Jump to content

Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted

inline citation

[edit]

Please use the newly adopted inlice citation as follows:

For URLs

<ref>[http://website.com/page.htm Description of the link (including person name)] 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. Be especially careful when adding external references, to close tag (or the page gets majorly messed up).


The links have become messed up at around 135/136. I will look into for a bit.(Crazzycorbe 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Found problem with links and fixed it.(Crazzycorbe 08:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Kemal Atatürk

[edit]

An anonymous editor seems to want Kemal listed here. Kemal's WP article says nothing to support inclusion (and I'm pretty sure, frankly, that editors there would not keep any such assertion for more than a minute). The initial citation was one user review of a book on Amazon.com. The anon IP found some professor who has a personal page with an uncited "List of GLB people" of his own, which indeed lists Kemal. But that seems weak to me. Anyone else want to opine if this name is at all supportable? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most historians (to my knowledge) do not support the claim that Kemal Atatürk was gay or bisexual. We have all agreed that in order to be included on this list, there has to either be an admission by the person him/herself or a preponderence of evidence supported by most historians. So, I am in agreement that Atatürk should not be included. If the person intent on adding him has more evidence, then I think he could possibly be added to the Disputed section of this page - if that even is a good idea (the Disputed page). I'm in agreemnet with you - not an add by any means. There is simply not historic consensus about his alleged homosexuality. ExRat 06:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact of Atatürk's homosexuality is widely accepted and I would regard historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson as a highly reliable source. His December 18, 2004 article in National Review states that Atatürk "enjoyed male outlets". I have added this article as reference. 195.92.67.67 17:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These "sources" proposed by the anonymous editor keep getting worse with every iteration. Well, at least no better. I have no idea who Victor Davis Hanson is. I presume he has a Ph.D. since it says "Dr." in front of his name. And National Review is... well, a borderline reputable source. But the citation located isn't about Kemal at all. It's an article on Alexander that includes one passing clause insinuating Kemal was gay or bisexual. This "citation" barely ascends to the level of gossip, just like the others. Each failed attempt at a real citation (by the same anonymous editor) makes me more convinced the name doesn't really belong. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC). Followup: Hanson is an historian, but not remotely expert on modern Turkey (he works on ancient Greece).[reply]
    • "I have no idea who Victor Davis Hanson is. I presume he has a Ph.D. since it says "Dr." in front of his name. And National Review is... well, a borderline reputable source." Well, I wouldn't expect any better from an unabashed Marxist. Wikipedia has just declined considerably in my estimation. 195.92.67.66 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Red-baiting and ad hominem attacks are pathetic and futile. Don't waste our time with them. If you have any evidence to present, please do so. Bhumiya (said/done) 02:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several biographers of Ataturk, including the Turkish author Irfan Orga (Orga, İrfan and Margarete Orga, Atatürk (London: Michael Joseph, 1962)) have written about Ataturk's alleged bisexuality. Needles to say, any discussion of Kemal's sexuality is not only taboo, but also punishable by law, in modern Turkey, where the cult of Ataturk remains a pillar of the state. Rastapopoulos 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dakota

[edit]

{{edit protected}} Wikepedia/Hollywood Star/defunct newspapers. Hollywood gossip columnist, film critic, newspaper editor and publisher, The Hollywood Star newspaper and Gayboy, a tabloid newspaper.

Nick Adams

[edit]

{{edit protected}} Hollywood movie and TV actor. starred in THE REBEL on TV. Wikepedia/Nick Adams talk- Nick Adams' secretary, Bill Dakota

Dick Clayton

[edit]

{{edit protected}} A Hollywood superagent. Agent for James Dean, Tab Hunter and more. Personal knowledge he is gay. (User: Kern News Agency)

Kurt Cobain

[edit]

I have removed Kurt Cobain from the list. Although whoever listed him did provide a reference, the reference did not confirm any evidence of avowed homo/bisexuality. The reference (the Advocate) asked Cobain if he ever thought he may be gay. Cobain's response (in part): "So I thought I would try to be gay for a while, but I'm just more sexually attracted to women. But I'm really glad that I found a few gay friends, because it totally saved me from becoming a monk or something.' I mean, I'm definitely gay in spirit, and I probably could be bisexual."

