Talk:Lists of bisexual people

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archives
Archive 1 (Sep 26, 2003 to Aug 30, 2006)

Elton John

Recently added without citation, but with the edit comment that "Added Elton John, citation is in his Wikipedia entry." However, the Elton John article says two conflicting things, without giving a source citation for either. For now, I'm copying the material from the Wikipedia article on Elton John, but a source citation is still needed.

Elton John disclosed his bisexuality in 1976 in a Rolling Stone magazine interview. He married German recording engineer Renate Blauel on Valentine's Day, 1984, but they divorced four years later. John later renounced the bisexual claim and announced he was gay.

Dpbsmith (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Division of entries

Since the list is currently divided into subheaders by alphabetical order, with an addendum of "disputed" entries (some of the people listed there are also listed in the main list), I figured that there might be a better way to roganize this list. As far as I can tell, there are a number of different types of entries:

1. People who have publicly stated that they are bisexual (using that specific word) like Angelina Jolie and Billie Joe Armstrong, not to mention bisexual activists.
2. People who have not publicly stated their orientation, but have had public relationships with both men and women. Anne Heche is a good example, since as far as I know, she's only made vague statements about her orientation.

• This may also include people who have explicitly stated that they avoid classifying their sexual orientation. The citations on Lucy Liu and Holly Near seem to indicate this, for instance.
• A small minority seem to use more inclusive terms, such as omnisexual; I don't know how significant the numbers are.

1. People who have publicly stated they "experimented" with their sexuality, making no statement about their orientation (such as Marlon Brando) or stating they're nontheless straight (such as Dave Navarro).
2. Historical figures who have been documented as having had relationships with both men and women, such as Christina of Sweden.
3. Historical figures about whom there is research concluding they were bisexual, but no consensus in the academic community. The best example of this is Alexander the Great, although a lot of people fall into this category.
4. Historical figures predating the modern definitions of heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality; this is especially notable of the periods in the history of Ancient Greece in which pederasty or other classical forms of homosexual behavior were common.
5. People, current or historical, about whom there were or are rumors of bisexuality, but who did not confirm (or even denied) bisexual orientation. David Bowie is a prime example; his statements of bisexuality came during the 1970s period of so-called bisexual chic and have long since been recanted.

The list is confused and confusing, and I think a detailed plan of action is needed. Here's my suggestion:

1. Establish a consensus of what "bisexual" means in the context of this list, define it clearly and use the definition as the opening paragraph of the article.
2. Reconstruct the list as a draft from the bottom up: start with the people about whom there can be little doubt, such as those who self-identify as bisexual and have stated so in quotable, verifiable interviews or biographies, and gradually add people as they can be sourced, depending on the definition that's established.
3. For living people, establish which sources are reliable and which consist of gossup or borderline gossip. The larger the publication, the better the chance that they'd be sued for libel for publishing wrong statements.
4. For historical figures, cite opposing opinions and/or create a separate article, maybe under Historical figures with disputed sexual orientation. This type of entry is discussion-based, requiring paragraphs that wouldn't be well-placed in a list like this. Plus, there's the whole modern-identifiers-for-classical-attitudes thing.
5. Replace the existing version with the clean, verified result of the draft, keeping a record of the pre-revert list in a handy place as a reference for people who might qualify to be added to the list.
6. Add a comment in the article and a header in the talk page that make the policy of sourcing and consensus definition very clear indeed. The copy of the old article with notations on all the controversies, perhaps.

