Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

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.
PEER This article is currently being peer reviewed.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Archives

Contents

[edit] deletion

I'm just wondering where the article listing straight people is. Seriously, is wikipedia an encyclopedia or a tabloid? --Tedivm 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A tabloid encyclopedia: the public gets what the public wants.
Nuttyskin 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So many straight people in the world. I happen to be bisexual and think it's a great idea to list famous people that are gay, lesbian, or bisexual as long as it is with their consent and said themselves. It's good to know that someone famous is/was like you to an extent. That's just my opinion. [Anonymous] 01:27, 6 August 2006 (East Coast US)

Mine too. It's an invaluable thing, like seeing yourself in a mirror for the first time.
I don't think this page needs merged with the List it is named after, it needs instead to have its name changed to Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and then to link to the List of that name. It might also help if this page linked the Bisexual writers page with the other bi pages, which don't really mesh very well just now.
Nuttyskin 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

January 2006 a WP:RM was initiated (see archive 4/5), result:

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Snoopy753-Do not move, I am of the opinion that bisexual people of been lumped together with gay people for so long that we don't have an itendity.

FYI, that discussion was about was a different move. -Will Beback 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what Snoopy753 means to be voting on? I cannot find any evidence of a current move proposal related to this page. Do you think it is a misunderstand of the merge proposal from bisexuals->GLB? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Snoopy753-What I am saying, as a bisexual, I have seen (and experienced) bisexuality being lumped together with gay people and gay issues. Although, the is some crossover, bisexuals have an independent history and culture that is unique. I feel that bisexuals should have the right on Wikipedia to continue that Uniqueness.

Please sign your posts, if you wouldn't mind. I still have no idea about what matter you might think you are voting on; whether you are bisexual and how you might feel about being lumped together with gay people is not subject of any WP administrative procedure I can imagine. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am new at this and I am still learning the system. Snoopy753 19:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested merge of List of bisexuals into this list

  • Oppose merge of List of bisexuals into this list - While there is overlap I do believe that there is an independent value to the List of bisexuals Doc 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what snoopy said. Don't move the list. I imagine the person comptemplating that is monosexual. -pingpong

We need a trisexual person to act as an impartial judge. Ruby 22:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, if such lists are going to be on here then bisexual persons warrant a standalone list. That said, the listing could stand improvement, especially sources. Evolauxia 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If this debate has now been settled, which I also Oppose, can we please remove the merge tag?Dev920 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose proposed merge of List of bisexuals and also suggest separate lists for those well-known people for each of the other sexual orientation minorities such as Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered or Asexual. Being a bisexual man, you might think I'd like a larger list of individuals to help others come to terms with such a misunderstood sexual orientation, however, I feel we bisexuals NEED an identity of our OWN, not lumped into the LGBT community to be quickly disposed of or grouped as homosexuals - we are NOT - not that there is anything wrong with that. TednAZ 07:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bi- and Trans- Cultures Distinct from Lesbian or Gay?

Just to keep the dialogue open on the subject of unique identity... We seem to have reached a point in queer history where (at least in the United States) we no longer huddle together in dark corners, struggling for survival. Queer communities have grown apart, as individuals assimilate into the American melting pot. I call us the "queer diaspora." This dispersion is evidenced by the closing of so many queer community centers and organizations in recent years. "Our" culture has shifted and we're re-defining our relationships with other queer people.

So, what do we have in common, other than being lumped into a group targeted for homophobic discrimination? Do we have a common culture? I noticed that Transgender people aren't on this list. Does gender identity factor into the identities of L,G or B people? I don't have the answers yet, but value the discussion... and hope it will help decide how/whether to merge or separate topics in the future.Deebki 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a mistake, I think, to try to talk about a queer or gay culture vs. a bisexual culture or even vs. a transgender culture. None of these are monolithic, and what we share in common is legalized discrimination against who we are and what we do.
Even more than for American Blacks, Jews and other historically oppressed people, what makes for commonality among GLBTQ?T folks is what I'll loosely call homophobia, much more than any shared beliefs or attributes. Until the majority culture has divested itself of discrimination based on sexual orientation, identity, etc., there is every reason to aggregate our concerns and identity into a single community making common cause for the rights enjoyed by the "straight" majority. Jliberty 20:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
This strikes me as a really strange debate, personally. It's true to say that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people each have a distinct community culture, and that those separate communities also have common elements which unite to form an LGBT community. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Bisexuals, for example, don't generally have their own dedicated neighbourhoods with bisexual bars and bisexual coffeeshops and bisexual community media — the organized bisexual community exists almost entirely within common LGBT space. Yes, it has some features that are unique to it, but it isn't a culture that exists entirely independently of LGBT space. Same goes for the other letters; each has its own unique features but none of them operate entirely outside of any shared connections. Bearcat 00:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

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

[edit] Listing people on sexual orientations? shouldn't this page be deleted?

