Jump to content

Talk:Simon Amstell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

???

how does 'he is openly gay' fall into the category of "his early life" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? Massau (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be mentioned if he was straight? I don't think I've ever seen a comment on anyone's page saying "... is openly heterosexual"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.196.241 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add such a comment to profiles of openly heterosexual people, there's little stopping you. However, the fact of the matter is Amstell IS openly gay, he is not closeted and does not try to hide the fact. This in itself is a fact that is known to the world, and as such is relevant to a wikipedia. Sexuality is a fact about a person which, if known, is of interest to quite a few people. However, if you want to argue the whole "let's put 'openly heterosexual' on everyone's profile" thing, it is common practice for people to assume that a person is straight given no collusion to suggest otherwise, and if there's nothing on a person's page it is safe to assume they're straight.
Please, if you're talking on behalf of the homosexual community, don't...we don't need the hassle, we're perfectly happy being labelled as "openly gay" if we are, and left alone if we're not. 78.86.230.62 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe his sexual orientation is relevant. Being gay is considerably less common that being straight, so it makes sense to note when someone is openly gay. Also, why is his religion OK to mention but not his sexual orientation? People keep removing the line about him being gay, (which I have sourced) yet nobody has any problem with the fact that the article mentions he is of Jewish background. It seems to me that ones sexual orientation should be at least as noteworthy and relevant as ones religious beliefs. Why do people keep removing the former while seemingly having no issue with the latter. It makes me wonder if people think being gay is something to be ashamed of? Enigma365 (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is his sexual orientation relevant? Is he noted for his sexual orientation? You wonder why people remove it from the article, I wonder why people put it in, especially when it only says he is openly gay. I believe the same goes for the religion question. The criteria I mentioned below that discusses when the article should be categorized with religious or sexual preference should be applied to even putting it into the prose. If the person self identifies and it is part of what makes the person notable, then it belongs. If either criteria is not met then IMO it does not belong. Jons63 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


you guys are missing the point i was simply stating 'he is openly gay' does not fall into the category of early life Helicopter tours (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I understood your point and it is no longer in a section called early life. It is now in a section called Personal life. My point however is, why is it even in the article? Is he even noted for his sexual orientation? In the whole article the extent of the discussion is one sentence that says he is openly gay. Is that important to understanding him? I have had another discussion with an IP that wants to put that Brad Pitt is openly straight. In neither case it is pertinent to the notability of the subject of the article and IMO does not belong. Jons63 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Well he has used it in his stand up and it does come up in presenting his TV show. I have read a lot of newspaper interviews by him recently and in virtually 100% of them, the fact that he is gay is mentioned. I think therefore it safe to say that is indeed noteworthy and of interest to the general public. The fact that you would not note someone as being openly straight is an extremely weak argument. If an individual is in a wheelchair, you might decide this to be significantly noteworthy to mention in their article. This does not mean you expect every article on other indidivuals to note that they are fully able bodied. Being noteworthy means it is something unexpected or not "a given". Perhaps in the future, one's sexual orientation will not be of sufficient interest to be worth noting but in today's society I think it does still interest people and is somthing that should be mentioned especially when it comes up in their work, as it does in this instance.

And also briefly, with regard to the mention to his religious background, fair enough if you see this as being equally irrelevant - at least you are being consistent. But in the last month, since I added the reference to him being gay, it has been removed a considerable number of times. The mention of his Jewish background has not been removed in one single instance. It seems some people are a little less consistent in their editorial standards and I cannot help but wonder why. Enigma365 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If he uses it in his standup comedy, then that in fact is part of his notability and then it should probably stay and be expounded on to show that it is noteworthy. But as it is currently written, "He is openly gay", it is not noteworthy, just like it is not noteworthy that he was "born into a jewish family". Anytime the whole mention of sexual orientation, religion, ability to walk or other things you can think of comes down to one sentence with nothing to explain why it is there, IMO it is not noteworthy and shouldn't be there. Jons63 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


well this has grown into another matter however seeing as this article is about the actual person it should be noteworthy he is gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So in your opinion everyone who is gay, should have that fact mentioned in their article? Should the sexual orientation be mentioned no matter what it is or only for those that are gay? Jons63 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


well as another person said earlier' gay is less common than straight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Categories

I removed some categories about gay and jewish. I did this per guidance in Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies_of_living_people, which states two criteria must be met to include categories about beliefs or sexual preferences. They are:

  1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
  2. The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Sexual preference: The 1st criteria is met in the article. It is sourced. The 2nd though is not. All the article says is he is openly gay. It is just mentioned in passing and from the way it is written his being gay is not relevant to his notable activities.
Religious beliefs: Neither criteria is met. As the article stands now, it is mentioned he was born into a jewish family but not that he is jewish. Once again it is just mentioned in passing and nothing shows that it is part of what makes him notable. Please satisfy both requirements before reinserting these categories. Jons63 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

hello, i am doing some geography coursework, for geographical purposes. where does he live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.49.103 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Material removed and reinserted

There seems to be an edit war brewing about the early life section, with one editor saying it is irrelevant and the other editor saying it is vandalism to remove it. Maybe we could come together and talk about it rather than getting into an edit war. There are seperate pieces to the paragraph that keeps getting reverted and each one should be discussed seperately. I broke the paragraph into 4 seperate sections below. All 4 are sourced, so I guess the question is each one of the relevant? I have placed my inital opinion in each section, hopefully we can get a consensus on each one. Jons63 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that this fits the definition of an "edit war"--it should be noted that the IP in question has only made contributions to the Amstell article, has continually taken out the entire bio section with no discussion this page, and has been warned several times regarding their actions--hence the definition of vandalism and their subsequent blocking. Though I welcome discussion that will hopefully finally settle the matter of the biographical information's notability. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

born in Gants Hill

Probably, it gives a perspective of where he is from. Jons63 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

into a Jewish family

At this point I see nothing that says it is a notable portion of his life. Is he currently Jewish or only born into a Jewish family and has nothing to do with his notability. I know this is not about categorization but as I said elsewhere on the talk page, Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies_of_living_people gives criteria when someone should be categorized with religious/sexual orientation. It says they have to say that it applies to them and it has to be part of what makes them notable. There is nothing in the article that says it is part of what makes him notable. Jons63 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he is a "practicing" Jew, but the citation notes his plans regarding a sitcom based on his experiences of growing up Jewish, and he talks about being raised Jewish in his standup. I'm honestly puzzled by this apparent hostility toward mention of his religious background and orientation. Rachel Summers (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not hostile towards the mention of it. These are two areas where I think editors try to insert subtle POV into articles. There are many people who see gay and jewish (along with other descriptors) as negative items. So they will insert them into an article to try to generate a negative response to the subject of the article. I try to remove it where it is not part of what makes the person notable because it doesn't make any difference. You are making a strong case for the inclusion here. Next we need to transfer that case to the article. The way the article is currently written it doesn't explain that it is part of what makes him notable in his comedy. I think it would help to alleviate some of the vandalism that happens to this article. Jons63 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There is also the possibility that the view of "gay" and "jewish" as negative descriptors is part of the motive for the continual deletions (by others, not by you), though obviously we won't know this for certain unless the blocked IP fesses up. ~_^ Also, there are many who would argue that it does make a difference, because it is not only a strong defining characteristic but also a minority characteristic. I agree though that the article could be written to better incorporate the data on Amstell's being gay and of Jewish origin; I saw the "Early Life" section as something like a stub to be improved upon (whether through adjusting/adding to the section, or removing the section and incorporating the data elsewhere)rather than completely deleted, which is what has been happening. I hope you're right that it might alleviate the apparent vandalism...hope all this makes sense. Rachel Summers (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

attended Beal High School in Redbridge

Not-notable, does his notability come from him attending this high school? Did he even graduate? Jons63 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea; I agree that this does not seem notable. Rachel Summers (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He is openly gay

Similar to the Jew question. Right now, it is 4 words, what part about it is notable? Refer also above to the Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies_of_living_people information Jons63 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The criteria:

"The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question" "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

Both criteria have been met; in citations, Amstell publicly self-identifies as gay, and his sexual orientation is often brought up in notable activities/public life (interviews, Buzzcocks hosting, his stand-up, etc). Rachel Summers (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just my take on this, because I'm nosy and keep up with AgnosticPreacherKid's talk page, the "openly gay" content sure doesn't belong in the "Early life" section. And considering the article is so limited in "personal" sections, I'd suggest putting it in the lead as:
Simon Marc Amstell (born 29 November, 1979) is an openly gay[3] award-winning English comedian and television presenter. In 2007, Amstell was nominated for "The Times Breakthrough South Bank Show Award".
Having it in the "Early life" section gives the impression that he was once gay but is no longer, which some of us knows isn't the case but a new person might think otherwise. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per Rachel's reasoning, both criteria have been met. The claim is sourced by a mainstream newspaper and his gay fans might wonder why it's not mentioned in the article if we remove it. Obviously, Simon is open about being gay and seems to have no objection to it being mentioned in The Guardian (no harm is being done to him), therefore, it can be considered encyclopedic. One way to handle this situation could be to reword the current sentence. Instead of saying, "He is openly gay," we can say something like "Simon, who is openly gay...", add it to another sentence, or something along that line. On a side note, the vandal that is removing sections of the article seems to be a single-purpose account. I'll watch this article from now on to make sure this vandal's actions are reviewed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Allstar's sentence suggestion better than the one I mentioned. That seems to work better and doesn't throw the "He's gay" sentence in the article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I like Allstar's suggestion as well. Rachel Summers (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I think the fact that he is gay is noteworthy and should be mentioned, I'm not sure I like the current implementation("Simon Amstell is an Openly Gay Comedian") as it makes it sound like this fact is a key defining part of who he is, whereas in reality I think it is merely a point of note. Enigma365 (talk

Where would you suggest putting it? Rachel Summers (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. It's better than the "He is openly gay" line. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, come to think of it--a lot of gay people do consider their orientation "a key defining part" of who they are. I know I do. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
After having looked at pages of other LGBT celebrities, I have this suggestion: putting his orientation (along with a relevant cited quote from the subject) in a Personal Life section. Rachel Summers (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think renaming Early Life to Personal Life(or "Background") and putting it there would be best. It was this way before but someone changed it. Enigma365 (talk
That istrue, I do remember it was changed before. Now there is also a Personal life section farther down that has info in it. I will consolidate the two into the top section. Jons63 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still waay confused about the disparity between "referred to his orientation numerous times" and "referred to his orientation sparingly when relevant". The former refers to a "gay off" and has citations, the current version isn't cited at all. Can we somehow come to agreement on how gay he is? :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
He's very open about being gay and it comes up quite a bit in his work; he also is known for challenging at least one celebrity in the closet. The person continually reverting this either thinks they're doing Amstell a "favor" (which they aren't, because of his openness about it), or are trying to cloud the issue of his orientation because they themselves have a problem with it. As someone who is familiar with his work, this is incredibly obnoxious to continually see. Rachel Summers (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Amstell's orientation/openness/relevance

I thought it might be necessary to state and clarify some of my thoughts/concerns on this:

Regarding the constant revisions and deletions by the two anonymous IPs--I'm trying to assume good faith and assume that they are simply concerned that Amstell's orientation is not relevant or is being overly emphasized. But if so they're not being very consistent--they don't seem to have as much of a problem with mentions/discussions of Amstell's Jewish background. They've also never come here to discuss their actions, and often completely remove all mentions of Amstell's orientation (even when sourced), hence the concerns re vandalism.

There are plenty of other pages for LGBT celebrities that don't seem to receive this treatment re notability of orientation (barring other kinds of vandalism/edit wars); Amstell is listed along with other open British LGBT performers in one of the sources I've recently listed, people such as Rupert Everett, Sir Ian McKellen Graham Norton, etc, etc. The problem seems to be that he's not as well-known, so it's easier for someone to claim that he's not that open about his sexuality whereas if someone tried that with McKellen's page or Everett's page, it would be seen in a far less ambiguous light, be immediately reverted and the perpetrator warned or blocked for vandalism.

It would seem also that tactics change in response to the page: when there is one line about Amstell being gay, it's removed as unsourced or irrelevant. When it's sourced and shown to be relevant, it's removed or pared down with the claim that he doesn't "make a big deal" about it (despite the sources clearly showing his willingness to discuss it in interviews, refer to it or have it be referred to on Popworld and Never Mind The Buzzcocks, etc, etc). Barring their showing up here to honestly help reach some sort of consensus, it would seem that the party or parties in question will not be satisfied until and unless Amstell's orientation is as submerged as possible. Rachel Summers (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You make excellent points. It's hard to assume good faith on this one, considering you've added sources and explained that he often mentions his sexuality. Removing sourced content and not explaining on the talk page after being repeatedly asked to explain one's actions is considered vandalism. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Amstell is open about his sexuality but treats it as something he just happens to be in the same way that he treats his height or eye colour. For it to be a headline point in this entry does not give the correct impression of his work/life. He is not Graham Norton or Alan Carr, in other words, a 'gay comedian' but a comedian who happens to be gay. It is not his entire act. It is not what makes him funny or famous. (anonymousIP). Apologies for 'vandalism'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.75 (talk • contribs) date

But you haven't provided any sources proving that, whereas I've come up with several proving the opposite. He also doesn't refer to his height or eye colour on Popworld or Buzzcocks like he has on occasion his orientation (and others refer to it on those shows as well). Otherwise, one could argue that other LGBT celebrities should have all mentions of their open sexuality removed from their articles because it isn't what makes them famous. And a lot of the articles and interviews I come up with on Amstell define him as as "gay geek" with the implication that it's what he is in part known for. Rachel Summers (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008

