Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Archive 2

I think the list is appropriate, but...
...I would like to see some format that would encourage a brief but definitive reference explaining each person's inclusion. Something like

(Autobiography, "My Life," Famous X. Celebrity, 1920, Printing Press) or (Press interview, "Rolling Stone," April 1st, 1991)

The reference doesn't need to be acceptable in a court of law. It just needs to be an adequate explanation of why the person is on the list. I do think it ought to be something stronger than "I'm sure I've read this somewhere or other, and no Wikipedian has yet complained about this person's inclusion."

In many cases if you click on the link, you get a Wikipedia article which does assert homosexuality but provides no evidence at all. E.g. for Graham Chapman we have only the unsupported statement "he also kept his homosexuality a secret for much of his adult life." For Vaslav Ninjinsky, the biography says "Nijinsky and Diaghilev became lovers." For A. E. Housman, we read "[in these poems] Housman appears more candid about his homosexuality and atheism than in his lifetime." Well, what exactly does "more candid" mean? A suitable quotation from the book would be nice--then we could judge for ourselves whether it is a forthright statement, a strong implication, or a veiled suggestion.

Absent such a reference, should the "confirmed" list more properly be entitled "Persons whose Wikipedia biography asserts their homosexuality?"

Dpbsmith 17:22, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Shakespeare
User 66.167.235.170 deleted Shakespeare from the "confirmed" list on the grounds that "Shakespeare had a wife and kids so listing him as gay would not seem appropriate." That just seems silly to me, so I put him back in the "disputed" list because certainly the matter is disputed; that is, many people do think he was probably bisexual.

I think it would be quite unreasonable to leave him off the page entirely.

I'm OK with Dysprosia's adding the phrase "was thought to have" to my comment that he "addressed many of his sonnets to a man." (Personally, I would have said there's no doubt at all that many of the sonnets were, in fact, addressed to a man&mdash;look at Sonnet XX, for example. But whether they express homophilic affection is a matter of opinion, and, even if they do, it would, of course, prove nothing about Shakespeare's sexual orientation. And that's too much to say in a short comment).

I notice that the article on Shakespeare's sonnets, which I hadn't checked earlier, says they "deal in large part with a beautiful young man, a rival poet and a Dark Lady" and "Shakespeare's repeated declarations of love for the young man suggest bisexuality to some, although others see them as supreme expressions of Platonic love." That seems to me to warrant an entry on the "disputed" list.

Dpbsmith 00:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. We don't know for sure about Shakespeare's orientation, but his sonnets at the very least raise questions and strong suspicions as to his orientation. FearÉIREANN 19:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I also had a wife and children but I knew I was gay. I have two friends who are currently married and have children who identify exclusively as gay. So having a wife and children is a difficult argument to make for someone's sexual orientation. In my college classes in Gay and Lesbian Lit., we debated Shakespeare's sexual orientation along the lines of how an author must be taken for his word and that if the author wrote homosexual sentiment, we could only deduce that he intended exactly what he wrote. To second-guess the Bard would be to put one into the position of having to question one's own sanity. Still, there is great argument among Elizabethian scholars over this particular style of writing. It is argued that Shakespeare's sonnets were reflections of a certain tradition with roots in ancient Greek writing to sought to glorify manhood by writing about it in intimate terms. There is some support for that argument and if I remember correctly it powerful support. Yet there is scholarly argument in favor of the opposite view, the view that Shakespheare meant what he said. I learned only a smattering of these argument so I sorry but I cannot provide more information. The class I took was taught by Dr. Lillian Faderman, a name I've just added to the list of known gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people. She does not have an article of her own, a situation that I just learned was a matter of debate along with the removing of names. I also added the name of Ron Odom, the current mayor of Palm Springs, California, who homosexuality has been discussed in the local newspaper on several occassions. Faderman's own autobiography, a memoire titled "Naked in the Promised Land" is her most prominent admission of her lesbianism. However, she was nominated for the Pulizter Prize based on her previous work in "Surpassing the Love of Men", a history of lesbians from the 18th and 19th century. Her long partnership with another professor at California State University, Fresno, is well known and the fact that they have a son of extraordinary genius (high school graduate at the age of 12, BA from CSU, Fresno at age 16, masters from Stanford at age 18) is an interesting aspect of Faderman's life especially because she was impregnated by artifical insemination. Ray Foster 20:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel strongly that Shakespeare should be on the list. But I don't think your comment that "an author must be taken for his word" applies here. If we had a letter that Shakespeare had written that touched on his sexual orientation, than one could accurately say "Shakespeare identified himself as [gay/straight/whatever]." But a work of art is never a straightforward statement. H. G. Wells' "The First Men in the Moon" is narrated in the first person. In at least one edition, the text says near the end "I signed the letter 'Wells,' which seemed to me to be a thoroughly respectable sort of name." That does not, of course, mean that the story is truly a first-person narrative by Wells, nor that Wells actually travelled to the moon in a Cavorite sphere.


 * To belabor the point a bit, I once had the misfortune to take an exam that quoted this stanza of a poem by A. E. Housman:
 * Now, of my threescore years and ten,
 * Twenty will not come again
 * And take from seventy springs a score,
 * It only leave me fifty more.
 * and asks "How old is the poet? a) 70 ; b) 50; c) 20; d) It is impossible to tell." The intended trick here is that "my threescore years and ten" refers to the biblical lifespan, so the "intended" correct answer is 20 (he's used up fifty of his allotted seventy years and so has twenty left). The correct answer is that the poem's speaker indicates an age of 20, but of course that tells you nothing about how old A. E. Housman was.


 * Yes, I happen to think that it is very likely sonnets written to a man were most likely straightforward expressions of gay feelings toward the man to whom they were written, and that any other interpretation is a strained effort to avoid seeing the obvious. Nevertheless, deducing Shakespeare's orientation solely from a reading of the sonnets can never be more than guesswork. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally agree with you. There's no way of knowing definately, especially from a period that didn't have such distinctions as "homosexual" or "gay". I don't remember my college class coming to any conclusion about the matter either. It just make for an interesting discussion and since Dr. Faderman is both a historian and a professor of English she's far too cautious to stick her neck out on something she can't prove. The main point I wanted to make was that marriage is very weak argument to rule out homosexuality. In my own life I've met hundreds of men who identify as gay and were or still are married.  Ray Foster 01:56, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added Diane Duane to confirmed list: she came out (or, more likely, already was out) in a 1980 magazine interview. Tualha 05:28, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

the living
Please keep living people off the list of debated sexuality. Until you confirm it, leave it off. Kingturtle 05:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

That's real classy, guys. Make a "debated" list and put on a bunch of dead people who have no way of defending themselves either way. Is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid?

If, and only if somebody has out and said they were gay, put them on the list (or better yet, just mention it in their individual biographies. Why do we even have this list, anyway? Is this some weird support group mentality or something? "Wowee! Look at all of those gay people!"). If they're living, don't classify them until they admit it themselves. And sticking historical names on a "debated" list for shock value is tacky, and I think that Wikipedia has higher standards than that.

And who's the joker that put Jesus on the list? Don't these people even know who Jesus was?

-- Jordan

The truth is that many people's sexual orientation only becomes known after their death. It was only lately that documentary evidence showed that Eoin O'Duffy was gay. Roger Casement never said he was gay, but the controversial Black Diaries strongly suggested he was. It is only with modern technology that it has been possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the diaries, whose authorship was disputed by those with a problem accepting that Roger was gay, were clearly written by him, had his handwriting, and were contemporaneous with the timeline they supposed dated from. It was also only after her death that witnesses who had been friends of the Princess confirmed what had long been gossiped, that Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom had had a lesbian relationship with the daughter of an American diplomat in the 1960s. Sir Alec Guinness's homosexuality was only revealed since his death by family members and his biographer.

It is perfectly logical to have a page like this and perfectly logical to list dead people. FearÉIREANN 20:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have reinstated Lincoln and Princess Margaret. Lincoln's rumoured sexuality was an issue in his lifetime, specifically his relationship with two men, to such an extent that a ficticious "love affair" with a non-existent woman was created by close friends. Princess Margaret's lesbian relationship with the daughter of a diplomat was attested to by her close friends in a respected television programme on the Princess. Both are factual and a lot more evidenced than many claims on this page. FearÉIREANN 18:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Schumann and Brahms is a completely new one on me. It's true that Brahms had an unconsumated love for Schumann, but it was Clara rather than Robert, wasn't it? Or have I been reading the wrong books? --Camembert


 * "Similarly, the complicated, but apparently unconsummated, relationship of Schumann and Johannes Brahms has also been the subject of speculation."- qlbtq: Arts: Music: Classical Honestly, I have no idea, music this old is not my area.Hyacinth


 * Maybe Schu liked Brahms, but Brahms liked Clara. Dysprosia 00:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hm, I do think the author of that page might be getting Clara and Robert mixed up - I've never come across any suggestion of a relationship between Robert and Johannes (not that I'm an expert or anything, but I would've thought it would be pretty high-profile). On a different note - is there any serious doubt that Lully was gay? I think he was pretty famous (or notorious) for it. Anyway, I'm hoping to get to some books that should clear all this up eventually, but it might not be until after Christmas (it'll be great if anybody does it before me, of course). --Camembert


 * Well, the book I was hoping to check is out of reach (a friend had it, but he moved (thoughtless of him)), but I've removed Schumann and Brahms because I'm not really convinced by the above link (I think there's a bit of confusion there), and I've checked a couple of bios with nothing. If somebody else finds somebody respectable actually making this claim rather than just saying that somebody else has made the claim, it'd be fine to go back in of course. I'm leaving Lully where he is for now, but I think he might well end up in the "confirmed" list one day. --Camembert

Hey Wikians shouldn't this disclaimer be on the page?

''Wikipedians: Edit this list with caution, because misidentifying the sexual identity of living individuals can lead to a charge of libel. It has not been tested whether Wikipedia's sponsor, Bomis, is liable for libel in the Wikipedia.''

It really seems to me that a list of people about who's sexuality others debate, should be just that, and not a list of people who may or may not be gay. I don't care if you can document an individuals same sex sexual contanct and their coming out process, if those facts are debated then they should be on the debated list. This would need to be clarified in the heading for that list, but I think that clear distinction may put a damper on the growth of this discussion page.Hyacinth 04:40, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Franz Schubert
I am perfectly aware of Maynard Solomon's controversal findings, but having Franz Schubert both on the lists of confirmed and debated homosexuals is just a bit to much. I put him on the debated list, which I think is appropiate in his case. Any disapproval? - 217.234.13.7 01:46, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth
The link given is not convincing. Historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth are not easy to ascertain, and I doubt the existence of good evidence bearing on his sexual orientation&mdash;evidence of encyclopedic quality, anyway. I feel that such an assertion is sufficiently shocking to many sincere Christians as to constitute discourtesy. I think it is appropriate to set a higher standard of proof for such an assertion about Jesus of Nazareth than might be required for, say, Abraham Lincoln. Certainly the standard of proof must be at least as high. See discussion above. Dpbsmith 02:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Jesus of Nazareth

New Zealand gays and lesbians

 * Tim Barnett: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3509788
 * Chris Carter: Chris Carter (politician)
 * Witi Ihimaera: http://www.vuw.ac.nz/nzbookcouncil/writers/ihimaerawiti.htm
 * Katherine Mansfield: http://www.glbtq.com/literature/mansfield_k.html, and New Zealand Government site http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/dnzb/default.asp?Find_Quick.asp?PersonEssay=3M42

Eleanor Roosevelt
I moved Eleanoor Roosevelt from the "confirmed" list to the "debated" list. Although in all probability she was bisexual or a lesbian, there is enough debate about it that I think it is better to have her on the "debated" list, in the spirit of neutrality. Uranographer 01:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Frank Murphy
Reference: Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court; By Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price; Basic, p. 19. Ydorb 18:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

William Haines
Since he's been repeatedly removed from the list by someone who has evidently done no fact-checking, let me advise him to check his IMDB biography before doing it again. . Joan Crawford called William Haines and his lover Jimmie Shields the happiest married couple in Hollywood. Those not afraid to touch paper may enjoy Wisecracker: The Life and Times of William Haines, Hollywood's First Openly Gay Star by William J. Mann.


 * I did not repeatedly remove him from the list, I reverted his addition to the list since the person who added him made no explanation on the talk page.

