|
[[Image:Flickr_ymimexico_247769858--Jalapeno_poppers.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Jalapeno poppers.]]
There's a body of evidence to suggest that Eleanor Roosevelt had a lesbian relationship with Lenore Hickock; how much support must an idea like this have before it's wiki-gospel? It is a case of survival of the fittest edit?
'''Jalapeño poppers''' are [[jalapeño]] [[chile pepper|pepper]]s that have been hollowed out, stuffed with a mixture of [[cheese]], [[spices]], and sometimes ground meat, and then deep fried. They are served (usually with some kind of dip) as appetizers at some Mexican- or Southwest-themed bars and restaurants.
==External links==
* I don't know when the above was posted, but I believe the evidence I provide in the paragraph recently removed (and now restored) is presented with NPOV and is well substantiated. I ask that it not be removed without discussion [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 00:50, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
*[http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_24509,00.html Emeril Live! Tailgating Recipe Contest Winner]
*[http://southernfood.about.com/od/jalapenochilerecipes/r/bl21220b.htm Mexican Recipe]
{{Mexico-cuisine-stub}}
The evidence for her lesbian status has been repeatedly removed, being replaced by various other justifications. Please place such justifications here, we'll talk about it, and we'll change the actual article when we've decided on something. It will probably end up supporting both sides, but we'll see. [[User:Luqui|Luqui]] 04:33, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
:I agree. The entire article is a mess right now. I hope to work with others to eventually get this article up to featured status, but I'm currently working on other matters. I'll keep an eye on your efforts though and please let me know if you think you need help and I'll try to make some time. - [[User:JCarriker|JCarriker]] 16:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
:: The paragraph on ER's bisexulaity has been there undisputed and well documented for months. I've restored the last removal and will continue to do so. There is ZERO reason to take the position that it is false until further substantiated. If someone has good reason to suggest it is false, place THAT here and we can dsicuss it. Please do not start with the premise that famouse people are straight until conclusively proven otherwise. Yes, there needs to be some standard beyond gossip and tabloid journalism, but the historical evidence here is very strong. [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 11:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Mexican cuisine]]
:As most people who are educated know, Eleanor Roosevelt was a well-spoken individual and a talented writer. Sometimes when a person reads material, it can be interpreted out of it's intended context and can cause problems when not thoroughly reviewed. The fact of Eleanor Roosevelt's homosexuality hardly seems valid to me. Why or how does a person wait so late in life to discover their sexual preference? Does it take a person nearly 50 years of living to discover they are gay or lesbian? Mrs. Roosevelt or anyone in love with another person both homosexual or heterosexual will significantly curtail his or her schedule to be with the person he or she loves if they are truly in love. Also, why such a lapse of so many years before discovering the possible relationship? There would have been suggestions during the tenure of the two womens relationship to suggest there was a romance occurring and would most likely have been remarked on as being obscure. To publish such material on an individual is considered slander and can truly damage a persons reputation when all that could possibly occurred is a good friendship between two people. If these women were involved with one another it seems a love with another person is worth bragging about and close confidants of both parties would know something of a romance. For many people who don't want to come out or someone who is intensely private, discarding the letters that are indicative of correspondence seems to be the appropriate action to take. More care would've been given to conceal the relationship in my opinion. Since Eleanor Roosevelt died first, it seems she would have done everything in her power to not let word of the relationship leak and she would have destroyed any and all evidence indicative of a possible romantic relationship. I feel by all means that the paragraph suggesting Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt's homosexuality should be deleted until one can prove beyond and far beyond a reasonable doubt that a romantic relationship occurred between these two women. 04:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
[[Category:Appetizers]]
:: Your reasons for removing her are not substantiated, while the statements about her bisexuality are well substantiated. You are holding this bit of information to an higher standard than most because you perceive statements about her bisexuality as perjorative; which reflects society's bigotry and nothing about the facts of the case. To answer your points, no one has suggested she was homosexual (but rather bisexual), no one has suggested she waited until late in life to discover this (for all we know she may have known since childhood). It took time to become public because being queer was hidden in those days (and to some degree in these days). To suggest that saying "Some biographers have suggested that Mrs. Roosevelt had a romantic relationship with the journalist Lorena Hickok whom she met in 1928 and who was an out lesbian" is slanderous is absurd and reveals how homophobic we remain. [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 10:27, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
