Talk:Dirk Bogarde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dirk Bogarde article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Warning Edits from Banned Users: SEE: Wikipedia:Banning policy > Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing.
IP4240207xx 19:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Film career

I think it'd be better if there was more information about the story or reception of each film rather than just listing actors and directors. -- SteveCrook 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I have done that in the past but the efforts have been shot down. The standard for Wikipedia seems to be info regarding a film should be on a WP page for the film itself. Same with biographical info on an actor should be on a WP page for the actor and not on a film page. In the scheme of keeping conformity that makes sense. Philbertgray 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gay actors?

Should he be in this category? I suspect we all have our opiinions about his sexuality, but unless we can substantiate this, it surely isn't correct to categorise him thus. DavidFarmbrough 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He lived for decades with another man, in both England and France--if his partner Forwood had been a woman, of course people would presume they were domestic partners, and there's certainly no reason to do otherwise here.Pilch62 03:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because two people live together you can't assume they're having any sort of sexual relationship. And Dirk most definitely never "came out" -- SteveCrook 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it’s a well established fact by now.
  • This says that he revealed his relationship with Forwood.
  • This says: Most significant of all was the Arena documentary televised in 2001, The Private Dirk Bogarde. Supported by the Bogarde family and by friends, this programme confirmed the importance of the relationship that many people regarded as akin to a good marriage and it was open about the homosexuality that Dirk had always denied. Or had he? He himself, talking in 1995, had stressed the difference between evasion and lying, and he clearly saw his autobiographical works as illustrating the former and not the latter.
  • The point is that whether he denied it or confirmed it, certainly his family appears to have accepted he was gay.
  • The Times obituary [1] refers to Forwood as “his partner and manager” (which makes a distinction between a business partner and another kind of partner). -- JackofOz 06:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's well established, everybody assumes that it was the case. But it's not a fact because neither Bogarde or Forwood ever confirmed it - and nobody caught them in the act -- SteveCrook 10:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not about being "caught in the act". And since he's dead, does this mean we'll never know? Evidence is evidence. -- JackofOz 02:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say that we'll never know for definite, not with any form of citable evidence. Neither of them ever confirmed it -- SteveCrook 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is not to debate amongst ourselves in order to confirm that he either was or was not gay. The point is that Wikipedia reports what has been published by others. If it was good enough for the Times to refer to Forwood as his "partner", for his family to contribute to a documentary about Bogarde in which his sexuality was confirmed, and for many other sites where this information is available, we can - and should - report this information objectively. Otherwise, we'd be undermining the whole basis of Wikipedia by introducing our own personal biases. One editor who, for whatever reason, refuses to believe something or other until it's proven to be a "fact" should not have a right of veto over the contents of any Wikipedia article. The reverse side of the "no original research" coin is refusing, for the wrong reasons, to report things that have been published. The "fact" argument will never be solved once a person's dead, but that hasn't stopped us saying quite a lot about Tchaikovsky's sexuality, for example. History is not necessarily what actually happened (we all know that the history of warfare is written by the victors, for example) - it's what's on the published record as having happened. And there's also a difference between what actually happened and a "fact". A fact is something that is generally believed to be true - yet we all know of instances where the supposed facts later turned out not to be so. They were considered true at an earlier time, and that made them "facts" until they were later shown not to reflect actuality. That Bogarde was gay and had a very long-term same-sex relationship are things that are today generally regarded as true, and much has been written about them. That very adequately meets all the criteria we need to report these things in our articles. It's not whether it's a fact or not - that is a spurious argument. -- JackofOz 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So include mention that it has been reported in those places if you feel that strongly about it. I have no problem with that although it should be regarded as hearsay not as fact. In his lifetime Bogarde was frequently asked if he was gay, long after it ceased to be illegal and would have been acceptable to his fans, and he always denied it or evaded the question. Wikipedia's editing policies say that articles should Include only verifiable information -- SteveCrook 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd better change the Noel Coward article, then. It says explicitly that he never acknowledged his sexuality, but the fact of it transcends his denials. It's verified. Same for Dirk Bogarde. -- JackofOz 08:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is about Dirk Bogarde. But I think that if it was put to the vote amongst the general public (at any time) then nobody would be surprised that Noel was gay. Dirk had been married and was "The Matinee Idol of the Odeon" for some time as a romantic lead. As I said before, put it in this article that it is generally assumed nowadays that Dirk was gay. I have no trouble with that. It just shouldn't be recorded as fact -- SteveCrook —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You do realize, of course, that using your standard, one could never say that anyone was the child of anyone else: it could only be "assumed" because that person was raised by his alleged parents, and accepted as their biological child. But it shouldn't be recorded as fact unless we have DNA evidence, since who knows who mom might've been diddling in the off hours? Your extraordinary reluctance to admit what is clearly accepted as FACT by even Sir Dirk's own family is saying more and more about you, and less and less about the topic at hand. Pilch62 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
And this, from someone that claims to have a Doctor of Jursiprudence degree? Would it be accepted in a court of law that Dirk was gay? Not that that is the point here -- SteveCrook 14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not the point here, and one wonders why you waste the space to raise it. Especially since you choose to avoid entirely the point that I make about your ridiculously high standard of proof in this one area. So far, you've convinced no one that this article shouldn't say Sir Dirk was gay, and convinced me, at least, that you have issues with accepting that he was. Which should remain your problem, not the article's. And by the way, Sir Dirk never married, yet you say above that he did--did you even read the article?? Pilch62 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

