The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Is it acceptable to include a section with the article - or in places within the article - to address the issue of Decker's homosexuality? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - Her relationship with Pecheur is mentioned in a number of unrelated sources. It was clearly a complex situation and Deckers looks like she was personally troubled by it. However, it is an important part of her life and impacted upon her career and work. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I regard her relationship with Annie Pécher (based on what is written in multiple reliable sources) as the most important thing in her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• ? -Is there an issue? What did She say? Manannan67 (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is that one editor here will not allow anyone to suggest that Deckers may have been homosexual or that she had a physical relationship with Annie Pécher, or even that they lived together as a couple.Martinevans123 (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Of course. It's also highly relevant to her life and death. People don't just commit suicide with their "roommates" or whatever 50s-era code words the article uses right now. The press might have reported Pecheur as "a female friend" at the time of their death,^{[1] [2] [3]} but that was because it was 1985. 21st Century sources, however, identify the relationship between the two women to be a romantic one. ^{[4] [5] [6] [7]} The fact that there are people trying to hide this is hilarious. PraiseVivec (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, and this needs to be put to bed. We go by what the most recent reliable sources say over what they said in 1985 (or 1965, if possible). But it was clearly fundamental to her life, career and her self-perception. I note we had a crappy section ("False rumours", etc): it is worth considering that, whatever she identified as, the suggestion and implications of her sexuality were important enough for her that she publicly denied them. If she didn't ignore the question, I fail to see how we can. ——SerialNumber54129 13:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully agree and an excellent summary. I don't see that trying to attribute any label like "homosexual" or "lesbian", to either woman, would be at all useful. But an acknowledgment of their long and very close relationship seems quite essential. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an entire section - It's fine to discuss her sexuality in the context of how it relates to important aspects of her personal life or death, but creating an entire section about it would seem a little WP:UNDUE. This person seems primarily notable for having been a singer/songwriter. Did being gay have clear and direct influence on her singing/songwriting, or was it simply incidental? NickCT (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be that most biography articles have a dedicated section entitled "Personal life", which is sadly missing in this case. And I'm pretty sure that Deckers struggled most of her adult life to ensure that her sexuality did not have any "clear and direct influence on her singing/songwriting". But to pretend that her relationship with Pécher was "simply incidental" to her life as a whole, and indeed her death, is surely quite wrong. The conflict between her religious faith and her domestic situation must have been the source of a great deal of pain and anxiety. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Martinevans123: - So is the answer to re-title the "Early Years" to "Personal life", then include a short blurb about her relationship with Pecher? NickCT (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's one possible approach, although it sounds somewhat novel compared to most other bio articles I've seen, which have both "Early life" for childhood and education, and "Personal life" for adult domestic arrangements. I'm sure we could work through a few iterations. But I think some input might be needed here from User:Diligens before this general RfC is closed and we move on to specific proposals. Perhaps someone would like to invite them to comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) -- p.s. I'd recommend that the existing "Early life" section be expanded with material from the first two chapters of Chadwick's book which suggest, amongst other things, that Deckers may have been sexually abused by her own father.[reply]

