Jump to content

Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

[early discussions without headers]

In all fairness, we should have a famous heterosexual people page. No need to be biased against heterosexual people. I fail to see how pointing out someone's sexual orientation adds or subtracts credibility or accomplishment. Explictly pointing out someone's homosexuality does little to encourage everyone to treat others without bias. It tends to encourage special treatment as if homosexuality is some kind of handicap. I think it is not a handicap.

RESPONSE: Without being too biased or having a non impartial point of view, I will explain it to you as such:

Because homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons are often discriminated against (to the point of violence, murder, exclusion in society;) beacuse they are often told that they are worthless, lower than human life, disgusting and invaluable members of society; because they have to fight to bear heard and visible in the world (something that has become less obvious to non-homosexuals in the year 2002, but is no less true.) This is why they deserve special recognition in something of this nature.

Every child or teenager who is questioning his or her own sexuality can see a list of people who have identified as gay, and can then look at those people's accomplishments and say "Look! There is a diverse group of men and women (and everyone in between) who have accomplished so much! I am a worthy human being. Worthy of respect. Worthy of success. Worthy of the right to exist."

Sounds like you want to promote the choice of a homosexual lifestyle, by arguing that if people with admirable accomplishments are gay, then being gay is good. Is that your intent? --Ed Poor
No, just that there are gay people all over the place, including people that they may know of. And homosexuality is not a choice. - user:Montrealais
Not a choice? This is hardly a fact as there are people who believe that it is and those who believe that it isn't. These include people who are or were gay. -- Ram-Man
Should we get rid of the list of famous atheists because it's promoting atheism? Or lists of famous guerrillas because it's encouraging people to pick up a gun and retreat to the hills? Graft 20:48 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
Hey, don't get me wrong. I am not proposing the elimination of this article. I was just wondering about the comment above mine, which seemed to connect reading about accomplished gays with feeling approval about being gay. If I misread the comment, I apologize. --Ed Poor

Heterosexual children, barring their own diverse potential to fall into other minority categories, and who no doubt go through just as many strifes and identity struggles, do not go through these struggles in particular. And that is just one of the many reasons why this listing should exist. -EB-

"Sounds like you want to promote the choice of a homosexual lifestyle, by arguing that if people with admirable accomplishments are gay, then being gay is good. Is that your intent? --Ed Poor" -- Ed, this kind of talk is extremely offensive, and it really shocks me that you don't know this. Either (1) You are serious or (2) This is an attempt at humor or (3) You are trolling. (1) and (3) are extremely offensive. (2) is offensively clueless. OF COURSE people have a right to feel that their personal natures, when not harming others, are "good". Get this straight: in general, GLBT/gay/whatever people don't "actively promote" this "lifestyle" any more than straight people promote theirs. AND IF THEY DID IT WOULD BE FINE. People who like basketball "promote" basketball. People who like Italian food "promote" Italian food. Straight people "promote" the straight lifestyle. If other-than-straight people want to promote their "lifestyle" THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO and you and I are are morally obligated to defend this right. -- Ed, ONCE AGAIN, you do this sort of thing ALL THE TIME. Then you say, "Golly, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or caused any confusion." Can't you PLEASE just stop doing this in the first place? PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE.
You say "OF COURSE people have a right to feel that their personal natures, when not harming others, are "good"." - It is debatable whether people have this right. Should we have a "famous drug users" page? The fact is that society dictates what behaviour is acceptable, regardless of whether that behavior is "harmless". Just because gays want to perceive that they have a right to be Gay doesn't meant that society (or some societies or all societies) have to recognize that right.
Hey, relax. Breathe. Calm down. But you're right, a list of famous Queer people doesn't promote Queerness. People are Queer or they're not, it's not a product you can advertise. - user:Montrealais
On a general note, it *is* possible to advertise such things. Many gay persons are using exposure to the lifestyle on TV to desensitize concerns about it. It is working. Simply placing names and activities in common view is a way to advertise. -- Ram-Man

Of course not, but we can sure get it out of the closet and into mainstream media, casual office conversation, Thanksgiving-with-the-family chatter, everyday scenes in parks and airports, hospital visits, etc, etc, etc (Hell, I expect you know the drill). And for that matter, get it out of the teen suicide statistics http://isd.usc.edu/~retter/suicstats.html

Okay, but I'm just wondering about the purpose for getting it out of the closet. Anonymous, who apparently took great offense above, implied that publicity for gays helps "defend" gay rights. Or have I misconstrued his remark? --Ed Poor
What do you mean, "what's the purpose of" this article? Same as the purpose of all the other articles - to disseminate knowledge. - user:Montrealais
Perhaps a situation comparable to that in the famous dictum of Anatole France:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets,
and to steal bread."

(i'm sure there are countless more)

Three or four, at least!  :-)
But seriously, there's a problem here with "claimed", "suspected", "reputed", etc.
- I'm thinking specifically of Shakespeare, for example.

(Actually a page of "People who might have been GLB" would probably be just as long!

Well Oscar Wilde, for example, certaintly was gay. -- Seems to be adequate evidence in his case, yes.  :-) -- Most modern authors treat Sappho as being lesbian or bisexual (in fact, she is the origin of the word lesbian) -- I knew that!  :-) She was also married and had at least one kid. --, but some are not so sure of this.

Many also question the validity of applying terms like 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' to people who lived centuries before these terms were even invented. Some think this is trying to fit the sexuality of the past into the mold of modern sexuality, which some think won't work. But then a lot of these people deny that anyone is really gay or straight anyway. (I am talking here of course of queer theory.) -- SJK

Well, how about Shakespeare? How about Leonardo da Vinci? How about J. Edgar Hoover? How about a certain famous actress and director?

You see what a kettle of fish this is. (Of course, nothing new about this "problem"!)

Okay people, settle down... ;-)
I wrote a section at the front that hopefully explains that being on this list, especially if you're a historical figure, doesn't mean you were gay by today's standards. --Dmerrill

Dmerrill, thanks very much for your contributions. Why should "who to put on this list" be a dead issue? (I have my own ideas on this, interested in hearing yours.)


Theoretically, because the text before the list says there is no fixed criterion -- iow they aren't necessarily "gay" by modern standards. I hope that will avoid arguments like "she only had one affair with a woman!"
Oh. So it has no criterion like, for instance, meaning in either the person's own time OR our own? --MichaelTinkler
Sorry, having trouble parsing that.
If the word 'gay' is not to be taken as having the same meaning as it does now, then what are these people? If they are not gay as now constructed, then what does the list mean?
I'll try to answer that by clearing up the statement on the page. It needs to stand on its own. Let me know if the criteria are still foggy after that page update. Thanks!

I object not to the list or the wording (actually, I take that back. I object to all the lists of Famous buddhists, famous glbt, or famous Scorpios, come to that matter), but to the concept. You admit on the main page that the concept gay lesbian and bisexual is controverted, fluid, and difficult, but you continue to use it to identify people. I think that's not a good idea. --MichaelTinkler

I'm with you, Michael. My take has been to show how absurd the whole idea is. (Shining light in the darkness, if you get my theological drift. :-) I updated the Biographical Listing page to expose the other silly lists. <>< tbc

Thanks, Tim. Now we have a central resource for awful lists! I think your heading is very NPOV, by the way. I would have put something on the last category like "lists of people designated something-in-particular by Wikipedians". MichaelTinkler

Article says:

The standard that should be used to determine whether a person belongs on this list is whether they have had at least one serious romantic relationship with at least one person of the same gender.

But it is possible for someone to be homosexual and never have a romantic relationship with a person of the same gender, or even to never have sex with one. And one the other hand, a single relationship with a member of the same sex doesn't mean they are homosexual or bisexual either. It could have been just an odd situation, not at all definining their identity.... Maybe we should just say that "these people are commonly claimed to have been homosexual or bisexual, with various degrees of evidence to support the claim." Then we don't have to judge controversial claims or borderline cases. -- SJK

Excellent idea. I'll make it so. --Dmerrill
And THEN there's the fact that even in socieities often presented as 'tolerant' homosexuality has often been pereceived as a character flaw, and some of the individuals are 'alleged' homosexuals. Edward II is a classic example - the allegations AND the rumored form of death (not to mention the play by the equally-ambiguous Marlowe - the play is part of the allegation about Marlowe, by the way) are deeply entwined with the politics of the period. --MichaelTinkler

I like the list because I find it interesting. I agree that defining who belongs on such a list is problematic. Can we try to agree on a definition that is npov and also practical?

I really like SJK's suggested guideline because it is npov, and it's simple and direct, and it avoids any possibility of libel accusations. Saying:

These people are commonly claimed to have been homosexual or bisexual, with various degrees of evidence to support the claim.

seems to work best IMHO. Any arguments why this is insufficient? Let's try to come to an agreement, as we always seem to do on Wikipedia. --Dmerrill

O.K., this list has already grown in EXACTLY the way that all these 'Famous' lists grow, and I'm going to insert my usual whine. Chastity Bono would not get an entry in Wikipedia until *I* got a bigoraphical entry in Wikipedia except that she is out and the daughter of two (particularly horrific!) people we've all heard of. Candace Gingrich is even less relevant today than Chastity, because at least Cher keeps grinding out what passes for dance music. These people are not all gblt by any reasonable defintion, nor are they all famous. This is now just a list of folks, and hence somewhat irrelevant. If you want to make a biographical listing for each of these people, have at it. --MichaelTinkler

I am considering starting a list of famous red-haired people, and one on famous spectacle-wearers, and another on well-known stammerers, and freckle-nosed people, and notorious smokers, and nose-pickers, and......I am very much against these kinds of lists. One BIG vote for removal. It does not serve any informational purpose. If relevant, a person's sexual orientation should be included in his/her biography and nowhere else.

I'm inclined to agree. According to the article on bisexuality, at least 90% of people are bisexual, so this could be a long list... And the comments at the top of the article make it even more nonsensical. --Zundark, 2001 Oct 31
What a load of tripe! But I've taken that discussion to talk:bisexuality. <>< tbc
I'd like it to go as well, but there's a bias (and probably an appropriate one) towards keeping material around here. This list conceivably *might* serve an informational purpose, if worked on enough, to be able point homophobic teenagers to and say "well Bloggs the action movie star, Smith the footballer, Jones the physicist, Green the rapper, and Brown the Medal of Honour winner were all gay." Therefore, much and all as I'd like it to go away, I find it difficult to argue that it serves *no* useful purpose. --Robert Merkel
Let's keep an NPOV, Robert. :-) There will also be teenagers confused about their sexuality who will look at this page to affirm themselves. That goes for the Celebrity atheists and Listing of noted Buddhists pages, too. Let's all jump on the bandwagon. :-| <>< tbc

Zundark, I'm glad you tend to agree we need to remove this page, but you refer to an argument without any support in the article on bisexuality. I first want to see what answer comes up the question about proof for this allegation. It seems to me an unbelievably high figure. But I agree with you that the argument on top is one more reason to do away with this list. It specifies people with a quality within their personalities, that's what bothers me.
Robert, you mention a pastoral argument. You have a point that young people with homophobic ideas should be able find something on this Wikipedia to change their biased feelings into more understanding of something that is alien to them. And I am also for a route along wiki articles which will help them, plus young, scared gay people in-the-closet to find the right information, if that's what we want. But role-models? Do they get to know and appreciate those people for who they are when they know the bare fact that they're gay and famous for something? Doesn't convince me, really. I don't want to whine, but still vote for removal.

To a gay person, this is *very* important information.

I didn't realise when I started this list how much controversy it would cause! :) I thought the list might be informative from the point of view of GLB history, which some people seriously study. While it might be useful in "educating homophobic teenagers", that wasn't my idea, and I don't think it should be the main focus of the article.

You're right, it should remain as npov as possible. It is not a propoganda tool, and I didn't mean to imply that it should be. It is just information, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to record and disseminate information.
Anyone who is interested in gay culture would find this list a valuable resource. --Dmerrill

Also, there is an obvious reason why we could have this list and not a "list of famous heterosexuals". A list of famous heterosexuals would be way too long, and ultimately boring. Who really cares if some particular person is straight -- nothing non-ordinary about that. OTOH, that someone was GLB can be an interesting piece of information, especially with reference to the very famous and long dead (someone being GLB today is a lot less interesting, because modern society, at least in the West, is much more tolerant of it). -- SJK

A proposal: if it is true (which I still doubt) that someone was GLB can be an interesting piece of information, then it is only true when this piece of information sheds light on historical developments of the relationship society-gay/lesbian people, or on the general self-image of gays and lesbians. I can imagine that for instance the controversy around Oscar Wilde caused a significant change, or he at least caused great ripples in society those days. It would be worth to mention his homosexuality with the accompanying story. There will undoubtly be other examples. We could perhaps refracture this page into something really infomative and relevant. But to mention each and every GL person of fame just in order to have a list, just in order to be as complete as possible, just to satisfy people's curiosity, or for other quite superficial (don't take this personally) reasons, what good does that do?

"I can imagine that for instance the controversy around Oscar Wilde caused a significant change, "

Well yes, at least in Oscar Wilde's life anyway: he was executed for it.

He was executed for it? I thought all they did was throw him in gaol! Are you sure you've got your facts straight? -- SJK

Ak! Hard labor! Who am I thinking of?....

