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

message: ...I would like to see some format that would encourage a brief but definitive reference explaining each person's inclusion. Something like
(Autobiography, "My Life," Famous X. Celebrity, 1920, Printing Press)
or
(Press interview, "Rolling Stone," April 1st, 1991)
The reference doesn't need to be acceptable in a court of law. It just needs to be an adequate explanation of why the person is on the list. I do think it ought to be something stronger than "I'm sure I've read this somewhere or other, and no Wikipedian has yet complained about this person's inclusion."
In many cases if you click on the link, you get a Wikipedia article which does assert homosexuality but provides no evidence at all. E.g. for Graham Chapman we have only the unsupported statement "he also kept his homosexuality a secret for much of his adult life." For Vaslav Ninjinsky, the biography says "Nijinsky and Diaghilev became lovers." For A. E. Housman, we read "[in these poems] Housman appears more candid about his homosexuality and atheism than in his lifetime." Well, what exactly does "more candid" mean? A suitable quotation from the book would be nice--then we could judge for ourselves whether it is a forthright statement, a strong implication, or a veiled suggestion. 
Absent such a reference, should the "confirmed" list more properly be entitled "Persons whose Wikipedia biography asserts their homosexuality?"
Dpbsmith 17:22, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the list is appropriate, but... 

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

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

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

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

message: Since he's been repeatedly removed from the list by someone who has evidently done no fact-checking, let me advise him to check his IMDB biography before doing it again. . Joan Crawford called William Haines and his lover Jimmie Shields the happiest married couple in Hollywood. Those not afraid to touch paper may enjoy Wisecracker: The Life and Times of William Haines, Hollywood's First Openly Gay Star by William J. Mann.
:I did not repeatedly remove him from the list, I reverted his addition to the list since the person who added him made no explanation on the talk page.
Simon Arlott 18:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, you only removed him once...without explaining on the talk page. I shouldn't have assumed your other edits were repeats. But removing people without explanation or fact-checking is still a bad idea. - Outerlimits 18:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Haines 

message: Why do we have this section? This name is inherently POV. Surely there's a better name for it. Ambivalenthysteria 04:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please think of a better name. Hyacinth 07:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed to "Persons no longer identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual" Dysprosia 07:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persons of former lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation 

message: Van Cliburn (pianist) - I didn't see him listed anywhere, but I'm positive he's gay.  Anyone wish to confirm this and add him?
:On April 29th, 1996, Thomas Zaremba filed a palimony suit against pianist Van Cliburn, claiming the pair had been lovers for 17 years until their relationship ended in 1994.
:A 1998 article in Texas Family Lawyers states:
:Ten years later, the operation of the statute became the subject of an appeal in Zaremba v. Cliburn, 949 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, writ pending). Renowned pianist Van Cliburn's former live-in lover, Thomas Zaremba, brought what was construed to be a palimony suit against him after their 17-year relationship disintegrated. They began cohabiting in 1977, well before the amendment to the statute of frauds. Zaremba alleged an oral or implied contract giving him the right to a share of Cliburn's income in exchange for the services he rendered after moving in with Cliburn. Those services allegedly included shopping, doing the mail, paying the bills, co-managing the household, etc.
:This article in the South Coast Massachusetts (???) News says "A Fort Worth, Texas, judge has dismissed a multimillion-dollar palimony suit filed against Van Cliburn by a man who claims the pianist exposed him to the AIDS virus during a 17-year sexual relationship. District Judge Fred Davis said he agreed with Mr. Cliburn's lawyers that no part of the arrangement between Thomas E. Zaremba, a 48-year-old mortician, and Mr. Cliburn was in writing and that therefore nothing was binding." This seems to me to confirm that a relationship existed, but, darn it, I don't think the South Coast Massachusetts News is exactly the source I'd like to have for this. 
:http://www.glbtq.com/arts/cliburn_v,2.html states:
:Indeed, though always described as gracious and polite, Cliburn is known to be notoriously difficult to interview.  Music insiders had long been aware of his homosexuality, and he and Zaremba had appeared together at public functions in Fort Worth, but in Cliburn's thirty-plus years as a celebrity, the press had never linked him romantically with anyone.
:If these statements had been in Newsweek or a major Fort Worth newspaper, I'd say list him under "Debated," but I don't really think any of these sources is quite good enough to do that. Dpbsmith 00:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Van Cliburn? 

message: Gustav Gründgens should be changed to (correctly) Gustaf Gründgens. (added by 134.245.3.65)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. - jredmond 01:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition by 134.245.3.65 

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

message: Do we have a consensus on Alexander the Great being gay or bisexual? Because he is in both the bisexual and the doubtful lists.--leandros 11:54, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know from personal experience? :) There is mixed opinion; I would put him on the doubtful list Mysteronald 23:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexander the Great

message: Comments?
Rex071404 04:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the relevance. Ambi 05:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply add birth-death dates. This creates chronological information, which is very relevant, or at least as relevant as occupation. Hyacinth 21:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this list let us know, in brief, if the person is alive or dead? 

