Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:27, 8 December 2006

I can't find any reputable source saying Marlon Brando was bi, is this a legitimate fact? -- Paige 18:08, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have seen a porn image of Brando giving fellatio, anyway... Not that it should be considered evidence... =P

I have seen that image too (not that I wanted to) on a non porn site called find a death. I mentioned it to my Grandmum because that would have been in her era and she said she heard a rumour about it years ago. That isn't evidence either though. Also had never heard that Xtina was bisexual anywhere and I didn't in her article.Dakota 04:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I removed two folks from the disputed list which had been tagged with the comment "unclear", where there was no information in the article. As far as I'm concerned, saying "X might have been bisexual - it's unclear", and providing no further details either here or in the biographical article, is providing zero knowledge. Remember, knowledge has to be a justified, actionable belief. Martin 23:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

      In the case of Langston Hughes, there is quite a large amount of
      documentation about him being bisexual, although not "clear and
      convincing". See       
      http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol23no2/Langston.html and
      the documentary "Looking for Langston". In the case of Lord Byron,
      there seems to be substantial evidence indicating that he was 
      bi. See http://www.byronmania.com/byron/faq.html
      In the case of Nietzsche, see Joachim Kohler's book "Zarathustra's
      Secret".

Iggy Pop, like his friend Bowie, has also made contradictory statements about bisexuality. So has Ray Davies.

      Dave Davies, though, has publically admitted being bi. See    
      http://www.davedavies.com/articles/mojo_0596.htm. He will be
      added to the article. His brother is not gay or bi. 

Bowie? Contradictory? So, just what were he and Mick Jagger doing when Angela Bowie caught them in bed together? RickK 06:11, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this a fact, or just a myth?

Angela really claimed that, when pressured for something juicy right after she was allowed to talk about it again (there was some sort of agreement about her not talking to the press in their divorce). She later backpedalled on the matter though, so I suspect she was just trying to think of something juicy and got lured into saying something she didn't want to. Bowie's bisexuality in his younger years is reasonably well established though. --fvw* 02:26, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

_____

Bowie at various times in his career has denied being bi and at other times claimed he was. I'm not sure what his view on bisexuality is today.

Removed

• Dave Davies -- no info on sexuality in article, unclear how notable
• Drew Barrymore -- no info in article
• Diane Duane -- no article
• Anne Heche -- article suggests lesbian, not bi.
• Langston Hughes -- no info in article

* Angelina Jolie -- article talks about two marriages, but no info about being bi.

• • - 2. Jolie's open bisexuality contrasts sharply with the absence of openly bisexual actresses or characters on television and in the movies: Jolie's frank, matter-of-fact acknowledgment of her own bisexuality (she was in a relationship with model and Foxfire co-star Jenny Shimizu in 1996, before her marriage to Thornton) and bisexuality in general belies the secrecy and denial with which bisexuality is normally treated by the media and in entertainment. When told that many of Jane magazine's female readers had nominated her as "The Female Actor Who Makes Your Knees Weak," Jolie responded, "They're right to think that about me, because I'm the person most likely to sleep with my female fans. I genuinely love other women. And I think they know that." Just for the record :) --Naha|(talk) July 9, 2005 00:00 (UTC)
  • This page is interesting too --Naha|(talk) July 9, 2005 00:04 (UTC)
    • May I suggest that you place the research, which seems sound, on the talk:Angelina Jolie page and then add the basic info in an NPOV manner to the article. If a reference to Jolie's bisexuality is in her biography then it's a shoe-in to add her name here. Maybe just say that "it's been widely reported that Jolie was romantically involved with Shimizu before her marriage". Thanks for doing the research. Cheers, -Willmcw July 9, 2005 04:52 (UTC)

• Kristanna Loken -- no info in article

Martin

Anne Heche's male husband would be surprised to learn's she's not bisexual. Drew Barrymore would be surprised you haven't heard her quoted thusly: "Do I like women sexually? Yeah, I do. Totally. I have always considered myself bisexual.

"I love a woman's body. I think a woman and a woman together are beautiful, just as a man and a woman together are beautiful. Being with a woman is like exploring your own body, but through someone else.

"When I was younger I used to go with lots of women. Totally - I love it." . With all due respect, you can't rely on Misplaced Pages as a source. You have to do research elsewhere. - Outerlimits 23:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Sadly, Drew does not seem to have given us the benefit of her thoughts as to whether "a man and a man together are beautiful". Probably just an oversight. -- Outerlimits 23:05, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So put that info in their articles. You're right about Heche, of course.Martin 23:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Heche's husband has been in her article for some time. And I don't particularly care to add it to the Barrymore article. You can if you want. It's no justification for removing verifiable entries from this list. - Outerlimits 23:11, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I said, you're right about Heche.

We've had this argument before, and you know my reasons for feeling that it is justifiable. I feel that the onus is on the people who want to add to this list to provide some basic level of verification for their additions. If you want a list without basic checks, stick to List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Martin 23:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and you know my feeling that when an editor changes something he should research it to be sure he's right first. I know you disagree. And you know I think "basic checks" must include sources outside Misplaced Pages - and now I know you think that's wrong, too. Thanks, though, for all the Wikilove. -- Outerlimits 23:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

______________

Dave Davies not a notable figure? The Kinks are one of the major acts in the history of rock and roll. Davies has admitted to being bisexual.

Re: Lou Reed, he was openly bisexual for years but denied being bisexual in the early 80s. Then again, at the same time Reed also denied ever having used drugs....

I am removing Kenji Siratori from this article due to no mention appearing in his article and no mention on the Internet via a google search for '"Kenji Siratori" bisexual' (all hits are not relevant to Siratori or refer to a work of fiction by him. Siratori has recently been added inappropriately to numerous articles, see User talk:Todfox#Kenji Siratori. Kit 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Simon LeBon -- This article was the first time I've seen anything on his supposed "open bisuxuality". Where are the external references?

Josephine Baker?

There's nothing in Josephine Baker suggesting she's bi. Gwimpey 09:09, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of unsubstantiated

I personally would argue that unless there is a responsible reason to believe someone is bisexual, they should not be listed here; it is disrespectful to the person and also to the bisexual community (you wanna' join, you gotta' come out!). In short, unless the person is out, or has been outed by a respected source with good reason (e.g., a person working against gay rights) the person should not be listed.

Removed:

David Cain - based on rumor
Hugh Hefner - based on rumor and unsubstantiated reports
Mick Jagger - based on rumor and unsubstantiated statement by one person
Benji Madded - based on internet rumor
Cynthia Nixon - no basis provided
Eleanor Roosevelt - no basis provided

jesse 19:13, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) Jesse Liberty

I have restored Eleanor Roosevelt after substantial research I've found solid documentation of her bisexualtiy. Among other sources, see http://content.gay.com/channels/home/women/eleanor_000301.html http://www.biresource.org/features/roosevelt.html Jliberty 16:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Woody Allen anyone?

The guideline for living people is that there should be an entry in his biography which indicates when he came out, was outed or why you believe that he is queer and should be outed. Jliberty 16:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Marianne Faithfull, in her autobiography, suggests that Jagger has bisexual tendencies, but she never mentions him acting upon those. He could possibly be put in the "disputed" category, but I personally have problems with putting living people who have not admitted their bisexuality or homosexuality publically on these lists.

I don't mean to keep harping on this, but one does not "admit" to homosexuality or bisexuality. Admit implies that the identity or behavior is bad (one does not "admit" to giving to charity or to being open-minded). Let's try to use "acknowledge". Jliberty 16:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Removed Michael Stipe based on the grounds that he acknowledged he was gay in Blender, and obviously gay is not bi. User:Dudewhiterussian

I'll sign on removing Hugh Hefner from the list; the main source of evidence for that is in his wild days he experimented. Bisexuality is a genuine phyiscal attraction to both sexes, not a mere curiousity. --David Youngberg 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why so many lists?

