Talk:Neil Patrick Harris/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sexuality

does speculation about someone's sexuality really belong in an encyclopedia? (unsigned comment)

Officially has come out of the closet as of November 4th: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15553356/?GT1=8717.

I think that as long as speculation is called just that, it does have a place in an online encyclopedia.

yeah, that comment seems really out of place. i thought this was a place for information, not hearsay. Hamilton burr 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It's legitimate speculation. Plenty of other figures have pieces on their sexuality, and the long standing rumors have made enough impact to warrant a mention. --AWF

I also agree that mention of the speculation should be in the article however it does have to be carefully worded which is why I reverted the latest edits back to a previous version. Please help keep it clear that at present these are only rumours. -- Lochaber 18:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a stir recently at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy that included whether or not speculation and rumor belonged in a Wikipedia article. My position: "What I have been trying to do is determine the role "rumor and speculation" should play in Wikipedia articles...I think that clearly-labeled "rumor and speculation" should be allowable, at the very least because it contributes to the body of information an article provides. Whether or not this information is based in fact or fantasy is up to the reader to decide: if the rumor is clearly-labeled, he has been warned that the information may in fact be false. Knowing the fact that a certain rumor exists might open doors for further discovery, e.g. hearing that there may be a western passage from Europe to East Asia might prompt someone to look into it. As to the source of a rumor, I don't think it matters how reputable it is; anyone can hear rumors/make speculation...I'd rather give people the choice to believe -- as JCallender pointed out -- than presume to take it from them. If JCallender's grandfather wrote an article about how he heard that Coca-cola could power rocket ships, I could quote that in a rumors section, I think, without leading people to challenge the integrity of an article about rocket fuel. I think that reaching concensus about "rumor and speculation" would contribute to article integrity, much more than does picking and choosing whose rumors to believe and dismissing sources...without due consideration."
While the subject matter is valid if printed by reliable media, I removed the rumors and innuendo that existed in the article, due to lack of citations. Wikipedia's guidelines are unambiguous. Read them at Wikipedia: Verifiability and Wikipedia: No original research.
4.228.216.205 19:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I must say, I'm very uncomfortable about this new verifibility / cite sources business. Sure there is a lack of citation in this article but you and I and everyone who edited that part know that whether he's gay or not there is speculation on his sexuality and by removing that paragraph we have removed real and verifiable information from Wikipedia because no one has put a point to a URL beside it. It just doesn't sit well with me.
And how much proof do you need to know that there is speculation, at the very least it's on message boards all over the internet. Is this enough to confirm it? [1] (last couple of paragraphs) -- Lochaber 18:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If speculation is to be stricken from every Wikipedia article, not only will entertainment articles suffer loss, but also those concerning science, philosophy, history, etc. Clearly-labeled speculation and rumor, regardless of how we feel about the source, can be useful in an article. As I stated above, knowing that speculation exists can lead to future discovery of factual information. Also, just because one doesn't like/agree with a source -- and just because one doesn't think a source is verifiable -- doesn't mean its speculation aren't somehow useful in description, discussion, or future research. For example, if it is a FACT that a scientific journal published by Nazis printed that they believe it may be provable that Jews are biologically inferior, then it would merit inclusion somewhere in an appropriate article regardless of the majority opinion about Nazis, Nazi scientists, or Nazi science journals; a description of Nazi science suffers without the inclusion of a description of their speculation. In this case, too, if it is a FACT that a tabloid printed Neil Patrick Harris is gay, then whether or not we like tabloids or doubt their reliability, a discussion of Neil Patrick Harris's public image suffers if lacking mention of this speculation by a major national publication that was read by at least hundreds of thousands of people. Turly-burly 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Upon further review of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Sources of Dubious Reliability":
"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ..."
Note that in this example, a tabloid is cited, as its use is justified in that what it adds to the article is "relatively unimportant", i.e., what it adds is important. The sexuality of an individual is important biographical information.
And at Wikipedia:Weasel words:
"The following is just as weaselly: "The president's critics have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate." If we add a source for the opinion, the reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability: "Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush asking, 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'" (My emphasis)
In this example, a cited opinion is left intact in the article in order to let the reader decide what they will believe. Turly-burly 09:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind: We are talking about a living person who can sue for libel or defamation, and thus rampant speculation lacking citations (as has appeared previously in this article) is inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, in particular (emphasis mine) "Editors must take particular care with writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity as well as strict adherence to our content policies...We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives." Also read Wikipedia:Libel. Finally, near the bottom of the page of the Wikipedia: Verifiability article is an important guideline: "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it."
4.228.213.152 12:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is citation of another person's printed speculation libel? It is not stating anything slanderous as if it were fact, nor is it stating that Wikipedia wants other people to believe any certain thing concerning NPH's sexuality. I don't think stating that speculation exists concerning sexuality is the same thing as printing "NPH is gay", which could be slander. Turly-burly 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, it is up for the justice system to decide. You may want to look at the Wikipedia article "accessory (legal term)", which states "An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal." Thus, anybody believed to be an accessory could certainly be named as a co-defendent in a lawsuit and have to participate in a trial to determine their innocence or guilt.
4.228.213.92 22:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I made the latest revert, and it will continue until it is sourced at the bottom of the page by anyone that would be considered reputable (i.e., His own press release, the NYT, AP et. al.). If this occurs, the basic reason for the revert will move to appropriateness in talk pages by most patrollers. TKE 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I refer to my earlier postings. While I agree that the article should not include lines saying that he is gay, I don't see why the article should not make mention of the fact that there is speculation as to his sexual orientation. This is a fact, whether he is gay or not. To me anyway the article that I cited earlier is clear proof that there is speculation, in particular about his relationship with David Burkta. Can it be used? [2] (last couple of paragraphs) -- Lochaber 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
When reviewing any article I ask myself, "Would this be in Encarta? Or Britannica?" or any of the others. Right now speculation is speculation, and even referencing the sites you did fail to show importance. The sites are LGBTG run, not independant news sources. If he is homosexual, it hasn't effected his acting work or shown any signs of political activism. Should this be an active part of his professional life, specualtion would be worth a mention in the article. As it is not currently, leave the page alone. The enclusion of the quote on his homosexuality appears on many pages on vandalism. I reference all of you to the "History" page for the article and check out the contributions [3] of the latest IP to change the page. It just invites trolling, I think. TKE 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And BTW, I'm hard pressed to think of any celebrity in my life that I haven't seen labeled as rumored gay at some time. I think my ultimate point is that like every other person, unless you chose to make your sexuality a large part of your life, that it is private. Activism of some sort would acknowledge that you open up your personal life for public debate, but this is not the case here. TKE 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not people like the fact that speculation exists doesn't change the fact that it does exist. Whether or not the subject under speculation is private doesn't change the fact that it exists. And until NPH threatens legislation, why deprive the readers of the encyclopedia of useful facts pertaining to NPH's character? And by this public forum's very nature, if NPH doesn't like what it says, can't he change it/have it changed? No one is stopping him. I think it's dangerous to strike speculation, dangerous to shape content to please one person, and dangerous to be so presumptuous as to decide for the reader that certain information, though available, isn't important. Turly-burly 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think my post made it clear that I was being very specific as to what kind of speculation is important. I read your previous comment on the topic and I agree with you. My point is, based on standing in line at the grocery store, I can come home each week and tag eight articles with speculation that the person is homosexual. If a person wants to find out if someone is rumored gay, they have plenty of non-academic resource on the internet. To reiterate my point: unless a person makes their sexuality matter, than the information is trivial and frivolous and not academic, encyclopedic pursuit. Wikipedia has enough issues with this (ref. Special:Newpages). TKE 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to hammer away, but this really should be put to rest and I think I have a good example. King James was homosexual, though there was not "coming out" in the 17th century. It is an important speculation academically, because of favoritism he gave his proported lover, the Duke of Buckingham. He made serious blunders because he loved another man, just as other kings failed over love of a woman. The sexual preference isn't the issue, it's the surface that people see. The issue is the consequences of the actions based on love, no matter the sex. If Neil Patrick Harris is homosexual, that is decidedly unimportant to an encyclopedia. TKE 01:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you can tell that current speculation about NPH won't be historically important in the future, nor do I know how you know that current speculation about NPH won't lead to the uncovery of more definite (or more interesting) information. Furthermore, it would have been vastly helpful, as a courtier of King James the I, to know that he was possibly in love with the Duke of Buckingham; however, if I were looking in Wikipedia: 17th Century for helpful information concerning my king, under your rules such speculation wouldn't be there, and I wouldn't be as well off as I would have been had I access to a more comprehensive Wikipedia. Turly-burly 02:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You make a valid point, one which I respect and understand. The discussion here is actually very good for such a topic on a talk page. To me, as a changes patroller and a historian, the discussion should left to the talk pages until more substantive evidence is gathered. It's a problem for what's to be an encyclopedia, weeding out the history. Lizzie Borden has a mention of her being a spinstress and a proported lesbian, but we do have 150 years between us as well as historical research and documentation. In other words, if someone wants to know that much about NPH, a fansite is more appropriate than an encyclopedia, which should give you salient details that are known at this point in time. TKE 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh and it was known at the time about the king, there are jests about him in private diaries. Print media just wasn't up to par yet to feed us ;) TKE 02:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How do we know he doesn't appreciate being asked questions about his sexuality? If he said it in an article, include a citation. If he said it to the person or near the person who added the statement "he doesn't appreciate being asked questions about his sexuality", it's original research. If it's NPH himself, it's not only original research, it's autobiography. I am removing the statement concerning NPH's preferences concerning have his sexuality questioned pending further research. Saying someone definitely has a certain feeling is more libelous, in my eyes, than saying that speculation exists concerning a person's sexual orientation. Turly-burly 06:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's a good example as to why leaving it out all together per verifibility. Good to see an agreement from both sides. TKE 06:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the quote we do have says: "rather than ignore those who choose to publish their opinions without actually talking to me, I am happy to dispel any rumors," which suggests that he prefers to be asked directly.

