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)

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.

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).

Moved from main page.

• 'N Sync/Justin Timberlake
• ABBA
• Backstreet Boys
• Barbra Streisand
• Bee Gees
• Britney Spears
• Cher
• Dead or Alive (band)
• Diana, Princess of Wales
• Doris Day/Secret Love
• Freddie Mercury
• Hugh Jackman
• James Dean
• Judy Garland
• Kylie Minogue
• Madonna (entertainer)
• Patsy Cline
• Thompson Twins

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)

FYI, Category:Gay icons is up for deletion, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 8#Category:Gay icons. (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)

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: [1] -- 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...
• Justin Timberlake - naaah...
• 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?
• Weather Girls - not listed, but they did sing "It's Raining Men", which is very popular among gay men.