Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Archive 4

Requested move

The current name has two problems: it implies we are saying someone is GLB, rather than reporting that they are said to be. That is legally problematic. Secondly the name doesn't clearly clarify how to decide why someone should be in the list. The rules on the page give clearer definitions, but that subtlety is lost both on some contributors and is not communicated in the name. The proposed name is legally less problematic (and so protects user from inadvertent defamation), its definition is unambiguous (so reducing confusion) and it is not open to misinterpretation. So the proposed new name is clear, consise, unambiguous and legally less problematic.

Voting

Support

• FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the narrower more accurate title and criteria for inclusion, the better. And if we can keep Wikipedia:Libel out of it, the better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support- many people on the list would not describe themselves as GLB. Just because someone may have had sexual relations with someone of the same sex, they are not necessarily gay.Astrotrain 20:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that does not make them 'gay' but it does make them bi or perhaps more accurately ambisexual Doc 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Rightly. And likewise, no matter how someone self-identifies, feeling both opposite- and same-sex attraction pyschologically makes them bi, or perhaps more accurately, ambisexual</sarcasm>. So we can probably just simplify this list to List of people (nice clean criteria). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, McJonathan. In general, the only people who know why A and B have sex, are A and B. Without knowing their inner motivations, we cannot blithely label them as anything at all. And where does 'bi' come from? You're assuming the person identified as straight to begin with. JackofOz 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See my proposals for more categories below; people who have had sex with someone of the same sex as themselves can be listed regardless of what their orientation is/was/can be discerned. And as for the A and B analogy, sometimes A talks (so include A but not B yet until B confirms) and sometimes the cops indict A or B or both (include them both as debated) and if convicted include not debated. Carlossuarez46 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• support for same reasons as above. - Antimetro

Neutral

• I'm sufficiently encouraged by the improvements made to think more-or-less the existing criteria can be made workable. Moreover, on reflection, defining what counts as a "biography" is another definitional problem (Is a article-length bio enough? What about a Uni page on a person (typically about 5 paras? If WP bios count, that's what we're already checking). I think WP:LISTS (which is, of course, only a proposal now) provides a direction to make lists like this workable and conformant with WP:V and friends. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• I can't support this. The proposed name does not conform to Wikipedia naming conventions for the titling of list articles. List of Canadians, frex, is not called "List of people named as Canadian in biographies". And yes, it is the same thing. Bearcat 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. A person's country of origin is a matter of public record. It can be established by their birth certificate. Their sexual orientation is often not, merely the subject of rumour, innuendo, claims and, as this page shows, wild gossip. The list as it stands is a defamation lawyer's dream. The name right now is also open to misinterpretation as a statement of fact when, unless we have physically entered the minds of everyone on the list we cannot know what their orientation is. So the current name is POV and misleading. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same thing. Sexual orientation is backed up by a person's own statements, actions and records; every person who's ever been added to this list because of "rumour, innuendo, claims and wild gossip" has been reverted in five minutes or less. At any rate, Wikipedia's naming conventions simply do not favour or even permit a title worded in the way you propose. Bearcat 00:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a preliminary examination seems to show about 25% of the names currently here are here on "rumor, innuendo, or wild gossip". Or at least anything more than that is not in any obvious evidence. I do think Jtdirl should chill a little bit on what borders on WP:LEGAL, but the general need for far better evidence is endemic to lists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Lulu, is that two of the names I recently removed from the list were of people with a history of suing people who published allegations that they were gay. Legally they could have sued the person who posted the claim here. Wikipedia is covered legally under the Communications Decency Act, but neither you nor I am. In theory, by not removing a libel you of I could be sued, because legally that claim was in a text of which we (for a moment or two) were the editor. According to one US lawyer I asked to glance at this page last week, this list in the current form is a "defamation case just waiting to happen". And in his view anyone editing the page is potentially in the firing line of a case. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And who were those two, exactly? Bearcat 03:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

D'uh!!! Have some cop on, mate. No way am I mentioning those two names on a talk page called List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and as a result have them show up on google searches linked to this page and my usernic . If you want to leave yourself open to being sued for defamation, go ahead. One of them, it is joked among lawyers, would sue someone for sneazing in their direction. Given their appeal to fundamentalist Christians they don't take to kindly to the slightest suggestion that links them to homosexuality and flings writs around like confetti. When my lawyer friend saw the guy's name on the page he uttered a very loud "Jesus fucking Christ. Are you lot fucking mad?" The person in question has been deleted not merely from the list but from the archives and all evidence that he ever featured on it removed. Luckily for us it appears he never saw it. I forget if the second is in the archives of if he too was deleted from them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm under no obligation to believe any claim that such names were present on the list if there's no way for me to verify the fact. Bearcat 04:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. In biographies? Why? - Outerlimits 02:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Because biographies are the most credible sources to get information. Credible biographers rely on sourced evidence, not rumour and gossip. So biographies are by far the most reliable source of information for an encyclopædia. It doesn't say every biography. In other words, there is no question of one homophobic biographer in denial denying someone a place on this page. Most prominent people have multiple biographers. If one alleges that someone is GBL then that would be enough to qualify a person for inclusion. And remember WP also has hundreds of thousands of biographies here already. We already insist on a statement about someone's orientation being in their WP biography. All the new name would do is make that clear in the name of the page. So instead of the page being open to the interpretation that we are just listing our opinions, or statements of fact, the new name would make it clear that it was an NPOV list of people sourced in a biography (either our own or someone else's). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people have never been biographied. That's the problem. If Wikipedia articles are included in the definition of "biography", then there's no reason whatsoever why that can't be a standard for inclusion in the list without making it part of the title. Bearcat 03:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If they are on WP by definition they have a biography. The principal problem is legal. The page as it stands is open to the interpretation that it is a statement of facts, not a list of sources. Stating in the name that everything is sourced narrows the legal risk and so protects WP from negative media attack and users from legal risk. The fact that internally in the page qualifies the rules of contribution doesn't offer sufficiently protect, because the page title, not the internal qualification, is what shows up on net searches. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a rather convoluted proposed name, and I don't think renaming would help at this stage. A lot of work is being done to make sure the list has clear inclusion criteria and that every entry is sourced, this work should eliminate any perceived problems with the name (and if it still isn't useful to discuss a rename until these points have been resolved, jguk 10:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Francis Schonken 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed new name is awkward and I don't believe really helps. Ongoing screening of names needs to continue. Doc 23:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I appreciate the effort, but the title is unwieldy. However, "List of purported gay, lesbian or bisexual people" would add only a single word but convey the same meaning. The detail about the biographies certainly does not belong in the title. Nor should we call it "List of LGB people according to sources", even though we require sources (in the list or the bio). -Will Beback 23:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --RJN 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, as making it from biographies only is too restrictive. In my opinion, this name change is ill-thought-out and unwieldy. JSIN 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, this smacks of homophobia. What about a title for religions, nationalities (contrary to point above, these are NOT matters of public record: what (one) nationality was Copernicus? Magellan? Einstein?), handedness, and virtually everything except for place of birth (which is usually a matter of public record, but see Alexander Hamilton). Maybe we need to add a few categories: People who have had sex with someone of the same sex, People who have been charged with sex crimes involving a same-sex victim, so we don't have to fully worry about the word orientation that seems to drive some people up the wall. Carlossuarez46 20:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Only you could interpret an effort to ensure encyclopædic standards as homophobia. Given how often you throw around the word and the increasingly ludicrous contents in which you use it, I doubt if you even know what the word means. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For someone who is trying to scare everyone about libel and defamation, you seem quite able to make some wild statements apparently without any worry. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been making wild allegations about homophobia without any evidence. Indeed many of the people you accuse are themselves gay. It is quite frankly paranoid dillusion on your part. Ironically, while far from being homophobic I've been defending the GLBT community from attack elsewhere on WP. You seem to think that any attempt to use objective encyclopædic criteria on gay pages is homophobic. Dream on. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Paranoid dillusion"... pretty strong stuff. If you can make such a claim after reading a few hundred words that I have written, you do think it impossible to make such a claim after reviewing someone's body of work? And you apparently think that homosexual people cannot be homophobic. Ireland's a strange place, apparently. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And obviously a rascist too. Or should we just put it down to chronic ignorance and paranoid dillusion? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you finally acknowledge that you are a racist, even though you cannot spell it. Now let's see if we can work to overcome your problem. 64.166.72.195 00:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) timed out again.. :-) Carlossuarez46 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Let's elevate the level of discourse here and try to avoid personal attacks. Jonathunder 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks. Carry on. JSIN 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: In fact, the problem seems to be with some new editors who would prefer not to actually find the references they profess to want. - Outerlimits 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Nobody's "resisting a cleanup of evidentiary standards"; what's being resisted is the arbitrary imposition of the burden of doing any cleanup. You want them cleaned up, you can track down the sources yourself and stop making it somebody else's responsibility. Bearcat 03:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This list, in truth, can be excruciatingly hard to manage. Between its length and its status as a target of constant vandalism, it's almost impossible for a few editors working independently of each other to keep the list in any reasonably good shape. As I've mentioned downthread, one of the problems in managing this list is that the watchlist only shows the most recent edit. So it's also very easy to miss illegitimate edits entirely, because if ten edits take place between reviews of my watchlist, I see one and miss nine.

Frankly, I think if there are problems with this list, some of them simply stem from the possibility that it's past the point of being too large to be effectively managed in its current form.

What I'd actually favour, given the choice, is somehow breaking it up into a few smaller, more manageable lists. Like, say, three separate lists for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, or a few alphabetic sublists (as in that A-G/H-M/N-Z kind of thing), or a series of per-country lists. (I know, for example, that as a Canadian I could monitor a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual Canadians in my sleep. And I'd know where to look for sources, too. Until yesterday, on the other hand, I didn't know Brian Greig from a hole in the head.)

So while I still can't support the specific renaming proposal above, I'd be more than open to discussing alternative approaches to managing the list. It'd be a hell of a lot easier to keep three or four manageably-sized lists up to snuff than one wildly uncontrollable one. Bearcat 07:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This "list" page is presently used in the talks at Wikipedia talk:Lists in Wikipedia. I don't know if I was the first to use it there as an example, anyhow I think this list a *very* good example of a wikipedia list on a sensitive topic. And I have no problem whatsoever with its name. --Francis Schonken 15:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, sorry to correct an archived page: it was List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers that was used as an example of a non-problematic list on the indicated talk page. List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is the bad example IMHO --Francis Schonken 08:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dimitar Ivankov

I'm removing Dimitar Ivankov from the list. I've cleaned up the page too, removing the following text, added by 84.242.187.35:

He was the first Bulgarian footballer who publicly admitted being gay. In 2003 he had an affair with his teammate Topuzakov, which put both of them in the centre of huge media scandal.

