Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/RfC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Per a request at WP:AN/RFC, I've closed this discussion. There was no consensus that this article (and all its sub-lists) should be deleted. That said, this was the wrong venue for such a discussion. AfD is where we discuss the suitability of articles or whether they should be deleted. If the consensus of this discussion would have been to delete the article, it would almost certainly been overturned at DRV. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To put it bluntly, I think that this article, (and therefore all its sub-lists) should be deleted. You will notice I have not created an AfD, which is the usual practice when desiring deletion, but an RfC. This is because I believe it needs a lot wider discussion, and consensus for an AfD. This is a controversial and contentious issue, I realize.

So, why do I want to delete this list? Indeed, one or more of the sublists are Featured. Well, there is something people seem to have overlooked. It is HOMOPHOBIC. What makes gay people different? Why do they require a separate list, aside from everyone else? Is somebody trying to target gay people here? I hope not.

If you want it like this, why do why not have a list of all (notable) left handed people, simply because it is the minority? Someone has looked at that and just made it for specific occupations, like the POTUS or boxers. Why do we not have a complete list of all (notable) black people, or white for that matter? I think we are scared of being called racist, which it certainly would be. We do have a list of black porn stars (officially named List of African-American pornographic actors, but it's the same thing) which is racist also. For that matter we also have a list of GAY pornography actors. This on edge might be acceptable, because of the specific type of porn they produce, but a list of all gay people where their sexuality does not affect what they do?

Take for instance Alan Turing. He was gay. There was big stuff about it in his time. Even resulted in a criminal prosecution, which would be outrageous today (thank goodness). So, because was notable for his codebreaking work, he can have an article. And it's fine to put the homosexuality case in there. But to include him in a list of all gays? No!

Wikipedia is being very obviously and yet discreetly homophobic here. Might hit you too hard in the face, might make you think about what we are doing. But I want this list of gays, lesbians and bisexuals deleted, pronto.

I also want a new keyboard, but life ain't fair. So try and be fair to those who are different. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 17:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended statement
I have taken the liberty of gathering some additional evidence as some discussers seem dubious as to whether this list is purely categorical or is in fact displaying signs of homophobia. My findings are that although nowhere on any of the lists does it say anything against LGBT, or indeed anywhere on the LGBT project, or anywhere on Wikipedia hopefully, to comply with WP:NPOV. But you see, this is subtle. And I stand by what is in the original statement: the simple existence of the list is making these people stand out as different. Why should they be? Lets have a list of all our articles who have a pet hamster, shall we? That would be silly. And so is basing a large portion of content on a matter simple as somebody's sexual orientation. Moreover, although some of these people may have identified publicly as LGBT showing gay pride, perhaps there are plenty of entries in the listings which the article subjects would consider personal information they don't want everywhere. Yet here it is on the world's biggest encyclopaedia for all to see. They might not know it yet, perhaps they don't even know they have an article because they don't believe themselves notable, but nevertheless it is there. Then journalists will use us as a source and when it appears in the paper they'll be like "WTF do they know?" Because it was in a list of gays on Wikipedia. It's too private. Let's have a list of all people who have shaved their armpits, because that's private.
Coming back to my point about people not knowing their sexuality is published online, there is a possibility illegal methods could have been used to obtain this info. Maybe phone hacking into people's private conversations, famous or not? But this is unlikely, as our article must be reliably sourced. No, I think this is homophobic just because it exists, and that in itself is marking LGBTs as different and worthy of their own category, just like all people called Steve. Rcsprinter (natter) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion[edit]

  • There is no automatic connection between identifying characteristics of a person and forming evaluative judgments of a person; the premise of the argument here is fatuous. The reason that there are not lists of all notable black or white people is primarily because these lists and categories are already well subdivided (e.g., Category:African-American politicians, or even better Category:African-American people). Furthermore, the point you raise, namely that homophobia is an ongoing issue in modern societies, only highlights the justification for this list: being gay is a notable thing. Perhaps some day we will view this in the same light as left-handedness (i.e., inconsequential), though this is rather unlikely given that gayness has a much larger effect on a person's life than merely being annoyed about right-handed tools, but to claim that it already is such is simply incorrect. siafu (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: this topic is discussed for categories in Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and for lists in WP:LISTPEOPLE. Note that this discussion is not about the BLP issues involved in identifying a person as LGBT, but about the existence of the list itself for those for whom there is no such BLP conflict.
Why does being a homosexual make someone notable? Or are you saying it's a notable point that should be included in their description? CharmlessCoin (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being gay doesn't make someone notable; I am pointing out that being gay is a notable characteristic of a person, like gender, religion, or ethnicity, which are all also the subjects of categories and lists. siafu (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that you have shown one thing, a misinterpretation of the list. It is not for ALL gay people.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting off, I don't really like this "post here if you support and there if you don't" method of discussion. Can be visually misleading to people just glancing at the debate, and seems a bit like WP:POLLING.

