Talk:Luke Evans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sexuality

Anyone who reads through the interesting edit history of this page will see that someone -- perhaps two someones -- is/are making a determined attempt to remove any of the documented citations about Evans's sexuality. That attempt in and of itself has become of interest to the gay press. See http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man. 209.53.143.56 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Blp

The BLP discussion should be closed and the pertinent reliable sources that were removed should be reinserted 174.252.114.199 (talk)

It's one editor stalling the discussion. At BLP noticeboard there are a few people who believe (this has nothing to do with policy) that sexuality "isn't for Wikipedia". Of course, how celebrities are outed or "inned" is culturally, socially and academically notable in and of itself anyway. And, emphatically, this isn't a BLP issue. The last revert was actually to reinstate BLP-violating information about Evans (the Early Life) section while deleting the (highly-notable!) well-sourced, NPOV personal life section. It's a complete joke. Zythe (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be a joke to some but it is only through discussion that this dispute will be resolved - please join in at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luke_Evans (actor) - Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It won't be a "discussion." What will happen is that a flashmob of Wikipedia regulars -- most of whom are children -- will decide the issue without regard to fact, or to Wikipedia's own policies. It has happened many times before, and it's why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously at any academic institution anywhere in the world. It's also why so many leading authorities on a wide variety of topics no longer participate. Wikipedia has continually demonstrated that it has no regard for truth, whatsoever, and that its own policies can be overridden by any ad hoc coalition of insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

additional reliable source

gawker has picked up the "gay" story. I believe Gawker is more reliable than Afterelton. Also it is more Notable. Here is the cite. Could someone who has rights please add the info: "Hollywood's Next Big Action Star is Gay" http://gawker.com/5828820/hollywoods-next-big-action-star-is-gay 76.21.178.151 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gawker is not a decent support for a BLP article and they are only reporting the blog post. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as anyone knows, Luke has always been a normal, red-blooded male. People envious of his success have always tried to spread hurtful rumours alluding to some "alternative lifestyle choice". Nothing could be further from the truth. Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate and if it's any consolation, I believe Luke has a beautiful fiancee and she is harmed by these sick rumors too. 99.117.134.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

"As far as anyone knows, Luke has always been a normal.....I believe Luke has a beautiful fiancee and she is harmed by these sick rumors too." So by "has always been normal" you mean heterosexual. According to you if he was gay he wouldn't be normal. You are kidding me. Luke was the one who talked about being gay. Those are not rumors. He was the one who talked about his sexual orientation. I feel homophobia from your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.121.242 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd ignore it, I think they were trying to be funny. If you look at the same IP's comment further down the page it mentions George Rekers, an ex-gay 'pioneer' who was recently caught with a male prostitute, and includes the laughable assertion that Obama and McCain never revealed the gender of their life partners. There's also some weird comment about a senator being Jewish but I'm not from the US so I didn't get it. AlbionBT (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If being Gay isn't of note and a normal thing to comment on in Wikipedia, why are there so many articles and mentions about it on wikipedia, including lists of high profile gay individuals? Moreover, there are so few "out" actors, that this in and of itself is a phenomenon to note and thus merits inclusion in his biography. 74.62.223.100 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC) CG243

Um, clearly the Advocate is a reliable source and always has been. Luke Evans gave them an interview in 2002 with his photograph and is open in the interview about being gay. Why is this even controversial? http://books.google.com/books?id=v2QEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA55&ots=ryIXRPJTFQ&dq=luke%20evans%20gay&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=true ColinATL (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Because there's a startling level of homophobia on Wikipedia. The Advocate is a completely appropriate source. He gave an interview and clearly described himself as gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.212.12 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is as I have seen here no level of homophobia on wikipedia at all - perhaps you should ask at the LGBT talk page if your opinion is a reality to experienced LGBT editors. At wikipedia and in encyclopedias that I have read - a persons sexuality is not notable - it is normal to be homosexual and of no note - we don't report the sexuality of living people unless such private/personal detail is noteworthy - this has not been asserted in this case - he also has recently commented that he is a private person has recently been reported to be dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have correctly added the fact that he has been romantically linked to a woman. I think what is angering those in the gay community is that there were only unsubstantiated rumors about his lifestyle choice - whereas the reports of his romance with a woman are factual, verifiable, and confirmed in mainstream news sources. So all we are left with is his verified heterosexual relationship to a beautiful woman (his fiance?) and a single nasty anonymous rumour about being homosexual. Wikipedia was right to go with the facts and report on this straight male celebrity.99.117.134.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

If you would read the interview in the Advocate, and previous posts from others, the assertion has already been made that because he discusses how his sexuality has affected him as a performer at a young age, among other things, his sexuality is notable for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. See also the article for Anderson Cooper, where Mr Cooper's personal life is discussed in depth, and his wish for his personal life to remain private is well-sourced and referenced. 207.238.152.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

The sexuality of living people is usually not encyclopedic-ally notable here or at the other encyclopedias I have read. WP:Other stuff exists - I don't agree that there is some kind of "shortage of gay actors or that even if there was we should see that as a reason to add someones sexual trivia to any article. This living person was last reported to be dating a named woman - what are the names of the homosexual partners over the last ten years? Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that you do not think it is notable enough that he has discussed that his sexuality has affected him as a performer. Just so we are clear. 207.238.152.8 (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

His sexuallity ghas not affected his career. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This very conversation is ludicrous and offensive. It has already been established on Wikipedia that if a person is openly spoken to be GLBTQ this is a notable biographical fact for a number of reasons, the LEAST of which is that people are presumed heterosexual unless stated otherwise. Because gay people are a minority, unless it is said outright that someone is gay it is presumed that they are not. This is simply fact. Furthermore, what if he were to have had a long term life partner? Will you suddenly assert that having a same-sex partner is not notable and therefore should not be mentioned? I am outraged by the lock down of this article and the ignorance and homophobia that has triggered it. Next you're going to say that because being African American is not "unusual" it doesn't bear mentioning either. CouplandForever (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are some of the reasons to exclude this dated content about his previous sexual preferences. "people are presumed heterosexual unless stated otherwise. Because gay people are a minority, unless it is said outright that someone is gay it is presumed that they are not." - those are just activist positions imo. We are not a gay pride moythpiece that label the gay minority becvause they are not profiled enough oe whatever. As for your last point, what about a relationship, has he been reported to be is a same sex relationship, has he had a same sex long term partner? What details do we know about his life apart from the desire to label , he said in 2002 that he was gay, In 2010 has was reported to be dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the mistake being made is many are assuming that Luke's sexual orientation is somehow a permanent or lasting part of his personality. As we have seen with the studies of gender expert Dr. George Rekers and treatment specialist Dr. Marcus Bachmann, many adults choose to leave the lifestyle and its behaviors. I don't think it is at all wrong for Wikipedia to honor Luke's privacy. I can't think of any other public figure who would share such an intimate detail. Even with politicians such as President Obama or his rival John McCain, neither chose to divulge their bedroom lifestyle nor the gender of their life sex partners. These are issues of utmost sensitivity. Some people have even suggested the public figure Senator Joseph Lieberman is 'Jewish', but not a single person has provided definitive proof of such a mean-spirited rumor. Again, it is an extremely private issue that is not usually even hinted at in public discussion or polite forums (such as Wikipedia).99.117.134.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

