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: