Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:47, 5 March 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oregon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Star Trek Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Theatre Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2017 2018 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Sexuality source

While reviewing the conversation above, and my close, I came across the following source where Stiers specifically says he is not gay. While certainly that is something that is consistent with being closeted, its more weight against accepting the blog source to the contrary, particularly as the reliability of this source is of a much better quality (but certainly not the gold standard). http://www.citypaper.net/articles/021397/article001.shtml "I was in New York when Stonewall happened and I had an extremely Midwest reaction: "Why don't those people shut up" Are you gay? No, I'm not. But, I believe that we're all the same person differently expressed." Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems trivia at best. At worst, it is a backdoor for assertions as to his sexual orientation. Collect (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood me, I wasn't presenting the source for inclusion in the article, merely as additional evidence that discussion above was resolved correctly and that his sexuality shouldn't be discussed at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good find! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this is done for wikipedia but when I google: “gay David Ogden Stiers” I get a lot of sources from May 2009 that says that he is gay (ABCNews, Today.com, daily telegraph). I will let others decide if the sources are credible or if being gay is worthy of being added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.66.81 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussed at length four years ago. See Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers/Archives/2013#Gay.3F. Read it and weep. If you find new sources, please provide links. Rivertorch_WATER 04:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not have a dog in this fight. I read it and I didn't weep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.66.81 (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not just about sourcing from my perspective. We don't take special pains to note that Mel Gibson is straight. While Gibson's personal life is greatly detailed, and we can glean from well-publicized, prominent dalliances that he is heterosexual, if a subject keeps a low social profile and their sexuality is not a defining aspect of their public persona, I don't see why we would go out of our way to bring it up. Aside from keeping score on who is/isn't gay, what academic purpose would be served? When we draw special attention to "gay", we proliferate an archaic social expectation that gay deserves mention because it's the exception to the perceived "norm". I can't imagine most gay-friendly societies would consider that ideal. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing Movie from Filmography

The Last Time We Were Together for the First Time (2008) with Julia Duffy, Joey Lawrence

The made for TV movie "Together Again for the First Time" is on the list. - Samf4u (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

gay redux

Discussions in the past have uniformly determined that "gossip-boy.com", a blog, is not a "reliable source" for claims of sexuality, and that self-attribution is the gold standard required for asserting sexuality of any living person. There is no source for such self-attribution for Stiers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear why you've opened a new thread on this now, but since you have, let me add this for the record: Discussions in the past have been less than uniform in their determination of the reliability of ABC News. Rivertorch_WATER 19:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The article specifies that it is only relaying a claim made by a blog, and does not assert factuality of such a claim. Meanwhile, gossip-boy.com is a blog which does not meet any of the requirements for WP:RS and this has been discussed several times now. Lastly, WP:BLP now requires strong sourcing for any claims of religion and sexuality about living persons. sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. As there are reliable sources stating that Stiers has denied this, that suggests that Stiers does not self-identify as "gay." The reason why this is started now - is that an IP added the claim to the BLP, and prudence requires that we go to the talk page. Collect (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Collect, longstanding consensus is to omit the content in the absence of additional sourcing (which we can cheerfully squabble over if and when the time comes). Fact is, IPs have been adding it for the past however many years, and you and I have both reverted them repeatedly without comment because the onus is on them, not us, to begin any such thread. Now, if you're truly as concerned about BLP issues as you have always appeared to be, you'll stop resurrecting the same old arguments on the talk page, thereby calling renewed attention to the matter. I'm sorry I replied to you earlier, and if you have no objection, I think this should be hatted. Rivertorch_WATER 03:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree - except with the caveat that ArbCom requires me, as a specific individual to do so for any BLP edits I make. Was ArbCom smart? I dunno, but I have stalkers checking my every single edit at this point. Thank you for sure that you agree with the policies invoked. Collect (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I didn't realize. For the record, I do not agree with the interpretation of BLP that led to the current consensus here. Nevertheless, I recognize that the consensus exists, and I enforce it. Rivertorch_WATER 22:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, with Stiers' passing its possible that an RS will make comment on this bit of possible info, and the self identification bit may be interprested less strictly now since it is no longer possible for him to make statements either way. 03:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yea there are quite a few new sources that could be used to expand on that from Fox news, ABC, Today show, USA today, etc... http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/04/david-ogden-stiers-fussy-m-s-h-doc-and-beloved-clock-from-disneys-beast-dies-at-75.amp.html , http://abcnews.go.com/entertainment/movies/story?id=7518323&page=1 , https://www.today.com/popculture/former-m-s-h-star-says-he-gay-wbna30607382 , https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/03/03/david-ogden-stiers-stuffy-major-winchester-mash-dies-age-75/392921002/ ContentEditman (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What you have there is a mix of sources we already looked at and new sources that have the same problem: they are citing gossip-boy (although the fox news is claiming to reference an abc interview, the date suggests they are just refering to ABC's coverage of the gossip-boy source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was just going to write the exact same thing as Nat. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No source relying on gossip-boy can mysteriously make that original source "reliable" regarding even a dead person. My earlier posts still hold. Collect (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly wrong photo