The problems raised here seem to be that we're singling out homosexuals by having this list. I don't agree that we're being homophobic by having this list, but I do agree that it's far too general. While we do have lists such as List of African-American pornographic actors, we don't have a list of every notable African-American. That would be ridiculous, which I'm inclined to think this list is getting to be as well. It just far too general to me, I think WP:RAWDATA somewhat touches on this. An alternative to deleting the list (which I don't think should be done) would be splitting it up into a more reasonable collection of lists, such as "List of homosexual scientists" or some such thing. Seeing as that we already have lists such as List of African-American pornographic actors, it doesn't seem too unreasonable. Comments on that idea? CharmlessCoin (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue for this discussion[edit]

Rcsprinter, if you want to pursue the line of reasoning in your "Extended statement" above, it shouldn't be done at the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people page. It should be done at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to gather feedback from more people, as it also affects the Category:LGBT people as well as any other list of people classified according to ethnicity and sexual orientation. But first of all, I think you should read through the Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and Stand-alone lists#Lists of people archives ([1] in particular and everything in Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Editors at LGBT Task force may also help you to better understand the current consensus before trying to change it. For a start, people that have come out publicly would not be affected by your concern, so it would be OK to have a list about them; and living people that have not come out are already excluded from the list by the WP:BLP policy; the scenario you fear is already forbidden. Diego (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When will this RFC be closed?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion[edit]

Those who support deletion, comment here.

  1. It is crazy. How long should the list be? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't matter. Diego (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What, a list of all of, lesbian or bisexual people? Crazy. Also what possible encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Martin, the word "notable" is implied in the article's title. It seems like a reasonable parent category, although in most cases something more specific should probably be used. There are notable gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who don't fit in any subcategory, and this category serves the purpose of cataloguing them pending future cat refinement, if nothing else. Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure by what mechanism 'notable' is implied in the title. It would be better being made explicit. There are still many problems though. What will be the criteria for notability? Will they be the same as those for an article on the subject? There is no WP policy on notability for inclusion in a list. What will be the required evidence that a person is GLB? Will we be outing people?
    The real problem that I see is that we are singling out GLB people for special treatment. Whether that treatment turns out to be positive or negative I thing we should not be doing this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is no WP policy on notability for inclusion in a list." See WP:NLIST; there is indeed such a policy. siafu (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a list of all gay, lesbian or bisexual people; it's a list of those that have encyclopedic content about them somewhere in Wikipedia. We're not giving a special treatment, not different in any case to Category:African-American people, Category:Christian theologians, or any other at Category:People by ethnicity, which are all-inclusive about their members. And we also have Category:LGBT people which contains the same criteria with a different format; see the arguments for keeping it, as those are relevant here. Diego (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Siafu, you are right, there are policies on the subject and I have now read them. Most relevant is WP:BLPCAT. If this list stays we must keep rigorously to this policy although I still see no encyclopedic purpose in keeping the list; it seems unnecessarily discriminatory to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by discriminatory? In what sense do you think this list is that? Diego (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only that it puts people into artificial groups. I think it is generally accepted that there is a continuum of sexual orientation from total heterosexual to total homosexual. Why do we need to draw a clear line in this continuum and who decides where we draw it. It is a matter of principle.
    The list also categorises people arbitrarily. A gay scientist, for example, may not feel that the fact is is gay is one of the most significant things about him. He may feel that the fact that he is a: scientist, a Christian, a Conservative, a good rugby player, a good teacher, a hard worker etc are far more defining characteristics of himself than his sexual orientation.
    On a more worrying note, the first step in giving special treatment (either negative or positive) to a group of people is to clearly mark them out. Why do we need to do this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One further point, why do we lump (presumably male) gay, lesbian, and bisexual people together in one list? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because LGBT is a recognized, notable topic. Diego (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Those people tend to be lumped together because in the current social climate they are all emerging from a history of unfair negative discrimination. Do we need to propagate that history here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that is why we call this an encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. I have no problem with an encyclopedic article on LGBT people in general but there is no need for us to contunue to assign individuals to that one category. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One important way minorities are mistreated is having their history systematically ignored and snuffed out. The history of women, ethnic and racial minorities, LGBT people and so on is something that is only being properly looked into now. The very reason things like LGBT History Month, Black History Month and Women's History Month exist is precisely because the people doing history have had quite a history of ignoring stuff that happened to not be done by other straight white dudes. At Wikipedia, we have a term for this: systemic bias. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the job of WP to put right the wrongs of the world and by having this list we could help those who wish to persecute LGBT people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is self-defeating; is it not an act aimed to right the wrongs of the world to make decisions aimed at actively subverting those who wish to persecute LGBT people? Never mind that no one on the list is "outed" by wikipedia, but rather already known to be LGBT by BLP-acceptable sources; in short, there is no new information in this list that is not already freely available. siafu (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support removing this dumb category. We are all gay, only in different degrees. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete In most cases it is not known whether someone is or was gay, lesbian or bisexual and these categories may not always be clear in any case. It has no more value than a list of people whose first name is Steven. TFD (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People are not persecuted, imprisoned, beaten, berated, murdered, or shamed for being named Steven and project Steve aside, being named "Steven" is generally not a rallying point for activism. Being gay is not so trivial, nor is it treated as such in either society at large (worldwide), or in any of the sources upon which wikipedia is based. As to whether or not it is known that individual X is or is not gay, lesbian, or bisexual, this is a discussion for whether or not to include person X (in keeping with the policies regarding living persons, and wikipedia's sourcing policies), but not a relevant issue for the existence of the list. siafu (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's no guarantee that sexual preference is not going to change. In reference to the first keep, it doesn't matter that it's of interest to some readers. We wouldn't be removing articles, just lists. Further, Wikipedia exists as a reference, not a collection of selections for pleasure reading. Feel free to visit your local bookstore or library for that. --Nouniquenames 19:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between a "reference" and a "collection of selections for pleasure reading" and how does it apply to this discussion? siafu (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are of course no reference works on LGBT people throughout history or in particular fields, right, Nouniquenames? Try harder. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For those on the list who are no longer living, their sexual preference does not change; for those who are, if they no longer wish to be publicly characterised in a particular way, we would remove them in accordance with the usual BLP rules and exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete I completely agree with the comments from rcsprinter at the top of the page. But I would also add that the title should be changed (if it is to be retained) to a list of Homosexual people. The stupid, irritating, PC, sub-division is a tautology. Someone who has sexual relations with members of the opposite sex is a Heterosexual and someone who has sexual relations with people from the same sex is a Homosexual. Its that simple. Lists are not and should not be divided into whether people sleep with redheads or blonds (or blondes) and so forth. It is and should be a matter of complete indifference what peoples sexual proclivities are. Why does anyone want to know or even advertise it? But for the main crux of the discussion, what possible interest, apart from prurient and salacious gossiping, does such a list produce? Who cares what the sexual proclivities of someone else is? If they have been hypocritical (a politician who is secretly homosexual, but votes against homosexual legislation for example) then that should be mentioned in the article about them, but merely to list who they sleep with is self-defeating and smacks of some deeper and sinister agenda. Are we going to end up with a Heterosexual category? That said though, perhaps we should also have a list of people who do hold their forks the right way when eating peas off a plate. Its about as important... Manxwoman (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares what the sexual provlivities of someone else are? Reliable sources, that's "who". If you can find that biographies of people generally comment on how they hold their forks when eating peas, or that there are multiple reliable sources about properly-fork-holding writers, properly-fork-holding-artists, properly-fork-holding people from New York, properly-fork-holding Muslims, etc., or that how someone holds their fork has been the subject of works of art in every medium, the subject of legal regulation, or the subject of religious regulation, then perhaps we should also have such a list. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I think that you may be deliberately misunderstanding my point. You say that "reliable sources care what the sexual proclivities of someone are." Really? Why? It is generally irrelevant to most people, as it should be. It is a private matter after all and the only people who seem to be morbidly interested in who holds their fork right are people who care if people hold their fork right. It is a matter of supreme indifference to other people and long may it remain so.Manxwoman (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, you are deliberately distorting reality. There are no fork-handedness pride parades. There are no laws requiring particular fork-handedness. There are no stories of persecution, murder, and oppression of people because of their fork choice. There are no front-page news stories about people being revealed as using their left hand for fork-holding. You (and I) may not much like the fact that society at large is obsessed with people's sexual orientation, but the fact remains that this is in fact the case. Pretending otherwise is either wishful thinking, or a complete whitewashing of societal reality. siafu (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought (contentious or otherwise), perhaps there are no "fork-handedness pride parades" because generally most people don't give a damn and don't want to share their private life with everybody else. Just get on with using the fork how you like, but don't wear badges about it, stage marches that block all the traffic in Soho and expect anyone else to be impressed or interested in the least. I have several members of my family who use their fork differently and I love them without question, but its not an everyday topic of conversation. Its not that interesting. Manxwoman (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is all well and good, but what you or I think should be the case in society is not really relevant. Wikipedia is bound to represent things as they actually are. siafu (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A very nice point, but perhaps the way things "are" is because a vocal minority is determined to make it so, not how it actually is. Already it is clear that if a position is taken about privacy concerning "fork-handedness", people are accused of "forkaphobia" when no such position is intended. (God this is getting complicated!!) In other words, "if you are not for me, you are against me". Manxwoman (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim that one's sexual orientation is not a big deal, except in the minds of a vocal minority, is simply wrong, and there are numerous reliable sources that can be invoked to demonstrate this point, in addition being glaringly obvious. Again, has anyone been murdered for fork-handedness? You may not like homophobia, but pretending it doesn't exist, and pretending that it doesn't greatly affect the lives of millions, billions even since it affects not just those who are directly subjected to it, then you are simply mistaken. siafu (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Split off I view it as the same as the African-American people category, and think it should be treated similarly. The use of more specific lists could be beneficial, so I support making them more specific. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Delete There is no reason to identify people as gay. That would be like have a category 'Catholic' or 'Muslim'. It usually has nothing to do with why they are notable. FurrySings (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See Category:Muslims or Category:Catholics. Please familiarize yourself with the issue at hand before commenting. siafu (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not and never have limited lists to only facts that are "why" people are notable (to the extent we can even determine that). Lists of alumni, lists of people by place of origin, lists of people by birth year/death year, etc., etc., etc. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Delete - Homosexuality is something you're born with, not something you achieve, like a home run. This would be like a having list of left-handed people, or a list of brunettes. And it's a personal preference. We don't have a list of people who prefer yellow mustard on their hot dogs. It should be a total non-issue. Linuxgal (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Delete I wonder who is pushing this 'outing' agenda? Some people don't care if someone is gay, they just don't want to know about it. Get over it. Support deletion of this daft list. 81.159.112.182 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strongly voting to Delete This is in violation of so many Wikipedia rules, one does not know where to begin! Let's keep it brief: Many people in the "Keep" section support their preference by arguing about the "different" but "not inferior" nature of homosexuality. However, Wikipedia is not the place to settle such issues! It is not a political or social discussion forum and it is forbidden to have here "content...for...[a]dvocacy [or for] political propaganda or recruitment of any kind". Wikipedia's rules specify that "some topics...may stir passions and tempt people to climb soapboxes [but] Wikipedia is not the medium for this and it is not here to serve the agenda of an editor or a group of people." Then, there's the issue of outing. The relevant Wiki rule cannot be more explicit on the stuff we write about living persons: "[Text] must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." About as clear as it can get. We simply cannot reconcile this extraordinary care in preserving people's privacy and self-defined dignity with having lists of sexual preferences! --The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you advocating for the complete removal of all references to sexual orientation in any article covering a living person? If not, I don't understand your argument; reconciling this list with the BLP policy follows exactly the same procedure as on the primary articles themselves. Also, it seems to me from the arguments presented here that the deletion of this last is motivated by political or advocacy concerns, and the retention is instead motivated by encyclopedic interests. This list is simply a concatenation of other information that already exists on wikipedia, which is the function of lists. siafu (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced of any argument yet that supports having ANY reference to sexuality included, be it hetero or homo sexual, unless it is predominantly imperative within the encyclopaedic biography, such as the example of Alan Turing given earlier, or an hypocrisy as I outlined above. All other mentions seem to fall under spurious and salacious gossip-mongering and have highly dubious connotations. The relevant Wiki rule rules as laid out above are, to my mind, the end of this discussion and the list should be deleted. Manxwoman (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this list will not remove this information, as it will exist in the biographical articles themselves. If this is your view, this is not the appropriate forum-- I'd recommend starting at Wikiproject:Categorization for a start. This would require a major shift in the way categorization is and has been done on wikipedia. Coincidentally, this would likely result in a number of side effects that you may not have intended, like the removal of people who are only notable for reasons surrounding their sexuality, like the victims of homophia-motivated persecution and murder, and some gay rights activists as well, since being unable to mention that they're gay would result in an inability to write intelligible articles about them and why they're notable. siafu (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps the people you are referring to (such as the homosexual rights activists that you mention) should only be included in Wiki for their talents (as are the majority of the subjects) and not their sexuality... Incidentally, does it follow that if one is a homosexual rights activist, one is a homosexual? I think not. Manxwoman (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur; I never suggested that being a gay rights activists makes you gay. Don't put words in my mouth because you're eager to seek out enemies and denounce them. siafu (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I. You appear to have mis-read my comment. Please lets retain the mutual respect expected amongst editors. Manxwoman (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you just did insinuate that, as you also insinuated that I was suggesting that I would not advocating describing said people by their talents. How exactly do you propose rewriting the article