Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heterosexuals

For article content see Even more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. (Note: The version archived there is not the version that the article's defenders were generally supporting. But it is the funniest version.)

See also Archived delete debates.

Unedited and uneditable versions from the page history:


 * Revision as of midnight 6/7 Sep 2003 -- at the very minute that Hephaestos deleted the accompanying page, with reason: (on VfD for 16 days; consensus to delete by vote of 20-8)
 * (Revision as of 22:59, 7 Sep 2003) -- revision just prior to archive by Jtdirl on 22:17, 8 Sep 2003

Page locking
I locked (i.e., "protected" the page) to stop an edit war between Lir and JTD. Lir claims a "right to vote". JTD claims a consensus that page-deletions votes should end after 7 days. Lir says Jimbo hasn't stated that JTD has the power to lock a page or declare a vote's end.
 * Protected by Uncle Ed 20:44, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Unprotected by Anthère 08:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) per Martin request.

If someone wants to re-open a "closed issue" which others have voted on, there's a better way to do this. No doubt Martin will sort it all out. (I'd do the re-factoring myself, but I'd probably crap out; when Martin refactors talk pages, he rolls boxcars every time.) Uncle Ed 13:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Discussion
All talk regarding deletion of List of heterosexuals will take place here. In addition, there should be a definite timeframe to decide whether or not to delete the page, lest it be forgotten in meandering discussion. I propose one week. In one week, if the group under the heading of "supporting straight deletion" is in a majority, the page gets deleted. Fair? --Lypheklub 21:29, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll have no problem bowing to the will of a significant majority, though a mere plurality would have less of a mandate. Martin


 * I have a problem with deleting based on majority vote - the point should be not whether the majority thinks heterosexuality is interesting (which seems to be the focus of the debate) but whether a group of users would find such a list useful. Deletion, as I understand it on the wikipedia, is what happens after the group arrives at a consensus. If there is no consensus, there is no deletion. The rationale for this would seem to be that keeping something that is useful, even if only to a minority, is the best approach. --Zippy 22:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * No, not fair in the slightest. Since when does the opinion of the majority decide the truth? And comments from people (such as Adam Bishop and Jtdirl) that miss the stated purpose of the list (presumably because of its poor name) do not bode well for the likelihood of an informed vote. -- Toby Bartels 03:58, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * No, Tony, Adam, I and others know exactly the purpose of the page and it is nonsensical. FearÉIREANN 18:44, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Tony -- I can't remember all of the comments. But your and Adam's comments about the extreme commonness of heterosexuality are irrelevant in light of the stated purpose of the page. Perhaps you happen to know that this stated purpose is a sham? Well, that would be very interesting and it'd be nice if you'd share. Or perhaps I have misinterpreted your comments, and they don't really mean to assume that this is a general list of heterosexuals? Then I apologise and I welcome clarification. As it is, «90% to 99% of people are heterosexual.» doesn't mean much in the context of this debate (except about the quality of the title), and doesn't mitigate my own interest in seeing the results of this page. -- Toby Bartels 00:07, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Decisions aren't necessarily done on the basis of 7 say delete, 6 say keep, therefore delete. But consensus is not workable either. Saying that unless a consensus says delete it is kept would mean many articles would not get deleted and wiki would be full of bumph. A 60% deletion recommendation is justification enough to delete it. and no the debate is not on whether a majority think heterosexuality is "interesting". Wiki has tons of lists. The issue is whether this is a pointless list or not. And I think a list of heterosexuals is as pointless as a list of men or a list of people from the planet. Lists should be more specific and focused, preferably about a small clearly defined group, whether it is a list of gay people (a minority), a list of people with six toes on each foot (a minority) or a list of US presidents (a minority). This list to my mind is ludicrously unfocused and undefined, as would a list of gay people if gay people consisted of 90% of people on the planet, or a list of US presidents, if everyone in the US except a handful had been president. That is the issue, not heterosexuality. FearÉIREANN 22:37, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, saying the debate is whether the list is pointless, as opposed to interesting, is like saying the glass is half-full or half-empty. So I'd say we agree here. As to your theory about the imminent death of the wikipedia, I'd say that the consensus guideline that has served the wikipedia in the past and is the basis of whether a deletion happens or not, as described in the policy page on deletions, has worked well. If you disagree, perhaps you should lobby for a change in the guidelines rather than creating a special case for one vote that you may feel strongly on. If I may continue on the importance of something being interesting (or pointless), the Wikipedia is not a paper document, and so there is no great merit in keeping it as short as possible. Further, lists of entities are useful as alternate ways of viewing entries - collections of facts that, since someone has taken the time to create them and debate for them, are by definition interesting to a substantial group. Since people who are not interested in these lists are unlikely to stumble across them and thus become confused, I believe we should keep such entries that serve a minority of users and would not, in my opinion, distract the majority. --Zippy 01:59, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As to your theory about the imminent death of the wikipedia - what theory?

''I'd say that the consensus guideline that has served the wikipedia in the past and is the basis of whether a deletion happens or not. . . '' It has not been the basis for deletions. Most deletions for months have been taken on the basis of majoritarian decisions. Many decisions have been taken by a clear majority but many others have been taken by narrow majorities. Zippy's determination to preserve this article, by throwing up all sorts of weak arguments, complaining about voting systems, now about the mention that the article is on the VfD, is comical. Tweak is so accurate. FearÉIREANN 18:44, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * By my reckoning, most decisions on deletion have been taken on the basis of consensus, rather than "majoritarian decisions", because by and large, people can agree on what is, and is not, an encyclopedia article.
 * cf Talk:AKFD/Voting rules
 * Martin 21:48, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * In fact, I am supporting the existing voting system, as described in the Wikipedia's deletion policy. Should you have a problem with existing policy, perhaps it is because you have strong feelings about this article and so wish to modify the policy. I, however, am content with how the Wikipedia works. --Zippy 00:33, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Toddlers often weep tears of bitter anger when they suddenly find themselves deprived of their "creations" after their parents flush the toilet. Such are the tears of those who would weep to see a list such as we currently have deleted. It is not at all surprising that no one defends the actual current list: a hypothetical list having redeeming value is apparently easier to envision than produce. -- Tweak 04:15, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If you believe that it is a stub article, then feel free to add the stub article boilerplate. I notice that no one has, and that I would assume people would be unlikely to contribute while the Sword of Damocles hanging over the article in the form of the notice "this article is listed on the votes for deletion page," would rather discourage anyone from contributing to it at this moment. --Zippy 17:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe it is a sub-stub article that cannot in its wildest megalomaniacal dreams aspire to becoming a near-stub article, much less a bona fide stub article.  Stub article boilerplate would be an unearned award of honour for this meretricious "article", which, should it, gasping and wheezing, manage to remain alive, could serve only as a prime example of the evils of creating articles to prove or support one's political points. --Tweak 04:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[response here deleted by author]


 * You can't remember what your political point was for creating a "list of heterosexuals" for Catherine M rather than putting her on, say, a "list of authors"? Since you profess no conscious motivation for this decision, I think one very good guess would be that your subconscious motivation was to suggest that a list of homosexuals must have a corresponding list of heterosexuals in an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view.  Perhaps if you think really hard you can tell us if that's the case. --Tweak 16:37, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Apparently you'd rather call names and erase the record than tell us your motivation. Fair enough. -- Tweak 17:25, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Opinion poll/summary of opinions/vote
(ends sometimes after 6th Sept)

Supporting straight deletion:
 * 1) Lypheklub - "ludicrous", "has no business being in an encyclopedia"
 * 2) Morven - "I just can't see this adding any value"
 * 3) Delirium - "not particularly useful"
 * 4) DJ Clayworth - "pointless page"
 * 5) FearÉIREANN - This is the dumbest of dumb articles.
 * 6) TravelingDude - This article is absurd.
 * 7) Evercat - especially if there are only 2 entries
 * 8) Wik
 * 9) Vancouverguy
 * 10) RickK 22:04, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * 11) Someone else - favoring deletion, with moving to Straight victims of homophobia the next-best alternative.
 * 12) Adam Bishop - this is sort of the default position for humans...it's like a "list of people with five toes on each foot."
 * 13) Melody - what exactly is 'notable for their heterosexuality' anyway? - its indefinable
 * 14) Efghij - This page is rediculous. "Straight victims of homophobia" could be a worthwhile article, but that a different issue entirely.
 * 15) Robert Merkel - provides no useful information.
 * 16) Bogdan - silly, who can be notable for heterosexuality ? prostitutes ?
 * 17) At18 - simply put, useless.
 * 18) User:ark30inf - trying to make political points by playing games with the wikipedia and NOTHING more, not an attempt to add useful info
 * 19) User:Danny - It is like "List of people who are not bald
 * 20) &mdash;Eloquence - Delete in its present form. Some forms may be acceptable, but haven't seen any yet.

Opposing deletion/favoring modification or renaming:


 * 1) Zippy - "fine with this list and List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people as long as we keep both or neither and the two follow the same criteria for inclusion".
 * 2) Oliver P. - "withdrawing my request for deletion and changing it to a request for moving it"
 * 3) Toby Bartels - "interesting idea"... "But the names are bad - I suggest List of heterosexual people noted for their sexual orientation"
 * 4) Martin - name change is a bit pointless, but if that's what it takes to keep it...
 * 5) Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick - mostly harmless, certainly less absurd than 100 worst britons
 * 6) Anthère, interesting page. The title should reflect better the point of it. List of heterosexual people noted for their sexual orientation is long, but that is the point.
 * 7) User:BuddhaInside
 * 8) Lirath Q. Pynnor

Other comments:
 * 1) Kosebamse - "Delete", but "might be some justification if it were renamed"

votes for deletion
[Delete]. This is a page of arbitrary people. Almost everyone is a heterosexual, creating an encyclopedia entry for them is ludicrous. Why can't I add my own name. Lypheklub 15:57, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You can't add your name because you're not notable for your heterosexuality. Did you bother reading the intro to this page before nominating it for deletion? Martin 00:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Lypheklub, this is a straw man argument. You presumably do not rate the "do 1000 or more people know about them" critera for a Wikipedia entry (sorry) and so would not pass the criteria for inclusion on the page. Further, even if you did, you are probably not particularly noted for your heterosexuality. If you pass these two critera, then go for it! --Zippy 22:35, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No doubt either trying to make a point about similar lists for other categorisations or attempting for some kind of equality. I'd say delete it, I just can't see this adding any value. --Morven 17:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I can. Martin 00:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Next we'll have a list of words starting with A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, or Z :-|  Delete. Kosebamse 17:40, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ahh, a slippery slope argument. Cute. Martin
 * A..Z - They're called indices. I find them useful. --Zippy 05:27, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Martin, I did read the introduction and I see some justification for the article, but the title is rather misleading. Kosebamse 05:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, most readers read more than simply the title of an article, thus avoiding that problem. Martin 08:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're not too far off the mark, Kosebmase. There is, in fact, a page called List of people, which seems ridiculous to me. That is a dangerous road to go down, and should be edited tightly. -- Lypheklub 18:07, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It is being edited tightly. Thanks for the advice. Martin 00:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

List of people is, in fact, a list of lists of people, and actually seems fairly useful to me as a back-formed structural aid. Note that the Wiki search engine doesn't really lend itself to "find noted artists" type queries, so a list like this is a valid way to get where you want to go. This is not a comment on List of heterosexuals which does seem to be a commentary as much as a useful reference, though the criteron that those included on the list should be noted for their heterosexuality makes it at least interesting.


