Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AWilliamson (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 3 January 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:02, 3 January 2005 by AWilliamson (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk:List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people/archive

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

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

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

or,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Gershwin?

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

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

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

unconfirmed list?

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

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

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

The following people are unconfirmed:

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

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

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

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

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

Antonio Electro shot! Martin

Aristotle

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

Margaret Cho

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

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

Historical figures

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

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

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


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

remove names with no articles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disputed? No!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about Non-famous curmudgeons who don't understand NPOV? -- Outerlimits 06:10, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Quote me, too: "This is a stupid page". Lists of famous people are silly in the first place. A list of famous people who have admitted to having homosexual experience is weird. A list of famous people whose fame usually has nothing to do with homosexuality, but might have been, or probably or even certainly were or are homosexual, is many times worse than that. But a list of famous people who at one time or another have been listed by gay and lesbian lists of gays and lesbians, some of which are admittedly unconfirmed, is the bottom of the barrel: and that's what this is. It is idiotic, and I think that everyone here knows it. Mkmcconn 15:39, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Unfortunately they don't, which is why attempts to trim off the unconfirmed and anachronistic folks have generally been reverted without thought.
See talk:list of heterosexuals for the ignomious end of the closest thing to a "Famous Heterosexual People" page we ever had. Martin 17:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You see, the way I see it as a gay man is, that heterosexism (the ignorant assumption that everyone is heterosexual unless proven otherwise) is dominant in our society, and anyone who is lesbian, gay or bisexual looking for a positive role model needs somewhere where there is a list on which they can find examples of people who were famous, and happened to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. The problem with leaving it up to general society to point the way for such people looking, is that the only people who tend to stick out are those who provide the worst possible role model: the stereotypes of the worst kind of lesbian woman or gay man. That's why this list is important, and is just as important as celebrating black people who have contributed to science and invention or famous people from history who had a disability. history doesn't remember them and so we have a duty to do that. Graham  :) 11:33, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Did someone forget to say, somewhere, that an encyclopedia is not therapy? Did someone need to say that? Let me say it, then. Misplaced Pages has no "duty" to make someone feel better about their sexuality, or to take a stand against "general society" picking their role models for them. We do have a duty to keep our politics, our personal bitternesses, anxieties, insecurities or even our ambitions to engineer a nicer society, from interfering with the content of these articles. That duty is not being done here, in a very big way. Mkmcconn 04:20, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... sort of like the duty that inspires us to have the article "fudgepacker"? Sort of like the duty that inspires faggot? The duty that requires seventy-zillion articles redirected to AIDS Kills Fags Dead? The duty that creates Homophobic hate speech and Anti-gay slogan? That kind of duty? -- Outerlimits 04:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Adam 14:05, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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

I think the list is appropriate, but...

...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 Misplaced Pages 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 " 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 Misplaced Pages biography asserts their homosexuality?"

Dpbsmith 17:22, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Shakespeare

User 66.167.235.170 deleted Shakespeare from the "confirmed" list on the grounds that "Shakespeare had a wife and kids so listing him as gay would not seem appropriate." That just seems silly to me, so I put him back in the "disputed" list because certainly the matter is disputed; that is, many people do think he was probably bisexual.

I think it would be quite unreasonable to leave him off the page entirely.

I'm OK with Dysprosia's adding the phrase "was thought to have" to my comment that he "addressed many of his sonnets to a man." (Personally, I would have said there's no doubt at all that many of the sonnets were, in fact, addressed to a man—look at Sonnet XX, for example. But whether they express homophilic affection is a matter of opinion, and, even if they do, it would, of course, prove nothing about Shakespeare's sexual orientation. And that's too much to say in a short comment).

I notice that the article on Shakespeare's sonnets, which I hadn't checked earlier, says they "deal in large part with a beautiful young man, a rival poet and a Dark Lady" and "Shakespeare's repeated declarations of love for the young man suggest bisexuality to some, although others see them as supreme expressions of Platonic love." That seems to me to warrant an entry on the "disputed" list.

Dpbsmith 00:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. We don't know for sure about Shakespeare's orientation, but his sonnets at the very least raise questions and strong suspicions as to his orientation. FearÉIREANN 19:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Added Diane Duane to confirmed list: she came out (or, more likely, already was out) in a 1980 magazine interview.
Tualha 05:28, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

the living

Please keep living people off the list of debated sexuality. Until you confirm it, leave it off. Kingturtle 05:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

That's real classy, guys. Make a "debated" list and put on a bunch of dead people who have no way of defending themselves either way. Is this an encyclopedia or a tabloid?