I know this might surprise some of you, but making list of people according to political, religious, ethnic origins or sexual orientations may not be a good idea. I've seen, for example, that there is a Category:Gay writers, probably created or supported by LGTB people. But this category identifies gay writers to the "gay people", which maybe they are/were not willing to (remember Michel Foucault's opposition to such "identity politics", whether you agree with him or not). In the same way, before the war, many Jews didn't identify with the Jewish people, and didn't want to. Listing people may be considered a breach of privacy. In any cases, you never know what may happen in the future. Maybe those who support this page should remember that the police lists (with identity and photos) created before WWII were used during Vichy France during raids (such as the July 1942 Rafle du Vel'd'Hiv), as has Giorgio Agamben recalled. I'm not sure whether it is the role of Wikipedia of establishing such lists, such a centralization of information, which goes on with categorizing people who may or may not agree with this categorization, especially taking into account that this is very difficult to delete (that's why I'm not even bothering to lift an AfD request — I think the people who made this page should themselves think about it, and, if they are LGTB, wonder if this really the best way of following their interests). The state already carries its own lists of "dangerous people" to watch, it might not be a good idea making new lists in order to prepare some eventual lynchings. I don't know if there is a category of "Muslim writers", I hope not, but imagine what it could be to be simultaneously tagged: "Muslim (Shi'a) writer", "Gay writer", "Communist writer": one would be sure to be subjected both to Islamophobia, homophobia and anticommunism. For a relatively famous people, this can attract unwanted attention. A real thought on these issues should be carried on here. Perhaps someone knows where this general theme might be discussed on Wikipedia policies, than I would be grateful if he showed me the link. Lapaz 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

...So Wikipedia shouldn't cover information on noteworthy LGBT people, on the grounds that if a Gay Holocaust occurred at some indeterminate point in the future, Wikipedia could be used to facilitate the slaughtering of LGBT celebrities? ... Is this meant to be a joke, or what?
There doesn't need to be a "Gay Holocaust", there has already been a History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust which is so nicely separated from the main Holocaust article. Lapaz 04:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
""I don't know if there is a category of "Muslim writers", I hope not" - Category:Muslim writers, Category:Christian writers, Category:Feminist writers, Category:Writers by nationality, Category:BDSM writers, Category:Writers by language, etc. -Silence 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
and "Muslim writers" is in Category:Writers by audience? This mean that I can read them only if I'm Muslim? Lapaz 03:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Let us say that in Europe many considers it to be a breach of privacy. I've always noticed the distance Americans can have toward such concerns; in the same way that they don't always find it very bad taste making jokes about the Holocaust. But it is true that apart of some Japanese people, Operation COINTELPRO and, more recently, thousands of Muslim people, no one in the US has been targeted on ethnic/religious/political grounds. The USA are a democracy, and the world also, why would you be cautious? But, apart of these "paranoiac fears", would you consider that some people, dead or alive, may object to them be listed/categorized this way?Lapaz 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If a person has openly come out as L, G, B or T, then it's hardly an invasion of their privacy for Wikipedia to acknowledge their own public statement. The whole question of identity categorization has been debated a thousand times before on Wikipedia — you didn't actually think you were speaking some brilliant new insight that none of us had ever heard before, I hope — and the conclusion has been that it is permitted under tight guidelines which have been quite carefully hashed out at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. By the very act of requiring source confirmation, nobody is going to be listed here who isn't already publicly identified with the LGBT community, almost always by their own free choice. People who are added based on unverifiable rumours are immediately removed; people whose orientation isn't easily confirmable are immediately removed. So you can pretty much take your pretense to the moral high ground and...well, I don't really care what you do with it, as long as you get it the hell out of my face. Bearcat 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I was exactly looking for that page. Than I presume that if it is not precised in the article that the person has openly come out, that one shouldn't be included in such or such category?... Lapaz 06:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what the page says. -Smahoney 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The strongest argument for deletion I can see is that there's already Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people, making this list redundant. -- Scientizzle 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the list is still here because the category is only to be used for very specific sorts of clear cases, and there is more room in the list for slight variances, since an article's inclusion can be explained in a list and not in a category. But yeah, I think you're pretty much right. -Smahoney 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lists and categories don't serve the same purpose on Wikipedia, and are neither interchangeable nor redundant with each other. The list and the categorization policies both explicitly spell out that you can't simply substitute one for the other, because they're not the same thing. Bearcat 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that, while I understand those policies, I disagree with them. But whatever - its no big deal. -Smahoney 23:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much ditto for me. I'm not actually advocating deletion of this list. [If this ever came under AfD I'd probably go with a "weak keep" over a "weak delete" vote, with most of my scruples aimed at list/category redundancy and generalized concerns over verifiable additions to the list and categories due to the (unfortunately) sensitive nature of the topic.] In general, though, it seems there's pretty good control over the list contents... -- Scientizzle 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the best controls of all, I believe, is that there are a number of persons that patrol this list on a regular basis that have known some of the individuals personally and can spot problems Doc 01:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting statement, since it completely contradicts Wikipedia policies that personal knowledge shouldn't be used for editing purposes on Wikipedia. In other words, you are asking us to accept the "wise control" of some VIPs (let's call them like that :) on the contents of these lists & categories on basis of esoteric knowledge they possess but we don't. How are we laymen suppose to know that these Enlightened Wikipedians really are enlightened? Lapaz 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody asks you to accept anything. New addings regularly inspected by many (non VIP) Wikipedians, which allows to verify them using external references/resources. Without any "esoteric knowledge". Mag2k 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not "esoteric" to have known someone, nor is it "personal research" to add a fact from personal knowledge. The very references that are used in some articles have in many cases gained the information from interviews with some of the very persons that are also registerd editors on Wikipedia. Doc 16:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is that any editor can say they knew someone; it's impossible to prove or disprove the claim. Which is one of the reasons why Wikipedia explicitly states that its goal isn't truth, per se, but rather verifiability. To list a person here, we need to be able to point to sources to prove that a person's sexuality is a known fact, either because they freely came out of their own accord, or were publicly outed by the media, or because historical evidence favours the conclusion. I'm sure every gay person who uses Wikipedia can easily name a few dozen people who should be on the list (Anderson Cooper, anyone?) but can't be added because they haven't officially come out and it would therefore be original research to add them without a verifiable source. Bearcat 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Rictor Norton's My Dear Boy a reliable source?