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

message: I notice that a number of people are described as having "admitted" their bi- or homosexuality.  I wonder whether the word "acknowledge" might be more accurate or not.  The American Heritage Dictionary's usage guides say "Admit implies reluctance in acknowledging one's acts or another point of view."  In the case of people being outed, "admit" would be appropriate.  But if, say, the source is an Advocate interview, I have a hard time imagining anyone who would be reluctant to acknowledge their sexuality even agreeing to be interviewed by a gay/lesbian news magazine.  Perhaps those with access to the original sources can change the wording if appropriate. Anon, 06:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "admit" is accurate in the case of anyone coming out of the closet, even intentionally, as being in the closet is being in a state of denial about one's non-heterosexuality.  That is, being in the closet is always a hiding.  There are, of course, people who were never properly in the closet, and for those people "acknowledge" is definately more appropriate.  I also think that it is a good move to try to move away from "admit" wherever appropriate, as "admit" implies that there is something one should try to hide, something one should be ashamed about - basically, "admit" always imples some degree of guilt, and I don't think that non-heterosexuality is something a person should be considered guilty of.  Its a tough call as far as a general move is concerned, though, because for much of Western history "admit" is by far the more appropriate word.  -Seth Mahoney 07:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
----
Pope Paul VI 
Can someone point to some evidence of his homosexuality, as alleged on this page.   Arcturus 18:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Choice 

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

message: I agree that Caesar should perhaps be removed from the confirmed list - we'll never know for sure. However both his and Hitler are more than due inclusion in the 'Possible' list. 
It is common knowledge that Caesar was infamous as a bottom in Ancient Rome where sexuality was not defined, but being submissive was to be mocked. 
:Is that an established fact, or just political propaganda of that era?
Hitler's (and indeed that of many of the Nazi leaders') sexuality is notoriously speculated about by historians, with many TV documentaries being made about the matter.
Caesar: (see Nicomedes III)
*
*
*
Hitler:
*
*
*
Give me time and I'm sure I can find many more than these found via Yahoo (which are themselves speculation enough for inclusion).
Therefore - readded. Debate? -Erolos 23:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler/Julius Caesar 

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

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

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

message: *Oppose  merge of List of bisexuals into this list - While there is overlap I do believe that there is an independent value to the List of bisexuals Doc 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a trisexual person to act as an impartial judge.  Ruby 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested merge of List of bisexuals into this list

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

message: I think it would be good to create List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/All, with transclusions of all lists. A.Z. 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be obscenely large to little purpose. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be easier to navigate. A.Z. 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really wouldn't. Particularly for people on slow connections. Put it all together in a user subpage and see. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current pages could remain as they are, but there would be a link to the page with the transclusions with a warning next to it such as "This page may take several minutes to load". A.Z. 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List with all people 

message: This article is currently undergoing its fourth nomination as AfD here. Some legitimate points have been raised during this discussion. Perhaps some changes to this article and sub-articles will deflect future criticism and obviate the need for future revisits to the AfD issue.
Some points raised:
- why is it notable to be gay?
- this list can never be completed.
- what is the point of this list, Wikipedia is not a support group.
Thus some suggestions:
1. Consider adding a section to either the article or this talk page (and preserve after archiving) along the lines of:
:Notability - given the historical, and in some parts of the world, on-going discrimination faced by persons of variant sexuality, it is useful to provide a comprehensive list of their presence and accomplishments throughout history and in the present.
2. Consider renaming the article to "List of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people"
: - The list as currently named can never be complete. My friend Deb isn't on it, for one, and she never can be - if I added her the change would be immediately reverted as she is not notable. Thus by definition, it is a list of "notable" people. Also it is a list of people referenced by Wikipedia, thus notable people.
:- Changing the article title would seem to be at variance with similar list titles such as List of jews or List of Canadians. However there is nothing wrong in being the first to do something properly.
3. Consider also including in the name and listing Transgendered people. I believe this has been debated before. The argument here is that these people will have for some portion of their lives faced the same challenges as GLB individuals and are thus worthy of inclusion in this listing. This is not necessarily to include the notability of the discrimination faced by these persons "post-trans" but instead to reflect the similarity of their "pre-trans" lives.
4. Change the lead-in wording of this and associated articles to better express the nature of the list. The current wording of the introductory sentence of this main article (as of writing) is "This is a referenced overview list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people." This seems near optimal - perhaps "and" not "or". If this is acceptable, change also the sub-articles to conform.
5. Consider removing those entries where the note is "sexuality disputed." These don't seem to be compatible with the intention of the list and could be construed as innuendo. Removing these would render the list more authoritative and less subject to challenge. Especially consider WP:BLP.
6. Consider revamping the format of the article to bring it in line with other Lists as cited above. These organize their content by categories such as musician, scientist, philosopher, writer... rather than presenting a simple alphabetical listing. Of course this would be a huge job but would make this article easily defensible if combined with the suggested changes above.
This article contains an impressive amount of research and detailed referencing. Making some of these changes would possibly prevent the continuous challenges and make refutation easy should they arise in future, as well as making the article even more encyclopedic. Franamax 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes to Article 