This is turning into an essay, which I didn't want it to, but apparently the topic is very complicated. Let me just state for the record that I think the definition of bisexuality for this article should be based on attraction and not actions, and the primary source should be self-identification. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is rubbish and bordering on libellous. I have been using it to construct my list at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E, and whilst doing so have filtered out the bisexuals into a separate list, which you can see at User:Dev920/Drafts/Bi. I was going to wait until I had completed all of the LGBT list, but using the LGBT categories have discovered several hundred gay people in A-E alone who were not previously included in the list, which has bogged me down. If you want to use my A-E draft to create something more workable yourself, you are welcome to. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm trying to help improve the article, so there's no need to go jumping down my throat. Second, your list so far is quiteb impressive. I will look up the WP policies on list formatting; I've never seen the table formatting before, and there are a lot of lists on Wikipedia. What definition of bisexuality are you using? I think it's most appropriate to use the one that exists in the opening paragraph of bisexuality, which is attraction-based as I said. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Three points 1. Dev920: it is only a sick world in which bisexuality is "libellous" - don't buy into it. 2. You seem happy to take other people's work from here - criticize it and then waste your time making the other lists unsightly (many of the sources there are wore than useless). Please be more tactful in future. 3. The whole subject (bisexuality) is as unwieldy as human sexuality itself. There are no clear divisions. That is why the list is a list that has sources to let the reader follow up and weigh things the "evidence". Dividing, making decisions and discriminations is just a recipe for argument and edit wars. Let's clearly state at the top of the page that it takes the broadest possible definition of bisexuality (attraction and experience - at some time in the subject's life) - and does not confine itself to those who are "self-confessed self-defined lifetime bisexuals and nothing else". The idea is to have a list which gathers together possibly interesting information around the subject. Everything on wikipedia is killed by bores. TerriNunn 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Stating a false fact of anyone, regardless of what that fact is, is libel. I myself am bisexual, so don't go around accusing people of being sick because they don't want Wikipedia to get sued. I find it strange that you consider a ghastly *ed list with external links right, left, and centre more "sightly" than a properly formatted table. Fortunately, however, Wikipedian policy regarding Featured lists disgrees with you, so I can ignore that point. What exactly is wrong with the sources I have used? Many of the "sources" on this article are the NNDB - which is about as useful as the IMDB, if not worse. In most cases I had to take the name and then conduct my own background research on them because the link/s provided were so hopeless: Clublez.com? NNDB? Really? Our job on this article is to document bisexuals - not people who this one person of the same sex this one time said they had sex with...and told clublez. Evidence of bisexuality is either the person self-identifies as bisexual (Billie Joe Armstrong), has had notable relationships with people of both sexes (Casanova), or has been alleged to be bisexual by a reputable source (Aleister Crowley). So sorry to be a "bore", but I'm a Wikipedian, not an activist. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Read a book on libel - you will find you are wrong. You will see that it has something to do with "lowering someone in the eyes of right thinking members of society". Great start. I trust NNDB and clublez more than you. At least they turn out to be accurate more often. (Almost every NNDB link has already been backed up by another source, and clublez cites sources). At least external links can be accessed directly - not the ridiculous hiding away in references (fine if not one in 10,000 people wants to follow it up). The widest criteria of inclusion should be used. "Notable relationships". Bore - yes. TerriNunn 00:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Or I could look up Libel. In any case, you are right, and I apologise. However, your derision of references as being uncheckable is bizarre, and I don't think there's any point in continuing a conversation with someone so obviously ignorant of how Wikipedia works (and who indulges in personal attacks). Good day. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Forgive me for being a little short. Let's work to improve the list rather than argue. We are all working in the same direction I hope. (I wasn't saying refs are uncheckable - I was saying it is easier to follow an external link next to a name than have to follow a ref to the bottom of the page and the get lost (was it 234 or 235?) and so on...) One plea: let's not reject interesting entries simply to fulfil a narrow definition. I would suggest including 1/ self-defined bisexuals 2/having had 'notable relationships' 3/stated (alledged suggests charge and trial) by reputable source (without knowing exactly when, where, with whom) 4/expressed attraction to both sexes 5/ had at least one sexual experience with both sexes - without trying to separate them in the list. I would suggest that the wider the definition - the less chance of libel. Sexuality is fluid and the issue people in the public eye talking about their 'bisexuality' is an ongoing story. The list should chart all of this. White rabbits.TerriNunn 14:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you click on the reference number, it takes you down to the exact reference... In a well-formatted article, external links are included only to provide links to useful websites related to the article, not to provide references - check out Wikipedia:External links for more info. On your definitions of bisexual, I would have to say that someone who has consistently expressed a sexual interest in both sexes is bisexual, whether they define themselves to be or no. However, someone who has simply had a single sexual experience with the other sex they are not primarily attracted to does not count. Elton John was married, so was Gene Robinson and Oscar Wilde. These people are not bisexual. I'm not trying to deliberately keep the definition narrow, but within a limit that most sources would agree counts as a separate sexual orientation. Either way, reputable sources are an absolute neccessity, and NNDB doesn't count for this, and many of the clublez evidence is suspect. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not providing or imposing definitions. All of these categories are constructs - bisexuality more than most. Just because a definition can separate people into 'ins' and 'outs', doesn't mean that 'it' really exists - what it tends to do is distort a more complicated situation. What I am trying to do defend a view that would reflect the complication - and at this point in history things are particularly complicated and fluid. So the article should deal with several overlapping criteria for inclusion - because the phenomenon is complicated, uncertain, shifting over time, and fuzzy at the edges. (Boundary disputes between straight and bisexual and gay/lesbian are futile). Each case has to be looked at one its facts - let's give the evidence and pay the reader the compliment of letting him/her judge like a grown-up.(That's why externa; links are useful. Wiki perhaps has not considered the question fully. I don't think wiki policies are always glowing examples of intelligence.) We can all disagree about the use of words - whether Oscar Wilde counts as bisexual according to our own definition - let's not fool ourselves into thinking we are doing anything but impose that definition on others - nothing any more real corresponds to it that to any other definition. Some weeks I am bisexual, some weeks gay, some weeks straight. That fact is more interesting and illuminating about me than forcing me into a category. Why this maniacal wish to simplify all over wikipedia? Facts and context before dumb and narrow categories. Have a nice day! TerriNunn 18:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia. We document what is fact, not list is he/isn' t hes. If there's enough doubt to "let the reader make up his own mind", then that person does not go on the list. You know get that we're writing an enycyclopedia, right? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an encyclopedia is something that includes "the whole circle of knowledge". It is meant to be informative and interesting. To be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia doesn't have to copy the narrowness of all the boring encyclopedias in history (read Wittgenstein on family resemblences). It can be a new kind of encyclopedia that includes what is interesting. Just because you aren't interested in something doesn't mean it isn't worth going in. Just put in what you are interested in and let others do the same. (Why do you take this odd attitude?) Don't be trapped by conventional definitions or narrow concepts. The world won't fall apart. Relax. TerriNunn 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't haev an "odd attitude", I think exactly the same as every other Wikipedian. I don't know if it's because Wikipedia is online or what that you believe this, but Wikipedia does not include information because it is "interesting", it includes it because it is notable, verifiable, and FACT. I notice that your contributions consist entirely of editing LGBT people - you had better brush up on policy before you even think of editing elsewhere claiming Wikipedia is narrow and Wikipedians are a bore, or you're going to get stomped on very hard. Keep to your bizarre hippy theories about what is suitable, but really, don't expect anyone on here to agree with you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" is hardly an objective category. It is the expression of a particular set of power relations (read any theory of ideology since Marx). Verifiability (see article on Vienna Circle for the limits of that idea) - 98% of life is in the realm of the not-yet-verified, partially verified, tentatively put forward on partial evidence, partially falsified, as well as the unverifiable. What is to count as evidence? Is that decision verifiable? Who decides?). I am not saying that Wikipedia is narrow - I am saying it shouldn't be narrow. It's motto should be Here Comes Everybody. And I am saying "If your evidence is bona fide, then provide it, and let the reader decide" Treat people as grown-ups. People can always register reasoned disagreement. Sleep well, Dev. TerriNunn 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I did, thankyou. However, you are displaying such fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia I think this discussion is fruitless. If you wish to start a proposal to abolish the Five pillars of Wikipedia, go ahead, but until I'm going to edit according to them. Good luck in your quest. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed for lack of reference

I have removed the following people from the main article. They are living people and there are no references to confirm they are bi. Even if they identify as gay or lesbian, they still can't be in this list without a proper source.

• Warren Cuccurullo, Musician
• Anne Heche (born 1969), American actress
• Patricia Ireland (born 1945), American feminist, former president of NOW
• Adrian Lamo (born 1981), hacker, journalist
• George Melly English Jazz singer and art critic
• John F. Nash, Jr. American mathematician, subject of "A Beautiful Mind"
• Anthony Rapp American actor

WJBscribe 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My NNDB entry signs off on my sexual orientation.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good reference :). How do I cite it? WJBscribe 02:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What precludes you from citing it the same as any other <ref>? :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood your question -- the link is @ http://www.nndb.com/people/471/000026393/

I'd rather you do it, so I can avoid needless self-referential editing :)

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it, sorted. WJBscribe 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks! Wikipedia needs more editors with your attention to detail :) — User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also removed

I missed these on my first sweep. If you have a prob with my removing these names, please read this short section at WP:LIVING and respond here.

• James Duval American actor
• Diane Duane, author
• Elton John, musician: "Elton John disclosed his bisexuality in 1976 in a Rolling Stone magazine interview. He married German recording engineer Renate Blauel on Valentine's Day, 1984, but they divorced four years later. John later renounced the bisexual claim and announced he was gay."