Simon Arlott 18:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right, you only removed him once...without explaining on the talk page. I shouldn't have assumed your other edits were repeats. But removing people without explanation or fact-checking is still a bad idea. - Outerlimits 18:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

James Coco
vide Hollywood Gays: Conversations With: Cary Grant, Liberace, Tony Perkins, Paul Lynde, Cesar Romero, Brad Davis, Randolph Scott, James Coco, William Haines, David Lewis by Boze Hadleigh.

James Buchanan
See debate at:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/2458

This is ample justification for his being placed in the debated category.

Persons of former lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation
Why do we have this section? This name is inherently POV. Surely there's a better name for it. Ambivalenthysteria 04:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Please think of a better name. Hyacinth 07:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Changed to "Persons no longer identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual" Dysprosia 07:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- "Qaboos ibn Sa'id Al Sa'id, Sultan of Oman" - this strikes me as unlikely, and I can find no support for it with a quick search. The article does not mention it. Please clarify. - Montréalais 04:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

See here - Outerlimits 01:41, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Van Cliburn?
Van Cliburn (pianist) - I didn't see him listed anywhere, but I'm positive he's gay. Anyone wish to confirm this and add him?


 * On April 29th, 1996, Thomas Zaremba filed a palimony suit against pianist Van Cliburn, claiming the pair had been lovers for 17 years until their relationship ended in 1994.


 * A 1998 article in Texas Family Lawyers states:


 * Ten years later, the operation of the statute became the subject of an appeal in Zaremba v. Cliburn, 949 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, writ pending). Renowned pianist Van Cliburn's former live-in lover, Thomas Zaremba, brought what was construed to be a palimony suit against him after their 17-year relationship disintegrated. They began cohabiting in 1977, well before the amendment to the statute of frauds. Zaremba alleged an oral or implied contract giving him the right to a share of Cliburn's income in exchange for the services he rendered after moving in with Cliburn. Those services allegedly included shopping, doing the mail, paying the bills, co-managing the household, etc.


 * This article in the South Coast Massachusetts (???) News says "A Fort Worth, Texas, judge has dismissed a multimillion-dollar palimony suit filed against Van Cliburn by a man who claims the pianist exposed him to the AIDS virus during a 17-year sexual relationship. District Judge Fred Davis said he agreed with Mr. Cliburn's lawyers that no part of the arrangement between Thomas E. Zaremba, a 48-year-old mortician, and Mr. Cliburn was in writing and that therefore nothing was binding." This seems to me to confirm that a relationship existed, but, darn it, I don't think the South Coast Massachusetts News is exactly the source I'd like to have for this.


 * http://www.glbtq.com/arts/cliburn_v,2.html states:


 * Indeed, though always described as gracious and polite, Cliburn is known to be notoriously difficult to interview. Music insiders had long been aware of his homosexuality, and he and Zaremba had appeared together at public functions in Fort Worth, but in Cliburn's thirty-plus years as a celebrity, the press had never linked him romantically with anyone.


 * If these statements had been in Newsweek or a major Fort Worth newspaper, I'd say list him under "Debated," but I don't really think any of these sources is quite good enough to do that. Dpbsmith 00:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain
Okay... I'm REALLY familiar with Kurt Cobain. It's a topic I know a LOT about. I have NEVER heard of anything "confirming" that he was bisexual. I have NEVER heard of him having had a sexual relationship with a male. There has been speculation as to this, but only mere speculation. I personally do not believe he was bisexual, although he did have a tolerance for gays/lesbians/bisexuals that was uncommon considering where he is from. blankfaze 22:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't even think the speculation he acknowledged his open support for gay straight equality (including kissing a bandmate on SNL) would cause is enough to list him as debated. I say remove. Hyacinth 22:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I obviously agree. I think the SNL thing was more of a shocky publicity thing.  I haven't been able to find anything conclusive suggesting he was bisexual.  blankfaze 01:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed him. --Camembert

Kurt Cobain said that he always liked other men but was never able to pursue it when he met Courtney. I don't believe he ever actually HAD an encounter, but he has said that he was bisexual.

addition by 134.245.3.65
Gustav Gründgens should be changed to (correctly) Gustaf Gründgens. (added by 134.245.3.65)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. - jredmond 01:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pope Julius II.
I'd like to have some sources claiming that Pope Julius II was gay. 143.50.212.139 15:39, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Sex Lives of the Popes (by Nigel Cawthorne) calls him "the father of a family and a hard-drinking, hard-swearing, swashbuckling pederast. Handsome and syphilitic, he had many mistresses, one of whom had given him the pox", and states that Julius was accused of "unnatural vice" while a Cardinal, and as pope "wore himself out in two years leading a hectic life 'amongst prostitutes and boys'". Continuing: "Contemporary authors said he was a 'great sodomite'. And according to a seventeenth-century tract, 'this man abused two young gentlemen, besides many others'." His seduction of a German youth was commemorated in verse: "To Rome, a Geramn came of fair aspect,/But he returned a woman in effect". So he liked girls, he liked boys, though he liked war more than either. - Outerlimits 00:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
Do we have a consensus on Alexander the Great being gay or bisexual? Because he is in both the bisexual and the doubtful lists.--leandros 11:54, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I oppose listing him as such. My understanding is that his primary personal attribute was Alcoholism. Which as you know, makes people do unaccountable things. Have we compared his behavior when sober to his behavior when drunk? Rex071404 04:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful list. Ambi 05:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Alexander the Great is notoriously bisexual. -Seth Mahoney 07:03, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you know from personal experience? :) There is mixed opinion; I would put him on the doubtful list Mysteronald 23:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I that time, the word bisexual or homosexual didn't even exist. LOL

Shouldn't this list let us know, in brief, if the person is alive or dead?
Comments? Rex071404 04:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relevance. Ambi 05:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Simply add birth-death dates. This creates chronological information, which is very relevant, or at least as relevant as occupation. Hyacinth 21:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What the...? - Double List
Everything is written twice in the article... and the categories show up three times each. Is this vandalism? It needs correcting. -Erolos 11:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I reverted edits by AntonioMartin to last version by 164.164.166.11, as his contribution was childish, and then became vandalism. -Erolos 11:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where Do Transsexuals Go?
I have Nadia Almeda, who won Big Brother 5, but she's not gay, lesbian or bisexual, but she one was called Jorge. Can she go on this list but does this list need moving to List of famous gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual persons? Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think it is ueful to group gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people together: eventually we will end up with a conglomerate list of people.
 * I added Nadia Almeda to (the top of) the List of transgendered people as already linked on this page.
 * Mysteronald 23:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language Choice
I notice that a number of people are described as having "admitted" their bi- or homosexuality. I wonder whether the word "acknowledge" might be more accurate or not. The American Heritage Dictionary's usage guides say "Admit implies reluctance in acknowledging one's acts or another point of view." In the case of people being outed, "admit" would be appropriate. But if, say, the source is an Advocate interview, I have a hard time imagining anyone who would be reluctant to acknowledge their sexuality even agreeing to be interviewed by a gay/lesbian news magazine. Perhaps those with access to the original sources can change the wording if appropriate. Anon, 06:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that "admit" is accurate in the case of anyone coming out of the closet, even intentionally, as being in the closet is being in a state of denial about one's non-heterosexuality. That is, being in the closet is always a hiding.  There are, of course, people who were never properly in the closet, and for those people "acknowledge" is definately more appropriate.  I also think that it is a good move to try to move away from "admit" wherever appropriate, as "admit" implies that there is something one should try to hide, something one should be ashamed about - basically, "admit" always imples some degree of guilt, and I don't think that non-heterosexuality is something a person should be considered guilty of.  Its a tough call as far as a general move is concerned, though, because for much of Western history "admit" is by far the more appropriate word.  -Seth Mahoney 07:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Pope Paul VI

Can someone point to some evidence of his homosexuality, as alleged on this page. Arcturus 18:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Senator Joseph McCarthy
I moved Joseph McCarthy from the list of confirmed to debated. The person posting him used a story from a website called rotten.com which has many weird and questionable stories and information on it. One of the articles on Richard Nixon says, "Perhaps best known for faking the Moon landing, 37th US President Richard Milhouse Nixon died on April 22, 1994." Faking the moon landing? This site is obviously an "alternative" news website. No pun intended.

The rotten.com article on McCarthy quotes an article in the Las Vegas Sun, which is a respectable source.

--

"However, such a policy is generally condemned within the lesbian and gay community as an infringement on a person's right to privacy, because of concerns about their family, their right to cope with their own sexuality on their own terms, or the risk of discrimination or loss of reputation."

I find it hard to believe that the gay and lesbian community would want to protect closeted public figures from a "loss of reputation". --User:Cogent


 * I heard that some parts of the gay community clearly were against any evidence of McCarthy being gay, because that would leave other parts of the gay community listing him as a role model, no matter what a stupid jerk he had been in his political career... =P (Not that I think there are any clear evidence, per se.)

Citations Required?
There is quite a list of people here. Shouldnt we have some documentation or citations regarding the statements that those folks are/were gay, lesbian or bisexual? How can someone decide whether a person was added in an attempt to "claim them as one's own" or actually gay, lesbian or bisexual? Lance6Wins 18:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--

Yasser Arafat added 216.153.214.94 06:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Rex, I'm afraid the words "These symptoms sound remarkably AIDS-like, don't they?" are far from "confirmation" Arafat is/was gay. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

famous
It was somehow my understanding that we didn't use words like "famous" and "notable" in the title of List-of lists, because being famous and/or notable is an implicit criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia to begin with. func(talk) 05:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer
I noticed that Wolf Blitzer of CNN was listed on this page. I can find no supporting sources for the assertion that he is gay or bisexual. Can anyone show any credible sources on this matter?


 * The only thing vaguely on that subject was a website that said Michael Savage once implied he was. I think Wolf Blitzer can be safely removed. Mike H 07:15, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I removed Wolf because I could find no information even hinting at homosexuality, but IMDB's bio of him shows that he is currently married and has one child.

Hitler/Julius Caesar
I agree that Caesar should perhaps be removed from the confirmed list - we'll never know for sure. However both his and Hitler are more than due inclusion in the 'Possible' list.

It is common knowledge that Caesar was infamous as a bottom in Ancient Rome where sexuality was not defined, but being submissive was to be mocked.


 * Is that an established fact, or just political propaganda of that era?

Hitler's (and indeed that of many of the Nazi leaders') sexuality is notoriously speculated about by historians, with many TV documentaries being made about the matter.

Caesar: (see Nicomedes III)


 * 
 * 
 * 

Hitler:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Give me time and I'm sure I can find many more than these found via Yahoo (which are themselves speculation enough for inclusion).

Therefore - readded. Debate? -Erolos 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

During Hitler's early life, when he was a soldier during WWI, his comrades alleged he was having a homosexual affair with one of the other soldiers. This is the basis for the speculation about Hitler.

Sponsor Bomis?
The lead-in of this article; besides being remarkably editorial in voice, refers to Bomis as a sponsor of wikipedia, who would be legally liable for any possible litigation. Well, Bomis may well still sponsor the site, but surely the litigation would be of the Wikimedia foundation, and not Bomis? -- unsigned

Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation
this section should be removed completely from this article. wikipedia is an encyclopedia for facts. this much speculation has no place in wikipedia. Kingturtle 05:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that this section should be removed completely with regard to living persons, especially where speculation without basis is used to include someone's name. TotalG


 * I believe this section is useful for reporting that substantial debate exists in the cases of some people, especially those long dead, such as Abe Lincoln (in the new book). However I agree that baseless speculation does not belong. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:17, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

David & Jonathon
I question whether the words used for King David:

King David, King of ancient Israel, bisexual, lover of Jonathan, see 2 Samuel 1:26

should be written as so "black and white." Indeed, 2 Samuel 1:26 does NOT prove that there was a homosexual relationship. The word "love" in the Bible does not necessarily mean "sex" (like the word "know"). Indeed, many military men develop a "love" relationship, sexual or not, in part because of the increased risk of death leads to a need to channel emotions.

Worse that stating uneqivocally is the fact that, of all the entries I wanted to edit, this was one of the few "off limits." Is some powerful person behind the scenes pushing an agenda at "Wikipedia?" 2 Samuel 1:26 should speak for itself, and the words "bisexual, lover of Jonathan" should be modified. For examples, "alleged bisexual, puported lover of Jonathan." In fact, to be honest, it's very unlikely that this childhood friendship was indeed a gay relationship--if it was, it likely would have been covered up. This smacks of historical revisionism, re-interpreting ancient history to fit a present agenda. The very book written by a society that condemns homosexual sex as "sodomy" surely wouldn't have stood for an openly gay king. However, after 3,000 years of "translation" we now arrive at a meaning altogether different, and much shallower, than what 2 Samuel 1:26 intended. What originally meant a "love more meaningful than mere sex" (which is why the allusion to women is mentioned) is now used as "proof" of a sexual relationship.


 * Well you can take it like that, or you can take it to mean that the reason a sexual relationship was not revealed in the Bibel for precisely those reasons - to cover up what was there. Its not proof, there will never be proof. However there is intense theological and historic speculation, not just rumours, so it is included in the debated section - what the debated section is there for. Do remember that entire Gay Christian movements are wholly based upon those lines, so not including them is not NPOV. Personally I wouldn't object to any rewording of the information to include "debated" and "purported" if thats what you feel is neccessary. I don't personally see the point - as they are already under the Debated heading. -Erolos 20:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a brief point here: in the original Hebrew, the word used for "love" in that verse (2 Samuel 1:26) is 'ahabah, which is _not_ the Hebrew verb for romantic / sexual love. People sometimes look at the English translation and jump to conclusions, hence the debate you're referring to; but I think you'll agree that this has no more merit than the rumors published in a tabloid, and should therefore not be used as the basis for including someone in an article.   AWilliamson 03:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well you thought wrong. It doesn't matter where it sprang from, we aren't saying which sources are right and wrong - in the debated section we are trying to include people for whom there is considerable debate within society. David and Jonathon, controversial though such a claim is, are inlcuded amongst those. Rather than have a revert war with you, I suggest we have a vote:

-Erolos 18:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as editors routinely remove entries that are based on rumors - no matter how widely those rumors may be "debated" or how many people may take them seriously - likewise, entries that are based on misconceptions (in this case, linguistic misconceptions) also are supposed to be removed. There's no need to have a vote on the matter. AWilliamson 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed the part where you spoke for society. You can participate in the vote or not, it is up to you. If we removed every person who one person thought should not be included in debated for one reason or another we would not have a list. Try and be mature and realise wikipedia has to be democratic. -Erolos 21:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * That's quite enough. Since editors routinely remove entries that are merely based on supposition, misconceptions, or rumors, etc, there shouldn't have been any need for this discussion in the first place: entries are not supposed to be based merely on whether someone has been "suggested" or "debated", since that would include virtually everyone. The standards, as other editors have pointed out in similar discussions before, are supposed to be higher than that. AWilliamson 03:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears that King David and Jonathan have been removed from the 'debated' section. Based on the presentation of a romantic interpretation at Jonathan and David and at Same-Sex Relationships in the Bible: Conservative and Liberal Viewpoints I think they merit inclusion. (Additionally, regarding early Christian understandings of the 'sin of Sodom' and reasonings offered by early Christian writers for anti-gay views, see John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980) I think NPOV require us to include them in the debated section. As there is currently only one vote in favour (soon to be two:)), and none in opposition, I'll wait a few days, and then re-insert them with a reference to our article on Jonathan and David, for the simple reason that Wikipedia already has a substantial article discussing the controversy. Tobyox 16:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe the standard practice here has always been that you need something more substantial for inclusion, and I don't think you can undo that principle by a vote. This list has always maintained greater restraint than certain others like it, and I think that's to be commended.

Votes
To include in the debated section:


 * King David, King of ancient Israel, bisexual, lover of Jonathan, see 2 Samuel 1:26
 * Jonathan, prince of ancient Israel, bisexual, lover of King David, see 2 Samuel 1:26

For Inclusion

 * Erolos &mdash; see reasons above
 * Tobyox &mdash; see above

Chester Bennington
What is there to suggest Chester Bennington is bisexual?--PaladinDave 07:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree with that. It's nowhere even mentioned in his article. --Fibonacci 3 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

arrau
why claudio arrau is considerer gay homosexual or bisexual?

Davey Havok of AFI
I felt it necessary to move Davey Havok from the confirmed list to the debated list. Davey and his bandmates deny up and down that he is interested in men. While I, and anyone else with half a brain, believe he is bisexual, at least, it is no right to say he is "confirmed" as being something that he says he's not.

Title change
I ryan hyde am gay(: suggest that this page should be moved to "List of famous people's sexual orientations" or something - or a list called "List of heterosexual people" should be added. You know, we don't know the sexual orientation of many famous people and it could be a good and encouraging thing to heterosexuals if they knew some singers or politicians who where openly heterosexual. I don't know many but I know there are some. 213.243.160.111 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bi- and Trans- Cultures Distinct from Lesbian or Gay?
Just to keep the dialogue open on the subject of unique identity... We seem to have reached a point in queer history where (at least in the United States) we no longer huddle together in dark corners, struggling for survival. Queer communities have grown apart, as individuals assimilate into the American melting pot. I call us the "queer diaspora." This dispersion is evidenced by the closing of so many queer community centers and organizations in recent years. "Our" culture has shifted and we're re-defining our relationships with other queer people.

So, what do we have in common, other than being lumped into a group targeted for homophobic discrimination? Do we have a common culture? I noticed that Transgender people aren't on this list. Does gender identity factor into the identities of L,G or B people? I don't have the answers yet, but value the discussion... and hope it will help decide how/whether to merge or separate topics in the future.Deebki 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake, I think, to try to talk about a queer or gay culture vs. a bisexual culture or even vs. a transgender culture. None of these are monolithic, and what we share in common is legalized discrimination against who we are and what we do.


 * Even more than for American Blacks, Jews and other historically oppressed people, what makes for commonality among GLBTQ?T folks is what I'll loosely call homophobia, much more than any shared beliefs or attributes. Until the majority culture has divested itself of discrimination based on sexual orientation, identity, etc., there is every reason to aggregate our concerns and identity into a single community making common cause for the rights enjoyed by the "straight" majority. Jliberty 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as a really strange debate, personally. It's true to say that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people each have a distinct community culture, and that those separate communities also have common elements which unite to form an LGBT community. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Bisexuals, for example, don't generally have their own dedicated neighbourhoods with bisexual bars and bisexual coffeeshops and bisexual community media — the organized bisexual community exists almost entirely within common LGBT space. Yes, it has some features that are unique to it, but it isn't a culture that exists entirely independently of LGBT space. Same goes for the other letters; each has its own unique features but none of them operate entirely outside of any shared connections. Bearcat 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing people on sexual orientations? shouldn't this page be deleted?
I know this might surprise some of you, but making list of people according to political, religious, ethnic origins or sexual orientations may not be a good idea. I've seen, for example, that there is a Category:Gay writers, probably created or supported by LGTB people. But this category identifies gay writers to the "gay people", which maybe they are/were not willing to (remember Michel Foucault's opposition to such "identity politics", whether you agree with him or not). In the same way, before the war, many Jews didn't identify with the Jewish people, and didn't want to. Listing people may be considered a breach of privacy. In any cases, you never know what may happen in the future. Maybe those who support this page should remember that the police lists (with identity and photos) created before WWII were used during Vichy France during raids (such as the July 1942 Rafle du Vel'd'Hiv), as has Giorgio Agamben recalled. I'm not sure whether it is the role of Wikipedia of establishing such lists, such a centralization of information, which goes on with categorizing people who may or may not agree with this categorization, especially taking into account that this is very difficult to delete (that's why I'm not even bothering to lift an AfD request &mdash; I think the people who made this page should themselves think about it, and, if they are LGTB, wonder if this really the best way of following their interests). The state already carries its own lists of "dangerous people" to watch, it might not be a good idea making new lists in order to prepare some eventual lynchings. I don't know if there is a category of "Muslim writers", I hope not, but imagine what it could be to be simultaneously tagged: "Muslim (Shi'a) writer", "Gay writer", "Communist writer": one would be sure to be subjected both to Islamophobia, homophobia and anticommunism. For a relatively famous people, this can attract unwanted attention. A real thought on these issues should be carried on here. Perhaps someone knows where this general theme might be discussed on Wikipedia policies, than I would be grateful if he showed me the link. Lapaz 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ...So Wikipedia shouldn't cover information on noteworthy LGBT people, on the grounds that if a Gay Holocaust occurred at some indeterminate point in the future, Wikipedia could be used to facilitate the slaughtering of LGBT celebrities? ... Is this meant to be a joke, or what?
 * There doesn't need to be a "Gay Holocaust", there has already been a History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust which is so nicely separated from the main Holocaust article. Lapaz 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ""I don't know if there is a category of "Muslim writers", I hope not" - Category:Muslim writers, Category:Christian writers, Category:Feminist writers, Category:Writers by nationality, Category:BDSM writers, Category:Writers by language, etc. -Silence 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * and "Muslim writers" is in Category:Writers by audience? This mean that I can read them only if I'm Muslim? Lapaz 03:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us say that in Europe many considers it to be a breach of privacy. I've always noticed the distance Americans can have toward such concerns; in the same way that they don't always find it very bad taste making jokes about the Holocaust. But it is true that apart of some Japanese people, Operation COINTELPRO and, more recently, thousands of Muslim people, no one in the US has been targeted on ethnic/religious/political grounds. The USA are a democracy, and the world also, why would you be cautious? But, apart of these "paranoiac fears", would you consider that some people, dead or alive, may object to them be listed/categorized this way?Lapaz 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If a person has openly come out as L, G, B or T, then it's hardly an invasion of their privacy for Wikipedia to acknowledge their own public statement. The whole question of identity categorization has been debated a thousand times before on Wikipedia — you didn't actually think you were speaking some brilliant new insight that none of us had ever heard before, I hope — and the conclusion has been that it is permitted under tight guidelines which have been quite carefully hashed out at Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. By the very act of requiring source confirmation, nobody is going to be listed here who isn't already publicly identified with the LGBT community, almost always by their own free choice. People who are added based on unverifiable rumours are immediately removed; people whose orientation isn't easily confirmable are immediately removed. So you can pretty much take your pretense to the moral high ground and...well, I don't really care what you do with it, as long as you get it the hell out of my face. Bearcat 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks I was exactly looking for that page. Than I presume that if it is not precised in the article that the person has openly come out, that one shouldn't be included in such or such category?... Lapaz 06:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what the page says. -Smahoney 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The strongest argument for deletion I can see is that there's already Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, making this list redundant. -- Scientizzle 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the list is still here because the category is only to be used for very specific sorts of clear cases, and there is more room in the list for slight variances, since an article's inclusion can be explained in a list and not in a category. But yeah, I think you're pretty much right.  -Smahoney 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lists and categories don't serve the same purpose on Wikipedia, and are neither interchangeable nor redundant with each other. The list and the categorization policies both explicitly spell out that you can't simply substitute one for the other, because they're not the same thing. Bearcat 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess what I'm saying is that, while I understand those policies, I disagree with them. But whatever - its no big deal.  -Smahoney 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty much ditto for me. I'm not actually advocating deletion of this list. [If this ever came under AfD I'd probably go with a "weak keep" over a "weak delete" vote, with most of my scruples aimed at list/category redundancy and generalized concerns over verifiable additions to the list and categories due to the (unfortunately) sensitive nature of the topic.]  In general, though, it seems there's pretty good control over the list contents... -- Scientizzle 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the best controls of all, I believe, is that there are a number of persons that patrol this list on a regular basis that have known some of the individuals personally and can spot problems Doc 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting statement, since it completely contradicts Wikipedia policies that personal knowledge shouldn't be used for editing purposes on Wikipedia. In other words, you are asking us to accept the "wise control" of some VIPs (let's call them like that :) on the contents of these lists & categories on basis of esoteric knowledge they possess but we don't. How are we laymen suppose to know that these Enlightened Wikipedians really are enlightened? Lapaz 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody asks you to accept anything. New addings regularly inspected by many (non VIP) Wikipedians, which allows to verify them using external references/resources. Without any "esoteric knowledge". Mag2k 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not "esoteric" to have known someone, nor is it "personal research" to add a fact from personal knowledge. The very references that are used in some articles have in many cases gained the information from interviews with some of the very persons that are also registerd editors on Wikipedia. Doc 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that any editor can say they knew someone; it's impossible to prove or disprove the claim. Which is one of the reasons why Wikipedia explicitly states that its goal isn't truth, per se, but rather verifiability. To list a person here, we need to be able to point to sources to prove that a person's sexuality is a known fact, either because they freely came out of their own accord, or were publicly outed by the media, or because historical evidence favours the conclusion. I'm sure every gay person who uses Wikipedia can easily name a few dozen people who should be on the list (Anderson Cooper, anyone?) but can't be added because they haven't officially come out and it would therefore be original research to add them without a verifiable source. Bearcat 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Rictor Norton's My Dear Boy a reliable source?
Norton, Rictor (ed.) My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries. Leyland Publications, San Francisco. 1998 - ISBN 0943595711
 * Note: Amazon offers some preview pages (Cover, TOC, some pages, index)
 * Description of the book at Norton's website: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/dearboy.htm - also here there's a link to an excerpt


 * Pro's
 * Author has Ph.D in Literature
 * Seems respected as a historian
 * as far as I can see the book is not "self-published"
 * as far as I can see neither written in the style of a "pamphlet" nor in "popular press" style


 * Con's
 * Book is a bit on the primary/secondary source border (primary source while essentially a collection of private letters; secondary source while the book provides introductions that places the authors and receivers of these letters in history);
 * Not all introductions pin-point the authors/receivers as "gay" (from a historical perspective): the quoted letters may be endearing and/or suggestive, but not necessarily a "proof" of homosexuality;
 * As far as I can see, the introductions to the letters don't aim at "defining" the concept of homosexuality in pre-modern times: these introductions rather are a guide to the characters that wrote and received the letters. I mean the book rather documents than that it proposes (or proves) theories about who is gay and who isn't.

So, although this is only based on the "previews" I read, and although it is probably a really great book, I'd be careful to use it as a "source" for the purposes of Wikipedia's GLB people list. But that's only my opinion. --Francis Schonken 07:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This book is one of these works which claims that any type of affection, of any kind, would count as evidence of a homosexual romance. While some of the material is probably accurate enough, other portions could serve as a parody of this type of "theorizing". This is not a reliable source.
 * Worse, the offending editor has been adding references from this book to numerous articles, including the biography articles of many persons. Take a look at his edit history. 205.188.116.136 10:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I resent being called the "offending editor" by an obvious sock-puppet. The word "gay" did not exist in the 4th century so it's going to be difficult to say "he calls himself gay!".  Some of the persons that have been reverted have been known to be gay for centuries, this isn't *new*.  It's only new to people who have no idea who these people are, and are gleaning all their data from a slightly-post-Victorian 1911 perspective.  The question of sexuality of each person should be taken up on that person's talk page.  I have a source which states it, you must have a source which contradicts it.  The mere posting of "I don't believe your source", or "your source is an activist!" or "this is controversial!" is insufficient. Wjhonson 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will be the last that needs to be said about this. The inclusion of people on this list has to be based on more than merely a letter in which they expressed some form (any form) of affection for someone of the same sex - this does not prove that the person was gay unless romantic or sexual feelings are clearly indicated.  As ExRat pointed out, Norton's book would not be a valid source. 205.188.116.136 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing :) it's quite peculiar that Mr anonymous seems to be the main one with the problem here.  I would suggest we revert any anon edits period.  If someone is not bold enough to show their face, they shouldn't be an editor. Wjhonson 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wjhonson, Please do not bite the newcomers, Assume good faith. 205.188.116.136, please consider making an account or (if you have one) signing in before editing, as stated in Etiquette. Fram 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a list for people whose sexuality is debated? Wjhonson 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My "issues" with Rictor Norton is that although he is indeed an historian with a Ph.D. in literature, he is a notable former member of the Gay Liberation Front and an activist. Also, FAR more importantly, not everyone he claims to be homosexual is perceived to be gay by other historians - and we had been quite clear on this matter before; If there is significant historical debate concerning an individual's sexuality, they can not be included. This still seems the most reasonable to me for accuracy in encyclopedia inclusions. We do want an accurate list, devoid of politics, agendas, and errors, right? After all, someone of some repute recently wrote a book claiming that Abraham Lincoln was gay...we simply can not list everyone who is/was stated to be gay based on one or two sources - that is original research and Wikipedia forbids it.
 * Our former criteria for inclusion (and I hope this still stands) is that an individual has to have openly proclaimed themselves to be gay/lesbian/bisexual OR that an overwhelming preponderance of reputable historians (with reliable sourcing) agree that the indiiduals were gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Without some sort of decent criteria, virtually ANYONE could be added to this list by someone with a "name" merely suggesting they were homosexual.
 * Also, I will keep reverting all unsourced, one-sourced, historically disputed entries as per WP:RS. ExRat 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a "debated" list at one point; it was deleted per AFD as being too prone to original research and speculation rather than verifiability. Which isn't to say that I agreed with that consensus, because documenting the existence of speculation in other sources is not the same thing as taking a POV stand on the accuracy of that speculation, but the consensus was what it was and we'd have to have a really good reason (i.e. far better than the usual "I think it's useful") to go against it now. Bearcat 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ExRat insists on criteria which eliminate any possibility of including any historical persons. That's not acceptable.  Deleting properly sourced citation, for vague propositions isn't acceptable.  if you have a SOURCE which STATES that a person was not gay or whatever, put that in their article so it can be discussed.  Simply erasing any discussion of it, is not acceptable.  That is called scholarship.  I don't really care if you think Norton was or is an activist.  That is OR.  I'm focusing on him as an RS and your opinion that he is not, is also OR.  It's basically irrelevant to an encyclopaedia.  Now if you can actually come up with a historian who discusses Paulinus' sexuality than be my guest.  That what we're all about. Wjhonson 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, his criteria don't eliminate any possibility of including historical persons; there are plenty of such figures for whom the historical consensus as to their sexuality is clear and unambiguous and uncontroversial. As an analogy to modern figures, we don't include people in this list whose sexuality is subject to unconfirmed rumour; we list people who have come out of their own accord or been outed by reliable media sources. We have to apply a similar standard to historical figures: if it's known or widely accepted that a person had same-sex relationships, they can go on this list, and if it's controversial and/or an isolated assertion supported by only one known source, then they can't. Reading the Paulinus of Nola article, the quotes in question do not clearly support asserting that he was gay; although it's certainly possible to interpret them that way, it's far from clear enough to support his inclusion here. This is not a random list of "anybody who's ever been asserted to be gay by anybody whatsoever"; it's a list of "people who are known to be or have been gay". One person's interpretation of one letter quoted in one book is not a sufficient source, unless other historians have also supported the same interpretation. There's no inconsistency at all. Bearcat 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I reject the notion that one historian saying it means its unreliable. If you want to claim its unreliable the burden is on you, not me, to show that by citing another RS that says that Paulinus of Nola was not gay.  Same for the other examples.  Merely claiming opinion-based priority that "one assertion is not enough" is OR. If you want to dispute Ricter's statements you need to do so on the individual pages, have discussion, come to some conclusion *on the SOURCES* not on opinions about authors which are irrelevant.  Two sources which disagree are one thing, but editors are not here to weigh statements based on personal predujice. Wjhonson 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the burden is on you to provide sufficient sources to confirm that Paulinus of Nola was definitively gay; your existing source proves only that one historian thinks he was, citing as his source a single letter that is far too ambiguous to make that claim indisputable. That, my friend, is original research; disputing the validity of a research source is not.


 * Note that I'm not saying he wasn't gay; I don't know whether he was or not. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't — the source in question only reveals that one person thinks he was, based on his own interpretation of a letter that's quite ambiguous and unclear. The rules of this list are that sources have to be clear, unambiguous and not disputed; a person cannot be on this list if even one of those criteria fails to be met. Bearcat 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editors reverting my sourced and cited text from Paulinus' page will never win this debate. If this anonymous activity doesn't stop I will post an alert to Wikipedians against censorship.  If you want to DISCUSS the text I've posted, then discuss it on the talk page of his article.  These juvenile actions will never win the day. Wjhonson 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this has gone far enough. Several editors have repeatedly explained that a single author cannot be used as the basis for these additions - you need to have either concrete evidence or a broad consensus among reputable scholars, and if you want to add text from a letter to the Paulinus of Nola article then you need to balance it by citing more than merely one activist's "spin" on this letter. You are violating Wikipedia's guidelines, while attempting to shift the focus by accusing me (and presumably the others, if you really think I'm a "sock-puppet") of every allegation you can think of. This is not acceptable behavior, and it has not been a legitimate or reasonable debate. 205.188.116.136 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you do, and you are wrong that there is any consensus. You are deliberately vandalizing pages with sourced and cited scholarly debates for your own POV.  You are the one violating Wiki guidelines.  And I repeat sign in, hiding under an IP won't win this battle.  I have cited my sources, you refuse to cite yours.  In that battle I win, not you.  There is no need for *me* to cite two, three, or fifteen sources.  However there *is* a need for you to cite ANY source in order to revert my well-sourced, and cited, scholarly, previously published information.  If you want a debate, let's debate.  Your juvenile reverting for ridiculous reasons won't stand. Wjhonson 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an administrator, you're the one who's violating Wikipedia policy here, not 205. I would encourage 205 to register a username if possible, but 205 isn't violating any rules here. If you want a debate, so be it; I've posted to RFC for outside input. Bearcat 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
"... it's all about the Verifiability"

However...
 * The old consensus rules governing the GLB people list are not OK with Verifiability in that these rules for the GLB people list accept, even give preference to, primary or self-published sources in this list, that is outside the Wikipedia pages on the persons that produced these sources. In less legalese: Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't accept that a famous person who does his coming out on his personal website is cited as a source on the GLB people list. How this came to be, I don't know. I tried to change that, unsuccesfully. But anyhow *currently* that old rule for the GLB people list is not OK with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * Stated in the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Reliable sources the secondary source parts of My Dear Boy (that is the parts where Rictor gives his interpretation) are the least problematic parts to be used as a source in Wikipedia. And that is about the opposite of what I read in many comments above.

And please, all of you, try to find consensus here first, without name-calling, instead of continuing to revert over medieval clergymen and the like: it's not as if Wikipedia is going to be sued by the Catholic Church for libel when such person is listed a few days too long based on a reliable source, nor as if we're missing an essential piece of knowledge about that Church if that person is missing from the list a few days longer. And finding consensus shouldn't take us more than a few days. That is, if we can handle this in the interest of Wikipedia's quality and not our own. --Francis Schonken 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in RfC section of LGBT notice board too --Francis Schonken 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources --Francis Schonken 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I confess that I am not familiar with Rictor Norton's work nor have I read the entire discussion. However, I think it's worth noting that WP:V is about the verifiability of a statement and not about the truth of a statement.  As I understand it, Rictor Norton's work is verifiable evidence that Rictor Norton THINKS individuals x, y and z are LGB.  It is not proof that x,y, and z ARE LGB.  Any presentation of information based on Rictor Norton's book MUST make this distinction.


 * Same goes for any other figure in history.


 * Even if hundreds or thousands of people in the LGB community or in literary circles or in the entertainment industry think X is LGB, only a self-identification as such is proof positive. Everything else is just speculation and should be presented as such.


 * Of course, incontrovertible evidence of a long-running homosexual relationship is probably pretty close to proof positive also.


 * --Richard 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, and that's the way I'd go about it (except that I wouldn't use "... is proof positive" like you did).
 * But it appears impossible to get that common sense in Verifiability. Go read the policy if you think I'm making this up. --Francis Schonken 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what WP:V has to say about using self-published websites...


 * Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:


 * * It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
 * * It is not contentious;
 * * It is not unduly self-serving;
 * * It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
 * * There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.


 * Thus, if we are sure that X's personal website has been authorized by X and X self-identifies on that website as LGB, then we can fairly safely say "X is LGB". However, if Y says on a website "X is LGB", we need to be really confident that the website is a reliable source.  Even then, all we know is that "Y says that X is LGB".


 * --Richard 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves" is another quote from the same policy page.
 * All self-published sources are considered sources of dubious relibility (see above in the part you quoted: "self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability")
 * So, self-published sources are always considered as sources of dubious reliability, and can not be used outside the article about that self-published source.
 * That's current Verifiability. The writing of that policy is maybe a bit messy and confusing, but that's what it says currently. I don't agree with it, I would at least like to see the writing of that policy a bit tidied up. But the fact is: I can't change it. --Francis Schonken 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If the standard for inclusion on this list as of now is merely that someone of "merit" has speculated, insinuated, stated that a well-known individual was homosexual/bisexual then I propose we include the following individuals (I can find "reliable" sources quite easily):


 * Richard Nixon
 * Adolf Hitler
 * Abraham Lincoln
 * James Buchanon
 * Mohamed Atta
 * Charles, Prince of Wales
 * Rod Stewart . . . etc.
 * Oh, about 75% of every male Hollywood actor of the 20th century.