 * Yep, it's an interesting page. That's why it should be kept. Martin 00:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There might be some justification for List of heterosexuals if it were renamed to make it clear that it is about people who are noted for some especially heterosexual attributes, attitudes, etc., but under this name it's not useful. Kosebamse 19:18, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * We have an article on mathematics, not mathematics worth writing about in an encyclopedia. Similarly, we have a list at list of heterosexuals, not list of heterosexuals notable for their heterosexuality.


 * But the article explicitly says that that is what it is about. A mere list of heterosexuals without any distinctive characteristics, even heterosexuals with an article, would not make any sense. Kosebamse 05:46, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * An article on all mathematics ever performed would make no sense either. Nevertheless, mathematics is at mathematics. This article is at list of heterosexuals, not mere list of heterosexuals without any distinctive characteristics. Martin 08:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since we have an entry for List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people, I say we rename this one to "List of famous heterosexuals". To keep one while deleting the other would be taking a point of view, no? I vote against deletion (and for renaming). --Zippy 23:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * No. This list follows the standard conventions for these lists. The GLB one does not. Further, "famous" is much broader than "notable for their heterosexuality".

I don't think either list is particularly useful. If someone happens to be homosexual, but is famous for other reasons, I don't see it as useful or desirable to put them on a list of "famous homosexuals" simply because of their personal life -- they're a famous person who happens to be homosexual. As for famous heterosexuals, that page would be hundreds of pages long. Probably 95% of the biographies in Wikipedia count as "famous heterosexuals." --Delirium 23:35, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's why I carefully worded the intro to this page to avoid that problem. Martin 00:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong to have List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people and not to have List of famous heterosexual people. Read the text of the homosexual page. The sexuality (and here I mean "alternative" sexuality whatever that means) of celebrities is often "news". Now, I would almost never consider such information newsworthy, but sadly, tabloid presses seem to disagree with me. --Dante Alighieri 23:43, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. That's why we have list of heterosexuals, not List of famous heterosexual people. Martin 00:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I propose a move to List of people notable for heterosexuality or similar. Evercat 00:37, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That would make a bit more sense, since that is what the introduction says the page is about. But the page would be empty. Simple as that! Because, let's face it, no-one is notable for heterosexuality. Most people are heterosexual. If anyone said to you, "I'm heterosexual," you wouldn't bat an eyelid. Okay, maybe if they looked like a stereotypical gay person you would, but that's not what the list seems to be about. It seems to be a random collection of people who are heterosexual and are noted for having a lot of sex, or people who are heterosexual and are noted for talking or writing about sex, and people who are heterosexual and are noted for going on about the fact in public. None of the people on the list are noted for the actual fact that they are heterosexual. Because that fact is just monumentally unnotable. Therefore I support the deletion of this page. -- Oliver P. 04:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I fixed the introduction. No doubt somebody will now propose list of people notable in connection with their heterosexuality or some such junk. Martin 08:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Thinking further... Dave Van Ronk fulfills Oliver's desire, because if someone said to you... "I got beaten up in the stonewall riots.... and I'm heterosexual", then you would bat an eyelid. Similarly Ryan White is notable precisely because his heterosexuality (and whiteness) was unusual. So ner-ner-ne-ner-ner. :) Martin 09:22, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the point but what exactly is "notable for their heterosexuality" anyway? or even "people notable in conjunction with their heterosexuality" or however specific you want to phrase it? I mean we have Pamela Anderson and Hugh Hefner... does that mean we list every porn star and pimp? Every men's magazine owner/editor etc? Every actor/ess that uses (hetero) sexuality to sell movies? Every star that ever married another star for press coverage? While intuitively the people on this list belong here - beyond intuition, what is the definition of person who belongs here? What are the constraints? Melody 09:13, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, about the title vs. introduction matter. The content of an article should be on the subject suggested by the title. If you don't want the introduction (and hence the following text) mercilessly edited so that it fits in with the title, the article needs to be moved to a different title. (Suggesting that other titles are "junk" doesn't help the matter.)