Norton, Rictor (ed.) My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries. Leyland Publications, San Francisco. 1998 - ISBN 0943595711

Pro's
  • Author has Ph.D in Literature
  • Seems respected as a historian
  • as far as I can see the book is not "self-published"
  • as far as I can see neither written in the style of a "pamphlet" nor in "popular press" style
Con's
  • Book is a bit on the primary/secondary source border (primary source while essentially a collection of private letters; secondary source while the book provides introductions that places the authors and receivers of these letters in history);
  • Not all introductions pin-point the authors/receivers as "gay" (from a historical perspective): the quoted letters may be endearing and/or suggestive, but not necessarily a "proof" of homosexuality;
  • As far as I can see, the introductions to the letters don't aim at "defining" the concept of homosexuality in pre-modern times: these introductions rather are a guide to the characters that wrote and received the letters. I mean the book rather documents than that it proposes (or proves) theories about who is gay and who isn't.

So, although this is only based on the "previews" I read, and although it is probably a really great book, I'd be careful to use it as a "source" for the purposes of Wikipedia's GLB people list. But that's only my opinion. --Francis Schonken 07:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This book is one of these works which claims that any type of affection, of any kind, would count as evidence of a homosexual romance. While some of the material is probably accurate enough, other portions could serve as a parody of this type of "theorizing". This is not a reliable source.
Worse, the offending editor has been adding references from this book to numerous articles, including the biography articles of many persons. Take a look at his edit history. 205.188.116.136 10:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I resent being called the "offending editor" by an obvious sock-puppet. The word "gay" did not exist in the 4th century so it's going to be difficult to say "he calls himself gay!". Some of the persons that have been reverted have been known to be gay for centuries, this isn't *new*. It's only new to people who have no idea who these people are, and are gleaning all their data from a slightly-post-Victorian 1911 perspective. The question of sexuality of each person should be taken up on that person's talk page. I have a source which states it, you must have a source which contradicts it. The mere posting of "I don't believe your source", or "your source is an activist!" or "this is controversial!" is insufficient. Wjhonson 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be the last that needs to be said about this. The inclusion of people on this list has to be based on more than merely a letter in which they expressed some form (any form) of affection for someone of the same sex - this does not prove that the person was gay unless romantic or sexual feelings are clearly indicated. As ExRat pointed out, Norton's book would not be a valid source. 205.188.116.136 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
One more thing :) it's quite peculiar that Mr anonymous seems to be the main one with the problem here. I would suggest we revert any anon edits period. If someone is not bold enough to show their face, they shouldn't be an editor. Wjhonson 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. 205.188.116.136, please consider making an account or (if you have one) signing in before editing, as stated in Wikipedia:Etiquette. Fram 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list for people whose sexuality is debated? Wjhonson 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
My "issues" with Rictor Norton is that although he is indeed an historian with a Ph.D. in literature, he is a notable former member of the Gay Liberation Front and an activist. Also, FAR more importantly, not everyone he claims to be homosexual is perceived to be gay by other historians - and we had been quite clear on this matter before; If there is significant historical debate concerning an individual's sexuality, they can not be included. This still seems the most reasonable to me for accuracy in encyclopedia inclusions. We do want an accurate list, devoid of politics, agendas, and errors, right? After all, someone of some repute recently wrote a book claiming that Abraham Lincoln was gay...we simply can not list everyone who is/was stated to be gay based on one or two sources - that is original research and Wikipedia forbids it.
Our former criteria for inclusion (and I hope this still stands) is that an individual has to have openly proclaimed themselves to be gay/lesbian/bisexual OR that an overwhelming preponderance of reputable historians (with reliable sourcing) agree that the indiiduals were gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Without some sort of decent criteria, virtually ANYONE could be added to this list by someone with a "name" merely suggesting they were homosexual.
Also, I will keep reverting all unsourced, one-sourced, historically disputed entries as per WP:RS. ExRat 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a "debated" list at one point; it was deleted per AFD as being too prone to original research and speculation rather than verifiability. Which isn't to say that I agreed with that consensus, because documenting the existence of speculation in other sources is not the same thing as taking a POV stand on the accuracy of that speculation, but the consensus was what it was and we'd have to have a really good reason (i.e. far better than the usual "I think it's useful") to go against it now. Bearcat 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
ExRat insists on criteria which eliminate any possibility of including any historical persons. That's not acceptable. Deleting properly sourced citation, for vague propositions isn't acceptable. if you have a SOURCE which STATES that a person was not gay or whatever, put that in their article so it can be discussed. Simply erasing any discussion of it, is not acceptable. That is called scholarship. I don't really care if you think Norton was or is an activist. That is OR. I'm focusing on him as an RS and your opinion that he is not, is also OR. It's basically irrelevant to an encyclopaedia. Now if you can actually come up with a historian who discusses Paulinus' sexuality than be my guest. That what we're all about. Wjhonson 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, his criteria don't eliminate any possibility of including historical persons; there are plenty of such figures for whom the historical consensus as to their sexuality is clear and unambiguous and uncontroversial. As an analogy to modern figures, we don't include people in this list whose sexuality is subject to unconfirmed rumour; we list people who have come out of their own accord or been outed by reliable media sources. We have to apply a similar standard to historical figures: if it's known or widely accepted that a person had same-sex relationships, they can go on this list, and if it's controversial and/or an isolated assertion supported by only one known source, then they can't. Reading the Paulinus of Nola article, the quotes in question do not clearly support asserting that he was gay; although it's certainly possible to interpret them that way, it's far from clear enough to support his inclusion here. This is not a random list of "anybody who's ever been asserted to be gay by anybody whatsoever"; it's a list of "people who are known to be or have been gay". One person's interpretation of one letter quoted in one book is not a sufficient source, unless other historians have also supported the same interpretation. There's no inconsistency at all. Bearcat 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I reject the notion that one historian saying it means its unreliable. If you want to claim its unreliable the burden is on you, not me, to show that by citing another RS that says that Paulinus of Nola was not gay. Same for the other examples. Merely claiming opinion-based priority that "one assertion is not enough" is OR. If you want to dispute Ricter's statements you need to do so on the individual pages, have discussion, come to some conclusion *on the SOURCES* not on opinions about authors which are irrelevant. Two sources which disagree are one thing, but editors are not here to weigh statements based on personal predujice. Wjhonson 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the burden is on you to provide sufficient sources to confirm that Paulinus of Nola was definitively gay; your existing source proves only that one historian thinks he was, citing as his source a single letter that is far too ambiguous to make that claim indisputable. That, my friend, is original research; disputing the validity of a research source is not.
Note that I'm not saying he wasn't gay; I don't know whether he was or not. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't — the source in question only reveals that one person thinks he was, based on his own interpretation of a letter that's quite ambiguous and unclear. The rules of this list are that sources have to be clear, unambiguous and not disputed; a person cannot be on this list if even one of those criteria fails to be met. Bearcat 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous editors reverting my sourced and cited text from Paulinus' page will never win this debate. If this anonymous activity doesn't stop I will post an alert to Wikipedians against censorship. If you want to DISCUSS the text I've posted, then discuss it on the talk page of his article. These juvenile actions will never win the day. Wjhonson 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this has gone far enough. Several editors have repeatedly explained that a single author cannot be used as the basis for these additions - you need to have either concrete evidence or a broad consensus among reputable scholars, and if you want to add text from a letter to the Paulinus of Nola article then you need to balance it by citing more than merely one activist's "spin" on this letter. You are violating Wikipedia's guidelines, while attempting to shift the focus by accusing me (and presumably the others, if you really think I'm a "sock-puppet") of every allegation you can think of. This is not acceptable behavior, and it has not been a legitimate or reasonable debate. 205.188.116.136 16:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do, and you are wrong that there is any consensus. You are deliberately vandalizing pages with sourced and cited scholarly debates for your own POV. You are the one violating Wiki guidelines. And I repeat sign in, hiding under an IP won't win this battle. I have cited my sources, you refuse to cite yours. In that battle I win, not you. There is no need for *me* to cite two, three, or fifteen sources. However there *is* a need for you to cite ANY source in order to revert my well-sourced, and cited, scholarly, previously published information. If you want a debate, let's debate. Your juvenile reverting for ridiculous reasons won't stand. Wjhonson 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as an administrator, you're the one who's violating Wikipedia policy here, not 205. I would encourage 205 to register a username if possible, but 205 isn't violating any rules here. If you want a debate, so be it; I've posted to RFC for outside input. Bearcat 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

