nothing more than on-set rumors to go by. This is an extreme case, but any case of speculation has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Newman was, but we removed Newman a month ago. Just saw in the history a new attempt to add it back. Newman was a huge pro-gay ally, but that doesn't mean he fooled around with us, lol. (As much as we may have lusted for it; though I wasn't even born until he won his Oscar.) Anyhow...Yes, absolutely not. Those are unfounded. Newman indeed does not belong. Doing a deep dive, you can find accusations against Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, Clark Gable, and more. It gets wildly out of hand.
 * Biographers, researchers, ones who have multiple sources (Rock Hudson and Montgomery Clift are so well-known to be gay/bi, JDDJS and I concurred they warrant even being transferred to the confirmed list,)
 * Scotty Bowers isn't considered a tabloid rumor-monger, but rather a Hollywood insider. Same with Marlene Dietrich and the "sewing circle". Larry Kramer and Bowers are reliable enough to validate Hepburn/Tracy, though they're not alone.
 * However, I rather LOVE your idea of doing away with a speculation list and just combining them into the main table. Because this way they aren't segregated into separate sections. James Dean is pretty much confirmed bi, and has the sources. Marjorie Main, same thing.
 * Perhaps in the Observation section, we can describe in more detail what is known or debated that way, for the ones we agree can stay. So I'm all for it. One table for actors; one table for characters, per category. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 23:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you define as a "Hollywood insider", but neither Bowers nor Kramer are actually cited as sources for any of the material in this list. The sources for Spencer Tracy include an interview with Larry Kramer (not a quote from his book) in which Kramer just offhandedly mentions that Tracy was gay, and an interview with Scotty Bowers where he also casually tosses off a rumor. This is the very definition of rumor-mongering, and in my opinion, it has no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)