Secondly, about the actual content. Okay, Martin, I see your point, to a certain extent... Dave Van Ronk and Ryan White probably wouldn't have been so notable if they weren't heterosexual. So the list, instead of being empty, would have two people in it. :) But what about the others? Okay, let's go through them one by one... It seems from the above that what people really want are list of sex symbols, list of sexually promiscuous people, list of homophobes, and list of obscenity cases, and things like that. These lists could always be divided into "homosexual" and "heterosexual" and anything else on the pages themselves, if desired. As far as I can see, the only meaningful criterion for something connected to heterosexuality to be notable for that connection is if it would cease to be notable if the heterosexuality were replaced by homosexuality. I'll admit that that is the case for Dave Van Ronk and Ryan White. But I can't think of any way in which the other people in the list fit that criterion. -- Oliver P. 16:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Pamela Anderson - famous nude celebrity sex video. Would this "sex video" have been less notable if it involved lesbian sex? I somehow doubt it. ;)
 * Brigitte Bardot - "sex kitten". Would she have been less notable if she had been a lesbian sex kitten? Again, I don't think so. In fact, unless my memory is decieving me, one of her most, erm, notable scenes in a film was with another woman. I haven't seen the film; I just seem to remember reading about it in a book. Maybe I'm wrong. Okay, it seems that she also made some apparently homophobic remarks in a book. Is heterosexuality being equated with homophobia, here? If so, that's a pretty offensive equation...
 * Clara Bow - "It Girl". What's this got to do with heterosexuality? From her article: she was an actress and sex symbol. Well, actresses become sex symbols from their on-screen performances, don't they? So her private life has no bearing on that. Also according to her article: she was alleged to have had sex with lots of men. Is heterosexuality being equated with sexual promiscuity? Again, not a valid equation...
 * Errol Flynn - inspired the phrase "In like Flynn". Apparently because he had sex with a lot of women. This appears to be a confusion of heterosexuality and sexual promiscuity again.
 * Hugh Hefner - Playboy mogul. And again?
 * Tom Jones (singer). And again?
 * Tommy Lee - Honeymooned with Pamela Anderson. Well, he was married to her. Really, this is silly...
 * Catherine Millet - author of The Sexual Life of Catherine M. She wrote a book about sex. That's what she's famous for, according to her article. She wouldn't be famous for it if it was about lesbian sex...?
 * Axl Rose of Guns N' Roses - annoyed at being hailed as a gay icon. Well, does that make him heterosexual? Or are we really talking about homophobia again?
 * Bertrand Russell - picketed for his open orientation. I don't know what that means. Can anyone explain?
 * Mae West - jailed for Sex. For its obscenity, according to her article, not for its heterosexuality! I'm sure that if it were homosexual sex, the same would have applied.


 * If anything, the page should be changed to something like List of people with famous sexuality. Like I said in my initial vote for deletion, this is a list of arbitrary heterosexual people.  The article, as Oliver pointed out, is less about heterosexuality, and actually about people who are famous for sex, regardless of the orientation.  This post has no business being in an encyclopedia.  I recast my vote for deletion Lypheklub 16:50, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is a pointless page and should be removed. If we keep it the next thing will be 'List of famous white people' DJ Clayworth 16:55, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * list of white people? People notable precisely because they are white, who would be vastly less notable, or not notable, if they weren't white. Such as Eminem who is notable largely because he's a white rapper. Or Elvis Presley, likewise notable as one of the first white singers to do traditionally black music? How about famous white people in traditionally non-white countries - Lawrence of Arabia, perhaps?


 * Be grateful I'm not Ed Poor - I'd already have created it... ;-) (sorry Ed) Martin 19:18, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin, despite your justifications for keeping the page, the consensus is for deletion. Lypheklub 16:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't go jumping to consensus, there. I'm against deletion as long as we have List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. To keep one and not the other is to take a particular POV. Further, I think both lists are interesting. A better solution is to establish similar criteria for inclusion on both lists. --Zippy 06:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure it can be called a consensus. People are still arguing about what the list is actually supposed to be a list of, and until that is clear, we can't make a decision about whether or not it is a useful thing to have. And I'm withdrawing my request for deletion and changing it to a request for moving it to list of people notable in connection with their heterosexuality (maybe I like "junk" titles :P) and cutting it down to two people. :) -- Oliver P. 17:44, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody can be notable for something that is considered 'usual'. Eminem is not notable because he is white, but because he is a white rapper. Likewise Lawrence of Arabia. The only way someone could be notable is because the carry their heterosexuality to extremes. I can't think of any interpretation of that other than they have a lot of heterosexual sex, in which case they have more in common with people who have a lot of homosexual sex. To follow the Eminem example, analagous cases would have to be heterosexuals famous in an area where homosexuality would be the norm. (I could make a joke about 'List of famous heterosexual drag queens' but I won't.)

Sometimes you just have to admit that a list of people who are part of a minority is interesting, and a list of people in a majority is not interesting. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of that. Heterosexuality on its own is never notable. However, as in the case of a rapper being white, being heterosexual can be notable in conjunction with other attributes not usually associated with heterosexuality, as in the examples that Martin drew attention to above. I'm not sure whether that can be defined clearly enough to allow for a list, but perhaps it can. I'll keep an open mind on that, anyway.


 * On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the idea that "extreme heterosexuality" means "having a lot of heterosexual sex". That's partly what I was complaining about above, when I spoke of people confusing heterosexuality with promiscuity. Admittedly words mean different things to different people, but to me the terms "heterosexual", "homosexual", and so on refer only to sexual orientation, i.e preferences, and not to activity. An "extreme heterosexual", in my understanding, would be someone who is exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex, regardless of how much sexual activity they engage in. This would be as opposed to people who are maybe attracted to members of the opposite sex 99% of the time and members of the same sex 1% of the time, who would probably consider themselves to be heterosexual, but perhaps not extremely so. And of course it would be impossible for an outside observer to identify someone as being exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex, so I don't think we can have a list of "extreme heterosexuals" according to that view. -- Oliver P. 20:15, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What about list of celibates? -Adrian

or list of asexuals?

Regarding titles: Oliver suggests "The content of an article should be on the subject suggested by the title". Well... The title is list of heterosexuals. The content is a list of heterosexuals (and Casanova, for a while, who slipped through the net). Thus, the content matches the title. Similarly, in our article on mathematics, we find that the content is a discussion of mathematics. If anyone seriously came here expecting a list of a little under six billion people... well, I can only apologise. ;-) Clarifying the subject to be discussed in an intro is entirely normal, and I still think it's appropriate here.

Regarding content: I do see Oliver's point regarding promiscuity, partly. Someone like Errol Flynn makes a lot more sense on a list of sexually promiscuous people. I also see his point regarding homophobia, though clearly list of homophobes would be a NPOV nightmare. How about Romeo and Juliet? If they weren't hetero, then the story would have been a lot simpler... but again, you have to wonder if something like list of lovers wouldn't make more sense, right? Martin 22:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think, as authors of an encyclopedia, we need to ask ourselves "who cares?" Is this list, or a similar list of lovers necessary in the grand scheme of human accomplishment that we are documenting?  If not, it should be deleted or incorporated into a more significant article.  The fact that the list only has two people on it now doesn't help its credibility either. --Lypheklub 22:45, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Lists are essentially a category scheme, and they help people find related articles. They're not necessary, but they are useful. Want to read some true life romance? Starting at a list of lovers will get you a bunch of relevant articles to browse from. Martin 22:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This list contains two names. One doesn't even have a Wikipedia article linked to it, and the other would be more appropriate under famous AIDS cases or simply AIDS, why not just scrap the whole page? -- Lypheklub 23:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can we please delete the page "List of Heterosexuals" It was on VfD, before it was moved off. There are only two entries on the list, and the page is generally misguided.

--Lypheklub

Whatever happens, this talk page should be kept, being relevant to list, for example. Martin

I've remembered why I added Catherine M... I'm not saying it was a good reason! :) Catherine wrote about her heterosexuality in her book (rather than simply about her sex life, if you see my distinction?), and it was that I was thinking of, primarilly. She didn't write much about her heterosexuality, so it's a weak argument in her case. But it does apply to others, perhaps, such as Flynn. Similarly, we'd want Kate Bornstein on list of transgendered people and Marquis de Sade on list of sadomasochists. Martin 01:24, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This list seems like an interesting idea to me. I'd like to look at it from time to time -- the same is true of List of white people. But the names are bad -- I suggest List of heterosexual people noted for their sexual orientation and List of white people noted for their race. (White people, BTW, are not a majority, so this isn't truly analogous. List of black people, interpreted literally would be equally silly, but not List of black people noted for their race.)

I wouldn't expect this list ever to be large. But I might put back Axl Rose, assuming that it's confirmed that he actually is het.

-- Toby Bartels 22:15, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm... isn't there a logical flaw there? How can we claim that someone is notable for a feature if we don't even really know if they possess that feature? In my view, the fact that you needed that qualifier at the end of your statement is precisely the reason that Mr. Rose shouldn't be on the list!


 * No, it's precisely the reason that I shouldn't put him on the list. OTOH, if somebody that knows what they're talking about (in Rose's case) puts him on the list, then that's an entirely different matter. I'm arguing that, theoretically, the reason given for Rose's inclusion is valid; but I'm expressing no opinion on whether or not those statements are factually correct. But if somebody can verify that they are factually correct, then I say, go ahead and add him back in. -- Toby Bartels 00:25, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way - I notice that you added this with the comment "Reinstate my deleted opinion." In fact, it's there, further up the page. But worth repeating, of course. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:39, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You're right! I lost it in the diff and decided that it had been inadvertently removed in a refactoring. I'm placing your comments up by the original version now. -- Toby Bartels 00:25, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * In a life-changing decision, I've decided I don't mind "junk" titles like List of heterosexual people noted for their sexual orientation - as long as there's a redirect from List of heterosexual people - IE, a short version.


 * Alfred Kinsey's research says that hets aren't a majority either... but it's a little questionable ;-) Martin 22:45, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is an utterly ridiculous article. What next? List of people who aren't queen of England? List of people who aren't French? List of people with two legs? List of people with one big toe on either foot? List of heterosexual MPs? List of popes who did not have lovers? It is one thing to list people who are notable for, or belong to, a small group in society, but making lists that in event cover 90+ of the population is plainly farcical. What does it mean that they are notable for their heterosexuality? Heck, Bill Clinton is because of his sex life, Queen Elizabeth is because she is married and has four children, Bono is because he is married and has children, Princess Diana was because she had plenty of lovers, Prince Charles is because he had plenty of lovers, Tom Jones is because he had plenty of lovers, JFK was because he had plenty of lovers, FDR was because he had plenty of lovers, JFK jr was because he had a famous heterosexual sex life, Bishop Eamon Casey is because he had a lover, my next door neighbour is because he has been married three times, my sister is because she has just got married, Tsar Nicholas II was because he was married and had kids, Tsar Nicholas's valet was because he was married and had kids, so had most of his household, his family and most people he ever met. Queen Victoria was because she was married at least once, probably twice. Making a list that includes almost everyone on the planet is plain absurd. Lists should be about clearly defined limited groupings, or should we start List of people who have not been Irish prime minister to add to List of Irish prime ministers? Get rid of this dumb article do lets do something useful. FearÉIREANN 23:10, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think Oliver made a strong point some way above that "had plenty of lovers" isn't synonymous with "notable for their heterosexuality", but that such folks should rather be listed at list of sexually active people or some such.