I don't think that is so much an admission of actual homoesexuality/bisexuality as it is a statement of accepting and relating to gays in general. That statement seems pretty tentative to me. ExRat 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The Gay Nineties: Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day should be removed from this page for the same reason Cobain was. Yes, there is an(other) Advocate article from the '90s referenced, but the quotes from that article stating Armstrong had an "ex-girlfriend who was bisexual" and a gay uncle who "has full-blown AIDS now" are extremely weak evidence of Armstrong's own bisexuality. Like Cobain, this is more acceptance of homosexuality than any kind of personal admission of homosexuality or bisexuality. Pretty much everybody famous in the '90s gave a tease interview to the Advocate, in an attempt to crossover alternative music with alternative lifestyles in hopes of finding an alternative to a job, which worked out pretty well for Armstrong and (the estate of) Cobain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.113.222 (talk • contribs)

Kurt Cobain said "I probably could be bisexual" not "I am bisexual". Armstrong, on the other hand, has never stopped saying he is bisexual.[2] "extremely weak evidence of Armstrong's own bisexuality" can be seen nowadays as biphobic as whoever said that quote is acting as if they knew better Armstrong's sexual life than Armstrong himself. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimora

[edit]

To my knowledge, Baltimora was not bisexual, there is no evidince backing this, nor are there any citations...I'd like to remove this unless anybody finds anything.Billy Bishop 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googled a bit, but indeed, didn't find a *solid* reference in the wikipedia:reliable sources way. Quite some blogs (e.g. http://musicisavirus.blogspot.com/2005/02/far-away-from-nothing.html ), the most "reliable" of which seem to go back to this Q102-related self-published website: http://members.lycos.co.uk/gregsradio/newpage10.html - indeed not the most solid type of source - although personally I see no reason to doubt the information provided there (but that is a personal appreciation). In which case he'd be plainly gay, and not (a bit weasely) "bisexual".
Since the Wikipedia Baltimora page doesn't have a single external reference (...which it should), and since that last webpage was the best I could find (...but waiting for something better) I added that webpage as an "external link" to the Wikipedia page on Baltimora.
Whether Baltimora should be mentioned in this G/L/B list... Technically: no. Until a better reference shows up. But if he's kept with the "gregsradio" reference in this list, and without the probably invented qualifier "bisexual", but maybe better with the qualifier "probably", I wouldn't oppose. --Francis Schonken 08:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing those sites, I feel as if it could still go either way, it's pretty much a hung jury on whether he's gay or not, so I'm assuming that they put bi-sexual as in meaning 'possibly gay'.Billy Bishop 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antinous

[edit]

How is Antinous and Hadrian "anachronistic" ? I know what anachronistic means, I questioning it's usage in this case. Wjhonson 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles IV

[edit]

Why exactly is Charles IV of Spain on here, when he was married, his article has nothing on it and Google turns up nothing? Maybe someone mixed him up with James IV? Dev920 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table conversion

[edit]

Please note, I have not finished with this table. This ongoing program of referencing and cross referencing all sexuality lists and categories will recommence after my Cambridge interview. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Benderson

[edit]

Needs a new link to prove he should be on this list. If none is found I suggest removal of his name.(Crazzycorbe 08:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)) Pleas consider the following link:Bruce Benderson Interview{Crazzycorbe 09:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Aesthetic notes from an aesthete

[edit]

To Dev920 and others who have worked on this list, congrats! It is remarkable work. I think this could easily qualify as a Featured list and I'd like to see it (in all its parts) nominated. There are a few minor notes to consider.

  • Is it necessary to provide parentheses for the dates? If the dates have their own field, the parentheses aren't needed. In cases where the subject is still living, perhaps the date should be expressed as "b. XXXX".
  • Should a period be placed following profession? I would think it simply looks neater.
  • I think "Unknown sexuality" should be expressed differently, perhaps "presumed homosexual"? If their sexuality is indeed unknown, they shouldn't be included on the list.
  • All of the requirements for Featured List are met except for images. With such a large list, certainly we don't need images of everyone, but might I suggest pulling out the most well-known of these people, plus trying to get an image per letter? I would place the images in the name field like so.

C

[edit]
Name Dates Nationality Profession Notes Reference
Paul Cadmus
Paul Cadmus, 1937.
 1904 - 1999 American Artist. [1]

What do you think? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses are there simply because that's how I like to do dates and that's how List of people with epilepsy does it. If you want to add a full stop to every profession, please feel free, as I have no idea whether that's in the MOS or not. "Unknown sexuality" wa splaced there because it's very obvious they were not straight, but what they were is confused, for example Elagalbus, who may have been gay, bisexual, or transexual.
Images inside the table, I'm not really happy with. Maybe we could place them at the beginning of the section? I don't know. But inside seems messy.
I would be delighted to see this become a Featured List, but I wanted to wait until we've added everyone from the LGBT categories, to make it nice and comprehensive. :) I'd put this off for a long time, but I'll start trying to get on top of it again. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the period or "full stop" (silly Brits and their fancy phrases! :-)) to the profession. I agree with you on the images. After I created the example I realized just how silly it looks. I'll look through some other lists and see what they do. Between the categories may work. I will certainly respect your wishes and wait before nominating, or even let you nominate them yourself. Let me know what assistance I can be...I've already added a few people with proper refs.
As for the unknown sexuality, I'm still bothered by the term "unknown". Perhaps "disputed" may be a better term? It appears that that works for Caravaggio, Gia Carangi, Elegabulus and possibly Armani.
On the parentheses, I still think they add nothing to the list and make it look messy. I would be willing to remove them if it's ok with you. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed is fine, much more formal. I'll leave the images thing to you. If you really want to remove the parentheses, go ahead, but I still prefer them with.
Of course you can help! Just compare this list to whatever category in [:Category:LGBT people]] you want and add any A-E people with references that aren't on this list. That's all I'm doing - I just didn't realise there were so many people! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just goes to show, we're everywhere! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good way to include pics. I tried it out with A and it works quite nicely! See User:Ganymead/lgbt_sandbox. I will locate different pics. To be honest, I hate that the first pic is a porn star, but this is just an example. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that that is great! We should totally peer review this next week, but right now, I have an essay on the Duke of Somerset to do. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kaiser, Charles (February 1, 2005),A genius and a gentleman - painter Paul Cadmus, The Advocate. Retrieved November 8, 2006.

Christina Aguilera

[edit]

Hey hey! What are people's thoughts? Does that source fully support the claim that she is bisexual? Does her saying "Two women are way sexier than two men in bed. We have a better feel for our bodies.” She went on to add, “I love experimenting with my sexuality." " mean she identifies as bisexual? The first sentence seems to merely suggest she finds lesbians more sexy than gay men, and the second merely that she experiments with her sexuality. I personally don't think that means she is saying she is bisexual (for one thing, that sounds like a set sexuality, which 'experimenting' doesn't support). But what do others think? Skittle 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally, I think saying you find women more attractive than men is indicative of bisexuality, and she seems to agree: http://uk.gay.com/headline.gaycom?a=5696. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a source that backs it up, as long as that source is reliable. It includes the line "I find it hornier looking at women then men.", which is much closer to an assertion of bisexuality. The previous source just said she thought that two women in bed were sexier than two men, which just looks like saying women are better at it than men! So, if this is a reliable source, go ahead and use that instead of the existing one. Interestingly, they look like they were both taken from the same interview. Any chance of finding the original? Skittle 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""I'd kiss a girl again" does kind of suggest she hasn't done much in the way of bisexual activity, but that isn't a requirement... Skittle 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at Google, everyone is copy/pasting each other. There are about 2/3 write-ups about this that get copied everywhere; it looks like it all stems from a January 2004 edition of Zoo, a men's tabloid magazine. If we could find that copy of Zoo somewhere, maybe we could judge how likely it is? Not that I'm doubting it, but British tabloids are rarely that scrupulous, particularly men's mags. Skittle 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she should be on the list. The source does not say she is bisexual. I know of no sources that say (a) she has sex with woman, or (b) she defines herself as bisexual. Many straight women kiss other women at times - by that standard every woman in France should be listed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Lauren Adams