Already 3 of original 7 have been referenced. This approach is getting things done much more quickly than {{fact}} tags. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT would be good is if you did some work (do some research yourself!) instead of trying to take credit fot being negative. TerriNunn 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Anthony Rapp was uncited, as he's very open about his orientation and it appears in his WP article, but I found a citation eventually. I can't seem to find citations for the others, though; Diane Duane mainly gets google hits for bisexual protagonists in her books, and James Duval for having played roles in two movies with bisexual content. Warren Cuccurullo brings up a mention on a website called Groupiedirt.com, which is almost certainly gossip and not cite-worthy. (I'm not searching for Elton John citations, as his statements on the subject are historically vague and contradictory.) LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for tracking down the reference. I think Elton John will be a problem. We can say that he was married to a woman and now his civil partner is a man. But does that make him bi or just gay and previously in the closet? Warren C has appeard in gay porn- but that tells us little about his personal orientation (gay for pay doesn't seem to qualify for inclusion). No idea about the others so far... -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That question goes to the root of this list, doesn't it? I posted extensively about it above, but to summarize, I think that per the definition at Bisexuality this list should only include living people who self-identify as bisexuals and historical figures about whom significant research exists to argue that they're bisexual. I know plenty of gay people who've had relationships with members of the other sex, for instance. Elton John's marriage seems to be to fall under the same category as that of Rock Hudson, and probably Oscar Wilde as well (not sure why he's on this list, at any rate). LeaHazel : talk : contribs 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You must be right. The only basis for including living people must be self-identification as bi. I guess the list should be reviewed to make sure that has been the criteria for inclusion in all cases. Some of the references bother me though- particularly uses of sites such as Net Names Database whose sources are unclear. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-identification trumps relationships unless there is serious evidence otherwise. Elton John has referred to himself exclusively as homosexual since the 80s, Andrea Dworkin, despite being in a relationship with a man for years and being hopelessly in love with him, continued to identify as lesbian. Whereas Aleister Crowley, although he proclaimed himself to be straight for ages, was definitely bisexual. It's a matter for judgement really, I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

TRUMPS relationships??? Read yourself again. You have just proved why "simple" self-identifcation

isn't sufficient, why one criterion does not cover the field, why it is complex. The complexity is covered by noting these things! TerriNunn 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-indentification does seem the best way- especially as bisexuality is a very fluid concept if one accepts the concept of the Kinsey scale! But it does give problems with historical people e.g. Oscar Wilde. Given that he was not free to declare his sexuality openly we don't know if he would have identified as gay or bi... -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there any evidence Elton John ever slept with or was attracted to a woman? I don't see the problem with Rock and Oscar. Isn't the evidence that they both sustained sexual relationships with both sexes? Of course trying to shoehorn them into one category or another is difficult! That's why some people argue that this list should accept that complexity. The list is a starting point for considering what "being bisexual" is - by enabling consideration of many ways of "being bisexual".

There does seem to be a prevailing mindset on wiki that can't cope with grey areas, the elusive, complex, fugitive, difficult. Nothing can exist as it is, it has to be squeezed, mutilated, distorted, have parts lopped off, until it fits into neat compartments. We should be reflecting the complexity of human behaviour and desire, not developing a willed and distorting case of tunnel vision. That is the way the law simplifies things when it wants to create a crime. Put away punitive thinking. (And what does "you must be right" mean? Where does that "must" come from? As if it is the conclusion of a crushingly undeniable syllogism? "It musts" are almost always "I wants". I see no musts - I see psychological wishes, political desires, relations of power, unimaginative thinking). The criteria should be: as stated above earlier in the recent discussion. Self-identification is just one of them (clear 'cases' with refusal to 'identify' are the interesting ones - the list then shows something about people's relationship to the category 'bi' - a category many 'bi' people, openly following a pattern of 'bisexual' pattern of behaviour, don't identify with - for interesting social and political reasons which some Wikipedians would occlude completely). Let's be grown-up and complex and interesting. TerriNunn 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Or we can be Wikipedians and write an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Which is what we are going to do. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to have a list, if all you want to do is apply procrustean rules? I want the list to be open to a complex phenomena. You want life to be as simple as you are. Encyclopedias for children and simpletons. What is the point in what you are doing? If you "define" bisexual as "self-identified" as bisexual - you get a list of people who are included not because of their behaviour or attractions but self-labelling! All the list becomes about is badge-wearers! I am sure many of you wear a lot of badges TerriNunn 11:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the obvious problem here is that Wikipedia = Encyclopedia and has policies (like Verfiability, write from a neutral point of view & no original research, as well as guidelines (use reliable sources, biographies of living persons, & general biographical article guidelines) that help maintain the quality here. Of these, the policy of verfiability from reliable sources is absolutely non-negotiable and if you feel this is too much of a "procrustean rule" then Wikipedia may not be the right place for your contributions.--Isotope23 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that was out of line! No need for personal insults- I suggest you apologise to Dev920. I would point out that if there is any element of subjectivity in this list, it will end up in AfD before we know it. The only way it can be justified as encyclopedic is if there is a clear criteria for inclusion. Given that so many patterns of relationships could be classed as 'bisexual', the best indicator we are ever going to get is when someone says, "I am bi" or "I am attracted to both men and women". Anything short of that would be a personal judgment by the editor who includes the person. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Clearly we have a basic issue of contention here, and I suggest we get external opinions to help reach consensus. Anyone opposed? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC is prob a good way to go if we're to put this issue to bed. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported her at ANI, and TerriNunn has been indefinitely blocked for username violation - if she comes back under a different username we can resume the debate, but the fact that she has thrown every inviolable wikipedia policy out the window, not only here but on articles of people she believes to be bisexual, means she'll probably be blocked again if she does. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That was small-minded and puerile. I have thrown not one single wikipedia policy out of the window. All I have ever said is that bisexuality is complex. There is no one criterion recognised by people. This list should honour that complexity. Your inability to understand that is depressing. Your comments are libellous - justify them. NerriTunn 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back NerriTunn. Your personal grievances with Dev920 aside, do you agree with LeaHazel's proposal that we refer the question of who is included on this list for comment from the wider Wikipedia community? -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

NerriTunn has also been blocked for being a sockpuppet of TerriNunn. Not sure how that worked, but from the ANI it looks like she was going to be blocked for personally attacking me and trolling my usertalk anyway, so I guess it works out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should request external comments. Although TerriNunn was the most vocal (of late), she's by no means the only person who supports a wider interpretation of bisexuality for this list. Best evidence for that is the constant addition of people who've not identified themselves publicly as bisexual, or even of people who've outright denied it. This article needs overhaul, and the first order of business is a decent opening paragraph with a definition of bisexuality as it applies to this list. Agree? Disagree? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The RfC still seems like a good idea to me. Although we may now be able to rule out the they were once linked with someone of the same gender, they must be bi idea, I still think we should clarify some points so we can have a criteria for inclusion. It is much more difficult than classing someone as gay or lesbian. In the meantime I propose the following to tackle the state of the article:

• Remove to the talk page all those who do not have adequate references e.g. ref to NNDB or other site where info is user submitted. This is necessary per WP:BIO and WP:LIBEL.
• Remove to the talk page all those where the reference is only a report of a single incident of deviation from the entry's usual sexual practice, esp. where that is involvement in a threesome.