I am interested to know what the argument against these inclusions would be now since I can quite easily find a source claiming nearly anyone notable is or was gay? There has to be some sort of credible criteria, otherwise nearly anyone can be added by the mere insinuation of homosexuality. I want no part of compiling names for this list if anyone who wishes to add an individual for their own opinion or agenda can add simply by quoting a "reputable" source from anywhere online or any published book. I see even now my deleting of Hans Christian Andersen is being reverted because "some historians speculate" that he was gay. . . ummm. . . is this a list of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people, or a list of "suspected and debated homosexuals"? ExRat 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Nope; yes, its WP:V, but it is also an opinion piece, and espouses views which are not necessarily widely held or agreed to. You can't cherry-pick authors in that way.Bridesmill 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I came here as a result of the RFC. I'm not very familiar with this area but my feeling is that, since you can't have two articles: one of "confirmed" vs. another of "probable or likely" LGB individuals, you might consider having a notation system (a "check" for confirmed by self-proclamation, a "question mark" for unconfirmed sexuality) to indicate the reliability of the designation.  Even a "question mark" would need a source.  Original research would still be prohibited.


 * Thus, people named by Rictor Norton could be assigned a "question mark" as could anybody else whose sexuality is debated.


 * "Check marks" would generally be assigned to self-proclaimed LGB individuals. There would be some difficulty in determining what to do about those individuals who did not self-proclaim as LGB but who are generally accepted/assumed as LGB.


 * IMPORTANT: "Question marks" could only be assigned to deceased individuals on the grounds that labeling someone as "LGB" who has not self-proclaimed as such could be considered libellous.


 * ALSO: "Question marks" need to be backed up by evidence. This could be difficult.  If Rictor Norton identifies X as LGB, how do you come up with a source that says "X is NOT LGB"?


 * Since I am not very knowledgeable in this area, I will leave it to the rest of you to figure out the nuances. (assuming you like my basic idea)


 * --Richard 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While it's not the best example of an edit-war-free article (I responded to an RfC there as well), List of groups referred to as cults places sources next to the group names in green letters (I'm not quite sure I understand the template they use for that). In this case, openly gay folk could just have "open" next to the names. -- SB Johnny 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate this comment. Especially in the light that although gay sex was widespread in the middle ages, they had no proper connotation for proclaiming themselves "open".  To try to fit those circle into square holes is anachronistic and historical revisionism.  I would support the addition of such monikers as "open" and "self-proclaimed" and so on, and others as "speculated" meaning by a academician not a guy-on-the-street as ExRat seems to be pushing.  No one has ever said that a tabloid expose of "Elizabeth Taylor is Gay" would make the cut. Wjhonson 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This list needs to be organized much better than it is. ABC is fine, but's only the minimum, since you seem to have the info referring to what makes this person notable, i would suggest using that as a good way to break up the list even better. wiki guide for stand-alone lists -Zappernapper 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is an RfC? Assuming not every player in RFC is gay, it must have some other meaning. Anyone??


 * RfC is "Request for Comment". You can post such a request somewhere else, when two or more editors appear to be edit-warring with no resolution in sight.  An RfC brings other editors in to look over the situation and make recommendations for how to resolve it. Wjhonson 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion
Trying to summarize the previous discussions: I don't think there's a fundamental problem with Rictor Norton's book in the sense of reliable sources. The problem for using Rictor Norton's book as a source in this list lies elsewhere: for those entries in the list where Rictor Norton is the *only* source, this can be considered as a "tiny minority view", in the WP:NPOV sense:"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." So, for entries like Paulinus of Nola I suppose it would be a good idea to request additional reliable sources in order to show that this is a broadly accepted view. If such sources aren't available, inclusion in the list can be rejected while too doubtful.

I don't see a problem to use the Rictor Norton book in a "Further reading"-like section in the Paulinus of Nola article: after all Norton presents a translation of some of this person's work, and I don't see why that couldn't be mentioned in that article. --Francis Schonken 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And isn't stating this it's a "tiny minority view" your WP:OR or are you citing a source for that? For all you know, every academic expert on Paulinus believe what Rictor stated don't they?  It seems that saying by saying "tiny minority" you're trying to push a particular WP:POV doesn't it? Wjhonson 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (copying this here from RS talk)
 * The problem is that "no other source known" is your opinion. Based on nothing.  That is WP:OR.  Now if you can cite a source which states that then fine. Once a source has been found, to assume that its' minority is WP:OR.  You need a source which states it's minority.  And that source has to show a higher Wjhonson 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This last argument is not very convincing. Please allow me to clarify the terms of this debate. A minority view, by definition, is one held by a minority of people. There is no normative or moral value being placed on the word "minority", it is a strictly descriptive term. Agreed? Now, the disputed source is controversial because of its minority view status. To the extent that Norton is the only known person making a particular claim, Norton is espousing a minority view, and it should be treated as a minority view until further evidence comes to light. Wjhonson, I would also like to point out that your logic in the above post could be used to argue against you:  Suppose you found sources supporting your view that Norton does not hold a 'minority view' - in fact, you found two other authors who support his claims independently. Using the logic in your last post, I could (wrongly) argue that you've conducted original research in searching for and finding these corroborating sources, and that the information should not be included in the article. And that would be bad, right? So then it's a pretty good thing that WP:OR really only applies to the addition of content, not to the process of finding (or not being able to find) sources. Let's try not to bend wikipedia's policies.  BFD1  20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To say that Norton is the *only* one espousing a certain view is WP:OR. Do you have a source for that statement?  In some cases, I can assure you, that there is *no* reputable scholar who does not agree that James I was gay (at least for part of his life).  Not one reputable scholar.  So where is this minority view? Wjhonson 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And no, finding a source is not WP:OR. Making statements out of your own head that "Norton has a minority view" is WP:OR.  Finding Professor John Brown in Historia Vol 43, p 9 states that "Norton has a minority view"" is NOT WP:OR.  My objection is that editors are making off-handed comments that have no backing.  We are not originators of debate, we are the editors who *post* the debate of *others*.  That is what the articles are supposed to be, and on these articles pages, too often they are the original ideas of the editors here.  That's a problem. Wjhonson 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are still confused about the meaning and application of WP:OR. This debate would be resolved if you could cite these other reputable sources who showed that James I was gay. BFD1  20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're confused about what WP:OR is. OR is not doing research.  OR is *creating* new facts.  Finding a fact in an encyclopaedia is not OR.  Can we agree on this point? Wjhonson 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't read this whole discussion (too long!) but I've read bits and pieces of it.

I agree that "OR is creating new facts". It is also stating a fact or opinion without supporting evidence (i.e. asking us to believe the assertion on your say-so rather than that of a reliable source). If the assertion is something that "everybody knows" but for which no there is no reliable source, it is vulnerable to the charge of being OR. Sorry, but them's the rules.

I think we should stop flinging around the charge of OR in this discussion. You have one reliable source (Rictor Norton) that says X is/was gay. IMO, that's enough to include persons A,B and C on this list. If including person A on the list is disputed despite Norton's assertion, then it is up to the disputant to provide a source that disputes Norton's characterization of A as gay. All it takes is one source. It's not critical to determine whether Norton's view is the majority view or the minority view. All you need is one reliable source that says Norton was wrong. Then you can put both views in the list (A's sexuality is debated - Norton says gay, Other reliable source says not)

Now, you might also look for evidence that Norton's view was a minority view. But that's a second-order issue.

I assert that you cannot characterize Norton's view as "minority" or "majority" without another reliable source supporting that characterization.

Maybe you need a vote on what the rules are for putting someone on the list. Is it sufficient to have one single reliable source or does it require more than that? User:ExRat asserted earlier that he/she could find a reliable source arguing that the following were gay:


 * Richard Nixon
 * Adolf Hitler
 * Abraham Lincoln
 * James Buchanon
 * Mohamed Atta
 * Charles, Prince of Wales
 * Rod Stewart . . . etc.
 * Oh, about 75% of every male Hollywood actor of the 20th century.

Assuming that User:ExRat really can find such sources, should we include the above in the list? If not, why not?

--Richard 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was bein' snarky. I don't really wish to add them - I was trying to make a point that nearly anyone could be added to this list based on the criteria some people are/were using to add individuals. ExRat 03:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is apparently some evidence to suggest Abraham Lincoln was friends with Martha and Arthur.
 * I also daresay at least 75% of every Hollywood actor, too.
 * Nuttyskin 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For a currently living person, the only acceptable source is the person's own statement; for a deceased person (who obviously can't make a public statement of their sexuality), the only acceptable source is a reasonably broad consensus of scholars. One scholar simply doesn't cut it, especially when that scholar's primary source is ambiguous and unclear in its actual meaning. It is not original research to say that one single solitary source isn't good enough — as I've said before, this is not a list of "anybody who's ever been speculated to be gay by any source whatsoever"; it's a list of "people whose homosexuality is/was an incontrovertibly known fact". Paulinus simply does not meet the latter criterion. Bearcat 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But for person X, whether or not there is "broad consensus of scholars" is not in evidence. You want to revert based on your "belief" without any support that there isn't.  I have never stated, nor do I state, that Norton is the only one who supports this view.  He is a source.  You have no source for saying that X is not "widely believe by scholars" to have been gay.  Therefore reverting is WP:OR based on your unfounded assertion that X being gay is not "widely believed by scholars". Wjhonson 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. The onus is on you to provide sufficient sources to support his inclusion here; one ambiguous source is not enough unless you can prove that other sources do express the same opinion. It is not anybody else's responsibility to find a source that says he wasn't gay — for one thing, it's impossible to prove a negative, and for two, "so-and-so wasn't gay" isn't the kind of thing historical sources are generally going to go out of their way to say in the first place. Bearcat 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly my thoughts as well. If an individual is going to add names to this list it is their responsibility to provide the necessary sources to show that they should indeed be added. It is not everyone else's responsibilty to prove them wrong. Obviously my list of "possible inclusions" was slighty in jest, but I was trying to make the point that nearly anyone (by some people's assertions) could be included simply becasue some person stated somewhere that they are/were/were possibly gay . . . and that indeed would make for a very long, inaccurate and chaotic list. I don't see how it is not a good idea to have some sort of good concise criteria for inclusions - and I think Bearcat has stated it well. I for one am in agreement: an individual must have publicly stated that he or she was gay or that an overwhelming (sourced) majority of scholars agree that the individual was. We can not nilly-willy go deciding on our own (Original Research) who was and was not gay. ExRat 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you're attempting to mischaracterize. We are not talking about "some person said so-and-so was gay".  We are talking about WP:RS, who are WP:V and scholarly, with credentials to back them up, said it.  That's quite a different matter entirely.  An individual cannot state they are 'gay' when 'gay' did not exist in their time period.  Can you try to address that at all? Wjhonson 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's already been addressed more than once: for dead people, a consensus of scholars is sufficient. Not one scholar; a consensus of scholars. Bearcat 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And you revert, not because a "consensus" of scholars says they *are* or *aren't*. You revert merely based on your unfounded claim, assertion, or belief that that is the case.  You have failed to cite any source whatsoever.  That is WP:OR. Wjhonson 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not original research; the rules require that you provide sufficient sources to support that the claim is actually true. You are the one perpetrating original research here, not anybody else. Bearcat 23:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, your opinion that a source is not reliable is OR. That opinion is based out of your own head, that is what Original Research is.  You are creating the impression that a particular published PhD is not reliable.  Your creating of this "fact" is original research.  If you can post a reliable source which itself states that another source is unreliable that would not be original research.  You've been told this many times already.  Your opinion has no place on wikipedia. Wjhonson 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with User:Bearcat - we already established a long time ago to ensure a reliable listing of individuals that more than one source (a consnsus of scholars) should be used whenever possible for inclusion of dead historical figures. Otherwise we will have a most unruly, unreliable listing of nearly anyone of public note. I am sure anyone can find a "reliable" source claiming nearly anyone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. As far as reverting based on our "POV" or "unfounded claims" or "opinions" - no, we revert because you often cite some obscure source that generally is debabtable by many historians. The criteria was: an individual must have stated openly that they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual or that there is a historical consensus that they were - not that some lone PhD stated, hinted at, or insinuated somewhere that they were. We all want an accurate list devoid of POV or agendas, correct? So, please explain to me what is wrong withthis criteria? I do not understand this. Is it that you feel certain people will not be included based on this? If this is the case, then possibly they shouldn't be included because there is not sufficient data to prove they were gay, lesbian or bisexual. This is supposed to be an accurate list of known gays and lesbians, not debated ones. ExRat 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Undent. But the fact that the sexuality of "x" is "debated" is itself a "fact" that needs a citation. So far, that citation is sorely lacking. The mere statement by another editor that "x's sexuality is debated" is itself WP:OR without a source. Wjhonson 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, i saw this on RfC and didn't realize how heated things had become. Wjhonson and Bearcat, I hope the past few day have let you calm down... XD  IMO the idea of requiring strict self-admission for living persons is debilitating b/c there are several increasing instances where it will be hard for someone to nail down an article that so-and-so specifically said they're gay. it may be better to allow leniency in the case of say an interview where the article/cast refers to them as gay but it's not like the question, "are you gay?" is ever asked.  Another extension should be for biographies written of people who are still alive but out of the limelight.  An interesting question is raisd though then in the case of certain people who relate in auto-biographies that they've had homosexual experiences but always maintained a straight orientation... where do they fit in?  All deceased persons (unless explicitly stated in a pre-mortem self-admission) should be considered debatable because we can never know if they themselves would have identified as such.  Quite personally i think this list is unmaintable as this sort of classification too fluid, and for all the technicalities involved.  With disagreements over what lgb even is how can we even start to list people according to it?
 * To Wjhonson - when writing a research paper it is always recommended to look at your source's sources. Perhaps rather than relying on Norton (or whoever) we should find out where he obtained this data and use that as the reference, good historians (like he is reputed to be) always leave footnotes XD (stupid colon making paragraphs and disrupting me from non-squinty smiling)  This is merely a suggestion in order to try and appease everyone, but like i said, i don't like the idea of this list and if it were AfD I'd be tempted towards delete on grounds of WP:LC (unmaintanable), and too broad.  if these issues somehow get ironed out, the list is further broken down into something more manageable, and someone can explain how we can group people based on something people all over the world have different perceptions of... i think this would become a much more worthwhile list and a great addition to wiki. Zappernapper 09:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And another newcomer chimes in. Personally, it seems to me that when dealing with historical personages, we should follow the stated wikipedia guidelines regarding consensus of experts.  The simple citation of a source within a book which could be easily seen as advancing its own perspective does not meet that criterion.  I also would tend to agree that, if this data were being put in as a separate article, this one source would not in and of itself necessarily qualify as being sufficient for the inclusion of such an article.  We also have to acknowledge that there could well be individuals who have made such allegations in the past for less-than-honorable reasons (political hackwork, selling tabloid newspapers, etc.), who if cited as sources would not themselves qualify as good sources.  However, I would agree that, if the list could be broken down into groups along the lines of "known willing active homosexuals", and all the variations thereon (known/suspected, willing/unwilling), much of that might be useful.  I would question the significance of "victims of homosexual rape" if such an article or grouping were to ever be made, given the difficulty in verifying the truth and importance of same in several cases, but would have no real objections to the others.  Badbilltucker 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill I absolutely agree that we should use "consensus of experts" I would add "modern experts" since modern, critical, re-analysis, can correct errors of the past, for example on Walt Whitman. You're also correct that we should cite WP:RS which would exclude tabloids.  And you're further correct that a victim of rape would not qualify.  The core-issue here however is w hether an editor opinion that a citation is not consensus is a valid objection.  My argument is that such editor should cite a reliable source for that position.  As editors we should not be trying to advance our own point-of-view, but we should allow the sources themselves to do battle without our own feelings coming into play. Wjhonson 16:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the Reliable sources page, it seems to me that the questions here are (1) is the source itself reliable, or is there a potential conflict of interest, and (2) does the proximate source (the book in question) cite other reliable sources for its own conclusions? There is a very serious danger in trying to classify people who are both dead and from different eras according to the cultural norms of our day, and it seems to me that someone who might "look like" they belong to a specific group might not in fact have been seen as such in their own time, and that such judgements might qualify as speculation on the part of the writer.  The Sally Hemmings case comes to mind here of a modern view of a historical figure which was not held at the time, was briefly a period of major discussion, and is, now, counterindicated by the subsequent evidence which has arisen.  It does seem to me, having not read the book but simply the comments here, that the writer and/or the book itself are not universally regarded as reliable, and in that case citation of the writer's sources or other supporting documents would be welcomed.  Any names mentioned by the author in the book which are not agreed upon by the other reliable sources on the individual where the author does not cite clear and specific other evidence to verify his conclusions should not be included.  Also, again, I think a breakdown according to whether it is known or alleged, willing or unwilling, and, yes, by frequency would probably be called for.  A very well known science fiction writer has said in an interview that he engaged in one act of "experimental" homosexual contact as a teenager.  However, having read biographies and autobiographies of the man himself, there is no evidence to indicate that that single act of homosexual contact should qualify him as a homosexual, as all the other evidence would seem to contradict it.  Similarly, we would not say that anyone who has ever been drunk once would qualify as an alcoholic.  I am drawing no comparisons between homosexual behavior and alcoholism by saying that, however.  Lastly, it seems to me, as an "outsider" to this discussion, that there is a very serious possibility that we may be ourselves "catching the wave" of a cultural trend which may (or may not) collapse in the future.  On the basis of the rambling and semi-incoherent comments above, I would conclude that the best way to address this situation would be to (1) defer inclusion in the list of any individuals who are mentioned in the source who are not known to qualify for inclusion on the basis of other reliable sources or whose inclusion is not justified by clear and convincing new evidence mentioned in the book itself, and, (2), break down the names into smaller groups based on degree of certainty, willingness, and frequency.  Such breakdowns of list are rather common, supported by wikipedia guidelines, and provide more information than a simple list alone does.  If there is a number of people who wind up being in the "unknown" category, creating a separate group of people who are assumed by some to have been GLBT but who cannot be proven to be such would also be I think acceptable to all sides, provides the rules for living people are followed. Man, I take a long time to get to the point, don't I? Sorry about that. Badbilltucker 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And does it occur to you that that's an awful lot of speculation about a source, by people who themselves have not read that source? And should speculation by a source, by people unfamiliar with that source, be the basis for decisions in wikipedia now? Seems awfullly tenuous to me. I, however, have read, and have this source, and in my opinion it is very thorough and meticulous in its research, and does include its sources and acknowledgements. The knee-jerk reactions of a few editors unfamiliar with the material doesn't impress me as scholarship. Wjhonson 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're really wedded to the idea that challenging the authority of a source somehow constitutes original research. Well, it doesn't. If it did, anybody could literally post anything they wanted on Wikipedia, on the grounds that any disagreement constituted original research. That's not the way it works; the only person creating new facts in this debate is Rictor Norton himself. The list has been very specific from day one; for a person who isn't alive any longer to voluntarily come out, the only acceptable basis for adding a person to this list becomes a consensus of scholarly opinion. Not one source. A consensus. So if you want Paulinus on the list, the onus is on you to show us that a consensus exists. Bearcat 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Based on the definition of this list and the debate on this page, I agree with the editors who consider Paulinus insufficiently documented for inclusion. One source does not qualify as a consensus. Durova 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD for gay photographer
Some of the input on the Articles for deletion/Edgar de Evia may wish to be addressed by persons following this page. There have been comments such as "had a succession of boyfriends. I don't see anything noteworthy about being rich or having boyfriends." and "And the non-photographic (his boyfriends, cars, apartments, etc.) seems trivial at best" To begin with how anyone can find a "succession of boyfriends" is beyond me, there are only two significant relationships mentioned and unless they intend to remove every spouse from other articles then this is discriminatory at the very least. It is mentioned in the article that both the cars and the houses were sets for and drawing cards for significant photographic accounts. Thanks for any input. Doc ♬ talk 13:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested merge of List of bisexuals into this list

 * Oppose merge of List of bisexuals into this list - While there is overlap I do believe that there is an independent value to the List of bisexuals Doc 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what snoopy said. Don't move the list. I imagine the person comptemplating that is monosexual. -pingpong


 * We need a trisexual person to act as an impartial judge. Ruby 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge, if such lists are going to be on here then bisexual persons warrant a standalone list. That said, the listing could stand improvement, especially sources. Evolauxia 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If this debate has now been settled, which I also Oppose, can we please remove the merge tag?Dev920 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose proposed merge of List of bisexuals and also suggest separate lists for those well-known people for each of the other sexual orientation minorities such as Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered or Asexual.  Being a bisexual man, you might think I'd like a larger list of individuals to help others come to terms with such a misunderstood sexual orientation, however, I feel we bisexuals NEED an identity of our OWN, not lumped into the LGBT community to be quickly disposed of or grouped as homosexuals - we are NOT - not that there is anything wrong with that.  TednAZ 07:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality references
Hi. I have just been looking through this list and discovered that a lot of the people listed who should be marked as Homosexual, are in fact listed as "Queer". Now some people (including myself, I must add) consider Queer to be a derogatory term for Homosexuals. I am just wondering whether this is a deliberate way of entering such people, or whether someone has in fact been vandalising the page, and just done this for a bit of a laugh. See the entry on Greg Araki to see what I mean. Thanks for keeping the list up to date though...maybe one day I will be famous enough to go in it. Thor Malmjursson 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't definitely say all the rest aren't vandalism, but I labelled Greg Araki queer because that's how he identifies. Likeweise Lisa B. I think the links provided should mention that. I don't like the word queer, but if people want to use it, we should document that. DevAlt 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) P.s., do you want to join us? :)

List with all people
I think it would be good to create List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/All, with transclusions of all lists. A.Z. 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would be obscenely large to little purpose. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be easier to navigate. A.Z. 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It really wouldn't. Particularly for people on slow connections. Put it all together in a user subpage and see. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The current pages could remain as they are, but there would be a link to the page with the transclusions with a warning next to it such as "This page may take several minutes to load". A.Z. 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Article
This article is currently undergoing its fourth nomination as AfD here. Some legitimate points have been raised during this discussion. Perhaps some changes to this article and sub-articles will deflect future criticism and obviate the need for future revisits to the AfD issue.

Some points raised: - why is it notable to be gay? - this list can never be completed. - what is the point of this list, Wikipedia is not a support group.

Thus some suggestions:

1. Consider adding a section to either the article or this talk page (and preserve after archiving) along the lines of:
 * Notability - given the historical, and in some parts of the world, on-going discrimination faced by persons of variant sexuality, it is useful to provide a comprehensive list of their presence and accomplishments throughout history and in the present.

2. Consider renaming the article to "List of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people"
 * - The list as currently named can never be complete. My friend Deb isn't on it, for one, and she never can be - if I added her the change would be immediately reverted as she is not notable. Thus by definition, it is a list of "notable" people. Also it is a list of people referenced by Wikipedia, thus notable people.
 * - Changing the article title would seem to be at variance with similar list titles such as List of jews or List of Canadians. However there is nothing wrong in being the first to do something properly.

3. Consider also including in the name and listing Transgendered people. I believe this has been debated before. The argument here is that these people will have for some portion of their lives faced the same challenges as GLB individuals and are thus worthy of inclusion in this listing. This is not necessarily to include the notability of the discrimination faced by these persons "post-trans" but instead to reflect the similarity of their "pre-trans" lives.

4. Change the lead-in wording of this and associated articles to better express the nature of the list. The current wording of the introductory sentence of this main article (as of writing) is "This is a referenced overview list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people." This seems near optimal - perhaps "and" not "or". If this is acceptable, change also the sub-articles to conform.

5. Consider removing those entries where the note is "sexuality disputed." These don't seem to be compatible with the intention of the list and could be construed as innuendo. Removing these would render the list more authoritative and less subject to challenge. Especially consider WP:BLP.

6. Consider revamping the format of the article to bring it in line with other Lists as cited above. These organize their content by categories such as musician, scientist, philosopher, writer... rather than presenting a simple alphabetical listing. Of course this would be a huge job but would make this article easily defensible if combined with the suggested changes above.

This article contains an impressive amount of research and detailed referencing. Making some of these changes would possibly prevent the continuous challenges and make refutation easy should they arise in future, as well as making the article even more encyclopedic. Franamax 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename?
Could this page possibly be renamed "List of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual people? Seems like it keeps getting renomed for deletion because others think that the people on the list are not "out" (or should I say were not out)...   L' Aquatique    talk  to  me   15:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are secretly gay, there will be no neutral third party sources documenting it. Hence they will not be on this list. To be honest, I am starting to question the intelligence of the people who are raising these points: how can we possibly be outing people if there's a reliable reference for every entry? If the entire list is composed of blue links, why claim it's full of non-notable people? I despair for humanity when I read comments like that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree with both statements. Article should not be including "openly" as that's largely subjective and in many cases not true. Also someone can be quite secretive about their sexuality or many other aspect and that information can be later revealed by a lover or from unearthed documents. Regardless the article title is fine and Dev920, please don't despair! After all the current US president states "are our children learning?" I bet they are! Benjiboi 02:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The same standards should be applied in regards to evidence as for other biographical information. Being "out" or not, identifying with a label is beside the point. In 2007 it is only among the bigoted minority that sexuality is a fact different from place of birth, religion, education, marital status, etc. No one turns a hair at lists of people from Poughkeepsie, Methodists, Yale grads, bigamists (whether out or not as any of those things). Soane 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you can do this summer
Perhaps someone should follow up these names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * This is a discussion page heads up for the the possible improvement of this list. It is vandalism to remove it. It is not part of an article. 62.64.201.170 16:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism to remove clutter which doesn't help improve the article and this is one massive spam farm although it does seem to be LGBT-focussed. Please make specific suggestions rather than telling people to check out the website that is littered with all manner of banners, links and rainbow-related ... stuff. rather than stating "someone should follow up these names" simply list the names and any non-commercial links about them. Benjiboi 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a page full of spam and then a list of "gay and lesbians", without sources, a lot written in French.. I guess it could be used as a starting point for names to research elsewhere but it shouldn't be used as a definitive source for someone's sexual orientation.   ALLSTAR    ECHO  17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image sizes
One user (User:Moe Epsilon who has "retired") has complained about the image sizes, but per WP:MOS, they really shouldn't be set. I'm resetting them to be standard thumb size. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please consider using a gallery feature like the below example instead. Whenever I look at these articles I have the tables content blocked by the overlying photos regardless of size, these are the only pages that this happens to me. I would also recommend breaking at least W-Z list up as it's so large. Benjiboi 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch out for vandalism that violates WP:NPA
This looks like an obvious location for vandalism in which someone claims someone else "is gay" (which is a slur in some circles). As such, people claiming others to be "gay" without substantiation might be making personal attacks, especially if the person is not notable. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 05:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rickyrab - you're right. Though the article does start off with "notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people", so notability is important.  With respect to "claiming", each entry is carefully sourced with reliable references, so NPAs, rumors and innuendos are removed.  -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, template used for ledes
"Templates should usually not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. This does not apply to templates which are transcluded onto multiple articles, such as templates that display the introduction for a long list (which is split into multiple smaller lists), because it would be extremely tedious to edit the same text in many different articles every time a change is made."

- per Wikipedia:Template namespace

For those that are lazy like me and want to avoid editing multiple articles when not needed. Benjiboi 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hah! Good - I've got a bit of cleaning up to do, then :)  Thanks, Benjiboi!!!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A list editor in need is a list editor indeed! Benjiboi 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Combine "Notes" and "Reference"
Let me see if I can devise a RegExp to combine those two columns. Give me a day or so to work that out. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Profession column
So let's decide on the column name:
 * Profession
 * Notability
 * This would be my first choice SatyrTN (talk / contribs)
 * Significance
 * My second choice SatyrTN (talk / contribs)


 * What about "Notable as" or "Significant as"? Grammar-wise, somehow it seems more natural to answer, "Actor" or "Politician" or "Partner of composer Benjamin Britten" to these headings than it does to "Notability" or "Significance", if that makes sense. --Melty girl (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Notable as" seems the best way of describing notability. I orginally added profession for lack of a better column name, but that sounds much more descriptive. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Notable for"?, I wonder as well for folks who are notable for two or more things. Benjiboi 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Notable for" doesn't preclude listing more than one thing (as long as it doesn't get too long). "Profession" didn't either, BTW. --Melty girl (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting change - test run
I've made the following changes to W-Z: Take a look and let me know what y'all think. In a day or two I'll tackle all the rest. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Combined "Notes" and "References" columns into "Notes" with an explanation.
 * Changed the column heading for "Profession" to "Notable for"
 * Added L, G, or B for each entry


 * Looks great to me. One small change -- the wording we discussed was "Notable as". At the end of the thread we accidentally started talking about "Notable for," but this would require a lot of changes. "Notable as" ...Actor, Politician, etc. works, but "Notable for" Actor, Politician doesn't work -- it would have to be "Notable for" ...Acting, Holding political office, etc. --Melty girl (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me, though I agree on the notable as point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The last two columns are hidden from me by the images which overlap onto them, I trust y'all though so I'm not terribly bothered otherwise. Benjiboi 21:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting to tables.
I think we need to move these lists into tables. I think Name, Dates, Nationality, Notability and Reference as columns would be best. What does everyone else think? Dev920 (Tory?) 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Par example:

Dev920 (Tory?) 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Shall I assume then that everyone approves of this? Dev920 (Tory?) 15:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, then. Conversion begins as soon as I have time. I will start with A, and work my way down the list. Other editors' help would be appreciated. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Template change for tables?
It appears the grid lines were mysteriously removed from the tables today. I admit it looks cleaner and takes up less space, but it makes it a little harder on the eyes to match references with names. Comments? --67.188.0.96 09:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just looked and they seem fine. Can you provide diffs of this happening? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The gridlines weren't there on the 24th, but now they're back again. Go figure. --67.188.0.96 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some tables too wide?
In the "G" section, the images are getting clipped by the overly-wide table. --JerroldPease-Atlanta (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea to sort the names
I would like to point out the names have been entered first name(s), then surnames. This column really can't be sorted since it will sort by the first name.

Also, the dates column can be a problem, since some entries start with a b. and for those that have passed, it doesn't so that the death year can be added.

Any suggestions? CubBC (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While it takes some extra work, there is a way to add a hidden sort key to tables of this type: add Surname before the person's name. This is already used, with leading zeros as the sort key, to ensure that radio station lists, for example, sort correctly by frequency. I don't necessarily have a problem with the way the dates column sorts, since it has the result of separating living people from dead ones, but if other people feel strongly about it, one option would be to separate birth and death years into separate columns, and another would be to add Year  before the "b." if the person is still living. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * the names are sorted automatically on opening the page. Sorting allows nationalities or L/G/B to be brought together. Also it orders the dobs of dead people, then the dobs of living people. Not so bad. Soane (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Criteria
So are there settled criteria for inclusion in this list? If there are, shouldn't they appear at the top of the article? The list of bisexual people does not include living people unless they identify with the word "bisexual" - although they may be perfectly open about their relationships with or attractions to men and women. Does that apply here too? Soane (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. The description just says "notable gay, lesbian, and bisexual people."  The WikiProject has some guidelines on when people are considered LGBT:
 * Identification and/or categorization of individuals is first off bound by Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons. After taking that into account:
 * a. A person may be categorized and/or identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender if they themselves identify as such, regardless of relationships or apparent gender, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
 * b. A person may be categorized and/or identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender if they had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
 * c. Reliable sources allege the person to be, or have been, in relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.
 * I suppose that should be spelled out in the list? Or is it too self-referential? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So taken all in all, if,  for example, Julie Burchill (a living person) has written articles about her relationships with men and women, she can go on the list of bisexual people, even if she hates the word? Because the bully who has taken charge of the list of bisexual people has removed dozens of people because they don't use the word "bisexual" about themselves.  Soane (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not the final judge, and I suspect bringing the issue to WP:LGBT would be a good idea. We had a terrible row, including emails to OTRS, from Jay Brannan because he didn't want to have the words "openly gay" in his Wikipedia article, even though he's used those words to describe himself in RS press.  So I don't know.  My opinion is keep them on the list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New additions
Someone who maintains this/these lists might want to check the names listed in the Gaylactic spectrum awards article, and the 3 nominees list articles.

I suspect most of these authors are LGBT and the award itself makes them notable, but many are not listed here. Eg Lawrence Schimel, who has written many LGBT fiction and non-fiction books and founded an LGBT organisation. Neither is enough for me to add him, but it is pretty obvious that exclusion from the list would be wrong. Maintaining coprehnsiveness for the FLs means these need to be checked out (which is too much work for me!)Yobmod (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

 * Withdrawn by user (reasoning: per comments here and at WT:LGBT, does not appear it will gain further traction at this time) Please post any new comments related to this in a new section below, thanks.

Whereas: Proposal: Thoughts......? Outsider80 (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is currently a megalithic list split into 19 parts.
 * Even though bisexuals are included, there already exists a separate list of bisexual people (separated into 4 parts). (And while not included in the GLB list, List of transgender people also has its own list.)
 * Merge/move all bisexual listings from the GLB list into List of bisexual people (if there are any people or citations that do not exist there already).
 * Benefit: Less dupication, and easier maintenance (less double-work), which is especially beneficial when maintaining BLP topics.
 * Of the remaining listings, split into separate lists (List of gay men and List of lesbians), which would offer the following benefits:
 * Benefit: Consistency with transgender & bisexual lists, which already exist as stand-alone lists.
 * Benefit: An "A"-name gay man has more in common with a "Z"-named gay man, than he does with lesbians who just so happen to have the same first letter of their last name as him. The reverse is true for lesbians. By splitting into Gay & Lesbian (instead of all GLB people of a specific last name start-letter) This produces a better organized list for WP readers. Wikipedia occupation categories for LGBT people (i.e. "Gay actors", "Lesbian artists", etc. already are split into off by lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc.)
 * Support sounds good to me. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose ::I think it is a bad idea. It is sometimes very difficult to be sure if a person is Bi compared to G or L. The combined list could allow for such ambiguity. Is Oscar Wilde Bi or gay? Or Samuel Delany (who identifies as gay, but had children and a wife). Ig the lists are competely split, how will ambguiuty be addressed? If a reader knows a person was married with kids and presumes they are therefore Bi, which list should they check?


 * I would prefer a split to "Gay and Bi men" and "Lesbian and Bi women". At least gender has fewer problems with identifying. The Bi list is a content fork that identifies people by their behviour only, often ignoring how they self-identify.YobMod 10:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that's an interesting idea. It would acheive the goal of simplified BLP maintenance by not having separate Bisexual and GLB lists (bisexuals being listed in 2 different lists), and would address the ambiguity issue you mentioned. (& would also split the current 19-part giant megalithic alpha-sorted list into more meaningful/less phonebookish groupings) Though it would be a cisgender split, there is already a separate list for Transgender (so this might actually be a sort of "Series" of lists ( Women, men, transgender ) -- & transwomen and transmen would also fit in the men & women lists if they are GLB-identified. Support. Outsider80 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * withrawing proposal -- based on initial comments here & at WT:LGBT, appears unlikely to go any further at this time. Outsider80 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to list
(moved from discussion on a user talk page)

Hi, Melty girl! You've been changing the LGBT lists, and I wanted to run some things by you for your opinion.

First, you should know that I shepherded S through Z lists through the FL process, so I may exhibit WP:OWN - I'll try not to :)

Taking T-V as an example, I'm a bit worried about the wikilinks you changed. Things like not linking *many* of the occupations (Jazz musician, Memorist, LGBT rights activist, etc). Shouldn't the first instance of each occupation be wikilinked?

Also, I had been trying to keep the professions pretty general, mostly so that column didn't get overwhelmed. For instance, I would just put "Musician" rather than "Jazz musician", or "Composer" rather than "20th century classical composer". When that column has a lot of text, it makes each row longer.

Thanks for all your work on the lists - in general, they've needed another set of fingers to clean them up a bit, and I'm glad you're doing it :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of service. The lists are great, and some of them seemed to be badly in need of MOS help.