IMHO, I'd like to see this page remain. I've read arguments to the contrary, those being:

  • not topic worthy. -- I'm not sure who is the arbitrator as to what is topic worthy or not. It seems that if someone is interested in a given topic, that should be enough. Myself, I find a list of people commonly claimed to have been homosexual or bisexual, with various degress of evidence to support the claim to be quite interesting and I know that there are others that find it interesting as well. Why is it interesting, I'd don't see that as particularly revelant as we are not requiring every topic to justify why it should be included in Wikipedia. Looking at the topic indexes and examining the articles, I'm often left wondering why is that topic in Wikipedia. The answer, because someone found it interesting. We have topics here covering some obscure information found in the Lord of the Rings, Java humor, films, etc. Many of these topics would never appear in a traditional encyclopedia or be of interest to 99% of the population. So what, its been stated many times that wikipedia seeks both depth and breadth; that these topics are interesting to some apparently is reason enough to include them.
  • topic to ill-defined. How is the below ill-defined?
These people are commonly claimed to have been homosexual or bisexual, with various degrees of evidence to support the claim.

If it is, then how about changing it to

These people have been claimed to have been homosexual or bisexual with the stated evidence to support the claim.

and allowing evidence supporting and refuting to be recorded.

  • a particular person is not worthy in this list. Again, we have articles on many obscure people in Wikipedia. Its a matter of debate whether a specific person is interesting enough to be added to the list. Chasity Bono, IMHO, is because not only is she generally known by Americans, she's been an outspoken supporter of gay rights, talked openly about herself and her own experiences, and has worked for GLAAD. Of course, I don't find here to be the most interesting one on the list, but interesting enough. Still, that a given person is not worthy to be on the list, doesn't mean that the list itself is of no interest.

I agree that this list (or any other wikipedia article) should not be a propaganda tool and should retain a NPOV. Further, I'd like to see this evolve into an article(s) containing why those on the list are thought/not-thought to be by some. But there should not need to be much justification as to why a particular topic belongs in Wikipedia. But let's keep the article. sfmontyo

Marie Antoinette?!! - montréalais

Moved:

Leonardo da Vinci, Italian Renaissance artist, inventor

If you check the page, you'll see that he was accused and acquitted. Without evidence, I think his mention should not be on the list. Feel free to put it back if you disagree. --Ed Poor

I have already noted my severe dislike of these types of pages before (esp. this one) for this very reason: Until very recently the fact that somebody is homosexual was a strictly guarded secrete. That only leaves us in the 21st century with ancient rumors and accusations to go on in the vast majority of cases. Leo is a great case in point: There is no preponderance of evidence that I know of (yet alone the reasonable doubt stuff) to say that Leo was in fact gay. This is true for many other historical figures listed on this page. (it should be noted that I am openly gay and damn proud of it) --mav
Eh, whatever. If that's shown to be the case, anyone can remove his name. (That's the beauty of Wiki!) I don't think there's any argument about the likes of Socrates or Michelangelo, for instance, and any controversies of the sort you mention can readily be dealt with. This is an important list and it ought to stay put. (Oh, and me too.) - montréalais

Looks like there's a tug-of-war over King David & Jonathan. Sex & religion, hard to see why THIS is contentious... While I wouldn't put them on a list of "famous gay lesbian or bisexual people", certainly SOME people would, largely on the basis of 2 Samuel 1:26 (RSV) "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. ". Slim evidence, but they do belong on a list of those for whom at least "some people believe there is evidence the person was gay, lesbian or bisexual", which appears to be the concensus for what this list is. I vaguely recall much being made of them in Boswell's book on same-sex unions in the Middle Ages. Someone else 06:54 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

If that passage is all there is then I hardly call that evidence. The concept of love back then was way different than now. --mav
Doesn't convince me, either, though it has convinced some. They belong on a list of those whom a fair number of people have contended are gay. As you point out, the utility of such a list is questionable. Requiring evidence before beliefs get mentioned would certainly thin out the Wikipedia....<G> Someone else 07:13 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)
The article title is "Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people". This does *not* jibe well with "Famous people whom some percentage of people have believed were gay lesbian or bisexual". The former -- the current title of the page -- is a statement of verifiable fact, *not* belief. Evidence should be required before a person qualifies listing on this page. If you want a page of people *suspected without supporting evidence* of being GLB, title it appropriately so it is not misleading. -- User:Bignose
If one reads beyond the title, the page says "In short, the only thing a listing on this page indicates is that at least some people believe there is evidence the person was gay, lesbian or bisexual." It sounds like this should be removed, then? Someone else 09:32 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

On the Biblical David being considered to be bisexual - actually, I was just reverting what appeared to be a pretty random deletion when I restored him to this list, since I thought that this tidbit was common knowledge. Nonetheless, a 5 second Google revealed some clear views on King David's sexuality, based on biblical texts: [1] [2]

"When he (David) had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to to soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him away that day, and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan stripped himself of his robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his sword, and even his armor and bow and girdle. (Sam 18:1-4)
"David rose from behind the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times; and they [David & Jonathan] kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Sam 20:41)

I'm surprised that this is news to anybody, to be honest. Jacob

There are a number of reasons why David being gay is a problem. The reason he is thought to be gay has to do with the relationship between him and Jonathon. Any scholar of that time period can verify that such a relationship was purely one of friendship. All their actions would mean friendship. In fact if it was a relationship that was not based on friendship, such an action would be greatly frowned on. Men were not permitted to kiss their own wives in public. *Only* family (i.e. brother and sister) was permitted to show affection to each other in public. Another is that the Hebrew law forbid the act as it did adultery. The punishment was stoning. Yet God only sent a prophet to condemn him about adultery. There are not other situations in his entire life where he could be considered gay. This is only one example and only when interpreted in the light of modern times can we come to that conclusions, that is, only when we don't understand their culture correctly. It should be noted that this is an opinion, as there are two opposite views and it is clear that the issue is debatable. It should be noted as an opinion on the subject page at *minimum*. -- Ram-Man

Some more thoughts:

  1. 1 Samuel 20:42 -- Jonathan comforts David by saying that they have sworn friendship.
  2. The idea that David was gay is largely a recent idea (in popularity). It should be noted that neither the early Jews nor the early Christians viewed this as an indication of homosexuality. *These* were the people who lived in that culture, they should be the experts.
  3. Intimacy such as kissing or touching intimate locations was not unusual to seal an oath. In, Genesis 24:9, Abraham's servant put his hand on Abraham's thigh, an intimate gesture, to seal an oath. This was common practice and not a sign of sexual orientation.
  4. The idea that David is gay is contradictory with other portions of the Bible. This is a problem for *some* people. One must hold that either the single chapter is wrong or the Bible is not consistant.
  5. The society was deeply male dominated. There would have been little tolerance for such a relationship (right or wrong), but David could do whatever he wanted to any woman he chose. This was not a common and accepted practice in the *Hebrew* culture.
  6. David is one of the most heavily featured in the Bible, including the writing of many of the Psalms. Yet, he never wrote any songs about his love for men, though he mentioned woman.
  7. Jonathan was the son of the King. He was heir to the throne. Their friendship carried extreme risk, especially since David was anointed to be king. It was normal for such people to try to kill each other. Thus it would take extreme measures to ensure to each other that they would not go that route. Thus it was sealed with kisses rather than mere words. In fact he didn't ask for sexual favors. He asked for kindness (that he and his family be spared when David became king), a strange thing to ask from a lover (20:14). It was custom to kill the previous king's entire family when one came to power so that no one would try to overthrow you.
  8. Jonathan loved David as he loved himself, not has he loved another woman. (20:17)

-- Ram-Man

You raise some good points. I think you make a good enough case that at best, we'd have to put a "claimed as gay" disclaimer on the entry. Do we want to limit the list to people who are "out" -- or include anyone who has ever been suspected as gay? Generally, when I see a "List of famous X" I pretty much expect them to be X. Adding "purported X's" cheapens the list. --Ed Poor

Saul Bellow's Ravelstein contains a character said to be based on Bloom, and at least one advocate argues that Bloom, like the character who died of AIDS, must have been gay. Should we include Allan Bloom, on the strength of an article in a gay publication claiming him because of his resemblance to a character in a novel? --Ed Poor

I vacuumed this out of the article, because there's not enough evidence.

J. Edgar Hoover, former director of the US FBI

Apparently he had a close friendship with another bachelor, but if he was gay he took the secret with him to the grave. Of course, from a civil rights point of view, he may have been a "cock-sucker", but that's a figure of speech. --Ed Poor

The big allegation was that he was a transvestite, the closet gay thing just got added on due to his relationship with Tolson. One woman quoted in Anthony Summers' , Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover claimed to have seen Hoover in at least two separate and fetching outfits. Those brave enough may want to take a look at an artist's conception: http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/vc007266.jpg In general I think the concensus is that the testimony is unconvincing, and the idea of J. Edgar playing Aunt Bea disconcerting... Someone else

I don't think the claim is/was that Hoover was gay, but that he was a transvestite. There were rumours about his relationship with Clyde Tolson [3] [4], but that's just gossip, AFAICT. Jacob
See Janis Ian's Great Mistakes article [5] for a first hand account of a sighting of JEH "in the pink" (Mistake No. 7).

I have trouble with the title being "Famous gay lesbian or bisexual people" and the note that says that the people are not necessarily gay, only that some people think so. Which is it? The title should match. The word "Gay" is a loaded word, and a little disclaimer is not going to prevent misunderstanding. This list also has diminished purpose for me because I don't know who on the list was admittedly gay and who was possibly gay. These are important distinctions and based on the title of this article, only the former should be included. -- Ram-Man

You're comparing homosexuality with bestiality? Dangerous ground... - Khendon 15:33 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)


Why not have a List of famous people who had sex with animals? After all, Every child or teenager who is questioning his or her own sexuality can see a list of people who have identified as having sex with animals, and can then look at those people's accomplishments and say "Look! There is a diverse group of men and women (and everyone in between) who have accomplished so much! I am a worthy human being. Worthy of respect. Worthy of success. Worthy of the right to exist." - -There is no need to distinguish those who admitted having sex with animals from those reputed to have done, as this "encyclopedia article" is there for the sole purpose of encouraging the self worth of those who have sex with animals. OK -here is a start. -

List of famous people who had sex with animals



He was being sarcastic to show a point. -- Ram-Man

It was an unacceptable comment and it has been removed. It was derogatory towards homosexuals and the wikipedia is not a place where that will be allowed. For those reading this, someone spoofed the response at the top of this talk page by replacing the idea of being gay with of being into bestiality. Here is the difference:

To have an interest in bestiality is considered a mental health issue because it prohibits the human party involved from having healthy sexual relationships with other humans. Homosexuality has been clarified by the mental health community as being NON MENTAL-HEALTH RELATED, because adult homosexuals are able to have loving, healthy romantic and sexual relationships.

If you have a problem with homosexuality, don't take it here with your natty and rude comments. The fact remains that minority groups need role models, and that makes entries like this important.

I think this is a liberal western cultural assumption. Much of the world treats homosexuality the same way as bestiality. As to it not being mental health related, that is only a question of definition. People who have sex with amimals do as little harm as homosexuals, so who is to say that they don't need role-models?
This encyclopedia is based on fact, and fact, although often subjective (to a point,) comes from the information most widely believed to be true. As of this writing, it is inarguable to contradict that in the majority of civilized nations, it is believed that homosexuals have the right to live as they see fit without persecution or violence. (This mentality is believed even amongst many who see the lifestyle as destructive or sacreligious.) Part of growing up in a world where one doesn't have to fear violence for being a minority is having role models or famous people in the world who are vocal members of that minority. The continued "devil's advocate" commentary on this topic is unneeded. We are all aware that there are plenty of people in the world, nay, entire cultures, who believe homosexuals are subhuman and should be punished and/or destroyed. I think the majority of us also believe that THOSE beliefs are primitive and inhumane.

The final word on the matter is: this entry is culturally important to homosexuals, and it will remain. In the civilized Western world, medical professionals believe homosexuality to be anon mental-health related issue. If you don't like homosexuality, and don't understand WHY this entry is important (despite the numerous repeated explainations from myself and others,) you will simply have to resign yourself to the fact that to many, it is, and so it will continue to be. -EB-

So you are saying that people who have sex with animals are deserving of violence, ridicule and being classed as mentaly ill, wheras homosexuals are not, because they are a larger minority. The difference is only cultural.
The existance of an encyclopedia, in general, is of a modern culture. I defy you to name a single existing civilized modern culture in which having sexual intercourse with an animal is considered "normal." As for your above attempt to put words in my mouth and make me look stupid; What I said is that homosexuals (and all humans) do NOT deserve those things. What I said is that people who practice bestiality are in need of mental help. Those are commonly believed facts within *ALL* professionals in the mental health community, and your consistant attempt to dispute what is commonly known is simply adding to my ability to look, frankly, far more intellegent than I really am. Give it a rest.-EB-

I know it is common among the gay community to call Susan B. Anthony as a lesbian (They like the association with a famous feminist), however I am not sure that this is true, as she never directly said so (though some believe her writings show that she was). In fact most people do not understand what she stood for. She would have hated modern feminism and more closely sided with Christian fundamentalists (oddly enough!). She opposed gay male relationships because she believed that it was the man's job to provide for woman and a gay relationship would mean that men were not doing so. The truth of everything surrounding her (including what I write) is debated, and she should not be included in a definitive listing. -- Ram-Man

Somehow this "list of" page has become a proxy for the debate on "whether homosexuality is good or bad or what". It took me a few days to realize this, and I apologize (particularly to Easter Bradford) for my insensitivity.

