Talk:Peter Stickles

Assertion of homosexuality

The assertion is sourced to an interview published at Logo's website. The interviewer asks the subject "are you gay yourself?" to which Stickles responds "I am." We certainly can't say the reporter is interpreting Stickles' response oddly, so I think we've got a rather reliable source for his sexuality. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

He also discusses his sexuality in an interview along with the career implications of being openly gay.

Another blessing that's mixed is the fact that Stickles is out and proud, and not afraid to take on gay roles that may catch casting directors' minds in one narrow-minded gear.

"A lot of times, it's not good, and it hurts," Stickles says of his decision not to remain in the closet in order to build a mainstream career. "A lot of time, people can't watch a gay guy playing a straight role. I was reading an article about Rupert Everett, about how his career is not happening, that [people in the business] won't hire him for the lead because he's gay. It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different.

"It's nice to have a little bit of success with a very small group of people. I live in Chelsea, which is the gayest neighborhood in the world, and people recognize me, but there will have to be a time when I can show that I can be more versatile."

And an audio interview (episode 91, 20 minutes in) in which he talks extensively about being gay. Otto4711 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming he is gay, why is that the first thing we learn about him? Why is it important at all? In the Denzel Washington article, it isn't mentioned in the lead that he is an African American. Maybe, if if it's tremendously important, a section could be built out below the lead dealing with it. IronDuke 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I initially had it as a separate paragraph but it kept getting removed. If you want to rework the article have at it. Otto4711