[edit]

I have just removed:

|- | Joey Lauren Adams | align=center|b. 1968 | American | Actress. | Bisexual |[1]

The listed source does not mention her at all, only Brett Anderson. Nor is it on Planetout. Planetout has three articles that mention her, but not her sexuality. Article title on Google brings up the Anderson link.

Planetout does have an article that refers to her thus: "Joey Lauren Adams, the bisexual lead in Chasing Amy," but this is unclear as the character is lesbi/bi and Adams has since said she never said she was bi (see http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Joey+Lauren+Adams/). Mdbrownmsw 18:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a later article on Planetout says "portrayals of lesbian and gay film characters by non-gays Joey Lauren Adams ("Chasing Amy")". Hmm. The character in the film ids as a lesbian, but the plot could easily argue for bi. But Planetout fails to identify an out bi as bi in an article? I doubt it. Mdbrownmsw 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Szymanski, Michael (August 22, 1997), SLEW OF NEW BI MOVIES HITS HOLLYWOOD, Planetout.com. Retrieved November 17, 2006.

Ant (comedian)

[edit]

I removed his entry as the only reliable reference is Myspace, which I don't consider reliable. I know I have read somewhere that he is bisexual (He appeared in Another Gay Movie as well). Can someone provide a better reference, I'm at work and have only access to Wikipedia, ugh! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Myspace is not reliable... for information by people on other people. The myspace link quoted was Ant's personal myspace, on which he identifies as bisexual. A person's space, in my view, counts a self-published source and is therefore acceptable when referring to biographical facts (such as sexuality), per WP:RS.
Ok. I still hesitant to use it...but to paraphrase one of my favourite movies: "Well, if Dev says it's alright, then it IS alright!" :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I poked about a bit for you to find a better source, and I found out that, depite the fact that he identifies as bi on his myspace, not so much here. Hmm. Two conflicting identities, which do we choose? Probably best to go with the interview, cos I'm sure there many more people who are hesitent about Myspace. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the interview is more reliable. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myspace is not a reliable source. Do we even know its his personal profile and not one put up by a fan? A lot of celebs that supposedly have Myspace profiles have been really surprised when they've been shown them. Any interview I've seen with him on telly he's described himself as straight. I don't think he qualifies. WjBscribe 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know it's his because it's linked to from his official site: the same site, btw, which plays clips of his standup show where he discusses his homosexuality. This guy is confusing... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Lets start List of confusing people. WjBscribe 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Giorgio Armani

[edit]

Can someone tell me why Giorgio Armani's sexual orientation is disputed? If it is really disputed, shouldn't his entry be removed from the list?

I found another reference: http://www.nndb.com/people/050/000028963/ "Sexual orientation: Bisexual" "Boyfriend: Sergio Galeotti (cohabited, d. 1985 AIDS)"

--Plywak 12:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

andrejkoymasky.com

[edit]