It's beyond silly to cite BLP as a reason for not including information about a subject that they themselves went out of their way to volunteer in an interview. The interview is indisputably a reliable source, and he discusses at length in the interview how being gay impacted his life, his career, his relationship with his family in light of their religious beliefs. I see no actual counterargument, just the ipse dixit that "we don't mention that." postdlf (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything of note as a way of his sexual preference affecting his career. Its just fluff as a way to give weight ot its inclusion when actually its sexual profiling without reason at all. Also that was a decade ago - no relationship? No reports of any male relationships and now a report of a female companion - Considering the lack of same sex relationship detail to add and no real effect in his life at all worthy of mention, are we not to allow someone the basic privacy of changing his mind or going back into the closet without us screaming - HE WAS GAY A DECADE AGO. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see your argument. "Sexual profiling" is not a constructive characterization. Whether or not he ever had a same-sex relationship or is currently in an opposite-sex relationship cannot wipe out the fact that he discussed coming out as gay, to his family and in public, in a 2002 interview with a major magazine. If you can reliably source that he now regrets coming out or wishes privacy or whatever, then also add that to the article. And no, that a subject later regrets giving an interview (if he does), or would today no longer give that sort of personal interview, in no way obligates us to ignore that interview. postdlf (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Evans came out publicly to a reliable source; that's highly significant biographical information which belongs in the article. Speculation vis-à-vis how that verifiable fact relates to the gender of someone he's currently dating is not constructive. Content should be comprehensive, based on reliable sources, and draw no inferences. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

off2, I have trouble believing you have read any of the sources in question, since of course he does talk about his boyfriends. And he does talk about how it impacted his career, early on, and how his career impacted his sexuality and might do so in the future. And then this whole pullava now is evidence of that some more. It seems you just want the page locked down because you have a personal conviction that all mentions of homosexuality on Wikipedia are motivated by a hardcore rights movement. Which is deluded and silly.Zythe (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm new here so this is probably a stupid question but what is this discussion working towards? The guy has shown that he's not going to listen to reason, he's not going to change his mind. Isn't there some sort of conflict resolution or arbitration to sort problems like this out? --82.8.43.241 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have worded that better. What I meant was that Off2Riorob's main argument seems to be one of notability but when presented with sources from Luke Evans own mouth saying how notable the matter is, he ignores them. Furthermore, Wikipedia's own policy states that notability is only a factor for the existence of a article not its contents. The recent news of his involvement with Holly Goodchild, far from negating the issue, actually increases its 'notability'. There seems to be the mistaken impression that the argument is to label Evans as gay but all that people want to do is to include the fact that Evans came out as gay in 2002 (with strongly supported sources) and that in 2010 there was news of him dating Holly Goodchild (less well supported since the original WalesOnline article has no actual quotes from him but still worthy of inclusion). Just the bare facts, no inferences drawn.--82.8.43.241 (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To use "NOTABILITY" to censor an article directly contradicts Wikipedia's own stated policy: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Yet, the censorship stands. And it's far from the first time that Wikipedia has ignored facts, and its own policies, when dealing with controversial material. Is it any wonder why Wikipedia is so universally scorned among serious people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The man gives interviews where he discusses being gay--what is the controversy?

Seriously, he's given interviews where he's openly gay. I should imagine Mr Evans is the ultimate authority on the disposition of his gayness. Herp Derp (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't something similar happen when the Wikipedia entry for Matt Sanchez was scrubbed? 99.117.134.245 (talk)— 99.117.134.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yup. Wikipedia tends to go a little crazy about homosexuality. Sanchez's interviews in which he acknowledged his past career as a male prostitute were censored from his biography here, and now Wikipedia has censored this actor's interview with the leading gay magazine. This is one more reason why Wikipedia can never be trusted on any controversy.— 71.227.188.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Matt Sanchez hasn't been edited since before you posted and mentions his history of staring in gay pornographic films Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Can't Even Follow Its Own Rules

It couldn't be clearer that "NOTABILITY" is irrelevant here. From Wikipedia's own "NOTABILITY" rule: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Yet Wikipedia has censored the article by applying a "NOTABILITY" test to the contents of an article, in direct violation of its own "standard." This is far from the first time this has happened at Wikipedia. The sad reality is that Wikipedia is many things, but it is not any sort of serious publication. Its disregard for fact, and even for its own rules, have quite appropriately made Wikipedia a world-wide laughingstock. No respected academic institution anywhere in the world will permit its students to cite Wikipedia as a source, and most serious authorities on a wide variety of subjects steer well clear of this cesspool, as they should. — 71.227.188.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Consensus

At this point, between the discussions on this page and at the BLP Noticeboard, the consensus seems to firmly be that the information should be included. Here, i'll even break it down.

• Against inclusion (7): Off2RioRob, Acerroad, AndyTheGrump, Collect, Spanglej, Obsidian Soul, Yworo (added by Yworo, 17:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)), Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• For inclusion (16): Zythe, ColinATL, CouplandForever, Postdlf, Rivertorch, Herp Derp, Pepe1958, JoebotX, Carlroller, William Bradshaw, Merrywanderer, Will Beback, Silver Seren, Dayewalker, AlbionBT, Bob drobbs
• Neutral, but states is not a BLP issue: Delicious carbuncle

I decided not to include comments by IP addresses in this list, sorry about that. But the majority of the IPs do also seem to be for inclusion. (If I have wrongly placed you in a group, please inform me and I will change this). So, consensus seems pretty clear. Silverseren^C 09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• - please be aware of the WP:SPA in the group wanting to add the homosexual tagging - also please be aware that this article and the BLP discussion are linked to and promoted on a off wiki gay chat thread. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That does look like consensus. But it's not even a consensus issue, of course — the policy is very clear, and no policy is violated as long as all the facts are reported neutrally. We do not have to editorialise the discrepancies, just state them as facts. And to that end, there are 3 parts: 2002-4 interviews, 2010 HollyGoodchild, 2011 publicist statement. It would be impossible to violate BLP. There isn't an issue, other than a few editors with strong personal convictions about personal life sections and homosexuality's "relevance".Zythe (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 207.238.152.8 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)— 207.238.152.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Also agreed. The page should be unlocked and the content should be re-added. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

At what point does consensus get acknowledged, the page unprotected, and the neutral content re-added? ColinATL (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Patience. It will happen, but there's no point in forcing the issue until the discussion winds down. @Silver seren: you must be aware by now that consensus isn't about numbers. (Theoretically, that should be the case. When some of the most recognizable usernames are on the outnumbered side, it's definitely the case.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, after all, who really cares about what's true, or even about Wikipedia's own rules, which render the whole "NOTABILITY" issue irrelevant with respect to article content? Is there any wonder why serious people laugh at Wikipedia, and why there isn't a single respectable academic institution on earth that will permit a student to cite this shoddy compilation as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 71.227.188.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I asked this over on the BLP/N but I'll put this here, too. Off2riorob, what evidence do you have to back up your assertion that people are coming over from 'gay chat threads'? The issue of information being removed from the wiki has been mentioned in many different places - not just 'gay chat threads' - and has generated quite a few tweets. Bringing it up just seems to be an excuse to try and swing consensus your way. In addition, no one is advocating for 'homosexual tagging' just including the indisputable facts that he came out as gay in 2002 and now seems to be dating a woman. AlbionBT (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• So, protection has been removed because consensus has emerged. What happens now? AlbionBT (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus at all - there are a lot of SPA accounts, like yourself adding weight to what is actually a no consensus discussion - we usually err on the side of caution and keep such disputed content out of articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely a consensus is a consensus regardless of the seniority of those involved. I'm not a SPA, the only purpose of my account is to get more involved in wikipedia, which is how I'm sure you felt when starting out. Is it common practice to cast aspersions on the motives of new users? I've only been registered since this morning, so its hardly a surprise that I've not commented much on other issues. If you really must know, I originally came to this page because I was interested reading more about Luke Evans since we're compatriots, I saw the protection note, took a look at the Talk page and decided to weigh in, that's what it's here for after all. AlbionBT (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's Wikipedia, where the facts have never mattered, and where the enterprise's own rules don't matter either. Might as well do what you do best, which is why no respectable academic organization will allow either a student or a faculty member to use this laughable pseudo "encyclopedia" as source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it, you hate Wikipedia. We're trying to have a mature discussion, to follow the rules you say don't matter, and you're really not helping. AlbionBT (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is incapable of holding a "mature" discussion about anything. It has no regard for fact, which according to Wikipedia has no independent existence. Wikipedia can't even follow its own stated rules, which is really no surprise when fact is negotiable. Remember: Not a single reputable academic institution on earth will allow its students or its faculty to cite Wikipedia as a source. In popular culture, Wikipedia is a running joke. Articles like this one neatly illustrate why that is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Not a single reputable academic institution will allow its students to cite any encyclopedia as a source. (As for faculty, they have academic freedom and can cite whatever the hell sources want.) In any case, Wikipedia discussions frequently are messy but have reasonable outcomes. One major difference between WP and Britannica is that the discussions at the former happen out in the open. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're lying. I routinely cited Britannica as a student at the University of Wisconsin. As for Wikipedia, its central idea is that facts are whatever one of its flash mobs of children (one-third of your editors are high school students, and another one-third are college kids) says they are. The rest of your rules are routinely ignored, as with the repeated use of a "NOTABILITY" "standard" to justify censorship of facts within an article, in spite of the clear wording to the contrary within the "standard." So tell me, are Wikipedia's editors stupid, dishonest, or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

