Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User "Acerroad" keeps deleting properly sourced and verified information regarding the personal life of this individual. The section should read:

Luke Evans came out as gay in an interview with The Advocate in 2002.[3] In September, 2010, however, it was reported that he was dating a woman, Holly Goodchild, the former personal assistant of singer Charlotte Church.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Acerroad is correct to delete this. Evan's sexuality is of no relevance to the article: see WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Evans' himself spoke openly about his personal life in 2002. If this is removed, then all information regarding the personal lives of Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Aniston should be removed, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you cite WP:BLPCAT, yet the information about Evans' personal life fits the regulations stated there: he himself admitted as such in a reliable source and it was part of his notable achievements early as an actor, starring in the musical Taboo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that you yourself cite two contradictory sources, how can he possibly be unambiguously be categorised as 'gay'? As for Taboo, I fail to see the relevance: playing Shylock doesn't make you Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have received a warning for engaging in an "edit war" and for making more than three revisions in a 24-hour period, which is untrue. I did not make more than 3 revisions in a 24-hour period. And the revisions I made were mostly to add proper references and citations to make the "Personal life" section conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Someone keeps deleting any reference to a publicly available interview that Mr. Evans did with The Advocate in 2002. The article is from a reputable source and verifiable. The article is only one of several magazine articles that Evans did over a period of several years in which Evans spoke at great length about being a publicly out gay actor. I don't understand why this information keeps getting removed when it is public record, quotes Evans himself, and comes from verifiable sources.JoeBotX (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything notable about his sexual preferences. And Jonny likes sex with men? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to argue that there's nothing notable about his sexual orientation (not preferences), then you would have to argue that there is nothing notable about the sexual orientation of Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, or any other similarly out gay celebrity. So why aren't references to their sexual orientation being removed from their Wiki entries? The inconsistency is glaring. I'm sorry, but Evans' sexuality is notable, for reasons that Evans himself spoke about in the Advocate article (and other sources). In that article, he explained that his being out helped give gay teens and other aspiring actors have "hope for the future." He said he had received letters from fans praising his decision to come out. This is all public knowledge and public record. It's not a "dirty secret."JoeBotX (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

orientation/preference(whatever) some peoples sexuality does become a part of their notability, this does not look like one of those cases to me. It is clearly not a dirty secret in any way - sexuality is normal in all things on the planet its just that it is rarely encyclopedic-ally notable. Also the claim of helping overs come out as being the notable thing, that is quite common actually. Johnny_Weir - if only one person can be helped by my coming out....as for support letters from fans, that doesn't seem anything but normal to me either. Weir's sexuality was very high profile and there had been massive speculation about it. Here in Oct 2010 he seems to have changed his mind/preference/orientation and was reported to be in a relationship/dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this not "one of those cases"? Evans was publicly out to his family, his fans, the press, and the public for years. He has spoken about it at length in interviews with The Advocate, The Gay Times, QX Magazine, and other sources (most of which are freely available online). We're not talking about one quote or one article here. It is notable because he chose to make it notable. He chose to make it an issue. As for him changing his mind, I agree that if The Advocate article is mentioned, the article saying that he is now dating a woman should also be mentioned. But when I tried to also include a properly cited reference to that article in the Wiki entry, it too was removed.JoeBotX (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see those other interviews he has given about his sexuality, I have only seen the advocate, are the others simply reporting that one interview from 2002? - have you got the links to them? I don't see his sexuality as noteworthy really but others might, if you present other interviews asserting more notability to it you may have a case - if his gay comment earlier is mentioned it clearly stands to reason that if that is notable then having a relationship with a woman is also notable - I don't think either are notable but lets see what others think. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the 2004 QX Magazine article, Luke Goes Hardcore. It's a pdf file of the entire issue, and I should warn you that there's some graphic content elsewhere in the magazine. The article talks about how being out has affected his career as an actor. In the article, Evans says, "I wasn't happy living a lie as I'd been living a lie for the majority of my life, so performing in Taboo was a good time to come out, and it hasn't bothered my career at all." The article also says "Luke does gay very well, which is not surprising, but it was encouraging to hear that he's never experienced any negative effects from being 'out' as an actor." I haven't seen the Gay Times article, but it preceded The Advocate article and is referenced in the first paragraph of the Advocate article.JoeBotX (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, section seven of the QX article, supports a pretty out gay man position, still not really anything that puts some bones on a reason to report his sexuality - I am of the position that being gay is not notable, others may support inclusion but to me being gay is not encyclopedic notable and neither is being orientated "straight" - which we never mention - Jonny really liked women. In 2002 and 2004 Evans was an "out" gay man and commented he came out for himself and hoped that it would help other gay men to come out. In 2010 he was reported to be dating a woman. - ... Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Your last 2 sentences seem to sum it up nicely. The problem is that anytime I or any other user has tried to add something like those 2 sentences, it has been quickly deleted, usually by user Acerroad, who has made 35 edits to the page, but now also by user PitViper26. Usually, no explanation is given. Looking at the revision history for the page, the removal of any reference to Evans' sexuality or the Advocate article has been going on since October 2010 (one month after the article that said he is dating a woman appeared in the press). So, in the end, I guess this whole debate is pointless because even if something is added, it will simply get deleted again and the user who added it will be tagged for engaging in an "edit war."JoeBotX (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't give up now, your contributions to this discussion are very beneficial. If you can create an addition with the cites, post it below, for support or oppose inclusion comments here and we can see a consensus among a few commenters then we could defend the removals and protect the article and block drive by users that repeatedly removed the consensus addition without discussion. As you say, this has been disrupting the Biography for over six months - we really need to end that one way or the other through this discussion here. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I may have to give up because I don't have time, and I'm not that invested in it. However, my recommendation would be that PitViper26's edit of 15:02, 7 August 2011 be undone, reverting the page back to the 03:25, 6 August 2011 revision by Acerroad. Acerroad is the user who has usually removed any reference to the Advocate article, or anything else about Evans' private life, sometimes within minutes of it being added. However, in his/her most recent edit, Acerroad allowed the reference to the Advocate article to remain intact, but added a couple of sentences about Evans now wanting to keep his private life private. Those sentences are a bit opinionated, but maybe they help clarify things. It had seemed that everything was resolved until PitViper26 then proceeded to remove the "Personal life" section. Undoing PitViper26's edit and reverting to Acerroad's most recent edit might be a compromise that would satisfy all users (except, obviously, PitViper26).JoeBotX (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If they've been confirmed by reputable news sources, why do they keep getting deleted? Do people want to censor the fact that Luke Evans is gay? AfterElton even ran a story on this today, talking about the Wikipedia article and showing screencaps of the page to two of its revisions. Can't we just include The Advocate quote, about him being openly gay (which is indisputable—he came out, that's not made-up) and the fact about him now dating a woman, as reported by WalesOnline? Why does it have to be so complicated? Leave something like those above two sentences, protect the page against whoever's edit warring for whatever reason, and leave it. He's either gay or bisexual to me, as in, it's kind of irrevocable that you speak about being out and proud basically, and now according to some fashion industry expert, he's dating her? It's notable. 220.239.157.22 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame that my suggestion for how to resolve this issue was simply ignored. It could have avoided this whole ugly mess. Off2riorob asked me for a suggestion. I offered one -- revert to Acerroad's last edit -- Acerroad being the user who has in the past removed all references to the Advocate article, but in his/her most recent edit was OK with it, as long as there was also a mention of how Evans now tries to keep his private life private. It appears that what I said earlier was true: "I guess this whole debate is pointless because even if something is added, it will simply get deleted again and the user who added it will be tagged for engaging in an "edit war."JoeBotX (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. We have two very reliable sources where Evans says he is gay and furthermore, links its strong relevance to his acting career. We have another reliable source (Wales Online) reporting that he is in a heterosexual relationship; WalesOnline is reliable, even if they are clearly publishing churnalism floated by a publicist (but this is not relevant to the strength of the citation). AfterElton are also very reliable, and have published a synthesis of this discrepancy and a reliably-attributed comment from Evans' management where they more or less admit to telling him to keep quiet about being gay. However, that inference is for the reader to draw. As of my last revision, the article is entirely factual and not contestable by crying BLP.Zythe (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue - what is notable about this persons sexual preferences/outlook? Nothing has been presented here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What isn't? You have the burden of proof, unfortunately. Your last edit was to remove highly-cited and interesting material (ie. notable in its implications for how management handles celebrities' sexualities in public, and for how Evans related his sexuality to his acting process in 3, possibly 4 interviews with gay magazines) and restored a completely unverified section about his Early Life which was violation of BLP. So I don't think you're actually debating policy, but you have an objection to the content which remarks on his being gay (or not gay - we cannot officially 'categorise' him as long as there is contradictory evidence). I would contend that reverting you isn't even 3RR because you are making clearly disruptive edits based on an assumption that his personal life is not relevant to Wikipedia (a personal conviction), which you can take up as a topic of discussion cocerning what Wikipedia is for. But you can do that elsewhere. It's not about consensus because there are clear facts and policies in play.Zythe (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be interesting to you but peoples sexuality is not generally notable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your opinion is moot, because it doesn't affect Wikipedia's remit. And it frequently is notable when it surrounds how a management company suppresses information and keeps up the publicity machine. If you have any declared interest in this page -- not that I'm assuming bad faith -- I would argue that trying to stall it in violation of Wikipedia policy will only draw further attraction to you from not just gay press, but Nationals. A good story for a left-wing National would be how in the run-up to a big film, a publicist company is trying to bury Internet evidence of their commodity being or having been openly gay. It would be best to let Wikipedia sit, unnoticed by the majority of people, and not attract spotlights.