Since he went public this week about his sexuality, does it even really matter? Personally, I see no reason to even bring something like this up. After all, nobody has discussions on Abraham Lincoln being Heterosexual, so I see no reason to discuss a person being Homosexual. Unless they themselves have brought it up. 72.161.216.93 16:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

People talk about Abraham Lincoln's marriage and earlier romances all the time. (unsigned comment)

We need to not interject our personal points of view into a debate - deciding whether or not to add something because of whether you think it's appropriate or not, or whether the person in question will "appreciate" it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a fan page, or a form board for opinions. It is a repository for information. Although obvious unsuppoted speculation should NEVER be here, there are times where news reports indicate that the speculation is growing, or buzzing, and if something is stated in a verifiable news source, or is being widely discussed for a long period of time (think Whitney Houston) it merits at least a brief mention in the article.

So this article could have taken one of three tacks:

  • Prior to any printed information about his sexuality, there should have been no mention of is. Because, as the blurb under your edit windows clearly states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".
  • At the juncture where it may have been reported, but unsubstantiated, in the press (ie, mentions in tabloids or in gossip columns), a brief mention of the speculation, along with a citation of where it was printed, may be acceptable. This is a little more of a gray area, but I think if it had run in Liz Smith, or on the Village Voice website (versus, say, the National Enquirer), then it could be added. The sentence after the brief mention would need to say something like, "Harris has neither confirmed nor denied such speculation."
  • Now that he's come out, what is in the article is appropriate - a brief mention of where the information is found, and a quote from him.

Just my two cents on this whole debate. NickBurns 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everything's pretty clearly stated, in media and Wiki now (well-cited), don't you all agree? Mowens35 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Gay

Gay. Smootsmoot 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for that one-word sentence there - how informative. Are you going to tag every gay actor's talkpage as gay? Perhaps instead, you could add the correct category to their article. NickBurns 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof that he is gay. He just claims to be gay, but we know that John Mark Karr claimed to kill JonBenet Ramsey and that wasn't true. Harris should not be in any gay categories until it is proven a fact. 75.2.250.145 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a pretty ridiculous stance to have. What will it take to satisfy your quest for 'proof'? Other than him, rather publicly and proudly, stating that he is - do you require photographic evidence or perhaps you want independent third-party lab testing of his Santorum samples? -- wtfunkymonkey 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. he VERY PUBLICLY came out as a gay man just this week. NickBurns 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is still no proof. He could claim to be an African-American, would that mean he would go in the African-American category? 75.2.250.145 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say "worst effort at trolling ever" but you seem to have caught a couple people, so...go you. 68.164.190.110 03:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
So...do you want him to be gay, or not? I'm guessing not. Tell us what you need here. Be specific. What sort of proof would you believe? I'm genuinely curious. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, you could just ignore all this. Otherwise you will get into an argument to no purpose, and which will not benefit Wiki in any fashion.Mowens35 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to start an argument, and I won't continue the discussion should 75.2.250.145 attempt to engage in one with me. As I stated, I'm genuinely curious what sort of proof would suffice, for future reference in such disputes. As for your opinion of what "will not benefit Wiki in any fashion", I'll have to judge that for myself, based on policy, and on the words and deeds of those whom I trust to light the way. But thank you for your opinion. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 16:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as any of us should be concerned, in this and any other case, is the subject's public announcement that he is what he is, properly cited. If he changes his mind, then we'll just change the article to reflect that. Seems simple enough. (And the argument starting comment wasn't directed at you, but at the anonymous poster.)Mowens35 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. That'll teach me to post before having a shower, bagel, and some tea. Heh. Please accept my sincere apology. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 18:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange that Wikipedia usually requires proof for the website, but in this case, it's not important. Let's change the wording to point out that Neil Patrick Harris claims to be a gay man, but until that is proven, we can not say it is a fact. 75.2.250.145 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm even trying, but would the word "told" instead of "confirmed" get you to stop posting on the discussion page?Mowens35 20:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ignore it and perhaps it will go away. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
According to User:75.2.250.145's talk page, they are actually User:Joehazelton, a permanently blocked user with a history of unbalanced and flagrant violations of WP policy. Seeing as this person has lost their Wikipedia privileges, it would seem to be a waste of our time to even engage them, much as Mowen35 previously posted. I think the process has begun to permablock IP 75.2.250.145, so all we have to do is ignore them. Oh, and if Neil says he's gay, he's gay. Any "proof" would certainly be no one's business save Neil's. Period. Paragraph. End discussion*. * Ended for me, anyway. Ha. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

weirdactor, that is not true. I have no idea who that person is. Someone accused me being him because of one edit I made out of many. That user has since apologized to me for the accusation. I now ask that you too always apologize to me. 75.2.250.145 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a user name and use it, so we can all be on the same playing field.Mowens35 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

weirdactor should use some common sense and not make a baseless accusation.

Wikipedia should also care about facts and acknowledge that there is no proof that Neil Patrick Harris is actually gay. 75.2.250.145 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just be aware that vandalism in the face of verified facts/statements will be dealt with swiftly. Mowens35 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)