I could find no sources to suggest that this is true. It looks like vandalism more than anything else, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nzd 19:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There's no mention in his biography, and nothing pops up in Google either. Thanks for cleaning that up. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Handel

I have removed his name from the list of people whose homosexuality is seriously conjectured. The rules say (my highlights):

• The following list includes those who some people legitimately believe there is meaningful evidence the person is or was gay, lesbian or bisexual. This speculation should be supported by documentation or historical record. More information about what is known about each individual's sexuality should be available in the individual's biography.

As I've now made clear in his biography, there is simply no evidence about his sexuality one way or the other. He never married - so what. JackofOz 04:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Various

Added Stanley Kwan and David Wojnarowicz (11-9-05) and Vikram Seth and Mike Nelson (11-21-05), with a minor edit to Bob Mould (add the band Sugar) on the latter date as well. All of the above have Wikipedia bios mentioning their sexuality, along with outside journalism and many publications.

I am digging around for sources for filmmaker Tsai Ming-liang, who I have not added yet; his sexuality has been discussed in many print film journals and interviews, but I'm still looking for something online.

User:Davidals, 11-21-05

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Aelred of Hexham

Reading his article, there is a casual mention at the end that "[early sources], do not discuss Aelred's sexual orientation or experience, [but] some scholars in the mid-twentieth century inferred from the treatment in his spiritual works of friendship and love that he himself was gay." Which scholars? This is an unattributed weasel statement, and then the justification for it is simply restating what St. Paul wrote about chastity. This name should be taken off the list unless there is some substantive reason to keep it. 172.137.136.70 04:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What should happen first is that the dispute should be settled at Aelred of Hexham. Once editors there agree on the treatment of the issue, we can change this article to reflect the consensus. -Willmcw 06:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Debated Gays/Lesbians in Section T

There are a lot of open gays whose last name begins with T in the debated section. Was there a mistake made? David Cheater 11:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

John Lennon, Brian Jones, Jim Morrison?

All accounts of John Lennon's alleged bisexuality are not confirmed by anyone. The book being sited alleging an affair with Brian Epstein has been vigourously critisized by everyone that knew him. Look, you can debate it all day, but if everyone who knew him says the book is not a reliable source, and he was never "confirmed" bisexual by anyone having an affair with him except a man trying to sell a book who is a "third party" to it, I don't see how he can be on the "debated or possible" list. People "have" homosexual friends without sleeping with them...Nevertheless, here is the link to the book in question concerning his sexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon Having said all this, I would like to see his "hint" he gave to Rolling Stone about his sexuality linked. IMO, if you can provide this quote along with the book as reference, by all means, put his name back up. To me, this hint sounds like a better lead than the book. The book has been discredited to me.

Also, I have removed Rolling Stones' guitarist Brian Jones from the list. It was well known that Jones had two "illegitimate" children by the age of 18, and again, no solid evidence except an obscure reference from an obscure magazine which we were not given a link. Doesn't sound like he had any doubt about his sexuality to me. He had been known to have been with women basically his whole career with the Stones from the age of 21, and that was after he was on the run for leaving the aforementioned women with his "illegitimate children". Between the constant drugs and passing at the age of 27, it doesn't leave much time for him to experiment sexually without the public knowing about it, or anyone stepping forward after his death about a relationship with him. Again, provide the quote from Dave Davies in a magazine, put it in his biography, or don't put his name up.

David Bowie should be on the "confirmed" list. He came out to the British press in the seventies. Unless he was "faking" it for a public relations stunt...hmmmm.

It is also part of rock legend that Mick Jagger had an affair with Bowie, but no mention of Jagger, but Jones is on the list? I'm sure you could make a much better case for Jagger than either Lennon or Jones. I would try and do it, but I don't really have the time, and I think the "maybe" category is totally BS anyway as well as the "no longer gay or bisexual" category. That is absurd.

Jim Morrison being bisexual strikes me as odd also. I've never heard that. If it's in some article written by one "third party" so it must be true...(sarchasm) I've removed him since the link to the article or source painting him as bisexual is not even in the wiki, but I don't really know much about Morrison, or the article. There should atleast be a link to the article, and in the link, it should contain the exact quote from the article, in my opinion. Here is the link I removed concerning the author allegedly questioning Morrison's heterosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Davis_%28music_journalist%29

IMO, unless someone can provide solid evidence of someones sexuality...i.e., a personal admittance or even a "hint", or actual people confirming they had a relationship with that person, and having that said relationship confirmed by a few other sources, it is highly irresponsible to just "name names" without proper research or links. There are a lot of "hacky" writers trying to get rich off of the fame of some of these people.

Before you post under the maybe category, it clearly states that there should be some solid evidence in the persons biography or a link with quotes from verifiable sources.

Well, I've done what I can for this page. Good luck with the "debated sexuality" category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.55.250 (talk • contribs) ./—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.215.109 (talk • contribs) .

Please note the criteria which we use for this list. Basically, it comes don to whatever is in the subject's bio. So if Brian Jone's bio says he had homosexual activity, then he'd be included here. If not, not. All of your points are therefore moot. These are discussions which need to happen on each of the biography talk pages. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about all the editing. I wanted to get my point across eloquently. I appreciate Wikipedia and look to contribute on a larger scale in the future. I'm new to this. So, sorry about all the editing and re-editing. But to clarify, It doesn't include homosexual activity in Brian Jones' bio. That is my point. I guess I'd better sign up to get taken seriously.

Yes, registered users are taken more seriously. But any editor who follows our policies and guidelines is welcome to edit. In fact, you are correct about Jones and Jagger. While I see that on the Internet there are various rumors, none are included in our biography. Until such time, if ever, that editors of those articles decide to add some reference to them being bisexual, then we should delete them from this list. -Willmcw 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Dave Navarro

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/5458/Navarro.html where he says "I am personally a hetereosexual male".

Lord Frederick Windsor

Can someone provide a source as to verify that Lord Frederick Windsor is homosexual? I cannot find such mention in his article. By the way, he is not a member of the Royal Family, per se, as he is the son of Prince Michael of Kent and the grandson of a duke. JSIN 10:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion would be best held at the biography's talk page. However, this pdf file http://www.cwu.org/uploads/documents/outtalkmarch2003.pdf appears to echo the assertion already in the article. That would appear to be at least enough to include him in the "debated" section. -Willmcw 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename?

Why not rename the list List of homosexual or bisexual people. Gay and lesbian are colloquial.

"Gay" and "lesbian" are the generally accepted terms; "homosexual" is a clinical term which is not used as an identity label. Bearcat 22:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Bülent Ersoy

She's a transexual and already listed in the Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians. She considers herself as a woman and would have made some homophobic remarks in Turkish media. --Pylambert 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I think this is one page that needs to have the new semi-protection option used.

The reasons are straight-forward:

1. It seems to attract a disproportionate number of edits from users on their first edits.
2. Many of the edits by such users are either (1) questionable, (2) wrong, (3) malicious, or (4) not following the requirements laid down for inclusion (ie, article reference).
3. The sheer number of often unknown names makes it extremely difficult to vet all additions to catch false ones.
4. while WP is legally covered in the event of defamation under US law, users adding in names that are deliberately false and which are only intended to damage someone, are themselves legally at risk of being under the Communications Decency Act of being sued for making claims.
5. False claims on this page, if mentioned in the media, could be used to damage Wikipedia and bring about major criticism.

While a claim of a person's orientation should not be an issue of defamation, it has been seen as such where the person suffers damage to their reputation and standing in their community where an untrue claim is made and their employer and/or community has a problem with homosexuality. For example, a claim added in about a teacher in a religious school, if it was not spotted, could impact on that teacher's employment prospects. Actors often bank on their ability to be a convincing heterosexual love interest in films. A claim of homosexuality, they fear, may lead studios to decide not to use them, or it might bring them negative publicity, etc. Various prominent personalities, such as Tom Cruise and Jason Donovan have taken legal cases over false claims as to their orientation.

Semi-protection would help ensure that contributions to the page could be controlled, so that only users with a history of editing the encyclopædia, and who as a result are aware of the NPOV rules, can edit the page, while stopping once off edits from unknown users whose reliability as a source of information we have no background information on. Right now, many of the worst edits are from people who come on, edit this page and nothing else, add in some dodgy claims, and then never edit another page. Such edits endanger Wikipedia's credibility and puts them at risk of being sued, a fact they seem oblivious to.FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd personally favour this option (reverting vandalism and inappropriate additions on here is one of the most tiresome tasks I have to undertake), I've looked at the semiprotection policy and it would appear that it's not permissible. That policy comes with the following restrictions:

1. Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized.
2. Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism.