<Comment by banned user deleted>

You're right, he wasn't ever married, that's the trouble with adding things in a rush. But BIGOT? That's a bit strong? I keep on saying, everyone assumed he was gay, as I assume as well, and of course I have no trouble with that. I was just going by the Wikipedia editing policies which say that articles should Include only verifiable information. Where is it written or recorded (in a citable way) that he was very open about it with the friends you mention? -- SteveCrook 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". -- JackofOz 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked with the lady that runs the Sir Dirk Bogarde newsgroup who also helped the family set up the Dirk Bogarde website and is in regular communication with the family and with John Coldstream, the author of the autobiography. She agrees and says No, Dirk never intentionally outed himself and certainly worked hard to cover any tracks to prevent detection, one of the reasons why he and Tony could live together without scandal. John Coldstream, who found out more than anyone, refused to take the final step and say Dirk could be identified as gay. Yet, there are the letters he wrote to an early 'friend' that were returned to him and which are still kept in private hands. But they haven't been made public yet. There are the home movies of Dirk and Tony Forwood cavorting at the beach with male friends shown in the Arena doc, but we have touch football here and other male bonding activities, so that won't wash as 'evidence.' What might tip it are any letters John includes in his forthcoming collected letters. But until and unless they say something significant about this, there is no evidence -- SteveCrook 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's not about evidence. The point I made above seems to have fallen on deaf ears. We don't get to decide whether Bogarde was or wasn't gay. We get to report what others have written about him in reputable publications, whether what they have written turns out to be objectively true or not. See the quote after the previous paragraph. -- JackofOz 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and I don't see any verifiable citations yet -- SteveCrook 12:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Here are four of them, and I've extracted the relevant bits:

Bogarde always publicly denied he was a homosexual, though later in life he did confess that he and his manager, Anthony Forwood, had a long-term relationship. When Bogarde met him in 1939, Forwood was a theatrical manager, who eventually married and divorced Glynis Johns. Forwood became Bogarde's friend and subsequently his life partner, and the two moved to France together in 1968. They bought a 15th-century farmhouse near Grasse in Provence in the early 1970s, which they restored. Bogarde and Forwood lived in the house until 1983, when they returned to London so that Forwood could be treated for cancer, from which he eventually died in 1988. Bogarde nursed him in the last few months of his life. After Forwood died, Bogarde was left rudderless and he became more reclusive, eventually retiring from films after Daddy Nostalgie (1990).
Mark Rowe and Jeremy Kay, in their obituary-cum-appreciation of Bogarde, "Two brilliant lives - on film and in print," published in "The Independent" on May, 9, 1999, wrote, "Although he documented with frankness his early sexual encounters with girls and later his adoring love for Kay Kendall and Judy Garland, he never wrote about his longest and closest relationship - with his friend and manager for more than 50 years, Tony Forwood. Sir Dirk said the clues to his private life were in his books. 'If you've got your wits about you, you will know who I am'." The British documentary _Private Dirk Bogarde, The (2001) (TV)_ made with the permission of his family, stressed the fact that he and Forwood were committed lifelong partners.
In her eulogy for Sir Dirk Bogarde, Glenda Jackson called him Britain's "first home-grown film star." Often dubbed "the British Rock Hudson"--both for his matinee-idol good looks during the 1950s and his discreet homosexuality--his film career spanned five decades and seventy films …. In the mid-1960s, Bogarde moved to Provence in the South of France, where he lived with his manager and long-time companion, Tony Forwood. …. For most of his life, Bogarde acknowledged his homosexuality only tacitly, although, as his obituary in The Independent notes, "the public understood he was essentially gay."
Bogarde was homosexual in a low-key way that surfaced only in his later career and was seldom evident, even to close friends. He had discovered his nature early in life when he was picked up in a fleapit cinema by a man who claimed to know exactly how mummies were bandaged. Taking Dirk home with him, the stranger demonstrated the arcane skills of the Ancient Egyptians on the nude and excited boy. Such misadventures in bondage later assumed more socially acceptable shape in the formal life he led on the secluded country estates he bought and sold, one after the other, thus avoiding the swingeing tax then levied on all other capital gains.
Gareth Van den Bogaerde breaks his family's 40-year silence to reveal an intimate picture of his film star brother. Jan Moir reports
In a hotel in the New Forest, teacups rattle in the lounge as a soft, summer rain falls on the lawn outside. A mobile phone rings. Someone slips a few biscuits to a yapping dog. It is not the best place in the world to conduct an intimate conversation about one of Britain's most famous actors, but Gareth Van den Bogaerde and I do our best. "Do you think he was jealous of your heterosexuality?" I ask, as the crockery falls silent.
"Partly. I think it has to be partly that, yes," he says. "But, really, he resented my advent. After that, he resolved that he would build a shell that would never be pierced; he would never be hurt by anyone again. He remained in that armour for the rest of his life, you know."
The endless homosexual concealment, I say, must have been stressful.
"Oh, yes. At the time that Dirk was sexually active, the law was such that it could not come out. If it did, he could have gone to prison. It couldn't be admitted," he says, as even the dog goes quiet.

JackofOz 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So why not put some of those in the article? We can then debate if it's possible to have a long term partnership or relationship which is just based on friendship and isn't at all sexual :) -- SteveCrook 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

<Comment by banned user deleted>

He definitely wasn't openly homosexual. He took great pains to conceal it. For very good reasons (or what were good reasons at the time). I have read the biography, and talked to John Coldstream about it. Nowhere in the Coldstream biography does it say that Dirk was at all open about his undoubted homosexuality. How did you know that Richard & Sheila Attenborough were my friends? :) I don't think they or the members of the Bogarde family would be at all puzzled or upset by what I'm striving for here -- SteveCrook 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm at a bit of a loss to understand just what you are striving for, Steve. Initially you seemed very reluctant to believe he was gay. Now that the citations have been provided putting the matter beyond doubt, what's the stumbling block? -- JackofOz 12:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
All I'm trying to do is to do it by the rules with proper citations. Personally I've always believed he was gay. But he never "came out" publicly and his friends and family have never said anything for definite one way or the other. Remember that for most of his life, homosexuality was illegal and was punishable by imprisonment. They were different times. Even when it was made legal he still didn't declare himself. Was that because he thought it would damage his reputation with his fans, many of whom would remember him from when he was promoted as "The Matinee Idol of the Odeon" as a romantic lead? I am against people being forcibly "outed", I can't see that it serves any purpose and it's often hurtful. But as I said, if you think those citations are adequate then include them in the article. Personally I would still classify them as heresay and/or misquotations or assumptions derived from little information. For instance, in the interview with Gareth, he doesn't deny Dirk was gay, but he doesn't confirm it either. The citations can report what others have said about him but they shouldn't draw any conclusions and so shouldn't put him in the category of gay actors or anything like that -- SteveCrook 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<Comment by banned user deleted>

All those people knew he was gay? Almost certainly, but they never said so publicly. Gareth and Elizabeth haven't confirmed Dirk was gay, they haven't denied it but they haven't confirmed it (AFAIK). I seem to be really upsetting some people with this stance, but I genuinely can't see why. I am not denying that he was almost certainly gay. I am just asking for someone to provide something in the article that satisfies the Wikipedia guidelines and editing policies before they include it as a statement of fact here. Notice that I have never said that I didn't think he was gay. I see that the arguments are turning into personal attacks against me which I find amusing and they are getting more and more unreasonable. Saying that Dirk didn't even look hetrosexual (sic) is quite amazing. I never knew that a person's sexuality could be identified just by looking at them. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK until he was 46 and he lived another 32 years. I would say that 46 of his 78 years were most of his life as I said. Even after it stopped being illegal it took quite a few more years to reach the level of acceptance that it has today. And bear in mind that the majority of his fans from his days as a matinee idol would probably have been upset by his coming out. A lot of those fans went on to buy his books so losing them would have still affected him -- SteveCrook 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry it's got a little personal, too, Steve. What you say is a perfectly fine explanation for why he never came out. But it says nothing about the fact that he was gay. Lots of gay people never come out, but that doesn't stop them being gay, and that fact alone doesn't stop us identifying them as gay if we have suitable citations, of which we have an abundance in Dirk Bogarde's case. -- JackofOz 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Which raises the question of why Mr. Crook continues to object to identifying Sir Dirk as being gay. Since there is no apparent logic to his insistence on a much higher standard for documenting this particular fact than other, similar facts, one is left with the conclusion that it's a personal issue rather than one related to the article. The amount of ink he's spilled here is also a bit silly for such a simple, and amply demonstrated, point, for which demonstration many thanks to you, Mr. Oz! Pilch62 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh look, it's the old "If you're not with us, you're against us" argument. With that sneaky variation, "If you object to someone being 'outed' then you must be gay and still in the closet yourself". :)
How many times to I have to repeat myself? I am not saying he wasn't gay and I don't object to you identifying him as such. I just wanted something more than "He told someone but that person never said so publicly". I agree that JackofOz gave some reasonable citations, but why has nobody put them in the article? -- SteveCrook 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone included a citation and you chose to remove it, even though the statement it was supporting DIDN'T say what you claimed it said. And if you want the citations in the article so badly, why are you whining here about it instead of doing it yourself? BTW, just a reminder: despite your claim above, Sir Dirk NEVER married. I don't suppose you'll apologize for that factual error, despite the fact that you're constantly complaining about others' alleged errors. Pilch62 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
If you plough through all of the comments above you'll see I did quickly amend that, saying "You're right, he wasn't ever married, that's the trouble with adding things in a rush."
All I have ever asked is that people that claim he was gay support that claim. Again, I am not saying he wasn't gay and I don't object to people identifying him as such. But Wikipedia does require some citations. What I removed was included as a citation, but it didn't support what was said. I am tempted to remove that whole sentence under the Wikipedia style guideline to avoid weasel words like "it is said" or "was reported to be" -- SteveCrook 05:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