I have removed a number of entries sourced only from this website. I do not think it meets the requirement of WP:RS and certainly doesn't seem acceptable for sourcing controversial comments about living people. The removal can always be reverted. But I think there should be a full discussion here of the merits of that source first. WjBscribe 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that concerns me is that some of their articles specifically cite sources (eg. [3]) however others do not. This leads to the conclusion that those without sources are not reliable... WjBscribe
Did you have to come to that decision after I referenced a hundred people with it? *sigh* Well, we can just use the quoted source for most of them. There's going to be a lot of "Aldrich R. & Wotherspoon G., Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History, Routledge, London, 2001" though. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that much better- do we know much about this source? Unless you have a copy we are going to have to take the word of a third party that they are in this source. And we won't know if the "Who's Who" is more equivocal that the reporting of it... Also isn't a "who's who" a tertiary source? WjBscribe 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrej Koymasky obviously isn't an ideal source, but I think it's overkill to actually remove somebody from the list because that's the provided source; it would be far more appropriate to look for an alternate source and then remove the person from the list if another source can't be found. Bearcat 15:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there are WP:BLP issues with most of the entries here and so sourcing needs to be of the highest standard. This list only survived an AfD follwoing the promise of more rigorous sourcing. I don't think we should be compromising on reliability here. WjBscribe 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the basis of the Afd was that it was an indiscriminate list, nothing to do with sourcing. I can't see anything wrong with simply quoting Andrej's sources if I cannot quote his site directly. It's akin to assuming good faith of someone who adds a book to any article. But whatever happens, we need to really spruce up these lists, there's too many people missing or poorly referenced. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A significant number of the people you've removed because they were sourced to Koymasky are openly LGBT figures; Koymasky can be an easy and visible source to turn to, but the idea that it's even remotely possible for it to be the only source for the sexuality of an openly LGBT person — such as Rita Mae Brown, Gavin Crawford or Mathieu Chantelois — is verging on absurd. It certainly doesn't violate BLP to say that a person is gay if the person openly identifies themselves as gay. In almost every case you've removed, alternate sources are available. The problem is that because not everybody actively monitors this list for completeness (even I watch it primarily for vandalism), if names are removed, people might not know that they need to be readded. Somebody probably should coordinate a project to crossreference the list against the various LGBT people categories to determine the necessary additions and deletions and sourcing changes. By all means, locate alternate sources for names that are currently sourced to Koymasky, but I disagree with removing them if nobody's keeping track of which names need those alternate sources. Bearcat 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping track of this list and will readd them I have found proper sources (as I have added properly sourced entries to other lists). But the "they are openly gay" is a dangerous road to go down- if they are so open reliable sources should be easy to find. Those adding to the list will look to sources already used in it for guidance, so I think its a mistake to have weak sourcing. WjBscribe 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJBScribe - You should mark them as 'weak' if that is your opinion. It isn't mine and I resent your interposing your views on the lists wholesale. You should restore them and spend some time seeking other sources. You do no one any service as it is. Soane 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are not reliable are not marked as weak, especially where many of the entries are about living people. There is no such thing as {{weak}} for a good reason. It is better to have a list with fewer entries that are correctly sourced. Where living people are concerned, WP:BLP requires the highest standards of sourcing. For the other entries, according to WP:ATT, self-published sources are not relaible, the onus is on an editor wishing to insert information to confirm its reliability. I am happy to help source the deleted entries (I have sourced many entries on these lists) but in the meantime, they should remain deleted. WjBscribe 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're into that WJB, there's a couple of hundred people who need either adding to this list or removal of LGBT categories here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJBScribe: I think your are missing a few points. 1) You are the only one who thinks they are weak. It was a concession to you, a generous attempt to adapt to your ideas despite what others think (you seem to be a minority). The citation have been there for years without a problem 2) Fox news is "self-published" by your definition. 3) You deleted all entries living or dead, whether the source cited further sources or not. 4) Reliability is in the eye of the beholder - it isn't something out there. 5) I think the sources are well within guidelines - you want to impose your view and pretend everyone else is objectively wrong. 6) Other people on this and other sites are acting in good faith - trying accepting it. Stop being terrified that a 'gay smear' will slip through the net - these things sort themselves out in due course. 8) Babies and bathwater Soane 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit rich of you to tell me to AGF. I have not suggested that any editor has acted in bad faith. Your comment above does seems to be accusing me of that however. To respond to a couple of your points- the refs have not been here for years, only a couple of months. And "reliable sources" are not something optional we use when we feel like it. They are fundemental to building a worthwhile encyclopedia. Perhaps you'd like to assist in finding reliable sources for the deleted entries rather than distracting me from doing so with your comments here? WjBscribe 17:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WJB, I've noticed that on previous occasions, you've moved improperly sourced names from the article to the talk page instead of simply deleting them. I'd be more comfortable with that, since it provides a list that other people can research and keep track of and as well — is there a reason that can't be done now? Bearcat 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean

[edit]

I dispute James Dean's inclusion on this list since the "evidence" of his alleged bisexuality is almost entirely hearsay and conjecture. I also question the inclusion of Billie Joe Armstrong; just because he said he believes everyone is born bisexual does not mean he himself is bisexual.--Zendaddy621 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

There's some fairly insidious vandalism going on - I just discovered John Amaechi had become British. Can people keep an eye out for edits by non-regulars, cos this is only going to get worse. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft?

[edit]

How is this list not listcruft? Much of the content of the page beyond the list exists mainly to justify the list and to give suppositions about why the list is geographically skewed. I gather that the listcruft page is not a policy but an essay. Nevertheless, it seems to me that point 7, The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category strongly applies in this instance. Since such a category already exists, I think this list isn't just kinda krufty, it's also redundant. Why is having a list better than just having a naturally-accumulating category? Is being gay, lesbian or bisexual, well, notable enough to justify the list? Do we have a list of known smokers? A list of people who have never drunk alcohol? A list of virgins? A list of people with a 4.0 average in high school?

I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to diminish the work of the sponsoring project. I'm just trying to frame this list's relevancy in the light of debates I've seen about other lists, some of which seemed to me a good deal more focused than this one. Indeed, I could see the benefit of a list of "Gay politicians", because that list would be narrow, and you could give some background material about the struggles faced by politicians who were gay. But this just seems so wide open that it imparts no useful information. The mitigating criterion here is "fame", which is surely one of the least NPOV criteria one could imagine. CzechOut 07:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is "being noteworthy enough for an article", which is simply a reflection of WP:N. The list clearly has more information than a category as it provides dates of birth/death and occupation for each entry. And by the way listcruft doesn't really mean much beyond saying its a list you don't see the point of. I could describe this a listilicious and it would be just as lacking in argument, just showing that I like the list. The list has been discussed at articles for deletion a couple of times, the consensus has been to keep it. WjBscribe 08:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list also provides an actual source to document why it's included, while a category doesn't. Bearcat 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could potentially support breaking this list down into separate lists for LGBT writers, LGBT artists, etc., and/or into lists by country, but that's a big job that would take a coordinated effort. In the meantime, however, "listcruft" means "lists of trivial things that aren't of documentable interest to anybody outside of a particular fandom". List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes that contain overt references to Newt Gingrich and List of Brazilian soap opera actors with only nine toes would be listcruft, for example. A properly sourced and annotated list of people who fit into something that is a topic of genuine encyclopedic interest in the real world, however, is not listcruft whether you're personally interested in the topic or not. Bearcat 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. But I still wonder whether the sexuality of a person isn't "a trivial thing", not of "documentable interest to anybody outside of a particular fandom". Well, in this case not quite "fandom" but "interest group". I mean, outside of a contextual point, the mere fact of someone's homosexuality doesn't really matter all that much, does it? As for whether the list has more information than a category, eh, that's debatable. You may have allowed for columns which give very basic information, but the basic operation of the thing is the same as a category: you get the real information by clicking on the name of the person. I guess what I'm asking, since I don't see it, is why you think a simple list of famous people with alternative sexualities passes the notability threshhold? CzechOut 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess, and this is just a guess, is that you're straight. I don't mean that to be pejorative, I just mean that a) within the LGBT community, knowing that so-and-so was gay is very important. It's kind of like knowing about Phillis Wheatley when you're African American. And b) even outside the LGBT community, knowing that your favorite composer, Aaron Copland as an example, was gay changes views on homophobia and the relationship between people. Finally, there are whole academic schools of thought about whether or not a person's sexuality is "a trivial thing." Those three points are (at least my) reasoning behind why this list is notable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]
Discussion moved to Talk:Christina Aguilera