"... it's all about the Wikipedia:Verifiability" [3]

However...

  • The old consensus rules governing the GLB people list are not OK with Wikipedia:Verifiability in that these rules for the GLB people list accept, even give preference to, primary or self-published sources in this list, that is outside the Wikipedia pages on the persons that produced these sources. In less legalese: Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't accept that a famous person who does his coming out on his personal website is cited as a source on the GLB people list. How this came to be, I don't know. I tried to change that, unsuccesfully. But anyhow *currently* that old rule for the GLB people list is not OK with Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  • Stated in the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources the secondary source parts of My Dear Boy (that is the parts where Rictor gives his interpretation) are the least problematic parts to be used as a source in Wikipedia. And that is about the opposite of what I read in many comments above.

And please, all of you, try to find consensus here first, without name-calling, instead of continuing to revert over medieval clergymen and the like: it's not as if Wikipedia is going to be sued by the Catholic Church for libel when such person is listed a few days too long based on a reliable source, nor as if we're missing an essential piece of knowledge about that Church if that person is missing from the list a few days longer. And finding consensus shouldn't take us more than a few days. That is, if we can handle this in the interest of Wikipedia's quality and not our own. --Francis Schonken 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned in RfC section of Wikipedia:LGBT notice board too --Francis Schonken 20:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources --Francis Schonken 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I confess that I am not familiar with Rictor Norton's work nor have I read the entire discussion. However, I think it's worth noting that WP:V is about the verifiability of a statement and not about the truth of a statement. As I understand it, Rictor Norton's work is verifiable evidence that Rictor Norton THINKS individuals x, y and z are LGB. It is not proof that x,y, and z ARE LGB. Any presentation of information based on Rictor Norton's book MUST make this distinction.
Same goes for any other figure in history.
Even if hundreds or thousands of people in the LGB community or in literary circles or in the entertainment industry think X is LGB, only a self-identification as such is proof positive. Everything else is just speculation and should be presented as such.
Of course, incontrovertible evidence of a long-running homosexual relationship is probably pretty close to proof positive also.
--Richard 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, and that's the way I'd go about it (except that I wouldn't use "... is proof positive" like you did).
But it appears impossible to get that common sense in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Go read the policy if you think I'm making this up. --Francis Schonken 21:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what WP:V has to say about using self-published websites...
Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