• @Martinevans123: - re "most other bio articles I've seen, which have both "Early life" for childhood and education, and "Personal life" for adult domestic arrangements" - Seems reasonable. Let's just do that. A short personal life section w/ a description of her relationship. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No objections, naturally. But still open to other suggestions. Of course, I'd also like to see agreement from User:Diligens as soon as possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need specific agreement from Diligens - as there is clear consensus now to go ahead and address the issue within the article. But I agree that it could be helpful to get thoughts to make sure we consider any major concerns when we are drafting amendments to the text. But what worries me is that Diligens has actually ignored this discussion here and is instead insistent on pushing forward his/her own position on the article page itself. This raises concerns to me about disruptive edit-warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right. That also worries me. I have posted an invitation to User:Diligens here. I'm happy to accept the compromise suggested by User:Willthacheerleader18, over that single word, for the time being. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willthacheerleader18:, both Contaldo and MartinEvans here have been thru this controversy with me 3 months ago, and are now ignoring it and pushing ahead after letting 3 months go by. They also are aware that it was posted that the subject of this article, in 1968, publicly denied what they allege. Here is the sources quote: "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who not can understand this can go to the devil!" - (Dominique, Luc (1968). Vivre sa vérité. Paris: Desclée.) --Diligens (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, certainly after 3 months. I'd have no objection. in principle, to including some or all of that quote from Deckers in the article. But that was made in 1968? She did not commit suicide, alongside Annie, until 1985 and, as User:Cullen328 has already suggested, a lot can change in 17 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is about reliable sources. Public Testimony from the subject is the highest reliable source. In order to say the status is reversed, there must be an equivalent reliable sources, such as counter-testimony from the subject her/himself, or a witness. If you have that, please present it. As well, the suicide note (a reliable source) only cites as a reason for their suicide that their business failed and they were in serious debt with government back taxes. This idea that people are lesbians because they commit suicide together should be dismissed out of hand, as that is refuted by the fact that so many lesbians are alive. --Diligens (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are quoting a Wikipedia policy there, I'm sure we'd all like to know where it is written down. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that "people are lesbians because they commit suicide". What a very strange claim that is. I wonder have you read Chadwick's book? Do you have a copy to hand? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator Ad Orientem came in February and knows the rules, and said that to question someone's sexuality there would be needed "multiple high quality reliable sources". This was BEFORE anyone was aware of the 1968 quote where the person of the article testified the rumors about herself were false. The rule for multiple high quality reliable sources still stands. "High quality" has not been defined, but it stands to reason that it must be proportionate to how the facts have developed. All courts use the same reason - if a person publicly denies a lie about herself, the only way a high quality reliable source can trump that is to either have a reversal of testimony by the person of the article, or a reference to a witness publicly testifying that the person either lied, or that she became later what she denied she was earlier. Please provide the multiple high quality sources and then we can move forward. --Diligens (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to claim that Deckers was "homosexual" nor include that claim in this article. I see no value in that label. Other editors may have a different view, of course. This is not "a courtroom" trying to deliver a "final verdict", it's an encyclopedia that draws on various sources in an attempt to describe an individual's life as a whole. But I'd be interested to see that quotation in its original language. Some of the translation there seems a bit odd. I think it might also be useful to clarify how that quote was made - was it in a public announcement, or in a private later, or as a diary entry? etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that you would like the word "partner" to replace "roommate", but that you are not trying to convey to the public they were sexual partners? --Diligens (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were partners, not just "roommates". Are you tying to convey to this Talkpage that people must have sex together in order to be partners? I think many here would disagree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked whether you want to convey that they were sexual partners by using the word "partner". --Diligens (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Do you want to convey that they were just randomly lodging together by using the word "roommate"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, let's include: "best friend, roommate and business partner". --Diligens (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, of course not. She writes "I am not homosexual". In "Dominique, Luc (1968). Vivre sa vérité. Paris: Desclée" she writes:

  "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who cannot understand this can go to the devil!"