It's not as if the info will be being lost, just put onto one side while better references are found and the policy for inclusion can be finalised. PS. NerriTunn's block was lifted, though she seems to be on warning about her future conduct.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I quite like Dev's draft approach; the table is much neater and more readable, once you get used to it, and building a solid draft is a good idea. We can then keep a link to or copy of the pre-change list, to use as a source for potential additions. 87.68.14.217 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC) (Err, that was me. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

I don't care about the list any more. I think I have added the names and found genuine references for about 70% of the people on the list, but I won't do any more work on it. Refer. Remove. Make it boring and distorted. Do what you like. I still think narrow definitions are dumb. The divide between "the bisexual" and the "non-bisexual" does not exist. Gore Vidal said "there are no homosexuals, just homosexual acts". Even if that is extreme, if you think about it, you will realise that all the definitions are arbitrary. But somehow people always believe that their definition really and truly is the only true one or the best one. And I still don't know why people want to make an arbitrary definition of "bisexual", set up a list, and them trawl the world for people who fit it. Why are they doing it? That seems kind of creepy and perverse to me. It is some kind of fetish. And none of this has anything to do with wiki policies - it has nothing to do with backing up statements with sources - which is always necessary. (A number of contributors seem unable to comprehend simple arguments in simple English either because of immaturity or too long spent thinking in narrow ways.) PS I am under no warning. Dev920's deceit has been pointed out. Goodnight. NerriTunn 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending better sources

• Paris Hilton American heiress, socialite, and actress [1][2]

The first reference is to nndb, which is not a reliable source, as there's no indication at all who authored or vetted the profiles. The second references refers only "speculation that Hilton may be lesbian or bisexual" and a rumor "that there exists a video featuring Paris having sex with her friend Nicole Lenz, a Playboy Playmate." It says "In February 2005, she admitted in an interview that she has a crush on Jennifer Aniston" but no citation is given, and if having a "crush" amounted to bisexuality then I believe 98% of the human race would be bisexual. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Cher American singer and actress [3]

Only reference is nndb Dpbsmith (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Emily Dickinson (1830-1886) American poet [4]

The site entry says

The prevalence of both hetero- and homoerotic imagery in her writings suggests that Dickinson was bisexual, but did she regard herself as such? And, if she did, how are we to know?

It then proceeds to analyze subtleties in her writing which the author takes as indications of bisexuality. That would be OK if the article's author were named and was a recognized authority, e.g. with print publications, but in fact the article is anonymous. The site is said to be under the editorial control of Claude J. Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth, professors with good credentials, but it's not clear whether they wrote this article or vetted it or, indeed, what its status is.

If Emily Dickinson is well-known as having likely been bisexual, with the vast quantity of material in print about her there should be a good source and I'll be keeping my eye out for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found a better reference for Dickinson and put her back. However, what the reference actually says, which I quote, is "While some biographical critics such as Paula Bennett believe that Dickinson was primarily autoerotic, others have suggested that whereas Dickinson had what we today would call bisexual desires, she probably acted on none of them, or at least not very much." With regard to actual facts the reference goes on to say "the bedroom door remains locked," i.e. nobody actually knows or is likely to ever know what Dickinson and Sue actually did.

I don't know whether "some biographers speculate that Emily Dickinson had bisexual feelings" amounts to "Emily Dickinson was bisexual," but at least quoting the source enables the reader to make that judgement for him- or herself. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for bisexuality.

Ok, so we need some definition of bisexuality, that we can use to create this list. I propose that what we do is actually develop a suitable guideline for the LGBT WikiProject to use, so debates like this don't need to happen again. We can get the entire WikiProject involved. Anyone think this is a good idea? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Would agree this is the right way to go, otherwise the debate will keep arising again and again.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll notify the Wikiproject. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To start the ball rolling, I would say that 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.

1. A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.

1. 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.

That's what i've been following. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, "a definition" is precisely what is not needed. What is needed is a set of reasons for bringing links here - more than one. No one has to be 'defined' as anything. We assemble facts. Sometimes I feel I am talking to a wall, but does anyone else see what I am saying? NerriTunn 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that the existence of a marriage does not imply the existence of either a sexual relationship or sexual feelings between the partners. This is particularly true in the case of historical figures, e.g. Elsie de Wolfe. A person with a documented gay relationship who also happens to be married to a person of the opposite sex is not automatically "bisexual."

However, I firmly believe that WIkipedia should not be in the business of judging whether or not someone was bisexual at all. I'd propose the following criterion instead:

To consider a person bisexual, there must be a good source citation to a reliable source which uses the word "bisexual." If there are other sources that present conflicting information, they should be mentioned, too, and the reader should be allowed to make their own judgement. If the person has publicly self-identified their sexual orientation, that self-identification should be mentioned conspicuously, quoting the person's own language.

Dpbsmith (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree Dpsmith. I said notable relationships - I meant that involved attraction, not potential mere social constructs. However, you will find that some people aren't defined as bisexual anywhere. Oscar Wilde never identified as bisexual, he would have called himself an old-fashioned pederast who was very much in love with his wife. Marlon Brando, mentioned above, never said "I am bisexual", he admitted having had several relationships with men. This is what I'm trying to cover, the people who are bisexual, but refuse "labels". However, if someone has publically identified as bisexual, I think that should be referenced, rather than providing the actual quote, unless there is something pertinent to the article. Obviously if there's simply conflicting information, but no-one's quite sure, (like Abraham Lincoln), that is a matter for the article, and they shouldn't be put into any of the LGBT categories or lists. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"he would have called himself an old-fashioned pederast who was very much in love with his wife" Really Dev? I doubt anyone would describe themselves in those terms... -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Only because of the negative connotations it haas acquired today. Oscar Wilde saw himself as an aesthete who appreciated all beauty, in the models of the Greeks. Which is why, at his trial, he said ""The love that dares not speak its name" in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art, like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as 'the love that dares not speak its name', and on that account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an older and a younger man, when the older man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it, and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it." Obviously there was a sexual element as well, but that's essentially how Wilde saw it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely - the list is a collection of links (it is only a list). It brings together a lot of information for people to follow up. It should not be about putting labels on people, juding them and putting definitive labels on them. There should be a set of criteria for being on the list relevant to the "subject". The articles (on wiki and elsewhere) are the place where there is/should be (eventually) context and detail. Leave labels to other people. E.g. someone was married and had children and had a series of same-sex affairs. They never made any statements - or friends made contradictory statements. Were they always "bisexual"? Where they straight and then later gay but stayed married for the sake fo the children? Always gay? Who knows what definition to use? Who knows what the person thought or felt? Should they be on the list? Yes, because relevant to the "subject". Follow the links and read a biography. Don't set yourself up as judges in between the information and the reader. Give the reader the information whenever possible. When links can be provided and information continually amended and updated, the whole nature of what an encyclopedia can be is changes for the better. The reader becomes an equal. Facts not labels. Facts not libels. NerriTunn 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Split the article?

Perhaps this article should be split into List of bisexual women and List of bisexual men. This list is huge - almost 70kb, and probably one of the longest lists on Wikipedia. It is also the type of list that can only grow large over time. If we split it then each article would average to 35kb, which is much more manageable and less likely to cause problems for readers.Koweja 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think convention is to split it by alphabet. A-E, F-J, K-O, and so on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That would probably be better for size management. Is there a convention on letter groupings (would A-E be acceptable, but not A-C)? In any case, I'm just throwing out ideas on keeping the article manageable.Koweja 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, A-E, F-J, K-O, P-T, and U-Z. You might want to wait til the list gets a bit longer though before splitting it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer splitting by gender than by letter. --Deenoe 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it's easier for someone just browsing around, which is the main purpose of this list. If someone wants to know about someone in particular, the person will check the someone article. --Deenoe 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I confess I don't really see how splitting by gender rather than alphabet would provide any extra functionality... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're just browsing around the list (like I know a lot of people do), the letters thing makes a lot of pages to visit, and the alphabet sections aren't really that big to justify an alphabet split anyway. --Deenoe 11:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer an alphabetic split to a gender-based one. Alphabetic splits can be customized to the size of the list; this list is much smaller than the general LGB list and A-L, M-Z or thereabouts might be enough of a split. A gender-based split, on the other hand, creates a separation between male and female bisexual people that, to my mind, is entirely artificial. Not to mention ironic in the context of the article. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How is ironic? --Deenoe 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I guess dividing it by gender could cause issues with any transvestites or people who choose not to identify themselves as any gender (I'm drawing a blank on the term right now) that we include on the list if they do not see themselves as the same gender we do. Dividing by letter would not cause this problem, so I say lets go with that. Koweja 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Mhhh.. good point.. --Deenoe 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the list be split at the same time as it is converted to tables. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

encyclopedic??

