Talk:Denholm Elliott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Denholm Elliott article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. LGBT Portal 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. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Christian or Jew

I understand that he was an athiest, but were his roots Jewish or Christian???

Christian, like most British. JackO'Lantern 07:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

nominally Christian, you mean - 70% Brits claim to be Christian, but only 55% profess any belief in a God. --Krsont 00:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual orientation

The article says he was "suspected of being gay, a matter which is has been neither proven nor disproven, he was most likely bisexual." Can we back this statement up? It seems a little vague. Jihg 17:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find a credible source for such a statement. Lacking a good source, the statement about sexuality should be removed in its entirety. If someone else wants it in, please cite your source(s). Vaoverland 18:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think you've prejudged the discussion here. What sources did you consult? Please leave it in until we have evidence that backs it up or refutes it. There are plenty of good assertions in WP without good sources. Jihg 20:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the whole LGBT labeling to begin with, especially when it's speculative or assumed when the person in question has never explicitly made it known. Unsourced assumptions should be removed (I don't care if WP contains them or not) especially when about someone's sexual orientation. I intend on deleting the statement and category unless there's compelling reason (aka a verifiable source) to keep it. Cburnett 21:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that his widow just settled a major libel suit [1] involving defamation last year is enough for WP to be reasonably prudent on this one. If there are sources for such a statement, then we can more resoably get into whether it should be in an article. Just my opinion. Vaoverland 21:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I removed the sentence until it can be sourced. Speculation of sexual orientation is unencyclopedic. At best, the sentence is choked full of weasel words and those should be avoided. Cburnett 21:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Requiring a special burden of proof for claims of sexuality is unencyclopedic. Its effectively censorship, though I'm sure this is not your intention. Why assume this claim is speculation, rather than well-researched and presented without its source? I can't tell the difference and I would say that you can't either. We should investigate it before deciding, exactly as we would act if we were questioning his date of birth. The Mail on Sunday libel suit was over the treatment of his daughter. The Daily Mail claimed he was bisexual [2] (anybody got access to the article?). Not conclusive, but there's something to look into. Jihg 08:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, buddy. There's nothing special, it's just burden of proof. If it was well-researched then you have many sources. There's no such thing as well-researched with no references. Cburnett 14:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes. There is a difference between having sources and citing them. A huge amount of information in WP is well-researched but presented without sources. Jihg 15:02, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Except you can't find a source for this, can you? If you can, then this discussion would have long ceased to continue. Cburnett 17:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I always understood he was gay. I think it was being said openly at the time of his death, which is how I got the idea. But even if it was, it could be totally wrong. Deb 11:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is "suspected of being gay" supposed to mean anyway? Being gay isn't a crime, at least not in the UK, where he lived. --Angr/_comhrá 22:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Elliott's homosexuality is well known and his marriages were out of convenience. That's why he was only with Virginia mCKenna for 6 months. His second wife knew but didn't care as long as she could spend his money. It's believed that his sexuality caused his daughter to commit suicide.

NOTE: The following statement concerning Mr. Elliott's sexuality is currently refuted in his Answers.com article. In that article, it is stated that his AIDS was caused by an infected blood transfusion. It makes no mention of his sexuality and I can only guess that the original author of this article editorialized as a result of the manner of his death (is it PC for me to say that one can make a logical jump from AIDS to homosexuality?). Someone needs to do proper research on this matter or else remove it entirely noting only the direct cause of his death and leave out any extraneous (and, might I add, unsubstantiated) details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlaak (talk • contribs)

No, it is a fact that Denholm Elliott was bisexual, his wife knew about it and did not care. The blood transfusion story has been thoroughly discredited, they tried to use the same theory to explain Rock Hudson's death.

The comment was added by an anon without sources, so has been removed. Tim! 20:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry all you homophobic "Indiana Jones" fans, but Denholm Elliott was gay and all of his co-stars were aware of that. Remember the little joke with fellow gay actor John Stratton in "The Cruel Sea"? This article says he contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion and that is wrong. Filmbug.com says: "Although gay, Elliott was married twice (the first time to the British actress, Virginia McKenna) and had children. He died of AIDS." His wife Susan Elliott's book "Denholm Elliott: Quest for Love" (1995) talks of his "bisexual encounters" and their "open marriage".

It seems like there are a few self-appointed censors who troll the "Gay/Lesbian" lists to remove all those without impeccable sourcing -- a much higher standard than that applied to most information, and particularly difficult to provide considering the laws against homosexual behaviour that prevailed until recently. You're not going to find a heterosexual tenured professor of history writing about whether or not Denholm Elliot was gay.--209.78.192.27 22:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to have AIDS without being homosexual!!!! Franz-kafka 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Denholm Elliott was.

That my be so, but this discussion assumes that because gay people get aids, ergo people with aids are gay. This is a false assumption. It is a bit like the feminist argument that since most rapists are male, most men are rapists. It is totally fatuous.Franz-kafka 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)