2

I was looking at the question Are there any photos of Arnold Murray? and got to wondering whether it deserves the tag. The question is about the same-sex lover of a famous scientist. Partners of famous people are almost always historically notable, but it wasn't clear to me whether asking about a same-sex partner makes the question an LGBT question.

Right now, the tag has no tag wiki, and seems to be mostly used for the history of LGBT movements, identity, laws, and tolerance. Should we memorialize this in the tag wiki or should we expand it to cover historical questions that involve LGBT people or relationships but aren't about LGBT history per se?

One possible reason I see for including history of specific LGBT people into the tag is that such questions are likely to be of interest to and be answerable by people who have an interest in LGBT history.

I could even see three categories of questions to consider (in descending order of likelihood of being an question):

  • Questions about the history of LGBT movements, groups, identity, laws, tolerance, and culture.
  • Questions about LGBT relationships, LGBT-ness, and involvement in LGBT movements of specific famous LGBT people in history. These are LGBT questions about historical LGBT people, but not about the history of LGBT.
  • Questions about a specific LGBT person or LGBT people, but where the question has nothing to do with anything LGBT per se. An example could be a question about what physical building Alan Turing worked in. These are non-LGBT questions about historical LGBT people.

What does the community think?

1
  • A tag should usually represent the topic the question is discussing. Classifying individuals with labels has historically worked out poorly, and is almost always done with a purpose in mind.
    – justCal
    Dec 14, 2022 at 15:47

1 Answer 1

1

Even if we had such a rule, I think this would be an edge case, as the only reason history knows that gentleman at all is because of his homosexual relationship with Alan Turing. One could say he's a central figure in a seminal event (or injustice) in LGBT history, and his historicity as a person is inseparable from that.

On a somewhat related note, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the question, as I can't think of a good reason to ask it, other than quasi-purient interest in the looks of someone who's only known for being the object of desire in a sexual scandal. I don't think there's any legit reason to close a question for that though.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .