Jump to content

Talk:Barry Manilow/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Birth date

1943? 1946? 1947? Let's see. The explanation given here makes a lot of sense, though the arguments being put forth by User:Nsandre0449 (among others; it's also made at NNDB) don't hold water (It is well known and clearly stated in this page that Barry Manilow graduated from Eastern District High School in Brooklyn in 1961- making it impossible for him to have been born in 1947. -- not really, I've got friends who graduated high school at 14 and 15.) NNDB does cite Patricia Butler, Barry Manilow: The Biography (2002); we cite that for other material. Manilow's official website is silent regarding his birthdate. Do we have anything more substantial to go on, or should we list the ambiguity as such? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The first link is circular, making it an unsuitable source (more for other readers; I know you know that, Josh). I agree the argument doesn't hold water. The NNDB footnote mentions a yearbook saying graduation at 15 is "improbable", before saying the point comes from a chatshow, giving no indication they've seen the yearbook nor how Manilow responded. NNDB reliability is questionable: they self-describe as an 'aggregator', encourage the public to send in changes -- we really don't know about the rigour of any factchecking, and according to its WP talk page copying from this site as well as linkspamming has been common. The company that run it self-describe as a web-host, image gallery developer, and supplier of stock images.

We cite Butler (2001) once, for a Bob Dylan quote. The Google Books preview shows it has June 17, 1943 (p. 13). A search on '1946' provides possibly non-consecutive snippets only ("And so he picked 1946 and he knocked three years off his age." Journalists began faithfully reporting the amended birthdate, which is to this day often ... " p. 101). Its own Sources list comprises some okay -- mostly not specific to him -- yet for the most part poorer sources. It does have exceptionally poor reviews, although this could be down to painting its subject in an unfavourable light; the autobiography Sweet Life: Adventures on the Way to Paradise (1987) has over 20 zealous Amazon.com fan-reviews, all but one rated 4/5 stars. I'd probably make only limited use of Butler, although certainly not to extract or support contentious biographical information. It doesn't seem likely the autobio would touch on the topic. His official Myspace bio is silent on it as well. Let's see what else we have.

The VH1 page is a republish of allmusic.com which, while not ruled out completely by RS/N for article use, is weak, and especially so for disputed blp content. Incidentally, archive.org shows the bio changed to using allmusic freelancer and unashamed Manilow fan S. Huey penned content around March 2004, with a different birth year until at least 2006. Reporting on anger over seat prices, Las Vegas Review-Journal in its twice-weekly entertainment (i.e showbiz gossip) column says they'd originally said he was born in 1946 as that comes up most on search engines but there is a "story ..." -- similar to the one in your first link. A quartet of gossip, search engines, angry fan derived comment and hearsay is a poor source. VNU Entertainment News Wire/e5 Global Media's "This Day in Music: June 14-20" (2010) has 1943. The earlier-cited Larry King interview is unfortunately open to interpretation.

A BBC news piece has 1947, while Grove Music Online, Oxford University Press has: (b New York City, 17 June 1946). Those 2 are reliable. From all I've seen though the main dates given are 1943 and 1946. There doesn't seem much point to noting just the 1947 date. We can't use it as a source, but a longtime fan explains the matter simply here, and in another response writes the record company story has 'never been confirmed by Barry and/or his management'.