Iam rather new to the wikipedia as an editor, but have been a long-time reader and a lurker on talk pages. Every once in a while, I stumble over excellent articles, totally worthy of any encyclopedia and it convinces me of the greatness of this whole thing. Then again, I come across a list like this one and begin doubting the project (in parts, that is). Not to offend anybody, but is this topic really worthy of an entry in a serious encyclopedia? I just wonder, and would enjoy to hear any opinions. In other words, please convince me. Kncyu38 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

the point is that people who can see the point write the articles they want to and they don't have to bother about justifying themselves to people who can't see the point, which is all rather wonderful. Serious - Are ping pong and the thousands of other sports and pastimes that get pages and pages each more serious? Answer: No. (Encyclopedic must be the most braindead word bandied about wikipedia - in your editing note the people who use it and you will blush and stop doing so very quickly) NerriTunn 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not very convincing, provided that you were trying to be. Articles need community support, because otherwise they can be deleted. I agree that there are too many ridiculous articles (how's that for it is of no merit I can recognize although I'm trying to?), but that doesn't make this one better. (I also know --and agree with-- what you mean by users who overuse that expression, although I maintain the most braindead and overused word on the wikipedia is unencyclopedic.) Kncyu38 15:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, this isn't really an article, it's an list. As such it serves more as an index to articles, so it doesn't have to be encyclopedic in the same sense as pages about specific people linked to on this list do. See WP:LISTS for specifics on what type of lists are appropriate. This list fits under all three purposes - information (people searching for a list of famous bisexuals for whatever reason), navigation (as I said before, it's an index/table of contents to these articles), development (the LGBT project is quite active and this is certainly helpful for them).

And NerriTunn, you should calm down and not assume that everything is an attack against you personally or the LGBT community. He asked a perfectly valid question. Koweja 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kncyu38, as you will see from the discussions above, this list is undergoing a fairly extensive overhaul to bring it up to standards. At the moment it has been used as a soapbox for pushing a rather inclusive view of bisexuality without much concern for encyclopedic criteria (or indeed the law of defamation). It has gained a slightly tabloid feel. When I first came across the list I was very tempted to send it straight to AfD. However, on reflexion I think there is a salvageable article in this list. There can be a noticeable stigma to bisexuality- labelled as 'gay' by the straight community but not fully trusted by the gay community either. Bringing together the information about those who have openly declared themselves to be bisexual (or historical figures about whom such a conclusion has been widely reached) helped to bring the topic into the mainstream. It also illustrates the various walks of life these people come from and serves as a stepping stone to see what contributions these people have made to the word in their various professions.

I hope this goes some way towards answering your question- which I think was perfectly valid. I don't think as an editor one should ever refuse to explain (or be offended by a request to explain) why it is that an article is worthy of inclusion. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It does, and thank you for taking the time (thanks also for WP:LISTS, didn't know that one). Please excuse me if I appeared somewhat uninformed/overeager (a combination I am frequently charged with in real life). I think in some respects I am still in the progress of settling in with what the wikipedia really is. Kncyu38 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Phillippe

Ryan Phillippe was added to this list at least twice by anonymous contributer/s, variously citing interviews with Jay Leno, David Letterman and The Advocate magazine. None of these sources are linked; a search on The Advocate's website brings up no interviews and only peripheral citations. Also, the phrase "openness to bisexuality" is used, ambiguous in and of itself.

Just something to keep an eye open for; until an adequate interview quotation and link are found, he doesn't belong on this list. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Katie Rees

seeing as she was caught with another woman, shouldn't she be added to the list? 67.172.61.222 22:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Bisexuality is defined as "aesthetic, romantic, or sexual desire for individuals of either gender or of either sex". Making out with someone one of any sex for attention, money, or because you're drunk doesn't determine your sexuality. Unless she has acknowledged that she is bisexual, then no she shouldn't be added. Koweja 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

James Dean

James Dean's sexual orientation and exploits thereof seems to be a subject of some controversy. He is at the moment categorized in the bisexual American actors category, but that is presumably controversial, as well. Should he be listed? Which sources should be used, given that many of them seem to be second-person accounts by acquaintances and posthumous biographies? Maybe he should be mentioned with an extra sentence to clarify the controversy, something like, "according to biographers X, Y & Z." LeaHazel : talk : contribs 16:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Names removed for no reference

I have removed the following names from the list because no reference or citation is provided. Feel free to put the names back on the list when a citation can be given.

• David Bacon American actor

• Aleister Crowley, British author, poet, occultist, bon viveur.

• Marlene Dietrich (1901–1992), German actress, entertainer and singer.

• Harry Hay, early gay rights activist, founded Mattachine society, married to a woman

• Jenna Jameson (born 1974), American porn star who discussed her bisexuality in autobiography, How to Make Love Like A Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale

• Oscar Wilde (1844–1900), Irish writer

• Aileen Wuornos, serial killer

●DanMS 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support removals. Every entry in this list must be reliably sourced per WP:BLP. I've restored Oscar Wilde with a reference. WJBscribe 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I support removing unreferenced entries, in general, but Jenna Jameson? The citation is given, her autobiography. What greater element of self-identification is needed? The fact that it's not a link doesn't mean it's not a reference. (Also, Hay and Bacon IMHO should not be listed, as they both appear to be gay rather than bisexual.) LeaHazel : talk : contribs 09:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed Bacon, Crowley, Hay, and Wuornos once again. Someone added those names back into the list without providing citations. Wikipedia policy requires fact citations. Please do not add these names back into the list without providing references. See the paragraph in the introduction to the article. ●DanMS 17:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible for people to spend one minute looking for references when they have a problem instead of removing them with an annoyingly priggish and self-satisfied air? NerriTunn 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor who is adding names to the list to provide the associated references. It is not the responsibility of other editors to find references for names. If you have the references, please add the names back to the list with citation. Thanks. ●DanMS 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, NerriTunn, we haven't spoken for ages! Once again I have to remind you that the requirements of WP:BLP are not optional. Controversial claims about living people must be sourced. If sources can't be found, they don't belong on this list. WjBscribe 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again the degree to which people edit and read wikipedia in a brain-dead state is depressing. Read what I said. I said, don't be smug and lazy tw*ts - do some work yourselves, all of you!!!!!!! It is not enough to be negative - just because that's the rules. You have to do more, you have something constructive too. (Is twits a bad word?)NerriTunn 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Linda Blair

