Luke Evans - not as gay as previously believed Options

[carbuncle]

Luke Evans (actor) is currently fully protected due to a dispute about Evans' sexuality. There seems to be no question that Evans is openly gay, just about whether or not WP says he is gay. Although WP was happy to label Jay Brannan as gay for years despite his objections, this seems to be going to the other extreme as can be seen in this BLP noticeboard thread.

It has hit the blogs already here:

• Hollywood’s Next Big Action Star Is Gay
• Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist Tries to Get His Story Straight
• Action Star Luke Evans Doesn’t Realize His Gay Past Is All Over The Internets

This should be interesting...

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Is Off2riorob an editor like Scott MacDonald who is policing Wikipedia for BLP violations, or is it more complicated than that?

[Cla68]

Is Off2riorob an editor like Scott MacDonald who is policing Wikipedia for BLP violations, or is it more complicated than that?

As far as I know, he's simply trying to help Scott MacDonald police the BLPs. It's dumbfounding how much resistance he and Scott get to their efforts. If WP's administration was serious about taking care of BLPs, it would give immediate blocks to any editor who revert wars with Scott or Off2 in a BLP.

[Silver seren]

Is Off2riorob an editor like Scott MacDonald who is policing Wikipedia for BLP violations, or is it more complicated than that?

As far as I know, he's simply trying to help Scott MacDonald police the BLPs. It's dumbfounding how much resistance he and Scott get to their efforts. If WP's administration was serious about taking care of BLPs, it would give immediate blocks to any editor who revert wars with Scott or Off2 in a BLP.

*laughs* No, they're trying to control BLPs. They've been doing that for the longest time. Any edit they make to a BLP, I immediately question what their motive was behind it.

The BLP policy is mainly so that rumors and other damaging info like that isn't included from sources that aren't very reliable. When a BLP subject openly admits to info such as sexuality (or race, ethnicity, ect.) in an interview, than that is information to include, especially when it seems like in this case the subject's sexuality is an important part of his acting career.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[lilburne]

It is no one's business except for wiki-wankers what goes on behind closed doors in the privacy of one's bedroom.

[Silver seren]

It is no one's business except for wiki-wankers what goes on behind closed doors in the privacy of one's bedroom.

Privacy would be true, if he hadn't openly admitted to it in an interview, thus purposefully giving up his privacy. And considering the interview he gave about his collection of gay porn, it's obviously something that doesn't bother him all that much for people to know about. There's a difference between secret pictures or rumors being discussed in tabloid magazines and this situation. The subject has been specifically open about it, so the issue of privacy is neither here nor there.

This is likely all a big PR thing so as to save his "reputation", which is a bit insulting in and of itself.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[Jagärdu]

It is no one's business except for wiki-wankers what goes on behind closed doors in the privacy of one's bedroom.

Privacy would be true, if he hadn't openly admitted to it in an interview, thus purposefully giving up his privacy. And considering the interview he gave about his collection of gay porn, it's obviously something that doesn't bother him all that much for people to know about. There's a difference between secret pictures or rumors being discussed in tabloid magazines and this situation. The subject has been specifically open about it, so the issue of privacy is neither here nor there.

This is likely all a big PR thing so as to save his "reputation", which is a bit insulting in and of itself.

Insulting? Only if what you assume is correct, and you have no basis for such an assumption. What if he pretended to be gay 10 years ago as opposed to pretending not to be gay now? What if he was always bisexual, but claimed to be gay 10 years ago because it was easier? I agree that the more probable explanation is that for some reason his publicists have told him not to play up the gay angle (not to refute it, but also not to be open about it) for some reason. Maybe it is still harder to get certain roles if you are openly gay? But that's just what *seems* most likely to me. The ambiguity that he has cast upon his sexuality now, quite on purpose, makes it difficult for anyone to say emphatically that he is gay or straight, or bi. The reactions you see at the BLP/N seem pretty standard to me in such a situation. BLP is designed to be conservative and cautious about these types of things.

It is also notable here that those who are opposing Off2riorob and Andythegrump are quite clearly pushing an agenda, and have little to no concern about the issue in terms of any one's privacy. They just want more gay rolemodels in the world. Period. When this becomes clear people like Andy and Rob are going to be even more firm in their approach. That's the nature of the game.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[lilburne]

It is no one's business except for wiki-wankers what goes on behind closed doors in the privacy of one's bedroom.

Privacy would be true, if he hadn't openly admitted to it in an interview, thus purposefully giving up his privacy. And considering the interview he gave about his collection of gay porn, it's obviously something that doesn't bother him all that much for people to know about. There's a difference between secret pictures or rumors being discussed in tabloid magazines and this situation. The subject has been specifically open about it, so the issue of privacy is neither here nor there.