 * Btw, what do people think of a recent marriages page? Martin 00:20, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

List of heterosexuals is again listed for deletion on the VfD page. Please discuss the issue on that page, rather than here, where the discussion gets buried among a lot of other topics. FearÉIREANN 19:46, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, discuss it here.

The "other topics" are what we should do with this article. Discussing deletion in isolation is excluded middle thinking, and non-helpful. Martin 20:20, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Discussing deletions on talk pages is the standard technique for ensuring pages dodge deletion. The discussion gets bogged down in all sorts of tangents and loses focus. When people delete pages on the VfD, they usually avoid deleting pages where the discussion has been sent to the talk pages and if they check the talk pages, find such a meandering chat about everything and anything that no decision gets taken and the page survives by default. It is the oldest trick in the book and has been used time and time again by defenders of pages to ensure the page isn't deleted. So no, discuss it on the VfD page where a clear decision can be taken and the decision won't conveniently get buried. That is why we have a VfD page, rather than simply discussing deletions on talk pages. The list at the top of the page is being placed also on the VfD page. The decision will be taken based on the VfD page. FearÉIREANN 20:55, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please stop removing the debate from the VfD page and putting it here. I am putting it back where it belongs and will do so every time you try to remove it. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It ensures that people might actually read the page and/or previous debate before voting. There's a list at the top of the page: it's clear enough, thanks. Martin 21:17, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Still, if you really want to move the debate there, kindly move all the debate there. Martin 21:19, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Discussing deletions on talk pages is the standard technique for ensuring pages dodge deletion.
 * Jtdirl, you've just put me in mind of the Supreme Court in 2000, arguing that allowing recounts would cast doubt on Bush's presidency (operating, as one may notice, from the assumption that Bush was already President, and should be President, regardless of what the recount revealed). Ah, democracy: sometimes it's quick and clean, and other times it requires those old bugaboos: debate, logic, point, counterpoint.  Koyaanis Qatsi 13:55, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The creation of his page was an excellent idea. Well done, Lypheklub. FearÉIREANN 21:36, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. Good compromise. Martin 21:45, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd say a simple plurality should suffice. But since we all have our biases, this isn't an NPOV decision.  But since this is Wikipedia, and not the Senate, I think a simple majority should delete the page.  Lypheklub 21:49, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm generally reluctant to support simple majorities, if only out of fears of StuffingTheBallotBox and/or the tyranny of the majority. But that debate is probably rather academic, so let's see what happens. Martin 22:33, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As no one has yet come up with a good and rigid definition for people notable for their heterosexuality (or whatever name it's given) - I've been swayed to voting for deletion. I also can't imagine what someone would be looking for in an encyclopedia to come across a page like this. Melody 22:36, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I suggested this: "As far as I can see, the only meaningful criterion for something connected to heterosexuality to be notable for that connection is if it would cease to be notable if the heterosexuality were replaced by homosexuality." I expect that I really meant "another sexuality" rather than just "homosexuality", though. Martin seems to have accepted that criterion, or something similar, because he edited the list down to just the two people who I thought fitted that criterion. If Martin agreed with it, it must be good. :) Or maybe he did it just to shut me up... ;) -- Oliver P. 04:49, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I was more convinced by your arguments about what "notable heterosexuality" isn't, to be honest. Martin

A complete waste of time, and likely to contain many errors and definitional issues (want to bet some of the men on the list like to visit beats in their spare time?) --Robert Merkel 22:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

As a curiosity, googling "famous heterosexuals" lists the wikipedia entry under discussion first. The talk page second. Googling "notable heterosexuals" gives you 1 entry. I wonder, is no one else in the world talking about this? Do they care? Perhaps an enclyclopedia shouldn't necessarily focus on what people care about, but the sum of human knowledge. Even so, if its status as an article that adds anything to the sum of knowledge is in question - then perhaps we should look to the fact that people don't really care for guidance. Melody


 * I agree. please delete this page. It serves no useful purpose.

--- Deletion. This article is about as useful as List of people with toenails.Ark30inf 19:47, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Also voting for deletion. It is like "List of people who are not bald." Danny

On one hand, this is only 11% more useful than List of famous people who have ever defecated. But on the other hand, we have a list for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other miscellaneous assorted stuff like transsexual, transgender and asexual. And the obvious question that follows is going to be why heterosexual people aren't included. It will give a lot of people a sense of homophobia being in the air if they see anything other than heterosexuality listed as the aberration. True, we don't have a List of people who are not Floridian, but there is a difference between "Floridian people"/"people who are not Floridian" and "Floridian people"/"Texan people"/"Californian people"/"Illinoian people"/"Georgian people"/"Hawaiian people"/"Arizonan people"/"North Carolinian people"/"Ontarian people"/"Mexican people"/etc. We could keep this list, but we would have one criterion. We could not assume any randomly chosen person was straight, just as you wouldn't assume that any celebrity whose name you found as random was gay/lesbian or bisexual. You have to actually find out that a person is heterosexual before you add him/her to the list. How do you like that last suggestion? Wiwaxia 22:41, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't. The user has stated that the point here is not to provide information but that it is instead a stalking horse aimed at getting rid of the homosexual lists. The users whole point that if homosexuals have a list then heterosexuals should have a list is completely bogus. I am not in favor of compromising on a stalking horse, it is not good for the overall project.Ark30inf 22:51, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I do not desire to get rid of the homosexual lists. I want to make clear that eliminating the heterosexual lists without doing the same to the homosexual lists is unfair and biased.  What I want is for two lists to coexist without either one being threatened with destruction. -BuddhaInside
 * I find that hard to believe, but accept it for the sake of argument. Heterosexuality is the majority/cultural norm, therefore we don't have a list for it just as we do not have a list of "People without diabetes" to counteract the "People with diabetes" list.  We don't have a "People who were not assassinated" list to counteract the "People who were assassinated".  For some reason you seem to think that having a list for homosexuals without one for heterosexuals is somehow unfair or shows bias.  Thats BS. Having a list of people with diabetes does not reflect a bias towards them or against those who do not.  Your list is either a stalking horse or very misguided.Ark30inf 23:09, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * "Your list"? Hey, other people (you especially, Ark30inf) have been creating most of the list. Ironically, BuddhaInside hasn't added anyone himself except for Walter Cronkite. What's up with you, BuddhaInside? Aren't you going to do some research for your own list?
 * BTW, my addition of Avril Lavigne gave me an idea for a new list: List of people who are not mentioned in the song "Sk8erboi". Wiwaxia 23:19, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is not biased and it is not unfair, as everyone keeps telling you. It is standard to make lists for defined subgroups. And I too find it very hard to accept Budda's assurances. FearÉIREANN 23:12, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