* It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
* It is not contentious;
* It is not unduly self-serving;
* It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
Thus, if we are sure that X's personal website has been authorized by X and X self-identifies on that website as LGB, then we can fairly safely say "X is LGB". However, if Y says on a website "X is LGB", we need to be really confident that the website is a reliable source. Even then, all we know is that "Y says that X is LGB".
--Richard 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves" is another quote from the same policy page.
All self-published sources are considered sources of dubious relibility (see above in the part you quoted: "self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability")
So, self-published sources are always considered as sources of dubious reliability, and can not be used outside the article about that self-published source.
That's current Wikipedia:Verifiability. The writing of that policy is maybe a bit messy and confusing, but that's what it says currently. I don't agree with it, I would at least like to see the writing of that policy a bit tidied up. But the fact is: I can't change it. --Francis Schonken 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


If the standard for inclusion on this list as of now is merely that someone of "merit" has speculated, insinuated, stated that a well-known individual was homosexual/bisexual then I propose we include the following individuals (I can find "reliable" sources quite easily):

I am interested to know what the argument against these inclusions would be now since I can quite easily find a source claiming nearly anyone notable is or was gay? There has to be some sort of credible criteria, otherwise nearly anyone can be added by the mere insinuation of homosexuality. I want no part of compiling names for this list if anyone who wishes to add an individual for their own opinion or agenda can add simply by quoting a "reputable" source from anywhere online or any published book. I see even now my deleting of Hans Christian Andersen is being reverted because "some historians speculate" that he was gay . . . ummm . . . is this a list of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual people, or a list of "suspected and debated homosexuals"? ExRat 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Nope; yes, its WP:V, but it is also an opinion piece, and espouses views which are not necessarily widely held or agreed to. You can't cherry-pick authors in that way.Bridesmill 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here as a result of the RFC. I'm not very familiar with this area but my feeling is that, since you can't have two articles: one of "confirmed" vs. another of "probable or likely" LGB individuals, you might consider having a notation system (a "check" for confirmed by self-proclamation, a "question mark" for unconfirmed sexuality) to indicate the reliability of the designation. Even a "question mark" would need a source. Original research would still be prohibited.
Thus, people named by Rictor Norton could be assigned a "question mark" as could anybody else whose sexuality is debated.
"Check marks" would generally be assigned to self-proclaimed LGB individuals. There would be some difficulty in determining what to do about those individuals who did not self-proclaim as LGB but who are generally accepted/assumed as LGB.
IMPORTANT: "Question marks" could only be assigned to deceased individuals on the grounds that labeling someone as "LGB" who has not self-proclaimed as such could be considered libellous.
ALSO: "Question marks" need to be backed up by evidence. This could be difficult. If Rictor Norton identifies X as LGB, how do you come up with a source that says "X is NOT LGB"?
Since I am not very knowledgeable in this area, I will leave it to the rest of you to figure out the nuances. (assuming you like my basic idea)
--Richard 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: While it's not the best example of an edit-war-free article (I responded to an RfC there as well), List of groups referred to as cults places sources next to the group names in green letters (I'm not quite sure I understand the template they use for that). In this case, openly gay folk could just have "open" next to the names. -- SB Johnny 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment. Especially in the light that although gay sex was widespread in the middle ages, they had no proper connotation for proclaiming themselves "open". To try to fit those circle into square holes is anachronistic and historical revisionism. I would support the addition of such monikers as "open" and "self-proclaimed" and so on, and others as "speculated" meaning by a academician not a guy-on-the-street as ExRat seems to be pushing. No one has ever said that a tabloid expose of "Elizabeth Taylor is Gay" would make the cut. Wjhonson 18:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This list needs to be organized much better than it is. ABC is fine, but's only the minimum, since you seem to have the info referring to what makes this person notable, i would suggest using that as a good way to break up the list even better. wiki guide for stand-alone lists -Zappernapper 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is an RfC? Assuming not every player in RFC is gay, it must have some other meaning. Anyone??
RfC is "Request for Comment". You can post such a request somewhere else, when two or more editors appear to be edit-warring with no resolution in sight. An RfC brings other editors in to look over the situation and make recommendations for how to resolve it. Wjhonson 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tentative conclusion

Trying to summarize the previous discussions: I don't think there's a fundamental problem with Rictor Norton's book in the sense of wikipedia:reliable sources. The problem for using Rictor Norton's book as a source in this list lies elsewhere: for those entries in the list where Rictor Norton is the *only* source, this can be considered as a "tiny minority view", in the WP:NPOV#Undue weight sense:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So, for entries like Paulinus of Nola I suppose it would be a good idea to request additional reliable sources in order to show that this is a broadly accepted view. If such sources aren't available, inclusion in the list can be rejected while too doubtful.

