text:
Talk:Gay icon/Archive 1

Nomination for deletion
Articles for deletion/Gay icon (2nd nomination) Speedy kept.--Docg 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon: larger than life?
A gay icon is a larger-than-life celebrity or public figure with wide-spread fans amongst the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities[citation needed]. In particular, they are figures perceived to be strong or brave individuals who have wrestled with psychological demons, or issues of sexuality, or have suffered publicly and survived.[citation needed] Sometimes, the term Dycon is used to describe celebrities loved by the lesbian community in particular.

The terms larger-than-life, wrestled, demons,suffered publicly and survived is incorrect terminology, and does not meet the standards of wikipedia. It is essential that the user who continues to change this article the second it is corrected must cease in his actions of negletful, unconscious vandalism.

Can anybody tell me what "Marxist revolutionary imagery" has to do with "Gay icons"? Anyone? Or are you all as confused as me? Last time I checked they weren't screeching for the blood of the bourgeousie.

Apology Monster 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Criticism Section
The criticism section is without fact or merit, despite the fact that it is well-written. "Some believe" or "some argue" can be said about anything (i.e. "some argue that cigarettes lead to eternal life" because I argued it 5 minutes ago.

As for an argument against this opinion being parroted as legitimate, it is ridiculous to criticize gays as being shallow for historically finding icons that they identified with in the entertainment field. Where else could they look when being gay was taboo, mouch of the population was hiding living as straights (and likely still is), and such. Society did not allow gay role models, and so they found people to identify with to give them hope. The fact that this tradition lingers on, despite the fact that some small steps toward equal rights have been made is not shallow.

Finally, criticisms against Madonna Ciccone should be put on her entry. There is no reason to put them here.

With these thoughts in mind, I believe the criticism section should be deleted and only restored if any actual, cited, verifiable criticism can be found, but it's seriously petty to criticize a culture for choosing an icon (icons are supposed to be simplistic images, no?, i doubt a silhouette of albert einstein would be as effective?) 24.13.85.220 10:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pop Icon and Gay Icon
I don't get it. The pop icon article lists a number of public figures who are considered "Pop Icons", so why can't this page list public figures seen as Gay Icons? To me there isn't much difference.CoffeeAndCigarettes 02:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)CoffeeAndCigarettes

Why Isn't This Deleted?
I don't understand why this article isn't deleted yet. It had a majority vote against it, it's bigoted (there's no "black icon" entry, you'll notice; hell, there isn't even a black HEROES entry), and most of all there is no argument as to why this fits in an encyclopedia. If an artist says they're a gay icon, put that they said so in their own article. It isn't a fact to be stated categorically--there's no fact to present! You can't simply print an article to tell gay people who they admire. It's repulsive. It's magazine culture, nothing more.

I realize the vote came to "no consensus" but aren't there other ways to delete articles like this, on the basis of them being inappropriate and unverifiable/indisputable? Mistertruffles 17:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The method for deleting articles is AFD. Wikipedia is run by consensus. No, there aren't other ways. Fan-1967 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bookmark
Google give 91 000 hits for the phrase "gay icon". Why is Judy Garland such a popular gay icon? popped up near the top. It looks a very good article. -- RHaworth 10:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Gay icon is definitely a term in current usage. Whether it belongs on Wikipedia (rather than Wiktionary) is another matter. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, this text is merely a dictionary definition, something more suitable for Wiktionary. Can this be expanded into a more encyclopedic article?  Hall Monitor 18:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Can it or should it? No opinion really, just curious.  It's defensible in Wiktionary for sure, but apart form the dicdef is there actualyl that much more to say? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but if it cannot be expanded beyond its present form it should be transwiki'd. Hall Monitor 18:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm straight, so maybe I just don't understand the distinction. What is the difference between a gay icon and a normal celebrity? I mean, many people enjoy "...dramatic movie stars (especially those who died under tragic circumstances), divas, male and female musical stars (particularly those with powerful, emotive voices and/or troubled personal lives), rock stars with a flair for clothing, prominent boybands and genderbending artists and groups," not just gay people. I like many, if not most, of the people on your examples list...does that somehow call my sexual orientation into question? If you really like and respect these people, why attempt pigeonhole their appeal, as if only gay people have any business holding these people as icons? Also, the term gay icon is highly ambiguous - are these icons of gay people or icons that are gay? I think many of the straight people on your list might resent being called a gay icon. Applejuicefool 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not "in that world" but from what I can tell I think it's entertainers who have a disproportionately large fan base in the LGBT community or whose current fan base has become majority LGBT. Many gay icons also seem to be active in gay-rights, have children who are gay or lesbian(Cher), or are even gay themselves. Those are the ones where it's likely easiest to understand why they're a gay icon. I think other communities also have their own iconic figures, but they tend to more often have their icons be their own members. For example most iconic figures in deaf culture I believe are deaf themselves.--T. Anthony 11:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * AJF, you say you like gay icons. Ask yourself this.  Do you play or buy Madonna/Cher/Judy Garland records?  I know everyone might like them, but the people who actually buy the dvd's and cd's as well as concert tickets of these people are majority gay.

 * Uh-huh, and every man who has ever gone to see a broadway musical, indeed even watched the DVD of "The Producers." is gay. Yeah, right.  And yes, I'm straight and I have a Madonna CD. As for Cher, I was a fan of hers when she was back with Sonny long before she was adopted as an "icon", I just liked her songs.  I had no idea, as you point out, I needed to be gay in order to like "half breed" and the song about the gypsy fortune-teller.

Examples
I've been working on the Laura Branigan page and wondered why a link from there to this Gay Icon page disappeared. Has she been demoted?! Wondering if it were those involved here making a decision about this page's contents or the variously motivated vandals I've encountered over there who removed it. I welcome the link, if you wish to put it there, though I hesitated to put it back myself if there's an issue at hand, am new to Wiki. J T 16 November 2005 —preceding unsigned comment by 69.86.17.200 (talk • contribs)

In a similar vein, the "examples" section is threatning to grow without bound. There isn't any reason we have to give up on WP:V for this section, so I'm moving all of the current section here, and we can move them back to the main page when some sources are WP:CITEd as to thier gay icon status. - brenneman (t) (c)  05:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the main entry offers an extremely stereotyped description of what human qualities and accomplishments give rise to gay icon status.

--- My opinion of what a gay icon is is a celebrity who has a lot of drama in their lives. A female who has married a lot or has gone through a number of high profile relationships; a woman who has been an extreme egotist in the media (a la Madonna) are the more recent examples - just my opinion. Elizabeth Taylor, Judy Garland and Marilyn Monroe. Tragic and vulnerable and most assuredly, off her marbles gets gay icon status. Recent people are Angelina Jolie, Courtney Love. Madonna is a person who seems invincible, strong, and is a fighter. Almost what is considered masculine in her quest for fame and ego massaging. (See above sentence).

 * shouldn't Tammy Wynette be included in this list. She was a close friend of Elton John, had may fans who were gay men, had lots of drama in her life, and was married multiple times

(List merged with the other list below. -- Beland 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Crit section
Seems to be mostly used for providing a sounding board for the author mentioned? I'd like to savagly edit that section. brenneman {T}  {L}  23:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * You bet - especially that part saying that "activists and revolutionaries" should be role models in the first sentence. What bunk.  Somebody is seriously trying to push their "being LGBT means you must have a total oppositional stance toward mainstream society" POV with that bit about "activists and revolutionaries".  The section either needs specific cites or it needs to go.  70.108.84.143 03:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Category is up for deletion
FYI, Category:Gay icons is up for deletion, at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 8. (I hate the transinclusion style of deletion votes; if you forget to look even one day you may totally miss a vote in progress. I'm betting there are others in the same boat, which is why I bring it up here.) --TreyHarris 06:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I've voted to keep. Without repeating myself verbatim, in essence I think that just because the category and article have been misused by some editors does not make the subject itself invalid.  We may need to be strict about insisting on sources, but we should be doing this anyway.  Throwing it away simply because it's difficult to manage is not a good enough reason - if that was the case we'd be deleting every contraversial topic at the first sign of an edit war. Rossrs 14:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've registered the following on the deletion voting page under "STRONG KEEP," but post it here as well in the hopes it will spur imaginative, constructive response from those with an eye toward improving the content and scope of the article and list. I don't disagree with some of the criticisms of the article, yet I don't find them to be valid reasons to dispense with the topic before a more complete, balanced article has the chance to be composed. I apologize for its all being in two clumps, but the style of the voting page isn't such that I felt able to start a new paragraph without calling into question who wrote what. Thanks to Trey, it was coincidental I wound up here as it was and would not have learned of the vote without your heads-up.