(UTC)

gorgole Gorgole (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Gorgle put it better than i ever could but the point still stand that him being gay is a fact and should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I think the current edit seems to be by far the best solution to dealing with this problem that I have seen so far(and this problem has been ongoing for a few months). Clearly some people felt that his sexual orientation was not worthy of mentioning because he does not define his career/personality by it, while others - myself included - felt that while that may be true, it is still a noteworthy point and should be mentioned somewhere. I think putting his personal life info at the bottom of the article, as it is currently, is an excellent compromise which does not make out his sexual orientation to be a defining aspect of who he is but still mentions a fact which is of interest to most people and relevant to the individual. Good work guys! Lets hope 86.151.43.75 falls in line with what appears to be the majority agreed opinion on this.Enigma365 (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that he is not hiding his orientation, but that it is not the major defining part of his life, and therefore it should not be the major defining part of his bio, per WP:UNDUE. People have the right to label themselves, what ever they happen to be; by race, ethnicity, orientation, handiness, height, brightness, or whatever. However, it should not be whitewashed either. That also violates WP:UNDUE in terms of balance and a fair representation. The current version seems appropriate per Enigma, which is contained in the Personal Life section as follows: Amstell was born in Gants Hill into a Jewish family. Amstell came out as gay two months into his work on Popworld, claiming that no one believed him initially, "so I had to keep going on about it." His orientation has been referred to both on Popworld and Never Mind The Buzzcocks, with John Barrowman challenging him to a "gay-off" on NMTB. Amstell has been lauded by some for his "approach of refusing to treat homosexuality as a dirty secret that can’t be mentioned.". — Becksguy (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the current version seems fine. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

photo

can someone find a better shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.129.50 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a (better, I hope) image in commons and attached it. This is a confirmed CC-BY image from Flickr. It's blurry, but still better than the full face one, I think. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud

It's an encyclopaedia. By practice and tradition, it will contain information about a subject, some of which is irrelevant to some people. If I look at Winston Churchill's entry, it will no doubt tell me his birthdate. If I am interested in the Gallipoli disaster, or the 1945 general election, that birthdate is of no interest to me and I will ignore it. But I do not suggest that it should be removed. Similarly with Simon Amstell -- the facts of his gayness, his Jewish parentage and his high school are just that -- facts. If these facts are of use to someone, so be it, and that is why they are there. Nothing more, nothing less.Cross Reference (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


First foray into television

I'm pretty sure this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnXxtpkypuQ predates the GamesMaster one PseudoNym 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaving Buzzcocks

According to the page, Amstell is leaving NMTB because of an "anti semitic" joke. I can find no reference to this, surely a lie?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.205.246 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a Wikipedia joke on this week's episode of Never Mind the Buzzcocks which provoked a few more nonsense edit. They were reverted. Citizensmith (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fearlessness

Simon is utterly compelling in his Buzzcocks role, really challenging some of the guests. Fantastic. I would like more of that to be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.91.77 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Simon, I thought you said on this week's show you'd given up googling yourself everyday ;-) Citizensmith (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Skins

Did he write an episode? It isn't mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.252.87 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he written the Maxxie & Anwar episode in series 1. Someone should add it to the article. 82.1.68.90 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lemar from Afar

Can Somebody please load up Lemar from Afar onto Youtube! It sounds Hilarious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.136.144 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is he from?

This article claims that Simon Amstell is from Gants Hill in London. However, he claimed on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (S22, ep05) to be from Essex. I think he also appeared on Gamesmaster as the captain of a team called the Essex All-Stars. So perhaps we could have a little clarification. EttaLove (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Gants Hill became a part of expanded Greater London only in 1965 - so most people in the area still consider themselves from Essex. Futurix (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Using Talktalk as a source for personal info

I have raised talktalk.co.uk for discussion on WP:RSN. It is used as the single source for his date of birth. As Talktalk give no editorial policy and there is no named journalist for this celebrity gossip database, I do not believe it meets the "quality sources" requirement of WP:BLP. Any other opinions or suggestions for a more reliable source (i.e. not IMDB)? Fæ (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are at least two questionable facts on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-loki (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Citing his stand up

I want to add in the info that he is a vegan and that he doesn't drink (as he talks about in 'Numb' his current stand up tour) but I don't know the etiquette for citing a live show. If anyone could help, that'd be great :) Thanks --Tim1423 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about this, but one way to sidestep it is to use a search engine to look for, say "Simon Amstell" + "vegan" and see if it comes up with anything good/useable. -- Bobyllib (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Voice-Actor in a Game

I'm not sure exactly how to add this, or whether or not it's relevant, but he was a main character in the game "Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist". 2602:306:328C:F10:C7:BC1F:A2A4:D316 (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Simon Amstell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Simon Amstell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Amstell/Archive_1&oldid=1208928884"