2002 Advocate Interview

Luke Evans gave an interview to The Advocate in 2002:

Interviewer: How did you decide you're going to be open about your sexuality?

Luke Evans: Well, it was something that I'd spoken to a lot of people about, including my boyfriend at the time-we've broken up now-but at the time when I just got Taboo, I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it... So I thought, well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=v2QEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA55&ots=ryIXRPJTFQ&dq=luke%20evans%20gay&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=true If that statement there doesn't make his sexuality notable, then I don't know what could. Seriously. ColinATL (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that notability is not what's required by WP:BLPCAT. What's required is that their sexual orientation be "relevant to their notable activities". For example, a person's religion becomes relevant to their activities if they work in the field (e.g. are a priest or minister) or if religion is a theme in their creative activity (e.g. a painter who paints religious themes, a gospel or Christian rock singer, etc.) What you have to show is not that Evans is publicly "out", but that it has some bearing on his career as an actor. Has he been singled out either for award or accolades as a "gay actor"? Has he been discriminated against in his career because of his sexual orientation? Exactly what connects his orientation with the career for which he is notable? Get it? Yworo (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to have won awards for it to be an important part of your life. As stated in this article, Evans specifically sought out characters in plays that would be easier to play, such as sexually confused Billy in the play Taboo and the gay porn star Craig in the play Hardcore. He has specifically gone out of his way, and stated as such in the interview, to pick roles in his acting career that portray and emphasize his sexuality. Silverseren^C 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Have the facts that he is Welsh and born in 1979 had any bearing on his career as an actor? No? Should we omit them, then? The article isn't about Evans's acting career; it's about Evans, an actor and human being. You appear to be misreading BLPCAT. Rivertorch (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't add users sexual preferences, its just not independently encyclopedic or notable to anyone apart from people connected to related interest groups - what do the BBC say about his sexcual preferences? - nothing, nothing at all. - we simply don't, or at least shouldn't unless its notable widely reported and has affected their career in some significant way - there is none of that here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT doesn't have anything to do with whether certain facts should or shouldn't be stated within an article; it doesn't say anything about that, and there's no reasonable way to read it that way. It has to do with the application of category tags (and to a lesser extent, inclusion in lists) to an article (and the supporting consensus for it having even that scope is unclear). There is no requirement that all information within an article on a living person be "relevant to their notable activities"; that would turn biographies into mere c.v.s. Seriously, the BLP arguments offered here against inclusion are among the weakest and poorest interpretations I have ever seen, and it's particularly ridiculous given that we are talking about information that the subject volunteered to the media. Off2riorob, you've lost this argument, both in terms of sheer numbers and in terms of strength of argument. All you're doing is repeating your opinion that it shouldn't be included. I think this matter is closed, and the article should be unprotected and the information re-added. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is clear opposition to the desired addition - the issue is not closed at all - as for numbers - people are coming from the gay chat thread where this is advertised. It has got nothing to do with BLPCAT - its just editorial judgment with keeping BLP in mind - edit conservatively about living people and their personal lives and personal details - the GAY community want to tag this living person as a homosexual but independents like myself see nothing worthy of labeling here. - The living subject has recently said he is a private person and regrets his previous statements and has perhaps gone back into the closet - and is reported to be dating a woman - its all titillating sexual trivia with no connection to his notability - he is notable for his acting - allow the subject a degree of privacy in this regard - just because a couple of gay outlets expressed interest in this a decade ago - the mainline press have not shown any interest it it at all a decade later - no same sex relationship , no boyfriend names at all nothing significant at all has been reported about his alleged homosexual lifestyle. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm done repeating myself to you. You don't get a heckler's veto. And I think your comments about "gay community" motives and "gay chat threads" being behind this "agenda" illustrate your bias (not to mention your choice of words "homosexual lifestyle"--really?). Beyond that, I seriously question your competence to weigh the relevance and significance of information in this biography, if you can't comprehend that a subject's public sexual identity had significant impact on his life, particularly when HE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW that it did. You really need to take a step back and examine what the hell you think you're doing here. You're embarrassing yourself and Wikipedia.

To everyone else, how do we resolve this? Post for a hitherto-uninvolved admin to unprotect, re-add, and warn Off2riorob about future edit warring on this article? postdlf (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense - please focus on discussion about the content - I laugh at your personal insults. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If it comes down to the notability of a person's sexual orientation then in this case it has already been made very clear how this person's sexuality is notable. Thank you. 207.238.152.8 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)— 207.238.152.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Attempts to bloat the completely minimal /non existent affects his sexual preferences has had on his career are nothing more than exaggeration in an attempt to assert notability to his sexuality when there is none there. What have non homosexual publications said about the fantastic affects his sexuality has had on his career - nothing - absolutely zero - Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::: Notability is not the standard for including information in articles, nor is there a requirement that sources be of a certain kind (other than "reliable") for information from them to be included. You know this but your agenda remains stripping all or as much mention of Evans' homosexuality from this article as you can get away with so you continue to make these fake claims. William Bradshaw (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Claims of bias on behalf of gay-interest publications in covering gay-interest topics are themselves biased. The neutrality of Sports Illustrated is not questioned for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not questioned as a source for economic articles. The New York Times is not questioned as a source for New York-related articles. And of course no non-gay publication is questioned as a source for either gay or straight stories based on its non-homosexuality.
• There is no requirement that certain kinds of sources discuss aspects of a topic before another source's discussion of the aspect may be considered.
• The Advocate is an award-winning publication with a 40 year history of journalistic integrity. AfterElton is an award-winning news outlet whose stories have been picked up by the international press more than once and whose Editor-in-Chief exercises full editorial control. There is no question that these are reliable sources and have been used as reliable sources in many other articles. There is no credible suggestion that they have fabricated, misquoted, misrepresented or done anything to call the veracity of the information into doubt.
• Off2riorob can articulate no reason based in policy or guidelines for the exclusion of the information. No one else can offer a reason based in policy or guidelines for excluding the information. Excuses for removing the information are based on such false premises as "notability" (not the standard for including information) and "it's his personal life" (which he chose to make public by giving multiple interviews about it. The verifiable and reliably sourced information should be added back to the article along with appropriate categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I originally removed the SPA tag, William, but Off2riorob reverted me and left me this little note on my talk page. So, feel free to remove the tag yourself if you dispute being considered an SPA. Silverseren^C 20:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The User clearly is a single purpose account. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The subject has in the past openly and voluntarily discussed his sexual orientation and in doing so refereed to a connection to his professional career. Some of his most notable theatre roles, particularly in Rent, have been playing gay characters. The source is reliable and as such there is no reason not to include it. At the same time, let us assume that the publicist's comment quoted in afterelton.com was made with the subject's approval. Therefore the article should say that the subject gave an interview to a gay publication early in his career in which he said he was gay, but that he no longer discusses his private life. Leave it at that, and do not include in any categories. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree that LGBT categories are definitely out per BLPCAT; there is no current self-identification. --JN466 22:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This is just another cop-out. Someone said it before; what does he, or someone who IS gay, have to do? Reaffirm their sexuality every few years so it can be considered recent, or still how they identify themselves? I think everyone here is sane enough to know that you can't ever stop being something; that includes being gay, or at least partly gay, so ~currency to me is kind of irrelevant. To be honest, I think the report of him being with a girl is PR lies or some woman thinking she's more special to him than she really is. But truthfully, no one knows how he feels, or what's really going on, unless they're personally close to him. Maybe he still identifies as gay, his management has just told him to keep quiet about it because he's now a successful film star, instead of a theatre actor trying to make it big. Besides, Jayen, there's nothing on BLPCAT that says a statement about an actor needs current, or recent self-identification to merit inclusion. It simply says [they have to have] "self-identified", and he has done that. One person (Sam) saying, "Do not include in any categories" is not consensus to me. I think he belongs within the spectrum of LGBT. Speaking at length about how relevant being gay is to your career doesn't just fade away. 110.33.237.201 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:::* There is no expiration date on quotes and no requirement that a subject's self-identification be "recent". There is no objective standard for what constitutes a "recent" self-identification. His most recent one is "openly gay". Evans' self-identification as gay is "current" as it is the last self-identification that he has made. Since the man himself has said it there is no legitimate controversy. I'm sure that many of the people currently categorized as LGBT haven't actually said so in the last twenty minutes and there seems to be no rush to remove them. William Bradshaw (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

HJ Mitchell has unprotected the page after I informed him about the consensus here. Please feel free to add the information in with the proper references, as discussed. Please do not write the information in as fact. The best method would be to use a quote from Evans in terms of his sexuality, and try not to make the quote too long. And then make sure to also include the information about Holly. Silverseren^C 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Add it yourself if you think its notable instead of encouraging others to add it for you. No one should consider naming a not notable person a private person as his girlfriend. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

: I have re-added the information based on an old revision of the page. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed your addition - it was totally undue coverage of someones not notable sexuality - a line at most - you added a third of the article about his sexuality - undue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and reverted again. Way too much information restored. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::: Off2riorob, you have made it abundantly clear that you believe any mention of his sexuality is too much information, so you'll forgive me if I don't give too much credence to your opinion. If you think there is too much information in one section, try expanding other sections instead of petulantly deleting it. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the other extreme is making half the body text of a biography about the subject's sexual orientation, using almost every minor source available, while being happy to have the other half of the article give just a superficial summary of the career the subject is notable for in the first place. Speaking generally, I find this editing approach disquieting, as it unbalances articles, and I have little time for editors who only want to work on the sexual orientation part of a biography, advocating painstakingly detailed coverage in that section, while not giving any indication of caring about any other part of the biography—i.e. not showing any interest in improving our coverage of what the individual is actually notable for, and what might have made our readers look him up in the first place. I have seen enough biographies of notable people–people who are not notable for their sexuality—which spend a disproportionate amount of text on discussing their subject's sexuality. Biographies like that don't reflect well on this project, and no reputably published general-purpose biographical reference work is written that way. --JN466 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: I have said from the start that the article should be improved through expansion of every section so I'm not sure if this comment is aimed at me or what, but speaking specifically, this is the part of this particular article that's currently under discussion. The focus on this section doesn't mean that the people involved in it aren't interested in expanding other sections of the biography and sweeping generalizations along those lines strike me as being unhelpful. I hope that those on both sides of the discussion will continue to improve the article and other similar articles. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussing or proposing the addition of 300+ words on sexual orientation is simply premature. If this were a 9,000-word featured article candidate, having 300 words on sexual orientation might be appropriate, but it isn't now. --JN466 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Here you have an actor who made his career on gay roles, and who gave not one, not two, but three interviews in which he discussed his homosexuality. First, your crew hides behind the phony "NOATABILITY" standard in seeking to whitewash the actor's biography. Now, with that conceit destroyed, you argue that the gay actor who made his career on gay roles on told three publications that he was gay -- in glorious detail -- shouldn't have his sexuality mentioned on Wikipedia. I must say that, while I'm not exactly surprised, given Wikipedia's long record of disregard for facts and its own rules, I am both irritated and amused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous

Off2riorob, having found himself on the fuzzy end of the lollipop both here and at the BLP discussion, has wholesale removed YET AGAIN any mention of the information that consensus has determined should be included. He is claiming that the following is "too much information" about the subject:

Personal life

In 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as an out gay man and spoke of the personal importance of being publicly open with his sexuality. "I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it.... So I thought, well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs... If that means I'm going to be a poor man at 60, then at least I've lived a happy, open, gay life and not had to hide from anybody." Evans expressed further hope that were his career to progress in America, he wouldn't have "that skeleton in the closet they can rattle out." In a 2004 interview with GaydarNation, he spoke of how he was prepared for his role as a gay pornstar in British play Hardcore by his "years and years" of daily research into gay porn. In an interview with QX Magazine, he reflected on his decision to come out in 2002. He felt that his role at the time, in Taboo, created a perfect opportunity to come out; subsequently, Luke explained he has "never experienced any negative effects from being ‘out’ as an actor". His interviewer praised his candor and "courage" to be out so young.

In September 2010, WalesOnline reported Evans as dating "fashion industry marketing expert" Holly Goodchild. In August 2011 AfterElton.com contacted Evans' management for clarification as to whether Evans still identified as gay, or if possibly as bisexual. Evans' publicist declined to clarify his sexuality and stated "I do not comment on my client's personal lives in the media. As for Luke, he did so once, a long time ago when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again."

---

We are talking about ten sentences cited to five sources. Clearly this is not "too much information". The only reason O2rr is claiming that it is, is because he is of the opinion that any mention of Evans' sexuality is "too much information. This supposed continued call for "consensus" on his part is just one more disruptive tactic O2rr is using to try to censor information that he doesn't want. But hey, let's continue this farce and pretend that O2rr's call for "consensus" is real and waste another bunch of time deciding that what's there is appropriate coverage. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Falls right into WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. It's a two whole paragraphs with multiple quotations. It's simply too much coverage to give to a persons sexuality when it's not directly relevant to their notability. A simple "In 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as gay." with a single citation would be quite sufficient. Wikipedia is not the Gay News Network. Yworo (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia! The "NOTABILITY" standard specifically states that it does not apply within an article, yet throughout this phony "debate," the "NOTABILITY" issue has been used as justification for censorship. I can't say it really surprises me, given Wikipedia's basic nature as a pseudo "encyclopedia" where "facts" are what any given flash mob of editors, most of whom are high school or college kids with no prior familiarity with what they're editing, says they are. In such an environment, who could rationally expect that the children of Wikipedia would do something so quaint as follow their own rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:: UNDUE calls for various viewpoints to be represented equally. The addition addresses the various points of view about his sexuality (he identified as gay; he's reportedly dating a woman) equally. UNDUE does not mean that where there's more information available about aspect one of a subject than aspect two then the information about aspect one has to be deleted.

No one who isn't demanding that the information be severely redacted or eliminated is suggesting that Wikipedia is the "gay news network". Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to the question. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are misrepresenting what WP:UNDUE says. Read a little further into it next time. It says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Yworo (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you take that quote in context with the rest of the section it's in, it's clear that the policy is to do with different viewpoints for a subject so doesn't apply here. AlbionBT (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that it might be a bit long, the first paragraph in particular. Maybe shorten the quotations a little and I'm not sure it needs info from Advocate, GaydarNation and QX Magazine when they all say basically the same thing. How about just including the Advocate interview or just Advocate and QX? AlbionBT (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:: They don't all say the same thing. They reflect his progression of thought through several years of discussing the topic. He first talks about the potential effect of his coming out early, then he discusses how his sexuality informed his preparation for a role (which seems pretty relevant and a lot of other articles talk about how actors' backgrounds prepare them for roles), then it jumps ahead to his supposedly dating a woman and the AfterElton situation. It could be made a little less wordy but the information itself is all relevant. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a sentence or two and of course a citation or two is fine. His article is just not long enough yet anyway for much else. 64.52.144.82 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer is to expand the rest of his article, not arbitrarily restrict it.

Second suggestion

In a 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as openly gay and spoke of the personal importance of being publicly out. "[E]verybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it.... So I thought, well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs... If that means I'm going to be a poor man at 60, then at least I've lived a happy, open, gay life and not had to hide from anybody." Evans expressed hope that were his career to progress in America, he wouldn't have "that skeleton in the closet they can rattle out". In a 2004 interview with GaydarNation, he spoke of how he was prepared for his role as a gay porn star in British play Hardcore by his "years and years" of daily research into gay porn. In an interview with QX Magazine, he explained he had "never experienced any negative effects from being ‘out’ as an actor". His interviewer praised his candor and courage.

In September 2010, WalesOnline reported Evans was dating "fashion industry marketing expert" Holly Goodchild. In August 2011 AfterElton.com contacted Evans' publicist for clarification as to whether Evans still identified as gay. Evans' publicist declined to clarify Evans' sexuality, stating "I do not comment on my client's personal lives in the media. As for Luke, he did so once, a long time ago when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again."

---

This cuts chunks of the quotes but still conveys the thoughts behind them. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still undue. We have a 550-word biography on what the man is notable for, and adding 300 words to that discussing his sexual orientation is too much. It's simply not the case that 35% of all his coverage in reliable sources is about his sex life. --JN466 22:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your boy Luke based his career on gay roles. He gave three interviews in which he discussed, in great detail, his homosexuality. And now you want to censor the mention of his homosexuality. How Wiki of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

:::And once again, the answer to inadequate sections elsewhere is to expand them, not arbitrarily limit one. This information is not about his "sex life" and thinking of it as such reflects inadequate understanding of the subject. William Bradshaw (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems rather lengthy, particularly as he subsequently prefers to stay private on his, uh, private life. Especially given the length of the rest of the article - it does not seem to be a major facet in his life. Stuff like His interviewer praised his candor and courage is just weaselly/cherry picking. I think this could be reduced to a better single paragraph:

During his early career Evans openly identified as gay, in a 2002 interview he said " "[E]verybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it" and that by being open he wouldn't have "that skeleton in the closet they can rattle out". In 2004 he said that his acting career had not suffered by being "out". Evans was romantically linked with a woman in September 2010, his publicist refused to clarify Evan's sexuality saying that although he had talked about his pirvate life in his early career; "with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again."

It's not the best, but with a bit of tweaking/TLC it could work. The Hardcore seems out of place - I'd either work it into the career section (meh) or put it into the film article (best option). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think something like that would be fine. AlbionBT (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I could accept such an addition, with only the best WP:rs used as support.Perhaps - the advocate and the wales online together are enough to support this presented addition. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --JN466 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::: There should include some mention of his thinking about the possible career ramifications given the current discussion in reliable sources about those possible ramifications. There also should be mention of the year-long gap between the WalesOnline report and the AfterElton story. And once again, the lack of information about some parts of his life is no excuse for censoring information about other aspects of his life but should instead serve as inspiration to expand those other sections. William Bradshaw (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think this would be better...

During his early career Evans openly identified as gay. In a 2002 interview he said "[E]verybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it" and that "if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs". In 2004 he said that his acting career had not suffered by being out.

Evans was romantically linked with a woman in September 2010. In August 2011, his publicist refused to clarify Evan's sexuality saying that although he had talked about his private life in his early career "with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again."

I'm not sure how to add sources, though. AlbionBT (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: That's probably as good as it's going to get. You can "add" the sources by copying my proposal above, pasting it into the article and then editing it down, or if no one objects I can do it or someone else can. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not support the removal of this imo quite revealing position of the subject - I never tried to hide it" and that by being open he wouldn't have "that skeleton in the closet they can rattle out". - he talks about detail he can be exposed for and comments that moving forward his openness is a form of protection - clearly important personal commentary. Lets get agreement here, and experienced editors will format the reliable citations to finalize the discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now, I thought you wanted the section to be shorter. AlbionBT (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why was my edit tagged as a possible BLP issue? I thought that was all sorted? AlbionBT (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you think - as I said - we don't usually report our living subjects sexual preferences - so the bots see you as a violator. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:* I believe your edit was automatically tagged by the software, probably because of the subject header "Personal life". Don't worry about it and ignore Off2riorob who doesn't know what he's talking about.

• Now then, someone keeps removing the citation to AfterElton claiming that it isn't a reliable source. Regardless of whether AfterElton is reliable as a general rule (obviously it is but that's not relevant at the moment) it is bedrock reliable for citing the quote from Evans' publicist because it is the original publisher of the quote. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to pick up on a couple of issues above:

• There should include some mention of his thinking about the possible career ramifications given the current discussion in reliable sources about those possible ramifications.; which RS's? I may have missed them, could anyone post them?
• And once again, the lack of information about some parts of his life is no excuse for censoring information about other aspects of his life but should instead serve as inspiration to expand those other sections; obviously we need to touch on the matter - but he clearly does not want to talk about his private life and from an editorial perspective we try to be sensitive to that. His sexuality is a minor part of his career, commented on by a few media sources. There is no need to give it undue weight just because it is about him being homosexual. Now; if you can provide a really good source that deals with his sexuality and it's impact on his career in a detailed and in-depth way, then lets see.

I think the content currently in the article is pretty good. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

names private person

Holly is a private person and we can easily and should keep her name out of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Holly is a public figure who has given interviews to the press about her supposed relationship with Luke Evans and there is no reason she can't be named. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide the externals to support your claims, that holly is a public figure and that she has given interviews about her relationship and what she said in them, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WalesOnline article AlbionBT (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We re not obliged to repeat names mentioned in such a minor on line link as that,Western Mail (Wales) - nothing in that single article asserts she is a public person either. from the low level external - “Luke’s lovely – we’re really old friends and it just sort of happened.” She added: “We are nowhere near engaged but things are really good.” - Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: Yeah but, the thing is Rob, your naked bias against this subject matter reduces the consideration that should be given to your opinion because your agenda is to remove it entirely, not decide the best way to include it. William Bradshaw (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no naked bias in regard to the subject at all, so please do not repeat such false personally attacking claims. thanks - I have supported such additions in other situations. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

William, he's said above that he's happy including the info and in regards to not including Holly Goodchild's name, I don't think it matters that much. The salient information is that it's a woman and anyone who wants to know her name can follow the link. AlbionBT (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's no informational value to giving her name if she's not herself notable, and the relationship hasn't been covered in-depth; it's enough to identify her as a woman, and maybe her occupation. If they were to get married, it would be a different story. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, this shows what an utter joke Wikipedia is. Editors here don't even bother to follow Wikipedia's own rules. "NOTABILITY" does not apply to the contents of an article, or so Wikipedia's own rule clearly states. But that means nothing here. Why? Because fact means nothing. And when fact means nothing, then why even bother following Wikipedia's rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

after elton blog post

This article is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia BLP. can we source the claim for any other reliable location? "In August 2011, his publicist refused to clarify Evan's sexuality saying that although he had talked about his private life in his early career "with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again." Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, since every other article about the issue quotes that one. As WB said in his edits, you may not think the site is reliable in general but they are obviously a reliable source when it comes to information they themselves received from the publicist. Also, looking at it, it's not a blog it's a news and entertainment site. AlbionBT (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

