Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 10 support, 1 oppose. The opposition appears to be met. Promote. Crzycheetah 21:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did submit this to peer review, but they're very backlogged and not really meant to review lists, so I thought I'd have more luck just coming straight here. It's taken ten months of slog from both me and WP:LGBT, but we've finally completed the first of our LGBT people lists, and there should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with A that isn't on here. I've never written a list before, so I'm sure there will be a few problems that need ironing out, but I am confident that this is either FLC standard or very close to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some immediate comments that come to mind:
    • Nationality. I see both "English" and "British". Perhaps this should simply be replaced with the country templates.
    • Excellent work that every single entry is referenced.
    • However, only one of them uses any of the {{cite templates. This needs to be fixed.
    • "Notes" is mostly empty and wide; I suggest this be combined with 'Profession' as "Profession and notes", maybe.
    • Some of the dates are centered, some are not. Pick one.
    • Back to 'nationality', there's zero links, which is why I suggest the country templates (like {{CAN}}, etc) be used.
    • In 'dates', some say simply "b. ?" Can we at least get a ballpark estimate?
    • I like the use and selection of pictures.
    • There's a single redlink, Lily Ann.
    • That's all that I have for now. --Golbez 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The use of "British" is when we don't know whether they are English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh. Where we do know this we break it down into its constituent countries, because many of the people, especially the Scots, don't consider themselves British at all. I don't use cite templates, I write all my references out long-hand because I find it easier to edit later on. I have removed Lily Ann, and I will go estimate and center birth dates, and link nationalities. I'm kinda torn on the notes column though, we use it to indicate a person's sexuality if it differs from homosexual (and I couldn't think of a better name than "notes"), and I can see your point about integrating it, but as a stand alone column, it means anyone scanning down it can immediately pick out the non-gay ones. I'm not sure, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalities and centering done. As an example for the birth dates, I've just looked at Paula Aboud and it looks like she was born some time in the 1950s - how should I write that? b. c.1950s? Does this count as OR?Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason for an absent birth date on these LGBT lists is the lack of a sourced birth date in the articles themselves. Guessing/estimating is a bad practice here, so I think it's better that a reader interested in a missing birthdate goes to the article and guesses/estimates for themselves based on available information there. Someone below commented on the use of "?"; it's not ideal but I can't think of a better way to get across that the info is unavailable. To me, leaving the box blank indicates more that someone didn't bother to check. I will however, implement a foot note of some kind to explain that no sourced info is available, and see how everyone likes it. TAnthony 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/promote, as soon as the red link is fixed. Awesome job. MrPrada 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red link has been removed. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets all criteria as far as I know; a very complete incomplete list! I'd love to see the other letters of the alphabet promoted in the future, too! •97198 talk 12:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're on the to-do list. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • stron oppose - first: This list isn't encyclopedic. Second: There are Mistakes. Nobody knows what the real relationship between Antinoos and Hadrian was. Maybe the were gay. But we're can't really be sure. So theres no other possibility as to say no. Marcus Cyron 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no serious scholar who suggests that Hadrian and Antinous were not lovers. On the contrary, every source I have ever read, including their Wikipedia articles, classical sources on Hadrian, and my personal copy of Hadrian's empire are all matter of fact about their relationship. The reason we know Antinous existed at all was because of his status as Hadrian's eromenos. I am genuinely astonished that you believe otherwise, what are your sources? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, I asked at WP:LGBT and one of the editors wrote this:

:The objection is on a level with the flat-earth theory. On the spur of the moment, I can't find a direct quote from a classical source that says "these guys slept together" in so many words. But no doubt there are such sources (Compton cites the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3 vols., Harvard Univ. Press, 1953) because the whole body of scholarly opinion seems to concur that they were in fact lovers, and early Christians attacked the worship of Antinous on this very ground. I've worked up some extracts from Compton you can read here. You might also refer to the article on Hadrian at glbtq. The onus is on the objector to provide a classical or scholarly quote that they were not lovers.--Textorus 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S.--Britannica also identifies Antinous as "the homosexual lover of the Roman emperor Hadrian."