If, and only if somebody has out and said they were gay, put them on the list (or better yet, just mention it in their individual biographies. Why do we even have this list, anyway? Is this some weird support group mentality or something? "Wowee! Look at all of those gay people!"). If they're living, don't classify them until they admit it themselves. And sticking historical names on a "debated" list for shock value is tacky, and I think that Misplaced Pages has higher standards than that.

And who's the joker that put Jesus on the list? Don't these people even know who Jesus was?

-- Jordan

The truth is that many people's sexual orientation only becomes known after their death. It was only lately that documentary evidence showed that Eoin O'Duffy was gay. Roger Casement never said he was gay, but the controversial Black Diaries strongly suggested he was. It is only with modern technology that it has been possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the diaries, whose authorship was disputed by those with a problem accepting that Roger was gay, were clearly written by him, had his handwriting, and were contemporaneous with the timeline they supposed dated from. It was also only after her death that witnesses who had been friends of the Princess confirmed what had long been gossiped, that Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom had had a lesbian relationship with the daughter of an American diplomat in the 1960s. Sir Alec Guinness's homosexuality was only revealed since his death by family members and his biographer.

It is perfectly logical to have a page like this and perfectly logical to list dead people. FearÉIREANN 20:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have reinstated Lincoln and Princess Margaret. Lincoln's rumoured sexuality was an issue in his lifetime, specifically his relationship with two men, to such an extent that a ficticious "love affair" with a non-existent woman was created by close friends. Princess Margaret's lesbian relationship with the daughter of a diplomat was attested to by her close friends in a respected television programme on the Princess. Both are factual and a lot more evidenced than many claims on this page. FearÉIREANN 18:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Schumann and Brahms is a completely new one on me. It's true that Brahms had an unconsumated love for Schumann, but it was Clara rather than Robert, wasn't it? Or have I been reading the wrong books? --Camembert

"Similarly, the complicated, but apparently unconsummated, relationship of Schumann and Johannes Brahms has also been the subject of speculation."- qlbtq: Arts: Music: Classical Honestly, I have no idea, music this old is not my area.Hyacinth
Maybe Schu liked Brahms, but Brahms liked Clara. Dysprosia 00:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hm, I do think the author of that page might be getting Clara and Robert mixed up - I've never come across any suggestion of a relationship between Robert and Johannes (not that I'm an expert or anything, but I would've thought it would be pretty high-profile). On a different note - is there any serious doubt that Lully was gay? I think he was pretty famous (or notorious) for it. Anyway, I'm hoping to get to some books that should clear all this up eventually, but it might not be until after Christmas (it'll be great if anybody does it before me, of course). --Camembert

Well, the book I was hoping to check is out of reach (a friend had it, but he moved (thoughtless of him)), but I've removed Schumann and Brahms because I'm not really convinced by the above link (I think there's a bit of confusion there), and I've checked a couple of bios with nothing. If somebody else finds somebody respectable actually making this claim rather than just saying that somebody else has made the claim, it'd be fine to go back in of course. I'm leaving Lully where he is for now, but I think he might well end up in the "confirmed" list one day. --Camembert

Hey Wikians shouldn't this disclaimer be on the page?

Wikipedians: Edit this list with caution, because misidentifying the sexual identity of living individuals can lead to a charge of libel. It has not been tested whether Misplaced Pages's sponsor, Bomis, is liable for libel in the Misplaced Pages.

It really seems to me that a list of people about who's sexuality others debate, should be just that, and not a list of people who may or may not be gay. I don't care if you can document an individuals same sex sexual contanct and their coming out process, if those facts are debated then they should be on the debated list. This would need to be clarified in the heading for that list, but I think that clear distinction may put a damper on the growth of this discussion page.Hyacinth 04:40, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Franz Schubert

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)

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)

New Zealand gays and lesbians

Eleanor Roosevelt

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)

Frank Murphy

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)

William Haines

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)

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)

James Coco

vide Hollywood Gays: Conversations With: Cary Grant, Liberace, Tony Perkins, Paul Lynde, Cesar Romero, Brad Davis, Randolph Scott, James Coco, William Haines, David Lewis by Boze Hadleigh.

James Buchanan

See debate at:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/2458

This is ample justification for his being placed in the debated category.