May I suggest that contributors with ideas on homosexuality and its mental health status or "morality" status join me in (a) looking for the relevant articles and updating them or (b) just dropping it. --Ed Poor

Well JEEZ. Why can't it just be that simple? Why can't it just be "I don't think that this entry needs to exist;" "Well, *I* do, and here's why;" "Okay, I don't understand your why, but I acecpt and respect it. Fair enough." "Thank you."

It can't because people DON'T respect homosexuals in their right to exist, have their own culture and identify. But Ed, I appreciate your apology, although I as of yet haven't found any of your comments in particular to be offensive or off-basis. -EB-

If I haven't offended you yet, either I'm not being clear enough -- or you're a remarkably affable person :-) --Ed Poor
As I said, I'm only mainly offended by intentional need to hurt feelings, or by expression of opinion as fact. You've said plenty that I disagree with, but so what? I disagree with Rosie O'Donnell's new haircut, too. Doesn't mean if offends me. (But seriously, what was she thinking?) -EB-
Well, she CLAIMS she cut it to look like Boy George's haircut, because she wanted him to agree to let her produce his stage show in New York. -- Zoe

Why was Gianni Versace removed? I'm no fashion expert, but I thought he was pretty uncontroversially gay. --Camembert


Re J. Edgar Hoover: We can guess or opine, but we don't really know. Our own page on him says, "Speculation that Hoover practiced homosexuality has never been confirmed with factual evidence." (Whatever that might be in this context). Comments?

Returning to J. Edgar Hoover; There is some suspicion the idea of Hoover as a transvestite was Soviet disinformation. Hoover, according to people who knew him, was heterosexual. But the evidence is weak one way or another, and it has become an urban legend. -- GABaker

I'm removing Hoover again - really, I've heard about his supposed transvestitism many times, but I'd never heard a suggestion he was gay until I saw him on this list a while ago. It'd be nice if people who want him on the list could at least cite some sort of evidence that he was gay. I'm also removing Franco, because this is the first I've heard of him being gay, and I don't believe there's any evidence that he was - again, a cite gets him back in the list. --Camembert

Transgender People

Brandon Teena was a female-to-male transsexual who was dating a woman at the time he died. That would make him arguably straight (depending on your view of transexuality). Therefore, he was moved to list of transgendered people.

Sweeping Suggestion to End this Endless Debate

I would like to propose the following: 1. Anyone who does not have an article should be removed from the list because there is no explanation of why they are on the list. If they don't warrant an article, they don't make the list
2. Anyone whose article does not explain why the person is throught to be queer, should be removed from the list.
3. That explanation in the case of living people should either be self-acknowledgement (see Jesse Liberty) or should be reasonable documentation for a politically motivated outing.
4. In the case of people no longer alive, there should be substantial historical evidence for inclusion.
5. The fact that the concepts of gay, lesbian and bisexual did not exist in the past is irrelevant. If there is good historical evidence that someone lived a homosexual or bisexual life, that person should be included
6. Let's stop arguing over whether the list itself is valuable; enough of us find that it is for many reasons including research.
7. The list should include anyone who is "not straight" -- that is lesbian, bisexual, homosexual, trangender, transsexual, intersex, etc. (I personally would change the name of the list to famous queer people, but I won't enter that debate here).
8. The person need not be an activist, just famous enough to otherwise warrant an article, and also queer as defined above.
9. Those who are interested in preserving the list should make a good faith effort to prune it carefully. Those who dislike the list should leave it alone and try not to look at it, why be aggravated?

Jliberty 23:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making that proposal. Here are some responses.
1, 2, and 8: Until recently removed as a "self-reference", the List of bisexuals had this standard described in its intro:People on this list should have Wikipedia articles, and should have some information about their sexuality in their Wikipedia article. I think that was an excellent policy. If they don't have a Wikipedia article then they aren't famous or notable, and that is where the evidence of homosexuality should be recorded. (As for why there's a separate List of bisexuals article I do not have an answer).
3 & 4: The individual criteria for sufficient evidence should probably be left open. If it is established on their bio page, then interested editors will decide amongst themselves about the verifiability of the fact.
5 & 7. The terminology of same sex attraction can be convoluted. The standard Wikipedia formulation is "LGBT". There are many forms of queerness that go far beyond the limits of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (to which I would include transexual). I think that we should keep it limited to those who have been verifiably shown to have expressed same sex attraction towards other adults (LGB), or shifted their gender identity (T). That excludes child molesters, celibates, non-LGBT fetishists, etc.
9: Yes, true for any article. However, this article in particular has problems with spurious additions. meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles
If we start with this standard, how much more should we add? People on this list should have Wikipedia articles, and should have some information about their sexuality in their Wikipedia article. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'm happy to stay with LGBT for now, it simplifies things. As for 3&4 while the criteria should be flexibile, I don't think it should be open; i think guidelines are helpful. IAC, my hope is we can get something close to consensus pretty quickly. :-) Jliberty 10:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
What guidelines would you suggest? -Willmcw 16:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone whose article does not explain why the person is throught to be queer, should be removed from the list.
That explanation in the case of living people should either be self-acknowledgement or should be reasonable documentation for a politically motivated outing.
In the case of people no longer alive, there should be substantial historical evidence for inclusion.
Jliberty 17:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Those sound fair overall, but I think that in the case of outed persons the same standard should apply regardless of the motive of the outing, i.e. gossip, prosecution, politics, etc. I think that the exact definitions of "reasonable" and "significant" should be left to biography editors. So to recap the standard would be:
This is a list of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered individuals. People on this list should have Wikipedia articles, and should have some information about their sexuality in their Wikipedia article with reasonable documentation. In the case of deceased persons there should be significant historical evidence of their sexual or gender orientation.
Does that properly state the proposed standard? -Willmcw 21:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Perhaps we can set up a vote on this? Jliberty 23:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see someone's proposed yet another purge – anyone whose sexuality isnot mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia will be wiped from the roles of the gay. But here's a scoop: Wikipedia systematically suppresses information about sexuality. When such mentions are added to articles, they are nearly immediately wiped out. And here's another scoop: Wikipedia is rather a poor source of information on who is/was gay. For that sort of information, one must look to other sources. So a purge based on using Wikipedia as the only source ought to be a complete non-starter.

Here's a counterproposal: if you see someone whom you think should not be on the list, do the necessary research outside of Wikipedia and determine if he or she belongs here or not. Document your search and make the appropriate deletions or additions to the list. Cite your sources. Act in good faith. - Outerlimits 07:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I (obviously) have no interest in seeing queer people "purged" from this list (I'm proudly listed), but would like to pare down the list to those who are out, have been outed or for whom there is historical documentation, thus making the list more accurate and useful. If there is information, it should be in the article. If the information in the article is removed, that is an issue that should be handled (like any other dispute). If that can't be resolved, I have no objection to putting the information here (in talk) or in the article's talk page. I also have no objection to moving all those who might be "purged" to a specific list here (e.g., "Awaiting Documentation", so that some of us can do external research, find the supporting documentation and restore the name. It is unfortuanate that the closet continues to shroud this in controversey and mystery, but if the list is to have any value, it ought to be as accurate as we can make it. Jliberty 10:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that concern, which we haven't addressed previously. However I don't think you fully appreciate the volume of additions that this list receives. Between totally spurious entries (of disliked teachers, etc) and dubious entries (celebrities mentioned in gossip columns), this article gets many inappropriate edits. Some are easy to decide on, but many are not. I think that your counterproposal is pretty close to the main proposal - research entries and document the search, only the proposal would have the documentation would go into the biography rather than here. It may be that there are cases where other editors do not feel such information is relevant to the article, in which case the material can go to the biography's talk page. -Willmcw 21:48, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The ususal place to put references supporting the inclusion of a person on this list would be within the article under "References" or "Notes". There's absolutely no reason for this "proposal" to get entangled with other articles or other articles' talk pages. If the concern is obviously spurious entries, they get removed without this proposal, don't they? If the concern is dubious entries, they get placed in the debated category, don't they? The "proposal" doesn't seem necessary to deal with these problems.- Outerlimits 23:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Are there some particular biographies which have had disucssions of the subject's sexuality removed? I don't understand how wide-spread that problem is. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
There are many biographies which have had mentions of the subject's sexuality removed - though this was the time of the last attempted purge of the list, so examples don't come tumbling to mind. As I recall, Tony Kushner was one that has had the word "gay" removed, though one can still learn that he has a "partner" named Mark. Try it yourself: add "X is a gay American actor" to several appropriate entries and see how long they last. - Outerlimits 02:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to your concern, but Tony Kushner was not a good example. As far as I can determine, no editor ever added a sentence about Kusner's sexuality. Some categories and the gay template came and went, but he's been solidly categorized as gay writer for at least nine months. And no one has moved the sentence about his partner or their marriage. It may be that in come cases the other editors object to the placement of the adjective within the article. To show the countr-concern, scan down this page and see how many editors have raised questions about the inclusion on an entry, only to get no responses at all. The editors involved in the specific biographies, while potentially being over-protective, at least know and care about their subjects. -Willmcw 06:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong on the facts here. See [6], where "gay" was removed from the article. Since that time Mr. Kushner has not been identified as "gay", and certainly isn't explicitly called gay in the present article: one is forced to infer that he is gay from the fact that he has a male "partner" and writes about gay things. Concerns about accuracy are best addressed by fact-checking, not by blind deletion, or by deletion based on whether the information appears elsewhere in Wikipedia, an extremely limited source. - Outerlimits 04:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
That was back in 2003, and the same editor who removed the word "gay" added the information about Kushner's spouse. That was the same editor who added most of the material that's in the article today. And for many months the article has been in the "Gay writers" category, so the reader doesn't have to look far to find Kushner's orientation. So it doesn't seem like an effort to suppress information. Again, I'm open to the possibility of such an effort existing, but I don't see the evidence for it. One advantage of making sure that the articles contain information about the subject's sexuality is then that information isn't hidden just in this one article. Readers of the biographies should not have to check this list in order to found out that the subject is LGBT. Our "extremely limited source" should be improved, not overlooked. -Willmcw 04:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you mean to suggest that things have changed since 2003. I don't see that. If your proposal were "add mention of the sexuality of the people on this list to their articles", I could support it. But your proposal is "remove people whose sexuality is not listed in their articles from this list", which is an inappropriate response. - Outerlimits 04:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the editor who removed the word "gay" does not seem to have done so in order to supress information. And that no one has tried to add the word back in more than 16 months. So I'm suggesting that this may not be as serious an issue as you apparently believe that it is. This list is going to continue to have people added to it and removed from it. I'd rather that we have some criteris for deciding who stays and who goes. Your original counter-proposal did not contain a criteria other than the de facto "editor's judgement". Can you suggest an alternate criteria? Cheers, -Willmcw 04:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Every addition and deletion from Wikipedia articles necessarily is a matter of editors' judgements. I'd suggest the solution for the problem your solution seems to be searching for is: If you remove a name, cite your source and document your reasons for doing so. If you add a name, cite your source and document your reasons for doing so. - Outerlimits 05:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
You might also want to look over the history of the "gay" paragraph in Eleanor Roosevelt- Outerlimits 13:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked it over. It appears that one anonymous user made repeated attempts to remove the paragraph, which attempts were imediately reverted by other editors. However, if there were no connection between this list and the subject's article, such an attempt could succeed and go unnoticed on this list. Better to have this list tied to the subject articles, so that they can mutually check each other. BTW, if you want a good example, take Anwar Robinson, some TV show contestant. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually, you were the one that wanted the examples, so I'm glad you've found a good one. You could find others by looking for articles I wrote in September 2003, which were greeted with the following: "Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm going around and deleting "gay" from the first sentence of the articles you're working on. The articles themselves are very useful, and well-written, but unless the gayness is part and parcel of one's work, then it really shouldn't jump out at one in the first sentence. RickK 02:42, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)" - Outerlimits 12:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Well even my "good" example doesn't prove your point. I'd never heard of Robinson before someone added his name here. My first reaction was to check his article, and sure enough there was information there. So it was the (informal) connection between the two articles which allowed for a check. As for Rickk's comment, it seems to be about where inthe article the term "gay" appears. If he was deleting all references then his comment would seem disingenuous. In any case, we've talked about this extensively and I don't think that we're going to change each other's minds. That's ok. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:20, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


Implementation

Based on a spot check I'd guess that about one-third of the biographies have no mention of sexuality. Those entries will no longer be acceptable if the proposal has a consensus, including those that have been verified. For example, I've checked many of the entries over the past month, first in their wikibio and then on Google. I found that in many cases there are plenty of external sources on the matter, but none of those have been entered into our biographical articles. (Yes, I should have taken the extra 10 minutes to add it after checking.) If we simply delete the names from this list then we're losing information out of the encyclopedia. The most comprehensive solution might be to spam the talk pages of all the biographical articles with a note saying that the subject has an entry in this list, and that continued inclusion in the LGBT list depends on the contents of the bio, also mentioning the "disputed" section and the [category:LGBT persons]. Another option is to simply add the names that are removed to a list of "de-listed" entries on this talk page. (omitting the patently spurious additions). One way or another, we should find a way of implementing this proposal that avoids a mass deletion of material. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:25, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I support moving questionable entries to the talk page for later inclusion. This has worked well on other pages. Also, if the proposal is approved, I would suggest archiving this entire page at the same time. --Samuel Wantman 06:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. And I would be willing to put in some work over the next few months documenting those folks and moving them back onto the list. I'm sure others would as well Jliberty 23:57, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The page needs to be archived whether or not the proposal is approved. If the proposal is approved, then most of these discussions will occur on the individual biography talk pages rather than on this page. -Willmcw 06:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


As a test case, I've moved Marlon Brando to a new section (below). His extensive bio does not mention anything about his bisexuality and does discuss his various wives. In my opinion (and based on my proposal) he either should be moved off the GLBT list or his bisexuality should be documented in some way.Jliberty 11:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good. May I suggest that it would be helpful to also post a note on the talk page of the subject? Something to the effect of: "The subject of this page is being removed from the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people because there is no documention in this article to support his or her inclusion. If this removal is incorrect, please add the material on the subject's sexuality to this article or talk page before adding the subject's name back to the list. Thanks" That way any editor who was interested in the subject could follow up if interested. -Willmcw 09:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think that is an excellent idea Jliberty 10:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Holy crap. Did anyone interested in removing his name do the slightest bit of research? In the 1976 biography "The Only Contender" by Gary Carey, Brando was quoted as saying, "Like a large number of men, I, too, have had homosexual experiences, and I am not ashamed." It was widely quoted in the media at the time of his death, and really isn't an obscure bit of information. Google for it: that really ought to be the minimum required if you intend to become purgers of information: just because it's news to you doesn't mean it's not true. If you're too lazy to even Google, here's a link to his Telegraph obituary. [7] - Outerlimits 09:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Please try not to be personally insulting. I do not believe that the people cleaning this list need to or ought to do that kind of research. The person adding Brando to the list ought to include the reason in his bio. The point of this proposal is straightforward (no pun intended): if it ain't in the article, take him off the list. You may disagree with that approach, which is fine, but there is no reason to ridicule it. Jliberty 10:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Of course there's a reason to ridicule it: it is a methodology that values consistency over truth. - Outerlimits 12:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Good. So we can add this info to his article. Remember, this info is not in his bio, so the reader of that article would not be privy to this info. If it's sufficient for the Telegraph then it's probably sufficient for us too. That info should be recorded in the relevant locaitons, like this list and his bio. That's the one of the points of this proposal. The info should be recorded, the most relevant place to do so is the subject's article, that info should be in the subject's bio, and this is essentially a glorified category. It seems to me that you are proving the need for this proposal. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
PS, though though it isn't discussed in the Marlon Brando article itself, the article is categorized "LGBT Actors". So under under this proposal I don't think that user:Jliberty should have removed the name in the first place. I guess that makes this a moot point. However I still believe that if there were no such designation, and if the boilerplate that I suggest is used, then it is the best way to prevent inconsistent and inaccurate information. Red-faced cheers, -Willmcw 10:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
No, what it proves is that you shouldn't remove names from this list without doing adequate research. - Outerlimits 10:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
That is the crux of the disagreement. the thrust of the proposal is that the person cleaning the list does not have to do the research, the person adding to the list does, and should put it in the article. Your standard makes it impossible to clean this list. It isn't that hard, I am on the list, and my article reflects why. Jliberty 10:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps "your article" should reflect the fact that you have no particular knowledge of matters gay, as illustrated by your willingness to remove Katharine Mansfield and Marlon Brando (and god knows how many others) from a list of gay people without knowing, or apparently caring enough to do the research needed to determine that they indeed belong there. "My" standard (that one should do research prior to removing a name) is hardly unusual, nor does it make anything impossible. - Outerlimits 12:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Why would you lash out personally at another person trying in good faith to improve this list. My proposal was to remove from the list anyone who does not have documentation in the supported article. Your counter proposal (equally but not more valid) is to fully research the person and then document why they should be removed. My approach will purge people who belong on the list, yours will leave people on the list who do not belong. I put mine to a vote, you are (so far) the only one to vote against it, but I'm happy to go with your proposal if that is the consensus.
As to your personal comment, I don't believe that just by being queer I'm an expert on "matters gay" but having read about 2 dozen books on the subject (and written about 2 dozen published articles and opinion pieces), and been involved with gay political movements for 30 years, I hardly think it is reasonable to lash out at me as an ignorant interloper. Beyond which, any such personal comments just encourage folks to stay away and not participate.Jliberty 11:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
You're right. I should have ignored your mention of your Wikipedia page: it doesn't present you as an "expert-gay" though I imagined the reason you brought it up it was to depict yourself as such. I suppose the irony of suggesting changing your article in reference to this list, as you would have other articles changed, was rather obscure. However, your proposed standard remains unacceptable. A reference work that references only itself is an absurd idea; the notion that when an article and this list do not agree, that it is this list that must change is illogical; worst of all it is a standard that discourages actual research and values consistency over truth and informativeness. It's also been suggested before, and rejected. Frankly, I don't see that there's a crying need for "reform" of this list in the first place. - Outerlimits 11:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Frankly I pointed to my article just to demonstrate that I'm not homophobic (not sure that works, because plenty of queers are homophobic, but they are not usually out and politically active). Let's take it on faith that we share a common goal: to improve the utility of this list. You do have a small problem, which is that if you look at the straw poll, so far you are the only one who thinks the proposed revision is a bad idea. That is not dispositive, but it does suggest that others think that ensuring that there is a match between the article and being listed is a good idea. I'm not sure how we get from here to there; I would propose that it is up to the editors of each article to add the documentation, and that we should remove the name until that is done; you would argue (if I understand you correctly) that the name should be left on the list unless someone has done the research to demonstrate that the person is wrongly listed. As I note above, there are problems with both approaches, but I'd argue that my approach both distributes the work better, and also has the advantage of making this list a more reliable source of information. Since so few people have registered a vote so far, I'll stop removing names until something like a consensus is reached. Jliberty 10:50, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think that those voting in favor of the proposal see no problem with imposing special hurdles on a list because it involves gay people, while I think that imposing special criteria for this particular list alone is problematic and not particularly enlightened. I don't disagree that citation/sourcing is good; I don't disagree that, generally, if being gay is important in someone's life it should be mentioned in their articles; what I disagree with is the presumption that people don't belong on the list, and that special rules are needed for this list. Why should the default presumption be "not gay"? And why should it be presumed by a person that if they don't know someone's sexuality, the editor who placed them on the list was wrong? But I would think that the way to improving the utility of the list might be something like this: You identify someone on the list you feel is wrongly listed. I do the appropriate research, and the appropriate action (removal or retention) is taken. And you (if you feel strongly it should be there, and it isn't) add the information to the person's article. If there is no article, it can be written, or the citation can be added here. I frankly don't see much in the way of problematic entries, but if you do, I would think this would be one way forward. - Outerlimits 20:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
(Response to above, but the indentation was getting out of hand)

Yes, there is real risk of heterosexism and even homophobia contributing to the desire to cut into this list. On the other hand, there is gossip about people being queer based on stereotypes about behavior or appearance that does as much harm as presuming someone is straight because they don't meet the stereotype.

That said, I'd be happy to revise the proposal to say that rather than removing someone from the list, the steps are to:
Add the potentially incorrect entry to a special section on this page titled "Pending Removal due to lack of documentation" with a note that when you add the person you should do a quick google search to see if you can find the information and you should not remove them from the list for two weeks.

Then within two weeks the entry would be moved either to "Documented" (with a note on the documentation on this page and in the bio or to "Removed" at which time the name would be removed from the list until it is documented. Does that sound reasonable? Jliberty 16:46, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

That's too complicated. Instruction creep. While we're revising, what do we mean by "documented"? I thought it meant "mentioned". What do other editors think? Cheers, -Willmcw 19:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
To me it seems an eminently reasonable way of cooperating to improve the article. This is not about "instructions". What we're looking to add (here or in an article, if it exists) is a reference, not a mention. - Outerlimits 01:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Waiting periods are too complicated in the Wikipedia world. Requiring a source for an edit is not. I'd be flexible about where and what the source is. Wikipedia articles are a sufficient source, in my opinion. We (as editors of this list) don't have to require that the biographies meet some standard. The editors of the biographies can make their own decisions (of course any of cus can become editors of those articles). OTOH, if a subject's sexuality is sourced here but not mentioned in the biography then that is also fine with me. If I see someone add a name here, and the subject's bio mentions LGB sexuality, then that's enough for me. That restatement of the criteria would cover situations, like Anwar Robinson, where the bio is in an edit war, but there is a reasonable source that can be added here. -Willmcw 01:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Waiting periods are a routine part of Wikipedia operation. Think of the Votes for Deletion page (or indeed, any vote). Wikipedia articles are clearly not a sufficient source, as is demonstrated each time a reference is removed and a non-Wikipedia reference is easily found. - Outerlimits 22:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a list of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered individuals. People on this list should have Wikipedia articles, and their addition should have reasonable documentation or there should be some information about their sexuality in their Wikipedia article. In the case of deceased persons there should be significant historical evidence of their sexual or gender orientation.

Here's a change in wording which would allow more flexibility in sourcing. -Willmcw 01:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Or This is a list of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered individuals. People on this list should have Wikipedia articles, Please add a citation to a source in which information about their sexuality may be verifed when adding people to this list. - Outerlimits 22:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any article that has a routine waiting period. Do we want to remove the word "famous" from the title? -Willmcw 01:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
You don't know of an article that has a routine waiting period because we generally don't impose rules such as the ones you contemplate on articles: I think this is the only article where people have sought to impose such strictures on editing. As for "famous", we've been back and forth on whether it belongs in titles or not, though whether present or not it is considered common sense that people mentioned on lists should be at least somewhat more notable than the average man-in-the-street. = Outerlimits 16:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that requiring sources is a unique criteria. The criteris is chiefly lifted from List of bisexuals, where it has existed without complaint or difficulty. The best rule of thumb for "fame" that we have is an article in Wikipedia. -Willmcw 19:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
"Requiring" sources is not routine, but suggesting they will prevent disputes is at least rational. But that's not what you've proposed - you've proposed that nothing be listed here that can't be found elsewhere in Wikipedia, and that would indeed be unique - and ill-advised. Fame is not conferred by having an article in Wikipedia, nor is it absent absent an article! - Outerlimits 23:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These are two issues: requiring sources about sexuality (either as a mention of sexuality in an article or as a citation given here, in the edit summary, or in the listing itself) and requiring an indication of fame (either an article in Wikipedia or extra info given here, in the edit summary, or in the listing itself). Those are the two conditions that should be met to appear on a list of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual people. What's the problem with formaulating it like that? -Willmcw 23:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I was ready to support this change, but after my recent experiences I am not sure. I am currently battling an editor who removed all mention of sexuality from an article about Stephen Spender. I doubt that this is an unusual occurance. The norm is probably that there are many editors removing citations about sexuality from articles. So I am now of the opinion that there schould be citations for any person who's sexuality might be controversial, or is not common knowledge. We could make this a fairly uncomplicated process: Someone adds a name; someone else removes it; it gets restored to the list with a citation. End of story. This process is not unlike any other article in Wikipedia. -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just got here because I read a post asking for review. Never having read it before, I have spend an hour or more doing so but remain uninformed as to some main points. What is the purpose of this page? The proposed change is to make it a list of cast-iron stand up in court or self defined people. Fine, if that is what you want. If you wish to include more contentious people- by which I still mean ones where evidence exists, but also perhaps where denials are flying about, then the proposal is no good at all. Perhaps you need two pages. One for cast iron cases, and one for possibles.

A definition that something may only be placed on a wiki page if it already exists on another wiki page is totally absurd. Never mind the suggestion that something can not be included whatever external sources might exist for it.

I see below an argument about Michael Portillo. He seems to have disappeared from the list. Despite having discussed this topic on TV in the political chat show mentioned in his bio where he is a regular presenter/contributor. Despite mention in his wiki bio of 'youthful homosexual dalliance'. Has he been left out because someone removed him and no one bothered to put him back, or because this is not classed as sufficient admission of 'homosexuality'? If the latter, then this proposal is ridiculous.

