Is this wrong?

[Gendo]

I was looking at the Wikipedia article for Ian Charelson (an actor best known for Chariots of Fire). Under the "death" section, it says: "Charleson, who was gay, was diagnosed with HIV in 1986, and died of AIDS-related causes in January 1990 at the age of 40."

It seems like having "who was gay" in this context is really wrong. It seems to be attributing the fact that he got AIDS to the fact that he was gay, or helping to promote the myth that AIDS is a "gay person's disease." If Wikipedia wants to talk about his sexuality when discussing his personal life that's fine, but to put it there as seemingly part of why he died just seems wrong.

[Pope Bucky]

Report it immediately to the official Wikipedia regulatory committee.

Or change it yourself.

Yeah. That.

[CashRules]

What I got from this is that Gendo likes to read Wiki articles about gay guys.

[Dr_Liszt]

What I got from this is that Gendo likes to read Wiki articles about gay guys.

^This. [/endthread]

[Anakin McFly]

I went there to edit it, but realised that there was no other mention of his sexual orientation in the article, and no other place where I could put it instead. So I didn't.

[Boomer]

I went there to edit it, but realised that there was no other mention of his sexual orientation in the article, and no other place where I could put it instead. So I didn't.

Why put it anywhere? I can't recall any wiki page for a straight person specifically mentioning their orientation.

[Gendo]

I went there to edit it, but realised that there was no other mention of his sexual orientation in the article, and no other place where I could put it instead. So I didn't.

Why put it anywhere? I can't recall any wiki page for a straight person specifically mentioning their orientation.

Excellent point. In an article about Matthew Shepard, or Harvey Milk, it would make sense to discuss sexual orientation. Or about anyone who was outspoken about his or her own orientation. Like, the Ellen DeGeneres article has an entire subsection called "Sexual orientation and relationships." But that's because as a celebrity, she came out publicly as gay and her relationships with other female celebrities were public and well-known.

But nothing in the Wikipedia article for Ian Charelson makes you think that his sexual orientation or relationships was a public part of him being a celebrity. So his orientation shouldn't be mentioned any more than the orientation of any random straight person.

[Gendo]

Well I just made my first ever Wikipedia edit!

[Blade Azaezel]

Should've just got malkatrazz to do it

[CashRules]

^WIN

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Well I just made my first ever Wikipedia edit!

And now you've had your first ever Wikipedia edit undone!

[CashRules]

Oh crap, you've come up against one of those people who makes dozens of edits a day. Good luck.

[Gendo]

Well I'm not going to try and get into a back and forth edit war; I explained myself in the talk page; hopefully it's just someone who didn't realize that I was doing it for a good reason.

[CashRules]

There should be a personal life section on that page. That's where there can be mention of the fact he was gay. Articles about gay people always mention that they were gay and that's fine as long as their homosexuality isn't the main focus. If you try that you might not have an edit war with a super-editor who thinks he runs Wiki.

[Gendo]

Well he responded to me on the talk page:

Hi, there is no direct causality stated or implied (i.e. obviously all gay men do not and did not get AIDS), however we have to mention his sexual orientation somewhere, and this is the precisely appropriate place. No one (except close friends) knew he was gay before he died of AIDS, and after that was announced, everyone knew he was gay — and he became a gay icon precisely because he was the first celebrity in the UK to let his death be openly announced as from AIDS (similar to Rock Hudson in the U.S.). In point of fact, at the time Charleson acquired AIDS (sometime prior to 1986), AIDS was acquired only by gay or bisexual men, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, or (very occasionally) people who received tainted blood transfusions; by far the first group. It is certainly encyclopedic and necessary to mention Charleson's sexual orientation in this article and at that particular juncture. While I can fathom your concern, it is unfounded and extremely outdated.

Does he have a point?

[phe_de]

Well he responded to me on the talk page:

In point of fact, at the time Charleson acquired AIDS (sometime prior to 1986), AIDS was acquired only by gay or bisexual men, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, or (very occasionally) people who received tainted blood transfusions; by far the first group.

Does he have a point?

So according to him, straight women did not acquire AIDS before 1986 through sexual intercourse? Well, the myth that sleeping with female virgins cures AIDS had to come from somewhere...

Apart from that, like CashRules said, a "personal life" section might be the best solution. Then there could be one sentence mentioning "He was gay, which became known after his death", or something like that.

[Ptolemy_Banana]

Well he responded to me on the talk page:

Hi, there is no direct causality stated or implied (i.e. obviously all gay men do not and did not get AIDS), however we have to mention his sexual orientation somewhere, and this is the precisely appropriate place. No one (except close friends) knew he was gay before he died of AIDS, and after that was announced, everyone knew he was gay — and he became a gay icon precisely because he was the first celebrity in the UK to let his death be openly announced as from AIDS (similar to Rock Hudson in the U.S.). In point of fact, at the time Charleson acquired AIDS (sometime prior to 1986), AIDS was acquired only by gay or bisexual men, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs, or (very occasionally) people who received tainted blood transfusions; by far the first group. It is certainly encyclopedic and necessary to mention Charleson's sexual orientation in this article and at that particular juncture. While I can fathom your concern, it is unfounded and extremely outdated.

Does he have a point?

I'm not sure if what he says about those groups being the only ones infected with AIDS back then is true, but it's certainly true that they were overwhelmingly the ones affected. Given the awful impact the disease had on the gay community in the early to mid 80s, it seems to me that Charleson's sexual orientation is very relevant. Reading the article and thinking that the point being made is "he was gay, that's why got AIDS" is a direct inferral on the part of the reader.

[Anakin McFly]

Yeah, that guy has a point in the sense that if Charleson was a gay icon, then it becomes relevant to mention it in the same way it's relevant for Ellen Degeneres. Maybe put it in a personal life section (but that would require you to write other personal life stuff), or keep it where it is but with the added elaboration that guy wrote, explaining how he was the first celebrity to go public as having AIDS.