To support the claim contrasting the university press's, a similarly reputable and authoritative source (e.g an article in The New York Times, or an interview -- not 'in an [unspecified] interview he once said') is needed. Another reason particularly high quality secondary sources are needed to footnote the ambiguity is because it concerns an apparent official position. I couldn't find any in my brief search. However, I'd be surprised if there isn't one out there, given how long it's apparently been contested. --92.30.59.106 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yearbook pages from Eastern District High School show Manilow graduating in Jun 1961 (and voted Best Musician by his senior class) and the pictures are definitely this Barry Manilow (believe it or not, there are others in NY at that time). His age cannot be absolutely determined from the pictures. Yes, he could have skipped a few grades, but if so he didn't indicate it in his autobiography in any way. Other than that, I can find no reliable sources indicating his birth year and until someone finds his birth certificate, a birth announcement in a newspaper, or the 1950 census comes out, we may not be able to confirm it. History Lunatic (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic
Confirmation from the man himself, in an interview with the Daily Mail Jan 2013: "Yep, I’ll be hitting 70 in June,’ he begins and then stops short, laughing. ‘I can’t believe those words just came out of my mouth. But hard as I find it to believe, I will indeed be 70."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261305/Barry-Manilow-Hes-Manilow-mission-The-king-crooners-crusade-revive-art-great-songwriting-calls-Michael-Buble-copycat-says-hes-Gagas-biggest-fan.html#ixzz2rIRy1RdV
So there we have it; he was definitely born in 1943. History Lunatic (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

co-wrote

hi I saw on rollingstone magazine's web-site that manilow co-wrote a song with bob dylan but it haven't be released yet, what is that song? when they wrote it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.215.216 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Playboy Adviser

Is there any truth that Barry Manilow wrote the Playboy Adviser in the 60's for advice on wether to launch a music career or follow something safe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

Would it make sense to include a short section on Manilow's reception by critics? It's significant that most critics panned him, and there's a consensus that emerges when you read what they wrote. "Schlock", "maudlin", "sentiment", etc.: these are a constant theme among the critics. If you knew nothing at all about Manilow, and read this article, you wouldn't get this.

If you can source and cite everything said, then yes, go ahead. But you cannot say there is a "consensus" unless a source (and a very good one) says there is a consensus. Same with any claim about "most critics". And you'll equally have some critics who love his work, who have just as much right to be mentioned. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Crunkcore

This source is being used to support including crunkcore as one of Manilow's genres. While Dallas News is usually a reliable source, in this case it is either mistaken or this is somebody's idea of a joke. I doubt there are any other sources out there that identify Manilow as a crunkcore artist. The editor inserting these changes on this page and at crunkcore seems to be gaming the system. Gobōnobō + c 09:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the reliability of this source. It has been published for more than 3 years, according to the date-stamp. 76.183.38.120 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
However, a local gossip sheet in Texas with a one liner about Manilow in Las Vegas is not significat coverage to establish crunkcore which does boggle the imagination a bit. noq (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Calling TExas' largest newspaper and one of the largest and most respected in the country a "local gossip sheet" is beyond hyperbole. The statement has a valid source. 76.183.38.120 (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your little tirade ends here. WP:VERIFY is not the be all and end all. Given the almost certainty that you cannot find another reliable source that describes Manilow as 'crunkcore', the assertion falls within the grounds of WP:FRINGE. Per WP:FRINGE 'A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. "Crunkcore legend" is neither a serious nor substantial reference to the artist and his supposed genre. We've given you far too much credit (and time) for something that is clearly an attempt at WP:POINT. -SFK2 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Health section

The health section of this article seems excessive. He sprained his ankle. Big Deal. He had minor surgery. So what? Is any of this relevant?Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 21:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is basically a very good article but the health section seems disproportionately long and overly detailed. Some things are probably notable, like the facelift, but do we really need to list every single health issue the man has ever had? Just because there's a source for it doesn't mean it needs to be included. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. —24.235.78.115 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Combine sections?

I don't often see an "In media" section in a BLP. Most, if not all, of that content generally would fall under a "Personal life" section. Should we combine the two sections? Bahooka (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, also considering the new information coming out, personal life would be more appropriate. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Also agree; there should be a "Personal Life" section. RomanSpa (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs a total rewrite

After coming across this article about Baz just married his long-term partner, the next step was to do a google search.

Well, well, well. After trying to glean a modicum of sense from this article, I came to the same conclusion as the above. OK it's probably not the worst of its type but this article is poorly composed and painful to read. IMO it needs pulling down and being rewritten by competent editors who are not necessarily Manilow fans. There is some basic chronology to his musical career but what hell is a stand alone section needed on so much of his health? Is this what Manilow fans need to obsess about? Some details could easily be worked into his career section and how it affected him.