Why is this list separate from List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people? What purpose is served by having two overlapping lists? -Willmcw 22:51, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I posit that the reason is, because bisexuality is not the same thing as homosexuality, or transsexuality. Having the unique lists are relevant, withe larger umbrella list including all those listed in the sub-ground lists, There are times when articles might refer to celebrated bisexuals, which would not and should not include people who are and/or exclusively identify as homosexual. transgendered, or transsexuality is not even the same thing as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, as it is a gender issue and not a sexual orientation. A transgendered person can be either homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Lestatdelc 20:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I second that and also point out that lists of well known people who belong to persecuted or marginalized minorities is inherently valuable for research purposes. Bisexuals are marginalized by both the straight and the Gay community. Jliberty 16:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then should the lists be separated? Keeping the lists 'synchronized' is obviously a problem. -Willmcw 19:27, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for removal

Pete Doherty - the rent boy thing was something he made up in an interview once, I'm pretty certain he's not bisexual. Also I may be wrong but Lord Byron? I didn't think he was bisexual either.

I notice that you've been systemically removing all of the bisexual references from his bio. Also, you've insisted that he is heterosexual, based on your own original research. I think that you are pushing this issue, without any sources. He has said that he has been a rent boy, he has kissed his bandmates on the lips, there have been rumors, etc. Deleting these won't make them go away. -Willmcw 22:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

For someone who has been supposedly "openly bisexual for several years", there is no documentation, printed or otherwise in which Simon Le Bon openly declares his bisexuality. It is also something that has never been documented in the press. The only thing he is noted for is the amount of female acquaintances he has, as well as his long term marriage to model Yasmin. 26/10/2005

Angelina Jolie? Drew Barrymore? PARIS HILTON!? OH MY!

There is no way Angelina and Drew are bi. even Paris there is no way seeing as she made a sex tape. I think this artical has been tampered with.--Dylankidwell 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore articles discusses their bisexuality, actually. Olessi 04:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

...are you saying bisexuals do not have sex with men and/or videotape it? Maybe you should look at the bisexuality article? JustADuck 23:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

don't forget that angelina had a pretty public relationship with another woman a few years back. Joeyramoney 21:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Yes, I know, I know, it's a very old discussion. His sexual orientation has never been adequately proven as bisexual. The Roman sources that cite him as a homosexual or bisexual are dubious; this allegation also came from the peripatetic philosophers, who reportedly held quite a few things against him, so they cannot possibly be objective. Furthermore, Plutarch and Arrian present him as quite a bit of a "prude" (see the incident with Philoxenus). Not only that, but the whole Bagoas thing... Plutarch tells us that Alexander openly accused the eunuch Bagoas (the one presented to us as being Alexander's lover) of having conspired to assassinate his father, Philip. Now, does it make much sense for anyone to get involved in an affair with the instigator of his father's death? I think not. Elp gr 13:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality was the norm in those days. It's quite established that in ancient Greece men were expected to be bisexual. It wasn't considered an insult to say that someone had sex with other men, so defamation by people who opposed him is probably not the case. Franzose 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if bisexuality was the norm in those days. Most of this information comes from (ancient) Persian sources, and the Persians, if you recall, were the Greeks’ enemy. A New York Times reporter who went to Pakistan recently was shocked to discover that the average Pakistani believes that every American man has a male lover besides his wife. If such myth were to propagate further, future generations would assume of the US what we assume of ancient Greeks. Jack D., 29 September 2006

Merge

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people encompasses all the names that can be included on this list. However, that latter is the middle of some evidentiary cleanup to bring it up to encyclopedic standards (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, but specifically the proposed WP:LISTS). Duplicating names with different descriptions, citations and format is wasteful of editors resources. If need be, those figures who are specifically bisexual could be annotated appropriately in the more inclusive list, even in some prominent typographic manner, or with coloration. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just take all the bis out of the list of gay and lesbian people? Above someone gave some good reasons for keeping the bisexual list seperate from the homosexual list. JustADuck 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Because separating "gay" from "bisexual" people is an impossible and largely subjective quagmire, and is very often a matter about which a given individual's self-identification changes over time. But largely also because the evidentiary standard of this list remains terrible, while the list of GLB people has started to undergo improvement. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not fix the bi list instead? The people I see on this list are certainly bi, not homosexual. I think there's a way of seperating it well. JustADuck 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - While there is overlap I do believe that there is an independent value to the List of bisexuals Doc 03:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - I find it highly biphobic that those who are gay or lesbian feel that bisexuals must adapt and/or be forced to fit into their community. There are varying degrees to bisexuality - the reverse cannot really be said about those who prefer one sex exclusively and thusly, those individuals do not fit onto a "one size fits all" type of list. TednAZ