You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to policy and to try and revert the page, as you admit on my talk page, continually for six months is not fair practice. There isn't a single good reason why this page should be under dispute because this is not a BLP issue whatsoever.Zythe (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Demanding to focus without valuable educational detail on someones sexual preference is a BLP issue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You 1) refuse to acknowledge anything I have said, and 2) don't seem to know i) what BLP is and ii) what Wikipedia is for. This is getting embarrassing for you.Zythe (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I laugh at your claim of embarrassment. Please stick to the content dispute and focus on that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As cited and discussed previously, the BLP policy says that if the person in question has stated the fact is true and its quoted in a reliable source, it's fine. As an up and coming actor in an industry where homosexuality has been and still frequently is covered up and hidden, it is very notable. The fact that an individual editor may not find it notable does not, ipso facto, mean it is not notable writ large. If you don't understand the social context or notability of the issue, do some research right here on wikipedia. See, e.g., Celluloid Closet. If you think it's not relevant period, then please begin removing such references from the following articles: Rock Hudson, Ellen Degeneres, John Barrowman, Rachel Maddow, [Ricky Martin]], Clay Aiken, David Bowie... eh, you get the idea. Anyway, better get to it, unless it some cases it is notable. Otherwise, the content and sourced material should go back in. croll (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Personal life

In 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as an out gay man and stated "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=false

In September 2010 however, WalesOnline reported Evans as dating "fashion industry marketing expert" Holly Goodchild

• - http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/09/19/tamara-drewe-star-luke-evans-lands-love-and-musketeer-role-91466-27296101/

AfterElton.com contacted Evans' management, who 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

• - http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man

Corrected. Because it's annoying the hell out of me and betrays some bias/perceptions here. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

add comments here please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTABILITY IS A PHONY ISSUE. This is entirely appropriate for a phony "encyclopedia" that doesn't bother to adhere to facts or its own policies. Wikipedia's own policy on "notability" states that "notability" applies to whether or not an article is to be included, but NOT to the contents of the article. Yet Wikipedia has censored the article for this reason. It's not the first time Wikipedia has misapplied the so-called "notability" "standard" in this way. The reality is that Wikipedia has no standards. This is one of many reasons why serious authors no longer participate here, and why no respected academic institution will permit a student to use this atrocious children's "encyclopedia" as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to make this an argument about notability in general of romantic relationships which you wouldn't be doing if the actor in question wasn't gay. But unfortunately in almost every case, Wikipedia does describe these things as notable. Wikipedia is not an educational tool, as you seem to mistakenly suggest above. It is simply an encyclopedia. One could even argue that this case has special notability given the bizarre actions of the record company and for that matter, coverage of the editing of this Wikipedia page. But alas, it doesn't have a notability problem. And it's not a BLP issue in the first place, sorry. Someone close this discussion.Zythe (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

it is notable. it is very notable in so many other living persons pages as well. this guy is going to be in a few big movies coming out soon. and now its getting even more notable, with afterelton doing a story about it. i think by not including the multiple reliable sources, readers are done a disservice. are you sure you realize how many times this has come up before? it is pretty standard.... 207.238.152.3 (talk)

In almost every case, it is not important enough to place into a biography. Nor is religion. Nor is ancestry. Biograpies, of all things, should focus on the life of a person dealing with matters of importance to their life. A revolutionary concept. And it is absolutely a WP:BLP issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the actor repeatedly affirms how much being openly gay is important to him and how being gay affected his choice to be an actor, his acting process, his choice of roles, and also how his roles have affected his decisions to be out. Then, the subsequent sources are notable with regard to the much wider (academically notable) issue of how gay actors are professionally managed. Essentially this is a de-gaying effort. This wouldn't be an argument on the page for Brad Pitt.Zythe (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS only relate to categories, as does the 'only mention sexuality if it's notable to the subject's public life' clause. I don't think any of this is notable to Luke Evans public life, even if he is publicly out. I really don't see how its any business of Wikipedia if someone like Duncan James is bisexual, essentially coming out before being outed by for at the hands of The News of the World. That someone's private sexual preferences can be discussed at length in BLPs seems very off to me. This applies to content and cats. If a subject is a LGBT advocate, that is one thing. If they are LGBT person going about their private business, that is another. How not? Span (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're applying your personal values to a subject irrespective of policy. The fact is, it is notable to their lives and to wider issues -- cultural, political and philosophical ones at that. And we even, in this case, have a published synthesis (by AfterElton) affirming that very notability I'm describing.Zythe (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My personal values are meaningless here. Subjects sexuality is usually not notable - Elton Johns sexuality is high profile and extremely notable, this persons is not and adding jonny said he was attracted to men in 2002 but in 2011 he was dating a women is just not encyclopedic-ally notable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly given evidence of notability (eg, Evans' own declarations of its relevant to his career, plus published synthesis attesting as much). If it is Verifiable, published to Reliable Sources, and written in a style where there is No Original Research, then the ONLY dissenting voice is an echo chamber of people saying "People's sexuality is not relevant." But you yourself restored BLP-violating information about where he went to school, in contrast, which is a complete triviality and one that obviously doesn't bother you being there. So the issue is that you object SPECIFICALLY to sexuality being mentioned at all when BLP doesn't give you any specification other than you don't commit libel on somebody by using unverifiable information. And yes, the discrepancy is wonderfully notable. Because it illustrates something about the industry; the inference is for the reader to draw, of course. What will you do when the Guardian's interest is piqued? Does it become "notable" enough for you then? Zythe (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a move to cast figures like Evans and Duncan James as gay advocates - foregrounding their sexuality in support of the gay community. There maybe high profile reports in the Advocate, AfterElton and the tabloids. That does not speak to notability on Wikipedia. Span (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That, as you call it, "a published synthesis (by AfterElton) affirming that very notability " http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man just looks like a gay blog post with no editorial control to me. Posted today by http://www.afterelton.com/user/19..Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

note - the Evan's wikipedia article is mentioned in that www.afterelton.com/user/19 blog post from today and also discussed in the comment section also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

AfterElton.com is not merely a "gay blog". It is an award-winning news outlet whose stories have on more than one occasion been picked up by the international press and which is recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia. In the interest of full disclosure, I have written articles for the site and I can promise that the content is subject to complete editorial control. The person who posted the article in question is Michael Jensen, who is also the Editor-in-Chief. 70.226.162.163 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? Back in the 80s the request from gays was don't label us. We are actors not gay actors, we are musicians not gay muscisans, we are teachers not gay teachers. They were right back then and the activists are wrong now. Enough of the labelling fucking crap OK. These people do not exist for Michael Jensen, or anyone else, to abuse for there own ends. John lilburne (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so hostile, but your information is not accurate. In the 1980s the "request" was to be treated with dignity and respect as gay people. Including information about an individual's sexuality that is sourced directly to the subject is not "activism" and it isn't "abuse". 70.226.164.175 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

* If a gay man gives multiple interviews in which he states that he is a gay man then there should be no issue with saying so in his article. Saying that a gay person should only be identified as a gay person if hir sexuality is "notable" is demeaning. It is true that biographies rarely if ever directly state that the subject is heterosexual. That is because the vast majority of people assume that a person is heterosexual unless it is specifically known not to be the case. Information that directly or indirectly discloses a subject's heterosexuality (who they've married, who they've dated, etc.) is routinely included in biographies and in most if not every instance leaving that information out if it's known would be considered a defect. Yet reliably sourced, verifiable information that indicates homosexuality or bisexuality is deleted, often with the insulting claim that "sexuality isn't relevant". As a gay man who's been battling for equality for decades I can damn well guarantee that my sexuality is relevant to me and it's apparently relevant to the millions of people in this country who have over those same decades voted to implement or retain sodomy laws, voted to strip away basic civil rights protections, voted to strip away even minimal domestic partnership rights and voted to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional. BLP demands that biographies of living persons contain only information that is verified in reliable secondary sources. There are multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss Luke Evans' sexual orientation. BLP does not require that the information be separately "notable" or "relevant" and even if it did those selfsame sources clearly show that Evans' sexual orientation has had an effect on his life and career. There is no valid justification for removing the information and doing so is naked bigotry whether the person censoring the article realizes it or not. William Bradshaw (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Very well put. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Evans is quoted as saying how it is VERY important to him to be out at an early age and to not have this skeleton in his closet. No one is trying to pigeonhole him or for that matter Duncan James as a gay activist. (Duncan James' outing does have added notability given it was by NoTW who probably hacked him, but that's a side-issue.) You're two editors who are determined to make it so that these people's personal lives which they have adamantly disclose openly should be kept hidden, and you're keen to malign someone like me as a myopic gay activist when I am in fact just a stickler for policy which states three issues: WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.Zythe (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Zythe. Off2riorob and Spanglej, whether you both like it or not, this information will continue to be re-added until it sticks. That's not a threat or any such thing, that's a fact. Look at every other out gay actor's article; they all state their sexuality. If it's information, it's out there, and is a reliably-sourced fact, it'll probably end up being on their Wikipedia article. You can start entries on noticeboard pages like this all you want, but singling out Luke Evans, whether his sexuality is in contention for the moment due to issues of clarity is only going to be temporary for the most part. You can't police a page forever, and information about relationships and sexuality, under "Personal life" sections, will continue to abound, and won't abate due to whatever issues you have with the facts being put there. 220.239.157.22 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that saying being gay is not "notable" is a blatant double standard given how most biographies of straight people mention things down to who was dating whom (e.g. Alanis Morisette). We don't mention they're straight because it's pretty damn obvious and it's the default, isn't it? By simply mentioning who they're dating, you are already actually divulging their sexuality. It's also their own private romantic lives and not actually "encyclopedically notable", so why can they be mentioned? Because it's actually an intrinsic part of a person's life, whether it actually has anything to do with their notability or not. Same thing with being gay. The incessant refrain of 'we don't say someone is heterosexual' is becoming ridiculous. It's not like we're accusing them of being axe-murderers. In cases where it's clearly noncontroversial and freely admitted (e.g. Neil Patrick Harris where being gay is also not central to his life), it can obviously be mentioned in the same way that we can mention where Actor X went to high school. But I digress...

In this case, I also think it should not be mentioned. AfterElton and The Advocate, etc. are not quite neutral sources. And given the actor's apparent reluctance to clarify things on why he's dating a woman these days, it's best to assume he doesn't want to talk about it. Bringing attention to it strikes me as forced outing and scandal-mongering, sorry. It's all speculation at this point, so unless he reaffirms his earlier statements in previous interviews, it is quite controversial and falls under WP:BLP.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :* Do you have some evidence that either AfterElton or The Advocate (which is a nationally-respected award-winning publication of some 40 years vintage) are pushing an agenda regarding Luke Evans? Is The New York Times guilty of bias when it covers heterosexuals? Or is it only gay publications that are to be held to this higher standard? Outing means reporting on someone's homosexuality when they don't want it to be public knowledge. Evans presumably gave the interviews of his own free will; he was not outed in any way. It is not speculation that Evans gave interviews in which he discussed being gay; it is verified fact. It is no more controversial to say that he said he was gay but now a woman is claiming to date him than it is for someone to say s/he's vegetarian only to have someone later claim s/he ate a steak. And even if he is dating a woman it doesn't mean he isn't gay. His current reluctance to discuss his personal life now does not mean that previous statements about it are off-limits. Ethel Merman famously "wrote" about her marriage to Ernest Borgnine by including a blank page in her memoir; were she alive no one would suggest deleting Borgnine from her article because she became reluctant to discuss him. This entire situation reeks of the same old double-standards. Sexuality is only "relevant" if it's mainstream. Variants are "irrelevant" and through censorship rendered invisible.

• There is no valid reason why the article can't include something like "Evans gave interviews in 2002 in which he discussed being gay and how it affected his personal and professional lives. He has since declined to discuss his personal life." It's neutral, verifiable and factual. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:* And may I add, who are you to decide whether someone's sexuality is or isn't central to his life? William Bradshaw (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ::* Above comment was removed for an unstated reason by Off2riorob. William Bradshaw (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"Who are you to decide whether someone's sexuality is or isn't central to his life?" Precisely. And who are you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: I'm not anybody to say that his homosexuality is or isn't central to his life. Whether it is or isn't is absolutely irrelevant because "central to his life" has no basis as an inclusion standard. No policy-based reason has been given and the cited policy, BLP, in no way restricts the addition of this information because it has multiple independent reliable sources. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Having gay publications commenting about his sexuality is not a gold star to include content , thats a simplified position. - clearly there are additional issues here - it seems that Gay blogs are attempting to publicize the subjects comments about his sexual preferences a decade ago - the subject is not apparently changing his mind and dating women and commenting he is a private person - the gay locations are screaming loudly he is gay and out - imo all of this sexuality dispute sourced to the locations provided it not presently notable. Or add it at People that have said they were attracted to men and a decade later dated women - Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::: The "simplified position" you note is not my position so don't attribute it to me. Please cite the policy which states that LGBT-related publications may not serve as reliable sources for LGBT-related content. Whether "gay blogs are attempting to publicize" his old comments doesn't change the fact that he made the comments to independent reliable sources. The only "additional issue" is whether we will follow the BLP policy and include this verified information in a neutral manner or whether we shall adhere to a non-existent standard of "I don't think it's important" as an excuse for censorship. You keep talking about how his being gay is supposedly not "notable" but notability is the standard for articles themselves, not the information contained within those articles. This person is notable and his statements of his homosexuality are verifiable. There is no valid reason for exclusion. I will not comment on the suggested article title other than to note that it demonstrates the thinking of someone who knows little or nothing about gay issues and the gay experience. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Weight and WP:Undue are two positions that come to mind - also = this is not a gay activist location - this is the en wikipedia - here - having a sexuality that is referred to as gay is not automatically notable. As a response to your comment - "it demonstrates the thinking of someone who knows little or nothing about gay issues and the gay experience." - I don't care about gay activism or gay issues - this is not the gay activist news.Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: WEIGHT and UNDO are two links to the same section of WP:NPOV which discusses the importance of giving all "significant viewpoints" representation in an article "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". This actually argues in favor of including verifiable information about Evans' statement of his homosexuality, as long as it's done in a way that's in balance with the rest of his article. A sourced paragraph about them such as has been suggested here several times would satisfy policy. No one is trying to make this about gay activism but you. Reporting a simple statement about an individual's sexual orientation is not "activism". Repeatedly removing it could be interpreted as an act of anti-gay activism, however, especially when accompanied by statements like "this is Wikipedia not the gay activist news." And it's been explained that notability is not the standard for including information within an article; was that not clear? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NPOV supported by the err on the side of caution aspect of WP:BLP - someones sexual preference is unrelated to - "significant viewpoints" - Claims of anti gay activism here in regard to me are laughable - I have thousands of edits here and can present many additions and supports of additions regarding someones gay sexuality - you on the other hand are a single focus new contributor , a single purpose account as regards gay labeling with forty discussion edits that only wants to focus on this persons disputed sexuality - yada yadas yada. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

* (outdent) Dude, you're the one who brought up WEIGHT and UNDUE; not my fault if it doesn't say what you claim it says. We err on the side of caution by citing information in BLPs to reliable sources, which the article did. Evans' sexuality is not "disputed". Evans gave multiple interviews in which he stated clearly that he is gay and neither he nor his publicist has ever made a public statement to the contrary. A sourced paragraph covering all of the available material is completely appropriate. However long I've been here and however many "additions and supports" you've made it doesn't change the simple fact that you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting policy here. And hey, if you're so supportive of adding material regarding individuals' sexuality (despite supposedly never thinking about gay issues) then that makes your failure to support this reliably sourced verifiable information all the more unfathomable. Strange how on all those other articles their sexuality was important enough to include but somehow it isn't here... William Bradshaw (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And out come the innuendoes again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

::: No innuendo, I'm flat-out saying that what he's saying here is completely self-contradictory and it makes no sense. He makes a point of adding material to articles about peoples' homosxuality but he doesn't think about gay issues. He supports the inclusion of sexuality material except he doesn't think sexuality is relevant. And on top of that he won't explain what he thinks makes inclusion of sexuality "notable" (leaving aside that notability isn't the standard for inclduing information within articles). William Bradshaw (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone makes a decent case with decent independent reliable support for this persons sexuality being a notable thing I will add it myself - As for your claim that, "Evans' sexuality is not "disputed" - well - Evan's was last seen dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the need to enter this conversation again. I think it would help, Off2riorob, if you would explicitly state what your (or Wikipedia's) criteria for notability are. What WOULD make an actor's sexual orientation notable? If you would please list those criteria, then it would be easier to argue whether or not Evans meets those criteria. Also, it would help if you could explain why you believe Evans' sexual orientation is less notable than the sexual orientation of several other actors whose sexual orientation IS included in their Wiki entries. For example, actor Luke Macfarlane, who has a role in an ensemble TV show but is not a particularly well-known celebrity or household name, came out in a single newspaper article in Canada. That article has been referenced by other media, but it is the only article as far as I know in which Macfarlane has talked openly about coming out. Macfarlane's Wiki entry mentions that he is openly gay. Other examples would include Lance Bass, Reichen Lehumkuhl, and Neil Patrick Harris, whose Wiki pages mention their personal lives and sexuality, even though one could probably argue that their sexuality has no direct influence on their careers. It appears as if you believe an actor's sexuality is never notable. If that is not the case, please explain when it WOULD be notable. And please explain why other actors' pages, such as the ones I have mentioned, are allowed to include references to their sexuality.JoeBotX (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

With regard to those particular articles, I've not looked, but see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If Wikipedia used precedent to determine content, we'd be in the gutter. Or perhaps we are, but at least we are trying to climb out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia doesn't use precedent, but it's hard to overlook the glaring inconsistency, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. It appears that if an actor comes out in a respected publication such as The Advocate, it is noted on their Wikipedia page. Unless that actor happens to be Luke Evans. You did not address my larger point, which is: What are the criteria for determining notability? What, specifically, makes sexuality notable? Because it seems completely arbitrary. In previous comments, you and Off2riorob have said that publicly coming out doesn't make it notable. Talking about it in a publication such as The Advocate doesn't make it notable. Talking about it in multiple publications over a period of years doesn't make it notable. Taking on gay roles doesn't make it notable. Talking about how you can help others come out and deal with discrimination doesn't make it notable. Talking about how it has (or hasn't) affected your acting and your career doesn't make it notable. So what DOES make it notable? If you would state those criteria, it would help this discussion greatly (and would also help determine whether references to sexuality should be removed from other celebrities' pages).JoeBotX (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are rather getting this backwards. Sadly, there is a great deal of trivial nonsense in Wikipedia articles. By and large, it either goes unnoticed, or gets fixed. Someone noticed the inconsistency between Wikipedia labelling Evans as unambiguously 'gay', and reports the he was dating a woman. So they did the obvious thing, which was to look into the matter - at which point it became obvious that Evans didn't consider his sexuality to be a public issue - as is his right. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, sections of the US gay media seem to think that this is a big issue, and kicked up a fuss. Suddenly new editors pile into the discussion, with no idea of what previous debates have been about, and no concept of just how much time is wasted on contributors trying to shove people into arbitrary boxes ('gay', 'Jew'...) regardless of whether it is actually relevant to the people themselves. So yes, We react, because we don't think that pressure groups of any kind, regardless of the justness of their cause have the right to use other people's sexuality (or faith, or ethnicity...) as ammunition in their political debate. Now, the question is, do you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that Evans didn't consider his sexuality to be a public issue. He CHOSE to make it a public issue by sitting down on the record with several publications for in-depth interviews: London's Gay Times, The Advocate, QX Magazine and GaydarNation. Evans CHOSE to come out to the press, and not just once but on at least four separate occasions over a span of at least 2 years. He (or his handlers or someone else connected to him) chose to make it an issue again in 2010 by speaking with the British and Welsh press about the fact that he is now dating a woman. Once an actor chooses to make something public, it IS public and is fair game. I don't see how it is political to merely acknowledge the existence of articles that are part of the public record. And again, you have not addressed the issue of the criteria that are used to judge notability. Without some criteria, it is impossible to debate the notability of Evans' sexuality. And please do not assign motives to my comments. I am participating in this discussion because off2riorob encouraged me to. He said, "Please don't give up now, your contributions to this discussion are very beneficial."JoeBotX (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Still, no criteria by which to judge notability have been offered. AndyTheGrump and off2riorob have repeatedly asserted that Evans' sexuality is not notable, without ever explaining why. No standards or criteria by which to judge notability have been offered. No examples of what MIGHT make it notable have been offered. It appears that ultimately it is a purely arbitrary judgment, which explains why publicly "coming out" IS notable on some celebrities' Wiki pages but not on others'. Without any attempt to identify clear criteria, this ugly debate is likely to play out over and over again whenever a celebrity publicly comes out in an interview with a publication such as the Advocate.JoeBotX (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my summary of the arguments so far, with a few additions of my own:

• A) Evans’s sexuality is not relevant

1. Evans himself said he was gay and stated that it affected his career and notability

• B) Evans seems to have changed his mind about sexuality (or at least publicity).

1. A change in mind does not erase the period of his life. He moved from Crumlin to Aberbargoed, but Crumlin still gets mentioned. (Anne Heche’s same-sex relationship also gets mentioned.)

• C) Being gay is not encyclopedic notable. “His sexuality has not notably affected him in any way.” We don’t say people are straight.

1. Why is a few years in Crumlin encyclopedic notable?
2. Evans himself chose to make it notable on several occasions.
3. We mention paraplegic athletes because they are rare. We should mention out gay movie stars because they are rare. (The very fact that his handler is trying to cover it up reinforces this.)
4. Do you think that growing up gay with Jehovah’s Witnesses does not have an impact on his life?
5. Why are there countless examples for List of LGBT writers/films/Jews/etc?
6. Countless examples of LGBT people (Anna Paquin and Anderson Cooper are pretty comparable) mention sexuality. That's not OTHERCRAP; these are highly trafficked pages.

• D) Off2riorob removed highly sourced material from direct interviews with Evans, replaced it with unsourced material, and froze the article for BLP

1. It's not "notable." [but no rebuttal to his adding unsourced material]

• E) We shouldn’t force people out of the closet if he doesn’t want to talk about it

1. He DID talk about it and came out. That’s a verifiable fact.

• F) He hasn’t said RECENTLY that he’s gay

1. See B1

--Merrywanderer (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has unofficially "locked" the page on his preferred version for the past 6 months and has made 4 reverts which have repeatedly removed NPOV/RS information and re-inserted BLP-violating unsourced information. My good faith is waning. I believe Off2riorob wants to stall the discussion indefinitely by repeatedly asserting that it's "irrelevant" (an irrelevant assertion itself, huzzah!) and ignoring all challenges to his idea. He is repeatedly warning of a need for a "consensus" which is not the process with regards to a clear application of policy. Where BLP is not being violated, it is not a BLP issue. In light of that, I see these nonconstructive edits as blatantly disruptive. I think the BLP noticeboard is itself being abused to actually lock the page to suit an editor's personal preferences (irrespective of policy) and in fact, ironically, for some reason to keep unsourced information frozen on the page. Because a BLP discussion is going on doesn't give Off2riorob the right to maintain a personal version of the right page under the mistaken opinion that this is a "consensus" issue when it is a policy one.Zythe (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all. Even if you have a citation and you add it neutrally and without original research. Nothing apart from sexual labeling has been presented here to support this living persons sexuality is encyclopedic-ally notable. His sexuality has not notably affected him in any way. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well we have this BLP under discussion at the external citation as presented above and now this post at LGBT studies discussion page, looks a bit like not neutral canvassing to me - there is an attempt to de gay someone - quick get your pitchforks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, it has. He says so himself! And again, there's also external notability (e.g., new article on the subject here http://www.queerty.com/action-star-luke-evans-doesnt-realize-his-gay-past-is-all-over-the-internets-20110808/comment-page-1/#comment-474152). You're trying to say we need to come to a consensus because you think as long as you're unwilling to change your mind, the page will have to stay the way it is.Zythe (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No - as long as you're unwilling to give a valid reason why an actors sexuality is anyone's business but his, the page will have to stay the way it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Say what you mean, Andy: you want a valid reason why an actor's homosexuality is anyone's business but his. Do you have the same standard of inclusion for heterosexual actors? Should they be stripped of all information that relates to their being heterosexual? And how exactly does an actor make his homosexuality anyone's business but his if discussing it directly and openly in multiple interviews doesn't do it? And what Wikipedia policy or guideline supports the "no one's business but his" as the standard for inclusion? The standard for inclusion under BLP is met by multiple independent reliable sources that attest to the information. The reasons given for excluding it are unsupported by any policy or guideline and amount to a variation of "I don't think it's important." The subject of the article has said on more than one occasion that it is important from both a personal and a professional standpoint and he is a far better judge of what's important in his life than you are. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you make a habit of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot? Frankly, I think this indicates how little thought you have put into this. And by the way, I too have been a long-term supporter of gay rights - I merely believe that one of these rights includes not being co-opted against your will into a political campaign. Still, this is a Wikipedia BLP, so the opinion of the person concerned doesn't matter a damn... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you joking? Who exactly is co-opting anyone into anything against anyone's will? A real "long-term supporter of gay rights" couldn't rationally think that merely calling a gay person gay in a Wikipedia article is co-opting anyone or anything. Is listing off all of Britney Spears' marriages "co-opting" her for the straight agenda? Ridiculous. And unless you've personally spoken to Luke Evans, you can't possibly know whether he thinks his self-acknowledged homosexuality being mentioned in his Wikipedia article is good, bad or indifferent, much less whether he thinks he's been "co-opted" into something. I don't see a political or social campaign here on the part of the people wanting to include this verified, reliably sourced material to the article. What I do see is a campaign on the part of a handful of editors to suppress that information with no valid reason. "I don't like it" or "I don't think it's relevant" or "I don't think it's important" are not valid reasons for censorship.

I've been thinking about homosexuality since I figured out I was one almost 30 years ago, so I think I might possibly have a better understanding of what being gay means than someone who hasn't been.

Expecting the same standards to apply to both straight and gay biographies is not an accusation of bigotry.

Neither you nor anyone else here has offered a valid reason for censoring his homosexuality out of his article or for classifying his homosexuality as "controversial" when the same information about a heterosexual would not be. And even assuming for the sake of argument that a person's homosexuality is "controversial" BLP doesn't say that controversial information can't be included. BLP says that "contentious" information about living people must be removed if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. Luke Evans' homosexuality is not unsourced or poorly sourced. It is sourced to at least two reputable news outlets which offer direct, undisputed quotations from the subject himself stating that he is gay and why and how being open and honest about his homosexuality is important to him. Claiming that it violates BLP is intellectually dishonest. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So you don't think that Evans' choice not to answer After Elton's questions about his sexuality is of any significance here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

First, Evans did not choose not to respond to AfterElton. Evans' publicist refused to contact Evans regarding the inquiry. Second, I absolutely think that Evans' decision not to discuss his personal life and/or sexuality is relevant to the article and should be noted within it. That's why I suggested the proposed addition that I did. Put in a paragraph about his coming out and discussing the effect of his sexuality on his personal and professional lives, sourced to The Advocate and the other interviews, along with information about his no longer discussing his personal life including a quote from the publicist sourced to the AfterElton article. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see nothing in the AfterElton article to suggest that Evans' publicist refused to contact him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph from the bottom: "And his management would neither let me speak to Evans, nor provide a quote attributable to him." (emphasis added) I read that as a refusal to contact Evans but whether that's technically correct you still can't state as fact that Evans chose not to respond to AfterElton. That really makes little difference to the overall point, which you seem to have avoided yet again. The overall point is that this is verifiable information and no policy has been properly cited to prevent its addition. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Living subjects sexuality is not usually notable - Gay is normal and unworthy of inclusion unless additionally noteworthy - that has not been shown in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you are unable to cite policy which supports the exclusion of this information and so are once again falling back on the "noteworthy" thing. There is no policy issue. In your opinion the information shouldn't be included and in the opinion of other editors it should be. Since we are an encyclopedia dedicated to dispensing information and since there is no valid reason to exclude this information it should be included. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you have no evidence at all to suggest that the choice not to talk to AfterElton wasn't Evans'? And regarding policy, you seem to be under the misapprehension that 'inclusion' of verifiable information is the default. It isn't. It never has been. If you think there is a valid case for adding this material to the article, then make it - but don't paint everyone who sees things differently as a homophobic bigot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• (outdent) Oh for god's sake, it makes no difference to this discussion whether Evans personally instructed his representative about talking to AfterElton or not. This is a meaningless canard that has no bearing on the main question. As for policy, show me one that precludes the inclusion of this material. BLP doesn't. I've made the case time and again. The information is verifiable in reliable sources and can be presented neutrally as required by policy. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw this comment higher up: "Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all." That seems extraordinarily incorrect. The people whom biography subjects marry, an expression of their sexuality, is almost always included in an article if known. Likewise, when those who have sexual orientations different from the standard it is routinely a significant part of the coverage of them. While I don't think that every gay person who sings should be categorized as an "LGBT singer", neither should we go out of our way to exclude that information from the article text simply because it isn't the thing they are best known for. Otherwise, leading to the logical conclusion, we'd have to begin deleting from articles those spouses who are not "central" to the subjects' notability.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, marriage is notable and will be reported without question - whether they marry a man or a woman or Jesus. Your other position is a focus on a minority as notable - your assertion is that its usual to have a man with a woman and so we should report men that go with men - my position is diametrically opposed to you - imo its normal to be gay and unworthy of special reporting standards. - as I have seen its usual for activists and activist sites to focus on such but quality independent reports (such as wikipedia policy strives to be)don't even comment about it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's normal and unworthy of comment then why do people make a point of commenting on it? If I understand this case, the subject went out of his way to talk about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Its normal to be gay, do you dispute that? Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If by "normal" you mean "in conformance to an average", then no, it's no more normal than left-handedness, red hair, or any one of a number of other traits that define a person. It's not normal to be born in Spain either, but we routinely report the country of birth for subjects. Sexual orientation is a major factor in the nature of a person, and it inherently biographical information which should be included when known from reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's completely bogus. "Quality independent reports" routinely mention the sexuality of their subjects and this pretense that it's the purview of "gay activist sites" is nonsensical. And you say above that you don't think or care about gay issues. But you're supposedly familiar enough with the practices of gay media outlets to declare that they're infested with activists with agendas? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not bogus - I have experience of thousands of neutral editing here for over two years - you are a single purpose account with forty edits only focused on gay labeling. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And you think the number of edits you've made is relevant to my points about your arguments...how exactly? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

you are a single purpose account with forty edits only focused on gay labeling - what part of that don't you understand? Policy and guidelines have been repeatedly pointed out to you . Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop getting away from the point. It's not relevant what edits William's made. It doesn't make him any less of a contributor. I don't think anyone's disputing that being gay is normal. Can we just settle this already? This is the longest post on this page now, all over a pretty simple issue. He commented on being gay in reputable news sources, it's his personal life and should be under the appropriate section on the article, just as it is with every other out gay person's article. It's relevant, and like it was said above, it should only be challenged if it's unsourced, which it's most definitely not. Unless you are Evans' publicist who clearly doesn't want his sexuality to get out, you have no valid hitherto-undisproved reason for objecting. 130.130.37.13 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If being gay is normal (which it clearly is, by any reasonable definition of 'normal' other than that of Conservapedia) can't we just say that Evans is normal, and leave it at that? Or even better, since being normal isn't worth mentioning, not mention it: "it's his personal life" - not anyone else's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's his personal life which he chose to make public by granting at least three interviews in which he discussed his decision to be openly gay and the effects that being openly gay had on his life and career to that point. Whether or not gay is "normal" (of course it is) is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a BLP violation. There is clearly no BLP violation because the material in question is impeccably sourced to words spoken by the subject himself and to later news reports of his supposedly dating a woman. This was never a BLP violation. This was always a content dispute and should have been handled on the article's talk page. This should be marked as resolved with instruction to take the content discussion where it belongs. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments posted at the LGBT studies talkpage by User:Zythe - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Luke_Evans_dispute

An attempt to de-gay openly gay Luke Evans (actor) and freeze the page that way is under way at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luke Evans (actor). Please comment.

Further context, http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man and http://www.queerty.com/action-star-luke-evans-doesnt-realize-his-gay-past-is-all-over-the-internets-20110808/.

Once more, Wikipedia shows itself to be a pack of fools for whom facts mean nothing and Wikipedia's own policies can be blithely ignored by any ad hoc flashmob that comes along. Is it any wonder that serious authorities on a wide variety of subjects routinely ignore Wikipedia, and no respectable academic institution anywhere in the world will permit a student to use Wikipedia as a source?

Notability does not apply to material in an article. It applies only to whether the subject is notable. Therefore, to censor information in an article on grounds that it's not "notable" violates Wikipedia's policy. Here is Wikipedia's policy on notability: "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."

I don't expect this fact to carry any weight whatsoever here. You see, Wikipedia doesn't care about facts. Its rules are a joke. All that has ever mattered at Wikipedia is the whim of whatever flashmob will enforce whatever version it can agree on, without regard to what's true, or what conforms to Wikipedia's rules. People, you're a joke. You write, and edit, a children's book that no one in his or her right mind should, or will, ever take seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think anyone takes Wikipedia seriously, why bother to comment here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since Wikipedia is a children's publication read and edited by children, there's no need to ever care about anything written here, because there are no standards whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's always nice to see Wikipedia in the news for doing something like this. Having more people laugh at how idiotically bureaucratic our policies are. See Gawker for details on that. I know that people might want to be participating in bisexual erasure or something to that effect, but if Evans is truly dating Holly Goodchild, then he's bisexual. We're not going to call him that, of course, but it's annoying to see all of the arguing above being about how he's gay or straight and that there's no middle option.

Now, about the actual subject at hand. The information that was included in the article before was fine. Citing a statement from a BLP subject cannot violate BLP. Because the information is coming directly from the subject. Thus, if he directly stated that he was gay in the past in a reliable source, then we should include that statement. We should also include the well-referenced fact that he is dating Holly. Maybe even include a bit of Holly's quote from that source as well. But we shouldn't be whitewashing his BLP because he is dating a girl now. Without a direct statement from him one way or the other, we should be including both sides of the issue.