So, realistically, I don't think what you're proposing is an option...as much as I wish it were. Bearcat 01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth a try anyway. Wuzzy 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the history of the page and at some times vandalism accounts for over 70% of contributions. So it isn't a case of might get vandalised but is getting vandalised all the time. At this stage I dread to think how many names on there legally could sue the posters over their inclusion. A quick glance spotted a couple. Robbie Williams, for example, has just won a defamation case yet we still had him in as debated when legally it has been ruled that there is nothing debatable about his orientation!!! Frankly, given the legal complexities with listing people here I'd go further and advocate that either the page be deleted as too much of a defamation risk, or be kept semi-protected to stop the constant adding in of vandalistic edits by anonymous editors who edit no pages but this one. It might be an idea to protect the page completely for a day while a couple of users sifted through all the names on it to make sure that there are no defamationary claims sitting there that weren't spotted by those honorable editors like Bearcat who spent their time constantly stopping vandalism here. But as vandalism is a constant reality, not merely a theoretical possibility, I think semi-protection is allowable here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Another example of the shit in this page. Lord Frederick Windsor. He has not AFAIK stated that he is gay. All there is is tabloid innuendo that he once belonged to a defunct gay club. On that basis we had him here as definite. Zeeech. We really are playing with legal fire with this damn page!!! FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that this article is a constant target of vandalism, almost always by apparently new editors. Well over half of the edits are additions which don't meet the criteria, deletions of appropriate entries, or corrections of either. This list is a clasic case of "friends of gays should not be allowed to edit." -Will Beback 03:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl misunderstands libel law -- and deletes nearly any new addition and calls it vandalism. Yes, there has been vandalism on this page, but thought out additions are (or should be) always welcom. In any event there is no standard in Wikipedia to determine whether any individual can be put in this category (including the 'debated' category). What is listed here: people with homosexual desires, who have engaged in homosexual acts, who have engaged exclusively in homosexual acts, who publicly acknowledge their status using the words "gay" or "lesbian" or "bisexual" (perhaps as long as they don't retract such a statement)????? If Marilyn Manson *admits* in his autobiography that he has engaged in oral sex with men, it seems pretty clear-cut example of someone being includable on the list (if this makes him 'debatable' then who takes the otherside to say the his autobiography was false?). If a celebrity is arrested and charged for having sex with someone of the same sex, it seems at least someone is debating the celebrity's sexual orientation. Hey we all remember that nothing squelched speculation of Hugh Grant's sexual orientation more than his being arrested and charged with picking up a FEMALE prostitute; or that George Michael "came out" after his arrest in connection with a MALE police decoy. If winning libel suits is sufficient to prove a celebrity is NOT gay, then remove Liberace, too. He won such a suit in 1957. So as Jtdirl says: "legally it has been ruled that there is nothing debatable about his orientation!!!!" Editors have discarded various sources as being unreliable, but despite strong evidence (and the clear precept that one cannot libel the dead), even Tchaikovsky was removed for a while so he can be "straightened up" for history. So someone(s) should determine what sources are "reliable" (recall Marilyn Manson's autobiography; is an arrest and a charge enough; must the person be found guilty in a court of law -- then other than Oscar Wilde this list would be quite empty -- and then only "conduct" is at issue -- Oscar Wilde was married so his "orentiation" could still be debated by the doubting Thomases of the world). If fear of libel suits is the be all and end all, just remember (1) Wikipedia is probably immune; (2) any editor who is busy deleting what he/she finds objectionable is also REPEATING everything else that is not deleted and if libel reaches such speech (which may have Constitutional problems in the USA) it reaches that editor too. 71.193.16.105 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As usual, complete balderdash. The only thing debatable about your contribution is the question of which you misunderstand more: the law on defamation or the rules on content in Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

Another useless contribution by Jtdirl: respond point by point -- you know that you're wrong, why you persist. I would assume good faith, but your actions are sufficient to negate the assumption. Is it that you don't like Latinos? Gays? Cured Ex-Catholics? what? I can forgive you to a point if you were educated in Ireland, a place well known for anti-Latino sentiment. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My ex-boyfriend, an Mexican-American US soldier currently in Iraq, would find that comment very funny. Re my comment as to which who misunderstand more: the law on defamation or the rules on content in Wikipedia, I clearly have to amend it. You clearly know even less about me and less about Ireland than you do about either. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino

Rudolph Valentino should not be on the "confirmed" list. While his sexual orientation has been questioned, there is NO concrete evidence, either in his Wikipedia article or his published biographies, to support the theory that he was homosexual. On the other hand, he had several well-documented and unquestioned relationships with women such as Pola Negri and Vilma Banky. These are mentioned in his Wikipedia article and supported in the links provided on his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.22.55 (talk • contribs) .

Valentino is in the "debated" section. -Will Beback 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Manson

I have decided to remove Charles Manson from this list because it is questionable to assume that he is bisexual solely based on the fact that he forcibly sodomized a boy. Sexual assault does not reflect one’s sexual preference; one could argue that sexual assault is not about engaging in sexual activities, but rather it is a way one tries to control another person and uses sex as a weapon. Also, it is narrow-minded to think that simply because you are engaged in a sexual activity, that it is simple to classify someone’s sexual orientation. Being bisexual, as is being heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, etc. is more than just sexual activity. For someone to say that you are classified by the gender you engage in sex with does not understand the meaning of sexual orientation.

On the one hand, your logic is reasonable. We have some people who might have died virgins, but still exhibited a sexual orientation. Likewise, it is possible for two people to have sex who are not mutually attracted. Prison rape, etc. On the other hand, our article, "Charles Manson", says that an psych evaluation reported he had homosexual tendencies, but the article doesn't mention Manson raping any boys. On the third hand, this discussion doesn't matter because our criteria says that the list follows the biography. Since the biography doesn't even mention any homosexual encounter, and since the quoted report characterizes his homosexuality as merely latent, I agree that we should not have the name on the list. Further discussions of Manson's orientation should be held at talk:Charles Manson. -Will Beback 08:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ram Dass

I'd like to add Ram Dass to this list. Ram Dass has been out as gay/bisexual since 1984. He's been interviewed in a number of gay magazines, though he is not well known in the gay community nor well known to be gay in the spirituality communities.

Reference of his out status can be found here: http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/issue/i04-01/ramdass.html

His biography here, Ram Dass, lists his bisexuality, so it's fine to add his name to the list. -Will Beback 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-compliant list

This list bypasses the non-negotiable content principles of Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR

• Controversial aspects of notable persons need to be moved to these person's respective articles so that competing views can be fairly presented for WP:NPOV . See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

• The criteria asserts that their inclusion is based on people's biographies in Wikipedia. A random check shows this not to be true (e.g. Brian Greig, Philip Johnson, John Greyson, Robert Lepage). I checked these names just by random choice and none of their biographies discusses them being gay or bisexual). This needs to be corrected for WP:V.

I am adding a suitable template to the article to alert readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the subcategory "Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation" may not be compliant either. Speculation is not verifiable and may also fall within WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The assertion made at the end of the intro ... "Note that several of the people on this list were prosecuted for their behaviour under existing "sodomy laws" ... is not NPOV, unless these people are clearly identified in the list. Otherwise you leave readers guessing about who these are. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My own quick check indicates that Brian Greig and John Greyson's articles do discuss their sexuality. In fact, I wrote the Greyson bio, and know for a fact that I addressed his sexuality, so the only thing I needed to check was whether someone had edited the gay stuff out. But it's still there. Philip Johnson, I can't really address — while I've certainly heard of him, I don't know enough about him to contribute to that article. Lepage, on the other hand, just needs some cleanup. Bearcat 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles do not provide any sources for the assertion that these people are gay or bisexual. For example, Brian Greig discusses his support for a bill to eliminate discrimination against gays. But not that he is gay (it says that he lives with his partner but (a) his partner's sex is not stated and (b) there is are sources for that statement). Same with John Greyson. His bio discusses "the frank depiction of gay themes in his work", but not that he is gay. You need reputable sources that describe their sexual orientation to be gay or bisexual, for compliance with WP:V. Speculation or deductions are original research as in the case of Lonnie Latham that I removed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What a surprise. Someone else finds that a list of gays requires special sourcing. I suppose the active suppression of information about gay folk will at least keep him from more serious forms of oppression. If you have a question about a specific person, your remedy is to ask for a source, not to stick a tag on the page and go on a multipage jihad against gays. I take it you are seriously questioning if John Greyson is gay? Really quite mindboggling. Here's an online reference, one you might have easily found yourself. [1]. - Outerlimits 05:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ther burden of providing sources is on the editor adding content. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the person questioning a fact should take the time to learn if he has a reason to question it before burdening others with remedying his ignorance. I take it you found the reference to your satisfaction, then. - Outerlimits 06:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Then take the matter up with the specific editors who added the specific content that you're disputing. Right now, given that we're each only responsible for our own contributions to this list, you're basically preaching the WP:V gospel at a random bunch of people who have no particular responsibility to do anything about it. Bearcat 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am making a point that this list, as it stands, is not compliant with Wikipedia policies as stated above. So I making this point here, where I thing it belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The proper procedure is for you to ask for a reference if you doubt any assertions in the article. Instead you are waging a bigoted, distasteful war. - Outerlimits 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You can think it belongs here all you'd like. But it's certainly not my responsibility to hunt down external references to prove that Brian Greig is gay, given that I've never had any involvement with that article and barely even know who the guy is. So, right vs. wrong notwithstanding, the productive thing to do would be to take it up at Brian Greig's talk page so that someone who knows about Brian Greig can deal with it. Because that's the only way what you want done is ever going to actually get done. Bearcat 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Greyson's films have almost all been exclusively about frank and explicit gay themes. A non-gay filmmaker simply would not do that. A non-gay filmmaker would not have been associated with The Body Politic in any capacity whatsoever. A non-gay filmmaker couldn't have made Zero Patience even if he'd wanted to. Or Proteus. Or Lilies.

The thing is, the logical extension to your argument would be that even explicit references to a person's position in LGBT culture aren't enough. Most remotely suitable external links don't just make the declarative statement that "so-and-so is gay"; they talk about "his role as a gay activist", or, in Greyson's case, "...dramatized issues of human rights for homosexuals." Greyson is openly gay, but I'm at a loss to even begin to deduce what external reference I could possibly add with which you couldn't split the "but that statement doesn't actually prove that he's gay; he could be a straight person who just happens to do gay-themed work" hair. Honestly: name me one non-gay artist whose work consistently has the depiction of frank and explicit gay themes as its principal subject matter. Hint: there isn't one on the planet.

I'm responsible for what I add to the list, and I categorically reject any claim that what's present at John Greyson is insufficient data for inclusion. As for Greig and Latham, they weren't my additions. If you dispute someone's inclusion here, take it up on the talk page of the disputed article, so that someone who knows the topic and is regularly involved in editing the article can resolve the matter for you. Nobody reading this talk page has any responsibility to systematically hunt down references for every last person on this list; I sure as hell wouldn't spend any amount of my time doing that for people I knew nothing about. Bearcat 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia have some non-negotiable principles and one of them is WP:V. This list, as it stands, breaks each and every one of these policies as well as contradict its own criteria. If this list was a List of people related to LGBT culture it would be OK as these are verifiable facts. On the other hand, making an assertion of fact without a reputable source is against Wikipedia guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one interested in negotiating. - Outerlimits 06:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My question remains: what would be sufficiently verifiable for your standards? Give a specific example, because if what's present at John Greyson is insufficient for your standards, then clearly your standards are pretty close to completely unattainable. Bearcat 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(For the record, I am not anti-gay or anything closer to that. On the contrary: I have absoulte respect for each individual's choices and freedoms as it pertains to religious, political or sexual orientations. My concern here is compliance with WP policies only). As per your question above, read: WP:V:

For the record, it will stand that you deny being "anti-gay". We have no documentation of that fact, and your choice of this list to make your "point" belies your denial. - Outerlimits 06:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong ... I came here as a result of my work in Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt that required you to stigmatize gay sexuality as needing "special" attention. As for my being wrong: I'm not. It is my opinion, now once again documented, that your choice of this list to make your point is offensive. Even if "some of your best friends are gay." - Outerlimits 06:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) The reaction to Jossi's request for meeting WP:V is shockingly familiar to me, having gotten almost verbatim the same responses when I have tried to clean up Jewish and born-again Christian lists. The first response is "just trust us!" Next is "how dare you claim we don't know that so-and-so is gay/Jewish/born-again?!" And after that comes disrespectful allegations of prejudice. But in fact, Jossi is 100% correct here: Lists need to meet WP:V and WP:NOR, nor be end-runs around evidentiary standards.