Likewise there is no personnel section that chronicles his life outside his music career. The closest thing to this usual section is one entitled "In media". But it just reads like a gossip column; it has no narrative only jump points. In 1983 this happened jump to 1984 when this occurred.

So in conclusion this article needs to be shredded and rewritten. The editors that have contributed the most to this article should be dismissed and the reins handed over to - as I have said - people who can actually construct, formulate and write an article about such a complex person. 81.132.175.37 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Oh Gary well, You came and you gave without taking, But I sent you away." (Please dismiss me too, before I even get enrolled, thanks.) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GAY

Barry just married his boyfriend! Why the hell isn't there even a section discussing it? Sure, they didn't sign no papers, but damn, they put a ring on each other's fingers! Barry basically confirmed that he's gay and that should be mentioned at the very start of the article and have a section dedicated to it. I think this is even bigger than his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.211 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 April 2015

See discussion above. Manilow hasn't confirmed anything. So far, these are just rumors by unnamed, unattributed, anonymous "sources" who may or may not be accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
When and if they are confirmed, though, I certainly don't think there will be a whole section dedicated to his sexual orientation. It can be integrated into a "personal life" section. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well where the hell is the personal life section to begin with? What was the sexual orientation he claimed to be all these years? Who has he dated before? Why is it so difficult, in 2015, to just talk about homosexuality! This isn't the 50s, you don't need to hide anything anymore! Everyone here has an agenda to keep homosexuality out of this discussion and quite frankly I find it sickening. I agree with the above topic, this whole page needs a complete rewrite! One that includes his sexuality and his personal life, instead of sections straight out of a gossip magazine!
Too right. No need to hide! You can even sign your posts! (... or even register). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The above so-called consensus is just anti-LBTG bias

Sorry ladies but it doesn't need to be confirmed. According to WP's own house rules Manilow doesn't have to "comfirm" anything, for inclusion in this article, the point only has to be verifiable see WP:VERIFY. It even states: "its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". If the International Business Times, BBC or Washington Post are all reporting it, who cares whether you think you are protecting Manilow. That leads on to the obligation under its core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It states: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Sadly ladies it's inevitable - whether you like it or not - that that Baz is a man who has sex with other men. 81.132.175.52 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument is that the WP:RSs are simply re-reporting a non-RS source, The National Enquirer. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A section calling the views of most editors above "just anti-LBTG bias" might be more convincing if it didn't call those editors "ladies". Jonathunder (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
ouch! ... now, now, girls. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And just for the record, the snarky anon-IP completely misinterprets WP:VERIFY and seems unaware of the standards of WP:BLP. There is no editorial bias; every editor here has contributed to articles about all sorts of human beings, gay, straight, star, supporting player, criminal, judge, football player and football player. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Homosexual Activism Projects

A section titled this should be added somewhere towards the end of this profile with this:

On April 16, 2015, Suzanne Somers said in a live television interview that Manilow and his longtime manager Gary Kief had been a couple for 30 years. Manilow's involvement with homesexual causes has been scattered throughout most of his career. Since the middle 1980s Manilow has been involved with raising money for curing A.I.D.S. with Elizabeth Taylor and appeared on two television specials in the 1990s called In A New Light with various other celebrities. Since then, Manilow has made a cameo as himself in the 2002 homosexual themed film Unconditional Love, in 2003 he appeared as himself on Will & Grace guarded by a homosexual bodyguard, in 2006 an appearance on the Logo show Jacob and Joshua: Nemesis Rising and in 2008 an appearance on Family Guy where as an animated character of himself he seranaded "Mandy" to male charater Quagmire. Manilow has also patronized through his appearance on known homosexuals in the entertainment industry on Dame Edna Special, The Rosie O'Donnell Show and Clay Aiken Special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.92.10 (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

See the section above this for discussion on this. Other than what Suzanne Somers said, do you have a cites for any of the rest? Much of it seems to be tenuous associations that you've collected together to create an argument. Raising money for an AIDS cure is not solely a "homosexual cause". Dame Edna Everage is not a "known homosexual". None of these TV (fictional) programmes are "homosexual causes". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Anonymous User 12.54.92.10 - Do you not hear yourself cherry picking factoids and trying to slant your list to create the impression you think should be promoted? It's called conflating and has no business being in an encyclopedia. Gay or straight, it's up to Manilow to label his personal life publicly if he so chooses. How angry would you be if someone created a list with a similar slant and claimed it proved someone was straight? History Lunatic (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

The term "homesexual" is all inclusive and covers both males and females. "Gay" went from originally meaning "happy" to "male homosexual" while "Lesbian" has been used for "female homosexual".12.54.92.10 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Health section should be deleted

Apart from the hip surgery none of it is notable. (JackDouglag (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC))

How could you even suggest such a thing? The same dental surgeon who treated his friend Elizabeth Taylor, you know! Worth keeping just for this amazing entry, I feel: "On May 28, 2003, Manilow injured his nose in the middle of the night when he awoke disoriented and walked into a wall." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that some of the stuff in the health section is really unsubstantiated by reliable sources or unimportant. Is the fact that he once walked into a wall while half asleep really a serious health issue? But I would keep the atrial fibrillation in there because Manilow made a point of talking about this in multiple appearances and used his own case to bolster public awareness of the condition. History Lunatic (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

I'd vote for a bit of a pruning of the more trial stuff (e.g. a sprained ankle) and converting what is essentially a dated list into proper prose. Clearly he's had health issues and undergone some notable surgery in his lifetime, but it currently reads like a litany of the most unlucky and surgery-prone singer ever. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not hear about his prunes. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality, 2015 view

I note the lack of a "Personal Life" or similar section in the article and am at a loss to understand why there isn't one.

I've read the sections above, and note the content of other articles in WP.

Articles in Wikipedia about people who are apparently heterosexual don't include statements such as "(subject) is heterosexual" or "(subject) is involved in heterosexual activities". Of course there might be information about the subject's relationships, marriages, and such that might lead a reader to conclude that the subject is heterosexual. But that would be the reader's interpretation, not Wikipedia's.
So, in cases where the subject might not be heterosexual, why does it seem necessary to explicitly state his or her sexuality? For this article, and others, it seems that there's an obsession about the subject's sexuality and homosexuality in general. I don't believe that the NPOV concept is understood as well as it ought to be.
It's for the same reason that LGBT rights are often covered in the media and they have their own Wikipedia article while "Straight rights" do not, i.e. because (1) gay folks are part of a historically marginalized class and movement that denotes progression or in fact coverage on it in the first place is notable, and because (2) it is also widely accepted that gay persons are in a minority and as such, it is uncommon, just as it may be documented that a notable subject is left-handed, as it often is, whereas most articles would not write "Jane Notable Doe is right-handed." While it would be inappropriate in most cases to introduce a notable subject by relating their sexuality esp. tying it to their identity, e.g. "John Notable Doe, a gay man etc," an event made public where a notable subject comes out as gay is often itself notable, since the subject's very having come out as gay would likely have an impact on the community. Shiggity (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This most likely illustrates that there is a tendency to introduce heterosexual and homosexual agendas, I think. Neither has any place in WP. 2602:304:AE26:9579:6949:947C:F44B:DF3E (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Personal Life" section because there is no good sources for information on his personal life, I presume. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal life section

Alright, so I checked out this history of this article and read the talk page. Firstly the lack of a "personal life" section is kind of non-standard, and I'm going to check out the proposed templates to be used for a celeb. Also glaring is the total absence of Barry Manilow coming out as gay: this is both notable and documented. I'm going to find a source on this and on his marriage and ensure that it meets the definition of WP's reliable sources for celebrities' personal lives. For the record, Barry Manilow himself does not need to confirm that he had a wedding in order to find a reliable source (If he did not say "I'm gay" then that phrase itself should not be used, merely that he married a man). The "Health" section, though stable, should be trimmed, not to mention the "In Media" section, which covers a plethora of personal details about BM (hehe "BM") without actually putting said details INTO a personal life section. Stay tuned, folks. Shiggity (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Good luck finding sources. I fear you'll be unable to find anything better than gossip, unsuitable for inclusion. Remember that the bar for inclusion of personal information on living persons, particularly that which might be considered controversial, is the highest Wikipedia has. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Understood. In fact, to start maybe it'd be good just to reorganize the existing pieces without actually adding any new claims. Shiggity (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Serious Talk: Why?

Why is this article so messy? The "In Media" section reads like a gossip spread and the "Health" section reads like a doctor's file on a patient. I can understand if there are sources lacking, but why bulk up the article on trash like him spraining his ankle or hurting his nose? Every single new piece of information starts off with "On..." as if it were a list of events. Where is the cohesive flowing of the article that would make it seem like an accurate portrayal of important moments in his life? This article needs a serious overhaul. It's also missing the number one important moment in his life - his wedding day to, yes I'm going to say it, a MAN! So ladies, let's work together to get some good sources and fix this trainwreck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.102.69 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barry Manilow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Why is there no mention of the fact that Manilow is openly gay and married his partner last year? (165.120.157.157 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

@165.120.157.157: Please see these other discussions about your subject GAY, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS, Homosexual Activism Projects, Sexuality, 2015 view and Personal life section Mlpearc (open channel) 16:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
There are more discussions here Talk:Barry Manilow/Archive 1. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Manilow has never tried to hide his sexuality, and his marriage was reported by the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11524454/Marrying-a-man-isnt-the-most-curious-thing-Barry-Manilow-has-ever-done.html (165.120.157.157 (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Barry Manilow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Barry Manilow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS

It's 2015 and all the people in control of this article is concealing Barry's sexuality! He's not hiding it as it's plastered over every single newspaper headline. HE IS GAY! Instead of making up phony excuses to not even include a personal life section JUST TO HIDE HIS SEXUALITY, you guys should be proud that he's sporting the rainbow flag high and proud! I demand that a persona life section get whipped up immediately and please also create a section focused specifically on his homosexuality. Thanks, bye!