This reminds me of the "death to disco" thing in the '70s. It was homophobia that spurred the disco backlash, because it wasn't enough that AOR and Punk were alternatives, the queers had to be put down. But synth-pop came hot on its heels and Hi-NRG with it, and even AOR and pop metal veered in a direction that had the same quarters clamoring for it to be brought to its knees once more. If this sounds like a tangent, think about the language you've heard people "dis" disco music, new wave music, Hi-NRG, "hair bands," boybands, female vocalists, sentimental music, opera, indeed pop itself, with..."Gay." It's all a part of the same issue, people identify these things as "gay" whether they're iconizing it or demonizing it. So as long as boybander A or pop diva B is going to receive the cultural stigma of being "gay," it might as well be acknowledged that there is a segment of the population that makes a similar association but without any of the negative emotion—to the contrary is drawn to seek it out and support it. No, indeed, not every gay white male in the U.S. will find every icon on this list to be a personal favorite, and yes, indeed, the entry would ideally be expanded—to the point of requiring disambiguation if and when necessary—to include the gay icons of not only all races and nationalities in the world today but throughout history. And presumably it would, were it allowed to remain long enough for people of varied viewpoints and other cultures to catch on to its presence and potential and offer their distinctions, impressions, additions, counterproposals, which when relevant would be incorporated into the article and represented in any list. Isn't that part of the point of Wiki, that if a (presumably) white male presents the initial definition and list, and can only do so from his perspective, anyone and everyone can submit their own views, and must, as none of us knows everyone else's culture? The very point that some people still don't get what this is about, some seeking to stomp it out yet again, others thinking it's merely fluffy fun, is why it's so necessary to allow this topic's exploration by its inclusion in Wikipedia, open to contributions that can be made anonymously by gays of all cultures - including those where homosexuality isn't merely sneered at or camped up but crushed by an overbearing society and who have no other avenue to contribute and "represent" their unique sexual, cultural truth - to allow people to recognize the deep need to acknowledge the importance of who, and by association what, one holds "sacred" and where that leads - or leaves - one. In whittling down these lists, we're not doing anyone a service, then, we're suggesting the examples must remain limited and then suggesting the limited view is part of the reason it should be removed. Does anyone need an article to tell them Madonna and Cher are gay icons? The point is to go a little deeper and provide a bit of an education as to why, and how the definition embraces some less obvious names that might have people scratching their heads struggling to understand the complexities in some instances, and in others simply going "A-ha!" (No reference to the Norwegian pop group!) This isn't about what Tom Cruise is going to feel about being included, it's about what everyone else has felt about being excluded, and what they've gravitated toward from that place, and why, and what it did for them; it's about the fact that certain individuals from all walks of life and throughout time have held a peculiar appeal for better or worse, in their words, actions, work, demeanor, or very life story. Indeed some have consciously—and others subconsciously—cultivated such an appeal. While still others would argue none exists? Or that it exists but is unworthy of recognition? Does not the Christian faith hold as all its holy icons Jewish figures...many whom the Jewish faith does not recognize or identify with? Yet some here can't understand how straight people would have unique appeal in the gay community, and that it should be up to straight people to sanction such an appeal? In fact, I would offer that the fact that a Tom Cruise might bridle at his inclusion in a list of gay icons is partly the point of the importance of such a list—not to tick him off, but to point out the fact that indeed, society coexists, and people take us as they will; we appear on one another's lists one way or another. The more one takes a stand or fails to, the more one constructs an image, the more one plays a role or shows their true selves, the more certain groups identify with them. I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush don't want to appear on lists suggesting they be censured or impeached or brought up on charges in the Hague, but that's beside the point if they've lived the lives that warrant such inclusion. I'm not suggesting they have, I'm suggesting the question is, it's all in the outcome of the investigation, not in the squelching of its very idea, that answers and determinations ought to be arrived upon.

The article as it exists now is sorely underexplored and as brief a list as appeared even before it was chopped in two is superfluous. In response to an earlier question: How can you provide a source that someone is a civil rights icon? And do you presuppose that person must be involved in black issues in America? Or is the struggle for civil rights a human issue that knows no color, sexuality, or border? Limiting the dissemination of information on the heroes or inspirations (read: icons) of oppressed groups is to participate in that oppression. While I find the article sorely underwritten, I agree with one point: the image of the gay icon as it's generally acknowledged in the mainstream media is counterintuitively apolitical. Such a thing in itself makes for an interesting discussion - is it the shallowness of gay culture, the fear of mainstream media to elevate a political icon, or the inability of the gay political movement to coalesce and re-present itself in the new millennium - and may invite the recognition that there are gays who do or would iconify, if I may coin a phrase, something deeper than a drama queen or a pinup. It is the challenge of the various constituencies within the gay community, as it is in the broader constituencies in the wider world community, to view their limited interests of preference with a dose of political awareness; and in this shrinking world, the only way we're going to manage to live together—or apart, for that matter—is to find a way to not only tolerate but be interested in our common personal advancement and sociopolitical identities. "Know thyself," but know how the self exists in external contexts; know there are other "selves" than onesself. The core of the negative response to this issue seems to be to preserve the ambiguity of certain people's sexuality so that wider audiences can enjoy their contributions without being aware of, soured or deterred by, a knowledge that they're interested in a gay person's work. We saw this in the 1950s when white audiences clamored for the music of black artists, but only when they were performed by white artists. Educated people in this millennium seeking to present a democratic encyclopedia shouldn't be supportive of preserving such ignorance. This isn't about outing anybody, but it mustn't be about closeting anybody either. Nobody's existence is devoid of a political reality, or the potential for a controversial response. Nobody's iconography is, either. Abrazame 13:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

moving uncited list here
I don't know who moved the list here, but some of the articles actually explain the gay icon status, so I moved those back into the article. Some need to be checked further, or perhaps shouldn't be included.

There's a starter list here: -- Beland 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Liza Minnelli - listed, but this is not mentioned in her article
 * Rock Hudson - famous gay actor, died of AIDS, but not listed, not described as "icon" in article
 * Freddie Mercury - famous gay singer
 * Ellen DeGeneres - famous gay entertainer
 * Melissa Etheridge - famous gay entertainer
 * Angelina Jolie - not listed and not mentioned in her article, but they were singing about her at Pride...also, she is bisexual, and had a famous role as a supermodel who died of AIDS, has a dramatic personal life, and does lots of charity work

 * Rufus Wainwright - who?
 * Chuck Panozzo - gay, living with AIDS, doesn't seem particularly iconic
 * Jimmy Somerville - who?
 * Bette Davis - listed, definitely should be included, not mentioned in her article
 * Renee O'Connor - not in her article, but should probably be listed if Lucy Lawless is?
 * The Weather Girls - not listed, but they did sing "It's Raining Men", which is very popular among gay men.

Merging the previously removed list, the following are also left over:
 * Bee Gees - Stay'n Alive is popular among the gays...does that make them iconic?
 * Britney Spears - Why is she here?
 * Diana, Princess of Wales - Oh. My. God. But you know, everyone loved her.  (Or hated her.)  More research definitely indicated.

 * Thompson Twins - not listed, no info in article
 * Hugh Jackman - Cute, but why is he listed here?
 * 'N Sync/Justin Timberlake - naaah...
 * Backstreet Boys - OK, what is it with boy bands being listed here? Perhaps they deserve special mention in the article, as a class.

There are more people on the "starter list" referenced above that should be added. -- Beland 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ahem. You’re asking in an online encyclopedia who Jimmy Somerville is.  Try looking him up.  I’m not gay but even I can tell he’s a cast iron candidate for gay icon if ever there was one, even if Americans have never heard of him.  Bombot 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What the...?! (Proposal to clarify or delete paragraph from article)
Can't believe nobody's brought this paragraph up for discussion, as I was sure it would be edited out of the article by now:

<<Another criticism of gay icons is that the concept is based on the notion that a person's sexual orientation dictates, or at least influences, a person's cultural and aesthetic preferences. By extension, a person's role models would be dictated by their sexual preferences. This effectively means that the role models afforded to androphile men are narrowed to a few celebrities and would not include people like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Albert Einstein, drag racing legend Don Garlits, Iggy Pop or Muhammad Ali.>>

For one thing, it seems to be misworded or badly edited. Androphiles are persons of any sex or gender identity who are attracted to men. The writer doesn't support the declaration of the final sentence with the previous two. Is the author's point that gay men aren't attracted to all types of men, but rather to men whose sexual image is either stereotypically gay (even if not actually gay or bisexual, like some of the boybanders people keep putting up here), or iconically straight (even if actually gay or bisexual, like Rock Hudson or James Dean), thereby excluding types of men more typical to the gender, such as Eisenhower or whomever this Garlits character is? And who is the author of that paragraph to imply that gay men not attracted to Iggy Pop or Muhammad Ali? I'd say the sexual component to both of those men's appeal was within the realm of that appreciated by some gays, if not to the level of gay iconography. On the other hand, Iggy Pop has always been cited as one of the major proponents of androgyny, alongside David Bowie and Marc Bolan, and as such would have a fairly iconic stature affecting the sexual or gender identities of some who grew up with him as an influence. So if that was the writer's point, the glam Iggy Pop - or for that matter, the very vain and rather handsome Muhammad Ali, who spouted poetry about his own physical beauty - would seem to be out of place, as they do have a sexual appeal to certain segments of the gay community, and therefore don't support that point.

The only way it makes sense as I read it is if Eisenhower, Einstein and the rest ARE gay icons yet gay icons whose appeal is not explained by the definition. Yet...is there a subculture of gays who would cite Eisenhower, Einstein and Garlits as chief among their icons?! ("Drag racing legend" seems to me about as synonymous with "gay icon" as "Aboriginal spear-thrower." Less, as at least the Aborigine shows some skin.)  Finally, the writer doesn't make the point that gay icons are limited to celebrities by citing other celebrities - Bella Abzug or Harvey Milk, while known personages and people who fought for the rights of women and gays (and thereby candidates for iconic appreciation), were not celebrity-famous, and neither classically attractive nor part of a trendy subculture, and would more appropriately festoon (?!) a list of those lamentably relegated to would-be icons but for the fact they're not celebrities, if that was the point. Could the original writer, or someone who understands and can explain this point clearly, help me and others understand what this statement means, so that we can clarify that point in the article? If not, I propose it be removed. Abrazame 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A response
I added this criticism section because there is an argument that gay men can (and sometimes do) miss out on a lot of history, because of their narrow choice of role models/heroes. I was giving examples of people who were innovators in their fields who don't have a gay following to show that gay men don't necessarily follow icons like Cher or have any interest in gay culture at all. Who a person likes shagging and who their role models can be unrelated. (Chris Henniker 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

Individual celebrities
has added large paragraphs on individual celebrities who have influenced gay culture. This seems POV to choose just four people, so I will return the info to their respective bios. Thanks. Harr o 5 09:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at this over the last few days, and I agree with you. Rossrs 09:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They were the only 4 people who had relevant info in their articles with references. Just making an ever expanding list based on no references does not have educational value for people doing research on this topic. Also, the 4 people chosen comform to a very precise definition of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingoprah (talk • contribs)
 * This is another in a line of unproductive edits that you have made. Why delete sourced, neutral and broad content with information best placed on the individuals' articles (and drastically improved when it gets there, I hope)? Please refrain from making any further edits to this page for the time being. Thank you. Harr o 5 09:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The problem is that the way the article looks, there are only 4 people in the entire history of the universe to qualify as gay icons.  The level of detail, especially for Oprah Winfrey was too much, sourced or not sourced.  It's absolutely fine, and in fact it's probably even essential,  that something more than the bare bones of a list be compiled, but it needs a paragraph at most for each person describing in short, sharp detail why they qualify for the list, and you're completely correct - references are mandatory.   The Winfrey section reads like a bio but with a totally pro-gay bias - too much detail. Way, way too much.  The Madonna section is not bad, but a short paragraph linking to the Madonna and the gay community would have saved this page from getting overbloated.     A similar page for Oprah Winfrey would be excellent, I think.  Same with Judy Garland - the whole thing about Stonewall and her death coinciding with a display of gay assertion is a fairly notable event.  It would make a good article I think.  Here it just gives a LOT of info without specifically discussing the subject at hand "gay icon" which needs something broader, and more of an explanation of how and why gay icons have evolved and how they have been represented.

 * Also the images don't qualify as fair use on this page and I would suggest that you have a look at Fair use and Copyright - fair use images can only be used under very specific circumstances and here they don't meet Wikipedia's policy.   The article as it stands (after reverting to the old format) is poor and needs a lot of work, but it is a more acceptable skeleton on which to build a good article, than the Oprah/Judy/Madonna/Cher page that this article has been for the last few days.  Three revert rule makes excellent reading - I would suggest everyone cool down and read it, and then perhaps we can look at a way of improving this article to a degree that we can all feel happy with it. Rossrs 09:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection
See discussion here about why the article has been protected. Thanks. Harr o 5 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to delete this article
Am I missing something here? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to contain facts but this looks like some sort of personal favorites list one or a few people dreamt up. You're sitting here creating an article where people are going "Hugh Grant... ok! Justin Timberlake... nah. Cameron Diaz? Yipee!" I find it preposterous that an encyclopedia would contain drivel like this. JettaMann 15:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I AM GAY and I think this article sucks right now. The people who created it are obviously biased and/or don't seem to understand gay culture. A gay icon is generally someone who did several things to become a gay icon such as:

1 support gay people openly if they are straight and were open and unforgiving about their sexuality if they are gay. Elton John hid his homosexuality so he isn't considered a gay icon, and there aren't very many modern gays who even like him. Remember: the younger gay people dominate gay culture because being beautiful is stressed in the gay community.

2 they tend to have gained long exposure within the gay community ... Judy Garland and Madonna have supported the GLBT community for a long period of time. Kelly Clarkson is popular among the gays but is too new (and uninvolved with gays) to have icon status.

3 they may have also been people who died and were thought to be gay such as James Dean.

There are also other factors but those are some of the main ones. If this article doesn't get seriously fixed we should "be bold" and restart it from scratch. But then again ... it might be better for the wiktionary because this article really is just a description of a word, right?

 * I am also gay and I think this article is incredibly stereotypical! Okay, so alot of gay people just happen to like these certain celebrities... AS IF STRAIGHT PEOPLE DON'T! I happen to like quite a few other celebrities, don't they count as GAY ICONS! It's almost like they've given every gay person a list of celebrities they're supposed to like and no other celebs count! Delete it! Bubble bunny

Some suggestions
Alright I have few suggestions to the examples list:

It seems there's a lot of singers who are just popular rather than icons, Whitney Houston, Kelly Clarkson, Sean Combs (seriously what is P. Diddy doing here?), Janet Jackson and Celine Dion being the most obvious. Could someone explain to me why they are considered icons?

Also Marilyn Monroe seems like a strange pick for a gay icon, because isn't she an icon for all people and not just gay people?

I get that Debra Messing is a gay icon, but shouldn't Eric McCormack, Megan Mullaly and Sean Hayes also be on the list?

Finally how about adding RuPaul, Jobriath (the worlds first openly gay popstar has got to be an icon) and maybe The Scissor Sisters to the list?

What? Debra Messing and the rest of the "Will And Grace" cast aren't gay icons just because it's such a popular gay show. I'm gay and I've never even heard of Jobriath, being a gay icon is half history/half popularity. Keep that in mind. And instead of adding anyone that seems would be a gay icon we should only put people in with that status given to them by the gay community. Research, research, research. Also ... Marilyn is both a gay and national icon because gays consider her a gay icon. It's all about gay community concensus, if they say you're a gay icon then you hold gay icon status. It's because us gays are odd like that. --QuirkyAndSuch 04:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that the very famous people are missing? I really don’t know that what they have done regarding activity, but in UK and so many other countries they are popular among gays: Joanna Lumley and Jennifer Saunders from Absolutely Fabulous. How about Calvin Kline, I think all the gays have at least one Calvin Kline underwear. Doesn’t it make it iconic. By the way I agree that this page has turned to a chat room rather than being based on facts and evidences (what are they doing there? Mariah Carey/Britney Spears/Janet Jackson)- By Nemo (Living in Dubai). August 7, 2006.

Removing names from list
Unless there is an actual reference attached, names can and should be removed.

The following I removed from the list. If one of them is wrong, get a reliable source (or two) that says that they're a gay icon. Note that I don't know what the gay community considers an icon, so don't get pissed if I remove someone who "obviously" is an icon:

 * Christina Aguilera - one claim of experimentation
 * Julie Andrews - no mention
 * Are You Being Served? - a portrayel of gay character
 * Joan Collins - "sex icon" who is in Will & Grace
 * Ann Margret - "sex-kitten", no mention
 * Deborah Harry - icon, no mention
 * Rita Hayworth - icon, no mention
 * Audrey Hepburn - icon, no mention
 * Daniel Craig - gay scene in a movie, no other mention
 * Nicki French - performed at a gay pride festival, no mention
 * Geri Halliwell - no mention
 * Ayumi Hamasaki - no mention
 * Celine Dion - no mention
 * Aretha Franklin - no mention
 * Mariah Carey - no mention
 * Patsy Cline - no mention
 * Betty Buckley - no mention
 * Shirley Bassey - no mention
 * Lance Bass - last minute outing
 * Bronwyn Bishop - politician of Liberal party
 * Tom Brady - American football qb
 * Dean Cain - Superman actor, Republican
 * Tom Cruise - "allegedly" gay
 * Pauline Hanson - conservative politician

I'm done sorting. Someone else can pick up where I left off. Try and be objective. 24.126.199.129 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed (almost all) of the names from the list
Please read WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:V for further information. Unsources statements will be removed. Iola k ana • T 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why you removed George Michael, Elton John, ABBA. These people do not need evidence to be Gay Icon. They are!
 * If they truly are, you won't have trouble finding a source. Iola k ana • T  16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Distillation
To the person who says it's bigoted because there's no "Black icon" category: create one. If you think the whole idea of the "x icon" category is bigoted because it favors one group over another, then you are basically saying that to define anybody as a gay icon (or for anybody to define themselves as such) is bigoted, and I think you could agree that's absurd. That argument is not as clear as I'd like it to be; I hope you get the gist.

I think this article has merit; "gay icon" is a phrase that has entered the culture to describe some people, and it requires more than a dictionary definition. I agree that you should be able to support your choices, but I suspect some people removed the entire list because they want the article deleted, for whatever reason.

I think it needs a major, NPOV rewrite, for sure. I also think the personal attacks need to stop.

Rather than external links as are currently done, shouldn't that be a reference list? I'll fix it sometime, but I have a paper to write.

Finally, I added Barbra Streisand because she's a gay icon and she knows it. I submit as my evidence her comments at her Madison Square Garden concert.

The end. Thor Rudebeck 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding gay icons
People when adding gay icons add them because they are an icon and not just because they are gay. Not every gay celebrity is necessarily an icon. --Jaydeejj 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dalida a french singer is the most known gay icon in France and Middle East. It's better to recognize the icons internationally...

Critisism too big.....
Need I say more? It takes up most of the article! Zazaban 00:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Larry Mullen Jr. from U2...straight man who has always sported a gay man appearance, and has been acknowledged by Bruce Springsteen and Bono as a reluctant gay icon. Please add. And please remove Oprah and Elton John. Both are pop culture icons, at best.

"The most popular gay icon is Cher."
That's great that you think that. I'd tend to disagree and say it's probably Judy Garland. Another person might say it's Barbra Streisand. You can't pick just one person as the most popular, especially without citing a source. Cher is extremely popular among gay men; after all, she was cool enough to put in an appearance on Will & Grace. But I don't think we can classify her as the "most popular" without a source. Thor Rudebeck 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is severely lacking in tons of areas
I find this article absolutely unncessary. Although it has been discussed at length, I don't think it's necessary for "Gay icon" to be it's own article, and frankly the wording and phrasing is up for debate about what classifies "an icon" (i.e., "larger than life" is both poor prose and very vague)

Now, if the article stays (which it probably will), I think it would be beneficial to include those that have been instrumental in gay society. If Madonna is such a great "icon", what has she actually DONE for the community? Not every homosexual is a rabid fan of Madonna (the Madonna article already states what she has done ... why mention it here?) The names that come to mind aren't always celebrities, and of those that are, they have a truly unique impact to the overall well-being of the gay community.

Further, it's stereotypical to assume that a "gay icon" is "someone that died young and beautiful" or something along those lines. Once again, it's up for interpretation, which in turn, makes it POV and subject to deletion.

I am more than willing to write a solid, factual article on Gay icons, but I can tell you that it won't inclde petty things, such as actors or play gay characters (who are paid to do so), or musicians who may be bi-sexual and appeal to the subset. Trodaikid1983 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes as of 15 January, 2006
I have substantially rewritten this terrible weak article, adding as many ref as I could. I rendered the criticism section invisible, as it was added by an anon IP and I could not find a single reference for any assertion in the section. Feel free to re-add that section if you can find any refs. A criticism section would be nice, if it was sourced. Jeffpw 14:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some critisism in the following article: John Howard. Pink doesn't mean fluffy // Independent, The (London), 4 August, 2005. I have added the link, but not the info yet.--Antanta 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing
This has the potential to become a great article - I'm not going to debate the merits of it; that was done in the AFD. However, parts of this article are beginning to resemble a list, which will almost certainly reflect someone's personal views about inclusion at some point. Every name in the list has a citation, but that doesn't necessarily make the list "accurate." Theoretically, future editors would seek out information to prove names they already wish to add, rather than finding information and then adding names based on it. How can we deal with this effectively? Thor Rudebeck 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a single paragraph (subsection) for each person with expanded explanation or citation from references. It would look more apprortiate, I think, as opposed to the plain list without any explanations. For example, the link for Shirley Bassey is incorrect - the term "gay icon" is used only in comments, but not in the original bbc article. The correct link is this.--Antanta 19:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional info
This recent poll of 5000 gays and lesbians about gay icons would seem very appropriate here.--Antanta 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, Antanta. I have updated the Bassey ref accordingly, and will look at this link now. I was working hard and fast yesterday, as the article was nominated for speedy deletion. There's lots of room to improve this, and you're welcome to edit it, too. Jeffpw 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try as I'm also working on the russian version of this article. Gosh, you can't imagine the anti-gay bias I am facing.--Antanta 07:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Abhishek Bachchan, not a gay icon
OK, first there has to be a consensus on who is a gay icon. First, I have never heard of him. A gay icon must be well known in the gay community to get icon status, this would include people like Liza Minnelli or Judy Garland. I would nominate Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Reilly for gay icons. azalea_pomp

The actor in question is listed here because he is known in India as a gay icon. I note from your user talk page that you are involved in India projects here, so I am assuming that's how you got to this page. In any event, his listing here is sourced, and in the article used as a reference he discusses his gay icon status. Facts are facts. Just because you've never heard about something doesn't mean it isn't true. Aren't you glad Wikipedia exists, so you can broaden your knowledge base like you did with this subject??? Jeffpw 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I have added Paul Lynde as he is sourced and a well known gay icon.  I still think to warrant inclusion as a gay icon on an encyclopedic article, the person in question should be well known.  For example, would Encyclopedia Britannica have Bachchan listed in their article on gay icons?  Probably not, he doesn't quite meet the standard as Cher or Judy Garland.  What makes a gay icon (in the big sense of the meaning icon) is not one poll taking in India, but a large number embracing the figure for truly iconic status. azalea_pomp
 * While I do not agree with your addition of Paul Lynde as a gay icon, I will not revert it. I note from the reference that he as a person is not listed as an icon, but rather his role on a television series from the 1960s (Bewitched). That does not, in my opinion, qualify him for inclusion on this page, but I will leave it so that others can discuss it. Jeffpw 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Paul Lynde is a gay icon albeit a closeted one. Here is just one URL with a reference to him as a gay icon: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1504693/story.jhtml?newsSection=loder

An article by Kurt Loder of MTV is quite an important cultural one. More gay icons not on the page are Charles Nelson Reilly, Richard Simmons, Snagglepuss, and perhaps Dionne Warwick and Angie Dickinson to some extent. azalea_pomp
 * That's a much better ref to use than the one you put in earlier, since it states explicitly that he was "an early gay icon". If we could reference Angie Dickinson, I'd love to add her. I'd go straight for her. And finally...Snagglepuss! He is definitely a gay icon!!!!! I never would have thought to include him, but he does fit the bill. And with that, I have nothing left to say except.."Exit, Stage left!" Jeffpw 09:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Bachchan should be mentioned, but just sticking him in a list between Bette Midler and Elton John seems like missing the point. The most interesting part of the source article is the fact that Mumbai has a gay icon poll in the first place (and that it gets enough mainstream attention for the winner to be interviewed about it). For a truly international view we should try to add more information about how the concept of a gay icon does or doesn't travel, if it can be found.  —Cel ithemis  21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Lauper
While I agree that Cindy Lauper is a (minor) gay icon, and it is a very pretty picture, I do think we need to include her name on the list with a source before adding a photograph. I also wonder if the picture is appropriately placed, in the section about political icons. Maybe a nice picture of Princess Diana would be better there? Jeffpw 22:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I added her name and a citation at the same time as the photo.