What's the story in terms of BLP? I see someone claiming to be Stickles has edited... I'd be reluctant to add stuff unless that was settled. IronDuke 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe for a minute the person claiming to be Stickles is. There are three reliable sources for Stickles' sexuality, including one recorded in Stickles' own voice. Otto4711 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact blocked that user for "impersonating Peter Stickles". DS 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That person has confirmed his identity to unblock-en-l and so has been unblocked. Sarah 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have once again removed the bit about being openly gay. While there is little doubt (given the reliable sources that this is true, its relevance has not been established. As per WP:BLP and WP:NOT, therefore, I removed this. Now, if someone can provide a reliable source indicating that this information is relevant (for example, he is primarily known as openly gay, or he only ever takes roles playing a homosexual, something along those lines), we can readd it. But without that, the information is trivial and therefore not appropriate here. --Yamla (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to edit war with you over this, but I am going to say that you could not possibly be any more wrong about the relevance of a person's sexuality to their biography. Unless you're suggesting that we go through every article and strip out all references to sexuality, including from the straight people's articles, then your removing it here is evidence of bias. Stickles has talked extensively about being gay and his decision to come out early in his career. The information is factual, verifiable and relevant. It violates no provision of either WP:BLP or WP:NOT (its removal, however, violates WP:NOT#CENSORED). If there is some next step to work out this dispute then I suggest you initiate it because absent any actual policy-based reason I intend to add this piece of factual, verifiable and relevant information back to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• You are more than free to readd it if (and only if) you can provide a reliable source showing that this is relevant. Absent that, though, this is simply trivia and not appropriate here, particularly (but absolutely not solely) as the subject of the article does not believe it is relevant. If you can provide sources to show its relevance, though, then it is entirely appropriate to readd the information and I would then oppose its removal. You are free to post to WP:BLPN or initiate dispute resolution if you wish, but note that WP:BLP mandates a presumption in favor of privacy and WP:NOT prevents adding non-notable trivia. --Yamla (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• How you can read Stickles' own words quoted above and continue to claim that his sexuality is irrelevant is a mystery. He clearly believes that his choice to come out will have an effect on his career. If the man himself acknowledges its relevance, then it is very presumptuous of you to swoop in and decide otherwise with no basis. WP:BLP has a presumption in favor of privacy, but Stickles has not been private about his sexuality. He has in the course of no fewer than three separate public interviews acknowledged his homosexuality and spoken in detail about it and its impact on his career. The presumption of privacy has been overcome. Since his sexuality is no more trivial than that of a heterosexual actor's, WP:NOT is not implicated in the slightest. Removing this information is nonsensical. Otto4711 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have had direct contact with Stickles via email as a result of his request on unblock-en-l. He was very clear. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very clear about what? That he isn't gay? That he didn't come out in three different sources? That he suddenly wants to go back in the closet? Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That he does not believe it is relevant to the article and does not want it included. I therefore removed it according to WP:BLP and WP:NOT. If you disagree, you are free to provide a reliable source indicating that it is indeed relevant. --Yamla (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just did provide a quote from him demonstrating its relevance and your response was to revert it and protect the article. Did you even bother to read the fucking quote? Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry I did not get a chance to explain myself before you jumped to this perfectly natural conclusion. I urge you to read my statement below and provide your point of view on BLPN if you believe it appropriate to do so. --Yamla (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Otto4711, you have refused to provide a reliable source indicating that Stickles' sexual orientation is relevant and so I have removed this and protected the page. Lest you think I am taking advantage of my administratorship to have my own way in a contact dispute, I have raised this issue on WP:BLPN (and you are welcome to comment there). I removed the information solely because I believe it violates WP:BLP and WP:NOT and thus must be removed. If the consensus on BLPN is that the information is appropriate here, I will personally revert my removal and unprotect the page. Obviously, any other admin is also welcome to do so. You are free to discuss my actions on BLPN or to raise it with any administrator of your choosing if you believe I am strong-arming this article into my preferred version. I assure you this is not the case and believe that my actions in submitting this dispute to BLPN show that I am not trying to protect the page solely to have my own way. --Yamla (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now unprotected this page. The consensus on WP:BLPN was that I was mistaken in believing Stickles' sexuality was not relevant and that Otto has sufficiently shown notability. As I did on BLPN, I unreservedly thank Otto for jumping through these hoops and apologise for making him do so. Wikipedia consensus is that it is appropriate to include information on Stickles' sexuality provided it is of an appropriate length compared to the rest of the article. --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Per wp:mosbio, I removed gay [1] from the lead sentence. If an editor wants to add this material in a non offense way into the article, ok. Unless this person is only notable for being gay of course, which I highly doubt. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything in the linked guideline indicating that the reference to his sexuality is disallowed. Mentioning his sexuality is not offensive in any way. Stickles is notable for three things currently: his role in Shortbus, his role in The Lair and being an openly gay actor. Otto4711 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that. Can you provide a source that says that his notabitlty is due to being an openly gay actor? Please take a look at the many other bios of openly gay and lesbian folks. This is offensive as calling him a Jewish-American or African-American or whatever. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we are talking about the LEAD sentence here, maybe if you want to write "Peter Stickles, an American actor who is notable for his being openly gay" ect, and you provide sources that back that up, then MAYBE but I believe that is a strech. Please review mosbio again and the order of the material that should be included: Name, date of birth, nationality, what they did. This is a MOS issue, nothing more. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling an openly gay person gay is not offensive. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I have reverted the article back to the state it was before the vandalism began, which puts the mention of his sexuality in a second paragraph. As for sources, I've already mentioned three on this very page. The information is notable and verifiable so leave it alone. Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I see a gay person and I say "Hey gay", is that offensive? --Tom (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)ps, your revert looks fine since it mentions his sexuality futher into the article and is sourced. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of sexuality (redux)

The only issue I have with Otto's latest version of the information (currently removed) is that it's twice as long as the rest of the article. Is there a way to trim that down to a single sentence? If the article on Stickles were longer, then the quote and explanation would not seem WP:UNDUE, but since his entire page is only three sentences... -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I plan to add some additional material (including a filmography and info about Stickles' participation in the workshopping of Shortbus). There isn;t a great deal of biographical material out there at the moment. The only reason why the material I added was so voluminous is because I kept being challenged to prove that the information was relevant. Otto4711 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come into this late, but I have to say that I'm completely gobsmacked to see there was such a controversy as to whether it's notable that an actor is openly gay. As if the amount of public attention that celebrities coming out and even rumors that they are doesn't make it absolutely clear where culture stands on the notability of being famous and gay. And on a smaller scale, the fact that he's found it worth talking about. And as refers to Wikipedia, the fact that we have numerous categories, lists, and WikiProject: LGBT Studies' interest in every single biography of an LGBT person. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)