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).

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

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)

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...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?
• 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.
• Doris Day/Secret Love - Should probably be listed, needs more research.
• 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)

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)

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))

Editingoprah (talk · contribs) 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. Harro5 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. Harro5 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 Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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)

See discussion here about why the article has been protected. Thanks. Harro5 09:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)