: How much longer are we going to allow this article to be held hostage to the whims of this editor? He has repeatedly disrupted this page and this project to push his POV that information about Evans' sexuality shouldn't be included. Now that he's lost that argument TWICE he's trying to kill the information through a series of disruptive disputes. Whether or not AfterElton is generally a reliable source (and its undisputed use in scores of articles indicates that it is) it is the definition of a reliable source for a quote of which it was the first publisher. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I have requested take the source to the WP:RSN I dispute its WP:rs status. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:: No. You have a problem with the source, you take it to RSN. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#AfterElton.comAlbionBT (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus appears to have been reached over there so I've re-added the information. AlbionBT (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that AfterElton is regarded as a reliable source, I disagree that whether his publicist would comment or not is an appropriate thing to have in an encyclopedia article. It's what he says that matters, not what his publicist says or does not say. LadyofShalott 12:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

::: Given that publicists are speaking directly for their clients, given that the section is about his personal life and given that it was the AfterElton post that kick-started this whole teapot-sized tempest it seems fairly unbelievable that a section called "personal life" wouldn't include sourced information about the subject's reluctance to talk about his personal life within it especially since that information reflects on the subject's continuity of thought on the subject. William Bradshaw (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not going to talk about it" is essentially a lack of information rather than useful information. LadyofShalott 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: I don't get how information on how Luke Evans has chosen to deal publicly with his personal life is any less relevant to his article than the information in for example Chelsea Clinton's article on how she and her parents chose to handle her growing up during her father's presidency. We're talking about one sentence setting forth his public stance. Really not seeing the problem. William Bradshaw (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WB AlbionBT (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's in the Chelsea Clinton article, and it's not relevant. A statement of not making a statement is not very enlightening however, and there's no need to include it. LadyofShalott 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Chelsea Clinton article is not relevant. In a real encyclopedia with any "standards," the Clinton article would be relevant because it's a biography of a living person just as this one is. But Wikipedia isn't even close to being a real encyclopedia. It is a compilation of material edited and administered by child flashmobs that, by design, are not governed by facts or internal policies. Serious people don't contribute to this children's pseudo reference, and serious people don't take it seriously. So be completely inconsistent, and ignore Wikipedia's phony "standards." It's why Wikipedia is so famously unreliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonjake (talk • contribs)

:::::::: If you don't know what's in Chelsea Clinton's article how can you expect your opinion on its relevance to be taken seriously? The Chelsea Clinton article is exactly on-point. It talks at great length about the stance she and her parents took regarding her privacy and the steps that she and her parents took to shield her from publicity when they entered the White House. It is exactly analogous to this situation. And again, for the love of god, we are talking about one sentence. here. Is simply stating that Evans has through a publicist decided to no longer discuss his personal life really worth all of this angst? Really? William Bradshaw (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Metacommentary

Not sure if this has risen to the level that it needs to be mentioned in the article, but it's interesting: "The Web has been buzzing this week with the discovery that his Wikipedia page was recently altered. What once said he was 'openly gay,' became, 'Evans lives a private life and rarely speaks about his personal life.' And as of today, there's no mention whatsoever of his personal life on Wikipedia." Malkin, Marc (August 11, 2011), Openly Gay Immortals, Hobbit Star Luke Evans Goes Back into Closet?, E! Online, retrieved August 12, 2011. Cf. Streisand effect. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This all shows what a joke Wikipedia is. You see, at Wikipedia, mere fact has no firm validity. It is whatever a roving flashmob of children, or p.r. flacks, decides it is. And Wikipedia's own rules mean nothing either. Throughout this "debate," people have said that the actor's sexual orientation should be excluded because it is not "notable," even though Wikipedia's own "NOTABILITY" standard clearly states that "NOTABILITY" does not apply to information within an article. Can anyone really be surprised that this would happen here? You've got a fake "encyclopedia" based on the idea that "facts" are whatever a flashmob says they are. What possible reason would such a flashmob have to follow Wikipedia's rules? The "fix" to the article, whatever it is and however long it lasts, fixes nothing about Wikipedia, the children's pseudo "encyclopedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The press coverage did not reach a level worthy of mention in the article itself. Relevant press mentions have been cited above, in the talk page header. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Relationships

Since we do mention relationships that a subject has been involved in (but not the names of the significant others to protect their privacy), shouldn't we also mention that back when he was in the play Taboo, he was also dating a guy, per this source? Silverseren^C 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. All we'd be able to say is that, at some point in the past, he had a boyfriend and saying that he was openly gay pretty much implies that. The Holly Goodchild story is different though since it occurs after Evans gave a statement about being gay, making that relationship more worthy of note. AlbionBT (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This argument makes no sense: "saying that he was openly gay pretty much implies that [he had a boyfriend]." That would be like saying that since someone is heterosexual, therefore they must be in a relationship. Of course, a person can be gay and not be in a relationship. However, the fact that he was in a relationship during the play's run is, as you rightly point out, irrelevant. 90.195.45.60 (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

LGBT Categories?

I would add these myself, but given the fierce controversy that this article seems to have attracted, I'll discuss it here first. Is there any good reason why he shouldn't be added to Category:LGBT actors and Category:LGBT people from Wales? It seems to me that information about his sexuality is supported by reliable sources and there is a consensus to include it in the article, so the categories shouldn't be a problem either. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering his past acknowledgement of his sexuality and that his manager has merely said that he will be no longer discussing his personal life, we have no reason to believe he isn't (as having a girlfriend would just make him Bi, still fitting under the category banner). Silverseren^C 23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just added them then, after seeing this; there's really no reason why they shouldn't have been added already. 110.33.237.201 (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed them again; the WP:BLPCAT requirement for public self-identification is not fulfilled. --JN466 14:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. If you don't know by now that he made several interviews years ago in which he spoke at length about being gay and how he's out of the closet, I don't know what on Earth you're doing getting involved in this discussion. Now, with your reversion of my edit and your comment above, you're just nitpicking, saying self-identification has to be recent. Really? That makes no sense. 110.33.237.201 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: There is no expiration date on quotes and there is no requirement that a person re-state their sexuality on a regular basis or within a certain time frame to be categorized as LGBT. The definitive statements on Luke Evans' sexual orientation are his own from 2002 and 2004 in which he self-identifies as gay. There should be no controversy whatsoever about categorizing him as such because that's how he personally identified. Even if reports of his now supposedly dating a woman are accurate, dating a member of the opposite sex doesn't change one's sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian people throughout history have dated, had sex with, married and reproduced with people of the opposite sex, all while still being gay. And even if we assume that his dating a woman means that he's bisexual (an assumption that we cannot legitimately make) he should still be in the LGBT level of categorization. William Bradshaw (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The actor self-identified as homosexual in three interviews. That ought to be enough.Jacksonjake (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Until Evans specifically states that he is straight, countering his prior statements, we have no reason not to include the categories. He has self-identified as gay and has made no further statements on his sexuality beyond those interviews in the past, so we have no reason to believe otherwise than what was stated there. If, in the future, he does state that he is straight, then we will remove the cats, because they are all about self-identification, but for now, he has stated that he is gay. Silverseren^C 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We err on the side of caution about labeling living people - this should be especially true about not notable sexual preferences - he's dating a woman - clearly homosexual is a contentious cat to add. The claim that we have to wait till he specifically states he is not homosexual anymore is clearly not the way we are requested to report about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that he is reportedly dating a woman, but he hasn't even made a statement about their relationship yet. And we're not adding a homosexual cat, we're adding a LGBT cat. That B there stands for bisexual. So he's covered even if he actually is dating Holly and, if he isn't, then he's still covered under gay on there. Silverseren^C 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The LGBT cat in this specific case is in relation to the subjects statement of homosexual activity and a stated homoxual preference. Are you suggesting that a decade ago while in a promotional interview for a homosexual movie has said he was homosexual and then a decade later in an interview for a heterosexual part he now asserts he is heterosexual, but you assert he is really bisexual? - Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read the source, he isn't even quoted let alone states he's heterosexual. AlbionBT (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject doesn't need to assert such in the case of a living person when there is clear disambiguation we are requested to err on the side of caution - hanging disputable sexual labels on living people is not a decent way to report about living people. The content is king in such situations and says it all without the categorizing label under dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, because he's dating a girl, he's heterosexual? That's now how it works. As I stated above, he has actually not made a single comment about dating her, she's the one that's been talking. He specifically described himself as gay in the past. If he actually is dating Holly now, then he is Bi, it's as simple as that. He has made no statement of heterosexuality, but he has made a statement of homosexuality, therefore, he passes the self-identification requirements of WP:BLPCAT. Silverseren^C 21:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean there isn't consensus. Consensus isn't the same as unanimity. As for the accusations of sock/meat puppetry: get over yourself.