When I read the statements above, what I perceive is a set of people with a bias attempting to provide a logical justification for their bias. First, an admission, in case the "subtlety" of this slipped past everyone. The point of List of heterosexuals not notable in connection with their heterosexuality was and is to demonstrate the unfairness of demanding that persons on the list of heterosexuals somehow have to be noted for their sexuality, while persons on the list of homosexuals are put there for the slightest rumour of their sexuality. My desire is not that List of heterosexuals not notable in connection with their heterosexuality survive as a long term submission, but that it lead us to a solution that provides EQUAL treatment for ALL people. Reading Ark30inf's argument above, I agree that we do not have a "List of people who were not assassinated". But we could very well have separate lists for all major causes of death, as in: Similarly, we can have lists of people by all major sexualities: Again, what I perceive is that by refusing to allow a list of heterosexual people, a politically correct bias is surfacing. -BuddhaInside
 * People who were assassinated
 * People who died in car wrecks
 * People who died of cancer
 * People who are homosexual
 * People who are bisexual
 * People who are heterosexual
 * People who are asexual


 * If you have a problem with people added to the homosexual list "at the slightest rumor" then you have every right to confront that listing and debate whether it belongs there or not. I have done so on homosexual bishop.  In your list of death types you forget People who died of natural causes.  We do not have a list for that because it is the default, it is the majority, it is the norm.  Heterosexual is the majority, the default, the norm.  There is not politically correct bias surfacing.  Personally, it is ridiculous to identify yourself primarily by your sexual behavior.  But some people do, and some people want to know that, and this is an encyclopedia.Ark30inf 23:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Ark30inf wrote and this is an encyclopedia - Indeed, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. But we have already wandered into new ground by listing people by sexuality, something that traditional encyclopedias do not do.  Since we already list gays and lesbians, even gays and lesbians not famous for that fact, then why are you so offended by listing heterosexuals as well?  Just because something is the majority doesn't mean it should be discriminated against. -BuddhaInside
 * As I said before, having a list of people with diabetes but not a list of people in a state of good health is not discriminatory against the people in good health which is the default condition. If 75% of the worlds population were homosexual then I would be in favor of a list of heterosexuals and be arguing for deleting the list of homosexuals.Ark30inf 00:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Doesn't cancer count as a natural cause?
 * I also noticed that we didn't have it broken up into "People who are gay/lesbian" and "People who are heterosexual" and "People who are transgendered" and so on? Why are they all wrapped up into a single list (with a LOT of people on it)? Shouldn't there at least be a few separate lists for the sexual orientations, even if we don't have a straight list? Wiwaxia 23:53, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(BTW, my "default" for people is no sex life at all, I start out at asexual and change my picture of someone else once I learn they're married or have a boyfriend or got fired because of their sexual orientation or whatever indicator.)
 * A list of asexual is acceptable because its not the default, not the norm, not the majority. Same for homosexual, bisexual, asexual or for heterosexuals who have foot fetishes.  I am all for having a list of civil rights leaders, and all for having a list of anti-civil rights leaders, but not for having a list of those who did not participate one way or the other.  That being said, there should be criteria for adding to any of these subcultures and it should go beyond mere allegations or "his brother's cousins uncle said so or mere suspicion"Ark30inf 00:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is pure nonsense, Buddha. So do you suggest we have a List of American who have not been president of the US to match List of Presidents of the United States? List of British people who have not been queen, List of people who have not had cancer? List of people who have not died? Current non-events? It is ridiculous. Your harping on about a "politically correct bias" and people's supposed biases simply shows your own. FearÉIREANN 23:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You are looking at heterosexuality as if the only way to define it is being NOT homosexual. I am looking at heterosexuality as a sexuality in and of itself.  This isn't about listing what people aren't, it is about listing what people are. -BuddhaInside
 * If you want to add asexuals, foot fetishists, bisexuals, rubber fetishists, or whatever then by all means do so if you have confirmed evidence. But there is no need for a list containing the majority/norm/default condition.Ark30inf 00:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Heteronormativity rears its ugly head
I (Toby Bartels) am PERSONALLY INSULTED by the following alleged analogies:
 * List of people who aren't queen of England
 * List of people who aren't French
 * List of people who have not been Irish prime minister
 * List of American who have not been president of the US
 * List of British people who have not been queen
 * List of people who have not had cancer
 * Current non-events