on Ryan Skipper without being able to mention that he was gay? There are thousands of murders every year, the vast majority being non-notable; the reason this one is notable is because he was murdered for being a homosexual. Is it homophobic to say that? The very idea is ridiculous. siafu (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you appear to be taking this academic discussion personally. I am discussing in the abstract. I have not mentioned at all about what opinions you may or may not hold. Please try to keep an intellectual distance with this argument and stop accusing. It is not a black or white argument, or a pro or anti homosexual one. Merely whether it is appropriate to have some sort of list of peoples sexuality kept for no good reason on Wiki other than the person listed may be homosexual. If this article and case, that I am not familiar with, mentions that he was killed for being a homosexual, of course it follows that his sexuality be mentioned. But that has nothing to do with this 'general' list for other people. You have actually agreed with a previous point made, that it is appropriate to mention it within the context of an article. But only there. I would contend that in the main, most people are really not that concerned with peoples sexuality in the first place. If they are, then I would like to know how they profit from that knowledge. Until a similar list has to be held for heterosexuals, it becomes by definition disturbingly one-sided. Manxwoman (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference in an encyclopedia like between listing this information in the body of articles and having it in a list. Using the search function (up at the top right there) essentially generates an ad hoc list of all articles containing a particular set of words. If that search term is "homosexual", you will have a paginated list of all the biographical articles (among other articles) of people who are so identified. There is no actual benefit to removing this list, as all it does is collect this information (which is already subject to BLP policy). As for you claim that most people don't care, this is simply wrong, and easily demonstrated just by paying attention to the news; of course if you don't believe that, you are free to read any of the literally thousands of books about gay & lesbian studies that demonstrate this fact. As for being one-sided, this is simply the nature of the statistics. Current estimates indicate that about 5-10 percent of the general population is gay, ipso facto making it unusual, which is why it, and not heterosexuals, is the subject of a specialized list. siafu (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that it is probably about 50% of the 5-10% who "care" about the subject. The rest just get on with it and the rest of the population (90% by your figures) are really not that interested either way! Manxwoman (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that on Earth, things are slightly different than that. Homosexuality was until recently, illegal in most of the world, even in democratic societies where this view was selected in candidates by voters. There are whole neighborhoods, an unofficial but widely observed holiday celebrating gay culture, an official month for recognition of gay pride, and literally thousands of books on the subject and its supposed importance in society. Hell, gay people often make a very big deal out of being gay, and encourage others to come out publicly so as to normalize (aka de-stigmatize) homosexuality; would this be necessary if nobody gave a shit? Like or not, this is all still a big deal. Saying it isn't is like saying that religion doesn't matter to anybody. Or ethnicity. siafu (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where I come from (Isle Of Man) homosexuality was illegal until only very recently. It has, quite rightly, now been de-criminalised. Before that it was practised in just the same way that it is everywhere else - but in private. Discretely. In much the same way that someone who perhaps enjoys S&M does. It is not something that is generally shouted about or stuffed down other peoples throats (excuse the pun!) But I have not noticed anyone suddenly becoming more or less interested in other peoples sexuality. It is a private matter and I believe should remain so. There are indeed homosexual ghettos in various cities, most notably in San Francisco and demonstrations/marches/parades around (I also believe there is quite a well-attended flat-earth march in the New Forest every year) and there are many books on the subject, but that does not mean it is in the majority of peoples thought process at every waking moment. I am sure that it is of very great interest for those within the circle, but for those outside of it, it is of supreme unimportance. Just like religion (aka superstition) should be in my opinion. But this is VERY far removed from whether a list of homosexuals should be included on Wiki. DELETE. Manxwoman (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're going with the Flat Earth comment (I have no objection to a category listing Flat Earth advocates, either), but you seem to be basically admitting that you are basing your delete stance on how you believe sexuality should be treated ("It is a private matter and I believe it should remain so"), and not how it actually is treated. This is contrary to wikipedia policy, as has been noted by myself and others. siafu (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"not how it actually is treated. This is contrary to wikipedia policy, as has been noted by myself and others." And how is it "actually treated"? In whose opinion is that comment made? Which Wiki policy are you specifically quoting in relation to my specific comment and what has been noted by you and and who are the "others" you are quoting? This is getting absurd. Manxwoman (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does seem pretty absurd. Try WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. siafu (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! All of the policies you quote support my and very nearly all of the other peoples views supporting deletion, most of all the WP:SOAP policy. By deleting this list we are attempting to STOP any soapboxing, which it would seem you are promoting. Still waiting for the "others" that you quoted on their behalf? Who are they? You appear to be the only person constantly replying to everyone on this Delete posting and so apparently pushing your own agenda... which covers WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE. Manxwoman (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And which soapbox am I pushing exactly? That it's notable that people who self-identify as gay are gay? That's being pushed by, among multiple others, many of the individuals themselves. It's not non-neutral or undue to say that Harvey Milk was a gay man, or that Barney Frank is a gay man. In fact, both of them were quite notable, among other things, BECAUSE they were gay, and were in fact the first openly gay people to hold the positions they held (indeed, from the intro paragraph on Mr. Frank: "Frank, a resident of Newton, Massachusetts, is considered the most prominent gay politician in the United States.", a claim sourced to several places including Edge on the Net, an LGBT news organization). I've provided a number of sources supporting this view, and you have provided none to the contrary. Moreover, I am not the first one to bring up these policies; I'll let you do your own reading to find them; you can start by looking at the previous