Agree with you 100%. Bis are not just a weird version of gays. JustADuck 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I know votes are votes and all that. But not a single one of the stated oppose votes has the slightest relation to the merge proposal (which ain't gonna happen, I recognize, since it doesn't have consensus support). This isn't some sort of referendum on the worthwhileness of bisexuality, or "biphobia", or the history of the gay rights movement, or whatever. It's a suggestion related the the administration and organization of a couple lists on an encyclopedia. These sorts of objections make about as much sense as arguing in a discussion of whether to organize a list alphabetically or chronologically that the former is a way of belittling and discriminating against things/people that are named with a "Z" word. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The quotation marks around "biphobia" betray you. JustADuck 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - The queer community has not yet sorted out the role of bisexuals and biphobia within and without the community. At this moment in history there is good research reasons to provide a separate list. Bits are cheap and there are editors willing to do the hard work to keep the lists accurate. Jliberty 12:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you might convince some of those editors to come work on this page? :-(. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose a merge, if we're gonna have such lists this one should be there as much as others, some other people have outlined the reasons well enough. That said, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has some valid points about the quality of the article; and difficulty of differentiating sexuality. The same applies to whatever label though and I do think bisexual persons warrant a standalone list. Some sourcing would be nice. Evolauxia 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename to List of bisexual people

I move that the article be moved to List of bisexual people. It wouldn't be difficult or disruptive to do so and would be more in line with the LGB list as well as more correct for the same reason that list is named such. Evolauxia 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The old redirect went pointed to the list of GLB, I've changed it to point to this article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

sharon stone?

i think that maybe sharon stone could be mentioned in the 'disputed' category, as she's hinted at having a relationship with another woman.

"Lesbian who married" does not necessarily mean "bisexual"

I haven't checked others, but recently I've noticed the addition of names, specifically Elsie de Wolfe and Katherine Mansfield, for which no adequate reference to bisexuality was provided. In both cases, the articles say that they had a (generally-acknowledged) lesbian relationship, and that they married. Marriages-of-convenience e.g. between male and female homosexuals were not at all uncommon during the 1900s (and probably still are), and indeed so were marriages-of-convenience for social or financial reasons.

The existence of a marriage does not come close to demonstrating the existence of a heterosexual relationship, and names should not be included in this article unless there is a good, verifiable reference that uses the word "bisexual" (or specifically spells out sexual relationships with members of both sexes).

I'm not saying de Wolfe and Mansfield were not bisexual. At the moment I'm the main contributor to the de Wolfe article, and even in her case all I can say is that so far I have not run across anything using the word "bisexual." Nothing I've read specifically addresses the question of whether her relationship with Charles Mendl was sexual; that is, I haven't read anything that says it was, or have I read anything that uses any term like "marriage-of-convenience" or anything that suggests Mendl had other romantic interests. However, her relationship with Elisabeth Marbury seems to have continued after her marriage to Mendl.

I don't know anything at all about Katherine Mansfield. I'm just saying, we need a source. The other names on the list should be checked as well to make sure there are verifiable citations for "bisexual," not just "person with a gay history married to a member of the opposite sex." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Freddie Mercury wasn't bisexual,he was gay

Actually he was bisexual.

Divergence to Two Articles

There should be two articles-one for bisexual men and another for bisexual women.

Why? Ambi 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus signs: not good enough

WIkipedia:Reliable sources says specifically that

Note that Misplaced Pages itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines.