Persons of former lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation

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)

Please think of a better name. Hyacinth 07:09, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Changed to "Persons no longer identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual" Dysprosia 07:13, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-- "Qaboos ibn Sa'id Al Sa'id, Sultan of Oman" - this strikes me as unlikely, and I can find no support for it with a quick search. The article does not mention it. Please clarify. - Montréalais 04:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

See here - Outerlimits 01:41, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Van Cliburn?

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)

Kurt Cobain

Okay... I'm REALLY familiar with Kurt Cobain. It's a topic I know a LOT about. I have NEVER heard of anything "confirming" that he was bisexual. I have NEVER heard of him having had a sexual relationship with a male. There has been speculation as to this, but only mere speculation. I personally do not believe he was bisexual, although he did have a tolerance for gays/lesbians/bisexuals that was uncommon considering where he is from. blankfaze 22:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't even think the speculation he acknowledged his open support for gay straight equality (including kissing a bandmate on SNL) would cause is enough to list him as debated. I say remove. Hyacinth 22:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

    • I obviously agree. I think the SNL thing was more of a shocky publicity thing. I haven't been able to find anything conclusive suggesting he was bisexual. blankfaze 01:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I've removed him. --Camembert

addition by 134.245.3.65

Gustav Gründgens should be changed to (correctly) Gustaf Gründgens. (added by 134.245.3.65)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Misplaced Pages by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. - jredmond 01:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pope Julius II.

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

Well, Sex Lives of the Popes (by Nigel Cawthorne) calls him "the father of a family and a hard-drinking, hard-swearing, swashbuckling pederast. Handsome and syphilitic, he had many mistresses, one of whom had given him the pox", and states that Julius was accused of "unnatural vice" while a Cardinal, and as pope "wore himself out in two years leading a hectic life 'amongst prostitutes and boys'". Continuing: "Contemporary authors said he was a 'great sodomite'. And according to a seventeenth-century tract, 'this man abused two young gentlemen, besides many others'." His seduction of a German youth was commemorated in verse: "To Rome, a Geramn came of fair aspect,/But he returned a woman in effect". So he liked girls, he liked boys, though he liked war more than either. - Outerlimits 00:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

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)

I oppose listing him as such. My understanding is that his primary personal attribute was Alcoholism. Which as you know, makes people do unaccountable things. Have we compared his behavior when sober to his behavior when drunk? Rex071404 04:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doubtful list. Ambi 05:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Alexander the Great is notoriously bisexual. -Seth Mahoney 07:03, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Ok, I that time, the word bisexual or homosexual didn't even exist. LOL

Shouldn't this list let us know, in brief, if the person is alive or dead?

Comments? Rex071404 04:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. Ambi 05:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)

What the...? - Double List

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)

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)

Where Do Transsexuals Go?

I have Nadia Almeda, who won Big Brother 5, but she's not gay, lesbian or bisexual, but she one was called Jorge. Can she go on this list but does this list need moving to List of famous gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual persons? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is ueful to group gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people together: eventually we will end up with a conglomerate list of people.
I added Nadia Almeda to (the top of) the List of transgendered people as already linked on this page.
Mysteronald 23:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Language Choice

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)

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)

Senator Joseph McCarthy

I moved Joseph McCarthy from the list of confirmed to debated. The person posting him used a story from a website called rotten.com which has many weird and questionable stories and information on it. One of the articles on Richard Nixon says, "Perhaps best known for faking the Moon landing, 37th US President Richard Milhouse Nixon died on April 22, 1994." Faking the moon landing? This site is obviously an "alternative" news website. No pun intended.

"However, such a policy is generally condemned within the lesbian and gay community as an infringement on a person's right to privacy, because of concerns about their family, their right to cope with their own sexuality on their own terms, or the risk of discrimination or loss of reputation."

I find it hard to believe that the gay and lesbian community would want to protect closeted public figures from a "loss of reputation". --User:Cogent

I heard that some parts of the gay community clearly were against any evidence of McCarthy being gay, because that would leave other parts of the gay community listing him as a role model, no matter what a stupid jerk he had been in his political career... =P (Not that I think there are any clear evidence, per se.)

Citations Required?

There is quite a list of people here. Shouldnt we have some documentation or citations regarding the statements that those folks are/were gay, lesbian or bisexual? How can someone decide whether a person was added in an attempt to "claim them as one's own" or actually gay, lesbian or bisexual? Lance6Wins 18:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat added 216.153.214.94 06:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rex, I'm afraid the words "These symptoms sound remarkably AIDS-like, don't they?" are far from "confirmation" Arafat is/was gay. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 21:07, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

famous

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 Misplaced Pages to begin with. func(talk) 05:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer

I noticed that Wolf Blitzer of CNN was listed on this page. I can find no supporting sources for the assertion that he is gay or bisexual. Can anyone show any credible sources on this matter?

The only thing vaguely on that subject was a website that said Michael Savage once implied he was. I think Wolf Blitzer can be safely removed. Mike H 07:15, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I removed Wolf because I could find no information even hinting at homosexuality, but IMDB's bio of him shows that he is currently married and has one child.


Hitler/Julius Caesar

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)

During Hitler's early life, when he was a soldier during WWI, his comrades alleged he was having a homosexual affair with one of the other soldiers. This is the basis for the speculation about Hitler.

There are a lot of problems with this list!

There are way too many problems with this list. There are absolutely no sources for any of these people. The List of Republican celebrities entry has been forced to establish proof of every person on the list which would then require a list such as this which is even harder to prove in most cases.

For instance Leonardo DaVinci never said, "I'm gay!" He never wrote it and he wasn't even found guilty of it when someone accused him of it he was called into court. The evidence is some graffti in his notebook by some art students saying that he was having an affair with a man. However, that is not proof, it is rumor. A theory was put forward that he was one and people have added to this theory but there is no real proof. In fact, within the last several years a son of his has come to light in a document, meaning that he would now have to be considered bi, except there is no proof that he was either. I'm not saying he wasn't, but I'm saying there is no proof for him to be included on the list it's on. He should be on the suspected list, however, a source should be listed.

There are no sources quoted anywhere and unless a person has been vocal about it or unless they have been arrested like Alec Guinness they should only be on the suspected list.

I am simply trying to make this a standard practice since it has been mandated over and over again for the list of celebrities who support Republicans. Pitchka 20:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • "There are absolutely no sources for any of these people."
The above is an untrue statement. The first person listed with citation is Peter Allen, the source being found at the bottom of the page under the heading Sources. Hyacinth 01:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One book is listed as a source for all those people? That isn't good enough. I'm sure this can be improved upon. Pitchka 07:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

With a very few exceptions, everyone on this list is known to be or have been gay. They are generally talked about as being gay (or bi), and it's unlikely that anyone is going to read through the confirmed section of the list and be shocked to see any given name. The few exceptions, people whose homosexuality is surprising or seems unlikely, are given references. The List of Republican celebrities is full of people whose support for the Republican party is surprising or seems unlikely - and, in some cases, people who are known not to be Republicans. Nobody is asking for references for, say, Charlton Heston, James Caviezel or Adam Baldwin. Personally, I think that if you'd been more specific with your criteria and only listed people definitely known as Republicans, that list wouldn't currently be on VfD.

Ah, yes, they are asking for references for those people. Caviezel and I think Baldwin and many others were deleted. Generally talked about by whom? I've heard that lots of people vote republican but since I can't find an out and out source that has the person actually saying that they are, it isn't considered by an awful lot of Wikipedians. This list which seems just as "controversial" as a list of people who support republicans should be held to the same standards, now that these standards are being imposed on some of the list pages. In fact, most of the people in question on the Rep list can easily be verified with a google search as to their leanings and yet that was not good enough. Surely this list should be held to the same standards. Links to internet pages verifying these people should at least be added for the people listed on the net.
They weren't deleted by anyone involved in the VfD, or anyone who has raised questions on the Talk page, though. That particular edit was obviously malicious, removing people who are well-known to be Republican. In fact, the people in question on the Republican list cannot be verified with a google search, otherwise they wouldn't be in question. Look what happened when Vince Gallo was questioned - two people immediately defended his inclusion. You obviously acknowledge the problems with the list - you reverted the malicious deletes of Caviezel, Boxleitner, etc., but let the removal of Joan Allen, Denzel Washington, James Earl Jones, etc., stand, because there's nothing to indicate that those people are Republicans. The problem is that they were there in the first place. Someone - I don't know if it was you - seems to have added any celebrity who wasn't known for their opposition to the Republicans (and a few who were). That'd be like this list including every celebrity who wasn;t known for their rampant heterosexuality.