This is not supposed to be a list of people who shag anything which moves and thus provide proof. It is presumably people who have such an inclination. It is wholly disingenuous to suggest that because someone has no recent public same sex encounters that they would not belong on this page. I have no problem about making a clear distinction between people who are happy about this information being known or do not dispute it, and those who do dispute it. But a list of such people about who controversy exists is still informative in its own right. Sandpiper 4 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Note that Portillo is still on the list, down at the bottom, under "Persons no longer identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual." Cheers, -Willmcw July 4, 2005 09:05 (UTC)
Reading Wiki is like being in a maze. From this I started reading Matthew Parris, and adding to his biography. A friend and colleague of Portillo and online references about one also mention the other. Now I have come back here to check replies, I shall have to try to rediscover the bit I was reading earlier. It was not at all my impression that Portillo has retracted anything he said. A piece about how he introduced his current girlfriend to his current boyfriend (as of at the time) while both were being driven by him in a car. Not identifying as gay? What does that mean?Sandpiper 4 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
Ah, found it again,6 hours later. Google says it is in Wiki, on this very page. Well that must be ok then, if it is mentioned in Wiki then it must be ok to include it in wiki.
You mean, portillo is on the discussion page here, not in the section in the article section of debateable whatevers? And while we are on the subject of politicians, Parris, who knew Enoch Powell just as he retired from parliament, reports that the old boy was bisexual. Does he get a mention? Funny thing, life. Sandpiper 4 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

Moved due to lack of documentation in Wikipedia article

  • Marlon Brando, American Actor, bisexual Listed in the "LGBT actors" category. <-- an inappropriate reason. He should be listed as bisexual because I supplied the documentation as cited above, not because some Wikipedian placed his article in a category without any documentation for doing so!!! This is an example of the poverty of the idea that people should be added to or deleted from this list based on what one finds in their Wikipedia articles. Nor does it seem that he has actually been added back to the list. - Outerlimits 03:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
First, the propsed standard says that he is removed from the list if it is not documented in his article. It is not. Second, you complain that he has not been added back to the list, but if you think he should be, do so; there is no automatic mechanism for it. But it would be great if when doing so you also updated his article to reflect the documentation you cite. Jliberty 10:37, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I thought the person that commited the error would want to rectify it. Since you do not, and apparently will not, I will be happy to fix the list. If you think the fact should be mentioned in his article, you are free to add it there. - Outerlimits 12:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Kurt Cobain, Rock musician, bisexual
    • The article specifically discusses this and finds no proof of bisexuality. -Willmcw 21:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Jake Shears, singer for the band the Scissor Sisters
    • No mention in the article. This is a typical case. -Willmcw 05:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is typical, in that it takes a single Google search ("Jake Shears" "Scissor Sisters" gay) to find him [discussing his sexuality. - Outerlimits 15:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
        • My point being he is an obscure figure with no info in his article who was added to this list without any references. Sure, lots of articles could require other editors to go searching for the sources. However the Wikipedia standard is for editors to cite their own sources. A majority of entries that get added to this list have no references, which puts the workload on those who try to maintain the list. -Willmcw 23:55, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
          • It's well established that people don't need an article to be listed on lists in Wikipedia. Your proposal would have made this list different than every other list here, and that's not appropriate. I would imagine that those who want to maintain the list will have to face the fact that it will require work - that's the case for every article in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia standard is to ask for sources about facts you question (usually after doing at least a bit of preliminary research to see if the answer is readily available from Google). Ask, rather than remove. - Outerlimits 01:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
            • It is not atypical to require a source for additions to articles. In a list like this, which sees many additions a week, deleting a dubious name with an edit summary requesting a source is reasonable, as is posting a notice that sources of some kind are required.
              • Of course it's atypical! Surely you don't mean to suggest that the typical article has rules delineating prerequisites for editing!?! What is not atypical is to ask for sources on any disputed information that has been added. -Outerlimits 06:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • On a developing topic, lists that require people to be famous need some way of establishing fame. With the growth of the encyclopodia, fewer and fewer currently famous people remain who don't have biographies. Therefore, absence of an article makes it unlikely (though not impossible) that a person is famous. (And there are even many articles on people who aren't famous). Their fame can be shown by additional info (such as you provided for the Prince). Cheers, -Willmcw 01:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
              • Fame is necessarily subjective, and prior attempts to define it objectively in Wikipedia -generally through quantifying Google hits- have been largely unsuccessful. Two operative definitions that do not work are (1) I've heard of him/never heard of him, and (2) Wikipedia does/doesn't have an article about him yet.- Outerlimits 06:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Straw poll on proposed standards

Proposed standards: This is a list of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered individuals. People on this list should have Wikipedia articles, and should have some information about their sexuality or sexual identity in their Wikipedia article with reasonable documentation. In the case of deceased persons there should be significant historical evidence of their sexual or gender orientation.

Voting Yes indicates you agree that the article should be revised to the Proposed Standards

Voting No indicates that you do not want the article to be revised to those standards

[To vote, put four tilde (~) marks under Yes or No]

Please do not discuss the standards here; please discuss them in the section above. This section is only for voting.

Yes

  1. Jliberty 23:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Taco Deposit 14:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Willmcw 21:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. BlankVerse ∅ 11:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Samuel J. Howard 02:59, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Hayford Peirce 18:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Hiding 13:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. ℬastique▼talk 29 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)

No

  1. Outerlimits 07:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sandpiper 4 July 2005 08:01 (UTC) so much text, but so little information to make a choice


Conclusion of the strawpoll May I propose that we conclude this poll on July 11, 2005 an even two months from its opening. -Willmcw July 4, 2005 08:38 (UTC)

  • This strawpoll has been open for input for two full months and the matter has been well-discussed. This is a good time to review the outcome. Nine editors expressed support for the proposal of user:Jliberty as informed by the subsequent discussions. Two editors expressed disapproval (one just recently). However the discussions led to proposed language from both sides that minimized the differences. I suggest that Jliberty, as the original proposer, review the full discussion of the proposal on this page. With that information he should implement the consensus by creating a clear, written criteria for inclusion in this list. And of course anyone else is free to step in and do the same thing too (this is Wikipedia, after all). Moving forward doesn't mean forestalling discussion. Let's start slowly and see how it works and correct as we go. Having a specific criteria will improve the article. Thanks, everybody, for participating. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree, I will endeavor to assimilate all the points made and offer a new policy statement based on what has been discussed. Thanks. Jliberty 00:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Overall concerns

Debated Section Issues

Stereotype -> Gossip -> Speculation -> Rumor --> Debated?

I have serious objections to adding people, especially people who are alive to confirm or deny it, to the Debated section without at least some specific evidence. For example, the recent addition of the singer Clay Aiken because he is "Overly effeminate" (whatever that may mean) is absurd.

The link to the singer confirms that the only evidence for his inclusion is this anachronistic stereotyping coupled with rumor and innuendo. I believe that propagation of stereotypes and unsubstantiated gossip seriously undermines both the credibility of this encyclopedia and does harm to those of us who are out.

There may be good reasons to out closeted GLB people who are doing overt harm to the queer community, but to add a person's name to the debated list because someone thinks that person conforms to a stereotype of queer appearance or because of internet gossip is destructive at best.

Thus, I am removing this singer from the list, and I am editing his article to remove the following:

"Aiken's awkward, effeminate demeanor has led many to speculate that he is a homosexual, though he has not openly confirmed these rumors and has refused interviews with publications which target gay audiences." I'm not sure what "openly confirmed" implies (has he secretly confirmed them?) and refusing interviews does not make you queer, it just makes you unwilling to discuss what he may consider a non-issue.Jliberty 12:27, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Follow up: I've gone through the list looking for people who are alive and for whom there is absolutely no documentation or evidence, or where the addtiion to the list is based solely on "internet rumor" and removed them. I have not been 100% thorough, and wherever there was any shred of reason to leave the person (or where further research was needed) I left the person listed.
It is important, I think, to have a place for debated historical figures (e.g., Lincoln) and/or for current folks who have been outed for political reasons, but simple rumor and innuendo ought not be enough for an encyclopedia, no matter how open. Jliberty 13:36, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your actions are appreciated, although you have a tough task ahead: I suspect a majority are based on dubious sources, as is often the case in Wikipedia articles.

Section naming

I have serious questions about some of the current status of this page. I am not questioning whether it should exit, but it currently reads to allow people merely suspected of being gay, etc. Most of this is hearsay and in some cases there is very little evidence. Even the disclaimer at the top explains that some of the names are quite disputed. I don't see the benefit in adding people who are suspected. Put it in their biography pages, but not on a listing of "Famous gay lesbin or bisexual people". I vote to remove the disclaimer and all those who are debated. At the very least we need a new article or a new section for those people who are debated. Right now I have no idea which people in the list are debated and which ones are not. Rather than start an edit war, I decided to put my thoughts here before changing anything. -- Ram-Man

I'd prefer 'debatable' or 'rumoured', though 'debatable is probably superior. I think it should be split into a list of gay men, a list of lesbian women, a list of bisexual men, a list of bisexual women and a list for persons of debated sexual preference. ~Sanguinus
I'd like to see us use the term 'debatable' rather than 'suspected' - the latter has negative connotations. Few are suspected of being heros, they are suspected of being nefarious. jesse 15:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I also reckon the article should be broken up into famous gay people, famous bisexual people, and famous lesbian people. In the example mentioned above of a lesbian (say) wanting to know that she's not alone, seperated lists would be more useful. I can't think of any reason to keep them together, personally. -Martin
Do we also need three articles for suspected gay people, etc. or something of the sort? I am not necessarily advocating removing the debated people, but they need their own articles. -- RM
I would question whether it should exit. The validity of this page is not at all clear to me (I'd personally go so far as to request it's deletion). I'm not sure this article is more useful than it is detrimental. The risk of this page listing the wrong people seems too high given it's usefulness, which I would content is not high. IanLewis 21:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Replace the information in the article with the following and appropriately move the information:

or,

I'd propose this list:
That is, without the list of famous straight people. Since some 90% of the population is straight, that list would be unworkable. As for the first (famous bisexual people) some distinction will have to be made in the entry to explain the difference between bisexuality in (e.g.,) Ancient Greece and bisexuality today, and in the former case, between men who took younger men (12-17) both as lovers and under their mentorship (which was common) and those who took men as lovers who were of about their same age (see Alexander the Great).
I'd be happy to help with the reorganization, but frankly, I'm not sure how these decisions are made. Does one just take it on, or is there some form of "official" decision first. jesse 15:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)


I agree it's a good idea to separate those who are definitely gay and those only suspected of being gay, but I don't think they need separate articles - just put the two lists both in this article, with a heading like "Famous people suspected of being gay, lesbain or bisexual". I'm also not convinced we need separate lists for gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but if that's what people really want, well, OK. Again, though, I'd rather have sub-lists within this one article. --Camembert
My reason for multiple lists is a practical one. Currently each one is listed from A to Z. Now if we split them into sublists, we are going to have a large number of lists all from A to Z. This is going to be quite long and cumbersome. Especially considering how many letters there are, people are bound to put names in the wrong list. There is no real problem that I can think of with dividing the names (unless there would not be enough names to fill the lists, but I don't think this will be a problem). It is also easier to find a person in a certain category which is a nice benefit. -- RM

Why will sublists make for a longer article than we have now? If we get rid of the letter headings (A, B, and so on), which I don't think are needed in any case, the article might actually end up being shorter than at present. I also don't see how the chances of somebody putting a name in the wrong list are any greater if all the lists are on one page - I would guess, in fact, that the chances of that happening would be reduced, as they can see at a glance that quite a detailed sub-categorisation is going on. I don't see how it's "easier to find a person in a certain category" with separate articles either - surely you have to flick from article to article to find someone, which to me seems rather tiresome. Anyway, this list is by no means so large as to require splitting up.

Just to expand on my reasons for not wanting to split up gay, lesbian and bisexual - it ought to be clear, surely, that if somebody is male, they are gay, and if somebody is female, they are lesbian. "Bisexual" is a rather dodgy term at the best of times - some people will tell you that we are all of us somewhere on the bisexuality continuum. What makes somebody bisexual? If a nominally gay man sleeps with one woman, is he bisexual? What if a nominally straight man sleeps with one man? Better, I think, to keep everyone on the one list (except divided between "certains" and "maybes") and explain all the details on their bio page (a parenthetical comment after their list entry may be useful in some cases, also). --Camembert

I actually mostly agree with your current view of things. However, this would require removing the "A-Z" markers. They are obviously there for a reason. If you don't put them in new articles, you pretty much have to remove the "A-Z" markers to keep the article from being too cluttered. If you make new articles you can keep the markers in anticipation of future growth of these pages. Still, the bisexual problem does make for an interesting situation. -- RM

This entry is already making an arbitrary split between straight and bi, so why not make another arbitrary split between bi and gay? Are we to have famous straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and asexual people? famous people with a sexual orientation? This kind of categorisation issue is nothing new (see listing of noted atheists, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis. -Martin

Well, I don't mind the "A-Z" markers going - the list(s) should remain in alphabetical order, of course, but I think we all know our alphabet, and we don't really need those markers to remind us of it. As for Martin's concerns - I mean, I sort of agree with you, I think, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for any more (sorry). I suppose I think of this page as being essentially a "List of famous queer people" - we can't actually call the page that, though, because "queer" isn't a term which is widely enough known and accepted. As I say, details can go in the person's own article, or, if required, in a parenthetical comment after their name on this list.

To sum up, then - I think we should keep everyone in this one article; I think we should get rid of the "A-Z" markers; I think we should divide the list into two based on whether there is no serious argument about whether they were gay or whether there is disagreement on the matter; I think we could make comments such as "(an openly gay musician)" or "(a member of parliament suspected of being bisexual") after the person's name if required. --Camembert

Are you saying to not even have the debateable people in their own article? Also the article already encourages people to comment, but that really has not happened or it has caused othe problems. -- Ram-Man

Yes, that's what I'm saying - the debatables should be on this page, but on their own separate list (so the article would be in two halves - the list of "certainties" and the list of "debatables"). I just don't see the point of separating them to their own article. I just mentioned commenting on others as an alternative to actually splitting up bisexuals, lesbians, etc. I should probably say, by the way, that I'm not a big fan of any of these "List of..." pages (although I have been keeping an eye on this one), so I won't argue very strongly against any changes made here. I'm just saying how I'd like to see things, and how I think things would be best, but if things don't work out that way, that's fine. --Camembert

Who is the "Gay US Actor Alan Bates"? The only famous Alan Bates I know of is 1. British and 2. Straight (but has played gay characters)

Also, was Montgomery Clift widely known to be gay? --- Syncrolecyne (Is John Paul II widely known to be catholic!!! It was practically shouted off the rooftops, to the embarrassment of senior Hollywood stars in the closet who were terrified they'd be asked about their sex lives. JtdIrL)

Socrates was of debated sexual orientation? Are you nuts?! Have you read The Symposium?! I think the only people who "debate" Socrates' sexual orientation are people with their fingers in their ears, chanting "La la la, I can't hear you!" I have never heard anyone attempt to argue that he was heterosexual and I was completely unaware that there was any dispute about him at all. - Montréalais

Just added Camille Saint-Saens to the list of "possibles" - [8] claims "There's no question about his homosexuality", but I don't think it's a reliable source (it says Frederic Chopin was gay, which as far as I know, he wasn't). The evidence for Saint-Saens is pretty circumstantial as far as I'm aware (though I'm happy to be corrected on that).

In more general news - might it be an idea to move all the unclassified ones to the "certain" list, and let people move them to the "debatables" if they feel there is any debate? Otherwise, they might never be moved at all. --Camembert

  • I would definitely agree twith that and the only reason I didn't do it myself is that I thought it might make some people shirty. - Montréalais

Shouldn't there be a comma in the title after "gay"? --Eloquence 09:17 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I meant to fix it a while ago, but forgot somehow. I'll do it now. --Camembert

Saint-Saens reputedly had an affair with Tchaikovsky? Are you sure about that? It's a new one on me - who reputes this, exactly? --Camembert

It gives the sexual phrase "making sweet music together" a whole new meaning! JtdIrL 01:59 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I've taken it out now, anyway. If somebody has a cite for it, I'd be interested to hear it. As far as I know, the main suggestion with Saint-Saens was that he liked young Algerian men. I couldn't even find the Tchaikovksy claim on the web (though I did find a claim that the two were in a drag show together, and that Erik Satie must have been gay because he owned a lot of umbrellas or something like that). --Camembert

Added in Sinead O'Connor, who stated recently that she had had relationships with women. Having once seen Sinead and her new (now apparently about to be her ex) husband kiss so intensely that I had wondered if one or other would pass out for lack of oxygen, I can certainly confirm her liking for men too. So I guess means she is bisexual. JtdIrL 02:18 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl commented "homophobia is a standard link in gay related pages"

What? Are you saying that every gay related page, even if there is nothing about homophobia in it, should have a link to homophobia? We put a link to antisemitism on every jewish related page. Or did I simply misunderstand you, and there is something about *this* page that warrants a link to homophobia?

It has been the general rule in this page to describe Actors from the United States as being US actors, rather than American. Homophobia is a standard link that is attached to gay related pages, just as we have links to Homophobic hate speech, etc. (If this one isn't on here, I am adding it.) Leave the page in the format it has generally been agreed to. JtdIrL 01:38 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC) And yes, homosexuality is reacted to in different ways. One way (unfortunately) is homophobia, hence the link to explain it. It has been that way for ages by agreement.

I've reinstated Michael Portillo to the confirmed sexual orientation page. When the press release was issued by Michael, it spoke of 'youthful indiscretions' (if I remember the correct term), which made it sound like a bit of fumbling in some classmate's nickers in the boy scouts. In fact it was confirmed that Michael's experiences were not the acts of some young teenager 'experimenting' but a fully grown adult who engaged in homosexual sexual activities but more importantly homosexual relationships throughout his twenties and well into his thirties, if I remember correctly. Michael was challenged about this and asked (by homophobic pro-tory tabloids) to deny being bisexual, to use the excuse 'I was just a kid. It meant nothing, etc'. He didn't, spoke of his relationships as real relationships, and never once challenged the description of himself as bisexual. By my estimation, an adult who not merely has the odd romp with someone of the same sex but enters into longterm relationships when they themselves are more than a teenager but actually an adult in their 20s and 30s, has to be called either gay or bisexual. There would be no dispute. The only issue is the truth or otherwise of their heterosexual side. I have no grounds whatsoever for doubting Michael's heterosexual side, so by definition he must be bisexual. Hence his position back on the list. STÓD/ÉÍRE 09:43 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Portillo hasn't admitted being gay, bisexual or whatever. In fact, he's gone out of his way to avoid being labelled as such. So I don't see how you can say his status is "confirmed", bearing in mind the warning within the article. I didn't take him off the list, I only switched him to a different category. Deb 17:23 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

PS. Why has everybody started using different names? Is it just to confuse me?

Someone who has admitted having sexual relationships with men for over a decade as well as relationships with women is by definition bisexual. He doesn't have to formally say the word to be it. If I was working as his PR agent, I would have told him not to formally say the word, even though you have implied it unambiguously. Not using the word allows the elderly 'blue rinse' brigade in the local Tory organisation not to have to face the fact that their MP is bisexual. They can still use the classic cop-out phrase 'it was a phase he was going through'. Saying the word would have been one step too far for the blue rinses. Not using the word, even though by what you have said you all but spray paint it in 20 foot high lettering on the side of our house, is standard PR procedure in these situations. But his description of what he did unambiguously defines himself as bisexual. And when challenged, he had refused for sound PR reasons to use any word to describe his sexua lity. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:25 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Folks, one does not admit to being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Admission implies guilt. You would never talk about someone famous admitting to being straight or admitting to being Jewish. Yes, perhaps this is too PC for some taste, but I think using the word admit reveals a built-in assumption that queer is bad. Perhaps rather than admitting we're queer we proclaim it or we state it. Thus, "Portillo hasn't said he's gay or bisexual..." Jliberty 23:44, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
On a different note, if I were his PR agent and he is bisexual, I'd tell him that he has a compelling moral obligation to announce it immediately. The world needs to know that Queer people are everywhere -- we are your programmers, writers, teachers, cops, firefighters, MPs, ministers... The more people who come out the less likely it is that some teenager will kill him/herself in shame or fear. Jliberty 23:44, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

George Gershwin?

The list entry just includes his name, with no explanation. The corresponding Wikipedia article says nothing about his sexual orientation. In the page history, whoever added his name didn't give either his name or an explanation in the summary.

I really, really, really think that names should not be placed on the page, even on the ";debated" list, without explanation. Anyone happen to know what the evidence for Gershwin would be (other than his failure to marry)? Dpbsmith 21:47, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've removed George Gershwin, since nobody has yet cited any evidence. Not that I doubt the plausibility that he was gay—I think it's very plausible—but I don't believe any name should go on this page without support from a biography or decent journalistic source or something. Dpbsmith 23:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

unconfirmed list?

This article is very scattered, and very difficult to sift through. The two lists of people still under debate should be removed from the article and placed into the TALK page. Only confirmed people should be listed in the article. Doing so will make the article easier to read and understand. Leave the debates for the TALK page. Kingturtle 17:35 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Hellooooooo. Please chime in about my suggestion: Only confirmed people should appear in the article. All speculation should take place behind the scenes in the TALK arena. Agree or disagree? Kingturtle 22:19 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Agree. I was wondering about the latest additions. Evercat 22:20 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I am a lil' miffed here. I posted my suggestion two weeks ago, and there is but one reply. An encyclopedia is not about speculation. This article should only list confirmed people. Kingturtle 19:07 18 May 2003 (UTC)
If there are "unconfirmed" people on the list, I'd be inclined to remove them. It is a litigable issue, after all, and commonly viewed as a stigma, so we should be very careful about it. Koyaanis Qatsi

Please keep unconfirmed names off of the ARTICLE. The names can be debated within the TALK portion. Kingturtle 21:13 22 May 2003 (UTC)

The following people are unconfirmed:

This is a real, genuine, honest and simple question without the slightest intention of starting a controversy: Who decides which people are "unconfirmed" (see above)? Without being able to quote the source, I remember reading ages ago that Maugham was "a homosexual". Would Maugham have had to write about his sexual orientation himself or would someone have had to catch him in the act? What counts as "confirmation"? --KF 21:25 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Indeed. His nephew, Robin, 2nd Viscount Maugham of Hartsfield, claimed they had sexual relations. Maughm claimed to be heterosexual, yet one can read the following in his biography: "Throughout his brilliant career Willie led a double life: his marriage to Syrie was a sham and he spent much of it abroad with his American lover, Gerald Haxton, who had been barred from the U.K. as a security risk. In 1927 he finally left England to live on Cap Ferrat in the Villa Mauresque, dubbed by Noel Coward 'the other Vatican.' Here he played pontiff end received the famous and the infamous, everyone from royals to rent boys. In his final years, senile and manipulated by Alan Searle, his elderly and avaricious secretary-lover, he attempted to disown his daughter and adopt Searle as his son. The mockery that greeted this was kept from him, as was the anger and tension caused by his memoirs, in which he attacked his dead wife and claimed to be a red-blooded heterosexual." What we should be looking for is not "confirmation" but attribution of the allegation. <Al Anon>
Good question. I am not sure what will constitute confirmation. What constituted the confirmations of those listed as confirmed on the main article? This, too, is a genuine question. Kingturtle 21:28 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to include only those people who have outed themselves--making this list quite a lot shorter. Koyaanis Qatsi
So what about, e.g., Sappho? Does she count, even though no one "caught her in the act" (that we know of)? -- John Owens 21:35 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a good idea, KQ - Schubert and Tchaikovsky, for example, never outed themselves (not in any modern sense, anyway), but I think I'm right in saying that it's very widely accepted that they were gay. Or, to give a more modern example, I don't think Freddie Mercury ever came out in any very public way (I could be wrong about that - I can't remember for sure). As the article says, if there is no debate about someone's orientation, I don't see any problem with including them in the main list. --Camembert
Fine, I just think it's foolish to list famous people who are still alive who deny being queer, or who refuse to comment on it. I'm not going to get in an edit war over it. Koyaanis Qatsi
Don't worry, I'm not up for an edit war about it either. For what it's worth, I think I'd agree with you about not listing living people who deny or refuse to comment on the matter (they certainly shouldn't be in the "confirmed" section), but I can't see anybody who fits that description in the list anwyay (though I'm probably missing something obvious). --Camembert
Michael Jackson, and the MP, and I think Janet Reno. Koyaanis Qatsi
Ah, sorry, crossed wires by the looks of it: I thought you meant people in the article as it stood rather than those removed and listed above. I'd agree on Jackson and I don't know anything about Reno. --Camembert

While I certainly do not want to step on any toes, I just moved two additions to the confirmed list down to the debated list: Sappho and Woolf. Now, the only reason I did was because the changes were made by a non-user who can neither explain nor defend the additions, and no updates were made to correct the bio pages. If any USER would like to move them, I wouldn't think of objecting, I just didn't want to see it done by random non-users.

On a side note, no matter what external link is used for evidence, I strongly suggest Jesus Christ (who should be properly listed as Jesus Nazarene, Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua, or even Jesus, Son of Joseph in the first place, the historical not the religious figure) be removed from the list. The heading is "debated," however, I do not see how this figure could possibly be openly debated as very little philosophical discourse is even permitted about him. I also think it's asking for vandalism, but...Paige

Well, the addition of Virginia Woolf now seems fine to me since her bio page has been updated as well. I really believe we should see similar reasoning on the bio page of each name on the list, or else move the name to the debated list. Although, ideally, I still agree with Ram-Man's original assertion that they are not a "famous gay, lesbian or bisexual person" unless their sexual orientation is equally famous, and therefore the debated list seems unnecessary to me. Why can't we limit the list to those people of whom there is no doubt? Paige

Im bi, Jesus Christ is/was definitely not. No questions about that one guys, even The Bible, God's word, is against homosexuality.

Your bisexuality makes you no more an expert than mine. Whether or not JC was a bisexual (and why do we think he might have been?) it is not at all clear that the bible is either God's word, or that it is against homosexuality. I strongly recommend the book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak (the author is a Roman Catholic priest). Jliberty 16:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Antonio Electro shot! Martin

Aristotle

I won't challenge Socrates' undisputedness (yet), but what the heck is Aristotle doing here at all? He repeated the invidiously intended rumor about Socrates having his way with young boys with an extreme sense of distate. Is there any (even circumstantial) evidence that he might have had even supressed tendencies; other than "of course" (what's the emoticon for sarcasm?) his ethnicity :-/ Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 05:14 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Margaret Cho

I deleted Margaret Cho. Although she has a large gay (predominantly Lesbian) following, she has always maintained that she is heterosexual. RickK 03:29 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If that's so then the article on her needs changing, as it states she is bisexual (I know nothing about her, so I'm not touching any of this myself). --Camembert
This quote from Margaret is from Out magazine's June 2002 issue:
Cho recalls that several years ago when she was performing at a comedy festival in Montreal, her then-manager took her aside and told her "not to sit in Lea DeLaria's lap so much." He then asked her if she was "completely straight." "I told him I didn’t know. And he said, 'It doesn’t matter if you are or if you’re not. You have to tell people that you are completely straight. You have to show that you are completely straight.' I didn’t know how to do that. I didn't know how to be someone who wasn’t me."
While she's now very open about her sexuality not falling under the straight category, she's not as clear about where exactly it does fit in. At different times she's referred to herself as bi, "a big dyke," or even as "a gay man in a woman's body." Paige 13:53 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
She has not "always maintained she's straight". She's always maintained she likes guys, which is not the same thing. A substantial portion of her album Notorious CHO is about having sex with women. She said, "I'll eat pussy, it's just not my first choice!" Make of that what you will. - Montréalais
This is a perfect example of why attempting to shoehorn people into one of three orientations (straight? gay? bi?) is increasingly not working. How do you account for someone like the lovely Tristan Taormino, who writes lesbian erotica, has sex with men and women but prefers women, and yet is engaged in a primary relationship with a female-to-male transsexual? - ZSpinal 02:47, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Completely ridiculous! Last I heard the word "bisexual" was used for people who engaged in sex with both men and women, and so Margaret Cho definitely fits that label. You're just trying to make problems where there are none. 172.169.17.120 04:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The answer is to stop thinking of this as an issue of sexuality, and start thinking about it as an issue of identity and power politics.