I suppose you think that claiming it doesn't meet V & NOR is proof that it doesn't? - Outerlimits 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If a reader cannot verify that an item meets the criteria for list membership based solely on what is provided at Wikipedia, the list fails WP:V WP:NOR. It's simply not remotely sufficient to claim that "Google would show this", or "It is widely known", or the like (as editors here have done in this thread, and as editors in the Jewish and born-again lists did in those threads). It's not enough that someone is "more likely than not LGBT"... we need a specific and verifiable citation of that fact (which includes reasonable inferences from verbatim cites; but vague insinuations of "common knowledge" are worthless). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"If a reader cannot verify that an item meets the criteria for list membership based solely on what is provided at Wikipedia, the list fails (the noninformative abbreviations)" is nonsense. In every case, verification would require consultation with the sources cited. If you had bothered to consult the source given on this very page, you would find the confirmation you claim to be seeking. - Outerlimits 07:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not really trying to "out" myself here, and don't want to claim any great personal significance (I'm a very minor notable by WP standards). But I happen to be a modest counter-example to the "known in LGBT culture" rule. I'm a straight guy who's published a number of academic papers in queer theory. There are about a zillion more important theorists in the area, but inasmuch as I might be known in philosophy, people tend to make an assumption that happens not to be true. A thinker being more important than me as a theorist doesn't suddenly make anyone's vague feeling of "surely s/he must be..." any more reliable. So technically, if anyone creates a List of really minor philosophers who are LGBT, I don't belong on it (not, of course, that I really give a damn about what someone might guess/assume).

And also a bit more autobiographical rambling: my dear old heterosexual mom happens to have written the first gay-rights ordinance in the United States. She doesn't have a WP article, but if she did, one might well assume... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly the issue at hand. Lonnie Latham aside, most of the people Jossi was disputing aren't being assumed to be gay through circumstantial evidence — the four he picked out (Greyson, Lepage, Greig and Johnson) are all self-affirmedly gay men with clear and verifiable references to their sexuality coming out of Google's yin-yang. Nobody made any assumptions about anything. The question about Greyson, for example, isn't whether his gay-themed films prove that he's gay in the absence of a statement on the matter — he is an openly gay film director, and the dispute went to how much more context is needed than that. (And, for the record, the only person who took issue with Jossi's reversion of Lonnie Latham isn't involved in this discussion.) Bearcat 07:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? On Jewish and born-again Christian lists you were responded to with a source that you didn't bother to read? In what way would that be the responder's problem? - Outerlimits 07:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA! What I was given was exactly what editors on this talk page are saying: "Trust us, we checked offline, and are personally convinced of membership". Or at most: "I think maybe I read it in a book by John Smith". Sources are not what someone "might find" by doing their own search; sources means WP articles on a topic, linked URLs, ISBNs for books, etc. Specific and verifiable publications count. Something that someone "in the know" might encounter doesn't count.

I have not read Greyson's article, but if it does not say he is "openly gay", find a couple of those sources you say come out of Google's yin-yang, and add the links next to the item in this list. Don't bemoan how obvious it is to you, let readers who do not know anything about Greyson see it for themselves. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lulu, you don't like the reference appearing on this very page? Or are you also intent on making a point other than the one you pretend to be interested in? - Outerlimits 07:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Greyson's article has external links on it. Wikipedia policy on lists does not normally require every entry on a list to be annotated with links in addition to the external links that are already accessible by clicking on the internal one. At least, it didn't the last time I checked...and otherwise, my point remains that I have a responsibility to ensure that my additions to Wikipedia are properly sourced and verified. Nobody has a responsibility to personally comb through this entire list to hunt for verifiable sources for every last individual included here; the work will only get done if the issue is raised on an individual basis at the talk pages of the individual articles under dispute. Raised here as a one-shot deal, it's a daunting and unmanageable whopper of a job that nobody has any responsibility to take on. Bearcat 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research. One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite credible sources so that their edits can be verified by readers and other editors.

It is all spelled out there. I don't think it is unnatainable: it is the same for every article in Wikipedia. Why to make an exception here? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, why are you trying to? - Outerlimits 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Earlier in this very discussion, you actually split the hair that being associated with the gay community, making gay-themed movies or being a vocal gay activist aren't actually sufficient evidence to identify an openly gay person as gay on Wikipedia. Apparently the standard is unattainable if it actually takes more than that.

I can pile references on John Greyson until there are more external links than lines of text, if you'd like. But they'd all talk about his place in gay culture, the gay themes in his work, etc. — not one of them would just make the simple declarative statement that "John Greyson is a homosexual", because they're already making that apparent by talking about his place in gay culture and the gay themes in his work. And even if that declarative statement were made, you could still arguably dispute that as an unproven assumption in the absence of more substantial evidence.

So apparently your standard of verifiability is unattainable, if talking about an openly gay person's political, cultural and social associations with the gay community are actually not good enough. What the hell more does one need, a detailed history of every man John Greyson has ever slept with? Signed affidavits confirming their sexual encounters?

And anyway, I asked for a specific example of what would suit your standards. So could you give me a specific example, please? Because I'm genuinely at a loss. Bearcat 06:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He clearly hasn't read the reference he requested, or he'd have an answer. He's not seriously interested in accuracy, he's seriously interested in suppressing information. - Outerlimits 06:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Though Sidney Poitier gave several very convincing portrayals of black men in films, we should not list him as African American until we find a quote in which he says "I, Sidney Poitier, am African American". And he shouldn't appear in any lists or categories until that's cemented down with a footnote. And we certainly should not do any "original research" such as looking at a photo and making our own inferences. - Outerlimits 06:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, that is indeed the required standard for Poitier as well. It's not even vaguely close enough to look at a photo and conclude he "looks black". We need some specific reputable source that discusses Poitier being African American. Which is, frankly, not hard to find. I'm sure a thousand interviewers asked him "What was it like to be the first African American to ....", and Poitier said various things affirming the ethnic membership (some probably pretty darn close to the hypothetical quote). Of course, if Poitier's article already describes him as an "African American actor", we can defer to the greater subject-area expertise of the editors of Sidney Poitier when we list him in List of African American actors. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... following up on myself. This actually poses a more interesting question than Outerlimits thinks it does. A Bajan-Canadian-American friend of mine made a comment I found interesting: vaguely it was that since he was not African American he had certain difficulties in social interaction with the AA community. Well, my friend has about the skin tone of Poitier (and as it happens, has acquired US citizenship). But if this friend had an article, presumably his self-identification would exclude him from List of African American computer programmers. So exactly how does (or did) the Bahamian-American Poitier self-identify? The answer is not self-evident. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know how interesting the example I picked was. The question is why you chose to disrupt this list, and not the African American list. Give it some thought. - Outerlimits 18:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Obviously, I cannot demand evidence on the still only hypothetical List of African American actors; but if someone creates the list, it will need to meet WP:V too. For what it's worth, I created List of African American jurists, and I have made sure that it is positively exemplary in terms of meeting WP:V. And I've certainly had exactly this same conversation with exactly the same type of somewhat disrespectful editors on a number of other identitarian ("people like me") lists. Just curious, what's the "right answer" about Poitier going on the hypothetical AA actors list? (I think he's a very fine actor, but have no idea really how he self-identifies). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it went over my head with all the (sometimes irrelevant) argy bargy, but the real issue here is that this list is a secondary list, not a primary list. A name gets onto this list ONLY if the individual biography supports that. Debating any particular person's sexual orientation on this talk page is never appropriate. That debate should occur on their own talk page. The outcome of that debate is reflected in their own article. The contents of their article then controls whether the name appears on this list or not. It's that simple. JackofOz 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility for pages

There is a serious misunderstanding by several editors in the above thread. They claim that issues of list membership of individuals listed should be discussed on the respective pages for the individuals. That is absolutely and completely wrong. Responsibility for the content of this article lies with editors of this article, not with some other editors of some other article. If a name listed here is not properly evidenced, it should be removed, or suffient evidence should be added. But any discussion of improvements to this article should be discussed on this talk page (or for minimal things, in edit history comments).

Now one perfectly good, even optimal, form of evidence that Foo Bar should be included in this list is if Foo Bar's own article says that she is "openly gay". If it says that (and it has said that by long-standing consensus of subject area experts on Foo Bar herself, not just as something added five minutes ago), the matter is closed. But if Foo Bar's article does not say she is "openly gay" (or something along those lines; including if it only says something that makes the inclusion "seem likely"), we need to provide additional evidence. That additional evidence may or may not be relevant to include on Foo Bar's own article, depending on how her sexual identity relates to her reasons for notability (if at all). If the underlying article does not support the list inclusion, it is the responsibility of the editors of this article to add external references supporting the inclusion (or to remove the name as not meeting WP:V and WP:NOR).

And again: No, this is not about whether Foo Bar is a good person. It is not about whether being LGBT is good or bad. It is not about whether some particular WP editor is homophobic or homophilic. The question is simply one of meeting encyclopedic standards. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I most certainly do not have a personal responsibility to individually go through every single item on this list to verify that it was properly sourced. Brian Greig's article already indicates that he's an openly gay man (a point which I took two extra minutes to verify on Google solely because it was under dispute here). John Greyson's and Robert Lepage's articles already indicate that they're openly gay men. By the criteria you state here, the matters are already settled — and yet you're acting as if they're not.

