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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: <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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Gentlemen, please. Let's elevate the level of discourse here and try to avoid personal attacks. Jonathunder 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no personal attacks. Carry on. JSIN 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Support
* FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: <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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Gentlemen, please. Let's elevate the level of discourse here and try to avoid personal attacks. Jonathunder 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no personal attacks. Carry on. JSIN 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *: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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dimitar Ivankov 

message: 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)
thread_title: Handel

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Aelred of Hexham 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Debated Gays/Lesbians in Section T 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  John Lennon, Brian Jones, Jim Morrison? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lord Frederick Windsor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bülent Ersoy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rudolph Valentino 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Charles Manson 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ram Dass 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Guillaume Dufay]] 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Richard I 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Breaking impasse 

message: Please use the newly adopted inlice citation as follows:
;For URLs
 Retrieved january 2006 (and any other text you may want to add)
;If the ref is a book:
Johnston, Jill - Jasper Johns: Privileged Information. ISBN 0500017360
This will automatically generate an entry in the reference section. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inline citation 

message: ;"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: 
#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
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?.  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of sections - Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thank you to Outerlimits 

message: 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)
replies: text: There were two problems. First a Reference argument of the form  was opened up without being closed by . Second, at the end of the S section, the code for listing 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: Should really be avoided.  Apparently some editors () 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Asinine reference comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 • @</small> 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  The mere desire to impose your will without discussion should also not be a substitute for discussion. - Outerlimits 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: 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:
# Has the information been eliminated from Wikipedia? No.
# Is the information inaccessible? No.
# Does the parent article somehow fail to link to the subpages? No.
# 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. 
# 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.
# 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:
# 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. 
# 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.
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. -Splashtalk 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I said... :) ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You said that after I said it... -Splashtalk 04:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cordiality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. -Splashtalk 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I said... :) ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. You said that after I said it... -Splashtalk 04:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protecting child articles