Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/12/Category:LGBT people
User:Botaurus is deleting this categories from all pages. Althoug I may or may not agree with his action, I think that one single person may not erase one category without previously discussing the matter with the rest of us. So I am opening a discussion about it. I want to have my say on the matter too. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for beginning.
First there was once the question of the people should be categorized here.
Should it be all same-sexfeeling persons, similar to the „pink list“ in Nazi Germany?
Or should there be the artists and politicians who play an active role in the LGBT sector?
I think the second would be the right way. And at least it should be linked to a Wikipedia article, which is occupied. Yes, I therefore politicians have taken from these categories, because her homosexuality has nothing to do with their policies.Botaurus (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- (Please sorry for my bad english.) I don't understand the sense of remouving the categories LGBT by all these people. 1) We have people from 2500 or more years, that lived in a manner or another that we call today homosexuality. Is not important if they was artist, or philosopher, or lovers, or men of power, or warriors, or politicisians, or famous industrials, or (today) LGBT activists. We have a cat of LGBT people (LGBT is of course a modern concept), that we can use for all these people they are universally know as homosexuals, although for many people it is not possible ho have a sourse which states that. Please remember that the freedom that we live now was not in the past, and 60 years ago to say to be an homosexual, they risked their lives. And not only in Germany but also in many other nations. So for the most of them, which source is possible? 2) To categorize a person in the LGBT cat is not a joke. For all people who have a historical culture is very clear and ascertained for example that Antinous was "gay" (he was the lover of emperor Hadrian); Von Gloeden was "gay" and used his aesthetic taste in making artistic pictures of male nudes, etc. Why somebody removed LGBT people by Friedrich Alfred Krupp? It is too outrageous for a very important German industrialist? But he was forced to flee from Capri to the scandal caused by his homosexuality. And where are the source of this? His suicide? or the neapolitan local newspapers of the beginning of the 20th century, are they sufficient or are they only gossip...? 3) I think that it is absurd to require evidence of homosexuality or the source of it for people who are universally acknowledged homosexuals from the cultural world, until they become landmarks and symbols of the history of "homosexuality" (today better to say LGBT). So I strongly disagree with removing the main and the sub cats of LGBT people where they was done. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The definition for LGBT (in German Wikipedia) says; LGBT its standing outsite from the native (heterosexual) society (why, I dont no). The people with other preferences lived in the history in the middle of the society. There was allegedly not even a word for it. For many people lack the evidence, there are only rumors. And the most living people live their homosexuality private. They do not want to be stigmatized by such categories (denunciation). These are violations of your privacy rights. We also have no explicit category for heterosexuals. As described above, in living people should only be included LGBT activists. Dead men can not defend themselves. But rumors are gossip. Sources are always good. Maybe it was Antinous not a gay but he has held out the ass just because he made life easier. About the exact relationship of Antinous to Hadrian, there is with little information. Poetry and truth go hand in hand. Who needs these categories? sorry for my english. greetings Botaurus (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- We can discuss about living people. But the most part of our category people are historical people. It's absurd to apply modern concept to past times. Was Socrates a pink triangle or a LGBT activist? To say that a king of Great Britain or of France or of Prussia was a LGBT people, is this a violation of his privacy rights or an impediment to his own defense? This is simply history. We are not nazis, we are not in nazis time, and we ar not committed to creating lists of discrimination. We want only create categories to order pictures and historical or artistic photographs, with all theyr features, geographical, historical, by job, and by theyr sexual tendency too, if a person was gay. Of course there is not a heterosexual category, because this tendency doesn't change anything in the life of the person (at least I think so), while to be homosexual or transgenger this changes a lot (or all) things in the life of the person. And this can be interesting in the (historical) understanding of a person. And so it needs a category. --DenghiùComm (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. If Botarus were consistent, he should have also asked for deletion of Category:Communists, or Category:Roma people, or Category:Jewish people, which were all sent to nazi KZ together with lgbt people. Strangely, only for lgbt peopke this seems to be a problem.
For a minority group which has been affected by invisibility for centuries (lots of laws and rules such as the Hay code openly forbade mentioning or evens showing lgbt people!), becoming visible is a political goal. If Botaurus has a political problem with this, this place is a democratic place, and he should tell us so, so that we can discuss about it. But he should not refrain from discussion. This is my point.
Futhermore, if Botaurus merely had a problem with the use of modern words for ancient people, then we could create a more historically proper "Sodomite people" category instead. Would we? Of course, we should also delete Category:People of Germany, since Germany come into being only after 1870, and put "People of the Sacred Roman Empire" for anyone born before 1870 instead. But, strangely again, this proposal did not come out. The problem is always and alone with gay people. How queer...
As for Pluschow, as a researcher on his life, I shall happily mention the condemnation for pimping with boys he got in 1907, which obliged him to expatriate from Italy. http://www.giovannidallorto.com/gloeden/pluschow/pluschow.html Here is the verdict of the trial: http://www.oliari.com/ricerche/sentenzaplueschow.html If Botaurus knows nothing about it, that's it, but he should not ASSUME something only from the fact he is ignorant about it. He can always ask before deleting, in the future.
P.S. I would like to call the attention on the question "how do you know?". First, most people in this category are self-defined gays. And, yes, we have the right to call ourselves what we like best. Second, the question goes both ways. How can you assume Antinous was straight? Can you PROVE it? No, unless you assume that anyone is straight, unless s/he is caught in the act by the police. Luckily, sexual orientation does not work this way. If you can prove Antinous was straight, then go ahead. But the only reason you know about him, is that he was Hadrian's lover. Otherwise, the world would have never heard of him. By deleting this "detail" from this encyclopedia, you delete the only reason why he is into an encyclopedia. To my eyes, this is nonsensical. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify something else here, my deletion request did not refer not to the category shown above. It was about the category of Category:LGBT people by name here. For the removal or replacement of individual people in different categories, it does not need this disk-page. I mean, there is the theme of mistaken.--Botaurus (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
For today's persons, it's violating personality rights (unless the person is an LGBT activist, in which case the category could be labelled as such). For historic persons, it's 1) anachronistic to use "LGBT" (a fashionable concept of today) and 2) just a guess in 99% of the cases. Let's get rid of this category altogether. Of course, media depicting or describing homosexual or LGBT or what you may call it policies, acts, etc. can and should be labelled in such categories. But we should categorize media, not people. --FA2010 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support maintaining the category as it. For contemporary persons, if their homo/bisexuality is documented in reliable sources (and usually this determination has already occurred on Wikipedia in respect of such individuals), then include them. Typically, this would include persons who have publicly declared their sexual orientation or gender identity. Individuals who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual would not be listed.
To suggest that we only include "LGBT activists" or persons who play a role in the "LGBT sector" (whatever that is) is just odd (since that isn't a test we use on any other similar category trees), and the suggestion that inclusion violates the "personality rights" of the individuals is simply incorrect (as long as inclusion is based on reliable sources, as discussed above). For historic persons we generally follow the same rule. In some cases (e.g. Oscar Wilde), the homosexuality is well documented, so inclusion should be a no-brainer. For others (e.g. Socrates, to use the example used above), sexual orientation/identity is merely speculative, so they would not be included. I find this to be quite straightforward. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)