Someone should really check all the references. Many do not support the contention that the people were gay or bisexual. Christina Aguilera, as I've argued above, shouldn't be on this list -- no source lists her as having had sex with a woman or as identifying as gay or bisexual. Jane Adams also shouldn't be on the list -- the source mentions a long-term, close friendship with a woman, but there is no indication that they were sexually active, and they certainly did not identify as gay or bisexual. I suspect many of the people on this list don't belong here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed someone reinserted CA without mentioning it here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should mention why you think having sex is the only benchmark for bisexuality? Do you have any support for that theory? I know people who have never had sex, but still have a sexuality. --David Shankbone 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, a person is gay if he says he's gay, even if he's a virgin. CA hasn't said she's gay. She didn't say she'd ever had sex with a woman. She didn't say she ever wanted to. She didn't say she ever wanted to make out with a woman. No news source has ever said she is bisexual or gay (so far as I can tell), and to call her that is original research. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a person need to declare "I'm bisexual!" instead of "I enjoy experimenting with my sexuality" to be considered bisexual? --David Shankbone 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that everyone who enjoys experimenting with their sexuality is bi? It's an unsourced interpretation, and it's OR. I've listed this case at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#.5B.5BList_of_gay.2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people.5D.5D. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little disingenous to say that if a person says she likes to make out with women, would have sex with a woman, and enjoys "experimenting with her sexuality" that she isn't bisexual. If anyone makes those statements, but than follows it up with "I'm heterosexual" (which she also hasn't declared) it would sound silly. It is OR, in light of her own statements, to say she is heterosexual. That's a POV, and not one supported by her own words. --David Shankbone 19:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't claimed she's heterosexual. I'm saying we shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about peoples sexuality. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wrong version has been protected. Feel free to get an admin to revert to another wrong version. In the mean time, please avoid pointless reverting. Circeus 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From The Sun in London: "I find it hornier looking at women then men." "Two women is way sexier than two men in bed." I dunno - how many heterosexual women talk like that? I'll leave it for others to argue now... --David Shankbone 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid interpretation -- but unless you can find a source that says she's bi, it's still just your interpretation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a source that says she's straight? Just curious... --David Shankbone 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, and I wouldn't support listing her on a list of heterosexual musicians, either, unless a source can be found saying she's straight. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, article should not contradict each others. I say you go settle this at Christina Aguilera first. You'll settle the issue at List of bisexual people at the same time. Circeus 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let,s continue this where it will get the most attention. Circeus 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Arden

[edit]

The source for the Elizabeth Arden entry provides no evidence whatsoever that she was bisexual or lesbian. It's pure speculation based on a friendship with a woman who happened to be lesbian (Elisabeth "Bessie" Marbury). Their friendship isn't even described as being especially emotionally intimate. The source itself states, "Though it is clear they became close friends, whether or not they were intimately involved can only be a matter of speculation."[4]. Her image should not be featured on this article and a citation tag should be added until someone can provide actual evidence.KayoRu (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her article also doesn't mention anything. If it ever did, it was only for a brief time. I'm removing her from the list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Origin of the words "Fag" and "Lesbian."

[edit]

Hello!

The origin of the word "Fag," goes back to the English Boarding Schools' era. There, the weakest and most defensless boys were sent out to purchase Cigerattes, AKA "Fags" for the stronger boys. Hence, the name "FAGs" stuck to the boys who seemed weak and defensless; Later, the word for Cigerattes, FAGs was transposed onto the boys who exhibited similar tendencies and who also liked the company of other boys of sexual nature. The origin of the word "Lesbian," goes back to the time of the Greek Civilization. A Greek king had once ordered some women to be shipped to the Island of "Lesbos" in the Adriatic Sea where these women were to live for the rest of their lives. Because there weren't any men to satisfy their sexual needs, the women explored and learned to satisfy each other's sexual libido by their only means of loving one another. Based on and due to this Island's name of "Lesbos," the word "Lesbian" came into existence from more then 2000 Thousand years ago, though its use is only recent. The Greeks did enjoy same sex interactions for Millenia and it was accepted as a part of natural human sexual behvior.