 * I don't think photos necessarily have to be next to the text they relate to, and thought that photo was particularly appropriate because she's wearing the rainbow dress at the Gay Games, but I can see not wanting to overemphasize entertainers too. Whatever works.  (Obviously, one can't *not* have a picture of Judy Garland....)   —Cel  ithemis  22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be interesting to have something about how people react to being gay icons -- do they embrace it, do they try to ignore it -- which the Lauper photo would then go with.  —Cel ithemis  22:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a fabulous idea! You can get a really juicy Judy quote about that, and I am sure Liz and Cher, along with Cindy, would have some particularly good quotes. Also, when you've been editing, did you see the "hidden" stuff? I couldn't find any sources at all, and it all looks like WP:OR, so I had to hide it. I didn't want to just trash it though, in case somebody could use it as the basis of a criticism section. Take a look--it's right above the footnotes if you go into edit mode. Jeffpw 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, interesting. When I get a chance, I'll see if I can find any criticism in the various databases I have access to (there are back issues of The Advocate among others).

 * Going back to the international stuff, the Greek Wikipedia mentions Despina Vandi and Anna Vissi as Greek gay icons but I haven't found any solid sources for them yet. Most of the other Wikipedias just seem to talk about the same people already listed here.  —Cel  ithemis  22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can read Greek, change your search preferences in Google to find Greek sources. I just did that for a few Dutch ones, and we can add Willeke Alberti and the Zangeres zonder Naam. I have to go to sleep now (work in 6 hours) so I will add them tomorrow, with a few sentences about them. Jeffpw 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Gay Icons or Gay Pioneers?
I agree Cindy Lauper is at least a minor gay icon as she does have many gay fans. Thinking of gay icons who may be better called gay pioneers would include people like Jim (JM) J. Bullock, Harvey Fierstein, and RuPaul. Just some other possible gay icons which come to mind are Ethel Merman, Tina Turner, Delta Burke, Charo, Divine, Tim Curry, and Patti LaBelle. We can't forget the girls from Golden Girls which are all gay icons especially Bea Arthur. In my opinion, even Nancy Grace from Court TV/CNN seems to be getting some iconic status due to her strong personality, big hair, and ton of makeup. azalea_pomp

In Entertainment Section
This section looked very messy so I changed it into a list format, but it's still not perfect. If anyone can make it better, please do, or if you think it was better the original way revert it. davekeeling 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the way it looks a all, though I won't revert it. Let's see what others have to say. Jeffpw 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care for it either, though that long prose list really was getting out of hand. Might be possible to break it up by saying something more about why and how each of these people is a gay icon, instead of just listing them.  —Cel  ithemis  10:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How About Elizabeth Montgomery?
Hey, I'm a gay man and I vote for the inclusion of the sadly departed actress Elizabeth Montgomery as a gay icon. As Samantha Stevens in the "Bewitched" sit-com she was a camp favorite of mine and many of my gay baby boomer friends. I even read an article somewhere on why the character Samantha was a gay male icon and Jeannie of "I Dream Of Jeannie" is not one. Anyway, although a heterosexual herself, Ms. Montgomery was thoroughly sympathetic and devoted to the cause of LGBT rights: she was even a official Grand Marshall of the Gay Pride Parade in Hollywood, along with her friend and co-star Dick Sargent, who played Darren in "Bewitched."Buddmar 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)buddmar
 * Hmmm, gay icons, that may be a bit strong in my opinion. Although I would favor Elizabeth Montgomery over Dick Sargent as a gay icon. Azalea pomp 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More possible Gay Icons
How can we forget Wayland Flowers and his puppet Madame or Bea Arthur (or the Golden Girls in general). Azalea pomp 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was Debbie Harry deleted from this list?
Debbie Harry was the original frontwoman and forerunner to everyone from Annie Lennox and Madonna to Gwen Stefani and Shirley Manson. She was good friends with Andy Warhol, a regular on the Studio 54 scene and has a huge LGBT following. She has long been a promoter of LGBT issues and is going to be touring the USA with Erasure, Cyndi Lauper and other campaigners for gay rights. She has even admitted, while being heterosexual, to having enjoyed relationships with men and women. Why therefore have you deleted her from the list of gay icons?

As a gay man myself I happen to love many of the gay icons included in your list, but Debbie Harry has been associated with gay rights for far longer than for example Beyonce, who would still have been in nappies when Blondie were conquering the music scene. Much as she is a fabulous modern diva, in the words of the Lauren Bacall "she's not a legend". She's not been on the scene long enough. Debbie Harry has had over 30 years in the music industry and has during most of this time been very much part of the LGBT community.

I appreciate gay icon is a fairly loose term and it kind of suggests that everyone who is gay is somehow expected to associate with all of these characters to be part of the "club" like clones. But a fair number of gay men do associate themselves with queer history and culture and this most certainly does include Debbie Harry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Divinelydecadent (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed Sentence
This article seemed really well written and superbly neutral in tone, until I got to this sentence, which seemed so out of place that it borders on vandalism:

 * "Also, his rejection of the girl, his penchant for tights, his friendship with fairies, his skill for swordplay, and finally, his never-ending obsession with youth - it's no surprise members of the gay community are drawn to Peter Pan."

So, I removed it. I put it here, so someone can restore it - if they don't find it as demeaning and stereotyped as I did.

And speaking of which, I'm going to take this opportunity to comment on the repeated AfD's for this article: enough, already! Anyone who is involved in any way with a gay community knows that there are certain people held especially 'close to heart' by a large number of gays; these people certainly have a 'gay icon' status. I myself happen to be a breeder, but I don't let that limit my social contacts, so I've been lucky enough to enjoy the company and friendship of a whole bunch of ppl from Dallas' incredibly populous gay community. And one of the very first things I became acquainted with in that community some 30 years ago was the special place that Judy Garland held in the hearts of so many gay men. The 'code phrase' "friends of Dorothy" is well documented for nearly 50 years. Clearly, there is a substantial and important category here.

However, that being said, this article almost completely fails to recognize that membership in the gay icon category is extremely debatable - at best!! There are perhaps a handful (Garland, Babs, James Dean) that everyone would (might!) agree on, but all the rest are going to be contentious. Therefore, this article should not be about "the list" of gay icons -- because there isn't one! Only the very few consensual examples of the category should be specifically mentioned as descriptive of the overall nature of the category (these might also be explored a bit). The article should be about the category of gay icon itself, and not any particular group's definition of the term by list (including ours). Imho, $0.02 worth, etc. Eaglizard 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it when that Peter Pan section was added. The whole thing sounds pretty dubious to me, and has no sources; I'd support removing it.
 * Re the list, I agree completely, and have been meaning to say something similar. People throw around the term "gay icon" very loosely.  One of the sources for the list is "Gay Icons of the 20th Century" which includes "the acronym AIDS" and "the short stories of Truman Capote" -- obviously not using the same definition of gay icon as in this article.  And I'm pretty sure that for some magazine writers, "X is a gay icon" means "I had this gay friend once who liked X."  If we try to list everyone that has ever been called a gay icon by a source, the results won't be very illuminating.
 * I think we should make sure that the really well-known ones that everyone would name are included, and beyond that, just mention individuals when it's helpful to illustrate points.  —Cel ithemis  02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and i wouldn't worry about anyone trying to delete the article again. It was thoroughly overhauled and sourced by Jeffpw after the last time someone tried to delete it; no deletion attempt would get anywhere now.  —Cel  ithemis  02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Gay icon/Archive 1


text: User talk:203.61.246.14

title: User talk:203.61.246.14


text:
Emergency Public Warning System

The Emergency Public Warning System was a system used in the province of Alberta, Canada until October 2011, whereby local or provincial authorities could warn the public about impending or current emergencies affecting their area. The system was proposed by the provincial government after an F4 tornado ripped through Edmonton, Alberta on July 31, 1987, killing 27 people and causing millions of dollars in damage.