So, I don't think your objection is valid. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure all your references are adequate. For Christina Aguilera, for example, that reference does not do an adequte job confirming that she is a bisexual. I have found a reference that seems to contradict the entry: [1]. Not necessarily saying the entry is wrong, just that another reference is needed for confirmation. Otherwise, great job. Raime 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That source doesn't contradict it, it merely says that there's no evidence that Aguilera has had a relationship with a woman. But then, the contention was never that she has, the source provided on the page makes it clear that she enjoys (or did enjoy) casual sex with anyone, be they male or female. In any case, one does not have to have had a relationship with the same sex in order to "qualify" as bisexual: examples include Megan Mullally, Billie Joe Armstrong, and Laurel Holloman, all of whom are married to opposite sex partners. However, I found a more explicit quote mentioned in a 2004 interview with Zoo: "I find it hornier looking at women than men. I love experimenting with my sexuality. If that means girls then so be it. It would be wrong to hide this side of my personality." I can swap it for the other one. That okay for you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support - I think that would be a much better reference. You should also add the above information on who exactly "qualifies" as a bisexual for the list as a reference. Your definition may not be the same as that of another user, so for clarity purposes, it is needed. Raime 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, strongly sourced and of encyclopedic merit.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Zythe. I would like to state, though, that I strongly feel what Raime is stating about Christina Aguilera on this matter. I know plenty of heterosexual (straight) women who have admitted to liking kissing girls, but that they know that they are straight or consider themselves straight because the sexual and or romantic attraction to women just isn't as intense and that they could never truly be romantically happy with a woman. Some of them have even had sex with at least one woman. Likewise, I know plenty of gay men or lesbian women who state that they themselves have gotten a little sexual pleasure from being with the opposite sex, but that they don't consider themselves bisexual because it just didn't feel like home being with the opposite sex romantically. Again, there was that intense-factor brought up and how when they tried to be romantically happy with the opposite sex, it didn't/wouldn't work, so it is complex, of course, sometimes as who to label or imply as/is a bisexual when some people just don't see themselves as bisexual due to their majority-sexual preference, even though there was a little sexual and or romantic attraction in those cases to the sex they do not favor. Anyway, sorry that I went a little off-topic there. This is a great list. And as I stated before, I support it. Flyer22 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What a fantastic effort and congratulations on putting together this list. I too agree with the first responder that it is great that you have an individual reference for every entry. I do have a minor dislike of the question mark when the birth/death date is unknown. For a casual reader, this might look to them as if we (as in wikipedia) have not been bothered to find out when they were born/died. Is it possible to have a link to a notes section that explains in general why they are not listed. .....Todd#661 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Love this list, very encyclopedic and well-sourced (probably one of the best-sourced lists out there). Much thanks to Dev920, SatyrTN and other members of WP:LGBT who have worked so hard from A to Z. Oh, and the opposition about Hadrian is ridiculous. TAnthony 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wonder how the other lists will be handled going forwards - will you repeat the intro, unaltered, for each letter? I guess you could, but somehow it feels wrong. I suppose my preferred solution would be not to split by letter at all - it's really a bit of an artificial distinction. However, I realise that would make it a massive list. I'm not opposing, just wondering aloud. One real point, though - Marc Allégret is not marked as bisexual but his article says he had relationships with women. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other lists are currently structured in the same manner. However, they are not "complete" in the sense that /A is, or fully polished, which is why we're nominating them separately. Obviously, it would be preferable if we could have one massive list but it just too impractical. This is how long /A-B was - and that was after we have removed C-E. I shudder to think how long A-E would have been iif we had completed them without splitting them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Aguilera and Allegret entries have been changed and TAnthony has added a footnote to all the ? birthdates. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You need a reference or note designating who eactly "qualifies" as a bisexual for this list. Your particular definition (or at least a part of it) is "one does not have to have had a relationship with the same sex in order to "qualify" as bisexual". Clearly, regarding Flyer22's discussion above, this definition is not the one that every Wikipedia user will hold. As such, a note regarding who exactly is included on the list as a bisexual is needed. Raime 03:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no it isn't, and I'm not going to include one. The entire second paragraph of the lead is devoted to explaining that people define sexuality differently and concludes "See homosexuality and bisexuality for criteria that have traditionally denoted lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people." specifically to counter the fact that some Wikipedians will assume that one needs to have had a relationship with either sex in order to be bisexual, or with the same sex to be gay. The term "bisexual" in this article is added to a person's entry where the reference warrants it. I hope that that is self-evident given the very purpose of references, "a citation of a text that has been used in the creation of a piece of work such as an essay, report, or oration. Its primary purpose is to allow people who read such work to examine the author's sources, either for validity, or simply to learn more about the subject". So there really is no need for such redundancy in the article.
