Talk:List of LGBT couples
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| List | This page is a list and does not require a rating. |
Contents |
[edit] Eleanor Roosevelt dispute
DUDE, ELEANOR ROOSEVELT WAS NOT GAY! The Lorena thing is a MYTH-- find me an actual BOOK-- NOT wikipedia-- of a Eleanor Roosevelt biographer that says she was actualyl GAY, and not just good friends, and then I'll put her back in there—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.32.101.199 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Male/female couples
Is this list supposed to include non-transgender male/female couples in which one partner identifies as bisexual? Guanaco 14:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
What are the criteria for a couple being notable enough to include here? Without any criteria, the "Past" list could easily run to thousands of couples rather than the handful that are there now. --Celithemis 00:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, for one, one of the couple should be notable enough to have an article first before being listed. Next the relationship should be well enough known and/or be well doccumented. It those criteria are met, then they should be on the list. IMO Doc ♬ talk 03:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sourcing
This article needs sourcing, both for the modern couples and for the historical ones. For the disputed couples (I'm talking about any historical couple where at least one notable biographer has argued either way) there should be a footnote explaining the dispute. Maybe they should even be grouped under a different heading, or a note added.
Also, the mythical couples need to be removed. There's no evidence that Zeus and Ganimede or Achilles and Petrocles weren't just literary characters, and that's why we have List of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in mythology. Additionally, a better definition for inclusion is needed. I'll think about it and see what seems intuitive (bisexual and gay? yes. bisexual and straight? no. two bisexuals? probably. transgender and straight? maybe). LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV in the removal of link to the Historical pederastic couples article
This is a clear situation of overlapping articles with content that is obviously relevant to any inquiry into historical same-sex couples. One would think that the "See also" link would be welcomed by both editors and readers. DrBat has given no indication of his logic to deleting the connection between the two. On the other hand he has given plenty of evidence for his animosity against pederasty, which he is welcome to but not in this project. Haiduc 11:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- And this is coming from a user who posted on my talk page defending pederasty, saying that attacks on pederasty by mainstream queers is equivalent to attacks on queers by mainstream "straights", and are an attack by a majority against a minority. It'd be one thing if you were arguing that "it's not an endorsement of the subject. It is simply part of a tracking system for articles that fall within the scope of this project", as other users have said, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what your opinion on the subject is. --DrBat 21:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Children, let's please remember to play nice. This is not a personal dispute, it's an encyclopedia. As pederastic couples are same-sex and therefore LGBT, a link is appropriate. A link to list of couples is also appropriate. The ethical merit of pederasty as a cultural practice is not called into question here, because Wikipedia is not censored and we include See also links based on the fact that they're 1) relevant and 2) can't be placed within the article text. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