The EPWS could be activated by local police, fire, and environmental agencies; by Environment Canada; and by other provincial and local authorities as required. It could be activated for any of the following reasons:

 * Severe weather
 * Flood
 * Wildfire
 * Hazardous material release
 * Terrorist threat
 * Water contamination
 * AMBER Alert
 * Other threats to life, property and safety.

The EPWS was originally operated by the CKUA Radio Network, but was later operated by Black Coral Inc., a private company headquartered in Ottawa, Ontario. It was rebroadcast through various television and radio stations and cable systems provincewide.

In 2011, it was replaced by Alberta Emergency Alert.

title: Emergency Public Warning System


text:
Talk:William Rehnquist/Archive 2

Strange Vandalism
I am experiencing something very strange. A vandal has inserted the phrase "we hate you all this site is now hacked we hate you all this site is now hacked" (which continues for several hundred more lines). However, I don't find the vandal's phrase when I go in to edit this article. No matter what I do, this vandalism will not disappear. I have reloaded the contents several times, searched the "edit this page" for the vandal's words and I can't find that phrase. I have waited about 10 minutes and reloaded, but this problem does not seem to go away. Is there some kind of problem with wikipedia, or it is just happening to me? -New user

There is also something very strange happening with the articles. If you type into the search box "Rehnquist" it takes you to a very different article than if you type in "William Rehnquist." Try it and you will see.

I don't know exactly why this is going on but it is truly strange and appears to be a premeditated attempt to have wikipedia researchers end up in the more benign "Rehnquist" page, than the more truthful "William Rehnquist" page.

I am asking that the administrators take a look at this and rectify the problem. - KR

Clinton Picture
The caption under the picture of Clinton's inauguration refers to it being from 1993. On the actual picture page, it refers to the picture being taken in 1997. I'm assuming the latter is more reliable, but I have no idea. It's certainly something that needs to be looked at and corrected at some point. --Doctorcherokee 14:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of article.
Two of my attempts to revert a vandalization of this article met with editing conflicts that themselves contained clear POV vanalization. I think we need the higher ups at Wikipedia to step in here.

 * No need to worry about vandalism. This article will now be closely watched for quite a while, and vandalism will be quickly reverted.   NoSeptember  04:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How can we protect an article from edits when news is changing so quickly???

 * Admins can still edit the article. If you're not an admin, suggest an edit or addition here and it will be dealt with. Homey 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the comment above, "How can we...", was by the image vandal, who is now banned. -  BanyanTree 15:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Lock
We can't have the article locked when alot of news is going to be coming in. Please, I need a consensus to unlock the article. And fast. User:Bancroftian
 * I already have. It was locked for only about 60 seconds. →Raul654 04:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks alot, you did that fast. User:Bancroftian.

•• I had added a link critical of the late Mr. Rehnquist's role in upholding electoral Jim Crow laws as a critical counterpoint to the hagiography that passes for a 'neutral' position on Mr. Rehnquist's life's work to wit: http://www.commondreams.org/views/120200-101.htm. This was deemed a vandalistic act. I respectfully disagree unless this is to be considered WikiPravda. 24.68.101.224 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Potential nominees
Is there an article somewhere about the potential nominees ?

 * Bush Supreme Court candidates NoSeptember  04:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

O'Connor
"The vacancy left by his death came less than two months after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor"

O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1st so it was actually 2 months and 2 days later. User:129.123.104.6
 * Well, this is a wiki, so you can change it yourself. Just click the "edit this page" link at the top of the article. --pile0nadestalk 05:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

goodbye
i may not have agreed with him ideologically, but he was a great man, i have to admit it. he wasn't not a dna-altered clone like roberts is. rest in peace. -Nosaj56 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Assistant Attorney General
Since the late Justice Rehnquist was never Attorney General, it would be better if the intro paragraph did not link to that position as if he had been. There either should be a redlink to the actual position or no wikilink at all. -Acjelen 14:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Before yesterday when the link was changed, this was a link to the Justice Department (the agency that employed him), this is my preference until an AAG article is created. NoSeptember  14:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have now created the article United States Assistant Attorney General. I may have missed some of the departments headed by AAG's. I invite someone to help me get the list right. NoSeptember 17:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Unlock
When all this news is coming in it is vital that we do not have it locked. I would like to gain a general consensus to unlock it imeditatly. Bancroftian 14:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that long term locks on potentially active pages are not appropriate. A lock for an hour until a vandal loses interest is ok, I hope that this was the blocking admin's intent.  If the image file is being vandalized, then that should be locked instead.  Blocking the vandals is better than locking an active page.  NoSeptember  14:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have removed the page protection. User:Executioner12 has been hard banned and User:4.173.214.128 has been blocked for 48 hours.  He appears to be responsible for the spate of  image vandalism.  If there is more repeated vandalism, please list the vandal at WP:AIV. Cheers and happy editing,   BanyanTree 15:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A new hope
I say good bye to the late chief justice and hope for a more liberal successor of him. May God bless America.203.82.48.54 15:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Deep Throat
Is a whole paragraph really necessary, it seems like padding to make the article bigger, I say dump it. Stevenscollege 4/9/05

That took guts
It took a lot of courage...to die....in office...of cancer. I'm not sure how many folks would stay working like that to the very end under such situations. G-dspeed. 68.32.48.32 16:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Courage?
It doesn't take courage to die in office - it takes hubris. This man should have retired after he found out he had cancer.

A Nazi?
Currently the last paragraph in the intro claims he was a "nazi". While this may be true, I think such a sensational statement MUST be cited. If not, it should be removed. Anyone disagree? WhiskeyMB 16:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC) mbonig Sept 4th 2005, 10:30am (GMT-7)

My rollback
I screwed up on the rollback. Sorry about that folks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Date of Death?
Born	October 1, 1924 Milwaukee, Wisconsin Died	September 3, 2038 Arlington, Virginia

this is what the box says... 2038?

Vandalism?
This exerpt--Evidence displayed in detail on liberal blogs and sites like democraticunderground [8] show the overwhelming case against Karl Rove, proving that he smothered Rehnquist with a pillow so he could pick a new right-wing extremist for the court to terrorize America's freedoms and take away a womens' right to choose for at least two decades.--should probably come out as well? Definitely POV problems, and no sources to support.

Middle Name
The confusion over Rhenquist's middle name appears to be cleared-up by a blog entry found via Google that cites a New York times article quoting a note that Rhenquist once wrote to his fellow Supreme Court justices. "I was once William D. (Donald) until I changed my middle name in high school to H (Hubbs — my grandmother's maiden name)." Unfortunately, I cannot access the pay-per-view NYT article for verification. Perhaps someone else has another way. 138.88.237.169 01:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no confusion - MSNBC reported on this last night. He was born Donald, his mother didn't like it (she said it was too long and he'd never suceed with a name like that), and he later had it changed. →Raul654 01:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I was referring to the earlier confusion on Wikipedia that prompted a revert-skirmish. If you have an MSNBC source perhaps we can use that instead. 138.88.237.169 02:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Bizarre. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * His grandmother was Anne Eliza Hubbs, who married Frederick Russell Peck. Through Peck, Rehnquist is a descendant of King Edward I of England. - Nunh-huh 01:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Is this the most vandalised page ever? I reckon we should just block every IP that vandalises immediately for an hour. Just to make a point. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Rehnquist Court" article?
Ought there be a seperate article on The Rehnquist Court? -- BD2412 talk 02:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there should be, but we should wait until there Rehnquist and O'Connor's replacements are confirmed. -GregAsche (talk) 23:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Judge Roberts
I added a snippet on the nomination of Judge Roberts to replace Rehnquist. I imagine this being replaced by a short sentence if/when Roberts or another is confirmed stating that "Justice Rehnquist was succeeded as Chief Justice by [ e.g., John G. Roberts Jr.], formerly [ e.g. , a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]."