That's "every single newspaper headline", yes? Perhaps you suggest one that is based on a WP:RS? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Barry Manilow has never publicly acknowledged his sexuality. All that's been reported are rumors from anonymous, unnamed "sources" of undetermined credibility. Wikipedia is not in the business of accurately or inaccurately outing people based on rumors. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it the place of Wikipedia editors to judge how reliable reliable sources are? Even if the story was originally reported in the National Enquirer, the reliable sources are exercising editorial judgment and putting their reputation on the line when they publish it under their own name. It's not like they would print a story on bigfoot just because the National Enquirer did. Remember, the original Watergate reporting was based on anonymous sources, so there can't be a blanket rejection of all anonymous sources. That would be irresponsible. They are called reliable sources because, if they publish it, we take their word for it. In any event, the sources are no longer anonymous. Suzanne Somers confirmed on live TV that she is close friends with the couple and was there for the announcement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXo2xMnk45k How long do we have to ignore the evidence and continue with this charade? Dansan99 (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the lovely YouTube link. Can that be used as a WP:RS, I wonder? And, hoo noo?! Bazza was a real Bridezilla!! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
"Is it the place of Wikipedia editors to judge how reliable reliable sources are?" - Yes. That is exactly what Wikipedia editors should be doing, always. Guided by the policies and guidelines, of course. National Enquirer is a million miles from a suitable source, and your argument is not being helped by your idea that there is some sort of conspiracy to suppress this information. Wikipedia, for lots of very good reasons, must rely on reliable sources, because it is an encyclopaedia. That is also the reason why it doesn't focus on people's private and personal lives, unless they have already been the focus in reliable sources. If no good sources are interested in Manilow's sexuality, then Wikipedia isn't either.
I don't know enough about the TV programme or person to judge your youtube link, but it has to be a step in the right direction. Is there really no reports of this in print media? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There are many: Huff Po, Yahoo, US Magazine, People etc etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are many. Regarding the response to my question "Is it the place of Wikipedia editors to judge how reliable reliable sources are?" Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly. The two "reliables" in a row wasn't a typo. My point was that, if a source is deemed a reliable source (trusted writer, trusted publisher), and an article is published in the news section of one of those papers under a trusted byline, then the fact that the story was originally broken by National Enquirer is of secondary importance. The reputation of the publisher and writer is still operable because they are presumed to be exercising discretion and due diligence in publishing it in the first place. If that's the case for this wedding, then that would be consistent with the trusted sources guidelines. Dansan99 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I've often wondered the same thing. I think that's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No, because the purpose of an encyclopedia and that of the popular press — often called "the first drat of history" — are different. Simply because publications repeat the National Enquirer rumor — and anonymous, uncited claims by people of unknown credibility and agenda are rumors — that doesn't make it any less of a rumor. An encyclopedia does not publish rumors. And, really, with no acknowledgment by the parties involved, and no official documentation, how can anybody really, truly, concretely know that this is accurate? Something about it sounds fishy to me — in addition to the fact that if since California has legal same-sex unions, and the parties involved did not avail themselves of that, then what really happened? Anything significant? I don't see how. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see so The Huffington Post has no editorial discretion, yes? It just reprints anything that looks a bit tasty in National Enquirer? Did you watch the Suzanne Somers interview? You seem to be saying now... "Manilow can't be married because its illegal in California"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what Suzanne Somers has to do with anything. About the other thing, I see how my initial wording could have been taken two ways. Fixed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I guess it's the fact that she was there and that she says, on US TV, that the two are "happily married". (I realise she's not an attorney). I think you're saying "Manilow can't be married, because nothing was signed". And I think you're probably right. My point is, if there is a way around the "m-word", it deserves some kind of mention in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, now that someone has gone on record, on Watch What Happens Live, as the HuffPo piece transcribes, that's certainly something. I believe Somers when she says she was at some event involving Manilow and Kief. I also believe if she's claiming they're married when there is no state documentation of a marriage, then she is either mistaken about the nature of the event or she is being colloquial, which is not in this case helpful.
So was it a commitment ceremony? We don't know, and since she says the couple has been together 30 years, even if this were a commitment ceremony — which has no more legal weight than a straight married couple's "recommitment ceremony" — then that ceremony itself meaningless and non-notable.
