Talk:David Ogden Stiers/Archives/2014

Re-use sexuality claims? Found long-lost 2009 interview

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.

---

The sexuality claims are added back; it was just ABC News and no interview. I recently found the five-year-old Gossip Boy interview with David Ogden Stiers and then added it as a source. Now with the interview recovered by Archive.org, should Ogden's sexuality be included again after a long battle? --George Ho (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Substantial Rewrite The sentence, as it's currently written, is a feedback loop IMO as per WP:GRAPEVINE since every source (ABC News, today.com, etc.) reference gossip-boy.com which, itself, doesn't meet the standards of RS and is defunct anyway. That said, I would be okay with a more ambiguous single sentence like "In 2009 several media outlets reported DOS was gay." which is objectively true. Given the high standards and pretty limited monetary payouts that are increasingly hallmark of U.S. libel laws, there are any number of reasons he might not be interested in suing ABC, etc., even if he's straight as an arrow. In the aftermath of Yonaty v. Mincolla he'd probably be even less inclined to pursue legal action and just let it blow over. BlueSalix (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote it the first and the second times. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the words "admitted his homosexuality" given the sourcing issues. Saying he "admitted his homosexuality" is an unambiguous statement of fact that DOS declared he was gay. Saying it was "reported that ..." simply asserts that media reported something, while remaining neutral as to whether said thing actually occurred.

Also, the word "admitted" - though technically correct - has an associative quality of guilt or shame. One would "admit he is the murderer." One might also "admit he discovered the cure for cancer" but would more likely "announce he discovered the cure for cancer." BlueSalix (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I reworded and then added references. Also, I tagged the whole sentence as "dubious". --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Although I've never had a problem with including it, my guess is that the added content won't stick. For the past couple of years, I've been holding my nose and enforcing what I've considered an unfortunate consensus (but consensus nonetheless). I'm stepping back from that role now. I will say this much: I see no actual new sourcing, so if consensus has changed, it's probably just because the celebrity "protection" brigade isn't aware of this thread. As an aside, the new wording is awkward:

In 2009, media outlets reported that, based on his interview with the defunct blog Gossip Boy, Stiers is gay after years of being closeted for fear of damaging his career.

First, it's a now-defunct blog; it wasn't defunct when the interview supposedly took place, but the sentence doesn't make that clear. (Compare: My grandfather shot an extinct bird in 1958.) Second, if Stiers is gay now, he was gay all along, whether closeted or not. I'd just rewrite it but, as I said, I think someone will be along to remove it before very long. The "dubious" tag isn't exactly a point in favor of its staying. Rivertorch (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Another rewording: replaced "defunct" with "then-active"; replaced "is gay" with "came out as gay". George Ho (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a great compromise wording, George Ho! Love it! BlueSalix (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nicely done, though I don't think there's anything dubious about this. Note that one corrects a story like this, if correction is required, with a few phone calls. No lawsuit is necessary. But when you read the interview, the quotes are long and clear. I'd even be ok with adding his reason, that he waited because of the specific work he was doing, and why he was coming out now, so that a partner would not have to be closeted. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Leave it out altogether. We cannot even say "his interview" because the site given is not even a reliable source for a claim that they interviewed him. And saying that others said that someone unreliable said the Stiers said something? That doesn't seem to rise to being significant information. It would also be against WP:BLP standard for including material that seems intended to get people to believe something some-view-as-negative about someone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's hear Ged UK's opinion about this; he reverted my removal of this material. George Ho (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. Ged UK's edit summary was very clear and absolutely correct. ABC News is one of the most reliable broadcast news sources in the world, and unless they've retracted something they reported, we should be able to report it too. (Or at least report that they reported it!) While we may safely assume—given that they ran the story and haven't retracted it—that ABC News exercised due diligence in their fact-checking and determined that the blog entry wasn't simply made up out of whole cloth but rather was factual enough to be worth reporting on, we have no indication that the blog entry was entirely accurate; it's still not a reliable source for our purposes. Rivertorch (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This story has been reported by a range of agencies known for fact checking, and are generally considered reliable. The original source isn't reliable, but the fact that so many other agencies have reported on it makes it reliable. If you continue to be worried, then writing it as it is now that this was reported is another option. GedUK  16:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The main point is disputing the information reported by sources, reliable or not. I don't see how this meets standards of WP:BLP. Probably I'm seeing editorial discretion. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, reliable sources or not, I don't see the value of including information about a living person's sexuality if the living person hasn't made a point about proclaiming it, or if their sexuality is not a factor in their fame or public persona. That is, if a heterosexual man stated in a five-year old interview that he wanted to settle down and have a kid, would we include that in an article and talk about his family man proclivities? Probably not because it's boring nonsense. If he said, "Man, I sure love to go out every Friday night and cruise pie shops for a delicious rhubarb," would we include that? No way, because who cares? Similarly, if D.O.S. stated that he was gay, why would that suddenly become noteworthy? Because gay is not the norm and needs to be reported? It seems like we're sensationalizing sexuality, or at least sexuality that is non-heterosexual, and that shouldn't be our aim. If a public figure is known for being gay, like RuPaul, or Neil Patrick Harris, or Ellen Degeneres, that's a different story. But hanging festive flashing lights around the neck of a man who just wants to act shouldn't be our aim, even if we CAN find an old article where he admits to being gay. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless he clearly self-identifies as gay it is improper under WP:BLP to use allegation and inference to so label such a person. Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then you have no difficulties whatsoever: he is reported as saying "I am {gay}. Very proud to be so". No doubt you'll find some other reason to object, but it's not "allegation" at all, it's self-identification as direct as anyone could reasonably want. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if you gave an actual link -- I searched -- and the "source" is the same non-RS "Gossip Boy" blog. Nice try there -- but if the base source fails WP:RS for being a strong source for a contentious claim, it remains invalid per WP:BLP. Now if you can document that "Gossip Boy" as a blog is a reliable source for contentious claims, then do so. Using a cite which quotes a problematic site ain't gonna work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

("Gossip Boy" is a blog on BlogSpot.com, has no editorial oversight, has a yahoo.com email link only, and has such important stuff as Which hot couple was found at an after party in a bathroom with the woman on her knees and the man watching themselves in the mirror. When caught, the guy looked at the shocked person and asked if they wanted a taste. presented as "news." Really think it is a reliable source???Collect (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I just undid a reinsertion of the material for which the edit summary claimed that there was consensus to include it on the Talk page. Given the arguments from Collect, Cyphoidbomb, myself, and George Ho's statement of BLP concern, I think it rather clear that such a consensus has not formed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That was a straw-man argument in 2011 and it's the same now, and your quote from the blog couldn't be less relevant. I've enforced the wrongheaded consensus for more than two years, but now the consensus has shifted. The simple fact of the matter is that our article isn't reporting that Mr. Stiers came out; it's reporting that reliable sources reported that he came out. It's not our job to second-guess ABC News, and the BLP-violation claims are empty. It's not up to Wikipedia to vet the primary sources accepted by major news outlets or to make assumptions about what fact-checking processes those outlets have used. Our content simply needs to be verifiable using reliable secondary sources, and the wording I have restored amply meets that standard. Rivertorch (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Add me to those opposing. I particularly agree with Collect's point. It's shameful, yet unsurprising, that such a ridiculous "source" would be even considered for citing a contentious claim about a living person. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You should complain to ABC News; they're the ones who cited it. We were citing them. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2014 (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.