Also, the title is misleading not all the people listed are all that famous, perhaps "notable" would be better, also, why is there a list of people who are only posible? The title doesn't include thought to be people. The criteria is not specific enough. Perhaps it should just stick with people who definitely are known to be gay. Maybe even bi's should be listed on a seperate page. There are problems with this list, it needs some major reworking. Pitchka 07:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about that. Your refusal to include such a section on the Republican list, and your insistence on including people who are confirmed to not be Republicans, is the problem here. And all the people listed here are famous. If this list included, say, Tom Cruise and Jason Donavan, and everyone was listed as confirmed even when their sexuality is reasonably disputed, and it included people for whom there are absolutely no claims or suggestions that they were gay but someone contributing to the list would kinda like them to be, then it'd be comparable.

Sponsor Bomis?

The lead-in of this article; besides being remarkably editorial in voice, refers to Bomis as a sponsor of wikipedia, who would be legally liable for any possible litigation. Well, Bomis may well still sponsor the site, but surely the litigation would be of the Wikimedia foundation, and not Bomis? -- unsigned

Persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation

this section should be removed completely from this article. wikipedia is an encyclopedia for facts. this much speculation has no place in wikipedia. Kingturtle 05:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe this section is useful for reporting that substantial debate exists in the cases of some people, especially those long dead, such as Abe Lincoln (in the new book). However I agree that baseless speculation does not belong. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:17, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

David & Jonathon

I question whether the words used for King David:

King David, King of ancient Israel, bisexual, lover of Jonathan, see 2 Samuel 1:26

should be written as so "black and white." Indeed, 2 Samuel 1:26 does NOT prove that there was a homosexual relationship. The word "love" in the Bible does not necessarily mean "sex" (like the word "know"). Indeed, many military men develop a "love" relationship, sexual or not, in part because of the increased risk of death leads to a need to channel emotions.

Worse that stating uneqivocally is the fact that, of all the entries I wanted to edit, this was one of the few "off limits." Is some powerful person behind the scenes pushing an agenda at "Misplaced Pages?" 2 Samuel 1:26 should speak for itself, and the words "bisexual, lover of Jonathan" should be modified. For examples, "alleged bisexual, puported lover of Jonathan." In fact, to be honest, it's very unlikely that this childhood friendship was indeed a gay relationship--if it was, it likely would have been covered up. This smacks of historical revisionism, re-interpreting ancient history to fit a present agenda. The very book written by a society that condemns homosexual sex as "sodomy" surely wouldn't have stood for an openly gay king. However, after 3,000 years of "translation" we now arrive at a meaning altogether different, and much shallower, than what 2 Samuel 1:26 intended. What originally meant a "love more meaningful than mere sex" (which is why the allusion to women is mentioned) is now used as "proof" of a sexual relationship.

Well you can take it like that, or you can take it to mean that the reason a sexual relationship was not revealed in the Bibel for precisely those reasons - to cover up what was there. Its not proof, there will never be proof. However there is intense theological and historic speculation, not just rumours, so it is included in the debated section - what the debated section is there for. Do remember that entire Gay Christian movements are wholly based upon those lines, so not including them is not NPOV. Personally I wouldn't object to any rewording of the information to include "debated" and "purported" if thats what you feel is neccessary. I don't personally see the point - as they are already under the Debated heading. -Erolos 20:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to make a brief point here: in the original Hebrew, the word used for "love" in that verse (2 Samuel 1:26)  is 'ahabah, which is _not_ the Hebrew verb for romantic / sexual love. People sometimes look at the English translation and jump to conclusions, hence the debate you're referring to; but I think you'll agree that this has no more merit than the rumors published in a tabloid, and should therefore not be used as the basis for including someone in an article.   AWilliamson 03:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well you thought wrong. It doesn't matter where it sprang from, we aren't saying which sources are right and wrong - in the debated section we are trying to include people for whom there is considerable debate within society. David and Jonathon, controversial though such a claim is, are inlcuded amongst those. Rather than have a revert war with you, I suggest we have a vote:

-Erolos 18:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just as editors routinely remove entries that are based on rumors - no matter how widely those rumors may be "debated" or how many people may take them seriously - likewise, entries that are based on misconceptions (in this case, linguistic misconceptions) also are supposed to be removed. There's no need to have a vote on the matter. AWilliamson 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Votes

To include in the debated section:

For Inclusion

Against Inclusion

Chester Bennington

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

Marlon Brando

I noticed Marlon Brando's removal from the article, and I was a little puzzled. I knew it had never ever been confirmed, but I thought his bisexuality was widely accepted enough, more than simply tabloid rumours - accounts from personal friends amongst the sources - that it deserves at least inclusion in the debated section? -Erolos 18:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)