Talk:David Ogden Stiers

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2017 2018 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

His sexuality

Unaware of the discussion that has been taking place on this page, I added information about his coming out, which he offically did in 2009, which was swiftly removed. My source was an article from ABC News, in which he discusses his sexuality at length and explicitly describes himself as a gay man, and two articles in The Guardian (his obituary and a reader's letter) both state that he came out that year. Additionally, a quote from the ABC article is on his IMDb page, explaining the context behind it. Are these reliable enough sources to confirm that he was gay and therefore allow this information to be placed on his page? User talk:Northern Hills 20:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

As you will see if you read above, the article from ABC was actually a quoting of a dubious blog, and all things stemming from that are problematic (although under Wikipedia terms, less so now, due to his no longer qualifying under our restrictions on coverage of the living and recently deceased.) A reader's letter would not generally be considered a reliable source unless the person writing it is particularly reliable in that matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DOS never denied the gossipboy blog report - he had a decade to do so, yet said nothing. That in itself is worth noting. A friend or family member saying he was is as much hearsay anything else without documentation. The standards on Wikipedia really vary from editor to editor. What one editor refuses to allow, another will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E48B:B600:70BB:C242:2E5D:AF9A (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, “never denying the gossipboy blog report - he had a decade to do so, yet said nothing.” is no where near the same as confirming the report. Especially in today’s world where denying a report that you are gay can easily lead to accusations that you are homophobic. DOS also had an entire decade to confirm that he was gay to any other news source (If he did please show them). If you read the so called interview in gossipboy Stier’s is exuberant and joyously relieved to finally come out. Which only makes it more dubious that he apparently never mentioned it to any other news source for the remaining 10 years of his life.

Notably, the above passage uses the same general line of logic to say Stiers was not gay as the person being criticized for saying he was gay. IMDB identifies Steirs as gay, however. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls053090298/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.74.188 (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It is NOT a question as to whether Stiers was gay or was not gay. This is a question about WIKIPEDIA standards in stating something as a fact in a wikipedia article. The source of that fact was dubious and there are no other sources for that fact. IF Stiers WAS gay but the only source to that fact was a dubious source the article should NOT state that he was gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.252.189 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this old discussion. The fact that DOS was gay is simply not encyclopedic - straight people are not identified as such. Neither was he a flag-bearer or identified as an advocate for gay rights.

Therefore, the reference to his sexuality is at best prurient and at worst homophobic - it has no relevance in the article. Juddlackland (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a dubious source should no be used to substantiate a fact on wikipedia. But I don't agree that the interest in Steir's sexuality is either prurient or homophobic. Straight actors are not identified as such because they are presumed to be so. But visibility is important, particularly for certain communities. A young gay man, an aspiring actor, may see that fact about DOS or another and benefit from the vision of what he might become, that he can indeed make it. These icons might be less necessary now than they were ten or twenty years ago, but they still matter. Sev112507 (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The source cited for Stiers being gay is an article in The Advocate yet that article cites the 2009 gossip-boy.com article, a defunct dubious source. 2009 was 9 years before Stiers died yet no one seems to be able to find any other source. A wikipedia article should not claim that Stiers was gay unless there is a credible source for saying so REGARDLESS if he was gay or not. gossip-boy.com is the only source and gossip-boy.com is not credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.90 (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC) “A young gay man, an aspiring actor, may see that fact about DOS or another and benefit from the vision of what he might become, that he can indeed make it. These icons might be less necessary now than they were ten or twenty years ago, but they still matter.” NONE of this is relevant to WIKIPEDIA and should NOT be considered in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has long fought over rules as to what should or should not be included in a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.68.90 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel that the point was missed. My comment was addressing the claim that such a fact was prurient. My point, such as it is, is that it is neither prurient nor homophobic. Were there an actually substantiated source, it would be a fact of interest and value to this article. As there is no substantive source at this juncture, the debate is moot. Sev112507 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I made an assumption that may not be true. As of this writing the article once again states, "Stiers came out as gay in 2009." and cites The Advocate article which in turn cites Gossip-boy.com. The reappearance of that text came at the same time as your comment here in the talk page. I assumed that it was you who reinserted that text but if I read you correctly you don't believe that the article should contain that text. I avoid editing Wikipedia articles. I usually just limit myself to comments in the Talk pages. 107.184.68.90 (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I see. No, without a substantiated source, I do not think it belongs in the article. I did not reinsert it. Best! Sev112507 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

before

It says he briefly attended U of OR before enrolling in Juilliard. It's possible that he enrolled at UO in his mid-20's, left there and immediately enrolled at Juilliard. It's more likely that there was a gap of 8-9 years between those two enrollments (Say a semester at UO at age 19 and enrollment in NYC at 28). (It's also possible that his Juilliard attendance was intermittent, who knows?) I suggest, unless there is good evidence to the contrary, that that sentence be changed: He briefly attended University of Oregon and later enrolled at Juilliard where he graduated in 1972. 71.30.94.234 (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)