You've reverted the page 3 times now within about 2 hours so I've reported it to a couple of editors. AlbionBT (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I misunderstood the rule. Haha. Shouldn't it be called the 4 revert rule? AlbionBT (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Three experienced wikipedia contributors with years and thousands of contributions in multiple topic areas have removed the disputed categories today. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And that is relevant how? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That shows relevance that the categories are clearly disputable and currently under dispute - as such they are BLPCATS and should be kept out until discussion and consensus has had time to assert itself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the two users in question haven't actually read the discussion, as they weren't involved as far as I can tell, and don't know about the three public interviews where the subject talked extensively about his homosexuality. And no pulling the older editor card, their opinions hold no more weight in this discussion than anyone else's. Silverseren^C 21:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes your right, new and drive by homosexual focused single purpose accounts carry a lot of weight and assist the neutrality of homosexual articles. As an experienced contributor its a bit disappointing to see you enabling this homosexual tagging when as is usual to resolve such disputes, we could use some discussion to see where the consensus lies here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

William Bradshaw has been editing since July and worked on a number of articles. Being focused on LGBT topics does not make you a SPA, as we have a number of experienced users that only focus on a single area of focus. SPAs are those that work exclusively in a single article or articles directly related to that article. And, again, their opinions should hold no less weight. If they are arguing with policy arguments, then it doesn't matter how they edit. Silverseren^C 21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)That would be equally true if the editor had only month or weeks and dozens of contributions, unless there's some policy or guideline that says that only editors with lots of experience have opinions that matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPCAT asks that we substantially link this to his notability - I asked for sources along those lines in a higher section, but that was merrily ignored in favour of this slanging match :) Any chance we could try again with that request? I read the sources and most of it was "so what, he's gay". I realise that (for a reason that is totally inexplicable to my mind) an area of great concern for *someone* to get into the article as rigidly as possible - but the point of BLPCAT is to remind everyone that stuff like this really is tangential to the core of the biography (unless of course we have decent material tying it tightly to that core). He told everyone he was gay some time ago, there was a tiny bit of analysis in the context of whether it would impact his career. That's good for some material (which I think we have nailed) but I've so far found it utterly unimpressive for use in categorising him - especially given the latter ambiguity. --Errant ^(chat!) 02:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this stupid children's pseudo encyclopedia ever capable of even following its own published rules? I guess not. Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" rule specifically excludes its use in judging article content. But the child flashmobs here repeatedly ignore that rule. It's not the only rule continually ignored at Wikipedia. It's only to be expected, when Wikipedia begins with the premise that truth and fact have no objective basis but can be determined politically. It's a pretty short step from there to simply ignoring your own organization's public "standards." Is it any wonder that Wikipedia is laughed at throughout the world, and that editing participation has fallen by two-thirds in four years? What a joke! Jacksonjake (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I already responded to this here. The sources specifically tie together his sexuality and the roles he took in plays. Silverseren^C 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that a link to these on-wiki discussions was posted on AfterElton.com. People coming from this site may not be aware that per WP:BLPCAT, Wikipedia requires public self-identification for LGBT categories, and that should be current. It is a fact of life that people may change attributes like their religion or sexual self-identification. For example, if someone publicly self-identified as a Scientologist in 2002, but has since withdrawn that public identification, then it is no longer appropriate for Wikipedia to categorise them as a Scientologist today. This is a similar case. His publicist and the reports of his relationship have changed the status of his public self-identification. Wikipedia's BLP policy tells editors to be conservative, err on the side of the individual's right to define their religion and sexual identity, and edit from a clear presumption in favour of the subject's privacy.

The current presence of the LGBT categories in the protected article is a clear BLP violation in my view, and I propose we should raise an editprotected request. Again, this is simply a reflection of Wikipedia policy; the Wikipedia default is to exclude BLP-sensitive material, until there is consensus to include it. Cheers. --JN466 14:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Childhood

Hi I rewrote the early life as there were unreffed claims about Pontypool and Crumlin, I could find no sources to support this (no iMDB is not RS and probably copied from here anyway?) but the ref provided (walesonline) states "Aberbargoed born" and here are two more artricles for reference: The Advocate interview
London Evening Standard
which both talk about "growing up" or "coming from" Aberbargoed. Just so you know. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Protection Proposal

In case you're unaware, User:Off2riorob has asked for Full Page Protection. AlbionBT (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Again? Silverseren^C 21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems we should thank him for getting the page locked with the categories still included. AlbionBT (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not like it matters at this point, the consensus seems to be clearly for inclusion. Silverseren^C 21:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

He's now started another discussion at the BLP Noticeboard AlbionBT (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I commented there. If you, or anyone else reading this, has anything to add to the discussion, please go and do so. Silverseren^C 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a long and acrimonious discussion at BLPN, links to which were posted off-site, and an edit war resulted over the inclusion of two LGBT categories (see history, last edit before protection). Another BLP discussion is currently ongoing.

As the discussions above and at BLPN show, there is no consensus for the addition of these categories. Per standard BLP practice, contentious BLP material is excluded until there is talk page consensus to include it. I therefore request that an admin remove the two LGBT categories, until discussion has established consensus. Thank you. --JN466 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I support this request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I also support this request. Span (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