 * Although not insulted, I think those are invalid comparisons. As I said above it is about defining what one is, not what one isn't. -BuddhaInside

Just to make things clear, I have no objection whatsoever to these analogies:
 * List of white people
 * List of heterosexual MPs
 * List of people who died of natural causes


 * Those analogies are more sensible, especially if they were countered by List of black people, List of homosexual MPs, and List of people who died of accidents. -BuddhaInside


 * Your posited lists of "Black people" and "White people" raise another question. Do we want a List of women? A List of men? Or how about a List of people who are dead and List of people who are still alive? (I got that idea from The Last Unicorn.) Which of those two is the default? Or do we need a List of Republicans as well as a List of Democrats, when both of those account for fewer than 50% of the American population? How low a percentage would you have to reach to make a list if you wanted to go by the minority criterion? Does simply being in the majority, or being in the minority, mean that a group of people is a good category to make a Wikipedia list of? What makes belonging to a group particularly of-interest? Is that a person with this characteristic might worry and want to know "Are there any famous people who are like me?" and need to be reassured that s/he isn't alone? Forget about junk like List of famous people who have ever defecated or List of people with five toes on each foot, I'm working on two lists called Lists of people who support the legalization of marijuana and Lists of people who oppose the legalization of marijuana. Wiwaxia 01:44, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To be sure, the way that they are used in debate sometimes indicates a misunderstanding of the stated purpose of this page (which is why I want to rename it), but the analogy is correct.

This analogy is not correct IMO: But of course it is hardly insulting.
 * List of heterosexuals not notable in connection with their heterosexuality


 * That page was not an analogy, it was to demonstrate that a page of only heterosexuals notable for their sexuality failed to be inclusive enough. -BuddhaInside

It raises an interesting point, but Ark30inf's response to it is correct.

-- Toby Bartels 00:48, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

-

Decision
The vote (as at 7 September) was 20 for deletion, 7 against and one for deletion or renaming. Eloquence implemented the decision by deleting the page. Jtdirl deleted the talk page, which inadvertently avoided deletion. (Talk pages are deleted alongside the article page.) This page, which was created exclusively to debate whether the article should be deleted, is now being archived, as was the intention with its creation, so preserving a record of the specific discussion which took place between 31 August 2003 and 7 September 2003. Debate on issues raised in the discussion should be carried on elsewhere. This page was exclusively concerned with the issue of deletion and focused on a specific timeframe. The debate has concluded, the decision has been implemented and the page fulfilled its time-specific mandate. user:Jtdirl's version

The vote (as at 7 September) was 20 for deletion, 7 against and one for deletion or renaming. Eloquence implemented the decision by deleting the page. Jtdirl deleted the talk page. (Talk pages are generally deleted alongside the article page, but since this particular page was of a historical significance, Cimon Avaro undeleted the page as per presumption it might serve to avoid repetition of arguments.) It preserves the record of the specific discussion which took place between 31 August 2003 and 7 September 2003. Debate on issues raised in the discussion should be carried on, and refer to it where relevant. The debate has not concluded except regarding the page in question, but the arguments presented should not be ignored in future deliberations. user:Cimon Avaro's version

Post 7th September discussion
As the page has been deleted and censored (without due process) - and both Anthere, Martin, Toby, Cimon, and Oliver have supported it - I too will request that it be restored. User:Lir (26 September)


 * Lir, don't alter talk pages in a misleading way. There was a vote; it had a certain outcome; you aren't allowed to change the record of the outcome. What you can do is request that the issue be re-opened. (Note: this is my second warning about altering talk pages in less than 24 hours.) --Uncle Ed 13:30, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you can explain how I have altered a talk page in a misleading way, please feel free to do so. The above comment was hardly misleading. LirQ

User:BL has also requested that this page be undeleted. Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion LirQ

OK: here's what I humbly suggest Lir and BL do if they're serious about recreating this page. Two things to do. First, refactor this talk page:
 * 1) keep the link to the versions in the page history
 * 2) keep the opinion poll, but update it to include both of your votes. You might want the opinion poll on a seperate page.
 * 3) Refactor the prolonged debate into a list of arguments for and against deletion. Be honest and fair to both sides here, please.


 * 1) Refactor the debate over consensus, etc - perhaps onto a /voting rules talk page, for example.

Secondly, create a personal copy of the article you want to include at user:Lir/list of hets or user:BL/list of hets. Put a fair amount of work into developing it - note that many of the votes for deletion revolved around the "stubby" and "useless" nature of the current list: if you could create a list that was neither a stub, nor useless, that would be a powerful argument for reinstatement. To be more than a stub, you'll want ten or more people. To be useful, you need criteria that are quite restrictive and don't allow (as the old saw goes) "my gran" to be added.

That's a fair amount of work to be dnoe, I know. Still, I think it's the best way of getting the page reinstated as a genuine article. I think the key is to wow them with quality... Martin 21:32, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Martin is right. I didn't have much heart for defending the page -- my involvement was all principle, no substance -- which is why I left after I became too offended by the gross heteronormativity of some of the discussion. After all, it legitimately included only three people, to the extent that it was written! I will support the page again if it comes back in a useful form. But remember, a list of all heterosexuals -- like a list of all homosexuals for that matter -- would be quite useless. Even a list of all famous heterosexuals would be incredibly unwieldy. I've argued above that a useful version is indeed possible, but please prepare a useful version before bringing things up again. The last thing that we need to do is to strengthen this precedent; so we must be in a position to "wow them with quality" (as Martin says) instead. -- Toby Bartels 03:52, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)