I removed linda blair from the list, the link given was [5] and this link merely says that she once had sex with a woman, that does not qualify her as being bisexual. --Xyzzyplugh 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And now I've removed Beverly D'Angelo, who was put on the list due the the following link which also doesn't support bisexuality [6] --Xyzzyplugh 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I've found another one to remove, Crystal Bernard. The link given was[7]. It appears that someone has added a bunch of people to this article based on Clublez links which don't actually support them being bisexual. A Clublez entry saying, "this person once had sex with a woman" does not qualify a woman for inclusion on this list. Probably there are many others which will need to be removed from this article. --Xyzzyplugh 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I see that for many entries in this list, not the most reliable sources are used. Like nndb.com (user edited with some control), Clublez.com (also not the most reliable source). Especially since the inclusion on this list could be considered controversial material per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. See also, coincidentally, this edit [8]. Can better be sources be found? Garion96 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, looks like you and I were discovering the same problem at the exact same time. I just went through and counted 69 clublez supported entries in this article. Probably many of them will have to go. --Xyzzyplugh 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice coincidence. :) All of them I think, unless other sources can be found. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a day or so to see if someone who is a regular contributor to this article wants to handle this (or you can handle it now if you wish to). If no one else does, I will remove most if not all of the clublez links. --Xyzzyplugh 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone has sex with a member of the same sex that is enough for this list. How on earth can anyon e look further in 99% of cases. How many times do we need to say it "bisexuality does not exist" - there are only people thinking and doing. Clublez references articles - it seems to work out as reliable by the NYT - baseless prejudice is not enough. First support what you say - then we can consider if your at present arbitrary actions are based on rationality.NerriTunn 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Plus someone is removing names for which there are other sources too. This is vandalism

NerriTunn 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If a person has sex (one time) with a member of the same sex, I don't think it's enough to consider them bisexual, but that's besides the point.

To quote from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed" and " The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."

Clublez.com or NNDB are not high quality references. Garion96 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(comment is to NerriTunn) Clublez clearly is not a reliable source, as defined by either Wikipedia:Reliable sources or WP:V. As for this list in general: "Bisexual" does not just mean whatever you want it to mean, it's an actual english word with an actual definition. The american heritage dictionary defines it as "having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex". Merriam webster defines it as "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes". You want to define the word to mean "Having ever had sex with persons of both sexes", but this is not the standard definition of the term and so it would make no sense for us to use it here. If you want to make a separate list called List of persons who have had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences or some such thing, feel free to do so. Whether or not there is such a thing as Bisexuality is really not the issue here, but if you believe there is not, then you'd be better off trying to get this article renamed, rather than arguing for your own personal definition of the article's title. --Xyzzyplugh 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This was all gone through years ago. It was decided to let them stand. Just because 2 people come late doesn't change that Soane 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see some mention of that in the archive. Almost all agree indeed that nndb is an unreliable source. It's like IMDB, User edited with some control, but not a reliable source. See also the link I added above. Clublez btw is beyond unreliable. Garion96 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that clublez is reliable in fact - it has had 2 stories removed in ten years - because the source cited turned out to be wrong. That is better than 99% of what pass for sources...if it didn't have the word lez in it, no one would bother. Nndb is also as reliable as other sources - if you actually bother to check. Just because some fatheads get together elsewhere to condemn them as unreliable means nothing - because they know nothing. And Xyzzyplugh, read the previous discussions you came so late to. Plus the American Heritage Dictionary is not a reliable source - it is a monument to the intellectual shallowness of American culture outside a few ponds of intelligence in a few cities and on a few campuses. NerriTunn 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources, much like bisexuality, doesn't just mean whatever you would like it to mean, it has a specific definition. There is much written about this in WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but what it comes down to is, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight". Whether some particular source turns out to be accurate does not make it qualify as a reliable source in the sense that we use it here on wikipedia. I can write a blog and everything I write on it can be 100% true for year after year, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source. --Xyzzyplugh 14:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clublez is a seriously problematic source. When I read this article and look for the source of information about one person, and the source tells me she is "lesbian" while the article says she's "bisexual", that's needlessly confusing. Biographies are good sources, intervies are good sources, official sites with news releases and FAQs are good sources. Myself, I've found the best source to be The Advocate, at least for the fairly recent people, and GLBTQ.com for others. GLBTQ.com is an encyclopedic-level website, where each article includes the name of the author and extensive citations. It's an excellent source. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 07:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone please stop engaging with NerriTunn? She's determined, against all policy, to label every person on Wikipedia bisexual who has ever been alleged to have looked lairily at a MOTSS - that's all she does here, insert allegations of bisexuality into people's biographies. It's really not worth our time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have made several points which boil down to - all readers should be respected. 1) People come to this list with all sorts of interests and views about bisexuality. An attempt should be made to cater to all of those. Artificial definitions of bisexuality should not be imposed - because sexuality is all over the place - people can have periods of bisexuality of varying intensity during their lives. That cannot be captured by the 'common sense' (i.e.scientifically and philosophically naive nonsense} some people push. So people who have had bisexual experience belong here - because we are not saying that being bisexual is something that comes in one shape. And I am interested to know who has had bisexual experiences. The more people do the better the world will be. 2) It is perfectly clear that readers are quite as intelligent as the editors on this site. In fact, you have to be a little stupid to engage with the HS types that crawl over it. The readers can safely be presented with the information - a source is provided. They can read. Don't decide for other people!!! 3) The CIA and the US government are not reliable sources - they manipulate information for their own purposes. The US media in general are unreliable - they accept what they are fed. Their record is worse than Clublez and nndb (which are very reliable if you check them out). But the US have more power and people worship power. And the idea of 'reliable sources' on wiki is to control information (under cover of letting every blogger 'self-source'). Xyzzyplugh has already told us that it doesn't matter in fact how reliable a source it - it has to meet with the approval of the know-nothing geeks who discuss sources. They are the self-appointed censors. I'd like Dick Cheney to be my censor and tell me what reliable news sources are. There is a nasty whiff of ideological fascism from dev920 who wants things to be the way he wants and wants to block people who argue differently. Dev920 never argues rationally NerriTunn 11:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

NerriTunn, regardless of whether or not you agree with Wikipedia policies, they are still policies and they are not going to be suspended for this article because you don't like them. If you want to get them changed, the way to do that is to go to the talk page of Wikipedia:Attribution (the new policy which has just taken the place of WP:V), and see if you can get people to agree that the reliable sources policy should be changed. --Xyzzyplugh 12:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have told you twice I am female. I have also made it quite clear to you that Wikipedia does not allow allegations without a reliable source and that your wild conspiracy theories do not change that policy. You have now freely admitted that you want the world to be bisexual and you are pushing your POV everywhere. If you continue I will report to to AN/I and have you blocked, as numerous editors have attempted to bring Wikipedia policy to your attention and you have repeatedly ignored them and demanded that people who have been alleged to have had same sex experiences by unreliable sources be included. This is not about the intelligence of editors or readers, it is about verifiable 'fact. Either abide by that or leave. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The erratic indentation on this talk page makes my eyes tear up. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pink