You do not have responsibility in the sense that WP is a voluntary effort, certainly. But Greig is a great example where the WP article is suggestive but not explicit on list membership. If you took two extra minutes to find citations in Google, it sure is a shame you decided not to add them to the article to improve it (but again, I understand editing is voluntary). But at the very least, it would be wildly inappropriate to obstruct any editors who try to improve evidentiary standards on this list (or on any other list). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is being impeded from improving and adding references. You might want to try it yourself sometime. - Outerlimits 09:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for adding the needed Greig one (good quality link). I might make an effort to add the {{fact}} tag where evidentiary support is missing from WP articles. That seems like the first thing that is needed, followed by citations or removals, as appropriate. But I actually don't really care about this list, per se, but simply about trying to implement WP:LISTS. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but WP:LISTS is just a proposal in the early staages of dicussion. It is certainly not ready to be implemented. -Will Beback 16:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, Greig is a great example of the Sidney Poitier principle you mentioned above (the one about "if the people who are most knowledgeable about the subject and most directly involved in editing the article already say he belongs here...") He's also a great example of another question: do we actually have to insult the reader's intelligence by explicitly stating "Greig is openly homosexual" in those exact words, in addition to the fact that the article already talks about all the gay stuff he's done, already files him in Category:Gay politicians and already includes an external link that clearly and unambiguously discusses his sexuality? WP:LISTS comes right out and says "For purposes of list inclusion, the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed", and now you're telling us that doesn't apply in this case for reasons which don't even have anything to do with the stated facts as they lay. Remember, the challenge was quite explicitly to four openly self-identified gay men on the at-best-debatable basis that the articles weren't sufficiently sourced. It had nothing to do with challenging circumstantial assumptions, because there weren't any circumstantial assumptions to challenge. It had everything to do with assigning some kind of misplaced blame for the quality of the articles' sources. And you think we're being obstructive? Bearcat 10:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If by "insult the reader's intelligence" you mean state the fact relied upon then: Yes, we absolutely must do this if we want to meet WP policies. If you are an editor of the Greig article, and you can get consensus on that page to put in some particular fact, great (but just "knowing" it privately doesn't help us ignorant readers, we only know what we can read). But just saying on some talk page that will get archived somewhere that you are an expert isn't what reader need to know. I had never heard of Greig yesterday, and could not determine with confidence whether he belonged on this list based on what was then given (being, after all, of my low intelligence). Please think of us poor, ignorant Ph.D.'s, don't just assume everyone is of such rarified intelligence as yourself. FWIW, the only external link I found in Greig's article was an official bio that only indicated support for several legislative policies (many of them having nothing to do with gay rights also). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This list is not compiled by one or two editors; it's compiled by whoever the hell adds whatever the hell name they add whenever they add it.

I monitor this list, and occasionally revert obvious trollery and vandalism; I do not have a special responsibility to personally review every last addition for double and triple and quadruple verification of sources, because I'm neither an owner nor a primary maintainer of this list. Nobody is, any more than any other list. That's the point. Bearcat 08:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the four people that I presented as evidence of non-compliance, were selected at random. I just clicked in a few links and these four were the first four I picked. The issue is not with these specific examples and the issue is not just about verifiability. I talked about additional problems with the intro, with the criteria and with the "controversy" section. These were as follows:

1. Controversial aspects of notable persons need to be moved to these person's respective articles so that competing views can be fairly presented for WP:NPOV . See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
2. The subcategory "Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation" may not be compliant either. Speculation is not verifiable and may also fall within WP:NOR
3. The assertion made at the end of the intro ... "Note that several of the people on this list were prosecuted for their behaviour under existing "sodomy laws" ... is not NPOV, unless these people are clearly identified in the list. Otherwise you leave readers guessing about who these are.

I would appreciate editor's comments about these issues. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Controversial aspects of people do need to be discussed on their biographies, but that is no reason the controversy shouldn't also be mentioned here.
2. Speculation is verifiable if it occurs in reliable sources. We should not speculate, but we can (and should) report on the speculations of notable sources.
3. I agree that that text is unhelpful. -Will Beback 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with (1). If there is an article about Tom Cruise, controversies about him are better discussed in his bio. Not here. After all this is supposed to be a "list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people"

I could agree with (2) if there are notable sources that discuss speculation. But I do not think that there is any such rigour applied to the "debated" section, if one is to judge by the first three people in the list: Clay_Aiken, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, or Susan B. Anthony ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If Albert Victor's article doesn't mention that he was - how shall we say - caused some trouble by the public's perception that he was involved in the Cleveland Street "telegraph boy" brothel scandal, that's a problem with the article, not this list. There's an entire book about it, Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld by Theo Aronson; the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, years later, told Harold Nicolson that Prince Eddy "had been involved in a male brothel scene, and that a solicitor had to commit perjury to clear him". - Outerlimits 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability makes it quite clear that all information should be referenced to a reputable source, and if that is not the case then that information may be removed. This is particularly important for lists as they contain a lot of information. Every entry on this list makes the statement that that individual is gay, lesbian or bisexual - and this information should be referenced here on this page. (Either some footnote system should be employed or otherwise the reference added directly next to each name.)

It is irrelevant how "obvious" it may be to someone whether any given individual is gay, lesbian or bisexual, the information still must be referenced to a reputable source. This really shouldn't be problematic where it is "obvious" that someone belongs in this list - in that case it should be easy for those wishing to retain the addition of that person to this list to find such a source.

It's also quite right that Jossi and Lulu and others ask for zero tolerance on this list (although, to be frank, the same principles should be applied to every list). This list is controversial, and categorising people in this way is very prone to error. References are essential. Please start providing them! It will soon be time to start removing unsourced entries, jguk 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Zero tolerance" is exactly the right word here, and it's apparently zero tolerance for gays. There's a reason this list was "chosen", and it's probably an ugly one. - Outerlimits 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the focus HERE and not everywhere. Similarly, "sources" even autobiographies are said to be insufficient. What do we need? Pictures in flagrante dilecto compounded with a statement that "it was me" which is good enough until "retracted"? Double standards are made to keep people down: people of color and lavender is a color too. Carlossuarez46 19:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one problem, and another is that those who are involved come here to "supervise" rather than actually work on improvement. And at least one comes with a history of his own, in which it is clear that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is standard operating procedure. Had anyone arrived and said "these need better sources" and started adding them, no one could possibly object. But those-who-would-be-supervisors live for the objection. They insist you bow to their power, rather than work by their side. They come to impose their will, not to improve the article. And they come with an inability to recognize this in themselves. Their desire is to have as short a list as they can manage, because they don't like such lists. And so their interest lies only in removing people from the list, rather than adding references. - Outerlimits 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Take the persecution complex somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a support group.

I don't think anyone is confusing this with a support group, thank you. Or you with a psychiatrist. - Outerlimits 19:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, every single other list I've tried to cleanup has had the exact same nonsensical reaction about: "Why pick on us as needing evidence?! You must have some prejudice against <whatever>." Those poor persecuted born-again Christians wrote very nearly verbatim the same thing as Outerlimits and Calossuarez46, as also did the oppressed Jewish judges. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How dull and unimaginative of them! And how brave of you to soldier on! - Outerlimits 19:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Outerlimits, your comment to me above is unacceptable, please moderate your comments - it is perfectly reasonable to ask for entries in a list to be sourced. Any list. Every list. Some lists have to be the first to be tidied up, and it makes sense to concentrate on the more controversial lists that are more prone to error, and then later tidy up the others.

Yes, traditionally, gays are among the first groups to be gone after, that's the standard procedure. - Outerlimits 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTS: "For purposes of list inclusion, the most reliable source is the long-standing consensus of editors on the content article of the thing listed." We do not have a special responsibility to annotate this list with extra sources in addition to the sources already cited on the articles. We do not have a special responsibility to monitor every single article added for the quality of its individual sources.

In order for what you want to happen, a specific person or group of people has to own the responsibility for ensuring that every single name on here is double and triple and quadruple sourced. So my question remains: who, specifically, owns this mythical responsibility for reviewing the sources of every article that's already on this list? And given that the watchlist only shows the last new edit (which means that if five edits have taken place since the last time I looked at my watch list, I'm aware of one and miss four), who specifically owns this mythical responsibility for cross-checking the list every day and reverifying every individual new name that got added to the list? It's not enough to say that it needs to be done; a specific person or group of people has to actually own the responsibility of doing it. "Editors of this article" is not specific enough; it's an amorphous body of people who largely don't even read the talk page to begin with. So who owns that responsibility? Bearcat 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Carlossuarez46, at present most entries are not even sourced. Of course, it's then reasonable to question whether any given source is reputable or not - especially in an area such as this, where there is a definite risk of bias in sources (some undoubtedly will have a pro-gay or anti-gay agenda, for example, that may make them less prone to be accurate about their facts or to claim someone is or isn't gay on flimsy evidence).

The notion that gay reference sources are somehow inherently more POV-suspect than other reference sources is itself a POV assertion. Bearcat 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to source up each entry either by linked footnotes or by including the reference next to the entry. We can then discuss whether any given source is reputable or not later, jguk 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to source up each entry, as well. - Outerlimits 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Outerlimits, will all due respect, I would appreciate if you stop accusing me and others of bigotry. I am thoroughly offended by your comments and your suspicions. I am a person that strongly believes in personal freedoms and you insinuations piss me royally off. Please assume good faith, because that is exactly the manner in which I approached this list. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We can only know you from your actions. - Outerlimits 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Jossi. It's entirely reasonable that those reading a list of gay, lesbian and bisexual people see a list of people who are verifiably gay, lesbian and bisexual. Indeed, we'd be doing a disservice to offer anything else.

Outerlimits, for the avoidance of doubt, all I, and, from what I can see, others who are asking for references are looking for is that every entry in this list really is of someone who is gay, lesbian or bisexual. There's nothing anti-gay (or indeed pro-gay) in this - it is just pro-accuracy.

Might I make a suggestion to break the impasse? We should move this article to List of gay, lesbian and bisexual people/temp and recreate this page blank. Then move over, bit by bit, those entries on the current list for which a reputable source can be found. I'll say straightaway that I think we should steer clear of openly pro-gay or anti-gay websites and publications - these are clearly likely to be biased and may be inaccurate as a result. Also, I'm sure that if someone's sexuality is notable enough it will be mentioned in publications other than these. Let's get this list RIGHT, and VERIFIABLY RIGHT at that! jguk 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no impasse. Feel free to add any sources you find. And no, you cannot exclude sources that you characterize as "pro-gay" on that basis. - Outerlimits 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy does not require list entries to be annotated with extra sources in addition to the sources that are or aren't already present on the articles being linked to; if you have an issue with the sources on the individual articles, take it up on the individual articles. And this list currently has at least a thousand people on it — if you're waiting for somebody to voluntarily take on the job of individually tracking down extra sources for each one, you're going to be waiting until the cows come home. I'm certainly not going to put any token amount of effort into it. I monitor this list for vandalism; it is not my responsibility to double and triple and quadruple check the quality of the sources for legitimate additions. Bearcat 20:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP policy absolutely requires being explicit about what sources we are using. If Foo Bar has a WP article that does not explicitly state "Foo Bar is openly gay", but has ten external references at bottom providing background information on Foo Bar, we cannot ask readers to guess which of those ten external links might contain some information relevant to list inclusion. If some interview, article, bio, or whatever that is linked to at at the bottom of Foo Bar's article says that she is gay, please copy that URL (or ISBN, or whatever) into this list so readers can tell what evidence is being purported. Specifically, if readers know which source is being used, they are able to evaluate the reliability of the named source. If we remain only at the level of "some source might show this", that does not allow verification or evaluation.