: My reasons for removing her are well substantiated, as I stated before there should be more readings of the two womens' communication before assuming a romantic relationship occurred. Women are very affectionate toward one another, especially close friends. Unless Mrs. Roosevelt or Ms. Hickok themselves made a statement to anyone other than themselves that they had a romantic relationship, this information should not be published. A public icon would shy away from the spotlight if there was any chance that their sexual preference would be revealed if they were gay. Homosexuality and bisexuality in my religion are the same thing. If a person has sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex and the opposite sex, he or she would still be considered homosexual. I feel like you use Mrs. Roosevelt's sexual orientation or her assumed sexual orientation to justify your sexual preference. Eleanor Roosevelt married at an early age and bore six children during her marriage so this alone would highly suggest that she was not gay. Her deep committment to her father and the letters he wrote her are also enough evidence that her main objective was to please and to maintain a relationship romantically with another woman is just the opposite. "Some biographers have suggested that Mrs. Roosevelt had a romantic relationship with the journalist Lorena Hickok whom she met in 1928 and who was an out lesbian" is very slanderous unless a person involved in the relationship informs someone outside the relationship that this is true. No one alive this day knows the true nature of those two ladies relationship with one another. This is a very homophobic nation due to the fact that it does not conform to the natural order of things. The statement is not homophobic, rather it shows how low morals people in our society have based on their sexual orientation. Once again, this information should be deleted because you seem to use Mrs. Roosevelt's assumed sexual preference as a safety net to justify your own sexual orientation. 20:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
:: Your statement speaks for itself as based on your religious perspective and is not NPOV. Further, I won't debate whether bisexuality is the same as homosexuality (clearly and by definition it is not). I will state that your argument that publication of this paragraph requires that one of them told a third party sets an unreasonable and special standard and further that I find your logic a bit tortured if not self-contradictory. In any case, I will ask for administrative help to stop you from repeatedly removing this paragraph. Also, it would be nice if you'd sign your entries. [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 12:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
: My statement does speak for itself, and I have absouletly no earthly idea what a NPOV is. I do know though that bisexuality and homosexuality are basically the same concept. They both involve sexual relationships with members of the same sex. In my religion, there is no difference. Nowhere have you proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these two ladies had a romantic relationship. All you have been able to say is that there is enough evidence to substantiate a relationship between these women, yet you don't seem to be able to provide any reliable proof of this claim. This is the same concept of a rumor or heresay. Any fool knows that unless you read something that is clean cut and not poetically written as Mrs. Roosevelt often did, you cannot assume they maintained a relationship unless a third party can confirm this to be true. When we read poetry, we always look beyond what we read for a deeper, fuller meaning. There is no special standard rather the truth. It's a similar concept to looking at a person and assuming they are gay with no hard core evidence. None of my statements contradict themselves as nowhere have I stated that I even had an inkling that Mrs. Roosevelt was a lesbian. Whatever the case of Mrs. Roosevelt's sexuality, it was wrong if she was bisexual as you are for yours. I feel like once again that you use Mrs. Roosevelt's assumed sexuality as a security blanket to justify your own psychopath sexual ideas. Honestly, the idea of Eleanor Roosevelt's sexuality provides absolutely no relevance to the paragraph at all or no relevance to anyones knowledge as we know she's been dead close to forty-three years. To state this is very much slanderous and gossip. This shows how ignorant of a person you are and how out of touch with reality you are and anyone else who chooses to continue to assume that Eleanor Roosevelt was bisexual. Good luck in getting me to stop deleting this paragraph and making yourself look more ignorant in continuing to publish slanderous material. As with there being no relevant reason to publish this type of material on Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, there is no need at all for you to know who I am. I will truly pray for someone like you who so desperately needs it. You need Jesus in your life, not a man. Thank You. Case closed. Debi Ann 05:15, June 2, 2005
::NPOV means Neutral Point of View, one of the fundamentals of editing an article here. Your personal attacks are not only impolite (surprising for someone who preaches Jesus) but they are inappropriate to this discussion. The standard is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but to provide reasonable documentation; that this relationship is confirmed by ER's biographer and again by a childhood friend should be more than enough. Your opionion that ERs bisexuality (and mine) are "wrong" is not only irrelevent, it makes your continuing deletion of this fact more than suspect. I suggest strongly that you read the guidelines for editing articles and for maintaining a Neutral Point of View. [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 10:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
: I did not attack you, rather point out the fact that you seem to have some sort of insecurity with your own sexuality and use Eleanor Roosevelt's assumed sexuality to justify your own. I will once again say that it is wrong if either you are her are or were bisexual. That is not an attack, rather the truth as is also stated in the Bible. In order to publish material to cause one to wonder about another persons sexual orientation should be factual and provide proof relevant to the statement being issued. I've read statements from ER's biographer and most of her statements are based on personal opinions rather than factual knowledge. ER's biographer in a sense created a scenario to make the relationship possible. People, "friends" included will say or do anything to make themselves look good or to cut down another person due to his or her level of fame and fortune. You still seem to not understand that you should provide proof of this relationship. To make a claim that someone is bisexual is nothing to be taken lightly and should be backed with evidence. If ER was alive today, I'm one-hundred percent sure that no one would confront her about her sexuality. Another point I failed to mention is the fact that ER was so distraught to learn her husband cheated on her and was even more upset to learn he was with the woman at his death. It is highly unlikely for someone such as ER to hold a double standard such as this. The woman had more respect for the institution of marriage to commit an act such as this. The last deletion of the paragraph was not made by me, but the person who took her off of the gay and lesbian category. I truly feel you should refer to the bottom of this page before you consider posting this irrelevant trash again.
== Gay Icon Project ==
In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article [[Gay icon]] to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article [[Gay icon]] and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. [[User:Philwelch|Philwelch]] 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
==Removal of Gay, lesbian or bisexual people category==
I removed the Category designations "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" and "LGBT actors" from [[Eleanor Roosevelt]]. While there has been much speculation about her sexuality, I don't think Wikipedia is a place where we should gave a label of any sort on any issue based on nothing more than speculation. An encyclopedia article cannot make a statement of fact without the necessary proof to back it up. It seems we are at times prone to write things about the dead that we never would if they were alive because of thje threat of a lawsuit. (I'm thinking of [[Tom Cruise]] in particular]].) Of course if anyone has factual information that she was a lesbian, please insert it in the article and reinstate the category I deleted. [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 20:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Despite the repeated efforts of some to deny ER's bisexuality, it is well documented (as is the homophobia of the person making the deletions, see above). Here is the documentation:
1. Documented by Blanche Wiesen Cook, author of Eleanor Roosevelt's definitive biography
2. Confirmed by Jonathan Ned Katz in the Gay/Lesbian Almanac.
3. Confirmed by Cliff Arnesen, a childhood friend and member of the National Bisexual Advisory Board/GLB Veterans of America.
:That should be more than enough for the paragraph which is quite equivocal and NPOV. I think there has been more than enough censorship of this fact, and the standard for inclusion ought to be "would we include this if she had affairs with men" and the answer is that clearly we would with this much documentation. While #2 may be suspect, #1 is definitive, and #3 is at least supportive. [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 10:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I respectfully disagree with User:Jliberty. As much as he has listed persons making claims, there are countless rebuttals by equally or more respected authorities. While Eleanor Roosevelt may have been bisexual etc., neither I, nor User:Jliberty, nor anyone cited, provided proof, they only drew their own conclusions. No more. When assessing personal conclusions, the person/source must be considered. Blanche Wiesen Cook is reportedly an admitted lesbian and the other two "authorities" listed are gay organizations. The reality is that thousands of years of oppression, and worse, of gay people has, according to the psychological experts, developed a need for validation by some and it is not uncommon for gay persons to try to make someone famous "one of us." Personal conclusions, particularly from a inherently non-neutral position, are not, at least in my opinion, appropriate for Wikipedia. [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 12:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
| 