 * About the wikilinks... this was not my main focus, so I have to admit that I may have been somewhat inconsistent there. Also, each list seemed to have different styles. But here's my take on it: as I learned when shepherding an article through FAC, WP:OVERLINK states that plain English words should not be linked simply to for a definition. A wikilink should offer helpful context. In this case of these people lists, offering a wikilink for each occupation the first time it appears is not necessarily helpful. For example, is it truly helpful to wikilink writer or politician? I don't think so, and I don't think a rationale of symmetry for first mention of every occupation overcomes the argument of WP:OVERLINK. That said, I do think some occupations should certainly be linked -- I added some myself in many instances -- and I don't think I was necessarily consistent about this issue. What do you think about this? After we discuss it, I could go back over the lists with this issue more primarily in mind -- or we both could.


 * Second, again with the idea of helpfulness foremost, while I see where you're coming from on the profession column width, I think it is possible to go so generic that the data is barely helpful to list readers. "Musician" and "Composer" encompass such a wide range of things, and they don't really give the reader much information. Saying "Pop musician" or "Rock musician" or "Classical musician" offers so much more, and doesn't take up much space in exchange for the helpful info it conveys. I agree that "20th century classical composer does take up a lot of space, and could be shortened to "classical composer." But I still think it's worth noting "classical composer" versus "musical theater composer" -- they're very different. And so many other listed people's professions are longer than one word or list more than one thing, so I don't think it's necessary to go radical on all the musicians and composers and make them be just one word and thus unnecessarily generic. Also, I'll just note that the format for listing musicians was far from coherent, and that was a main part of my focus. Some were labelled "singer-songwriter", some were "singer", some were "drummer", some were "bassist, composer, lyricist," and so on. I made the format uniform, changing everyone to "<> musician," with the occasional addition of "(<>)" for people not famous outside of their band. I think this is a big improvement over the previous sprawl. For one thing, most latter-day musicians write music, so it's usually unnecessary to also say "songwriter" or "composer" -- "Composer" is for musicians not primarily known as performers. Also, singers are musicians; the singer versus musician (instrumentalist) division is false, and anyway, many, many lead singers also are instrumentalists, so this was unnecessarily narrow. Unless every musician is going to be listed by instrument(s), singers shouldn't be. So all this is where I'm coming from on the musician issue... and there's more that could be done for other professions. (BTW, I also got rid of the unnecessarily gendered "Businessman" and "Businesswoman".) I look forward to your comments.


 * Last, the issue that I realized I was confused about halfway through this pass was the "Profession" column. I suddenly realized that that's what the title of the column was, but many people listed did not make the list because of achievements in their professions. In most of those cases, they were listed because their partners' significance made them well-known, they were activists, or they were criminals or victims. It seems misleading to list readers to put their profession and not their claim to fame that got them on the list. I wonder if the "Profession" column might be better titled "Significance" or something like that, or if the "Notes" field should be used more. What do you think? --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow - you got way more specific than I was ready for!
 * Let's see - where to start...
 * History: User:Dev920 started really whipping these lists into shape and adding a bunch of people to them. We're actually about halfway through this list and chugging along.  When she got done the "A"s, she shepherded it through FL.
 * I picked up from the other end and worked on Z, moving backwards. Dev had to go to school, so she wasn't able to keep Featuring, but I've managed to put S through Z to FL status.
 * Profession - no one has really liked that column from the get-go. As you noted, some of these people aren't noted for their profession at all.  David Sherlock, for instance, is a writer.  But he's better known for being Graham Chapman's partner.  So I think I like "Significance" or perhaps "Notability" better.
 * Specificity profession - My thought on that is that the lists are mostly about the people, with a tidbit of information about each. If anyone really wants to know what genre a writer is in, they'll click the article.  Furthermore, having a generic term helps when scanning the list - for instance I can look at the "T-V" list and quickly see there are a lot of politicians (or whatever).  If the column is too specific, that bogs the reader down. I kinda feel that anything more than two words is over-kill if we're focusing on it being a list of people.
 * You also commented on the .. variety .. of music-related professions. In the S-Z lists, anyway, I plead guilty.  I didn't spend much time on the professions - more of a "what do they do? Music? Great - throw a label on 'em" kind of thing.  &lt;sheepish grin &gt;
 * Wikilinking professions - I don't really care much. I still think even the generic professions should be wikilinked, but only for consistency's sake. But it's not important to me.
 * Notes column - There was a discussion about this somewhere... Here it is. I think we discussed combining the almost-useless "Bisexual" column with the "References" column into one "Notes" column.  Then we could add "L", "G", or "B" in the column, with the ref, and save some space.
 * I suspect we should really take this entire conversation to Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Maybe break the conversation into manageable topics. See if anyone else has anything to add, then make changes to all the lists as necessary. What do you think?
 * And thanks for letting me know - I hadn't watchlisted your page - though I have now! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We probably should move this discussion... feeling a bit overwhelmed this week though. One comment: I strongly disagree with you about how "having a generic term helps when scanning the list". To me, as a reader, I'm not scanning the list to see how many politicians or musicians there are. I'm reading for two reasons: to see if there are names I recognize on the list, or, alternately, if there are people I'm not familiar with that I might want to know more about. There are many more of the latter, and if they're all generically identified, then it's not useful. On the other hand, if I see "Punk rock musician" and it's someone I haven't heard of, if I like punk, I might be interested to click on the person's name. But if it's all generic, and all the hundreds and hundreds of musicians I haven't heard of are simply "Musician", I'm less likely to check out any of them; the list is simply less useful. And I just don't think it's too long to say "Punk rock musician" or "Classical composer" if other people are going to be "Writer, painter, novelist." I think the photos, which narrow the space available for the text, are of less value than short but specific descriptions.


 * Moved :)
 * I can understand expanding to more than one word, but I strongly feel that it should be limited to a reasonable length. Some examples: "Punk musician" seems good, "Oil executive, magistrate, politician" seems excessive, "Pop musician (Pet Shop Boys)" I can live with, "Actor, dancer, choreographer, theater director" seems like overkill.
 * And I can't possibly live without the photos... Sorry :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha on the photos. I hear you about length; I think we have found some common ground there. How should we proceed on the columns issue? And I think we disagree about linking every profession the first time, but I think WP:OVERLINK re plain English words should stand. (And did I miss anything else still dangling from the above conversation?) --Melty girl (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On the shortening tip... I think all people most famous as choreographers could be called simply "choreographer" with "dancer" omitted, since it's somewhat implicit. And I'm sure there are other analogs for this, along the same lines as how I eliminated "composer" or "songwriter" for all pop musicians, since that's pretty much been assumed since the 1960s. And I bet if we retitle the "Profession" field to indicate that we're looking for the listed people's claim to fame, it will help keep editors from adding all hats each person ever wore. --Melty girl (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok i have noticed that there are duplicate entrys keep an eye out for them I'm working on finding and fixing them --MichaelKuchta (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion
I'm just wondering where the article listing straight people is. Seriously, is wikipedia an encyclopedia or a tabloid? --Tedivm 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A tabloid encyclopedia: the public gets what the public wants.
 * Nuttyskin 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So many straight people in the world. I happen to be bisexual and think it's a great idea to list famous people that are gay, lesbian, or bisexual as long as it is with their consent and said themselves. It's good to know that someone famous is/was like you to an extent. That's just my opinion. [Anonymous] 01:27, 6 August 2006 (East Coast US)


 * Mine too. It's an invaluable thing, like seeing yourself in a mirror for the first time.


 * I don't think this page needs merged with the List it is named after, it needs instead to have its name changed to Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and then to link to the List of that name. It might also help if this page linked the Bisexual writers page with the other bi pages, which don't really mesh very well just now.
 * Nuttyskin 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? Sorry to disappoint you, but wiki isn't a place for this. Why does this page still exist? I haven't seen any "lists of heterosexual people", "lists of left-handed people", "lists of people who love pizza" et cetera here, but maybe this one have some hidden meaning behind it - except being a propaganda material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.159.2 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you ask, there was a list of heterosexuals (I can't remember the exact name), but it was deleted. Martin 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder then why this one is still here. What's the point of it?

Really, this page should be deleted. In an ideal world where everybody is not homophobic, this page would be a great idea, but unfortunately, that is not the case. What if some sociopath decides to target gay people and discovers this page? This argument might not work in every situation, but in this specific one, I believe it's enough to take it down. The only way I think this page would be able to exist would be if EVERY person listed would be notified that they are listed and authorize their name to appear here. Petitesvagues (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Semi-valid point - except that every person on this list is a) notable, and therefore in the public eye, and b) publicly out (per WP:BLP). Therefore, a hypothetical person targeting LGBT people would be able to find this information with or without this list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Where's the list of black people?
So... where is it? Oh, and how about a list of Canadians while you're at it? --189.247.226.56 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather you're being sarcastic. If you're truly interested, try Lists of African Americans and List of Canadians. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

111

Gay mathematicians
Should we list J.C.C. McKinsey or John Nash or Alan Turing? Each died shortly after a legal or career setback a couple of years after being outed. A Beatiful Mind, p. 189 --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're asking about here?
 * Alan Turing is listed here: List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people:_T–V
 * JCC McKinsey probably needs to be added to the list List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people:_N–O. His article also needs cats.
 * I assume you're referring to John Forbes Nash, Jr.? There's no indication in his article that he may have been gay, so he shouldn't be added to any of the lists.
 * I'm I missing anything? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the follow-up. If I had looked harder, I would have seen the listing for Turing.
 * I'm not sure what cats have to do with McKinsey - oh, you meant categories. ;-)
 * As for Nash, he was "arrested in a police operation to trap homosexuals ... and ... dismissed from RAND." I guess that's not an indication
 * Also, "Sylvia Nasar, with her admirable thoroughness, devotes an unbelievable amount of space to tracking down every one of Nash's homosexual liaisons." But people say it's a bad book or that Nasar is not a reliable source.
 * Does this mean that the claim is not well enough established to mention, even as a matter of controversy? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is well established enough to mention as a matter of controversy. MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was said that any biography should be listened to, so why not the biography of John Forbes Nash Jr.. If we want this site to be complete he should be on it to as bisexual. Director Ron Howard himself said he focused on the schizophrenia and not on the fact he was bisexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.74.202.235 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Has no one linked to the RfC yet?
/RfC  — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 12:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't there a list of heterosexual people on Wikipedia?
If there is a list of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, why isn't there a list of heterosexual people on Wikipedia? That's discrimination against sexual orientation. Fladoodle (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Heterosexual is the default setting that's automatically assumed to apply to people in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, so actively compiling a list of heterosexual people is entirely unnecessary in any venue (Wikipedia or otherwise). It's exactly the same as the reason why we have a List of African-Americans, but not a "List of Black Jamaicans" or a "List of Caucasian Americans"; there's no encyclopedic value in actively compiling a list of people who belong to a majority group within their cultural context, because (a) membership in that majority grouping is automatically presumed in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary anyway, and (b) by virtue of being the majority grouping, such a list would be utterly impossible to maintain because of the sheer, overwhelming flood of people that would belong on it. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013
Please add me to List of Gay. Gregory Sullivan Isaacs - Senior Music Critic for Theater Jones, writer for The Dallas Voice (LGBT newspaper for Texas), Fort Worth Star Telegram, and Art+Culture Magazine.Pulitzer nominated composer and conductor. Submitted by myself.

!-- End request --> Gregorysisaacs (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Each entry added to this list should cite a reliable source. Additionally, it should link to an extant Wikipedia article. (An article entitled Gregory Sullivan Isaacs was deleted several years ago as a copyright violation.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is not a list to which every LGBT person on earth is entitled to add themselves; the list is strictly an index of LGBT people who have Wikipedia articles to link to, and may not include anybody whose name is a redlink, an offsite link to another website or no link at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thought or word or deed? Attraction or identity or behaviour?
The page says "This is a .. list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people, who have either been open about their sexuality or for which reliable sources exist. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed. .. However, most definitions include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire) and/or a behavioural component (which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s). Some prefer to simply follow an individual's self-definition or identity."

Although it is quiet now, there has been a long-running discussion about whether Jodie Foster can be included in the LGBT category. Currently, she is not because although she is unambiguously out about having had a female partner for many years, there is no reliable source for her saying she has a lesbian or bisexual identity.

So is it WP policy that only the identity - using at least one of the words 'lesbian', 'gay', 'bisexual' or one of the synonyms about themselves - counts? Or could she be placed in this category because there is a verifiable source that she has had LGB attraction and behaviour, even if we're not sure about which letter applies to her? Lovingboth (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A year later, and poor Foster is still under debate...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)