For the benefit of everyone reading this, the current guidelines WP:LGBT uses regarding the categorisation of other articles where there is not such an abundance of citations, are thus:

"To consider someone a bisexual, we must be able to verify three circumstances:

  1. That person identifies as bisexual, regardless of relationships, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
  2. A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
  3. A person has been alleged, with evidence, by reliable sources to be, or have been, in a relationship with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey."
These are administrative rules of thumb not relevant to the article, which bases its claims of bisexuality on the references provided, and that is why it is unnecessary to place our own definitions within the article. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, sorry, I didn't know there were already guidelines in place. In that case, no note is necessary. Great job on a terrific list (I have already posted my Support above). Raime 07:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. I have to say, I am rather taken aback by the numbers turning out on this FLC, it has been a very pleasant surprise. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, due to the missing birthdates. --Golbez 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this lack of information is prohibitive; date of birth is not really a necessary component for this list anyway. And the information is simply not available at this time, the burden is on the articles themselves. TAnthony 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great list. Excellent referencing. Excellent use of images. Geraldk 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's difficult to believe that some people actually wouldn't consider a person gay unless that person has actually had sex with the same sex. I mean, what? It can definitely be argued that plenty of gay people never admit to being gay. And, of course, we know that some gay people don't admit to being gay until much later in life, some of which may still decide to date only the opposite sex afterwards, no matter how silly that might seem to do after having come forward on their romantic desire. My comment above was more about how people label themselves in regards to sexual orientation when it comes to having been romantically paired or linked with/to both sexes, of course. Dev920, I want to again state what an awesome list this is though. One of the best lists that I've seen on Wikipedia. Flyer22 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose References aren't formatted properly. Publishers are missing in most of the references.--Crzycheetah 09:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers have not been given where they are not provided. Wikipedia policy is to place the name of the website at the beginning of the reference instead of the end where this is the case, and this is what you should see. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I see that policy you are talking about?--Crzycheetah 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since when myspace pages are considered reliable sources?--Crzycheetah 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was somewhere in one of the citation pages. There appears to be an edit war on at a few of them, maybe it got swallowed up. I will keep looking. And if it can be established that a myspace is the official myspace of the person concerned, it's the equivalent of a personal website and can be used as one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reviewing my previous edits to see where I've referenced this policy before and I referred to it here as well - so evidently it does exist, I just have lost it's exact location. :) I will keep looking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one more concern. The Glbtq.com references are cited inconsistently. The refs #7 and #8 are cited one way (properly, IMO) while refs #20, #28, #44, #53, #57 and so on are another (improperly, IMO).--Crzycheetah 20:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I've been formatting them the way I would a Britannica entry, ie, without an author, just the "from Britannica" part. Someone else started changing them but lost heart. I will change those two, I keep meaning to and then keep getting distracted. Incidentally, I can't find this refs policy I've been following for the past year and it's really starting to bug me. I'm going to ask on AN and get back to you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE/ES clearly shows how to cite web sites. As you can see the name of the website is located right before the retrieval date.--Crzycheetah 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can see that, and of course you can see that that is exactly what I have done in every case where the reference has an author. But where it does not, I read to put the website at the front. Now, I have no idea where I read that, but I did somewhere because that's the policy I've been using at least since September 2006, when I wrote Jake Gyllenhaal. And I know I did read it, and I'm not going to rest until I find it again. I have posted it to AN as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Glbtq.com references need to be cited just like WP:CITE/ES shows because every Glbtq article has an author. The ref #7 is the proper way to cite glbtq references per WP:CITE/ES.--Crzycheetah 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I profoundly disagree. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the refs in wikipedia's featured artickles and lists are formatted that way. This list just needs to be consistent with the others. --Crzycheetah 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop me hating it. :) On what grounds do you still oppose? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more thing that you are not going to like. Your references are still not consistent. I see some citations where the word retrieved has a small "r" , then there are some with the capital "R". I see some citations with retrieval dates in italics and some not. There are also some instances where you just use a date without the word "retrieved". There are some ISBN numbers that are linked and some not linked at all. It's not about what I like or what you like it's about being consistent thus being professional. In other words, your references look as if several people have added them and no one proofread, that's why it is a complete mess right now. I'll help you out if you decide to use the {{cite web}} template for all citations.--Crzycheetah 06:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was one R that required saving from the dreadful shame of being lowercase, so you could have fixed that yourself in the time it took you to tell me about it. The word "Retrieved" has been added where necessary. ISBNs have been linked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that there was just one instance or "r', I just noticed and stated it to you. I made several fixes up to ref #70. --Crzycheetah 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your changes to the format I have previously outlined for references without authors - whether you agree or not, this is the format that is currently being used consistently over this entire series of articles, not just /A, and thus it is important to keep it, even if I can't find the supporting policy for it. Thank you for your other changes however, they have been helpful, and I hope you will soon have all your criticisms cleared up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I neither love nor hate that format, it's just 95% of wikipedia's articles use it and this list along with its comrads need to follow them for consistency. I totally disagree that you need to use that format, but who am I when this huge encyclopedia called Wikipedia thinks otherwise.
I'd suggest you to propose at WP:PUMP that all articles need to follow List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people's reference format for consistency. If there is a positive consensus, then go ahead and use your format.
P.S. I even found on your userpage two FAs that use the format you hate (Andrew Van De Kamp and Latter Days). Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill and go with 95 percent of articles rather than 5 percent.--Crzycheetah 05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is the style I use and it has been deployed consistently thouhout every one of the FAs I have written. The issue on Wikipedia is not that every article uses the same infoboxes/templates, but that it is internally consistent. Look at the cite template, the policy on it clearly makes it an issue of personal preference. We also allow variations in spelling, as long as the same spelling system is used throughout the article. If there has ever been one rule I have been told consistently during my FA writing time, it is "Don't automatically copy other FAs just because they're FA". Now, I appreciate the work you have put into the article yourself, though I confess I don't see why the ISBNs have to have dashes removed, but please just go with me on this point. It's never been a problem before, and to be honest, any layman who reads this article is not going to notice, even if they look at the references. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN's usually get linked automatically, but in this case they weren't unless those dashes were removed, don't ask me why, but if you know a way to get a blue linked ISBN with dashes, then please add them.
For the main problem, well, there are FAs with little or no references at all, so, yes, this one can use a different format. Anyway, while I was looking at the refs more closely, I noticed one (ref #128) wrong link. I think there needs to be a more specific link. Also, there were some books cited without ISBN's (56, 60, 63, 117, 119, 124). I don't know if it's required, though.--Crzycheetah 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I will have to remember that one. I don't think it's obligatory, but I've added all the ISBNs anyway, those certainly are helpful to people wanting to look up a book (I discovered one book we were quoting doesn't actually exist in the edition we were citing.). The wrong link isn't wrong, it's just the website is written in frames which I clearly didn't notice when I wrote it up. I have added a comment to the footnote explaining what page to click on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The refs aren't as messy as they were before and are good enough for a featured list. Wouldn't it be easier to give this link in the references (for that #128 ref), so that people wouldn't make an additional click?--Crzycheetah 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Yes. Huh, it wouldn't bring up a url for me. I'll go change it. And thank you for your support. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people/A&oldid=1143867568"