Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa-Sc

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa-Sc

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: 14 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 01:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "Sa-Sc" in the list of LGB people. There should not be any LGB person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with Sa-Sc that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. This nomination follows on the heels of the successful nominations of A, Sd-Si, Sj-Sz, T-V, and W-Z. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination and subsequent promotion of other List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people subpages. Comprehensive, well-formatted, fully referenced (and therefore uncontroversial) and has images to illustrate the people in question. Meets all criteria. •97198 talk 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looks great, but I have an issue with the profession column. A few examples: Is Jorge Saavedra's profession an AIDS activist? That's not what his article says. Is Michael Sandy's profession murder victim? I sure hope not. Same with Allen R. Schindler, Jr. and Felice Schragenheim. Also, Randolph Scott was only rumored to be gay, no? I'm not sure if that makes him worthy of inclusion - in fact, it could be considered libel (slander?), though I'm probably exaggerating a bit. Drewcifer 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a couple other comments on the "Profession" column, too, so I understand what you're saying. I guess maybe "Notability" would be a better heading?
Scott is a tough one. A paragraph that was deleted from the article (see [1]) has three different second-hand sources. To my knowledge, Scott never said he was gay, so all we have to go on are other people's reports. And as long as those are properly referenced, they can be included. I'll examine that article a little more fully and see what I can see. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Profession column is fine, I just don't think things like AIDS activist and Murder victim apply to that column. They seem more applicable to the Notes section, although it seems you've set a precedence in previous lists to reserve that for noting someone's bisexuality. Whatever you think is best.
As for the Randloph Scott thing, it is a particularly hairy thing. It leads me to a larger question: what is the criteria for entry into the list? If it is that someone has rumored someone else to be gay/lesbian/bisexual then there is a serious problem (with this list and the previous ones as well). If the criteria is that they have announced/admitted/made no secret of it, then that puts the lists on much more secure footing, but means that Scott shouldn't be included. Let's face it, people who aren't gay usually don't want to be called gay, so we should only do so very carefully. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, there's sort of a precedence. Saavedra's info is correct, though. He founded the first Ambulatory Care AIDS Clinic in Mexico City, among other activities, so I think that's about right. I've changed Sandy's to be "designer", as in his article.
To the larger question, anyone on the list(s) has a reliably sourced reference of either them saying they are LGB or a biography (or other source) that says they are LGB.
WRT Scott, people don't say they're LGB for a variety of reasons. During Scott's life, coming out would have been the death of his career. And yet he (and others) were known to have had LGB relationships. The question is the reliability of the documents regarding their relationships. I honestly don't know in Scott's case, so I'm removing him, but for all my additions, I don't put them on the list (or even in LGBT categories) unless I have reliable sources. And the LGBT project is following the same guidelines - we're working off of this list, in case you're interested. And we do tread that fine line between honesty (if they're gay, they're gay), verifiability, and BLP. Take a look at Little Richard some time for the balancing act that has to be followed :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of bringing up further issues beyond the scope of this single FLC: the formatting of the table(s) is wierd. There's still the issue of the Murder victim as a profession, but also some of the lists have periods after the profession, this one doesn't. The precedence in previous FL lists of this type is to have the period, but I don't think that's correct. Granted, this may be a criticism of the other lists rather than this one. And in most lists with a reference/citation column, the citation is usually centered in the cell. Also, after a bit of digging through the citations, I'm still not confident on what the criteria for inclusion is. For instance the citation for Sappho only says "lesbian interest". Savannah's page says she dated Pauly Shore and apparently made porn films with male performers. I dunno, but the digger I deep the more uncomfortable I'm getting with the completeness/accuracy of the list, and therefore with the other lists in the series. Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point by point:
  • "the formatting of the table(s) is wierd"
    Could you clarify?
  • "There's still the issue of the Murder victim as a profession"
    I've removed the other murder victim as well as a holocaust victim and a person persecuted under anti-homosexuality laws, replacing where possible with actual professions.
  • "some of the lists have periods after the profession, this one doesn't"
    Featured lists Sd-Si, Sj-Sz, T-V, and W-Z do not have periods after profession. Featured list A does.
  • "most lists with a reference/citation column, the citation is usually centered in the cell"
    I haven't reviewed all lists, but the first three that I found with a reference column: List of notable brain tumor patients, List of Athabasca University people, and List of HIV-positive people they are not centered.
  • "I'm still not confident on what the criteria for inclusion is"
    As stated in the intro, this is a list of famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. I will review each entry to make sure the reference cited confirms that fact.
  • "the citation for Sappho only says "lesbian interest"."
    I'm sorry - are you question whether Sappho was a lesbian? Perhaps that isn't the best reference for her - I will check that.
  • "Savannah's page says she dated Pauly Shore and apparently made porn films with male performers."
    Thank you - I've added "bisexual" to Savannah's entry on the list. Her article also goes in to the lesbian relationship she had with fellow porn actress Jeanna Fine.
Thanks for these - I'll be back once I've re-checked the references. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better and better! To clear up some confusion: the formatting was wierd because of the period and the centering of citations. The period thing is minor, but as a meta-issue beyond this one list, all the lists in the LGBT series should match each other, right? I was mistaken with the centering thing, I guess that's just my preference. As for my concern with the criteria for inclusion, I was mainly just repeating my concerns with the references and what they really say and whether they actually say the person was gay or not. What I was saying about Sappho was that the source doesn't verify that she was a lesbian - it almost says it, but not quite. I'm not doubting that she was, it just isn't backed up by the source provided. And that's exactly what I was inferring with the Savannah thing, that it seems she is bisexual. A "lesbian relationship" doesn't preclude the possibility of a heterosexual relationship, just that she had a relationship with another woman. In fact, (this is gonna seem picky, so apologies ahead of time), shouldn't sources also be provided for a person's heterosexuality/bisexuality? That is to say, if someone is bisexual, but the source provided only mentions a gay/lesbian relationship, then that's not giving equal weight to the persona's bisexuality. I don't know if that made sense. To put it another way: for any bisexual entries, the source provided should either explicitly say they are bisexual, or a source should be provided for both heterosexuality and homosexuality. Hopefully that makes some sense. Drewcifer (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)Regarding criteria as a whole - thanks for making me do that :) I had skipped several entries that were there when I started editing the list, thinking they must be okay, so I've now tweaked several of those - removed a bisexual, added a bisexual, and changed two references that better state the person's sexuality. Regarding Sappho, specifically, this is rather silly. I mean, it's Sappho! To your point, though, the reference states that the author Margaret Williamson is frank in noting Sappho's lesbian interest. Is her "lesbian interest" the same as "she's a lesbian"? Modern academics say yes, since being a lesbian is about who you're attracted to, not who you have sex with. And to your other point, I did make sure the bisexuals' references all say that they're bisexual, not just that they'd had homosexual relationships. Thanks again, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people:_Sa-Sc&oldid=1138486463"