It was not until the Christians came into the picture when these everyday and normal practices were banned by the Roman Churches, who are also guilty of the same!

I came across my findings while searching for origins of names and words. These facts are verifiable through and with any Etymological Dictinary of Modern English. I hope that you would find my Data informative and, I also hope that it will give the reader a better understanding of the words' usage in modern day society based on its ancient sources and of its origins dating back 2000 years ago! Regards, Steve Horvath, Chicago, IL

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

[edit]

What about Alexander the Great the greatest military leader of all time he had multiple male and female lovers.

Alexander the Great is already on the list :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No ancient sources suggest he had homosexual relationships & I don't think there's sufficient evidence for his inclusion in the list. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Personal_relationships

Jane Addams

[edit]

The notion that Jane Addams was a lesbian in the modern sense seems highly speculative, based on the Wikipedia article about her. If having a 'romantic friendship' qualified her as a lesbian, I guess Abraham Lincoln was bi-sexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryeisenman (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it's difficult to label Jane Addams as a lesbian in the modern sense. However, the evidence is pretty strong that her Boston marriage to Mary Rozet Smith qualifies her as something akin to a current-day lesbian. See the evidence of Lincoln's bisexuality, which isn't as strong. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Anderson

[edit]

Has come out as bisexual. [1] 19:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (http://www.out.com/entertainment/television/2012/03/13/gillian-anderson-lesbian-love-xfiles-Miss-Havisham--) As well, referring to this interview with The Times magazine in February 2018, Anderson further discusses her past relationships with women and that she would be open to dating a woman again. In the interview, Anderson states, “I could be in a relationship with a woman next year.” [2] 00:01, 3 Feb 2018 (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gillian-anderson-i-always-look-long-term-at-relationships-as-long-as-there-is-a-back-door-wn05p72hr) (UTC)Mbl1000 (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

[edit]

| Martyn Andrews | 1979 | British | TV presenter and singer | G[3] Martynandrews (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not done: That reference is to an interview about his travels and nowhere in it does it even talk about his sexual orientation. Just because you name your account the same as the person does not mean we are going to take your word for it. Please provide an actual reliable source that backs up your claim. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.out.com/entertainment/television/2012/03/13/gillian-anderson-lesbian-love-xfiles-Miss-Havisham--68.51.87.188 (talk)
  2. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gillian-anderson-i-always-look-long-term-at-relationships-as-long-as-there-is-a-back-door-wn05p72hr
  3. ^ "[1]", Wanderlust, 2 November 2015. Retrieved 18 December 2007.

No transgendered?

[edit]

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a separate list of transgender people already. Even though we mostly keep L, G, B and T people together in common "LGBT" categories, once a standalone list of transgender people existed it was no longer valuable to reduplicate transgender people into this set of lists in addition to the dedicated transgender list. At least in theory, L, G and B people could also be similarly spun off, but (a) nobody's ever actually tackled doing that for real, and (b) for some people it can get thorny as to whether they would be more properly included in the L/G list or the B one. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

[edit]
93.40.187.159 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Edward Albee is decesead in 2016 while this list signs him as still alive, born in 1928 Edit with 1928-2016

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 15:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

[edit]

The citation given for Alexander the Great (Citation 93), which is the Wikipedia article "Deipnosophistae", does not mention Alexander at all. PLease put a valid citation or remove him from this article. Thank you. Ilh758 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Armitage (actor)

[edit]

Cormack, Morgan (11 April 2023). "Richard Armitage: 'Spooks' Lucas North probably wasn't 100 per cent straight'". Radio Times. Retrieved 14 April 2023. 86.33.80.249 (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a woman lesbians bisexual 174.140.89.128 (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people:_A&oldid=1257810995"