This is likely all a big PR thing so as to save his "reputation", which is a bit insulting in and of itself.

Maybe he took the Bachmann cure.


Whether he is gay, bi, straight, or whatever, ya'll should stop with the stoopid labelling. Its not big, and its not clever, it just makes you look like some fuckwit.

[Jagärdu]

Now Silver is calling Gawker "the news", and claiming some sort of smug satisfaction of the fact that this top notch "news" outlet is poking fun at Wikipedia for being "idiotically bureaucratic". How old are you Silver? Gawker is an online tabloid, not "the news." The news couldn't care less if this guy was gay, straight, bi or into furry fandom. This fight is now spilling over onto one of Wikipedia's bigger problems, which is the slow process of turning a reference source into a collection of completely meaningless trivia by gossip hounds, fans and hobbyists. The problem with crowd sourcing is that the crowds are often interested in complete crap.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Silver seren]

The "labeling" would be improper if it was just speculation or if he had never stated anything about it. However, it's not based on any rumors, he outright discussed it fully in multiple interviews. Thus, his statement should be included. And to remain neutral, you should also include the current info that he is dating Holly.

[Jagärdu]

The "labeling" would be improper if it was just speculation or if he had never stated anything about it. However, it's not based on any rumors, he outright discussed it fully in multiple interviews. Thus, his statement should be included. And to remain neutral, you should also include the current info that he is dating Holly.

Once again, what if he were bi 10 years ago, and found it safer simply to say that he was gay? What if he were bi or even straight and he found it advantageous to say that he was gay because at the time he was doing musicals (and not action films)? You assume that he is gay and now hiding that fact for professional reasons, yet that assumption has no more evidence to back it than any number of others (e.g. the two I made above). What this comes down to is gay politics, pure and simple. He said he was gay and he's a role model so gosh darn it we're not gonna let him get away with trying to be anything else!

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/posnegbiasbiographies.png)

[Milton Roe]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/posnegbiasbiographies.png)

This is too thick for a pie chart. I would call it a cheese or cake chart.

Mmmmmm. Caaake. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[lilburne]

The "labeling" would be improper if it was just speculation or if he had never stated anything about it. However, it's not based on any rumors, he outright discussed it fully in multiple interviews. Thus, his statement should be included. And to remain neutral, you should also include the current info that he is dating Holly.

(IMG:http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/001.jpg)

[A Horse With No Name]

This is too thick for a pie chart. I would call it a cheese or cake chart.

Mmmmmm. Caaake. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Mmmmmmmmmm...cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Ursula_Andress_as_Honey_Ryder_crop.jpg)

I bet The Adversary looks like this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Silver seren]

The "labeling" would be improper if it was just speculation or if he had never stated anything about it. However, it's not based on any rumors, he outright discussed it fully in multiple interviews. Thus, his statement should be included. And to remain neutral, you should also include the current info that he is dating Holly.

Once again, what if he were bi 10 years ago, and found it safer simply to say that he was gay? What if he were bi or even straight and he found it advantageous to say that he was gay because at the time he was doing musicals (and not action films)? You assume that he is gay and now hiding that fact for professional reasons, yet that assumption has no more evidence to back it than any number of others (e.g. the two I made above). What this comes down to is gay politics, pure and simple. He said he was gay and he's a role model so gosh darn it we're not gonna let him get away with trying to be anything else!

If he makes a new statement himself about being bi instead, then it will super-cede the prior statement and the old interviews and how it affected his career can then be discussed while saying he is bi. (If he speaks about it and says he's straight, I have no idea how to rectify the two things. Maybe invoke extreme bi-curiousness in his younger years?)

It has nothing to do with being a "gay role model", so you can stop repeating yourself. I don't think any of us want more "role models" like Ellen or Rosie. *shudders*

[Milton Roe]

This is too thick for a pie chart. I would call it a cheese or cake chart.

Mmmmmm. Caaake. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Mmmmmmmmmm...cheesecake! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Ursula_Andress_as_Honey_Ryder_crop.jpg)

I bet The Adversary looks like this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Like Ursula Undress?

Not unless he speaks French and has to be dubbed in English. Bond seems to talk to so many dubbed people in those early films. Or they only say AHHHHAAA in a sort of cleft palate-y way, like Oddjob.

Well, she's easier on the eyes than Gert Fröbe. Not so sure about The Adversary.

[Somey]

It's an interesting problem, I suppose - normally it wouldn't be anyone's business, but since he's a movie actor playing leading-man roles, sexual orientation is (for better or worse) an important factor in determining "bankability." And presumably readers will want to know... In an ideal world, the subject could get things like that nixed from web-based biographical content on request, but I doubt anyone else is going to let him do it (i.e., other websites and media outlets).

Like Mr. Seren says, he did once claim to be gay in an interview, so even though it would be better to leave that out of the article, it's hard to justify making an exception for him if they're going to treat other gay (or whatever) celebrities the same way.

Naturally, if WP allowed people to opt out completely and have their articles deleted, I'd support allowing him to do that, no question - but it doesn't sound like that's what he wants either.

Looking at the big picture, I guess gay folks won't have complete equality until people either stop making a point of drawing attention to their sexual orientation, or until people start making a point of drawing attention to the sexual orientation of heterosexuals. Wikipedia isn't set up for either of those eventualities (and to be fair, the latter approach would be rather silly), so in that respect I'd have to say they're simply prolonging the problem every time one of these incidents occurs.

[EricBarbour]

Looking at the big picture, I guess gay folks won't have complete equality until people either stop making a point of drawing attention to their sexual orientation, or until people start making a point of drawing attention to the sexual orientation of heterosexuals. Wikipedia isn't set up for either of those eventualities (and to be fair, the latter approach would be rather silly), so in that respect I'd have to say they're simply prolonging the problem every time one of these incidents occurs.

More to the point: why in the hell is it so important to tag every applicable bio on WP with "gay"?
Oh, right, of course, there's a gang of LGBT warriors on it, screaming for attention. Even the Zionists
aren't that loud.

12,583 articles. Goodness me.
And "only" 2/3 of them are stubs and start-class. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
Look at the members list and scroll down to #216.
It's Tyciol! Yeah, great idea, letting him hang around!

[radek]

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/posnegbiasbiographies.png)

Based on something or a joke I'm not getting? (I ask because I'm surprised)

This post has been edited by radek:

[Somey]

Based on something or a joke I'm not getting? (I ask because I'm surprised)

Surprised about which thing - the small amount of biased/negative, or the large amount of biased/positive? (Or both, I suppose...)

This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other). Unfortunately, the relatively small amount of biased/negative info only makes it more damaging when it does happen, because the larger amount of "neutral" and biased/positive content gives people a false sense of Wikipedia's general decency and fairness.

Likewise, it shows that there really is no reason to fear an opt-out policy, and there probably never was - given these results, most people would actually be foolish to want articles about themselves deleted, unless they had a very good reason (particularly one that involves disputes with Wikipedians themselves). The really despicable thing about Wikipedia(ns) and BLPs isn't that those latter-case scenarios exist, but rather that they refuse to admit it, and because of that they refuse to do the right thing to deal with it - even though the effect it would have on their website would be minimal at worst.

[radek]

Based on something or a joke I'm not getting? (I ask because I'm surprised)

Surprised about which thing - the small amount of biased/negative, or the large amount of biased/positive? (Or both, I suppose...)

This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other). Unfortunately, the relatively small amount of biased/negative info only makes it more damaging when it does happen, because the larger amount of "neutral" and biased/positive content gives people a false sense of Wikipedia's general decency and fairness.

Likewise, it shows that there really is no reason to fear an opt-out policy, and there probably never was - given these results, most people would actually be foolish to want articles about themselves deleted, unless they had a very good reason (particularly one that involves disputes with Wikipedians themselves). The really despicable thing about Wikipedia(ns) and BLPs isn't that those scenarios exist, but rather that they refuse to admit it, and because of that they refuse to do the right thing to deal with it - even though the effect it would have on their website would be minimal at worst.

By the large number of "neutrals" - I suspect that this may be due to a large number of stubs which have little but name and birth date in'em. I can see how outright "negative" ones are rather rare (though too many anyway) but I would have expected more self promotion. So yeah I'm basically interested in the methodology here - like how is the subjective (nothing wrong with that) assessment of +/-/neut made. Also, are these all biographies or BLPs (I'm guessing the latter)?

[carbuncle]

It's an interesting problem, I suppose - normally it wouldn't be anyone's business, but since he's a movie actor playing leading-man roles, sexual orientation is (for better or worse) an important factor in determining "bankability."
...
Looking at the big picture, I guess gay folks won't have complete equality until people either stop making a point of drawing attention to their sexual orientation, or until people start making a point of drawing attention to the sexual orientation of [i]heterosexuals.

There is an inevitable middle stage where PR folks accept that the people understand that actors aren't the characters that they play and stop trying to appease the tiny portion of the public that gets upset about such things.

[carbuncle]

Look at the members list and scroll down to #216.
It's Tyciol! Yeah, great idea, letting him hang around!

Wikiproject Pornography has a member who self-identifies as 13 years old. Hmmmm, perhaps I should have mentioned this to someone?

[jd turk]

If WP's administration was serious about taking care of BLPs, it would give immediate blocks to any editor who revert wars with Scott or Off2 in a BLP.

I don't guess you've ever tried to talk to Off2 for any length of time before. It's kind of like just dialing seven random numbers, and trying to order a pizza.

[Sololol]

I don't guess you've ever tried to talk to Off2 for any length of time before. It's kind of like just dialing seven random numbers, and trying to order a pizza.

Haha, very apt. For a long time I thought he had to be a griefing sockpuppet, the arguments were too absurd.

[Milton Roe]

If WP's administration was serious about taking care of BLPs, it would give immediate blocks to any editor who revert wars with Scott or Off2 in a BLP.

I don't guess you've ever tried to talk to Off2 for any length of time before. It's kind of like just dialing seven random numbers, and trying to order a pizza.

I read a science fiction book in 1970 that featured a computer that had a modem. Somebody programmed it to dial random numbers looking for another computer, and if it found one, attempt to reprogram it over the phone to dial random numbers itself in the same way.

The book said that in theory this sort of thing could spread like an infection. Blew my mind. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

This is sort of what I would have expected, and I'd like to thank Mr. Barbour here for coming up with this pie chart (though I suppose we'll want to see his raw data at some point or other).

And the formula for interpreting the data -- if it were that simple, I would think that someone would have applied it to settle all the longstanding content disputes about whether a given BLP is neutral or not.

[EricBarbour]

The chart was derived from a survey I did of 200 randomly-chosen biographies.

Think about this: there are roughly 1 million bios on English WP.
If about 1.5% of them are defamatory, that's 15,000 people being defamed.

Stubs, you say? Let me tell you about stubs on Wikipedia.

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/articlelengthpiechart.png)

[EricBarbour]

If you're nice to me, I'll post the chart about WP bio living/dead ratio.

[Somey]

Hmmm... IMO you'd have to admit that an (arbitrary?) 10KB cutoff for what constitutes "useful" is subjective, not to mention debatable - though I'd almost have to say that it requires an even more subjective definition of "useful" that takes the subject matter of each article into account (even if we're limiting ourselves to BLPs). But how you'd establish and codify a methodology for that, I have no idea...

Still, I personally think these numbers are fairly consistent with what we see and, to some extent, hear about anecdotally. What's more, the statistics that come out of the WMF and Wikipedia itself rarely take things like "mass-stubification" into account - put it all together and it suggests that WP's growth hasn't been anywhere near as impressive as they've been saying, and the decline in their real growth rate has probably been going on a lot longer than they've let on.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Is there a way to get a count of how many BLPs have the "controversial" tag?

[radek]

If you're nice to me, I'll post the chart about WP bio living/dead ratio.

I'll be nice I promise, especially if there's any chance you'd share the data. I could reciprocate by doing some sampling of my own at your direction if you want.

With the length thing... I got to trot out this old gem: Wyandanch, New York though I got to say, they really ruined it from its glory days when it was at 340k. I was really hoping Mr. 24.186.230.106 would get up to half a mil before they noticed and start cutting it down (I haven't lost all hope yet, he's been down below 100k before and always bounced back).

[carbuncle]

A few new articles today.

• Could an Advocate Interview Hurt Rising Action Film Star Luke Evans?
• The Celluloid Closet – Revisited
• Does An Actor Have The Right To Go Back In The Closet? (Yes, Luke Evans)
• Rising star Luke Evans :: the case of the icky Wiki

I wonder how his publicists feel about their strategy now? I note that IMDB is currently the number one link for my Google search of "Luke Evans", with WP being number two, but I expect that to flip shortly.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Pwok]

Someone alerted me to the Luke Evans dust-up. It is similar to one that I was involved with a few years ago concerning Matt Sanchez, a gay porn actor and prostitute who became involved in far right-wing politics, up to and including appearances on Fox News. When Sanchez's past was exposed, he admitted the porn (kinda hard to avoid that), but claimed he'd never been homosexual and gave contradictory statements about his prostitution. It all wound up in a big Wikipedia fight, the outcome being that Sanchez's porn career was minimized (from more than 45 films to only four listed), with any mention of his well-documented career as a prostitute censored from Wikipedia. Those facts remain censored today. Because of Wikipedia's stance, which involved their breaking their own rules, I created a website that preserves the accurate record.