I don't see a problem to use the Rictor Norton book in a "Further reading"-like section in the Paulinus of Nola article: after all Norton presents a translation of some of this person's work, and I don't see why that couldn't be mentioned in that article. --Francis Schonken 09:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And isn't stating this it's a "tiny minority view" your WP:OR or are you citing a source for that? For all you know, every academic expert on Paulinus believe what Rictor stated don't they? It seems that saying by saying "tiny minority" you're trying to push a particular WP:POV doesn't it? Wjhonson 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
(copying this here from RS talk)
The problem is that "no other source known" is your opinion. Based on nothing. That is WP:OR. Now if you can cite a source which states that then fine. Once a source has been found, to assume that its' minority is WP:OR. You need a source which states it's minority. And that source has to show a higher [[WP:RS] then the original. Otherwise all you get is two dueling sources, neither one can be concluded to be correct, but vice versa as well. In this case credible researchers cite both sources and note that there is a conflict. However, we should then have a category "People whose sexuality is in conflict" otherwise we're really doing a great disservice to everybody by presenting the impression of censorship, aren't we? Wjhonson 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This last argument is not very convincing. Please allow me to clarify the terms of this debate. A minority view, by definition, is one held by a minority of people. There is no normative or moral value being placed on the word "minority", it is a strictly descriptive term. Agreed? Now, the disputed source is controversial because of its minority view status. To the extent that Norton is the only known person making a particular claim, Norton is espousing a minority view, and it should be treated as a minority view until further evidence comes to light. Wjhonson, I would also like to point out that your logic in the above post could be used to argue against you: Suppose you found sources supporting your view that Norton does not hold a 'minority view' - in fact, you found two other authors who support his claims independently. Using the logic in your last post, I could (wrongly) argue that you've conducted original research in searching for and finding these corroborating sources, and that the information should not be included in the article. And that would be bad, right? So then it's a pretty good thing that WP:OR really only applies to the addition of content, not to the process of finding (or not being able to find) sources. Let's try not to bend wikipedia's policies. BFD1 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To say that Norton is the *only* one espousing a certain view is WP:OR. Do you have a source for that statement? In some cases, I can assure you, that there is *no* reputable scholar who does not agree that James I was gay (at least for part of his life). Not one reputable scholar. So where is this minority view? Wjhonson 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
And no, finding a source is not WP:OR. Making statements out of your own head that "Norton has a minority view" is WP:OR. Finding Professor John Brown in Historia Vol 43, p 9 states that "Norton has a minority view"" is NOT WP:OR. My objection is that editors are making off-handed comments that have no backing. We are not originators of debate, we are the editors who *post* the debate of *others*. That is what the articles are supposed to be, and on these articles pages, too often they are the original ideas of the editors here. That's a problem. Wjhonson 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you are still confused about the meaning and application of WP:OR. This debate would be resolved if you could cite these other reputable sources who showed that James I was gay. BFD1 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confused about what WP:OR is. OR is not doing research. OR is *creating* new facts. Finding a fact in an encyclopaedia is not OR. Can we agree on this point? Wjhonson 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't read this whole discussion (too long!) but I've read bits and pieces of it.

I agree that "OR is creating new facts". It is also stating a fact or opinion without supporting evidence (i.e. asking us to believe the assertion on your say-so rather than that of a reliable source). If the assertion is something that "everybody knows" but for which no there is no reliable source, it is vulnerable to the charge of being OR. Sorry, but them's the rules.

I think we should stop flinging around the charge of OR in this discussion. You have one reliable source (Rictor Norton) that says X is/was gay. IMO, that's enough to include persons A,B and C on this list. If including person A on the list is disputed despite Norton's assertion, then it is up to the disputant to provide a source that disputes Norton's characterization of A as gay. All it takes is one source. It's not critical to determine whether Norton's view is the majority view or the minority view. All you need is one reliable source that says Norton was wrong. Then you can put both views in the list (A's sexuality is debated - Norton says gay, Other reliable source says not)

Now, you might also look for evidence that Norton's view was a minority view. But that's a second-order issue.

I assert that you cannot characterize Norton's view as "minority" or "majority" without another reliable source supporting that characterization.

Maybe you need a vote on what the rules are for putting someone on the list. Is it sufficient to have one single reliable source or does it require more than that? User:ExRat asserted earlier that he/she could find a reliable source arguing that the following were gay:

Assuming that User:ExRat really can find such sources, should we include the above in the list? If not, why not?