For purposes of meeting the verifiability policy, another Misplaced Pages article will not do. Of course, if the Misplaced Pages article itself contains a reference for the person's being bisexual, that reference can and should be copied into this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-referential

This article is very self-referential... with lines like: Sources that support the inclusion of names in this list are either the biographical articles about these persons in this encyclopedia (marked with a "+" sign), or external sources as provided. (emphasis added). See WP:ASR. Addressing this would seem to be complex, as this is really set up right now as something of a meta-list and might not be appropriate for the article namespace. I'd think all stuff advising people on how the list is sourced and related to other Misplaced Pages articles should be moved to the talk page, at least. --W.marsh 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

david bowie and lou reed

neither of them seem so disputable, especially lou reed whose parents put him in psychotherapy as a teen due to his homosexual tendencies. and i always thought that it was just common knowledge that david bowies was bi. Joeyramoney 21:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay pride series

At the top of the page, it currently has "This article is part of the "Gay Pride" series on Misplaced Pages.". But is this article about gay pride (or even gays)? And does the banner even serve a purpose, considering that it uses no links and isn't part of a wikiproject? The only purpose I can think of is to say that the article is owned by those with the correct POV. Andjam 07:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

While I think the link is somewhat tangential and could be removed, please stop throwing around baseless accusations. Rebecca 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Elton John

"In 1976, Elton released the downbeat Blue Moves, which contained the memorable but even gloomier hit "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word". His biggest success in 1976 was the "Don't Go Breaking My Heart", a peppy duet with Kiki Dee that topped both the American and British charts. Finally, in an interview with Rolling Stone that year entitled "Elton's Frank Talk", a stressed John stated that he was bisexual."

This passage is taken from Elton John. Unless it's shown to be untrue, I will add Elton John back to the list if I see him removed again. Vancar 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... after rethinking it, if he renounced his bisexuality, I guess we can't really prove anything. *shrug* If he says he's gay, I'll let him say he's gay. I'll remove the edit I made earlier. Vancar 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Should remove all uncited claims

This page is an archive of potential libel. I wouldn't mind deleting this entire article, but aside from that, I propose all uncited claims be removed now - perhaps moved to the talk page so interested parties can hunt for references. —Quarl 2006-07-04 06:18Z

No objections here. I trashed some of the worst cases a while back, but it could do with going over with a fine-toothed comb. Rebecca 07:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the WHOLE article. But a goooooood clean-up could be a good idea. --Deenoe 13:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed all entries that were tagged with {{fact}}. There are more entries that need to be deleted as these do not have any sources. Also, the "Disputed" section is 100% non-compliant with WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You were definitely right in doing that. Unlike the X-American pages, this one is potentially offensive and could even be libellous. I'll remove the other unsourced entries within several days if no on sources them before that. Mad Jack 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See List of bisexual people List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people for an example of how such a list needs to be maintained: each entry is supported by a reliable source and there is a clear criteria for inclusion stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Entries supported only by the plus sign should be marked "citation needed" and removed if inline citations are not provided

All entries without inline citations should be tagged as needing citations and eventually removed. If the linked article contains a citation it should be copied to this article.

The + sign doesn't hack it, because it sources the entry to "the biographical articles about these persons in this encyclopedia (marked with a "+" sign), and WP:RS is perfectly clear that Misplaced Pages articles are not considered reliable sources (and therefore shouldn't be cited as sources in other Misplaced Pages articles). Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

except the principle is that the plus sign must lead to a source link in the article not merely to a statement. It is fine to convert to direct links in the list itself. The person who wants to remove entries should first have to check for the source link and bring it to the list before removal. If not found, the entry could then be tagged for removal within a week if no support is given. Dead people can't be libelled - they are often included for fun, one shouldn't worry too much about evidence there..... ....Pliny 12:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

???? The + signs are not links. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be either a) an EXTERNAL link by the name in the list OR b) a + and an EXTERNAL link in the biographical article itself (perhaps with discussion and context). Not a + leading merely to an unsupported statement in the article. Pliny 10:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If the linked article says the person is bisexual and gives a reference, it should be easy to copy the reference to this article. And it's a good idea because Misplaced Pages being what it is, the contents of linked articles aren't stable.

I am going to try a test to see whether I'm being silly about this. I'm going to check the first five entries beginning with H that have plus signs and no source citations in this article and see whether they have good source citations in the linked articles. Let's see. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Debbie Harry: Article does cite two sources. However, a quotation is in order as Harry says she is "more heterosexual than I am homosexual, or even bisexual..." whatever that means. I don't think it justifies putting her in a list of bisexuals without comment.

Nina Hartley: Article asserts "Hartley is openly bisexual in her private life," gives no sources.

Harry Hay: Article does not assert he was bisexual. It says he was gay, no inline sources given but the books are probably good enough. It also says he was married to a "beard/wife." No sources are cited for what his relationship with his "beard/wife" was. No indications in the article of relations with women other than marriage.

Anne Heche: Article does not use the word bisexual. Sources cited do not use the word bisexual. Article says "Anne has denounced her mother for speaking at these events and said her split with DeGeneres was not because of a change in her own sexual orientation. In an interview with The Advocate following the split, Anne said she does not give a label to her own sexual orientation and said "I have been very clear to everybody that just because I'm getting married does not mean I call myself a straight." Source citations match article. As nearly as I can make it out, it appears as if Anne Heche has been or acted as homosexual or heterosexual at different times of her life, but has not been bisexual.

Missy Higgins Article says nothing whatsoever about her sexuality, unless I missed something obvious. First external link in the article appears to say nothing about her sexuality, either.

On the basis of source citations, Harry Hay could be described as "gay and married to a woman," Anne Heche "refuses to label herself, had a longstanding lesbian relationship, and is now married to a man," Debbie Harry "calls herself more heterosexual than I am homosexual, or even bisexual."

Two of the five entries (Nina Hartley, Missy Higgins) should be removed, and the plus sign is misleading. The other three represent cases where the inclusion on the list was good-faith and the plus sign is not misleading, but simply identifying the person as bisexual without explanation is wrong. On the basis of my reading of the articles and the citations, none of those three people would accept that identification, nor is there any clear justification for applying it to them.

Of the five, not a single one leads to a source citation calling the person simply "bisexual." Not good. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So decide what bisexual means for the purposes of this list. I don't think the subjects self-definition/'identification' is relevant (Stalin denies being a dictator etc). Debbie Harry - precisely: that is why + leading to the article (and discussion) has a place beside direct linking to source. Removal: perhaps there should be a rule - whoever wants to remove a name where a source is lacking first has to do five minutes research before going ahead. (A note added to a list of 'names removed for lack of a source' should be put on this page). Then it is up to whoever is going to include a name to provide the source. Overwise chaos. Pliny 11:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the verifiability policy is perfectly clear that the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to include the material, not the editor who wishes to remove it. I agree that the article should make a clear statement of the criterion for inclusion; it currently does not. Sure, it's reasonable enough to ask people to put a "citation needed" tag and leave it there for a while before removing anything. And it's also reasonable to ask for people removing material to do a little checking before removal. But why isn't it just as reasonable to ask people to do that "five minutes research" before putting in the material?

The plus sign is really an invitation to laziness. If the person putting in an entry has checked before typing that plus sign, he's found the reference on the linked article... so why, exactly, shouldn't the reference be copied, instead of that plus sign?

In this case, at most three of the five plus signs meant what they are supposed to mean. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof - they are already in the list. Unless we all agree to divide up the list between us and spend the next week checking all of them, bringing links to the the page (or finding them if we think they exist out there). What is the purpose of the list? It is a place where people who have an interest in (bi)sexuality can find in one place references to people for whom there is evidence (of some sort) for bisexuality (according to some definition).

I think the widest views of both should be taken a) the changing place that bisexuality has in society is as much about pop stars expressing vague bisexual attractions and the coverage that receives as it is about activists b) bisexuality, is not a sin, is not a big deal, is fairly common. c) this is place to bring together information not develop an academic thesis d) the criteria for inclusion can make it clear that this is a list of names of people whose sexuality has been discussed, it is a repository for sources, not a place where definitive labels are put on people - let the readers make there own minds up Pliny 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at least restrict ourselves to the definition given in bisexual, "Bisexuality in human sexual behavior refers to the aesthetic, romantic, and/or sexual desire for people of either gender and/or for people of either sex." The cited source should preferably use the word "bisexual." If not, the cited source should clearly establish that the person experienced sexual feelings for both sexes. In particular, gay people who live or lived in marriages of convenience with people of the opposite sex should not be included simply on the basis of the marriage alone. In cases where the situation is complex--e.g. Debbie Harry and Anne Heche above--this article should clearly state the situation so the reader can judge whether or not it meets their understanding of bisexuality. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddy Mercury

Hard to know how to deal with this one as things stand, it's so muddled.

The article on Freddy Mercury states that

Although he had a very close girlfriend named Mary Austin, Freddie Mercury was fairly open about his homosexual tendencies. In a March 12, 1974 interview for New Musical Express he told the interviewer: "I am as gay as a daffodil, my dear!" Although his relationship with Mary Austin eventually ended, the two remained very close friends, with Austin often fronting as his girlfriend for the press.

• No sources are cited for Austin truly having been his girlfriend. Since the article asserts that later she pretended to be his girlfriend, we really need a source for her not pretending earlier.
• A source is cited for his calling himself "gay as a daffodil" and his death from AIDS is strong evidence that he did have homosexual relationships.
• A source is cited for Austin "fronting as his girlfriend for the press." Unfortunately, the cited source does not say anything about Austin fronting as his girlfriend. It is, rather, an interview which asserts that "The bloke, it turns out, is a mere heterosexual" and presents Mary Austin as truly being his girlfriend and being "'a bit puzzled' by her relationship with a simulated bisexual." In other words, we are to interpret it as an example of Austin dissembling for the press. But what the article actually says is that Austin is a heterosexual pretending to be bisexual.

In other words, what we actually have is:

• One source that says he is homosexual, not bisexual
• One source that says that he is heterosexual, pretending to be bisexual.
• The article itself, which says Mary Austin was originally a "very close girlfriend." (This elliptical phrasing is subject to more than one interpretation. It probably means a heterosexual relationship... but it doesn't say that.) It then says that had homosexual relationships, with Mary Austin pretending to be his girl friend... but citing no sources that support either statement.

As always, the question is not what I think or what is reasonable to assume, but what cited sources actually say. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced new additions

I'm removing

• Elliott Berry, American musician

because no source was cited. It can (and should) be reinserted if and only if it is accompanied by a source citation from a source that states that the person is bisexual.

Cleaning up the older entries is a slow process, because an entry with a + sign amounts to an assertion that there is a source... and sometimes there actually is one. And since the old entries have been there a long time, many of them are probably valid and sources and probably be found, so it's reasonable to leave them for a while with a "citation needed" tag.

But new additions ought to comply with the verifiability policy, which is longstanding, official policy and is linked under every, at the time when they are added. As the verifiability policy says, supplying the source is the responsibility of the editor who adds the item. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, moving

• Bai Ling (born 1970), Chinese-born actress
• Lucy Liu (born 1968), actress
• Nicole Rayburn, American actress

here, pending provision of sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly with

• Burt Lancaster (1913-1994), American actor

because the cited "source" says nothing whatsoever about Lancaster's sexual orientation. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Burt Lancaster. The source article states: "The original version of the film was released in 1957 and starred bisexual Lancaster and Tony Curtis." 217.134.100.226 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced entries that really have no foundation at all

• Queen Pen+, rapper

The linked article says only that one song, "Girlfriend," "explored same-sex affairs." Song lyrics, even by singer-songwriters, cannot be taken as literal autobiography. The external link, , describes the song as breaking a rap taboo, but says that "In person, she dances around the issue of her own sexuality" and "in conversation remains coy about her sexual orientation." So, according to the source, Queen Pen does not say she's bisexual, nor does the journalist say she's bisexual. Furthermore, the song, and the "taboo" says the article says it is breaking, seem to be about lesbianism, not necessarily bisexuality. So I'm removing this pending provision of a source citation. This is not to say Queen Pen isn't bisexual; she may well be; the point is that at the moment nobody has provided a verifiable source for that assertion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hal Turner+, media personality, white supremacist

Article says nothing about sexuality. One link is described as The Nation magazine article about Turner's alliance with Sean Hannity and his self-proclaimed recovery from homosexuality, but the article says only that "Hannity also chatted with him off-air, allegedly offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings." Doubtless there is a source in which Turner calls himself an ex-gay or recovered homosexual, but this isn't such a source.

