Talk:Ian Somerhalder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Lost.


Contents

[edit] Sexiest man?

This (he simply replied, "Miss Black keeps me young I guess.") looks like vandalism to me. Cn anyone even find a reference that he topped this poll? Amo 11:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You got it, vandalism. Thanks for noticing that. Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't his cats showing up?

They're there if you click to edit it, but they're not showing up on the article. Why is this? Can someone fix it? Michael 22:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They weren't showing up because someone messed up the reference they were adding about the gay magazine. I also removed Multiracial Americans, pending a source that describes him as Multiracial. Mad Jack 06:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumored Homosexual

Quiet rumors all over Hollywood and elsewhere has it that Ian Somerhalder is a (very) closeted homosexual. The whole "gay hater" status of his is undeserved and is simply a coverup for his true sexual orientation. This might be worth mentioning in the article. --64.12.116.204 05:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't publish speculation. Michael 07:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
And if such speculation exists, some may be lended to the fact that on Law & Order: SVU, he played a guy who raped and manipulated his brother. Either way, we do not publish that which is gossip or that which is unsourced (and baseless). Michael 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why is it that the line "Since fall of 2005, he has been rumored to be dating actress Maggie Grace, who played his stepsister, Shannon on the ABC TV series Lost" is included? That seems like a double standard... Somebody should either remove it, or add a line that includes the aforementioned homosexual rumors. Personally, I'm in favor of the former, except that then there would be nothing under the sub-heading "Personal Life"...


Right but the connections with Maggie Grace were all over the media, on the news even, and for a few hours I even remember it being the top headline news (slow day I know) on Yahoo. Speculation? Maybe, but wide-spread speculation.

The only homosexual speculation I've heard is on message boards, which can't even remotely be used as a source for anything. ~TheJudge310

[edit] Homophobia

This part of the article is "scratchy"! It seems whoever wrote it is confusing homophobia with heterosexuality.

Just because a man doesn't want to kiss another man does not make him homophobic, it makes him heterosexual! His "velcro" comments could be constued a number of ways, but in fairness, I don't think this kind of allegation should be aired. I think this whole section of the article is slanderous, and it should be removed, or at least renamed "Ian's thoughts on kissing men", which would be much fairer. Mikenosilly 07:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I completely agree. Not too bash anyone of homosexual preferance, but how sensitive do you have to be to be offended by his comments? If he was homophobic, he'd of never done the scene. I'm not homophobic either, but I'd also get a bit queezy kissing a man! That's just called being straight. I've heard homosexuals also describe kissing a woman as "gross", or lesbians say kissing men is disgusting, but does that make them "hererophobic"? No. I think this section should be competely removed. ~TheJudge310

No it's not being called "straight" it's being called being a pussy. Allegedly straight females in Western socities sadly and disgustingly have no qualms kissing each other do they. Personally I wish they would act their preference the dumb "gay" acting sluts!

I agree as well, and just for the record, my wife often doesn't want to kiss me when my face is too scratchy -- however she loves kissing me!  :-) WikiTracker 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think his referring to it as "inherently wrong" is his most telling statement, and the fact that he publicly responded to the issue makes the subject notable enough for that section's inclusion if for no other reason.216.99.229.93 08:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes but of all the things that have happened in his career, was that honestly the most notable? There are no notes of his response to being kicked off Lost, his response to dating Maggie Grace, his reponse to a thosand other things, yet a third of his page is taken up by this homophobia crap. TheJudge310 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The topics you refer to seem pertinent and therefore as far as I'm concerned, information about them could just as soon have a place in his article--although the flap due to his controversial statement(s) has, for better or worse, apparently been a career "highlight", annoying though that actuality may be to some. If you feel information on those other topics is at least as worth mentioning then by all means, please go ahead and add it. But its current absence doesn't warrant removing existing material, exasperating as its subject matter seems to certain people. (In particular, apparently, to those who would employ the use of phrases like "homosexual preferance" and "homophobia crap".)64.48.234.10 22:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a homophobic little bitch no matter how he tried to wriggle out of it. What is "inherently wrong" about kissing someone for Christ's sake?! I'm sure this sexist homophobic sack of shit does not think it is "inherently wrong" for a couple of lesbians to get it on now, does he. Even though it is extremely nasty for lesbians (dykes) to engage in sexual activity (not to mention a crime against nature) according to most liberals same-sex behavior is never "inherently wrong" amongst consenting adults. What we have here is one of those liberal sexist nazi bastards who thinks dyketry is perfectly acceptable while faggotry is not.

  • I think the section is definitely newsworthy, but there are more words in this section that the entire rest of the entry. I think people are putting too much weight on "inherently wrong". He could just be suggesting that it's "inherently wrong" for people who are not sexually attracted to kiss, which isn't such a ridiculous suggestion. The part that says "Some alleged" is unsourced. I have added another unsourced paragraph in the interest of keeping this even handed. If my paragraph must be removed, then so surely must all other comments for this section. Mikenosilly 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, Somerhalder didn't "suggest" (as you wrote in what you added to the section) he was uncomfortable kissing a man. His statements about his discomfort were frank and unambiguous. But that's a moot point.

The section doesn't state that he is homophobic, only that some have alleged it based on his comments. It is up to others to form their own opinion based on those comments. The article simply states, with citation, that some people have interpreted his comments as homophobic, and provides the comments that those opinions were/are based on.

The paragraph you attached does not add anything except redundancy to the section, because it is already made clear through Somerhalder's own quotes that he did not enjoy the experience. Numerous articles, one of which is used as a citation in the section, have stated that some members of the public found his statements provocative/controversial. Your statement provides no published citation at all. Thus, there is no logical basis for removing anything else from the section based on the removal of what you submitted.

To summarize, what you added has been removed for both a lack of published citation compounded by redundancy.65.65.115.162 05:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


The comments about "allegations" him being homophobic are not sourced either, so I will remove them shortly unless you can explain why they should stay. And sign with a user name that you can be contacted on if you want to be taken seriously. Mikenosilly (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all, claims about reactions to Somerhalder having made allegedly homophobic comments were there in his article long before anyone had even added a source or any of his quotes about the subject. You've made it clear that you have a problem with Somerhalder even being considered (possibly) homophobic, and have both advocated and attempted on numerous occasions the removal of as much content as possible which illustrates that homophobia was alleged as well as the reasons why that was the case.

You stated in your edit summary that you "removed unsourced allegations". What you removed were not allegations themselves (which would be inappropriate for Wikipedia), it was information about the allegations. The reason that what you removed should stay, besides the aforementioned, is because contrary to what you stated above, it was sourced (and the source intimated that the allegations were overblown). You simply removed the citation along with the rest of the content. Removing sourced material, and on top of that, using a false claim as an excuse to do so, does not constitute a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia; it's vandalism. Unregistered editing being "taken seriously" by you has nothing do with removing sourced material which would allow readers to look further into the issue to better decide for themselves whether the allegations were warranted or not, and indeed has nothing to do with being mindful of Wikipedia's rules and purpose as an encyclopedia in general.66.141.176.255 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


When did I removed sources? I had another look, and your addition seems fine. But originally the article was hijacked, which is why I removed the unsourced stuff. I would have preferred the quotes to speak for themselves. Just because some idiot says he's homophobic doesn't mean much. There are plenty of idiots accusing every man and his dog of all kinds of things, but does that mean they should all be listed on Wikipedia? No, probably not. This one was newsworthy though, so deserves an inclusion. --Mikenosilly (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)