--Richard 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was bein' snarky. I don't really wish to add them - I was trying to make a point that nearly anyone could be added to this list based on the criteria some people are/were using to add individuals. ExRat 03:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There is apparently some evidence to suggest Abraham Lincoln was friends with Martha and Arthur.
I also daresay at least 75% of every Hollywood actor, too.
Nuttyskin 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
For a currently living person, the only acceptable source is the person's own statement; for a deceased person (who obviously can't make a public statement of their sexuality), the only acceptable source is a reasonably broad consensus of scholars. One scholar simply doesn't cut it, especially when that scholar's primary source is ambiguous and unclear in its actual meaning. It is not original research to say that one single solitary source isn't good enough — as I've said before, this is not a list of "anybody who's ever been speculated to be gay by any source whatsoever"; it's a list of "people whose homosexuality is/was an incontrovertibly known fact". Paulinus simply does not meet the latter criterion. Bearcat 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
But for person X, whether or not there is "broad consensus of scholars" is not in evidence. You want to revert based on your "belief" without any support that there isn't. I have never stated, nor do I state, that Norton is the only one who supports this view. He is a source. You have no source for saying that X is not "widely believe by scholars" to have been gay. Therefore reverting is WP:OR based on your unfounded assertion that X being gay is not "widely believed by scholars". Wjhonson 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No. The onus is on you to provide sufficient sources to support his inclusion here; one ambiguous source is not enough unless you can prove that other sources do express the same opinion. It is not anybody else's responsibility to find a source that says he wasn't gay — for one thing, it's impossible to prove a negative, and for two, "so-and-so wasn't gay" isn't the kind of thing historical sources are generally going to go out of their way to say in the first place. Bearcat 23:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts as well. If an individual is going to add names to this list it is their responsibility to provide the necessary sources to show that they should indeed be added. It is not everyone else's responsibilty to prove them wrong. Obviously my list of "possible inclusions" was slighty in jest, but I was trying to make the point that nearly anyone (by some people's assertions) could be included simply becasue some person stated somewhere that they are/were/were possibly gay . . . and that indeed would make for a very long, inaccurate and chaotic list. I don't see how it is not a good idea to have some sort of good concise criteria for inclusions - and I think Bearcat has stated it well. I for one am in agreement: an individual must have publicly stated that he or she was gay or that an overwhelming (sourced) majority of scholars agree that the individual was. We can not nilly-willy go deciding on our own (Original Research) who was and was not gay. ExRat 03:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Again you're attempting to mischaracterize. We are not talking about "some person said so-and-so was gay". We are talking about WP:RS, who are WP:V and scholarly, with credentials to back them up, said it. That's quite a different matter entirely. An individual cannot state they are 'gay' when 'gay' did not exist in their time period. Can you try to address that at all? Wjhonson 16:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That's already been addressed more than once: for dead people, a consensus of scholars is sufficient. Not one scholar; a consensus of scholars. Bearcat 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And you revert, not because a "consensus" of scholars says they *are* or *aren't*. You revert merely based on your unfounded claim, assertion, or belief that that is the case. You have failed to cite any source whatsoever. That is WP:OR. Wjhonson 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It most certainly is not original research; the rules require that you provide sufficient sources to support that the claim is actually true. You are the one perpetrating original research here, not anybody else. Bearcat 23:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your opinion that a source is not reliable is OR. That opinion is based out of your own head, that is what Original Research is. You are creating the impression that a particular published PhD is not reliable. Your creating of this "fact" is original research. If you can post a reliable source which itself states that another source is unreliable that would not be original research. You've been told this many times already. Your opinion has no place on wikipedia. Wjhonson 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Bearcat - we already established a long time ago to ensure a reliable listing of individuals that more than one source (a consnsus of scholars) should be used whenever possible for inclusion of dead historical figures. Otherwise we will have a most unruly, unreliable listing of nearly anyone of public note. I am sure anyone can find a "reliable" source claiming nearly anyone is gay, lesbian, or bisexual. As far as reverting based on our "POV" or "unfounded claims" or "opinions" - no, we revert because you often cite some obscure source that generally is debabtable by many historians. The criteria was: an individual must have stated openly that they were gay, lesbian, or bisexual or that there is a historical consensus that they were - not that some lone PhD stated, hinted at, or insinuated somewhere that they were. We all want an accurate list devoid of POV or agendas, correct? So, please explain to me what is wrong withthis criteria? I do not understand this. Is it that you feel certain people will not be included based on this? If this is the case, then possibly they shouldn't be included because there is not sufficient data to prove they were gay, lesbian or bisexual. This is supposed to be an accurate list of known gays and lesbians, not debated ones. ExRat 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Undent. But the fact that the sexuality of "x" is "debated" is itself a "fact" that needs a citation. So far, that citation is sorely lacking. The mere statement by another editor that "x's sexuality is debated" is itself WP:OR without a source. Wjhonson 00:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, i saw this on RfC and didn't realize how heated things had become. Wjhonson and Bearcat, I hope the past few day have let you calm down... XD IMO the idea of requiring strict self-admission for living persons is debilitating b/c there are several increasing instances where it will be hard for someone to nail down an article that so-and-so specifically said they're gay. it may be better to allow leniency in the case of say an interview where the article/cast refers to them as gay but it's not like the question, "are you gay?" is ever asked. Another extension should be for biographies written of people who are still alive but out of the limelight. An interesting question is raisd though then in the case of certain people who relate in auto-biographies that they've had homosexual experiences but always maintained a straight orientation... where do they fit in? All deceased persons (unless explicitly stated in a pre-mortem self-admission) should be considered debatable because we can never know if they themselves would have identified as such. Quite personally i think this list is unmaintable as this sort of classification too fluid, and for all the technicalities involved. With disagreements over what lgb even is how can we even start to list people according to it?