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

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

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

message: Perhaps someone should follow up these names.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.64.200.210 (talk) 00:18, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:This is a discussion page heads up for the the possible improvement of this list. It is vandalism to remove it. It is not part of an article. 62.64.201.170 16:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism to remove clutter which doesn't help improve the article and this is one massive spam farm although it does seem to be LGBT-focussed. Please make specific suggestions rather than telling people to check out the website that is littered with all manner of banners, links and rainbow-related  ... stuff. rather than stating "someone should follow up these names" simply list the names and any non-commercial links about them. Benjiboi 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a page full of spam and then a list of "gay and lesbians", without sources, a lot written in French.. I guess it could be used as a starting point for names to research elsewhere but it shouldn't be used as a definitive source for someone's sexual orientation. ----  ALLSTAR  ECHO 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I know what you can do this summer

message: One user (User:Moe Epsilon who has "retired") has complained about the image sizes, but per WP:MOS, they really shouldn't be set.  I'm resetting them to be standard thumb size. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider using a gallery feature like the below example instead. Whenever I look at these articles I have the tables content blocked by the overlying photos regardless of size, these are the only pages that this happens to me. I would also recommend breaking at least W-Z list up as it's so large. Benjiboi 22:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

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

message: For those that are lazy like me and want to avoid editing multiple articles when not needed. Benjiboi 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah!  Good - I've got a bit of cleaning up to do, then :)  Thanks, Benjiboi!!!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list editor in need is a list editor indeed! Benjiboi 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI, template used for ledes 

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

message: So let's decide on the column name:
* Profession
* Notability
** This would be my first choice SatyrTN (talk / contribs)
* Significance
** My second choice SatyrTN (talk / contribs)
::What about "Notable as" or "Significant as"? Grammar-wise, somehow it seems more natural to answer, "Actor" or "Politician" or "Partner of composer Benjamin Britten" to these headings than it does to "Notability" or "Significance", if that makes sense. --Melty girl (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notable as" seems the best way of describing notability. I orginally added profession for lack of a better column name, but that sounds much more descriptive. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notable for"?, I wonder as well for folks who are notable for two or more things. Benjiboi 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I've made the following changes to W-Z:
* Combined "Notes" and "References" columns into "Notes" with an explanation.
* Changed the column heading for "Profession" to "Notable for"
* Added L, G, or B for each entry
Take a look and let me know what y'all think. In a day or two I'll tackle all the rest. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me. One small change -- the wording we discussed was "Notable as". At the end of the thread we accidentally started talking about "Notable for," but this would require a lot of changes. "Notable as" ...Actor, Politician, etc. works, but "Notable for" Actor, Politician doesn't work -- it would have to be "Notable for" ...Acting, Holding political office, etc. --Melty girl (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me, though I agree on the notable as point. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I think we need to move these lists into tables. I think Name, Dates, Nationality, Notability and Reference as columns would be best. What does everyone else think? Dev920 (Tory?) 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I assume then that everyone approves of this? Dev920 (Tory?) 15:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then. Conversion begins as soon as I have time. I will start with A, and work my way down the list. Other editors' help would be appreciated. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I just looked and they seem fine. Can you provide diffs of this happening? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The gridlines weren't there on the 24th, but now they're back again. Go figure. --67.188.0.96 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting to tables. 