In other words, every single time somebody adds one name to this list, somebody else has to take on the responsibility of (a) checking the article, (b) reviewing and evaluating the article's sources, (c) tracking down sources if they aren't already there, (d) coming back and annotating this list with an independent verification source. Well, I'm sorry, that's not my job; I'd never get anything else done around here if it were. It's the job of the people who write, edit and monitor the article on the person in question to ensure that the article is properly sourced; it's not my job to track down extra sources for them.

My point remains: Wikipedia policy requires the articles to be sourced; Wikipedia policy does not require the lists to be annotated with extra sources, and it does not require the list's maintainers to put special effort into evaluating the quality of the article sources. Bearcat 21:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You "job" is to never add a name that lacks adequate citational support. If you would like, as well, to help make this page better, you can also check names added by other editors. Again: please try to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a chat room or a support group. We don't add names to feel good about ourselves, or claim an identity for our "favorite" celebrities.

You "job" is to never add a name that lacks adequate citational support. Well, good. Then I'm already doing my job just fine, then. Bearcat 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a bit stunned at an apparent failure to recognize that a list is a WP article. A list isn't some sort of non-encyclopedic summary of what the actual encyclopedia contains, it is a collection of information on like things whose likeness must be documented to the same standards as any factual claim on WP must be. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't failed to recognize anything. Bearcat 21:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, after editors have a chance to add citational support, if a name cannot be supported, it must and will be removed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I love that you think that someone will be consulting Wikipedia for a citation to confirm that Ted Allen of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is gay, that your unwillingness to locate that citation means you should remove his name from the list, and that the list would thereby be improved. - Outerlimits 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Guillaume Dufay

I've removed him from the list since there's no evidence in the Guillaume Dufay article.--Samuel J. Howard 10:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been some dispute about his sexuality based solely on such works as "Las, que feray?", his love song to a man. The usual debates about auctorial voice and heteronormativity ensue. In short, the same "dispute" as Shakespeare, writ small. It's probably not important that he be listed, either here or on a list of heterosexuals, given the lack of biographical details that would point to inclusion on either. -- Outerlimits 19:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard I

• Richard I "the Lionheart", English King

I've moved from the confirmed to the disputed list, it's described in the article [[Richard I] as a potentially true twentieth centry theory.--Samuel J. Howard 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Breaking impasse

I've never experienced temp pages really working all that well. They mostly just get ignored, and the main page editing continues as before.

What I believe is a better solution is to identify specific problems. I began editing, starting at 'A'. Those names that are explicitly supported by their articles, I added an HTML comment next to. Those whose article does not provide explicit support (just providing plausibility, which most do, is not WP:V), I have added the flag to indicate the need for citation. In some cases I have added a citation myself.

I only made it through part of the 'A's, but with some joint effort, we can properly annotate the whole list... and require proper citations going forward. I do wonder whether using some sort of symbol or typography to mark the fact that "this name is supported by their article" would be more useful than a comment that can only be seen during page editing. That would give readers at a glance a chance to see if they needed to follow an external source, or simply look at a WP article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start. I would, however, included as uncited those who have their (alleged) sexuality mentioned on their article pages where that information is unsourced. I'd also add that, where a reputable source is found, it should also be added to the article page, jguk 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a workable idea, as a first pass. But we also need a second pass, in let's say one month time, in which any persons in the list whose article does not provide explicit support and do not have a citation get deleted from the article. Until such time the warning template should remain. I volunteer to work on the letter "J" and will do so by end of day. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want the list fully annotated in a month, then you will do the work of annotating it. You will not impose it as an arbitrary burden on other people. And for the record, I will revert any deletion I consider unjustified. Bearcat 21:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. The same way I'd revert someone who started removing birthdates because they were "unsourced". - Outerlimits 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you feel such an affection for insulting and threatening other editors, but it's really not good Wikiquette. The simple fact is that all articles are required to follow WP:V (lists included). Preemptorily announcing that you will edit war over any effort to make this article follow policy is not good behavior, and ultimately will not lead to any consequences that you like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, I am entitled to apply my judgment in the matter; this includes my judgment as to whether inclusion in a list is justified or not and my judgment as to whether verifiability and NPOV are sufficiently met. If my judgment and yours differ in such a matter, that does not make mine a priori invalid. Bearcat 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The one month period was a proposal that I thought was workable. I don't mind extending it to more time if needed. Please counter-propose. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

My counter-proposal is, first you figure out who's actually going to do the work. It's not enough to just say it has to be done; if somebody doesn't take on the responsibility of actually doing it in any systematic fashion, it's not going to get done properly. Then once you know who's going to do it, you give them as much time as they need to get it done. It might be less than a month, it might be more, but it's for them to decide. This is Project Management 101: you figure out who's going to do the job and then you set the deadline based on their assessment. You don't just throw an arbitrary deadline at the wall and expect somebody to just magically volunteer to pick it up. Bearcat 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Long-standing consensus of editors of the article on a particular person seems fine to me. We presume WP:FAITH for biography article editors. Likewise, if an article says "Foo Bar (born 1947) is an openly gay novelist." we do not automatically presume the birth year is wrong if it has stayed there without being contested (even if no citation is given to the birth certificate). The editors of the individual biographies need to make judgements about which facts are universal consensus, and which are enough in question to require external citation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should work from a table so that we can tick which names have article verification and which have other verification (sometimes POV edits can delete objectively verificable statements in articles so just because some article does not state now that someone is GLBT does not mean that they should be on the list. It could simply be that a verifiable fact could not survive a bitter edit war.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, let's put a star after each name whose citational evidence is their WP article itself. I'll add this, and an explanation at top of what the star means. So each name can have either a star, one or more external citations, or still be missing evidence. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As a first important stab at resolving the referencing issue, I will go along with it - though I note in the long run that we really should have references on this page to support the assertion that each individual listed is gay, lesbian or bisexual, jguk 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for somebody to point me to any policy which requires lists to be annotated with independent references in addition to the references that are already on the articles being listed. Bearcat 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, jguk 23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is not being compromised here. WP:LISTS explicitly states that the highest source a list requires to meet WP:V is the consensus of the listed article's editors; neither WP:V nor WP:LISTS even begins to suggest that lists have any added burden of providing extra sources. The only source Wikipedia requires for inclusion in a list is that the article says the person fits the list's criteria. And that includes the category links. Bearcat 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

inline citation

Please use the newly adopted inlice citation as follows:

For URLs

<ref>[http://website.com/page.htm] Retrieved january 2006 (and any other text you may want to add)</ref>

If the ref is a book

<ref>Johnston, Jill - ''Jasper Johns: Privileged Information''. ISBN 0500017360</ref>

This will automatically generate an entry in the reference section. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"J" letter completed

Completed going through letter "J". From a total of 27 entries, 9 are supported by their biographical articles, 5 by external references, and 13 require references. Some of these 13 are do not belong to the list at all, but I leave these with the"citattion needed" tag for now as per the proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi...now go ahead and do this with all other non-gay lists if you care about verifiability and don't want your motives to be questioned. And by 'do not belong to this list' mean that you are asserting that these people are HETEROSEXUAL (do you have a citation for that?) Carlossuarez46 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so paranoid, Carlos. It is called "encyclopædic standards". It applies to all lists and is done on all of them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not asserting that people in the list are bisexual or gay. We are only reporting reputable sources that assert that they are as per WP:V. Hence, people that are not listed in this list are of sexual orientation that has not been reported to be either gay or bisexual by reputable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And notably, we are also not asserting that people excluded from the list are heterosexual, contra the above nonsense by Carlossuarez46. Someone does not belong on the list if they are not verifiably (self-)identified as gay or bisexual; that makes no comment in any direction about what a person may "really" be in terms of sexual-identity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of these 13 are do not belong to the list at all. Kindly name some names, if you would, because I'm not seeing 13 J entries that don't belong here. On a generous review, I see two names where there's any basis for debate at all. Bearcat 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Let's keep looking for refs. So far we have done a pretty good job, and references are pouring in. Good work! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, let's not nevermind. You've been making these baseless accusations since this discussion began, and it's to stop now. Name the names. Bearcat 23:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you insist: Sarah Orne Jewett, Jim Jones.