To Wjhonson - when writing a research paper it is always recommended to look at your source's sources. Perhaps rather than relying on Norton (or whoever) we should find out where he obtained this data and use that as the reference, good historians (like he is reputed to be) always leave footnotes XD (stupid colon making paragraphs and disrupting me from non-squinty smiling) This is merely a suggestion in order to try and appease everyone, but like i said, i don't like the idea of this list and if it were AfD I'd be tempted towards delete on grounds of WP:LC (unmaintanable), and too broad. if these issues somehow get ironed out, the list is further broken down into something more manageable, and someone can explain how we can group people based on something people all over the world have different perceptions of... i think this would become a much more worthwhile list and a great addition to wiki. Zappernapper 09:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And another newcomer chimes in. Personally, it seems to me that when dealing with historical personages, we should follow the stated wikipedia guidelines regarding consensus of experts. The simple citation of a source within a book which could be easily seen as advancing its own perspective does not meet that criterion. I also would tend to agree that, if this data were being put in as a separate article, this one source would not in and of itself necessarily qualify as being sufficient for the inclusion of such an article. We also have to acknowledge that there could well be individuals who have made such allegations in the past for less-than-honorable reasons (political hackwork, selling tabloid newspapers, etc.), who if cited as sources would not themselves qualify as good sources. However, I would agree that, if the list could be broken down into groups along the lines of "known willing active homosexuals", and all the variations thereon (known/suspected, willing/unwilling), much of that might be useful. I would question the significance of "victims of homosexual rape" if such an article or grouping were to ever be made, given the difficulty in verifying the truth and importance of same in several cases, but would have no real objections to the others. Badbilltucker 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Bill I absolutely agree that we should use "consensus of experts" I would add "modern experts" since modern, critical, re-analysis, can correct errors of the past, for example on Walt Whitman. You're also correct that we should cite WP:RS which would exclude tabloids. And you're further correct that a victim of rape would not qualify. The core-issue here however is whether an editor opinion that a citation is not consensus is a valid objection. My argument is that such editor should cite a reliable source for that position. As editors we should not be trying to advance our own point-of-view, but we should allow the sources themselves to do battle without our own feelings coming into play. Wjhonson 16:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Having looked over the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, it seems to me that the questions here are (1) is the source itself reliable, or is there a potential conflict of interest, and (2) does the proximate source (the book in question) cite other reliable sources for its own conclusions? There is a very serious danger in trying to classify people who are both dead and from different eras according to the cultural norms of our day, and it seems to me that someone who might "look like" they belong to a specific group might not in fact have been seen as such in their own time, and that such judgements might qualify as speculation on the part of the writer. The Sally Hemmings case comes to mind here of a modern view of a historical figure which was not held at the time, was briefly a period of major discussion, and is, now, counterindicated by the subsequent evidence which has arisen. It does seem to me, having not read the book but simply the comments here, that the writer and/or the book itself are not universally regarded as reliable, and in that case citation of the writer's sources or other supporting documents would be welcomed. Any names mentioned by the author in the book which are not agreed upon by the other reliable sources on the individual where the author does not cite clear and specific other evidence to verify his conclusions should not be included. Also, again, I think a breakdown according to whether it is known or alleged, willing or unwilling, and, yes, by frequency would probably be called for. A very well known science fiction writer has said in an interview that he engaged in one act of "experimental" homosexual contact as a teenager. However, having read biographies and autobiographies of the man himself, there is no evidence to indicate that that single act of homosexual contact should qualify him as a homosexual, as all the other evidence would seem to contradict it. Similarly, we would not say that anyone who has ever been drunk once would qualify as an alcoholic. I am drawing no comparisons between homosexual behavior and alcoholism by saying that, however. Lastly, it seems to me, as an "outsider" to this discussion, that there is a very serious possibility that we may be ourselves "catching the wave" of a cultural trend which may (or may not) collapse in the future. On the basis of the rambling and semi-incoherent comments above, I would conclude that the best way to address this situation would be to (1) defer inclusion in the list of any individuals who are mentioned in the source who are not known to qualify for inclusion on the basis of other reliable sources or whose inclusion is not justified by clear and convincing new evidence mentioned in the book itself, and, (2), break down the names into smaller groups based on degree of certainty, willingness, and frequency. Such breakdowns of list are rather common, supported by wikipedia guidelines, and provide more information than a simple list alone does. If there is a number of people who wind up being in the "unknown" category, creating a separate group of people who are assumed by some to have been GLBT but who cannot be proven to be such would also be I think acceptable to all sides, provides the rules for living people are followed. Man, I take a long time to get to the point, don't I? Sorry about that. Badbilltucker 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And does it occur to you that that's an awful lot of speculation about a source, by people who themselves have not read that source? And should speculation by a source, by people unfamiliar with that source, be the basis for decisions in wikipedia now? Seems awfullly tenuous to me. I, however, have read, and have this source, and in my opinion it is very thorough and meticulous in its research, and does include its sources and acknowledgements. The knee-jerk reactions of a few editors unfamiliar with the material doesn't impress me as scholarship. Wjhonson 00:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're really wedded to the idea that challenging the authority of a source somehow constitutes original research. Well, it doesn't. If it did, anybody could literally post anything they wanted on Wikipedia, on the grounds that any disagreement constituted original research. That's not the way it works; the only person creating new facts in this debate is Rictor Norton himself. The list has been very specific from day one; for a person who isn't alive any longer to voluntarily come out, the only acceptable basis for adding a person to this list becomes a consensus of scholarly opinion. Not one source. A consensus. So if you want Paulinus on the list, the onus is on you to show us that a consensus exists. Bearcat 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Based on the definition of this list and the debate on this page, I agree with the editors who consider Paulinus insufficiently documented for inclusion. One source does not qualify as a consensus. Durova 18:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for gay photographer

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

[edit] Converting to tables.

I think we need to move these lists into tables. I think Name, Dates, Nationality, Notability and Reference as columns would be best. What does everyone else think? Dev920 (Tory?) 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Par example:

Name Dates Nationality Profession Notes Reference
Alan Cumming (1965-) Scottish Actor Bisexual [1]

Dev920 (Tory?) 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall I assume then that everyone approves of this? Dev920 (Tory?) 15:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then. Conversion begins as soon as I have time. I will start with A, and work my way down the list. Other editors' help would be appreciated. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 22:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template change for tables?

It appears the grid lines were mysteriously removed from the tables today. I admit it looks cleaner and takes up less space, but it makes it a little harder on the eyes to match references with names. Comments? --67.188.0.96 09:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked and they seem fine. Can you provide diffs of this happening? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The gridlines weren't there on the 24th, but now they're back again. Go figure. --67.188.0.96 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_gay%2C_lesbian_or_bisexual_people_7ee2.html"