WRONG WRONG WRONG! If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then it is about FACTS, not propaganda or politics. The FACT is, Elton John is gay. Whether he choses to engage in politics is another matter entirley.172.169.17.120 04:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 

Since the power in this and most cultures is with people who identify as stright, then the rest (glbt, etc.) are queer and while people do not fit easily into pigeon holes, we do know when we're being marginalized, beaten, denied civil rights, etc.  These lists have all sorts of problems, but they have the redeeming effect of telling queer teens that they are not alone, and that many highly respected and famous people were also queer. For that, I think it is worthwhile. On the other hand, I for one would restrict the list to those who are confirmed (through their own words or through valid historical resources). On the other-other hand, it must be recognized that setting too strict a filter will drop many queer people who lived at a time when it was almost impossible to be out.  Jliberty 16:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Historical figures

Some historical figures on this list wouldn't be considered GLB by today's standards, but they are included here because they were known to have had same-gender relationships.

First, the above statement is NOT neutral; it implies a subjective interpretation of what "GLB" is. I strongly disagree that people involved in natural "same-gender" relationships are NOT GL or B. If the bottom line is that being "homosexual" or "gay" is an orientation, then what matters is not subjective interpretation of that orientation but whether they were so oriented.

Also, it should be noted that for GLB people, it can be a point of understanding to see real historical figures that were gay but had to deal with it discreetly. That doesn't mean label everyone you want (i.e. Abe Lincoln) as gay, just to have a bigger umbrella (i.e. redefine people in our own image). However, take for example King Henry III of France (ruled 1574-1589). He was widely rumored to be gay. He dressed in women's clothing and wore earrings. He had sleepovers with boys he called "darlings" (he himself was not that old). He was cold to his wife and produced no children. So strong was the assumption that he was gay that Paris rose in open revolt in 1588 (also related to his not being pro-Catholic enough). He was also treated as a "wimp": Duke Henry of Guise tried to push him around and publicly scoffed at the notion that Henry III could do anything to him. Yet Henry III had Henry, Duke of Guise assassinated in 1588. In this sense, he was a "hero" standing up to a bully. As to denials, the writers of the time strongly hinted that Henry III liked males, not females...Likewise, it could easily be documented that James I of England was at least bisexual, engaging in same-sex affairs with "favorites" such as the Duke of Buckingham, "scandalizing" England at the time. Unlike Henry III, King James was also known to sleep with women, but the umbrella term "likely to be gay or bisexual" would certainly fit here. It would also fit the argument that people were "homosexual" due to orientation, not just the social situation of the time; it was easier for a person of power..."Divine Right of Kings"...to live out their fantasies than for the commoner who might be executed if "caught in the very act." Since one of the arguments against gay/homosexual people is that they just "emerged recently" and "chose their orientation," by documenting a long historical trail of evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior, this notion can be defeated. The prevailing thoughts of then or now should not be overplayed; the facts should come to the fore. Thus, we know today that U.S. President James Buchanan and vice president William R. King very likely engaged in homosexual behavior, but remained closeted due to the times. It would be WRONG for us to assume what they would do or say if alive today, so all we can do is note their actions and the reactions of the times. Finally, this list, if inclusive of historical figures, might just educate today's population a little more beyond the self-centered approach of thinking they were the "first" to do just about everything, when in fact many before were in similar situations. 172.169.17.120 03:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason to break NPOV by including people whose LBG status is disputed. If this was a famous list of people who have had same-gender relationships, that would be different. It isn't such a list.Martin

I moved this from the archive, because I still feel this way - perhaps more so now we've apparently decided to scrap "disputed" folks. There's a real element of anachronism in calling Socrates gay, isn't there? Martin 21:42, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I agree. This list has gotten fairly out of control. It should be people who were notable for their inclusion in the LBG community, right? However, it seems to be developing into a database of possibly LBG individuals. I wonder what the point of this could be. Is it being done from a "Yay! Look who we've got on our team" attitude? ("I pick Socrates!") If so, wouldn't that be very much in opposition to the informative goal of an encyclopedia? And probably damaging to the LBG community? I think listings here should be based on fact, and it should probably be relevant to something. Otherwise, we should just merge it with the list of Queer Wikipedians and move it out of this space altogether. Paige 14:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sappho!! I choose you!! :) Martin 12:36, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that this list should include a separate section on historical figures (prior to the 20th century) and those people should be removed from the other sections. -Acjelen 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

remove names with no articles?

In the spirit of editing in a bold manner, I would like to remove all of the names that are not associated with individual articles (all of the names in red). Since the article is titled famous and the intro clearly says evidence should be provided in order to defend the project against possible legal problems, these names cannot possibly be supported by facts without articles, right? Hopefully, each of the names I will list below can have at least a stub created, and the names can then stay on the list. Otherwise, I will remove them. Any objections?

Disagree. This may simply imply that the person who listed them didn't know how to link them to an existing article, or didn't have time or bother to write a new one. Surely Joan Jett is FAMOUS. This list should be dealt with on a pro bono basis, not carte blanche.172.169.17.120 03:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The next step would be to remove and/or (preferably) remedy those names that have articles, but whose articles make no mention of the person being lesbigay. For those of you asking, "Who died and made her queen?" (Sorry, bad pun.) Feel free to suggest better ways to keep this list both relevant and encyclopedic, but it’s in pretty sorry shape right now. -- Paige 21:11, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly [with Paige]. There are one or two names that I recognise and can confirm from things I have read/past experiences that they are definitely out about their sexual orientation, am going to create articles for each of them now. Graham  :) 21:29, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yep, good idea.
Similarly boldly, I just created list of bisexuals (with a massive four names to date). Martin 22:48, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
DO NOT delete people whose articles do not mention that they were gay. That's nonsense. RickK 02:53, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing the red links. Why? Wiki is an evolving concept where people today, next week, next month, next year are adding articles. Because there is no article about someone today does not mean they are famous. It simply means no-one has written about them yet. Maybe no-one who knows about Irish actors has got around to writing about Hilton Edwards yet but he was a world famous founder of an internationally renounced theatre. No-one wrote about most Irish prime ministers until I came along. Does that mean they were not famous until I wrote about them? It is an absolutely absurd idea. Under no circumstances should people be removed from the list simply because on 18th September 2003 no-one had gotten around to writing about them yet.FearÉIREANN 00:09, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've removed a nonsensical claim that only people with articles on wiki should be added on the list. No such policy exists on lists and Paige cannot decide to make up her own policy on this page.

(cutting in) Paige didn't attempt to "make up her own policy". She was editing "in the spirit of boldness" and specifically asked here if there were any objections. And you objected, which is fine. We're all on the same side here. :) Martin

Re the above: there is no article yet on Vincent Hanley, but I can confirm 100% that he was gay. (An ex-boyfriend of his is a friend of mine and Vincent's sexuality was an open secret in the broadcasting world and in the gay scene but as homosexual behaviour was still criminalised and gay people subject to discrimination, he could not come out. He moved to the US where tragically he got Aids.) There is no article yet on Micheal MacLiammoir, but there is not a single solitary person on the planet who knows anything about him who thinks he was straight. If he was, it would come as a bit of a shock to his boyfriend of sixty years. Any attempt to remove many clearly accurate statements on the dubious basis that no one had gotten around to writing an article yet will be reverted. FearÉIREANN 00:41, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The idea that someone should be removed from a list of gay people by someone because their article doesn't mention they are gay is pretty stupid. And removing true information without any reason to suspect it is wrong and without making the slightest attempt to check it is pretty arrogant. But I guess we will just have to stick "gay" in so that ignorant people don't try to wipe gay people out of the wikipedia then. -- Outerlimits

Hi outerlimits. I'm sure that Paige and Graham would make a reasonable effort to check this information before removing it, and nobody is trying to wipe gay people out of the encyclopedia. Graham specifically said "There are one or two names that I recognise and can confirm from things I have read/past experiences that they are definitely out about their sexual orientation, am going to create articles for each of them now". So I'm not sure your concerns of arrogance and ignorance are a genuine issue. It's great to see that you've created a bunch of useful stubs for gay folks who previously didn't have an article - please do continue. Martin 11:27, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Martin. I don't know why you'd be sure that there would be any effort at all to check rather than remove this information, since it was pretty clearly stated that it would be removed, not checked. Still seems fairly arrogant to remove facts because you are unfamiliar with them, without bothering to check them, just like the idea that there needs to be some special hoops to leap through for gay people to be in the wikipedia. I guess I should be reassured by your certainty, but I just don't see any basis for it. And anyone who would take Radclyffe Hall off a list of gay people really has no business editing a list of gay people. It's good to have at least a little knowledge on a subject if you are going to make editorial choices about it. -- Outerlimits
My confidence is partly down to my previous positive experiences with Paige, though in part I expect I'm just reading the same words slightly differently to you. In any case, if we do decide to remove some red links from this page, we should definately add them to wikipedia:requested articles. Martin 19:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why not just add them to wikipedia:requested articles now? There's no reason to remove them first. 26 of those who were about to be exterminated in the "Great Gay List Purge" already have articles. I think most everyone on the list could easily be verified with a simple Google search. It's a pity that the impulse seems to be to delete, erase, eradicate, eliminate gay history rather than write about it. -- Outerlimits
Ok, I added the ones that still need articles to wikipedia:requested articles. I still think this list would be more useful and interesting without the red links. Martin 10:30, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I strongly object. When I argued on Talk:Homosexual bishop that the articles of people listed on that page made no mention of their homosexuality, I was told that it wasn't necessary. We can't have it both ways. RickK

Well, that sure got people worked up, huh? Which is precisely why I only suggested it on the Talk page!  :) And why I specifically said "hopefully" stubs would be made, "preferably" articles would be remedied, and did not make any changes to the article itself. I don't feel like our population is fairly represented here and I want to see more and better info added, but I want it to be accurate, and I didn't know anything about most of those people. I'm not about to step into the whose-queer-enough-to-edit-this-list trap (my sexual orientation didn't come with a handbook that listed prominent LGB folks), but I will say thank you! I was hoping to see this important, controversial and useful list get some much needed attention and I'm really happy that so many stubs were made in such a short period of time. Was that so hard? Why did all those names sit there in red for so long? :P Since the red names are down to just a handful, there doesn't seem to be any need to delete them now anyway, but I still think individual bio pages should be updated wherever possible. Basically because, even if it is POV, I think it's important to show people the real face of the LGB community rather than what the Vatican says we are. So if someone famous is/was openly LGB, we should be proud of that right? Now back to the task of expanding all these nifty new stubs! I'm very sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes, it was not my intention at all...but the job got done and the Wiki is better (and more colorful) for it. Thanks to everybody who pitched in. -- Paige 15:56, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think adding desired stubs to "Most Wanted Articles" might be less disruptive than threating to hack out the heart of the list. I suppose it might have been less effective, but there's something to be said for civility. And on my part I didn't say that only the gay should edit this list, but I did say and still believe that only those with knowledge should....you can't get much more Ur-Lesbian than Radclyffe Hall. In thinking about it I wonder if we might agree to this:
  • If you know a statement is right, add it.
  • If you know a statement is wrong, delete it.
  • If you don't know whether it's right or wrong, leave it alone, at least until you LEARN whether it's right or wrong.

Much less fuss that way, I would think. Sorry if your intentions were in fact honourable: they didn't read that way to me at first. I find it peculiar that some people seem to feel that the statement "Danny Pintauro is gay" needs more "explanation" or "sourcing" than the statement that "Princess Stephanie of Monaco has two children born out of wedlock by her bodyguard, whom she later married, then divorced when he was photographed having sexual intercourse with "Miss Bare Breasts of Belgium", and a third child born out of wedlock by yet another bodyguard, had a sexual relationship with a married elephant tamer, travelling with her children in his circus caravan for three months, had dalliances with a bartender, her father's major domo, and her father's gardener, and has just married a Portuguese circus acrobat by whom she is pregnant" -- Outerlimits 09:11, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

disputed? No!

Have removed Chris Smith (UK politician) from the unconfirmed list. Graham  :) 14:17, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What is Laurence Olivier doing on the unconfirmed list? His own widow, Joan Plowright, confirms that he was bisexual, as do people in the acting world who knew of his longterm sexual relationship with the American actor Danny Kaye - Plowright denied accepting the blame for the breakup of Olivier's second marriage, stating that all through his marriage to Vivien Leigh he had been unfaithful with both women and men, but alongside his marriage to Leigh he had a longterm homosexual affair with Kaye, that relationship lasted longer than any of Olivier's marriages. FearÉIREANN 00:41, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Two more on the unconfirmed list: Ronnie Kray (one half of the Kray twins) was gay and fairly open about his sexual orientation, though I don't think there's any need to add 'and Ronnie was gay' to the Krays page and an individual profile for each twin would only repeat much of what is already written and take up unnecessary bandwidth. The other one on the unconfirmed list is Michael Jackson. The only thing that's happened in his life that alludes to an alternative sexuality was that he was alledged to have molested some kids. He hasn't done anything else to warrant the association and to be honest I'd rather not have alledged paedophilia associated with homosexuality any more than it is already in the minds of the bigots. Unless anyone has any objections I'll remove both from the list. Graham  :) 17:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Have added Chris Smith (UK politician) and Ronnie Kray Kray twins to the main article and removed Ronnie Kray and Michael Jackson from the unconfirmed list above. I've also removed Sappho from the unconfirmed list above as she quite rightly makes an appearance on the disputed list on the main page: although she wrote about lesbianism to quite a large extent there are no written records that confirm what her sexuality was. Graham  :) 21:24, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the interests of keeping this talk page up to date, have removed Samuel Barber, Montgomery Clift, Gustav V of Sweden, Ernst Roehm, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, Virginia Woolf and W Somerset Maugham from the unconfirmed list above as they have all reappeared in their appropriate sections on the article. I also propose removing all those from the second list above that actually do have articles that have been written about them (the purpose of the list was that they were red links) and to keep the list updated with new red links from the article. Graham  :) 12:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Removed 40 live links from the red links list above, added 2 that have appeared on the main article. Well done guys and gals, just 20 more red links left to elliminate! Graham  :) 03:15, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Updated the red links list above, added the disputed characters in the main article Graham  :) 01:40, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a really really stupid page to have in Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are from the Neutral Point of View, there should also be a "Famous Heterosexual People" page. This line of reasoning can be also followed to turn around traditional Western country minority groups to create a "Famous White People of Cameroon" page since most everyone in Cameroon would not be cosidered white.