Pink?source--sin-man 09:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Admiration

I am filled with admiration for those who collaborated to turn the article into table-format. It looks great! Kudos. Dev, I'd give you a barnstar, if I knew how. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Well, I aprpeciate the sentiment. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

I've removed Katharine Hepburn because both ref links were dead and I could not find a reliable source. The GLBTQ encyclopedia makes some claim, but it's not robust enough for this list. Future research on this is welcome. --67.188.0.96 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Three biographies are enough. 207.216.194.78 has been given a vandalism warning.NerriTunn 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Joey Lauren Adams

I've removed Joey Lauren Adams. While she did play a bisexual character in Chasing Amy, on a page linked from her entry in Wikipedia, she clearly states that she is not bisexual. JediLofty 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The original quote in an interview in 1997 was, "I'm bisexual, and I realized that when I went to Bali where the culture there is very bisexual, and it is the first time I was very attracted to women. I have a lot of friends who are [that way]; in fact, most." planetoutSomeone has been doctoring the references to make them point to other articles on the site. I think this is more reliable than a very possibly fictitious suicidegirls interview (copied from somewhere else and then doctored). 62.64.218.57 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue, although I can't see that "Planet Out" is a particularly reliable source. I'd not even heard of it until you mentioned it! :-) JediLofty 08:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Which quote is newer? That's the basic question that needs to be answered. If it can't be determined, a supporting quote would be helpful. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I searched Google and the only pages I can find that talk about her bisexuality are the "Planet Out" one and ones that take their data from Wikipedia! JediLofty 12:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Disputed section

Dev has removed the section of "disputed" people from the list and I support her removal. Who objects? Let's discuss. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 00:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

there are the living and the dead. The dead can't be libelled but evidence can be unclear. It seems to me having disputed (awaiting better evidence either way) is fine. With living people, the evidence should stand up. (Would a 'subject to rumour' section be wrong if honestly based on available sources?) Personally, I am happy to read any evidence about anybody and make my own mind up, but then, I think all sexualities are equal (though bi is best) 62.64.167.238 10:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The section just shouldn;t be there. Being dead or alive is irrelevant, if someone was reliably known to be bisexual, they should be in the main list. If they weren't, then we shouldn't be making such allegations, partly for WP:BLP reasons, partly for WP:OR reasons, and partly because we shouldn't be trying to claim the world for our own. If someone has reliable sources proving bisexuality, they should have a proper entry. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the removal. *by the way, normally we talk BEFORE removing again...* Like 62.64.167.238, sometimes evidences are not clear, or are, as the section suggest, disputable. If someone clearly DENIES bisexuality, then it should not belong to the disputed section, but people like William Shakespeare, or Alexander the Great for example, are disputed to be bisexual, by arthefacts and historical evidence. If we cannot decide that they are bisexual, we can't really decide that they aren't, can we? --Deenoe 11:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

People, please stop reverting and counter-reverting until we reach consensus.

I believe that this should be a list of people who are bisexual, not people who might be bisexual. In fact, I'mnot so certain that historical people whose biographers are in dispute should be included. Per WP:BLP, of course anyone who has not stated themselves to be bisexual, or anyone who has specifically stated they are not bisexual (e.g. David Bowie and other shock-rockers of the seventies) should not be included in this list, "disputed" or otherwise.

As to past personalities whose sexuality has been under question and remained unconclusive, many of them have articles discussing their sexual orientation (e.g. Sexuality of William Shakespeare). Perhaps these personalities should be grouped under a separate list (or more in-depth article) titled something like historical sexual orientation controversies. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just because we can't prove someone straight we should put them in a list of bisexual people? Don't be ridiculous. Bisexuals are a small fraction of the population - if there's no evidence to prove they were bisexual then we should assume they aren't and keep them out of this list! The standard for inclusion is VERIFABILITY, NOT TRUTH. This section consists of "This people was alleged to be bisexual this one time, oh, but we have no evidence or we would have added them to the main list", which is utterly unacceptable, and this simply shouldn't be here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No evidence? It's because there's actually some pieces of evidence, but not enough to be SURE that they are DISPUTED. --Deenoe 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then that counts as poorly sourced and should be removed immediately. Have you ever read that BLP notice up top? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people use naive arguments about evidence. What is clear to one person is disputed by someone else (look at how many articles on wiki are 'defended' by fans in denial about their heroes). It is always possible to 'dispute' evidence. Lawyers make a living out of it. Some people have their long term aim to remove the article entirely. That has been clear for months. They have an authoritarian personality.62.64.225.124 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks - do not vandalize the talk pages. It is childish. Argue in a grown up way. 62.64.225.124 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They are genuine points. I am criticizing views about evidence. Now people are showing intolerance. No on blanks them when they call people they disagree with trolls and such like. Now they are issuing threats. It is all well within 'parliamentary language'. When they get out in the real world, they will not go far with such a thin skin. 62.64.217.242 19:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here: First is that, as Dev920 says, it's about verifiability. Therefore, reliable references (in biographies, interviews and legitimate media) stating that a particular person's sexuality has been questioned or is disputed passes the WP:V test. The second issue is whether or not the information has a place in this article. Not on the basis of propriety or BLP concerns, but on the basis of whether it actually falls within the scope of the article, and whether it is encyclopedic. Not every verifiable fact is encyclopedic. FWIW, there was an article on CBC just yesterday reporting on the media speculation about Jodie Foster's sexuality. Boom. Verifiable. NOT that she is bisexual, or that she may be bisexual, but that there is verifiable documentation of the doubts about her sexuality, and that it's a news item in mainstream media. Personally I don't think it's an issue about whether or not someone is dead or alive. It really pisses me off in fact, that the threshold for labelling someone as a possible, probable or definite bisexual or homosexual is so low on this encyclopedia. But if there is reputable evidence that a notable person's sexuality is in doubt, it passes the verifiability test. Whether or not it is encyclopedic is a different topic. Anchoress 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Per above arguments, the section should be removed. This isn't the "List of possibly bisexual people" - it's a list of people who are bisexual, <spock>and therefore a section of "disputed" entries is illogical. </spock> -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be several issues here: Some people seem to want to remove the section without viewing any evidence. They just want to blank it. That says something. And in fact I am interested in whether Shakespeare was bisexual (and Caesar and Leonardo etc). I want to know what the evidence is. I know that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is not available - and will never be available for most people. So I want to see what the case is put at its best. I don't think it is wrong to be interested in whether other people are bisexual. I don't think that bisexuality is morally different from left-handedness and I don't think the standard of evidence needs to be higher for a discussion of one than the other. I am not interested in bowing to pressure from bigots on it either. What is a little creepy is how some people want a list of the "really, really bisexual" - bisexuality "pure". Why on earth? People are interesting. What people do or don't do, what they deny themselves or allow themselves is interesting. The progress of sanity in the realm of sexuality (ending in a world where no one comes out because no one was ever in) is interesting. A list of "100% bisexuals" for the sake of having a list of "100% bisexuals" is weird and creepy and a denial of how messy life, sexuality, humanity, and evidence are. Ideally there would be a list of names and a list of sources without mentioning the word bisexual anywhere. I'd prefer to call it "List of people associated with sources discussion bisexuality in the human male and female" - then it is made clear that no one is having judgment passed on them. But no one will let me rename it. Further: Encyclopedic is a stupid concept. Wikipedia should be better than the Britannica: it should have in it what people are interested in.

So returning to the topic: disputed sexuality belongs here as long as there are bona fide sources. Throw out unsourced or the bad faith sources - it is as simple as that. NerriTunn 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this section is pointless. But at least it should be sourced. The section has been unsourced since July 2006. So I removed the unsourced entries per Wikipedia:Attribution#Wikipedia_articles_must_be_based_on_reliable_sources. Plus, a list is a stand alone article in regard to sourcing. It doesn't matter if the actual article mentions it, it should be sourced on the list. Garion96 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Most articles seem pointless to me - but that doesn't mean I feel justified in removing them. How can you be so conceited without blushing? AND don't make up your own rules about sourcing. Why not transfer the sources yourself, then you might look helpful rather than pointless? 62.64.215.84 13:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't make my own rules. To quote from WP:ATT "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material". This section has been unsourced and tagged as such for almost a year. A list is a stand alone article in regard to sourcing. See WP:LIST#References_for_list_items. And yes, I do enough to make crappy lists into good ones. See List of HIV-positive people. Garion96 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the nature of a dispute that it not amenable to summing up in a link. Elsewhere is the appropriate place for discussion. Why not assume good faith on the part of contributors? Put another way: which entries are not in good faith? which entries are not legitimately there? I am very happy to hear you do good work. WP:LIST#References_for_list_items is to be overruled good sense 62.64.215.84 14:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If we each provide a source or two, it wouldn't take long. Soane 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Authoritarian personalities

There are users who seek to stifle debate on these pages. They should grow up and stop blanking other people's comments. An inability to cope with difference is behind homophobia and facism. People should examine their consciences. 62.64.225.124 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nell Carter

The cited source makes no mention of Nell Carter's sexual orientation other than her marriage to a man. The source instead focuses on her Jewish faith. Her entry should be removed.Light Bulb 01:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I see three sources 62.64.217.242 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Clune

She identified as lesbian for 12 years and had relationships with women, then she became straight and has had four children with a man. Just because she doesn't like the word 'bisexual' doesn't mean she shouldn't be on the list. Many 'bisexuals' hate the word. The list is not a club for people who identify with a word! Her story is precisely the kind that should be here, messing up simplistic thinking. NerriTunn 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Clune was recently added to the list based on this article written by her. One of the closing sentences of the article is: "For God's sake don't call us bisexual." I removed her entry based on that sentence, because it seems to go against WP:BLP to list someone as bisexual when she wrote an article specifically saying she's not bisexual. M.A.Dicker clearly disagrees. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

She didn't say she was not bisexual - she said she didn't like being called it. It was the word she doesn't like - she isn't denying the facts she has just spent several hundred words outlining! Sheesh. 88888 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. NerriTunn 14:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

She talks a few times in the article about "going straight". The reference to not calling her bisexual was in talking about both herself and others who had previously been lesbians. It is quite clear that at the moment she sees herself as heterosexual. I thought the definition of bisexual was a bit more nuanced than "has had partners of both sexes". 81.137.212.229 13:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It is a common thing to have periods of one's life in which one is attracted to one sex, then things can change round. That is my experience. Narrow categories produce absurdity. NerriTunn 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...I was actually disagreeing with you! Bisexual is a term on which there is very little agreement. The article referred to does not make it clear that she is now or ever has been bisexual. The "please don't call us bisexual" quote, is in my eyes a bit of a red herring. Unless there is clear evidence of someones bisexuality, they shouldn't be listed. I don't think having had partners of both sexes is necessarily a sign of bisexuality. There are plenty of gay folk who have previously been in straight relationships and would definitely not be considered bisexual. 81.137.212.229 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is little agreement - that's why this list should be inclusive and not have arbitrarily narrow criteria for inclusion. She clearly has had meaningful emotional/sexual relationships with men and women (at least one of each). That is sufficient. Whether she likes the word bisexual or identifies with the word or, for whatever political or aesthetic reason, prefers something else (queer or whatever) is the red herring. I would suggest that the sensible way to proceed is to ask: has this person, over their lifetime, expressed attraction to men and women and/or had sexual relations with men and women. (There is a case for excluding those who simply 'tried it out' - but the less broad the criteria, the more pointless the arguments about listing become. But then there is an argument for a 'tried it once' section or marking). The detailed discussion should be in the evidence and in the biographical articles (what precisely the evidence is, whether they 'identified', what they said themselves, whether their attraction to men and women ran in parallel or alternated during periods of their lives (as is not uncommon), etc). That way the subject is treated broadly and a picture of the diversity of sexualities emerges. This list should not be about labeling in some narrow sense. Artificial criteria kill all individuality, 'nuance' if you like - and pointlessly, in my view. NerriTunn 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case then this article should be called something different (though that argument's been done already). In any case, you POV seems to be the arbitrary one - almost 'bisexual until proved otherwise'. 81.137.212.229 07:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says what it is in the first sentence - it is how the list has been for several years. "This is a list of confirmed famous people who were or are bisexual: people who have had sexual relations with, or have expressed sexual attraction to, both sexes. " (This is not a question of evidence - normal evidential rules apply.) NerriTunn 18:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Change the intro

"Were or are bisexual" sounds like sexuality can be changed. It should be altered to "are or were previously identified as bisexual".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I have no idea how that intro has passed me by. Might I suggest the folliwing opening sentence. "This is a list of bisexual famous people:people who have identified as bisexual or have expressed sexual attraction to both sexes. This list does not include those who have had one-off sexual relations with the same sex, nor people who are simply rumored to be bisexual." That tightens up our definition a bit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That definition is far too subjective. It is not about how people label or define themselves. What is the point in that? It is part of a fetish for simplicity (simple-mindedness) and neatness and a (secret?) feeling that bisexuality is wrong. For that definition, you should start a "List of people identifying as bisexual or having expressed (how often, does the expression of attraction have to be 'more than one off?) attraction to both sexes, but not including those who clearly lived as bisexuals but couldn't, or wouldn't, or to whom it didn't occur to, give interviews about it". What counts as expressing attraction? If someone has a lifetime of same- and opposite-sex relationships - but doesn't give interviews then they are not bisexual? Which bisexuals on the list would remain? Louis Aragon? Josephine Baker? Bruce Chatwin? Marlene Dietrich? Edward II? Althea Flynt? Greta Garbo? Go to 'famous gay and lesbian' lists and see how you get away with it! But with bisexuals any idiocy that creates bisexual erasure is fine. Some common sense, please! (Sexuality can be 'changed' - many, perhaps most, people will become bisexual in the right circumstances.)NerriTunn 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So would my proposed intro be ok with everyone then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More rational would be discuss the issue openly rather than trying to apply 'closure'. Why are you a man who calls yourself female on your talk page? NerriTunn 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)