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

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

message: I would like to point out the names have been entered first name(s), then surnames. This column really can't be sorted since it will sort by the first name.
Also, the dates column can be a problem, since some entries start with a b. and for those that have passed, it doesn't so that the death year can be added.
Any suggestions?
CubBC (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it takes some extra work, there is a way to add a hidden sort key to tables of this type: add Surname before the person's name. This is already used, with leading zeros as the sort key, to ensure that radio station lists, for example, sort correctly by frequency. I don't necessarily have a problem with the way the dates column sorts, since it has the result of separating living people from dead ones, but if other people feel strongly about it, one option would be to separate birth and death years into separate columns, and another would be to add Year before the "b." if the person is still living. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the names are sorted automatically on opening the page. Sorting allows nationalities or L/G/B to be brought together. Also it orders the dobs of dead people, then the dobs of living people. Not so bad. Soane (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad idea to sort the names 

message: Someone who maintains this/these lists might want to check the names listed in the Gaylactic spectrum awards article, and the 3 nominees list  articles.
I suspect most of these authors are LGBT and the award itself makes them notable, but many are not listed here. Eg Lawrence Schimel, who has written many LGBT fiction and non-fiction books and founded an LGBT organisation. Neither is enough for me to add him, but it is pretty obvious that exclusion from the list would be wrong. Maintaining coprehnsiveness for the FLs means these need to be checked out (which is too much work for me!)Yobmod (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New additions

message: :Withdrawn by user (reasoning: per comments here and at WT:LGBT, does not appear it will gain further traction at this time) Please post any new comments related to this in a new section below, thanks.
Whereas:
*List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is currently a megalithic list split into 19 parts.
*Even though bisexuals are included, there already exists a separate list of bisexual people (separated into 4 parts). (And while not included in the GLB list, List of transgender people also has its own list.)
Proposal:
*Merge/move all bisexual listings from the GLB list into List of bisexual people (if there are any people or citations that do not exist there already).
**Benefit: Less dupication, and easier maintenance (less double-work), which is especially beneficial when maintaining BLP topics.
*Of the remaining listings, split into separate lists (List of gay men and List of lesbians), which would offer the following benefits:
**Benefit: Consistency with transgender & bisexual lists, which already exist as stand-alone lists.
**Benefit: An "A"-name gay man has more in common with a "Z"-named gay man, than he does with lesbians who just so happen to have the same first letter of their last name as him. The reverse is true for lesbians. By splitting into Gay & Lesbian (instead of all GLB people of a specific last name start-letter) This produces a better organized list for WP readers. Wikipedia occupation categories for LGBT people (i.e. "Gay actors", "Lesbian artists", etc. already are split into off by lesbian , gay, bisexual, etc.)
Thoughts......? Outsider80 (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a split to "Gay and Bi men" and "Lesbian and Bi women". At least gender has fewer problems with identifying. The Bi list is a content fork that identifies people by their behviour only, often ignoring how they self-identify.YobMod 10:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that's an interesting idea. It would acheive the goal of simplified BLP maintenance by not having separate Bisexual and GLB lists (bisexuals being listed in 2 different lists), and would address the ambiguity issue you mentioned. (& would also split the current 19-part giant megalithic alpha-sorted list into more meaningful/less phonebookish groupings) Though it would be a cisgender split, there is already a separate list for Transgender (so this might actually be a sort of "Series" of lists ( Women, men, transgender ) -- & transwomen and transmen would also fit in the men & women lists if they are GLB-identified. Support. Outsider80 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

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

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

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

message: Please add me to List of Gay. Gregory Sullivan Isaacs - Senior Music Critic for Theater Jones, writer for The Dallas Voice (LGBT newspaper for Texas), Fort Worth Star Telegram, and Art+Culture Magazine.Pulitzer nominated composer and conductor. Submitted by myself.
!-- End request -->
Gregorysisaacs (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Each entry added to this list should cite a reliable source. Additionally, it should link to an extant Wikipedia article. (An article entitled Gregory Sullivan Isaacs was deleted several years ago as a copyright violation.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Indeed, this is not a list to which every LGBT person on earth is entitled to add themselves; the list is strictly an index of LGBT people who have Wikipedia articles to link to, and may not include anybody whose name is a redlink, an offsite link to another website or no link at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 29 March 2013 

message: The page says "This is a .. list of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people, who have either been open about their sexuality or for which reliable sources exist. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed. .. However, most definitions include a psychological component (such as the direction of an individual's erotic desire) and/or a behavioural component (which focuses on the sex of the individual's sexual partner/s). Some prefer to simply follow an individual's self-definition or identity."
Although it is quiet now, there has been a long-running discussion about whether Jodie Foster can be included in the LGBT category. Currently, she is not because although she is unambiguously out about having had a female partner for many years, there is no reliable source for her saying she has a lesbian or bisexual identity. 
So is it WP policy that only the identity - using at least one of the words 'lesbian', 'gay', 'bisexual' or one of the synonyms about themselves - counts? Or could she be placed in this category because there is a verifiable source that she has had LGB attraction and behaviour, even if we're not sure about which letter applies to her? Lovingboth (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A year later, and poor Foster is still under debate...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought or word or deed? Attraction or identity or behaviour?