User:andrewrowe

interesting, how convenenient it is that rehnquist dies in the middle of the Katrina disaster. i suppose the majority of people won't be paying attention to John Roberts becoming cheif justice. could it be a conspiracy? are we living in an roman-esque era of assassinations of those high on the ladder? Will the conservative media use Katrina as a smokescreen? User:MattK

SOMEBODY (PRESUMABLY A REHNQUIST SUPPORTER - OR A CONSERVATIVE PERSON) ERASED SEVERAL ADDITIONS I MADE TO THIS ARTICLE - THE ADDITIONS - ALTHOUGH NEGATIVE IN SOME WAYS, ARE CLEARLY SUPPORTED AND I WILL KEEP ADDING THEM EVERY DAY!!

SPECIFICALLY, THE ADDITIONS ARE CONCERNING PLESSY v. FERGUSON AND REHNQUIST'S SENATE TESTIMONY. STOP ERASING THE ADDITIONS!!! IF YOU HAVE CONCERN REGARDING ADDITIONS THEN STATE YOUR REASON. OTHERWISE, STOP CENSORING WIKIPEDIA!

Lock this Page
I've seen several vandalizations by a user called Sunbox. It's disrespectful, its ridiculous, and shouldn't be done. We need to lock this page to prevent folks like Sunbox from doing stuff like he/she is.13:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There is something of an incongruity here, the article is locked yet the current tag says that it is a current event that may change rapidly. Which is also somewhat strange since he is already dead and burried. There is unlikely to be much new in his story unless Skull and Bones decide to dig him up. --Gorgonzilla 21:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I requested for unprotection. --ThomasK 21:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

The reason this page needed to be locked (at least for a while) because of some bizzare vandalization. Pictures of white lab rats? A group of teenage girls dancing? Some folks think things are funny, even when they're not. (This is a dead man we're talking about. Let's leave him alone now.)  I think this page should just remain locked for a short period of time, so that the vandals will forget about it and just wander off somewhere. 02:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Rehnquist's drug habit
this current slate.com article points out that Rehnquist's dependence on painkillers was underreported in the media. the current wikipedia entry also greatly understates the degree and duration of this dependence http://www.slate.com/id/2125906/

(by anon, from main page where it didn't belong This link is Broken 02:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

Just because a journalist reports it doesn't make it true. Presumably the facts of the matter would have to be substantiated from several sources. I haven't done the research, but apparently neither has anyone else. The slate article above doesn't cite an exact date for the source article. There are several indicators of prejudice in the articles linked, including the "classic" uncomplimentary photo routine that would do The National Enquirer proud. Beware attempts to demonize public figures ...I believe that falls under the category of prejudice does it not?

Can we unlock this page?
Time to unlock this page now. --Harman18 08:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. This guy's in the news, so of course there will be a lot of vandalism. That isn't a good reason to protect. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Rehnquist's Picture
The main image of Rehnquist seems way too big. Could we make it a bit smaller perhaps? It reminds me of idol worship or something- quite vulgar really, how big it is.

title: Talk:William Rehnquist/Archive 2


text: Category:British art historians

title: Category:British art historians


text: Category:German art historians

title: Category:German art historians


text:
File:Bankstown City Library.jpg

The entrance of the three storey Bankstown City Library.

Photo courtesy of the Bankstown Greens.

title: File:Bankstown City Library.jpg


text:
Feng Deyi

Feng Lun (568–627), courtesy name Deyi, better known as Feng Deyi, formally Duke Miao of Mi, was a Chinese official of the Sui and Tang dynasties who served as a chancellor during the reigns of Emperor Gaozu of Tang and Emperor Taizong of Tang. He was praised for his quick thinking but criticized by historians for his being overly attentive to the emperors' desires.

Background
Feng Deyi was born in 568, when his grandfather Feng Longzhi (封隆之) was a high level official for Northern Qi. His father Feng Zixiu (封子繡) served as a provincial governor for Northern Zhou, but was captured by the Chen dynasty general Wu Mingche in a battle, probably in 573, during Wu's main offensive against Northern Qi. Sometime after Northern Qi was destroyed by Northern Zhou in 577, Feng Zixiu fled back north, and was made a provincial governor by Emperor Wen of Sui, whose Sui dynasty succeeded Northern Zhou in 581. Feng Deyi's mother Lady Lu was the sister of the official Lu Sidao. In Feng Deyi's youth, Lu Sidao often said, with regard to Feng Deyi, "This child is more intelligent than other people, and one day will surely be a highly-ranked official, even chancellor."

During Emperor Wen's reign
In 589, Emperor Wen's forces destroyed Chen, reuniting China. In 590, with people in the Chen territory unaccustomed and aggrieved by Sui law, there were agrarian rebellions in much of former Chen territory, and Emperor Wen sent the major general Yang Su to quell the rebellions. Yang Su made Feng Deyi a secretary of his, and was impressed by Feng's calmness, particularly after an accident in which Feng was almost drowned but remained calm after the incident. Later, after he quelled the revolts, he was made chancellor, and he retained Feng on staff.

In 593, Emperor Wen put Yang Su in charge of constructing his summer palace Renshou Palace (仁壽宮, in modern Baoji, Shaanxi). Yang Su made Feng his assistant, and they constructed a magnificent palace, at much human and material cost. After the palace was completed in 595, the frugal Emperor Wen visited the palace and was initially displeased at its magnificence and human cost, rebuking Yang Su. Yang Su was fearful that Emperor Wen would punish him, but Feng correctly predicted that when Emperor Wen's wife Empress Dugu arrived at the palace, Yang Su would not only not receive punishment, but would be rewarded. That indeed happened, and when Yang Su, impressed with Feng's prediction, asked him the reason, Feng responded:

 * The emperor is frugal by nature, and therefore he was angry when he first saw the palace. But he is attentive to the empress' words.  The empress, being a woman, favored beautiful things, and I knew that once this palace pleased the empress, she would change the emperor's mind.

Yang Su was impressed with Feng's analysis and praised him. Further, while Yang Su was proud of his own abilities and often found ways to insult others, he respected Feng and often requested Feng's opinions on the matters he needed to resolve as chancellor. He often touched his seat and stated, "One day Master Feng will have this seat," and he recommended Feng to Emperor Wen, who made Feng a mid-level official, Neishi Sheren (內史舍人), within the legislative bureau of his government (內史省, Neishi Sheng).

During Emperor Yang's reign
In 604, Emperor Wen died and was succeeded by his son Emperor Yang. Emperor Yang, in 605, put Feng and Yuwen Kai (宇文愷) in charge of constructing the main palace at the eastern capital Luoyang, Xianren Palace (顯仁宮), and they constructed a magnificent palace. Despite this, Feng was not promoted, and was still Neishi Sheren as of 617.

In or around 617, Feng became a trusted advisor to the chancellor Yu Shiji. As Yu was unfamiliar with civil service, Feng effectively handled the civil service matters, and the edicts that he drafted were calculated to please Emperor Yang; he would also block the submissions made by officials who had different opinions than Emperor Yang. He was harsh in his application of laws, and often reduced rewards to officials with contributions. He was therefore blamed by the Old Book of Tang for Emperor Yang's increasing favors for Yu and the deteriorating state of Sui governance.

In spring 618, with the Sui state embroiled in agrarian rebellions, Emperor Yang was at Jiangdu (江都, in modern Yangzhou, Jiangsu), when the general Yuwen Huaji led a coup against Emperor Yang. After Yuwen's soldiers trapped Emperor Yang in the palace, Yuwen ordered Feng to publicly denounce Emperor Yang for his crimes. Emperor Yang told Feng, "You are well-learned. Why are you doing this?" Feng, in shame, withdrew from Emperor Yang's presence. Yuwen subsequently killed Emperor Yang and declared Emperor Yang's nephew Yang Hao the Prince of Qin emperor.