With respect to Luke Evans, two issues matter. One is Wikipedia's disregard for both fact and its own rules. This critical problem is at the heart of Wikipedia's lack of credibility. No reputable university will allow a student or faculty member to cite Wikipedia as a source, and in popular culture Wikipedia's approach to facts -- that facts are what people agree to call facts -- is appropriate the subject of derision and satire. The other issue is the particulars of this particular actor. Is he gay? Was he gay? Do we care?

I'll dispense with the latter issue first. I never heard of Luke Evans until three days ago. I haven't spent any time looking up career. I haven't even Googled his photo. It's probably because celebrities don't wow me. But the cultural reality is that the private lives of public figures have always been relevant to millions of people, and that certainly includes their sex lives. This is especially true in Hollywood, where the sexuality of its actors, both public and private, has been central to casting and promotion decisions from the very beginning of that industry. Beyond that, in Evans's case, his apparent desire to "rebrand" himself as heterosexual raises a wider set of issues concerning the status of homosexuality and homosexuals in today's culture. This includes the motion picture business, where the so-called "bearding" of actors has been practiced for a very long time, including in the present. Others can disagree, and I'll probably regard their objections as ignorant, laughable, or both, depending on how phrased. But as it concerns Wikipedia's treatment of Evans, my opinion and your opinion of these issue is really beside the point. What counts is whether Wikipedia can be trusted to respect facts and/or its own editing rules. And on those scores, the current dust-up shows that Wikipedia is just as rotten as it ever was. I'd argue (and have argued here) that this goes right to the core of the Wikipedia concept, which is that facts have no independent existence but can be determined by consensus. Once you accept that pernicious idea, then nothing else can be trusted.

In 2002, Evans gave an interview to The Advocate, a well-established gay magazine, discussing his same-sex orientation. In 2004, he gave another interview to something called "Gaydar Nation," a U.K.-based online publication, containing an explicit discussion of his homosexuality. In the same year, he gave a third interview to QX, another U.K.-based Internet gay site, in which he discussed his homosexuality. These three interviews are facts. Also a fact is that Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic of "notability" forbid its use in judging the content of an article. "Notability" is to be applied to the topic, not the contents. Yet, in the Wikipedia justification for censoring facts about both Luke Evans now, and Matt Sanchez some years back, their editors have used "notability" to exclude facts from the articles. This is really only to be expected from an enterprise that begins with the idea that facts have no independent validity. Once you've done that, it's barely a baby step to ignore your own stated rules. As an aside, it's not necessary for Wikipedia's article to say whether or not Evans "is" or "was" gay. What the article should include, though, is references to his two interviews in which he discussed his sexuality in detail.

So, while Luke Evans and his (or his publicists', or both) attempts to "re-closet" himself are trivial, for now, and mainly the subject of guffaws, they nevertheless do once again shine a light on Wikipedia, a fact-free pseudo-"encyclopedia" where decisions are made by roving bands of children, without regard to what might be true, or what that organization holds out as its own processes. This is why Wikipedia is hollow at the core, and can never be trusted.

This post has been edited by Pwok:

[The Adversary]

I bet The Adversary looks like this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Ah, just noticed this.

Well, Horsey (and uncle Milty): when you guys start looking like Sean Connery, I will start looking like Ursula Undress.
Eh, Andress.

That is a promise (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

<>that this goes right to the core of the Wikipedia concept, which is that facts have no independent existence but can be determined by consensus. Once you accept that pernicious idea, then nothing else can be trusted.<>

Absolutely agree, unfortunately. Except that officially it is called "verifiability, not truth".

[lilburne]

A few new articles today.

• Could an Advocate Interview Hurt Rising Action Film Star Luke Evans?
• The Celluloid Closet – Revisited
• Does An Actor Have The Right To Go Back In The Closet? (Yes, Luke Evans)
• Rising star Luke Evans :: the case of the icky Wiki

I wonder how his publicists feel about their strategy now? I note that IMDB is currently the number one link for my Google search of "Luke Evans", with WP being number two, but I expect that to flip shortly.

Seems to me that Americans have got a big fat dick up their collective arse regarding who is fucking who.

[EricBarbour]

If you're nice to me, I'll post the chart about WP bio living/dead ratio.

I'll be nice I promise, especially if there's any chance you'd share the data. I could reciprocate by doing some sampling of my own at your direction if you want.

PM me, please. I need all the help I can get.

(IMG:http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss273/metasonix/alivedeadbiographies.png)

[Silver seren]

Make it stop! >_<

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[lilburne]

Make it stop! >_<

HIREZ images of him making the beast with two backs (either which way) or he's an Ottava.