  In my opinion that ends it. She lived with Annie Pécher. I believe that is all we can say. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how that 1968 quote "ends" anything. And it's not clear where she said or wrote it. What does "I testify against every creepy spirit" mean? What is meant by "but that is a whole other love in the Lord"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing overrides a person's assertions about their sexual orientation. That is axiomatic. Sexuality is first and foremost known to oneself. One can share self-knowledge of one's sexual orientation with others. But no one can ever contradict one's own assertions in this regard. I think that once a person declares or denies a sexual orientation that becomes the final word on the subject unless they revise that declaration. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to contradict anything. I'm trying to describe more accurately the relationship between the two women, based on good sources. This quote may be clearer, taken from Chapter 14 (p. 179) of Chadwick's book. It's from one of Deckers' private diaries, although Chadwick does not indicate the exact date:

"Enticed by lies told by the press (which come from the staff at Philips), that we are lesbians, I am close to believing it. Although our exchanges of affections are nothing of a homosexual nature, at least as far as I understand homosexual relations as being [sic] sex with the same sex. The doubt always lingers." Chadwick says this (p.81) "Whether Deckers was homosexual or not, is not as relevant as the more basic that that she could not accept her sexuality in any form". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does Chadwick know about Deckers? Does Chadwick have insight into Deckers' mind? A person speaks authoritatively about their own sexuality. It is literally impossible for anyone else's comments to supplant another individual's assertions concerning their sexual orientation. Perhaps at some point in the future it will be possible to experience another person's consciousness from their perspective but that biological capability is still beyond our reach. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I'd say that Chadwick knows more than most, having had access to Deckers' entire private archive, including her unpublished private diaries written from 1968 to 1985. I'm not sure other Wikipedia bio articles ever aim to rely on gaining a "biological capability" for "experience of another person's consciousness"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Chadwick did not have access, and she complained publicly that she was not allowed to have the diaries. And I propose again, let's include: "best friend, roommate and business partner". How about it? --Diligens (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diligens, you are quite simply wrong there. Yes, she did complain for a long time, as the entire archive had been "borrowed", as she puts it, by Luc Meddelein. But she eventually did get access. You need to read her 2010 preface to the 2012 edition of her book. Regarding your proposal, I do not think the word "roommate" is useful in any way. "Her best friend and business partner" would be a vast improvement on "roommate", but I still contend they were romantically involved partners. In simple terms, I think they were in love. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Chadwick 3 months ago; she does NOT have all the diaries. Yes, the word "roommate" means she lived with her. Very useful and something that neither "business partner" nor "best friend" can convey, so it is a good addition. You merely make your own theory about "romantic" love, and that is your own "original research" which is forbidden on WP. She was a religious and had vows, and both she and Pecher were members of the Third Order of St. Dominic, and had an oratory in their house. The 1968 quote reveals that she had a "spiritual" love for Pecher. This is a love all religious have. I also love my brother which is a "familial" love and not romantic. You have no reliable source for this romance, so you need to drop it. --Diligens (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't need to tell me to "drop it", thanks. That's just my personal view, to explain my own thoughts. I have no intention of suggesting that's added to the article. Alas, any correspondence you may have had with Chadwick is also "your own "original research" which is forbidden on WP." All the quotes I have provided are verbatim as per the book. Are you suggesting Chadwick has just invented them? I also think the translation from the original French must be lacking something, as those two parts I mentioned are quite odd. The term "roommate" is certainly not used in that sense in contemporary British English and strikes me as quite misleading. But let's hear what other editors think of your proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Self-identification means we can't state as a fact that someone has/had a certain sexuality if they would disagree with it, it doesn't mean we can't discuss it at all. If there were a dedicated section, though there doesn't have to be, it would be mostly about their relationship in general, and could briefly note both the speculation and the denial. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bizarre point being made here. It implies that when someone says something about themselves then that automatically becomes a truthful fact. Even if the evidence suggests otherwise. The suggestion seems to be that unless Deckers rises from the dead and tells us she was a lesbian then we can't discuss the possibility that she was in fact a lesbian! She made a denial in 1968 just after she came out of a convent. Never again made the same denial despite dying 20 years later. She made the denial at a time at which homosexuality and lesbianism was widely reviled, and utterly rejected by the Catholicism to which she so strongly hung. In any case we need to absolutely pin-point the guidance that governs what we say. Diligens you point to ad orientum making some sort of ruling that stops mention of the issue - I don't think they have done this actually. We have a number of sources that discuss the issue of sexuality and we have cited them several times - the question is whether these can all be regarded as reliable mainstream sources. We don't have to say "she was a lesbian" but we can say that there is a strong belief that she and Pecheur were more than "room-mates". The consenus is in favour of including something. I suggest we put together some appropriate wording. Diligens if you feel this is still a problem then the next step for you is to go to one of the noticeboards to get support for the point you are making about violating some aspect of Wikipedia norms.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo writes: "There is a bizarre point being made here. It implies that when someone says something about themselves then that automatically becomes a truthful fact. Even if the evidence suggests otherwise." Okay, please present the "evidence" that she was a lesbian. You say you have it, then present it. --Diligens (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Contaldo80: - Not bizarre at all. "Gay-ness" is qualitative and subjective.

If you were to say "I find the Mona Lisa beautiful", then the Mona Lisa being beautiful to you automatically becomes a truthful fact, which no one can really contradict.

Similarly, if I say "I am gay", then my being gay automatically becomes a truthful fact. I could be lying about how I feel of course, but it's not really for anyone to second guess me. NickCT (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Echoing User:Bus stop's comment; if we have a good source showing that the subject in question didn't consider themselves gay (and it seems we do have that source), then this entire conversation is moot. People get to decide whether they're gay or not. We don't. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The above isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of policy (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality); such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. And before one of you Wikilawyers points out we're not debating categorization, the spirit of the rule clearly applies to what we're talking about. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of sexual orientation let us suppose that under discussion was a pain in one's finger. If a subject says they have a pain in their finger (or that they do not have a pain in their finger) can a source come along and contradict them? There is no discussion of whether or not she was homosexual because she adamantly denies that she is homosexual. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A useful analogy perhaps. Again, not seeing much value in a debate over a hetero/homosexeual dichotomy, that was one statement, written in a private diary, 17 years before when died? It's her relationship with Annie in general that's worth some attention, not whether or not they ever had sex. Then again, if Deckers was really so certain, throughout her entire life, about her sexual status why did she, as Chadwick tells us, undergo five months of "dream therapy" trying to imagine sexual relations with men? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is about the use of the word "partner". A denotation of that word is that a pair of people have sexual relations. You said "not at all" when I asked you if you were trying to convey that she was homosexual. Well, being homosexual means romance between two people of the same gender. And you have promoted here that they had a romance, so your statement of "not at all" is simply not true. --Diligens (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Martinevans123—we are not having a "debate over a hetero/homosexeual dichotomy". We are discussing the nature of subjective experience. And your notion that "five months of 'dream therapy' trying to imagine sexual relations with men" gives us permission to imply that she is gay would be a violation of our policy of WP:SYNTHESIS. Just say that she underwent that therapy and leave it at that. You can't make the leap to imply something that she explicitly denies. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diligens, kindly stop tying yourself in knots to prove that other editors' motivations are wrong. We're here simply to decide on what goes in the article. Based on the evidence I have read, in a range of reliable sources, the two women appear to me to have been life partners. I regard the term "roommate" to be euphemistic and too vague, if not slightly archaic. Happy to hear what other editors think. Bus stop, when did I ever advocate that we should "imply she was gay"? I'm suggesting that her sexuality was in some way a challenge and a source of difficulty in here life. Or at least this is what a published biographer seems to say. But your suggested addition to the article looks perfectly reasonable to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion I did not even once address anyone's motivation. I just showed you that you contradicted yourself.--Diligens (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me if I was were trying to convey that she was homosexual. I said "not at all". You then told me hat my statement was simply not true. Please stop. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you promote a "romance" between two people of the "same gender", you are conveying they are "homosexual". I am simply making you aware of your mistake.--Diligens (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't they be bisexual? I guess because the Roman Catholic church forbids that too. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Martinevans123: - re "that was one statement, written in a private diary," - I think the basic idea is that self-identification trumps pretty much everything else on this matter. If we've got a clear self-identification, we really need an overwhelming reason not to accept it. Undergoing "dream therapy" doesn't seem compelling. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, NickCT, I can understand that reasoning. And if that is written down somewhere in policy it might be useful to know where that is. But again, I'm not bringing up details to "prove" anything either way, I'm just saying this was a notable aspect of her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Martinevans123: - re "written down somewhere in policy" - You saw my comment above about policy regarding categorizing and sexuality? NickCT (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reminding me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• So whose definition of "homosexual" do we take here? Deckers' own definition, as written in her 1968 diary statement quoted above, seems somewhat narrow: "... at least as far as I understand homosexual relations as being sex with the same sex." Under this definition she could have been in love with Annie, but still free of the damning stain of homosexuality, by keeping to her vow of chastity? If there is no question at all that Deckers and Annie were "romantically attached," why is this article of interest to WP:LGBT? Surely that must be removed, just like all the LGBT Categories have been removed? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are asking—why the banner on the Talk page for "WikiProject LGBT studies". Thank you for raising that question. If we are to understand that banner as equating her sexual orientation as gay, then it should be removed. But I'm not all that uptight about indirect implications via banners or categories. They are helping people find articles. There need not be a one-to-one correspondence. We aren't trying to banish research or squelch free thought. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your position. I tend to agree with you. But I'm making a more fundamental point: Deckers' definition of homosexuality, in 1968, was " sex with the same sex". Is that also ours, in 2019? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 1968 quote clearly shows that she denied being a lesbian. And when the entire content is taken into account, it means no more lesbian than women who live together in convents. --Diligens (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to nail down definitions, whether in 1968 or 2019. A person is an authority on matters relating to their own sexuality. This is the case no matter how the subject of an article defines terms. Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "impossible to nail down definitions" then I'm really not sure how much weight can be attached to any self-description, no matter when it was made. I read that statement as saying quite categorically "I do not have sex with Annie". No more and no less. Regarding "no more lesbian than women who live together in convents", we seem to be casting the net a bit wide here? Or are we all agreed there are no lesbians living in any convents anywhere in the world? Do we all agree that, when Deckers wrote, "I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord" what she meant was "I love Annie in a non-sexual way"? It seems that Annie was the one who wanted their relationship to be consummated sexually; it seems very unlikely that anyone will ever know if that happened or not. And that doesn't matter, of course. What does matter, and what the article should make clear, is the commitment the two women showed to each other, over very many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knows Catholicism, and reads the 1968 quote, knows that she has a horror for lesbianism, and saying she has a spiritual love for Pecher. It's absolutely clear what she is saying. --Diligens (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, very sorry, it's not absolutely clear to me. Nor am I sure we should assume that all readers or editors "know Catholicism." Does anyone have access the original French phrasing? Or perhaps that has never been published. But I'd have no objection to adding her "horror for lesbianism" to the article. That seems a fair appraisal. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I don't think anyone has to know about Catholicism. That quote very clearly conveys that she is denying outright that she is a lesbian, and stating outright that nobody should judge nuns to be lesbians just because they live together. Her mention of hell shows just how strong she means it. --Diligens (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of nuns or convents. Perhaps it's a little surprising that a Christian woman should wish eternal damnation on those who simply misunderstand her lifestyle choices. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for some consensus, from all Talk page parties, before an edit was made to the article. But I see that Diligens has just gone ahead and made a unilateral edit anyway here. I have no objection. I think it's a definite improvement. I still think that more biographical detail, about their relationship, could be usefully added. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be "useful" to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT. --Diligens (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it was a nice 24 minutes. Have you read Chadwick's book or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123—you write "Do we all agree that, when Deckers wrote, 'I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord' what she meant was 'I love Annie in a non-sexual way'?" No, we don't all agree. Deckers is saying that the two women share an interest and that interest is a religious one, specifically, it is "love in the Lord" which is a Christian precept. It is farfetched to suggest that the reference is to sex. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had just said it was a reference to non-sexual love? But I think your interpretation of that phrase is perfectly reasonable. The quote might be usefully added to the article, don't you think? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123—why should we characterize the fact that they lived together in any way? Can't we just say that they "lived together", or "cohabited"? These are more ambiguous verbal formulations than saying that they were "partners" because "partners" implies a romantic relationship which in turn implies a sexual relationship. Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using any word that suggests a romantic or sexual relationship. "Cohabited" and "living together" suggest that in the U.S.. For some Reason "roommate", for Brits, doesn't sound right to them, which is fine. We should say they were - "best friends and business partners, and shared a residence together".--Diligens (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "lived together", or "cohabited" seems 100 times better than "roommate". A good proposal. I don't agree that "partners" necessarily implies a sexual relationship. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So are there are objections to changing: "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher committed suicide by taking overdoses ..." to read: "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher, committed suicide, in the home they shared together, by taking overdoses..."? We can move on to include more detail about their life together, but this would at least be a start.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a one-hit-wonder, particularly a nun, who became famous for the song Dominique in 1963. Her best friend had nothing to do with her music or fame, so considering it a "start" to adding personal information about her friend is certainly starting to go against WP:UNDUE and even WP:COAT. --Diligens (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with this addition or not? Thanks. The subject of this thread is this: "Is it acceptable to include a section with the article - or in places within the article - to address the issue of Decker's homosexuality?" I'm not sure how that could be done without any mention of Annie. But I'm guessing your answer to the main question is no (although you haven't yet added that?) Yes, you might see Deckers as a "one hit wonder", but she's had films and books made about her life. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me "So whose definition of 'homosexual' do we take here?" What two definitions are you talking about? You also said "I'm making a more fundamental point: Deckers' definition of homosexuality, in 1968, was 'sex with the same sex'. Is that also ours, in 2019?" I don't know. Please describe for me the two differing definitions that you believe are under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought the definition provided by Deckers herself was pretty clear. To reiterate yet again: "... at least as far as I understand homosexual relations as being sex with the same sex." I'm not sure we have formulated a second but, just guessing, it might go along the lines of "one who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex". But I'm not sure there will be just two. Who knows, we might even find an encylopedia article about it. Judging from Diligens' contributions I suspect a third might be simply "one who is attracted to someone of the same sex". But I'm sure he could tell us. I'm getting a little weary of repeating that I don't find this kind of categorical labelling particularly useful for this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I'm not sure we have formulated a second but, just guessing, it might go along the lines of 'one who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex'." How would you know if Deckers was "sexually attracted to someone of the same sex"? So far you have only adduced her statement that "I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord". Are you saying that there is a reference to sexual attraction in that statement? I think "a whole other love in the Lord" is a religious reference. You are unreasonably reading into it to determine it to be a reference to sexual attraction. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've already made it quite clear you think that's a religious reference. Deckers' definition of homosexuality involves having sex. The definition held by many others does not. Getting back to the subject of the RfC I'd argue that, quite regardless of Deckers' personal outlook, there is still an "issue of Decker's homosexuality" because many people assumed then and may still assume now, perhaps wholly wrongly, that she was gay. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is with the people who are doing the assuming. It's not an issue with Deckers.--Diligens (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Chadwick's book, I'd very much disagree. It looks more like it was a lifelong battle for her. The reason I came back to this issue, after 3 months, was that, after reading her book, I could readily understand why Chadwick thinks that Deckers was simply in love with Annie (see the quote I added at the start of the previous thread). Whether that makes Decker's "a lesbian" or "a homosexual" or anything else, I'm really not interested. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deckers is responding to the comments made by others. She says "People at my record company think that two women who live together must be lesbians. They assert even that nuns in convents are in love. I deny these rumors as I testify against every creepy spirit. The answer is still obvious that I am not homosexual. I am loyal and faithful to Annie, but that is a whole other love in the Lord. Anyone who cannot understand this can go to the devil!" Let us go through this sentence-by-sentence. In sentence number one she is saying others are making mistaken comments about her. In sentence number two she is asserting that the general conception of nuns in convents does not include the element of homosexuality. In sentence number three she categorically contradicts what has been said about her. In sentence number four she explicitly states that she is not homosexual. In sentence number five she makes clear that although she is close with Annie the interest that they share is an interest in religion. In sentence number six she asserts that anyone who doesn't understand what she has just said can stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that was a phase ever used by the Spanish Inquisition to describe eternal damnation, but I think I know what you mean. What exactly do you think "I testify against every creepy spirit" means? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable alternative wording for "I testify against every creepy spirit" is "I denounce lies". Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to take your word for that. I'd still like to see the original French from that book by Luc Dominique, which I do not have. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She denies these rumors just as she would testify against any other creepy spirit. This is a religious person. She believes God watches everything she says and does. She does not want to tell a lie. She testifies against creepy spirits. She lives her life in accordance with good and holy spirits and she lives her life in opposition to bad and creepy spirits. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This entire conversation is exhausting. But I think it is important to note that we should not be projecting our own opinions onto the subject, or use our own personal beliefs in our arguments for what should exist in a neutral article. As a person of Catholic faith who is also a part of the LGBTQIA community and, more importantly in regards to this situation, as an editor on Wikipedia, I believe we should do our best to portray the facts while maintaining an open mind. This does not to be a critique of sexual orientation nor of religion, and it does not need to be an analysis of a person. I do think it is note worthy to mention the amount of press given to the subject as a perceived lesbian women, but also include that she never identified, at least publicly, that way (in fact she seemed rather offended by the assumption). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with that, Willthacheerleader18. Do we now need a separate RfC to agree inclusion of that addition that Diligens made and which you reverted 24 minutes later?

Bus stop, I was really just after the French idiom, but never mind. I think we can all get the gist of your interpretation. We'd all agree, I think, about her piety and religious devotion. Diligens tells us above that the two women "had an oratory in their house", although the article does not currently include this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, three months ago I added a section "False Rumors of lesbianism" that fulfilled what you say, but it didn't work out. One such version was: Over the two years after leaving the convent, Deckers became exasperated with a public rumor alleging that she and her roommate were lesbians. She experienced that the people at her recording company, Philips, believed that all women who live together, including nuns in convents, must be lesbians. In 1968 Deckers testified in writing that these rumors about herself, and about nuns, were diabolical lies. Despite her testimony, the rumor continued to spread, annoying her throughout her life. --Diligens (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can work with this proposed paragraph above. I don't want it called "false" rumours - as that uses leading language. "Rumours of lesbianism" is fine. I'd then add a sentence at the end citing Chadwick and other sources that suggest - despite Deckers protestations - the two women were lovers. I'm also fed up with this tedious and long winded debate. There is no guidance that prevents us covering this issue in the article. I think a number of editors are pushing a religious POV to avoid mention of the subject. Oscar Wilde for goodness sake denied being homosexual. You think this is new? Editors are showing a shocking lack of understanding about what is a sensitive subject. The consensus above is to include something so let's work out what is appropriate. Continuing to remove references to the issue can only be regarded now as edit warring. And I advise editors that continue to ignore the consensus that they will be referred to the appropriate noticeboard if they fail to reach out and compromise. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80—you have made a similar point before. Further up this page you said "I don't get this coyness about discussing sexuality - I'd rather we deal with this stuff in a mature and enlightened way. Anything to do with religion and sex seems to get everyone very hot under the collar for some reason." I don't think "religion" impinges on this discussion at all. She said she is not homosexual yet you are insistent that this article must imply that she is homosexual. The opinion of a biographer such as Chadwick on a subject that she cannot possibly know anything about should be dismissed. The wording presently in the article is appropriate. It says "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher committed suicide by taking overdoses of barbiturates and alcohol on 29 March 1985." Pécher is also mentioned elsewhere. "In addition to the other financial worries, the autism centre for children started by her and Annie Pécher had to close its doors for financial reasons in 1982." There is an image of their graves with the caption "The grave of Deckers and Pécher at Cheremont Cemetery in Wavre, Brabant, Belgium". There is also "The production featured several musical numbers and followed the renamed character Jeanine Fou's life from her entry into the convent until her death with Pécher." And finally there is "At scout camp in the summer of 1959 she met sixteen-year-old Annie Pécher, who would become her best friend and business partner." The article is already documenting her relationship with Pécher. We should not cross a line of impropriety that implies she is homosexual. She shares a habitation with Pécher and their relationship is lifelong. That is all that we know and that is all we should be saying. A source has to be appropriate for the assertion it supports. Chadwick is incapable of knowing Deckers' sexual orientation. That is axiomatic. Therefore it would be entirely inappropriate of us to imply that Deckers was homosexual. Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Crossing a line of impropriety". Is it "impropriety" to be homosexual? I have suggested a reasonable compromise. There is nothing in what I have suggested that violates guidance. This is in line with consensus that we include the issue if sensitively handled. If there is then please take me to an administrator's noticeboard. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Contaldo80, what I had in mind was an "impropriety" of an implication of a sexual orientation that a subject of an article denied. Thank you for bringing any ambiguity in my post to my attention and thereby allowing me the opportunity to clear it up, and I hope I have done so. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So Willthacheerleader18, while I agree with your comments above, about portraying the facts while maintaining an open mind, do we now need a separate RfC to agree inclusion of that addition that Diligens made and which you reverted 24 minutes later, i.e. "Citing their financial difficulties in a note, she and Annie Pécher, best friends and business partners, committed suicide, in the home they shared together, by taking overdoses"? Because I'm not sure it is really within the domain of the original RfC question here, which was: "Is it acceptable to include a section with the article - or in places within the article - to address the issue of Decker's homosexuality?" Similarly with my more recent addition here, which lasted all of 2 hours, before it was revered by Diligens with the edit summary "This is WP:UNDUE". I don't believe it is undue since, as far we know, there were no other individuals that Deckers ever chose to have as a best fried in this way. But maybe it would be better placed in a new section which just covers their relationship. Again, I'm not sure it is really within the domain of the original RfC question. Or do we need to conclude this general RfC, one way pf the other, before moving on to open separate RfCs for these two, and possibly other, points regarding their relationship? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Always amazed to see the importance attached to motes. Can't quote policies/guidelines/wikilaws like many can, but really, the question must be how much this other person figured in this person's life. Impact. How much does it mean to the subject of this article?

I hesitate to mention Barbara Jordan as a model, because even there there is a whole lotta titillation going on. Although the mention is made:

Considerable speculation exists as to Jordan's sexuality and the nature of her and Earl's relationship, something that neither Jordan nor Earl are known to have addressed, recorded or shared with others to date.

people just can't stop themselves. Why?

I just don't get the concerted interest in filling in certain details even where moot. And what convinced me this is not a good direction was Agnes_Moorehead#Sexuality. A hater said "she is!" Others said "she isn't!". And so we just have to include the matter? NPOV-style of course. Prurience first, then pooh-poohs second. Foo.

In any case, go back, read the Grauniad column again, and ask yourselves: is what is written from uncited knowledge of the author, or simply repeating what the movie contained/suggested. It is quite unclear to me. I would say the article is uncitable due to that ambiguity. Shenme (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the sort of sentence we should avoid: "Considerable speculation exists as to Jordan's sexuality and the nature of her and Earl's relationship, something that neither Jordan nor Earl are known to have addressed, recorded or shared with others to date." That sort of "speculation" is probably irrelevant to a responsibly-written biography.

Yup, same silliness at Agnes Moorehead: "Moorehead's sexuality has been the subject of much speculation and dispute." There has to be a good reason for articulating that there has been "speculation". Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Barbara Jordan provides a model of bad practice, maybe not. Sorry, I have no interest in that article, nor in Agnes Moorehead. I'd rather stick here to a discussion of Deckers and Pécher. I don't consider a very general description of their relationship, nor a very brief description of where and when they met, as "motes". Do we need news RfC's to add these simple facts? The subject of the original RfC subject here seems to be preventing the addition of those two details. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but someone who uses the term "Grauniad" is not engaging in serious debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the use of the term "Grauniad" suggest that "someone...is not engaging in serious debate"? Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Private Eye magazine is puerile and not about serious debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doe anyone know if this RfC is still open? Are we any closer to agreeing any addition? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]