The photo in this article seems to be a photo of Larry Linville portraying Frank Burns. 179.198.175.2 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that is Stiers. Samf4u (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that is true (which I doubt; it looks VERY much like Linville) why highlight a photograph that does such a poor job of conveying his appearance? That doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. 124.190.115.39 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Though I can see a faint similarity if I squint, File:MASH Cast 1977.JPG is the source image, and there are a number of photos out there like this from the same session or the one here that make it clear it's Stiers. But another photo could be procured if it's unclear. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

gay summary

Here is a summary of the info regarding Stiers sexuality :

• He explicitly said he was not gay in a RS Are you gay? No, I'm not. But, I believe that we're all the same person differently expressed
• This story was written by Gossip boy. A wordpress blog. Gossip boy is not an RS
• per WP:GRAPEVINE sources which rely on gossip boy are not RS for this, even if they are otherwise reliable. Therefore all other sources which are running this story which are relying on the gossip boy blog are not reliable for this information.
• Stiers' management has explicitly said that he did not do an interview with gossip boy, and that the story was made up (see archived talk, or these edit comments) ] ]
• There have been multiple RFCs and discussions regarding this info, and there is a WP:CONSENSUS not to include it at this time.
• per WP:BDP WP:BLP still applies to recently dead people

While consensus can change, it would need to change based on actually reliable sources (ones that are not ultimately relying on gossip boy). None have been provided. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Stiers' management has explicitly said that he did not do an interview with gossip boy" The links you gave go to an account that has been permanently blocked and never showed any proof they were related or could speak for Stiers. There is nothing showing that is accurate. Other RS have also published he was gay and never did a correction, even with all the new news sources after his death. ContentEditman (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

As you'll see in this 2013 archives of this talk page, a user contacted the agency directly, and they expressed that "they are very unhappy about Misplaced Pages having used Gossip Boy as an ultimate source, and blames Misplaced Pages having relied on Gossip Boy as being the reason why ABC News and MSNBC felt free to go ahead and publish this as a story". So that accords well with the edits in question. And if he didn't give that interview, then we've got no real source for the self-identification, whether he was gay or not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? A "user" said it was true. That falls entirely under WP:OR and has no proof on top of that. If he did not give that interview they would have been sued and easily lost. Yet other RS have reported him as gay based on his own interview. ContentEditman (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. WP:OR is a limitation on what is included in articles; it is not a limit on what is excluded from articles. The editor in question is one with years of editing experience and no blocks, so I'm willing to give some good faith in that direction. Plenty of erroneous claims are made with no suit happening, so absence of a suit is not proof of anything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of if we can trust that user's statements the fact that gossip boy is a crap source, and we have an actual RS where he denies being gay that puts the onus of proof onto the include side of the argument. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A "brand new IP" -- re-added this stuff. I am forbidden to touch it. Will someone revert that "gossip-boy" stuff again? No discussion on this talk page has ever backed its use. Please? Collect (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, the problem with not including it at this point is that it has been recirculated by countless reliable sources, such as the New York Times, Variety, The Advocate—it goes on and on. In some cases, they directly link back to the gossip source, and in others they do not. That becomes an issue. The content of this interview regarding Stiers's sexuality is in mass-circulation from reliable sources. It is even referenced in academic books. I think the only tangible solution to this would be to cite the reliable source with the qualifier that "according to ______ (i.e. New York Times, ABC News), Stiers came out as gay in a 2009 interview"—that way it is not stated as patent fact. --Drown Soda (talk)`

I agree, there are tons of Reliable Sources that state what he said and there was never any public lawsuits over this or claims they are false from him, his agent, family, etc... before or after his death. As such we should post it using the RS that back it up. ContentEditman (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Note US libel laws make it nearly impossible for any "public figure" to win in a defamation suit, no matter how egregious the claim. In addition, the "gossip-boy" blog appears to be "judgement-proof" as far as any damages are concerned. Saying "he didn't sue so it must be true" is fallacious utterly. See User:Collect/BLP Lack of a lawsuit is not in any way an admission of truth. Really. Collect (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - He wasn't known for being gay. That should be enough reason to exclude it. We still treat "gay" as some kind of salacious fact that needs to be dragged from the shadows. If he were straight and didn't date publicly or talk about being straight, would we care? No, because that's the quote/unquote norm. But if someone might be gay, oo-la-la now we've an academic duty to put their private life on blast? No way. This is a bizarre social bias that we need to get over, because it only marginalizes gay folk further. Let the private guy be private. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• C-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• C-Class Oregon articles
• Low-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• C-Class Star Trek articles
• Low-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles
• C-Class television articles
• Mid-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• C-Class Theatre articles
• Low-importance Theatre articles
• WikiProject Theatre articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class American television articles
• Mid-importance American television articles
• American television task force articles
• WikiProject United States articles