The censors would like nothing better than there be no one listed here (regardless of verifiability). Now Jossi, Lulu, and Jtdirl, go to, say, the List of famous left-handed people and put them through the reference check -- I'll bet that the biographies of those listed don't comport with your standards articulated here. But that's the point, really, isn't it...you want a DIFFERENT standard here to advance your POV. Carlossuarez46 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources must provide some kind of evidence supporting the assertion that these people are indeed gay or bisexual. The fact that a web page mentions the term gay, is not a notable reference as per the sexual orientation of the person. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the sources have done so. None have been cited for merely mentioning the term gay. - Outerlimits 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The same mistake that editors have made on all the other lists I've worked on seems so damn hard to stamp out of the minds of editors here. I think it's quite likely that some editor did some research on their own about some person Foo Bar. This editor probably found really convincing and verifiable evidence that Foo Bar is gay. Then that editor added the name Foo Bar to this list, omitting all this evidence that she found to satisify her own curiosity. And that's exactly what make the entry completely worthless. Readers cannot and must not be expected to scour the edit history to find that Foo Bar was added by User:GoodFaithEditor, and feel the membership is sufficiently verified by the implicit integrity of GoodFaithEditor. A source that is not explicitly provided to readers of this page is effectively not any source at all. No matter how "true" or "obvious" it is that Foo Bar is gay. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The reference provided for Tove Jansson [2] does not specifically says that she was gay, although it mentions "her long-time companion and colleague Tuulikki Pietilä". Can anyne confirm that Tulikki is a woman? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tuulikki is a woman. - Outerlimits 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you, but that is not the point. It needs to be [[WP:V]|verifiable]]. We needf a better source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Try any Finn. You're asking if it's appropriate to believe someone named "Minerva" is a woman. "Tuulikki", like "Minerva", is a goddess's name. Please don't remove citations because you lack the ability to comprehend them. Feel free to find a better source. Don't feel free to remove sources if you don't have better ones. You can confirm that Tuulikki appears as "herself" in Tove ja Tooti Euroopassa at [3]. Of course, that's not iron-clad proof by your standards. She could be a man playing "herself". But if you actually watch the film, I think you'll find her performance convincing. - Outerlimits 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The same for the Bill Jones ref. "Partner and companion" seems to cover it pretty well. If you find a reference you like better, feel free to substitute it. Don't remove references. That's more or less the opposite of what you're professing to want. - Outerlimits 02:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, Outterlimits. Now that we have the letter "J" in a much better shape, don't you think it was worth the effort? This article is going to become and example of what a list should be once we treat all other letters in the same manner. I am proud of the work we are doing here. Hope you are too. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Tonto, ""What do you mean we, white man?". How's this: if you'd learn to actually look for citations, and stop removing them, I might learn to use your preferred mark up, if you can point me to the place in Wikipedia where the syntax is explained. - Outerlimits 02:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The syntax is explained above. If you want the tech stuff, check this. You can at least agree that the article, will be in much better shape, once we treat the other letters as well. :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sections - Proposal

"Controvesy" section

I propose to move any usable material to Tom Cruise and to Outrage! and to remove it from here. This is a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and its purpose as narrow as the tile describes it.

"Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation" section

I propose that the section "Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation" be deleted from this list. The reason is obvious to me:

1. Speculation is not verifiable in most cases, and in those cases in which the speculation is verifiable sources are not always reputable as per WP:V and WP:CITE
2. This section also violates WP:NPOV because a specific POV (i.e these that debate the sexual orientation of persons to be gay/lesbian or bisexual) are presented as the only POV. For NPOV we have to present competing views in a fair manner. This section fails to do that.

"Persons no longer identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual" section

I also propose to delete this section, as it contradicts the criteria stated for inclusion.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @

I 100% agree that the "debated" section should go away as positively dreadful. Everyone in the world of any noteriety is "debated". For example: doesn't George W. Bush seem a little "light in the loafers"? Well, that was a fun debate! :-). You could try to make it "frequently debated" or something, but that's just way too fuzzy and subjective.

However, the "no longer" thing seems salvageable. For example, David Bowie at one point made a big point of saying he was bisexual, but now says he is heterosexual. We can easily provide quotes from Bowie from the 1970s or 1980s to support the inclusion. This doesn't necessarily mean all the names are supportable, but I can see a concept that meet WP:V underneath it. I think it should be rephrased a bit though, maybe something like "Formerly self-identified as GLB". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no debate or dipsute noted in the article about Bush's possible bisexuality. Like any assertions, debates about people's orientation requires sources. In many cases there is verifiable speculation about people's orientation. By placeing the entires in "debated" that indicates there are various viewpoints which don't agree. We can make that clearer in the introduction if need be. -Will Beback 23:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that names listed as disputed mean: "Dispute raised in WP article" specifically? As in, any other external source is not relevant here. A quick search for speculation that Bush might be gay produces, e.g.: Is President Bush a Girly Man?[4]. Yes, I recognize that is satirical; but deciding just how "serious" any given speculation for a figure is descends almost immediately into an unmanageable morass. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputes are better dealt with in these person's articles and not here. Listing these here is contrary to WP:NPOV as it is not possible in a list to present all POVs and provide context. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"A" letter completed

Hurray! Well, not completed in the sense of all needed citations added. But at least everything needing one is identified, and everything else is either marked as supported by WP article or given external citation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. You still have a question to answer WRT to who's actually going to do the work of tracking down the citations. Bearcat 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, please just stop sniping. If you want to do some helpful work finding citations, do it. If you don't, don't. But stop giving us shit every step of the way of turning this into an encyclopedic article. It's really wearing on my nerves.

Oh. I see. You're entitled to respect for what wears on your nerves, but I'm not entitled to respect for what wears on mine. How about this: I'll stop sniping if you can the "I know NPOV better than you ever did" condescension; I'll stop sniping if you quit with the catty "I'm not sure the existing list can't work if we can just get some prior editors to stop resisting a cleanup of evidentiary standards" comments; I'll stop sniping if you admit that the communication style you guys started with was at least as big a contributor to the problem.

You have to understand: the kind of thing you guys just suddenly swooped in here to do has had a pretty unmistakable historical context — it's happened about a dozen times before, and it's almost invariably tied to a homophobic campaign to sweep even the vaguest allusions to homosexuality right into the Wikipedia garbage pail. Granted, that's not where you and Jossi seem to be coming from in this case, but you have to understand why we would assume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, because that's where this kind of thing is usually coming from.

So, in a nutshell, I'll stop "sniping" if you keep in mind that you can get this kind of thing done a lot more quickly and smoothly if you adjust your communication style and quit coming across like a condescending intellectual snob who thinks he knows more about NPOV and verifiability than anyone else in the world. (That may not be what you intended, but it's how your writing style has made you sound at times. So please keep that in mind.) Basically? Stop treating us like we're stupid, okay? Bearcat 03:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The generic answer for who will find citations is: Wikipedia editors. Which means I'll probably find some. Maybe you'll find some. Outerlimits has found some strong ones, despite the snarky edit history comments that accompany their addition. Maybe some brand new editor who has never worked on this particular page will decide to pitch in. And et cetera. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some of them I found three times. Sorry to hear about your nerves. - Outerlimits 03:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we all cool-off and remain civil? I will take a break from editing this article, and a well deserved one I think. I would encourage you to do the same. May you have a pleasant weekend. See you on Monday. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, we actually can't "remain" civil as we've never actually "become" civil. Enjoy your weekend. - Outerlimits 09:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to Outerlimits

I'd just like to offer an early thank you to Outerlimits for the references he has already provided. The list is already starting to look better. Of course it's natural that when anyone adds a source others will check to see if it is a reputable one that does indeed support the assertion that someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual, so Outerlimits, please don't get too disheartened when that happens, I'd worry more if, from time to time, it didn't - just keep up the good work! jguk 10:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Louis XIII

The Louis XIII of France article says that "there is no reliable evidence that Louis ever slept with any of his male favorites". Based on this, I don't think he should be in the list. Do others agree? jguk 13:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends. Should the list require actual evidence of sexual congress, or should the (undoubted) fact that a man's most intense emotional relationships were with a series of handsome young men suffice? The former would be a good criteria for a list of "men who have had sex with men", but probably not for a list of "gay men". - Outerlimits 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this list should include those who have strong same-sex platonic relationships, no. I know that when looking at historical figures it is very difficult or impossible to get reliable information as to whether an individual is gay, lesbian or bisexual in the sense most people understand those terms, but lack of evidence either way means we should not list them. Historical figures will therefore be poorly represented in the list, but that is far less important than the need for demonstrable accuracy, jguk 15:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And I think that reducing homosexuality to genital sex is disrespectful and a distortion of history. So there you go. We disagree. - Outerlimits 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonwithstandig your passion for the theme of this article, it does not really matter what you or Jguk think. As Wikipedia editors we need to find a definition of homosexuality as provided by reputable sources and of the widest consensus possible. If there is a dispute, we need to describe the dispute. And if the dispute is unbridgeable, then we do have a real problem. So, first step will be to go to the Homosexuality article and see what editors there have agreed in this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition we are obliged to use:≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Since its inception, the word homosexuality has acquired multiple meanings. In the original sense, it refers to a sexual orientation characterised by lasting aesthetic attraction, romantic love, or sexual desire exclusively for others of the same sex or gender. It can also refer to the manifestation of that orientation in the identity of an individual, possibly at odds with that person's sexual behaviour. Finally, it can refer to sexual relations with another of the same sex regardless of one's sexual orientation, self-identification, or gender identity.

So you'd include Louis XIII under romantic love then. It's good to agree. Of course, we shouldn't be using Wikipedia for "definitions", they should come from a dictionary. - Outerlimits 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm just curious as to what's up with the references all over the place, seemingly thrown in at random (after "S")? Also, the bizarre POV commentary after some. Now, I was a way for a while, so if I'm missing some sort of important significance, let me know. But, shouldn't the references perhaps come after the section entitles "References" and not include such odd NPOV's as: "You know who's on top"? This list is appearing more and more incomprehensible to me every time I look at it. ExRat 10:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There were two problems. First a Reference argument of the form <ref> was opened up without being closed by </ref>. Second, at the end of the S section, the code for listing references, <references/>, had been added. I think I have corrected both of these problems now. The former one is a very easy mistake to make, I know I have made it myself a few times, and I suppose that the only solution is to take great care when adding references, jguk 12:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Asinine reference comments

Should really be avoided. Apparently some editors ([5]) feel that inserting insulting meta-commentary within references is a good idea. It's not. It violates WP:POINT and WP:NPA, as well as WP:NPOV of course; and is the sort of thing likely to earn an editor a well deserved paid vacation away from Wikipedia. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently some editors feel that indirect personal attack is more acceptable than direct, and that threats are an appropriate first step in conflict resolution. - Outerlimits 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Article size
• Wikipedia:Summary style
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)
• Prior discussion on this talk page (e.g. Bearcats' excellent suggestion)

The main moral, is please be willing to consider readers, not only editors. A page that takes five minutes to load is effectively unusable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, for improving the headers in the child articles. You are correct that I copied over more from the main article than is needed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, these changes need to be discussed not arbitrarily imposed. Alphabetical subdivision makes no sense. You have arbitrarily chosen the least useful of Bearcat's suggestions, which include separating out bisexuals, lesbians, and gay, a suggestion that makes far more sense. - Outerlimits 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem if making a different re-organinization. You are most welcome to undertake a different one, if you wish. As we have not lost any material in the refactoring, it is not a problem. This was the easiest way to make the list manageable as per guidelines above. ≈ jossi ≈ <smalYou say above that the problem is that the "list of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people" now has no gay, l>t • @ 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your ease is not the foremost criterion - or shouldn't be - in deciding if or how an article should be refactored. Massive changes need consensus, not imposition. It is my opinion that breaking this up into arbitrarily alphabetical chunks makes it harder to manage, not easier, and my suspicion that that is part of the goal of splitting it. - Outerlimits 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A mere desire to violate WP guidelines is not sufficient motivation for keeping a status quo on organization. The page was simply too large to be easily loaded by readers. I happen to have broadband, but WP servers bog down severely trying to load this page. If you know how to alphabetize a name you wish to add/delete/modify, then you know where to find it... and if you don't, you can't modify it anyway. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The mere desire to impose your will without discussion should also not be a substitute for discussion. - Outerlimits 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WP guidelines and policies are long-standing. This refactoring is eminently sensible (trying to seperate homosexual/bisexual is a POV morass, and even gay/lesbian runs into gender-identity issues). In any case, such factoring would not produce required article sizes. By country or continent might be right on size, but given migrations and change of citizenship, introduces arbitrary POV on "most important place of residence". Names are plainly factual and easy to divide on (occasional changes of name can change child list, but that's infrequent enough to be easily manageable). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, we know that you think your division is sensible. The question is whether that is the consensus. There's absolutely no urgency for you to impose your perceptions here, other than to present them as a fait accompli. - Outerlimits 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, material has not been lost. We can revert back if we want to, thanks to the history. The list now is compliant with guidelines. So what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the "list of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people" now has no gay, lesbian, or bisexual people on it, and that you have dramatically decreased the utility of that list compared to what previously existed here. - Outerlimits 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How many individual people are listed on List of people, List of people by belief, or List of people by occupation, Lists of authors, exactly (or hundreds of other similar lists-of-lists)? Once you figure out that answer, you'll figure out this isn't some anti-gay conspiracy or such nonsense, but simply the normal course of page refactoring once lists get too large. No name was added, removed, or even modified citationally, in the process. It's important to do now because a number of editors have begun actively improving the citations on the list, which is exactly when things typically get refactored. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to believe there was no agenda here if those involved weren't, say, quoted with admiration on AIDS denialist websites. It's important not to do the division now, as the point of doing it now is to ensure it's done your way, rather than some other way that could be agreed upon by all. There's absolutely no urgency; there's time for discussion, if one cares at all for agreement and consensus and accountability. - Outerlimits 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

?????????????????????????? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a charming libel! (I know enough of my own biography to recognize the tiny sliver of connection between what Outerlimits is trying to claim, and what I've actually written). Don't worry, this isn't WP:LEGAL: I'll even go so far as to explicitly say I will not sue no matter how inane or derogatory the comments you make are. But you'll have to try harder if you want to top the claims about child molestation (and "homosexual stalking") about me and my "good friend" Jimbo Wales at: Listing of Internet Stalkers, Intellectual Property Thieves, and Internet Libelers. Good luck with that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Mr. Merkey imagines that his inability to spell plagiarize is a legal loophole. The spelling of "somdomite" didn't aid Queensberry any. And, of course, no, I have no ambition to "top" Mr. Merkey. - Outerlimits 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, when the time comes to account for the evil that we do, only one of us will be saying "I wrote that I didn't think it was likely that HIV causes AIDS", and that of all the evils we could speak out about, overestimating the anticipated number of women who would contract AIDS was the one we chose. In comparison, trying to minimalize the presence of gay persons on Wikipedia is nothing. Unfortunately, meeting fabulous people doesn't really help one think of rational ways to subdivide a list, nor does it seem to inspire collegial editing rather than bullying, nor does the fact that one comes to such a list having expressed distaste for such things inspire confidence in your goals in targeting it, nor have your tactics been particularly helpful. - Outerlimits 06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do notice that List of authors by name: K and friends use a slightly different convention for child article naming. I would not necessarily oppose a page rename of the children if someone has a better sense of the exact predominant convention or WP guidelines. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with breaking this article into many little subarticles, particularly by alphebet. Soing so will make the article harder to maintain, and serves little purpose. -Will Beback 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cordiality

Outerlimits, would you please tone down the hostility? Granted things got off a bit on the wrong foot here, but I really don't think refactoring the page's organization qualifies as an act of war...especially after I was the one who suggested it as an option in the first place. For what it's worth, Lulu and I both sort of calmed down and cleared the air a bit, and I think we have a better understanding of where each other was coming from. And nobody's trying to "decimate" the list, either.

And as for hunting down potentially controversial quotes to discredit Lulu with? For one thing, it took me all of five minutes to hunt down the same documents and see pretty clearly that you took the quote in question out of context. Sure, it sounds pretty inflammatory on its own, but I'm pretty willing to bet that you didn't actually read the rest of the article. And for another, I've not actually seen any evidence that any particular POV with regards to AIDS and HIV has been displayed here. Honestly, it looks to me like a red herring that has little to do with the matter at hand.

Thus, getting back to the matter at hand, I genuinely don't understand what your problem is. I suggested a couple of possibilities for reorganizing the list and making it more manageable. You appeared to like the suggestion. Then somebody implemented one of them and you went batshit. Let's address your concerns:

1. Has the information been eliminated from Wikipedia? No.
2. Is the information inaccessible? No.
3. Does the parent article somehow fail to link to the subpages? No.
4. Does it make the list significantly harder to manage? Not necessarily — personally, I often find it easier to manage a series of shorter interrelated articles than one long one. Granted your preferences may vary from mine, but it's not an inherently more difficult task. For one thing, with a smaller letter range on each list, the range of edit opportunities is reduced — which means there's a much smaller chance of inappropriate edits slipping by unnoticed.
5. Does the fact that it's been done mean we have to leave it that way forever? No. If it doesn't work out, we can always change it back or reorganize it differently at a later date. But that's no reason not to give it a chance for now.
6. Is what you find useful or not the final arbiter of how things are most effectively organized? No. The new organization might not be the best way to do it, or it might be the ideal way — but we can't really know unless we try it, can we?

So what's the problem? I don't see that it comes from a homophobic place — I'm a gay man and I have no problem with the current reorganization of the list. I find the list hard to manage and use in its old form. So I suggested some possibilities for improving its organization, and somebody took one of them. It may not be the best way in practice, but I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance and see how it works out.

Bottom line, Outerlimits, is that your attitude is even beginning to irritate me — and I'm (a) supposed to be on your side here, and (b) an administrator. So I'd strongly suggest the following:

1. Quit making this into a turf war. What's happening is not a homophobic effort. You may not like what's happening, but that doesn't entitle you to be immature about it.
2. Give the alphabetical organization a chance so we'll know if it works or not. We can always undo it later if it proves ineffective.
3. Can the snarkiness and quit netstalking Lulu. It's both unproductive and pointless, and really doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on the matter at hand.
4. Leave my talk page out of it. (For the record, I had no problem with the tone of Lulu's post to my talk page — but frankly, Outerlimits, the tone of your response to it just made me want to slap you.)

Remember, I'm an administrator, which means I have temporary banning privileges. I'd be willing to block either one of you if you stepped over the line of inappropriate behaviour — but at this point, Outerlimits, you're really, truly stepping a lot closer to that line than anybody else here. And I'm not saying that because Lulu asked me to; I'm saying it because it's true. Bearcat 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bearcat for the effort above, but note that as admins we cannot use our blocking privileges in articles that we are actively editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lulu tells us he is greeted with hostility at each list he visits his attention upon. I think that if you are looking for a reason for this, you need to look at Lulu's behavior and not those who give him the response he universally receives. His contempt for "some rather childish existing editors" of "identitarian lists" is manifest from the moment he arrives with a troop from WP:LISTS to "enforce" 'guidelines' which have not yet become actual guidelines.

There is no need to "reorganize" the page at the same time it is being worked on. If the goal were to provide citations, it is in fact more easily done on one page than five. Any reorganization should have been discussed instead of implemented by fiat. But that would require a respect for other editors that seems lacking, it was instead an exercise in power designed to quash any opposition before it became manifest - or to "motivate" those who care about the list in question to do the work that Lulu will not do.

Lulu comes to gay subjects with a good deal of baggage: irrelevant if he didn't keep bringing it up himself to justify his actions here. But he does. I can understand why he wants to leave some of those bags packed. So don't worry, I won't be rummaging through his dirty laundry, and it would be nice, too, if he'd stop waving it around.

You name some concerns. Here are some of my actual concerns: the information is now far less available, spread across five pages (are they all to be semi-protected?), and yes, it will be left that way forever. Absolutely no discussion was held about reorganization, which might have been done, for example, by historical period, which would be far more informative, or along any of a number of other lines.

• You're free to believe this is not a homophobic effort, and I'm free to believe otherwise.
• When Lulu learns to talk respectfully to other editors, instead of disrespectfully about them on many pages unrelated to them, he'll meet much less hostility. Accusations of stalking go both ways: Lulu's talking about me, usually perjoratively, behind my back on multiple talk & project pages, with not a single word on my talk page from him.
• Lulu, not I, brought your talk page into it. I very much agree that was inappropriate, and my response to him should have been on his page no matter where he started it.

In the meantime, I have little choice but to sit back and watch what Jossi and Lulu and their jackbooted confreres do to the lists. So far it hasn't been pretty. At the end, though, it will be their way, for we have been shown the highway. - Outerlimits 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecting child articles

I'm not going to bother with all the new sprinklings of accusations of homophobia in Outerlimits' above note. The fact that every single person opposing these insults has done a lot more for gay-rights than s/he has still strikes me as significant, but WP is about articles, not about editors.

There was one good point though. Can one of the admins who are watching this semi-protect the child articles? I forgot about the fact the parent is semi-protected (and rightly so). Certainly the very same motivations for semi-protection should apply to each of the child articles that have (a slice of) the same content as the parent did. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Actually, the main article is no longer semi-protected. If there is any subsequent vandalism by anons or new users, please alert me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't. WP:SEMI is explicit in prohibiting pre-emptive protection. You haven't noticed that the 'parent' article is currently not protected and that neither the world nor the wiki has collapsed. Ask somewhere public before using the new policy in ways it specifically forbids. -Splash^talk 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what I said... :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You said that after I said it... -Splash^talk 04:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law for GLB pages

Let's just declare by fiat that no one who calls anyone else "homophobic" or variations on that are allowed to participate any further in any talk page conversations. They must banish themselves to some cave, and live for 30 days, awaiting visions from the great angel of civility (or something else vaguely literary).

It's mind-numbing how quickly certain editors call everyone who disagrees with them on the most even trivial, and purely administrative, issue. Even when the "disputant" who is alleged to be motivated by homophobia, such as in the case of Jtdirl, has done far more for gay rights than the accuser will ever imagine being able to accomplish. (The angel of history)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs) .