His nephew and heir, Gareth, has confirmed to the Dirk Bogarde yahoo group that Dirk was homosexual and that it was all their "between the lines" in his autobiographies. The recent Coldstream biography confirms he was homosexual. In fact, its the first thing that Coldsteam puts to bed right at the start. Robauz (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting claim. I'm a member of that Yahoo Group and I didn't see any messages from Gareth confirming any such thing. Would you care to point to them in the archive? Similarly with the Coldstream biography, can you point to the page(s) where he confirms Dirk was gay? -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Crook, you are a shocking liar & hypocrite. You said, above: "But he never "came out" publicly and his friends and family have never said anything for definite one way or the other." Yet you have known (unless there's another poster going by "Steve Crook" out there) since 2004 that Sir Dirk's brother confirmed in the Telegraph that Sir Dirk was homosexual. That you have wasted the time and energy of everyone else who's worked on this page is pretty appalling. WHAT is your problem? I attach the relevant forum thread noted above at [5], where the article is reprinted and you post at the bottom of that thread, as a moderator, no less. [6] And the Telegraph article itself:: [7] Pilch62 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all circumstantial evidence your honour :)
There is a post on a forum that refers to the Telegraph article and although I commented in that same thread in that forum I didn't make any comment about the Telegraph article. Had I actually read it?
Members on that forum are well acquainted with my opinion of the press, especially the British press. They make things up. The Telegraph article quotes Gareth as saying various things, but he never says Dirk was gay. He says "It couldn't be admitted". That's different to saying that there was anything to admit. The tone of the article makes that assumption.
But as I've said in this discussion many times, I am not saying he wasn't gay and I don't object to you identifying him as such. If anyone wants to include anything like the Telegraph article then I certainly won't remove it if it's properly cited. I only removed badly cited references or comments that stated it as a fact without citation when it's not an absolute fact that we can be 100% sure about - we don't know. It can be stated that he was generally assumed to be gay (with citations showing this), but nobody seems to want to add that to the article. Why not? Why do you and everyone else make comments here rather than adding these things to the article? Do you think you need my permission? You don't.
No lies, no hypocrisy, or not from me. Just striving to be fair to someone who can't defend himself in person -- SteveCrook (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And there you have it: saying that someone is gay requires him to "defend" himself. In addition to being a liar and a hypocrite, you are obviously also a bigot and a homophobe. This is not about your fidelity to accuracy--you've already lied twice on this page--it's about your issues with gay people. I've done with you. But if I see you change ONE THING about a reference to Sir Dirk's homosexuality on this article, then I do think a complaint from me about vandalism or trolling on your part will be forthcoming. Pilch62 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like the "If you're not with us, you're against us" argument again :)
You're entitled to complain, just as I'm entitled to change things that I think are wrong. As long as both of us give good reasons -- SteveCrook (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been absent from this discussion for some time. I've had a look at the current article, and it pretty much already says he was gay, with the Telegraph cite. I've just added a few extra words to make it clear that Wikipedia is not sitting on the fence about it, but is clearly stating he was homosexual, and that he and Forwood were long-term sexual partners. Let's stop trying to appease Steve; that's not what this should be about. I should have done this back in September, for which omission I apologise. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed that nobody did it earlier, or that anyone felt that they had to "appease" me :)
Yes, let people read the Telegraph article and see if they thing that's what Gareth actually says -- SteveCrook (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OL painting Dirk Bogarde at his Amersham home.JPG

Image:OL painting Dirk Bogarde at his Amersham home.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay vs. Homosexual

See the two wikipedia articles: "gay" and "homosexual" are not equivalent terms. Tho' Sir Dirk was alive during the period in which "gay" was coming into public usage to mean homosexual, he certainly, in his reticence to be identified as homosexual, was far from what is today understood as being a gay person--he was a closeted homosexual, not an openly gay man. It would be equally inaccurate to refer to Alexander the Great, Plato, Frederick the Great, or President Lincoln as "gay"--they were all in some degree homo- or bisexual, or at least involved in strong same-sex emotional relationships, but none of them identified themselves by their sexuality as gay men do today. Pilch62 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with this reasoning at all. By your standard, an article on Jackie Robinson would have to describe him as the first "Negro" or "coloured man" to enter professional baseball. A person is gay whether or not they are public about their sexuality; the terminology does not suddenly change with self-acceptance or public acknowledgment. Please see this link from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) which explains why the term 'homosexual' is outdated, clinical, and best avoided by the media. Please also see this link from an Ex-Gay watch group which discusses the terminology as it relates to "preferred terms" by a minority group, which we have a duty to respect. I will be changing the article back again in light of these, as terminology use does not change the facts of Sir Dirk's life, merely the clinical bias of the labels applied. I welcome any further discussion on this issue, and if a consensus is reached to the opposite, I will not contest reversion. In the meantime, I ask that you respect the preferred terms as outlined by the organisations above. -- Lenky (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agreed with your reasoning at all and am going to revert your changes to the original, which has been seen and edited by quite a few gay people up to this point, until a "consensus" is reached. As a long-time member of this minority group, I think I know as well as GLAAD which terms are "preferred" or acceptable (except possibly to those who prefer "queer" to either "gay" or "homosexual", finding "gay" offensive as well), and in any cased BOTH your source organizations are style guides to journalistic, rather than historical, writing. I point out again the absurdity of describing Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, or even Edward Carpenter as "gay" (tho' I admit there's an argument to be made in Carpenter's case). I also hope that you recognize that there is a vast different between the various terms used to describe people of color, their uses and origins, and those used to describe sexual minorities. Or perhaps we could be even trendier and change all the references to Sir Dirk to "queer" . . .. Pilch62 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: Please note that wikipedia itself uses "homosexual" and "homosexuality" widely in historical references. I can find no reference in the WikiProject LGBT Studies page indicating any preference, and continuing discussions about the appropriate use of various terms in historical contexts. Until such a preference is decided on, the more "clinical" and neutral the language, the better.
I'm not sure why you felt it appropriate to be snarky about this, nor why you assumed it necessary to pull 'the gay card' as assertion of your views. It so happens I'm also a long-term member of "this minority", and continue to disagree with you that time throughout history has any factor on appropriate terminology in this case, or why it differs from preferred terminology for other minority groups. Please explain to me the difference between terms used to describe people of colour, and terms used to describe sexual orientation. `` Lenky (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think you have the right to be snarky and the rest of us don't. If you don't understand the subtleties of writing in historical as opposed to modern-day contexts, or that there are vast differences between the histories of terminologies used for various minority groups, perhaps you ought to read up on the subjects more before making universal changes to articles involving those topics. And it's not my job to be your teacher, especially since you've yet to respond to any of the explanations I have given, except to cite two journalistic style guides, which are not necessarily appropriate for historical writing. Again, I refer you to the WikiProject LGBT Studies and the history of the various terms. Pilch62 (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His reported denials of homosexuality

I can find various sources that refer to his "repeated denials" of being homosexual - [8] - but haven't tracked down where he was asked directly about it and his actual words of denial are quoted. Does anyone know of such a source? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's one, assuming 92.11's memory is correct (although his/her memory isn't citable). Any more? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added Fan and Essay tags

The attempt to appropriate Bogarde's biography for gay advocacy is not only presumptuous but not in the sprit of Wikipedia, which is about articles, not long-winded advocacy. The article is like a fan essay, filled with POV and unsupported opinion. Why has someone stuck a LGBT announcement at top of this page? It's obvious the man didn't want to be out. Why not leave it that way? He was an actor, not some gay icon. If the article were cleaned up there would no doubt be someone with an emotional investment to revert it back to the present mess. Too bad, but that's the problem with Wikipedia. —J M Rice (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always considered that being an actor involved being paid to pretend to be something you're not, rather than something you are. By this argument, Roddy McDowall was really an ape and Bert Lahr really a lion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Warning Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255
AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255
AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255