IF you don't like this page, go somewhere else. If you want to make a list of "Famous Heterosexual People" or "Famous White People," who is stopping you? Certainly not me. The point is, that "gay" or homosexual people are an historically-persecuted minority, and that part of that pesecution is denial of who they are. Thus, King Edward I of England or King Henry III of France were ostracized for being who they are. One can only imagine what happened to the common people who tried the same thing, if the king had trouble "getting away with it." Also, an article must have reader interest and relevance. How many people want to read about "famous white people in Cameroon?" Try it and see.172.169.17.120 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How about Non-famous curmudgeons who don't understand NPOV? -- Outerlimits 06:10, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Quote me, too: "This is a stupid page". Lists of famous people are silly in the first place.

Not if it is a list of minority or exceptional people. For example, "list of centenarians." "List of Kings of England." It is in fact very historical and traditional to create lists of people by category. Before the internet age, many volumes of books like Biography Index were devoted to such.172.169.17.120 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 


A list of famous people who have admitted to having homosexual experience is weird.

That in itself is a POV!172.169.17.120 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 

A list of famous people whose fame usually has nothing to do with homosexuality, but might have been, or probably or even certainly were or are homosexual, is many times worse than that.

Why is it "worse?" Your persecutorial attitude merely proves the need for such a list. Always trying to hide the facts.172.169.17.120 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC) 

 But a list of famous people who at one time or another have been listed by gay and lesbian lists of gays and lesbians, some of which are admittedly unconfirmed, is the bottom of the barrel: and that's what this is.  It is idiotic, and I think that everyone here knows it.  Mkmcconn 15:39, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Au contraire, scholarly efforts to confirm or at least find supporting evidence for these claims have been attempted...far more than you have tried. If anything, this list is still anti-gay biased because probably-gay people who merely denied their homosexuality publicly (but privately are) are often excluded, as are people with not enough convincing evidence...i.e. "straight-acting gays." Richard Chamberlain didn't "come out" until he was 69, but people knew long before.172.169.17.120 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they don't, which is why attempts to trim off the unconfirmed and anachronistic folks have generally been reverted without thought.
See talk:list of heterosexuals for the ignomious end of the closest thing to a "Famous Heterosexual People" page we ever had. Martin 17:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You see, the way I see it as a gay man is, that heterosexism (the ignorant assumption that everyone is heterosexual unless proven otherwise) is dominant in our society, and anyone who is lesbian, gay or bisexual looking for a positive role model needs somewhere where there is a list on which they can find examples of people who were famous, and happened to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. The problem with leaving it up to general society to point the way for such people looking, is that the only people who tend to stick out are those who provide the worst possible role model: the stereotypes of the worst kind of lesbian woman or gay man. That's why this list is important, and is just as important as celebrating black people who have contributed to science and invention or famous people from history who had a disability. history doesn't remember them and so we have a duty to do that. Graham  :) 11:33, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Did someone forget to say, somewhere, that an encyclopedia is not therapy? Did someone need to say that? Let me say it, then. Wikipedia has no "duty" to make someone feel better about their sexuality, or to take a stand against "general society" picking their role models for them. We do have a duty to keep our politics, our personal bitternesses, anxieties, insecurities or even our ambitions to engineer a nicer society, from interfering with the content of these articles. That duty is not being done here, in a very big way. Mkmcconn 04:20, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Look in the mirror! I see plenty of bitterness, anxiety, personal insecurity and opinion in your post. FACT: Elton John said he was gay. OK? 172.169.17.120 04:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... sort of like the duty that inspires us to have the article "fudgepacker"? Sort of like the duty that inspires faggot? The duty that requires seventy-zillion articles redirected to AIDS Kills Fags Dead? The duty that creates Homophobic hate speech and Anti-gay slogan? That kind of duty? -- Outerlimits 04:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Count me among those who know that the List of people who realise a list of heterosexuals is ridiculous is longer than the List of people who realise a list of homosexuals is ridiculous. -- Outerlimits 01:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think this is one of those topics that no individual can be completely NPOV on, and the only way to achieve it then is by submissions from varied viewpoints. I've written up a sort of summation of my current thinking on this article here. Paige 14:05, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I can't understand why this page is not important? This is only a index page, all this page is about is for the convenience of anyone who seeking information online! Since there can be reference tables in the back of almanacs, dictionaries and encyclopedias, why can't that be List of famous gay, lesbian or biseual people? There is little thing about NPOV, this is only a list, for no more purpose than just offering a convenience way for users to find out the info they want! If you think List of people who realise a list of heterosexuals is ridiculous or List of people who realise a list of homosexuals is ridiculous or Non-famous curmudgeons who don't understand NPOV will be convenience for who looks for info here, and can offer enough useful info, just creat that(but do you think there will be enough info to creat a page like that?)! But make sure that the page will not be too short! Wikipedia doesn't need so many sub pages here. Whatever Famous Heterosexual People or Famous White People of Cameroon will be okay (creat Famous Black People of Cameroon too), as long as you would like to do that! Aren't there lots of List of XXX in XXX in Wiki? (List of people with two or more professions, List of polydactyl people, List of HIV patients, List of people with disabilities... Oh, shall we creat a pgae like List of Healthy People? :p) --ILovEJPPitoC 16:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is basic common sense to create lists of minorities. It is monumentally absurd to create lists of majorities. No-one in their right mind would propose List of people who have never been President of the United States or List of people who have never married a British Royal. But List of people who have been President of the United States or List of people who have married a British Royal is patently sensible. It is about a small sub-group of society. List of famous gay, lesbian and bisexual people is similarly sensible, in that it lists a clearly defined sub-category of people. List of heterosexuals, in that it covered 90%+ of the population is patiently absurd. It is elementary common sense. I'm surprised some people cannot see that. FearÉIREANN 23:05, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If you can explain why Thomas Aquinas is in the list of "famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people", then I suspect that you will have found the reason why this list is bogus, and why your common sense analogy (otherwise defensible) does not apply. Mkmcconn 23:45, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If you can prove that "Thomas Aquinas is gay" is not true, why don't you just remove it? Just one mistake can't deny the value of this page, right? I totally agree with FearÉIREANN. It is basic common sense to create lists of minorities, because lists of majority will not be useful-- it cant help people find what they want fast, and that's just exactly what a list should do! Why do we alphabetize index? Just to make them more "monirity" so people can find what they want fast. It's quite obvious that creating pages such as List of people who have never married a British Royal, List of people who have been President of the United States, List of people still alive is nonsense. They contain so much info, no one would like to look for info through these lists. Other thing about NPOV is NPOV doesn't mean lists should include every sides of everything!, that's not neutral, but balance. Creating a list of people doesn't mean we have to creat a list of non-people. That would be absurd. --ILovEJPPitoC 05:22, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I tried to remove it but my removal was reverted. According to Paige people shouldn't be removed because there is lack of evidence that they are gay. Drolsi Susej 05:26, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You misrepresent Paige. If you know someone on the list is not gay, remove him. If you know of someone not on the list who is gay, add him. But if you haven't a clue, leave it alone. -- Outerlimits 05:33, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
With regard to homosexuality, the writings of Thomas Aquinas are historically important in the development of the view that stands behind traditional Catholic teaching, as the reason that "sodomy" is an offense against nature, a mortal sin behind bestiality in severity. Mkmcconn\
For example: wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.
If this is the sort of role model you are talking about, I'd say you are drawing your examples from a rather broad population, from which no person admired for his views on homosexuality should be excluded, regardless of what those views may be. Mkmcconn 03:39, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No, Mkmcconn, there is nothing to do with role models(as i said above), this is not a List of role models, this is only a list of famous lebigay people. Please feel free to remove anyone you think it's not appropriate to be listed here. --ILovEJPPitoC 05:21, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've given you a reason to remove him. Remove him if you want. Meanwhile, I'm content to preserve the proof that this is a joke page. Mkmcconn 15:37, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If you find any mistakes or errors on any pages, just be bold in updating pages! Only in that way, can you be able to make Wikipedia better! Removed. :D --ILovEJPPitoC 16:03, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Whoever put that name in there, did it without review of whether it belonged there. Deletion of the name was reverted by later editors presumptively, awaiting "proof" - that's what makes this page ridiculous. Just because Aquinas wrote against homosexuality, does not mean that he wasn't "gay": do you really not see that? You cannot prove that someone is not gay. You must prove that they are. Mkmcconn 18:23, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I remember there is a notice in the paragraph:
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. Furthermore, categorization of historical figures no longer alive to define their own sexual orientation often leads to pointless debate. Recognize that just as adding non-gay people to this list would be wrong, removing gay people from this list is also wrong. You should justify additions or removals on the list's talk page: providing written sources would be best. The most convincing evidence about living persons would be a self-description by that individual.
maybe someone added names ignoring that. If you don't want to get involved in Edit war, just submit that person in talk page. It's true that in this straight world, everyone is assumed to be straight unless you can prove him to be gay. --ILovEJPPitoC 04:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In this world where most people are not presidents, a List of U.S. Presidents should only include those who can be proven to belong to the minority. So it must be for any list to be credible. Unlike this one, where simply being listed is enough to presumptively include all of its members. Mkmcconn 05:11, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I can't find out enough proof to prove this page "ridiculous". Whether a person should be listed here or not shouldn't be presumptively, just as the notice says above. There 'are' some mistakes in this page, I admit that, that's simply because someone ignore that policy or they think the proof is enough while some other don't. There are some topics not fit NPOV very much, but that's not the fault of Wikipedia. What you mean ridiculous maybe those person who don't understand the policy that which person should be listed and which one should not? I found this list useful, but not perfect. That's why we should improve this. (again, person "presumptively" to be lesbigay should not be listed here, unless you have enough proof to prove that--that's the policy.) --ILovEJPPitoC 05:52, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
And, yeah, you hit the point, You cannot prove that someone is not gay. You must prove that they are. -- that's the the main idea of this policy. :D --ILovEJPPitoC 05:58, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that Solon is gay. I would remove the name, but I'm pretty sure any changes I make will be reverted. Also why is Britney Spears listed under 'debated'? Drolsi Susej

I'm in favor of a List of homosexual/bi/lesbian list and opposed to a similar heterosexual list. Its too bad that this page, rather than being an encyclopedic index, is just another stupid effort to get as many people as possible on it no matter how flimsy the justification to make some sort of point. Its pointless to try and fix this page and make it worthy, all the questionable entries merely dilute its worth. Probably best to leave it to its proponents as a monument to failed lists.Ark30inf 05:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

JiL: please make a comment on this diff. Like, now. Stevertigo's getting shirty. -- Tim Starling 03:16, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

I've replied.Drolsi Susej 02:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Plato should be removed from the list, or at least moved to the 'debated' section since he was a pedophile (note that the designations pedophile and homosexual are modern inventions). Also Julius Caesar should be removed from the list, or at least moved to the 'debated' section since the accusation of homosexuality were rumors spread to defame Caesar. For instance after Caesar went to Nicomedes, the king of Bithynia, to obtain a fleet of ships; Caesar was successful, but subsequently he became the butt of gossip that he had persuaded the king (a homosexual) only by agreeing to sleep with him. Ancient gossip does not automatically mean someone was a homosexual, especially since the accuracy of the gossip us questionable since it was spread by his politcial enemies. Drolsi Susej 02:22, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed Christina Aguilera &amp; Britney Spears, however Antonio Martin put them back on the list. The burden of ""proof"" should be on those who add people to the list; please post evidence that Christina Aguilera & Britney Spears are (homo|bi)sexual. Drolsi Susej 05:23, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is absurd to put Solon, Aristotle, Plato and Alexander on a list of "gay" people. The concept "gay" is ridiculously ahistorical when applied to people from a society which had a radically different understanding of sexuality than our own. If those four were "gay" then so was every other figure from ancient Greek history, and quite a lot from Roman history as well.

Also how did this hideous non-word lesbigay get into an encyclopaedia?

Adam 14:05, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's a difficult categorization, because of the well-known and much-argued-on-this-talk-page difference between modern and ancient concepts of sexuality: the term "homosexual" as anyone today would understand it would be meaningless to a Roman, who would have seen sexual relationships only as a matter of domination and submission. Maybe the article should make it clear that what we would call "bisexuality" was the default sexual orientation for Greeks and Romans (and possibly others -- I'm not sure), while listing those who are thought -- based on reliable evidence: that is, discounting Suetonius' tabloid-style scandalmongering, Morton Smith's pseudohistorical vaporings about Jesus, and that sort of thing -- to have been homosexual or bisexual, as we would understand the terms, in their relationships.
--Mirv 07:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people/Archive_1&oldid=1144650867"