discussion on this very topic, which was linked above by Diego. As an aside, the original claim was that this list was inherently homophobic (i.e. a violation of WP:BLP and should therefore be deleted. If we were to accept your view that being gay is not notable, then it can't be homophobic to point it out-- it would be on par with claiming someone is a fan of a particular sports team. If you want to make an argument that it's not notable, you'll have to do a lot better than "Where I come from, people don't seem to care." You may also want to read Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality where it explicitly says: "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted" and then goes on to list the specific exceptions and rules for doing so, none of which need be violated by the mere existence of this list. siafu (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"is considered the most prominent gay politician in the United States" My argument is why on earth does it matter that he is a homosexual or not? If he is a prominent politician, then good for him. Who he sleeps with should have no bearing on the matter and does not need mentioning... except to push an "agenda". It is your contention alone, there not being anyone else arguing your case so vociferously on this page so please stop saying "we" as though you are speaking on behalf of anyone, that his sexuality has to be listed. I cannot understand why you cannot see the irrelevance of the matter. Manxwoman (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write that, I merely copied it from the article. "We" is the wikipedia community, and the other editors arguing against deletion (you may note that there's another section below this one, listing those arguments). The fact is that it is notable what his sexuality is, in no small part because Mr. Frank has made a big deal of it himself, as did Mr. Milk and as do many millions of others. Your rejection of that fact is based on what? That you don't think it should be that way, and that you don't see it being that way in your daily life. Your view of how it should be, and your own limited experience are not what this encyclopedia is based on. It's based on what the reliable third-party sources say, and they are pretty clear on thinking that whether or not someone is gay is generally notable. If you want to overturn this view on wikipedia, start with Wikipedia:Categorization and put your policy proposal there. As I mentioned before, this list merely concatenates existing information and the search tool creates somewhat similar lists even in the absence of this one. Go ahead and search for "gay politician" and tell me if you don't get a list of all articles about gay politicians. Deleting this list can really only be seen as either a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works (categorization by sexuality is already enshrined in policy) or the result of pushing a particular agenda (i.e., that contrary to all the evidence, nobody cares about a person's sexuality). siafu (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts) Manxwoman, the fact that more people aren't replying to you doesn't mean that everyone here agrees with you. Alleging that other editors are pushing agendas is generally an unhelpful sort of speculation to make, which is why I didn't jump in and speculate about your motives when you equated homosexuality (a sexual orientation) with S&M (a paraphilia) and made a vulgar joke apparently referring to a sex act (one common to people of all orientations, ironically enough). For what it's worth, I think that Siafu's arguments are cogent and compelling. In contrast, the things you're saying, such as equating sexual orientation with "who [one] sleeps with", suggest a serious lack of understanding of the relevant topics. Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rivertorch has encapsulated the matter very well. One important thing to add, I think - "who cares who you sleep with?" is very easy to say when you're straight. That's the plain truth of it. And there's nothing wrong, per se, with saying that, but it's fallacious to conclude that "it doesn't matter who you sleep with". The parallel I think of is this: I, as a white American, am perfectly comfortable saying that the world would be a better place if we all ignored race, and that this is something I think every good person should do; however, I would never think to say that race doesn't matter, because there's a difference between holding an ideal and believing it to have already been accomplished. But it is the tendency of the guilty majority to make this leap, to say, as many do, that race doesn't matter or gender doesn't matter or sexual orientation doesn't matter. Someone wrote above "We are all gay, only in different degrees". The funny thing is, the only people I've ever heard say this are straight people from liberal areas - I mean, sure, if you ask me if, in point of fact, I consider myself 100% gay, I'll tell you that I don't believe anyone is, myself included, but the vast majority of people who make this argument make it for one reason: To allow themselves to say that we've already entered some Utopian world where we all accept one another's differences. We do not, and wishful thinking only gets you so far. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The list contains people that are not living persons. It wouldn't make sense to delet those because of WP:BLP. Diego (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is going to be a magnet for high school cyberbullies to put people they don't like on it. Eventually it will need to be locked down. Linuxgal (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what vandalism patrolling is for. Semi-protection, AN/I, etc. Wikipedia has facilities for dealing with such surmountable problems. siafu (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Those not bothered either way, comment here.

  1. ツ Jenova20 (email) - I don't agree it's homophobic, and i don't like these lists solely because they should include the word "notable" in the title, or something else similar. That being said, there's a lot of them and i won't be voting for deletion of just the LGBT ones. If something is done it should be done to all to avoid targeting the LGBT userbase unfairly. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of lists is not the same as for articles. WP:NLIST has a brief treatment of this, but lists (and categories) based on religion or sexual orientation are neither novel nor non-notable, in general. siafu (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support keeping[edit]

Those who support keeping the article, comment here.

  1. It isn't homophobic. Sexual and romantic orientation is a matter of interest for some readers. Who people love is an important part of their personal history. There are obviously BLP concerns about the presence of some people on this list, but that's an individual matter and no reason to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Similarly, Lists of African Americans isn't racist, and List of Japanese people isn't anti-Japanese. It's only bad if you consider being Japanese or African American or gay/lesbian/bisexual inherently bad, which it isn't. It's just another facet of someone's identity. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to expand my statement. Rcsprinter said this as a point of comparison with a list of gay pornography stars.
    This on edge might be acceptable, because of the specific type of porn they produce, but a list of all gay people where their sexuality does not affect what they do?