As for those talking about notability in terms of the gay information, the fact that in the past, him being gay played a large part in his acting career, as explained in references given above, shows that it is important to include his statement in his article. Silverseren^C 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. Can't we just go with this and get over this whole pointless, tiringly long argument already? It's information, it's there, it's cited, move on. 220.239.143.238 (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here here. There isn't a policy blocking this, just a couple of people who don't think sexuality "is noteworthy" (but who seemingly think where Evans went to sixth form is).Zythe (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Absent a statement from Evans that he's bisexual, his bisexuality can't be assumed. But you are otherwise absolutely correct as to how this issue should be handled. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just expressing my annoyance at the above arguments of "he's gay" and "he's straight", since those aren't the only options. Maybe he's pansexual with a proclivity for gay porn? That would also make sense. Silverseren^C 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that people view sexuality with far too much polarity. I just mean that we can't say he's bisexual unless he does. We can say he's come out as gay and we can say that he's reportedly dating a woman. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This is yet one more case in which Wikipedia is run by an ad hoc flashmob that is free to ignore Wikipedia's own policies, and the facts. In this case, the fact is that the actor gave an interview to the Advocate, a leading magazine, in which he discussed his homosexuality. That information has been censored here, in violation of Wikipedia's own rules. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has become a worldwide joke. Leading authorities on a wide variety of subjects have given up on Wikipedia, and there isn't a single respectable academic institution anywhere in the world that permits its students to source from Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, facts are determined by politics, and a "Lord of the Flies" mentality supercedes any and all policies or rules here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that only gay publications ever posted articles on his sexuality - the interview was some time ago (even if current articles relying on the one interview are found in a number of current gay publications) and the issue of WEIGHT is always present when categorizing people as to sexual orientation. Current feelings on BLP/N appear to indicate that categorizing people where the issue is not part of their notability in any way may well violate WP:BLP. If his notability is dependent on his sexual orientation, then a good cite would be from a mainstream reliable source, which hasnot been given thus far. This same discussion has been made anout nationality and religions of people, with the same position being taken that unless the matter is of some substantial improtance that such matters should (must) have strong mainstream reliable sourcing. Thus a magazine aimes at Gnarphians is a poor source for asserting that John Doe is one of that group, sect or nationality, even if it publishes an interview apparently saying John Doe is a Gnarphian. If a mainstream reliable source publishes it as a fact, then that would far better meet the strictures of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have the slightest shred of evidence that any of the sources which published interviews with Evans about being gay fabricated them, misquoted him, misrepresented him in any way or are in any way unreliable as sources, please present it now. The idea that a gay-interest publication must be held to higher standards when reporting on a gay-interest story is not only flat-out wrong, it is a gross insult to the hundreds of journalists who have worked diligently to secure their reputations for journalistic integrity. Sports Illustrated is not considered suspect as a source for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not a suspect source for economics articles. The New York Times is not a suspect source for articles about New York politics. In the absence of evidence that The Advocate or any other source is biased, the assumption of bias is itself a biased accusation of groupthink and agenda-pushing. It is sheer ignorance. It is unacceptable. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to declare him "gay." His interviews with the Advocate and other magazines should be quoted and linked. But that won't happen at Wikipedia, because Wikipedia isn't a reliable, ethical, or factual publication. Never has been, never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SS's proposal above. It's all notable and sourced, so include it all. Dayewalker (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011

"Notability" is irrelevant here. Wikipedia's own policy on "notability" says so. "Notability" applies to whether or not a subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, NOT to the contents of the article. But the children who have censored the article haven't even bothered to read, much less comply with, Wikipedia's own rules. Is it any wonder that serious people and academic institutions throughout the world laugh at this phony "encyclopedia" that has no regard for fact or even its own policies?

Have occurred with non-neutral canvassing being done on a LGBT project page etc. All those who come here as a result may well be disregarded as solicited !votes (sigh). BTW, the fact that a young person said he was gay, and later in life shows up with a girlfriend and with a publicist saying he will not comment on his sexuality now seems to me to indicate that the "gay" adjective may well be misplaced at this point in time. [3], [4], [5], seem to belie "gay" as a utile term for the person. Frankly if a person appears to change orientation, it is not WP job to freeze them into a category of sexuality. Anne Heche is a great example. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch the LGBT project page, so that has nothing to do with me (thus, i'm not solicited). Secondly, I agree that the original wording should be changed, it was stating it as a fact, when it should just be quoting what he said. But it should still be covering both sides of it and not ignoring the extensive amount of statements and things he was involved with in the past that were based on his original reported homosexuality. We shouldn't be stating anything as fact in terms of it, correct, but we also shouldn't be omitting information about it. Silverseren^C 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of canvassing are completely false. WP:CANVASS says, in a nutshell, "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." While the word "de-gay" may not be the most neutral word choice possible, the notification was a request to comment, not a request to weigh in against the deletion. It should not be assumed that all gay people share the same opinion on this issue. The very first example of appropriate notification is "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." The LGBT Wikiproject is directly related to the subject under discussion so notification is entirely appropriate.

Key in your opinion is the phrase "if a person appears to change orientation". That is not what has happened here. Evans has stated publicly on several occasions that he is gay. The act of dating a woman, if he is indeed dating her, does not prove anything about his self-identification. Categorizing him as gay based on his own statements is acceptable. Categorizing him as bisexual based on the act of dating a woman is original research. If categorizing him as "gay" is considered too appallingly inappropriate then he can go into the "LGBT" categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - I find absolutely zero recent statements from him that he is gay. And the CANVASSing was absolutely not neutral, and might lead to a WP:False consensus if you read the Arbcom principles and findings in the past. Lastly, WP:BLP states that contentious claims requires extremely strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that someone has to continually reassert that they are gay in front of the media every few years in order for it to stick? We would be referencing the fact that he stated he was gay in the past. If he makes a statement in the future that changes that, then we add in that changed information. But, in the past, his homosexuality was a fairly large part of his theatre and film career, as stated in his interviews. Silverseren^C 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The canvassing accusations are absolute nonsense. The most directly involved Wikiproject was notified of a discussion relevant to it and invited to participate. That's all. And there's no evidence anyway that anyone from the project even read the notice, much less have come here to participate. Continually saying that the canvassing guideline was violated is in my opinion beginning to border on a bad-faith attempt to influence the discussion by casting aspersions on one of its leading participants. And seriously, even if saying that a gay man is gay is "contentious", exactly how much stronger does the sourcing have to be for us to say that he has identified himself as gay than multiple quotes directly from the man himself? Whether he said it last week, last year or last decade, he still said it. Quotes don't have expiration dates. William Bradshaw (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A simple question. Do you believe that it is possible for people to change their sexual orientation over time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the way you phrased it, no. I believe in Kinsey's sliding scale of sexuality, that almost everyone is bisexual to one degree or another, even if they heavily favor one specific gender. So, in terms of what you're specifically asking, my answer is yes. And in terms of what you're asking about Luke Evans, I think that we should reflect what he has stated in the past, as we have no current statement on what his sexuality is. Therefore, we have no reason to believe otherwise than what he has stated, even if he has a girlfriend. For us to assume straightness or otherwise because of this girlfriend would be original research, as we are only meant to reflect the reliable sources as they are. Silverseren^C 03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether they can or they can't is not relevant to the discussion. The proposed addition is to include what Evans himself has said in interviews and actions that Evans has been reported to have done. It is indisputable that Evans has identified himself as gay through several news outlets. It is indisputable that reliable sources have reported that he is currently dating a woman. We are not suggesting returning to the "Evans is openly gay" version of the article. We are suggesting a version in which Evans' statements about his sexuality are included in a neutral fashion. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And in addition to that, the page should not be categorised under any category due to the discrepancy. We're not accusing him of being anything now. Everything is cited, true, and attached to a date. Wikipedia makes no BLP-violating pronouncements about the man. Only citing his own words back to him. However, refusing to include that the actor identified as gay because you personally find that incompatible with recent events is editorialising. It doesn't violate BLP, so why should Wikipedia care? It's not even a matter of privacy; these matters are not private, they are in the reputable press, and self-disclosed at that.Zythe (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole debacle showed up on a national cable television show (Chelsea Lately) earlier this evening. They mentioned The Advocate interview and how bad Wikipedia is coming off over this. I expect there will only be more coverage from here. So is it notable enough yet? Or are we going to continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines in order to perpetuate homophobia? 184.9.212.12 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)— 184.9.212.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Chelsea lately" is part of a tabloid television cable network which is not RS either AFAICT. Meanwhile, accusing all the large number of editors who oppose sexual categorization as homophobic does your case here no favours whatsoever. A mere mention about Evans is not a reliable factual source as to his sexuality. What you might be able to use it in is an article about how seriously Wikipedia edotors take the WP:BLP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You say you take WP:BLP seriously and yet I've just reread the page and I see nothing to suggest that including information from multiple sources that quote the actor's own words violates BLP policy. Can you please explain to me exactly what criteria you're using justify its exclusion. The BLP policy says that information must be from strong reliable sources and that is exactly what was done. The only mention of sexual orientation and its need for notability on that page is in regards to Categories which is another matter and not one that is currently being discussed. --AlbionBT (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)— AlbionBT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can you please respond to the argument that it's 1) Evans's own words 2) in multiple non-tabloid sources 3) which have not been disputed (dating a woman is not disputing that he said he was gay) 4) and actually have been tacitly affirmed (Publicist: "As for Luke, he [commented on his private life] once, a long time ago"). How can this possibly violate BLP? --Merrywanderer (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)— Merrywanderer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules. "NOTABILITY" is not something to be applied within an article, as per the Wikipedia guideline on the subject: "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 this is why the article has been censored. No wonder Wikipedia is so widely scorned. Not only do facts not matter here, but this place can't even follow its own rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this discussion, nor even read all of the back-and-forth here, but can we at least agree that there is no violation of WP:BLP involved here and that the argument is about exorcising editorial judgment? If there is a violation, can someone please explain in short sentences with direct reference to policy? This isn't going to end well. It is probably in Wikipedia's best interests to reduce the protection level on the article and work this out on the talk page with less polarized editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