During Emperor Gaozu's reign
Yuwen Huaji subsequently abandoned Jiangdu, leading the elite Xiaoguo Army (驍果) back north. He made Feng the head of the legislative bureau (內史令, Neishi Ling), a position that Feng continued to hold after Yuwen poisoned Yang Hao and declared himself the emperor of a new Xu state at Liaocheng (聊城, in modern Liaocheng, Shandong).

Feng, seeing that Yuwen Huaji, who was repeatedly defeated by other rebel leaders, including Li Mi the Duke of Wei, Li Shentong (李神通) the cousin of Li Yuan (who, also in 618, established Tang dynasty at Chang'an as its Emperor Gaozu), and Dou Jiande the Prince of Xia, was being weakened by the losses, befriended Yuwen Huaji's brother Yuwen Shiji, and suggested to Yuwen Shiji that he request permission from Yuwen Huaji to leave Liaocheng to collect food supplies for the army. Yuwen Huaji agreed, and Yuwen Shiji and Feng both left Liaocheng. After Liaocheng fell to Dou in 619, Yuwen Huaji was killed. Yuwen Shiji and Feng then fled to Tang territory. Emperor Gaozu, as he respected Feng as a Sui official, made him Neishi Sheren again, and soon promoted him to Neishi Shilang (內史侍郎), the deputy head of the legislative bureau. The chancellor Xiao Yu, impressed with Feng, recommended Feng, and Emperor Gaozu, in 620, made Feng Zhongshu Ling (中書令) -- a new title for the head of the legislative bureau, which Emperor Gaozu had changed the name of by this point to Zhongshu Sheng (中書省). As Zhongshu Ling, Feng was considered a chancellor as well.

Later in 620, Emperor Gaozu sent his son Li Shimin the Prince of Qin to attack Wang Shichong the Emperor of Zheng, whose capital was at Luoyang. Feng accompanied Li Shimin as one of his strategists. In 621, Dou came to Wang's aid, and Emperor Gaozu, initially believing that Li Shimin could not prevail under those circumstances, secretly ordered retreat. Instead of retreating, Li Shimin sent Feng back to Chang'an to analyze to Emperor Gaozu that Wang was in desperate straits, but that if allowed to survive, could regroup and become a serious threat later. Emperor Gaozu was persuaded and allowed Li Shimin to remain. Li Shimin subsequently defeated and captured Dou, and Wang surrendered, allowing Tang to defeat two major enemies simultaneously. Pleased, Emperor Gaozu praised Feng, comparing his advice to that of the Jin dynasty official Zhang Hua, whose advice had permitted Emperor Wu of Jin to destroy Eastern Wu. For his contributions, Feng was created the Duke of Pingyuan and continued to serve as Li Shimin's assistant.

Meanwhile, an intense rivalry was developing between Li Shimin and his older brother Li Jiancheng, who, as Emperor Gaozu's oldest son, was created crown prince. During Feng's service as Li Shimin's assistant, he was often suggesting Li Shimin various ways of seizing the position of crown prince from Li Jiancheng, but at the same time was developing a relationship with Li Jiancheng and Li Yuanji the Prince of Qi, another son of Emperor Gaozu who supported Li Jiancheng, thus playing both sides of the rivalry without either side knowing the extent of his involvement.

In 623, Feng, in addition to his other posts, also became acting minister of civil service matters. He was praised for his efficiency in the post. In 624, when Li Jiancheng was found to have improperly requisitioned soldiers to serve in his guard corps, and his guard commander Yang Wen'gan (楊文幹) then rebelled in fear, Emperor Gaozu considered deposing Li Jiancheng and replacing him with Li Shimin, but Feng made a secret submission arguing against such a move, and at least partly because of Feng's intercession, Emperor Gaozu did not depose Li Jiancheng. In 625, Feng was created the greater title of Duke of Dao, a title soon changed to Duke of Mi.

During Emperor Taizong's reign
In 626, Li Shimin, fearing that Li Jiancheng was about to kill him, ambushed Li Jiancheng and Li Yuanji at Xuanwu Gate and killed them. He then effectively forced Emperor Gaozu to first create him crown prince and then yield the throne to him (as Emperor Taizong). He reorganized his government, and as part of the reorganization, Xiao Yu and Feng Deyi were made co-heads of the important executive bureau (尚書省, Shangshu Sheng), with the title of Shangshu Pushe (尚書僕射). They soon came in conflict, however, as Feng would often agree with Xiao on important matters, and then change his recommendations once they were before Emperor Taizong. Xiao, later in 626, became sufficiently angry at Feng that he wrote a submission to Emperor Taizong, denouncing Feng using unartful language. Emperor Taizong, who was already displeased with Xiao, who was also conflicting with his other chancellors Fang Xuanling and Du Ruhui, soon removed Xiao from his post.

In 627, Feng became ill while handling official matters at the executive bureau, and Emperor Taizong visited him personally, and then used an imperial wagon to take him back to his mansion. Feng soon died, and Emperor Taizong posthumously honored him with the high title Sikong (司空), giving him the posthumous name Ming (明, meaning "understanding").

When Feng died, Emperor Taizong had not known that Feng was in fact associating with both him and Li Jiancheng, but as he reviewed imperial archives several years later, he began to realize this. In 643, with Feng's involvement in both camps becoming clear, the official Tang Lin (唐臨) submitted a posthumous indictment, requesting that Feng's honors be posthumously stripped. Emperor Taizong accepted the advice of another official, Tang Jian (唐儉), who pointed out that Feng had contributions while he was alive and that the offices should not be stripped but suggested that the posthumous honors be stripped. However, he also changed Feng's posthumous name from Ming to Miao (繆, meaning "inconsistent").

title: Feng Deyi


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Sinclair Research Ltd/archive1

Sinclair Research Ltd
I've been working very hard on this article for a few days, adding lots of missing information, improving the leading paragraph, and adding photos and a see also section. Its quite comprehensive, but I think it still needs improvement. I'd love to get this article to FA status, this company created the world's first pocket calculator, first sub-£100 personal computer and first portable TV, and created some of the smallest radios ever. What do you think? Wackymacs 10:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Only had time for a fairly quick read, but it looks good. A couple of things though (well, alright, a few): I'd like to see more on how the C5 destroyed the company, seeing as they were doing so well before then, and a lot more stuff on what the company have been doing since 1986 - are they currently owned by Amstrad?  Does Sir Clive have any involvement with them at all?  How did they end up selling bicycles etc and are they doing well at it?  Current turnover and number of employees? I realise the company has been nothing like as notable since '86 but it'd be interesting to find out more about what they've been up to since then. CTOAGN 12:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Duh. Just noticed the introduction mentions that C5 Clive is still there.  A bit more about what percentage of the company he now owns would be good though. CTOAGN 12:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the useful comments so far. Clive Sinclair himself probably owns most of the company, since it's scale today is most likely nothing like it was in the 80s. Amstrad only ever bought their products, not the company itself, Amstrad don't make personal computers anymore (and never really did make good use of Sinclair's great products). The Sinclair Zike bicycle sort of went the way of the C5, I believe. I'll see what I can add to the article based on your comments. — Wackymacs 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


text: Category:American art historians

title: Category:American art historians


text:
Organ scholar

An organ scholar is a young musician employed as a part-time assistant organist at a cathedral, church or institution where regular choral services are held. The idea of an organ scholarship is to provide the holder with playing, directing and administrative experience. It is an important part of music-making in Christian worship and is strongly associated with, but is not limited to, Anglican church music in the United Kingdom, Australia and the USA.

Organ scholars may sometimes be found at a cathedral or a collegiate church. Many colleges at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity College Dublin, as well as other universities, offer organ scholarships to undergraduates. At some institutions (for example, Christ Church, Oxford, New College, Oxford, Trinity College Dublin or King's College, Cambridge), the organ scholar(s) work under the direction of a full-time professional director of music. At other institutions, the organ scholar is in charge of running the choir.

One of the first organ scholarships in the University of Cambridge was set up by Queens' College, Cambridge. An early scholar there was the composer Charles Villiers Stanford, who took up his position there in 1870.

Many organ scholars have gone on to notable careers in music and in other fields. Two notable ex-organ scholars who went on to achieve fame in other fields are Edward Heath, who read Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Balliol College, Oxford and later served as British Prime Minister 1970–1974; and Dudley Moore, who read music at Magdalen College, Oxford and went on to a career in acting.

title: Organ scholar