Is NNDB a reliable source?

That's a real question, not a rhetorical question.

I hate to criticize Nightjar's energetic and effective work in sourcing dozens of names, but I notice that some of them are sourced to http://www.nndb.com and I can't seem to find out much about how they compile their data. It's not a wiki, a forum, or an urban dictionary, and our article, NNDB, says "Readers may suggest additions or corrections which are later vetted by an NNDB staff member" but it's certainly not clear what the "vetting" process consists of, and they certainly don't cite sources. Please discuss furtherhere. As long as a source is cited, that's a vast improvement on what's gone before, and readers can judge for themselves whether they trust nndb, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks can find better sources (in many cases no doubt), if so, please add them. If they disagree, they can say that too. NIghtjar 10:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear consensus at the "reliable sources" talk page that NNDB does not meet the guideline. On the other hand, if NNDB calls someone bisexual there's a fair chance that someone, somewhere has said so and that it might be possible to source the entry properly. I don't expect everyone will agree, but in my opinion it is much better to have an NNDB source than no source at all. So, I'm not removing the entries that are referenced to NNDB, but I am flagging them as needing better references. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

for many marked there are other sources cited already.

You're right, I shouldn't have marked those. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

if I can say it politely, why don't u do some constructive work? people who stand around making comments while everyone else does real work are often perceived as a p in the a by others.(slightly annoyed sorry)NIghtjar 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't sourced anywhere nearly as many as you, but I've supplied sources to some of the entries, and it was actually quite a lot of work checking the linked articles that had plus signs to see whether they contained the sources they were supposed to contain. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like about half the names on this list should be removed for failing to provide reputable sources. nndb, Clublez, afterellen.com - none of these qualify as reliable sources. Serpent-A 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true, NNDB is not a reliable source. Also, people can't come up with their own definitions of "bisexual" and say "Oh, we're going to include people that fit this, this, and that criteria". If you have a "List of X", you must a reliable source that says "Person A is X", not anything else. Mad Jack 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

NNDB seems to be "reliable" - based on how frequently its entries can be supported by other sites giving what seem to be reliable detail and sources (in biographies etc. But who trusts biographies??) Though all the entries using it (NNDB) are being backed up by other sources as found. The same can be done for others. Personally I think it is better to treat people like adults and let them judge for themselves (this is not a court and articles should not be written by people setting themselves up as judges of 'reliability' and jury of 'truth' and offical censors of whatever they don't like). If there weren't quite so many closet homophobes (contributing to wikipedia) - examine yourselves - they won't get so hot under the collar. There are a lot of people who do no real work themselves but prowl around being negative about others' work. AND it is entirely reasonable to say at the top of the page on basis the list is compiled. So: do some work, you guys! NIghtjar 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

afterellen.com seems to be very reliable.

Emma Thompson

In 1995 Thompson told The Advocate that she had never "really" felt sexuality for another woman, but that "It probably will happen to me one day." Based on that I'm not sure if she really belongs the list (but I don't feel strongly about it either way). In any case, the previously cited reference to a relationship with a Swedish singer was a tabloid headline that has been retracted: —Celithemis 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bryher

Bryher was lesbian according to a reliable source, Women of the Left Bank: Paris, 1900 - 1940 by Shari Benstock -- as well as the New York Times's book review of her lover H.D.'s best known biography . If there's a reliable source saying she was bisexual instead, then it would be appropriate to list her and acknowledge both points of view. But the current citation goes to andrejkoymasky.com, which is a self-published website that does not meet Misplaced Pages's reliability standards (and in which I've found many, many errors). In any case, it too specifically describes her as lesbian. —Celithemis 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys

What is needed is someone who is prepared to spend time gathering together the names of bisexual guys - there are many out there Pliny 10:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

one addedSoane 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Elton John

Recently added without citation, but with the edit comment that "Added Elton John, citation is in his Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is online or what that you believe this, but Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages I think this discussion is fruitless. If you wish to start a proposal to abolish the Five pillars of Misplaced Pages, 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! Misplaced Pages 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  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  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  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  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 Misplaced Pages = 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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  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)