That will not happen. Wikipedia has censored the article in violation of its own rules. This is far from the first time such a thing has happened at this phony children's encyclopedia, and it's far from the last time it'll happen. This is merely one more instance of the sort of disregard for fact and internal policy that has made Wikipedia a standing joke among serious people, and academics, throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 71.227.188.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your arguments would carry a lot more weight if you stopped insulting everyone. AlbionBT (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not insulting any people. I am insulting Wikipedia. It is a joke. Remember: Not a single responsible academic institution anywhere on earth permits either students or faculty to cite Wikipedia as a source. In popular culture, Wikipedia is typically the punchline to a joke. This isn't an "encyclopedia," it's a bunch of words thrown together by flash mobs of children with no respect for facts or for Wikipedia's own stated policies. Whether or not I am polite has nothing to do with the corruption right at the center of everything Wikipedia does. Oh, and even if the actor's homosexuality is restored to this article, it won't "fix" anything. The fact that there was ever an argument about this here shows that Wikipedia merely postures as an information resource. It can never be trusted by any responsible adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense - Experienced editors should be aware this thread and the article are mentioned off wiki on a gay chat thread and new users are showing up from there. Someone sexual preferences are not notable - unless they are massive, this subjects sexual preference is not notable - and jonny said he was a homosexual and then he dated a woman, really how encyclopedic-ally interesting - this is simply a matter of editorial control and respectable reporting about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? This issue has been reported in a large number of places and has generated a large number of tweets, more than just a 'gay chat thread'. AlbionBT (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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." But, you see, on this laughingstock of an "encyclopedia," the children who write and edit it can't even follow their own rules. Sad, irritating, and laughable, all in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That guideline appears irrelevant here as for the sad laughable children - don't get me started, please stop it with your attacking opinions, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why of course that guideline is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant too. After all, this is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This section starts with a false premise: All policies require editorial judgement. BLP requires more editorial thought, not less. I'm also not seeing any compelling evidence that the material in the "personal life" section is anything other than trivia. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything is trivia when it comes to celebrities. I never read any of that. Therefore Paris Hilton should be speedily deleted per BLP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that Off2riorob be topic banned from articles like this at WP:AN. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the request there and I have to say it was extremely poor judgement on your part. You don't jump to a topic ban because you don't like how your discussions with someone are going in one instance. Next time please explore more productive ways to work your problems out.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Aris Poulianos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Mms./Sirs:

Bellow you shall find my completed report to Ting Chen and Jimmy Wales about articles on pseudo-scientist Aris Poulianos, a LIVING known Greek Supremacy advocate who appears to have written, or contributed to the Greek article on your Greek Version himself.

However, I am asking you, in good faith to mediate with admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise" (FPS). FPS decided to remove an edit I did pointing to dubious education information about Poulianos on the English Poulianos article. Being that I was given the boot by the Greek admins on your Greek version for fowl language, which they started first with racist remarks, I am asking you to mediate.

My allegation against FPS in specific is, while she removed my edit, she also vandalized the article by removing the year when Poulianos had "supposedly" graduated, which was contributed, I presume, by another reader who contributed part about his education. Instead, she replaced it with an error, which again points to Poulianos and his family making the revision. In her comments about the deletion of my contribution she made the same "Queen's" College mistake Poulianos seems to make on his biography, on his own association's webpage, which should not be used for verification of Wikipedia articles on Poulianos.

FPS wrote "Cited source says it was Queen's College, New York (which became part of City University when that was established later)

explaining the deletion. But by deleting the date of 1948-1962, she VANDALIZED the article raising further suspicion she is an alias or an agent for Poulianos and his accomplishes.

Kindly advice and pursuant to regulation I want to discuss this with FPS, if you deem it appropriate, via emails because I have heard enough accusations from the Greek admins thus far. In the alternative, I ask you deleted all Poulianos's articles, pursuant to your rules because Poulianos is a living person embroiled in controversy and nonsense theories of Greeks being 700,000 years old!

Thank you in advance for your timely attention and response.

           Re:  Urgent - Wikipedia's Greek Edition Is Controled by Greek Supremacists

There's no indication that FPS vandalized the article, that I can see, so please be a little more careful in your accusations. Please also be careful what you say here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia) about Poulianos. There is a source cited in the article for the information about Poulianos' education, and that source uses the apostrophe in "Queen's" also. FPS said that source is where they got the information from, so your conclusion based on the apostrophe seems flawed. If you wish to email FPS, you would do so by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise ... I don't really see what else you are requesting to be done, or that there is any WP:BLP problem with the article in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Even under your theory, "Queen's" is wrong. See disambiguation about Queens College on Wikipedia. See also external website of Queens College, New York. The apostrophe is an error.

2. Wikipedia, Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The dates of when Poulianos studied in the U.S. were removed. This is vandalism, unless you are basing it on the source of the bio which indeed, does not mention dates. Accordingly, see further below.

3. Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." Claims of Greeks being 700,000 years older than modern man is sensationalism.

4. Wikipedia: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." The referenced bio is at

www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html

The site and bio belongs to the ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF GREECE. Its home page at www.aee.gr states clearly a "Non profitable scientific society, founded by Dr Aris N. Poulianos." The biography is published or is under the control of the subject himself. As such, it must be scrutinized and be held to a higher standard.

5. Wikipedia: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as [...] personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

The bio states "Since 1983 he becomes a target of cruel assaults by organized unscientific and anthellenic cycles, mainly acting through various state services." Self-serving and involves claims against and Greeks and the Greek government. Further, nothing is referenced in that bio and descriptions are generic.

6. Beyond, see footnote 12 on Wikipedia article, it states "ΣΤΗΝ ΤΡΙΓΛΙΑ ΧΑΛΚΙΔΙΚΗΣ ΒΡΕΘΗΚΕ Η ΑΠΟΛΙΘΩΜΕΝΗ ΚΝΗΜΗ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ 11 ΕΚΑΤΟΜΜΥΡΙΩΝ ΧΡΟΝΩΝ," no translation, it means "The Petrified drumstick of an ELEVEN (11) MILLION YEAR OLD Human was found In TrigLIa of Chalkidiki(!)" It is a tabloid story, humans did not exist 11 million years ago. You will not locate the article in the referenced link as it is written in a confusing manner, with English Characters but in Greek. Its translation by Google almost impossible.

Conclusion: I have done nothing wrong. I deny your allegations and I ask that the article is immediately removed or you permit me to ad the note that the validity of the article is in dispute. Are you O.K. with that? I am O.K. with (and I would actually prefer) you add the validity question.

Thank you.

Greek Mitch (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Just so, the apostrophe shouldn't be in the article.
2. in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia is the important text here.
3. The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that.
4. Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable.
5. As I said, it would be preferable to use independent material, rather than that self-published source. The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern.
6. That's not a great source either.

Perhaps you could suggest some better sources on the talk page for the article? Alternatively, if you feel that Poulianos is not notable enough for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia, you could nominate the article for deletion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In response:

A. "The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that."

HOWEVER, Poulianos has based his ENTIRE career on the fraudulent and racist claim. This is Poulianos's claim to fame, he created the sensationalism. Can you find any other other scientist advocating the 700,000 year old Greek? Because of this central theme, Poulianos BLPs in the various versions of Wikipedia are sensationalistically self-serving and ought to be fixed, if not deleted.

B. "Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable." The only reliable, independent source I found on Poulianos is because of the Article, see footnote 2, "Pontikos, Dienekes. Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes. September 2006." I went looking in it. It is very well written in English, it will take you 2 minutes to look up "Poulianos." Poulianos is mentioned 3 times over 16 pages as a antrhopologist who had conducted metrics on a wide sample of Greeks. Based on that paper, Poulianos's did not even use the term "Greek" for ancient Greeks but calls us a mix of "Aegeans" and "Epirotics" which means a mix of people of the "sea" and the "land." Is this a new discovery about Greeks? However, he found a mix of other populations up to 20-30% among us. Why is not this mentioned? Racist Greek Supremacy perhaps? And what do Poulinos's metrics have to do with his fictional 700,000 year old Greek?

If Poulianos was impartial, I would consider him reliable. Having watched him ranting for an hour against the government in a documentary (see Greek version article but documentary is Greek), he is not. By the way, the top Greek Court finally ruled against him recently. Hence, we must use reliable sources.

C. "The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern."

Read his bio again. He started his not-for-profit during the Greek Military Junta years in 1971. See Wikipedia article "Greek military junta of 1967–1974." He was supported by them. Now, he is fighting with a government democratically elected by the people. He claims the Junta prosecuted him but I can find any support for this claim as well besides Poulianos's own bio. However, all the extreme blogs that seem friendly towards the Junta regime and revising modern history, seem to support him. The same entities are also extremely anti-semetic. You have to take the bias into account because it is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources. Let's make it impartial. Then I shall take that result to the Greek and the other versions of Wikipedia. The people have a right to know about the controversy, particularly Greeks like myself. This can be the only objective source about Poulianos AND IT IS NEEDED!!! Your assignment, if you accept it, is to protect me when I am assailed. Because I am certain I will as I have already. Then, I can help with the Greek Wikipedia, where you guys need help desperately.

As for the reference about his education has to go. At least the part about being educated in the U.S. It is in doubt. Simply, the article can state "he is an anthropologist that has studied a wide sample of Greeks." Further, " Poulianos claims Greeks are older than Cro-magnon and Neanderthal while no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view." I am o.k. with just these two lines!

Is this a deal?

Greek Mitch (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources - which impartial sources did you have in mind?

no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view - Wikipedia doesn't report on what is not reported, it only reports on what is reported - or on what is reported not to have been reported. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

so far, two of the footnotes are impartial, one contradicts Poulianos's view, G. J. Hennig, W. Herr, E. Webert and N. I. Xirotiris. "ESR-dating of the fossil hominid cranium from Petralona Cave, Greece", Nature 292, 533-536

the other is the one from Ponticos, Footnote 2, see above.

also

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030544038290005X

"An early hominid skull found in Petralona Cave in Greece has been widely quoted by the archaeologist now excavating the cave as being about 700,000 years old. A recent volume of the journal Anthropos (Athens) carried several papers dealing with uranium series, thermoluminescence, ESR and palaeomagnetic studies on material from Petralona. Careful reading of these papers shows that there are problems with all these methods when applied to material from this site and that it is not possible at present to give an age for deposits in the cave. In this paper we discuss each technique in the light of current knowledge."

All views from blogs and Poulianos's own site must be eliminated, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines about higher scrutiny.

what is reported must come from objective sources and entities outside Poulianos's control.

Further, a Greek user alleged I cannot use articles from international versions of Wikipedia. ("Επιπλέον, η έκδοση του Γκρίκ Μίτς δεν έχει καθόλου πηγές για τα λεγόμενα της (οι άλλες βικιπαίδιες δεν αποτελούν πηγές) και δεν έχει καμία θέση σε άρθρο,"). This statement does not sound right but the 4 Greek admins involved did not object to it (that is why I question their impartiality). Is this correct, that I cannot reference other, international Wikipedia articles? I would like to reference the predominant theories on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal through Wikipedia articles, always in an impartial way. In other words, the bios must be stripped of anything that is irrelevant and under the control of Poulianos and radical bloggers.

However, most of bloggers quote your Poulianos's articles now! This is why the article must become objective.

Poulianos is questioning the evolution of the human race. How scientific is that?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

"Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day 1986)"

further http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/en/zalaczniki/upload23.pdf

and

"In 1960, Greece joined in the panoply of European archaic human sites, with the discovery of a robust but large cranium in a cave at Petralona. Dating this fossil has long posed a challenge, but most recently it has been estimated to be 200,000 years old. (See figure 28.9.) "

Lewin, Human Evolution.

All these studies that seem impartial do not mention Poulianos. Your call if it should be deleted, although you will be doing us a service if the article gets stripped of information provided by Poulianos. Certainly, the 700,000 year claim is not supported in these sources, unless

1. they quote Poulianos, or 2. they are written from a creationist point of view to contradict Darwin.

But Wikipedia cannot rely on those sources.

Greek Mitch (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Talking with you, I am beginning to understand how to edit the articles. For example, see where it says Poulianos is a member of a the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" in UNESCO. I just gave a call to UNESCO in New York. They have no Councils in UNESCO. The want to know more about Poulianos and they referred me to their Attorney in France. However, I cannot use that. Instead, I can either

A. Eliminate the sentence explaining in a note this is a fictitious entity within UNESCO. Or B. make a note the point is in question.

Can I do either?

HOWEVER, what I can do for certain is bring to the attention of UNESCO's that Poulianos uses Wikipedia to replicate the fabrication. It turns out the only sites that mention the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" are the ones mentioning Poulianos's Wikipedia Biography!

Greek Mitch (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By now you should have taken the initiative and changed the apostrophe. You admitted it. But you did not. This is 1 indication you will not upset other admins even if they are wrong.

I have forwarded this case to the associate counsel of Wikipedia, besides a direct email to Jimbo because I believe Wikepedia is denigrated by fraud perpetuated through Wikipedia and replicated throughout the web, while Wikipedia admins propagated it actively or by remaining indifferent.

Further appropriate course is that am alerting UNESCO as I was told by UNESCO to do, being that they do not have a "council" as Poulianos alleges and they are actively fighting scams involving their good reputation. Which means, they will ask Wikipedia about it. I presume the same applies to Queens College.

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia reeks with fraud that people like Poulianos create articles on Wikipedia to create a mythology about them for their own financial benefit. I remind you what happened on the Steven Colbert show, where Steven demonstrated how easy it was to pervert Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia administrators suspend anyone who brings all this to their attention.

Signing off suspended or not. Your loss, I save time.

Greek Mitch (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, serious case of tl;dr here (and I wasn't notified). Just for the outside readers: the biography of Aris Poulianos has in the past repeatedly been a BLP problem. The subject of the article is a archaeologist/palaeontologist of, let's say, unorthodox views, and the article has oscillated between glorification and ridicule at several points. Currently it seems to be keeping a relatively decent middle ground, but it is true that the detail of the biographical information relies heavily on the subject's own web page. The particular detail Greek Mitch picked out about the subject's early studies seemed to me to be a fairly harmless plausible mistake (the guy said on his webpage he studied at college X; our article had turned that into saying he studied at university system Y, when in reality college X had only become part of university system Y a decade or so later; there was also an overlap of one year between two parts of his biography that would appear mutually exclusive), but the overall gist of the biography seems plausible enough. The fact that he later studied in Moscow seems unproblematic, because (if I remember correctly) it was easily testable that he actually did his PhD there. – If somebody wants to cut back on the article on BLP grounds, I have no obejctions. Greek Mitch seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the subject of the article; partly understandably so (I might say I'd personally tend to agree with the view the guy is a charlatan), but obviously we run into a problem if we let him "fix" the BLP according to his liking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I find your response less than sincere because:

A. You deleted a date and you have not reinstated it.

B. The few objective footnotes added to the BLP are the ones objecting to the theory.

C. The ones supporting the BLP are primarily based on a study Poulianos conducted in 1981. THE BLP IS SLANTED.

D. You still do not know that Queens College does not take an apostrophe, why edit what you do not know?

My SLANTED AND BIASED GREEK VIEW (FEEL FREE TO DELETE): It hurts me, really I am bleeding, watching my fellow Greeks destroying ourselves. Based on neutral sources, the finding of the skull was of stupendous value! It is 200,000-300,000 years old and probably, I have share some of that person's genes. The problem is that a charlatan is usurping control over it and Wikipedia has become his free-ride vehicle for fraud. STOP HIM!

PROPOSE: In good faith, I will work with you to make ALL Poulianos's BPLs objective. Greeks must be able to have a balance view that does not rely on Poulianos. As for his education, the U.S. part be deleted on two grounds.

1. Confusion about when he attended and what school he attended.

2. According to the Greek BPL, he studied Biology solely in the U.S. while he is an anthropologist. Thus, we can eliminate it as irrelevant to the object of his career. I am o.k. with.

I am reasonable. Let me trust you are not associated with Poulianos. Because unfortunately, as an objective observation, on your discussion page, where I could not leave a message, I noticed several users with Slavic or Slavonic names had left you messages. That is another group Poulianos targets with his BPLs on Wikipedia. You may wish to dispel the notion of association with a charlatan. Let me know if you want a copy of the final letter to Wikipedia and their counsel and how to send it to you. Not a threat, just a fact what I have already done. It gives my view of what you did.

Greek Mitch (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh. LOL. Here on Wikipedia it seems it's my fate to be alternately identified as a member of the Turkish secret service, a member of a "Greek nationalist Wikipedia junta", a member of an Albanian tag-team, or somebody in the pay of the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Skopje ή όπως αλλιώς θέλετε πέστε την. Whatever. If you want to know what I think of that article, look at what I tried to do five years ago but failed to get consensus for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You may LOL, but I am not convinced about your impartiality.

I tend to look at facts. Instead of opinions, I looked up the type of articles you edit. That could give me an objective idea about you. You see, it hit me: why did you undo my change within 15 minutes, unless you have been guarding the article?

Ethnologically, you appear to be working on two groups of articles: Greek and Slavic. Further, you have been involved with the Poulianos article almost since its inception (I may be wrong but at least since 2006, you have worked on the article).

I wonder, why the interest? Is it a coincidence you have the same interests with Poulianos and his family about Slavs and Greeks ethnologically?

I do not understand your participation in the Greek dialects article that names Bulgarian as a dialect. Bulgrians being a group that Poulianos had determined similar to Greeks and culturally (not necessarily ethnologically), I believe they are extremely close to Greeks. The article that calls "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" Greek dialects should go, or has to be changed to "Languages Spoken In Greece." And there is no "Macedonian" language, not even a dialect. If anything, the FYROM language is an idiom, just like Greeks in Crete have an idiom, unlike the difference of Ancient and Modern Greek, which are dialects. See videos of Slavi Trivonov where he makes fun of the other Bulgarian "dialect."

Thanks for the / * code change. I took the liberty of changing something in what you said. I like the touch you added to it.

So, how come you share Poulianos's interests and why are you watching article? I may attempt to bring it in order, I am not sure yet.

Greek Mitch (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what, it takes you too long to answer. I will challenge you. I will edit the article and delete with explanations on every deletion. Let's see if you reinstate them. After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I am sure you will be hearing from Jimbo about this anyway, whatever you decide. I am under the impression some action was taken with the Greek admins.

Greek Mitch (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)