* Oppose - the "contentious" material is impeccably sourced to statements from the subject himself and the current BLP discussion is nothing but a tactic initiated by an editor who has shown intense hostility to the inclusion of any mention of the subject's sexuality, has accused his fellow editors of conspiracy and has vowed to undo any changes made to the article regardless of the consensus that develops for them. No harm is being done to anyone or anything by the correct categorization of the subject in these categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- JN466 has offered (at WT:BLP) a proposal to change BLPCAT so that it reads in a way that conforms to his view on how this article should be edited. The fact of a proposal of this sort shows sufficiently that BLPCAT does not currently contain the kind of requirement he is hoping for, which shows as well that objection to inclusion of the category is not a policy-based position. If the proposal succeeds, then fine -- but until then a non-policy-based position shouldn't be used to support an edit request on a protected article. A visit to WP:WRONGVERSION might be helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose My understanding is that the subject has said he is gay. That is sufficient for categorization. The mere fact that he may be dating a woman does not alter his declaration. This is directly comparable to the more frequent, opposite occurrence, in which an ostensibly straight person is found to be engaged in same-sex sexual activity. We don't label them LGBT just because they're having sex with men. When the subject makes a declaration that he is no longer gay then we should update the category, but we should not speculate on his orientation based on our own judgments of his behavior.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:WRONGVERSION pretty much says it all. As Nomoskedasticity says, the creation of the proposal for expansion of BLPCAT shows that this attempt to remove the cat isn't actually followed by policy currently, so there is no reason to remove it. Silverseren^C 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, Will Beback says it well. If the subject makes some future clarification about his sexual orientation, we should revisit the issue, but until then we should rely on the sources we have. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Will. In addition, the off-wiki stuff is irrelevant, and the material is not contentious and certainly not a BLP violation. This is an extended discussion about different editors' interpretations of BLPCAT, not the run-of-the-mill, there's-no-support-for-the-cat issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not an RFC, it is a request to remove disputed BLP-related material until the issue has been settled. Removing the material does not mean that it cannot be added back, only that consensus has not yet been reached. Please do not use this edit request as another forum for debate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Jay requested this change with an explanation (part of a debate, if you will). You supported it. How can you object to others opposing it and explaining why just as Jay (and you and the other editor) did?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• It should be removed, with a big trout for those pushing to have this thing inserted for whatever agenda (or lack) they are on. My understanding is that the subject has said he is gay. That is sufficient for categorization.; not at all, per WP:BLPCAT. The mere fact that he may be dating a woman does not alter his declaration; this is misdirection, and those people using it to support removal need a trouting as well - because it is irrelevant. In fact, anyone trying to label or portray this guy as "now heterosexual" needs a good long moment of reflection on the subject of "OR" :). The bottom line is; he discussed some stuff in the past. It has minimal connection to his notability and is commented on very briefly, so categorising him is unnecessary and discouraged. I know gender and sexuality is one of those crusade topics, but I figured we could at least overcome that on :S --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to make the point that the statement from his management implies that Evans wishes to distance his career from his sexuality at this time. Given that no other independent source has picked up this material and given any in depth coverage to it I think it is only reasonable to exercise sensitivity and editorial discretion to avoid categorising as "Luke Evans, gay actor" as opposed to "Luke Evans, actor". This is, I agree, something of an edge case - but given the dirth of coverage and the apparent current view of the subject it seems a reasonable step to take, in keeping with our values and BLP policy. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's a fair reading of his management's statement, which I'll reproduce here: "I do not comment on my client's personal lives in the media. As for Luke, he did so once, a long time ago when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again." I read it as saying he just wants to distance himself from the media. Regardless of your interpretation of the statement, it doesn't change the self-identification.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is absolutely ridiculous. The actor has stated very clearly on public record that he's gay. Unless someone now has a RS where he contradicts that, then it should be absolutely non-controversial. We include him in the appropriate category. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there has been no mention of homosexual since years and recent reports suggest he has stepped back from his self declared "out" position . To the closer, please note - as its a BLPCAT a no consensus in this discussion would revert to "remove". Off2riorob (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Policy states: remove the categories per BLPCAT (discrepancy means err on the side of the caution), but retain the prose personal life section as is per BLP (no policy states that factual, verifiable and relevant prose should be excluded).Zythe (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per the points above. He's said he's gay. Even if he is now supposedly bisexual or that is a possibility, he is still within the spectrum of LGBT. Forgive me if I haven't read every single comment under this heading or elsewhere (or if I'm not 100% familiar with what it says, as I skimmed over it), but BLPCAT says self-identification, and that has been proven. Issues of currency aren't raised, nor should they even be a concern. It seems people opposing it are proclaiming sexuality to be a big issue to people with an "agenda", and that we should avoid categorising him as a gay actor because that's not the issue. Whatever. The fact still stands, he said he's gay and that's that. He's in the spectrum of LGBT. I think everyone has an agenda about something they care about, this just might be something several people care about. It doesn't make anyone's opinion less valid, as no-one can ever truly be objective anyway. If you want to go on about categories, they are nitpicky. We might as well not categorise him as a Welsh actor, either, because that's probably someone's agenda. Really? Why is this even still an issue? Ss112 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Evans may be bisexual, but unless and until he identifies himself as such, we should not be adding categories labelling him as bisexual. We have a policy (WP:BLPCAT) that singles out sexual orientation and religion because they are complex personal attributes. Mis-categorizing someone as an actor is far less likely to cause someone harm or offence than mis-categorizing their sexual orientation or religion. In addition, those areas tend to be used to advance ideological agendas both here on Wikipedia and in other media, so it is helpful to have stricter controls on their use. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Uh, there are no categories labelling him as bisexual. He currently belongs to two LGBT categories, and whether anyone currently likes it or not, he repeatedly stated to gay publications he was gay and basically proud of it, out of the closet, et cetera. That fact is not advancing an "ideological agenda". Also, the only ones I could see being hurt by a supposed "mis-categoriz[ation]" of his sexuality are his publicists and their blatant "no comment" agenda. Ss112 16:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Your failure to acknowledge that the BLP subject is the one who is harmed by mis-categorization is clear enough. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Closing as consensus not met. It seems fairly clear that there is no consensus to make this change; accordingly, it is denied. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Seconding outcome; I was about to do it myself, and want to add the statement I was writing in justification: "Marking this as not performed. I find the arguments opposing more compelling than those supporting. Unless demonstrably invalidated, statements made about oneself can be used as categories, and as illustrated many times throughout history, being in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex does not in itself make you heterosexual (nor does, necessarily, being in a relationship with someone of the same sex make you bi- or homosexual), and this does not invalidate his previous statements. I particularly do not find compelling the argument that a category is somehow more important than prose; I for one rarely pay attention to categories, but I would notice it saying he is gay in the prose, and that aspect is not in question. This does not of course preclude further discussion, merely closing this particular request." --Golbez (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some users that have been involved in this issue have been blocked

Just for users to be aware - a couple of users that have commented about this article have been indefinitely blocked.

User:William Bradshaw was a sockpuppet of the infamous LGBT indefinitely blocked sockmaster User:Otto4711 and..

User:Jacksonjake - is indefinitely blocked for general disruption and his IP:71.227.188.7 contributed to this discussion but is not blocked, however further edits from that IP address would be block evasion and should be reported.

Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

comments

So what? William Bradshaw raised some great points, I know I personally don't care that he's a sockpuppet. Ss112 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite. He still made perfectly valid points.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rob is correct in striking sockpuppet contributions. Whether the contributions are "valid" in the eyes of some is irrelevant to the fact that the comments are deceptive and being attributed to the wrong editor and should not be permitted to stand. See WP:ILLEGIT and subsequent paragraphs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The B in LGBT stands for "Bisexual"

Judging from a couple of the comments above and the warriorlike fighting over the pretty clear-cut categories, it appears that one or two people are unclear on the concept. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is claiming to be bisexual are they - Off2riorob (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither is anyone claiming to be heterosexual. Silverseren^C 08:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not said here, but it has been raised in the discussion previously; what is this thing with supposed biphobia? I think Evans is quite well aware of the term "bisexual", as is everyone here (or, at least, I hope they are). No-one's being biphobic by not raising the issue. I don't think anyone's claiming he's straight either (or at least, I hope not, because 1. You don't stop being gay because you choose to, despite what "ex-gay" people say; and 2. He was quite openly claiming to be gay years ago. It's a choice to use that word. If he was bisexual, he would have used the term. Evidently he's not). People need to learn to not believe everything they read, on news sites or otherwise. On a slight tangent, has anyone given a thought to the fact that the reports of him "dating a woman" might be just claims, or his management's attempt to portray him as a stereotypical, straight hero to fit with his film persona? No, I don't think they really have... Not saying news outlets which reported it were lying, but it's tabloid junk and gossip (And yes, I've read the article, which states it to be a fact). Come on, people. Ss112 13:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think about it like that; consider it from the view of a) is the material reliable/verifiable (remember; verifiability not truth) and b) is it of import to his biography. It is verifiable that he was reported dating a woman, we have to take that as read. Whether it is important, I remain unconvinced :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That is understandable, but it still seems odd to me personally that he would be gay and out for years, and suddenly he gets somewhat famous, and a woman claims she's dating him in a glitzy little glamour piece. It's also kind of concerning that just because something's verifiable and not necessarily true, that merits its inclusion. So, if a reputable news source claimed Evans was straight, we'd be treating that as a fact? Ss112 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, if a reliable source stated that Evans said he was straight, that would then be a reported self-identification, and if there were a category for straight actors and it was relevant to his notability, he could be categorized as a straight actor. However, just reporting that someone is seeing someone doesn't require confirmation by the subject, as long as it's reported in a reliable source. Remember, there are different standards for BLPCAT than for what appears in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)