    Who the hell makes that judgement call? What you are advocating is a view of human nature that is completely desexualized. Sexuality, romantic relationships... all these things have no explanatory power to understanding how you deal with society and the other humans in it. Who people have relationships with, and society's attitude towards those relationships is a pretty important part of understanding who that person is. The fact that you think the only people for whom sexuality and sexual orientation would "affect what they do" is pornography stars shows only your own limited imagination. I wonder whether you think Harvey Milk being gay affected what he did in his life? Perhaps we could then try and understand Martin Luther King Jr. without understanding race. And then for the special bonus prize, understand Thomas Aquinas without reference to medieval monastic Catholicism.
    Sexuality is important in people's lives even if they don't spend their professional lives performing sex acts on video for money. Not because there is some magical inherent difference in the minds of gay people. An analogy with race is worth making here: scientists have argued quite reasonably that race is a genetic fiction. But that doesn't mean that growing up as a racial minority in a society with a racialized history doesn't shape a person's character and attitude to life. Well, same is true for gay people. Being LGBT in a heteronormative society does make your life different in some ways, and it's a matter of interest and importance to readers to see that reflected in reference works, just as it is to deal properly with gender and race. That's why it's worth talking about even if you aren't a porn star. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say that it is only gay pornographic actors where their sexuality affects what they do, that was merely an example. Your arguments regarding Harvey Milk, Dr King etc are the same I used with Alan Turing in my initial statement. Notable for that also, changing other people's lives with that orientation. Not just gay porn stars. Rcsprinter (yak) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ridiculous. Until people are not discriminated against, beaten up, fired, have laws on the books denying them human rights (like who they can marry), and even killed then being LGB is still a big deal. This will never be deleted at AfD just as is pointed out there are some featured lists in here. Certainly a notable subject and certainly sourced. This seems like a pointy exercise when an AfD would surely fail. I suggest this be closed down asap as a big time waste. Insomesia (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Insomnia Pass a Method talk 07:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I actually dislike the list as a potential for misuse and re-writing history to include people based solely on the claims of others. Then, on the other hand, there is the fact that this is a list of notable figures for which the LGBT community in general has found notable. In other words.....I am not on the list. I am not notable. I will never appear on the list. Get the point. My just being a gay man does not allow me to be listed. This isn't just about the figure, its about the LGBT community, just like other communites, showing their history with notable figures. Not just random people.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per all of the above. However, I'll give the RfC wording points for novelty of argument; it never occurred to me that a list of notable LGBT people might be homophobic merely by virtue of its existence. While it's true that sexual orientation doesn't necessarily affect what one does (at least in terms of the things that one is notable for), it most definitely affects who one is in myriad ways that are interesting and noteworthy for encyclopedia-writing purposes (and for general research by our readership). I do think that this parent category should be rarely used, since a refined subcat would be more appropriate most of the time. Rivertorch (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If I were a gay kid living in Redneck City, Idaho, I think I'd find it really helpful to know that someone like Alan Turing, who saved many lives during WWII and was hugely influential in inventing modern computing, was gay. If this list were used for outing gay people who wanted to keep their orientation private, that would be bad, but if it lists Alan Turing, that's good. Alan Turing's orientation is a big part of his story, and that this WWII hero was treated so shabbily because of his orientation is something that literally moves me to tears when I think about it. Please drop this proposal. Abhayakara (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Completely facile reasons for deletion that are not compelled by policy or practice, and which seem completely ignorant of the topic's treatment in reliable sources, which do discuss such individuals as a group in particular contexts in terms of their sexual identities in order to illustrate common experiences and consequences of those identities. I see no reason to keep this open if that's the quality of the deletion arguments. postdlf (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The reason for deletion does not seem sound. If gay, etc. is a neutral descriptor like "left handed", than it is not perforce homophobic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would one of you people please tell me what encyclopedic purpose this list serves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For this encyclopedia, see WP:NLIST. Why there are lists of people on WP, is not on-topic for this RfC. That discussion should take place at the Village Pump, under 'Get rid of all lists of people.' - Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or WP:LISTPURP, as this is clearly a navigational index of WP biographies. I've really had enough of "I don't get it, so delete it." Try harder. postdlf (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keep - I think this is similar to List of redheads, and other such lists. Regardless of whether they claim to have been "born that way", or whether the "result of a choice", this doesn't sound any different than any other lists concerning such things. We don't consider the list of redheads to exist due to "ginger bias" or some such. Why should we presume bias about this? As long as it stays WP:NPOV, and is the result of verifiable reliable sources, this should presumably be fine as a list. - jc37 04:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Discrimination against red-haired people is much less an issue (or perceived as much less an issue) than discrimination against LGBT people. Even in the section you link to, the only examples of really serious discrimination of that nature (deaths, long-term campaigns of serious harassment driving out entire families) happen in the UK, where we seem to have a particular weird problem for some reason. Most of the rest of the English-speaking world is really not concerned about the topic, hence it's no surprise there's no such RFC (yet) on the English Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments entirely miss the point. The nom asserts that the mere existence of this list is due to bias. And follows that up with comparisons to a list of left-handed people. My comments refute that assertion. - jc37 10:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments address your sentence 'We don't consider the list of redheads to exist due to "ginger bias" or some such', not anything to do with left-handedness. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keep per my arguments in the comments section above. Additionally, I take issue with the argument that this list should be deleted because it is of interest "only to a few" readers, or lists people based on traits that are of interest only to said few readers-- basically because it's not of interest to the commenter. As we all know, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so this should be at best only a minor concern. A fortiori, in order for this to be a valid position, it would follow that these pro-deletion commenters should advocate for removal of all mention of sexual orientation from any article on living people, as this list mainly collates this information from existing articles, as do almost all other lists. As I mentioned above, the notability criteria for lists is not the same as the notability criteria for articles, and this is one of the key distinctions. siafu (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keep First of all, thank you for creating this as an RfC and not an AfD (and I would be saying the same if I thought it should be deleted). You recognized the significance of the discussion and the fact that it may need more than a week to come to a conclusion. I don't think these lists are homophobic. Being placed on the list is not in itself any presumption of hatred or hostility. Individuals are placed on the list only if they have identified or reliable sources have identified them as being GLBT. The lists are discriminate (in the Wikipedia way), they are notable, and they are encyclopedic. And, I believe they do no harm. If proof can be shown that they are harmful, and nothing could change that, I would change my opinion at the drop of a hat. ThemFromSpace 21:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Keep I'm not a fan of our incessant need to classify the people who are the subjects of articles based on classifications that while true, are not supported by reliable sources as having been a significant aspect of that person's life. Sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, race, and other similar classifications should not be included unless reliable sources have spent time discussing how the classification was significant to the subject, not just providing the raw information that the classification applies. That said, I see no reason why sexual orientation is different from any other such classification, nor do I see a difference in the form factor, lists or category, it has the same effect. Until we arrive at a consensus to change policy broadly, there is no reason this subject should be treated differently. See also: Category:21st-century Roman Catholics, Category:African-American military personnel, Category:American people of English descent. Monty845 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Keep per Tom. This is no more homophobic than the Lists of people by nationality are racist, the Lists of people by belief are antitheist, the Lists of people by medical condition are ableist, the Lists of people by age are ageist... shall I go on? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Keep. It is one thing to say that there's nothing "different" about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Indeed, I am very happy when people say this. But "different" isn't really the right word; we mean that there's nothing abnormal, unordinary, defective, or incorrect about being LGBT. There is something different about being gay (or bisexual or transgender, but I'll just use homosexuality as my example here) - namely that one is attracted to members of the same sex. As any gay kid who's ever been to a high school dance can tell you, it doesn't matter how many states you can get married in, or how many countries you won't get arrested in, or how many jobs you can have the same hopes of getting, when all you want is to dance with a guy who has no hope of being interested in you. And I'm not trying to play the discrimination pity card here, because this isn't about discrimination - I've never been oppressed in any meaningful way, and don't get me wrong, if I had a choice in the matter, I'd still choose being gay without hesitation. But, for better and for worse, being gay sets one apart from others. It's no more homophobic to have a list of notable LGBT people than it is to stage a gay pride parade. As for notability, if left-handedness were a more socially relevant issue, then I'd wholly support a list of all left-handed people, as well. Now, if people want to get all riled up about discrimination involved in a list of LGBT people, how about we all go complain to the racists at Out about the fact that they didn't see fit to include Frank Ocean in the Out 100? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 21:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Keep. The arguments being made to support the assertion that this list is homophobic are largely specious. Straw man arguments about pet hamsters and people who shave their armpits would seem to belittle the importance of the subject matter and our readers' level of interest in it. There is no evidence that this list is 'targeting' anyone or that editors are using illegal methods to source any listees. Regarding concerns about outing people, as the article states, "people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed." Gobōnobō + c 12:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. keep. To the extent this includes living people, then it needs careful curation, so it only includes those who have themselves chosen to be so identified in public, or who are famous , and whose orientation is sufficiently important that truly reliable sources have discussed it. But for others, it just has to be well-documented, and relevant to their life or career. The example used by the nominator, alan turing, is to me a prime example of someone who unquestionably belongs here: it is not only very well documented, and discussed in all writing about him, and big stuff not only in his day but afterwards, and very relevant to his life and his career, but he is probably to the world in general notable for it to millions who could never explain what he actually did as a mathematician. He's the textbook example of the persecution of gays in the 1950s in the UK and elsewhere, and the harmful effect it had not on the progress of science and on the wellbeing of the world in general. If we had to pick 10 people best known to the public as gay, he'd be among them, and for good reason. Not finding him on such a list would be downright peculiar. It might even be seen to hint at some degree of prejudice against including the most notable gay people who were known also for something else important. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people/RfC&oldid=1142342382"