At first blush, however, perhaps we could say that on April 16, 2015, Suzanne Somers said in a live TV interview that Barry Manilow and his longtime manager Garry Kief have been a couple for 30 years. That's all we know — that she made this claim. The question then becomes, How does this square with Wikipedia WP:BLP guidelines about saying someone is gay who hasn't said so publicly? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I found this discussion on the BLP talk page, but I'm not sure any consensus was reached.: [1]. This might be something where we need to seek wider guidance. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, WP:BLP. I mentioned earlier somewhere that "there had been no denials", but this caused another editor to throw up his hands in horror. Did National Enquirer have a series of pictures? (I'm struggling to find an online source) - but hey, maybe they were all staged? (... and I'm still looking for that unequivocal press quote from Pope Francis) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what point your making. WP:BLP is the core policy with a living person's biographical article, and I did some searching for pertinent discussion about this particular topic, so if you're making fun of that, I'm not not why you would. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your searching for pertinent discussion is commendable and useful. And I'm not making fun. It just seems kind of obvious that Manilow has committed, semi-publicly, to a long term same-sex relationship. I quite agree he has not spoken openly about his sexuality. And I fully agree that WP:BLP must be respected. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not real life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; I think we're actually on the same page. Do I personally believe Manilow is gay and in a long-term, committed relationship? I do (so to speak). And while that may seem obvious in this case, the policy is bigger-picture for the sake of less-obvious possible cases. If there's a way to mention Manilow's relationship with Kief in a way that works with the guidelines, I'm all for it — in fact, I even suggested a wording. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"On April 16, 2015, Suzanne Somers said in a live TV interview that Manilow and his longtime manager Kief had been a couple for 30 years.", supported by any/all of those sources above, would be fine by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
All this may be true, but I feel that this is not enough for it to be included on a BLP. We cannot define a person's sexuality, and marital status, simply on some other person's say so in a TV interview. A much better source, and preferably some indication from Manilow himself, is needed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as anyone can tell, no legally-recognised marriage took place, because no official papers have been signed or filed. So I don't see how any addition to the article can use the "m-word". I still think, however, that there is sufficient evidence that a significant event in Manilow's life took place in April 2014 and as such it deserves mention in the article. I don't see how a reader can get a fair undersrandng of Manilow with a single mention of Kief, who is now, apparently, his affirmed life partner. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
As an encyclopaedia, it is not up to Wikipedia to break this news to readers while reliable sources haven't. It also shouldn't contain information that needs vaguely termed as "a significant event" or "apparently". The second Manilow or reliable sources confirms this, then absolutely, it should be there. But all we have so far is second hand info from one person, and rumour-mongering from a tabloid paper. And any other source that's gone near it have taken pains to accredit to these poor sources, distancing themselves from it. Wikipedia needs something better. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm very doubtful that anyone will ever "officially confirm" this event. Even as "news" it's already over a year old. And I'd agree that Suzanne Somers and National Enquirer aren't exactly the best combination of sources Wikipedia could hope for. Coverage of Manilow's "private life" just seems to be a little scant in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And that's a reflection of a lack of coverage in the media and reliable sources. Manilow clearly likes it that way. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Manilow has always kept his private life very private. But if one wanted to create a Personal Life section regarding his relationships and use what would be considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source, why hasn't his autobiography been quoted? It does not mention anything about same sex relationships but does talk about his marriage as well as love affairs with women, Adrienne Anderson, Linda Allen, and Roberta Kent being among them.
I'm not saying that no celebrity has ever lied to cover up their sex life, but the idea of taking the National Enquirer's or Suzanne Somers' vague word for it while denying Manilow's own word and pretending to any non-biased source documenting sounds rather silly. I don't care who he has sex with or loves or marries, but I do think that this supposed fact should be better nailed down before typing it up.
I also have to ask - are we going to start editing in every time a celebrity has an unconfirmed commitment ceremony, a recommitment, a handfasting, a betrothal, etc? Really, would we do this with anyone else under similar circumstances? Or is it solely because this particular story has gone viral on the internet and some folks came in here and starting yelling about it? How does the idea of posting such flimsy "news" help better the article? History Lunatic (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic
It's about money. Manilow has a HUGE audience amongst middle-aged and elderly middle class housewives who have no idea he is gay and probably wouldn't like it if they knew he was gay and so would probably stop listening to him and buying his CDs if they knew he was gay. Liberace was the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither Manilow, nor any editor, nor any fan should be able to distort or omit the truth. Again, as I said above, Suzanne Somers is literally on video publicly stating that she was "best man" at Manilow's wedding. She did not say this in jest. The ceremony occurred. We need to move on; "protecting" Manilow's image is a futile exercise, as it assumes that there's something wrong with being gay. In other words, editing out fact, in this case, amounts to DISCRIMINATION.... because the truth of being gay is no less true than any other truth, unless you treat it differently (i.e., by discriminating.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraine Maplewood (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Second marriage

Why is there no mention of his marriage to Garry Kief in 2014? (2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:34DB:52D8:C5FB:6250 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

It's a great question. It is in the body of the article, but for some reason not showing up in the published article. Anyone who's been privy to the drama on this article over the years know why this is? I can only hope that those of you still trying to say "bisexual" and not "gay" or whatever else you're still doing finally get that what you're doing is a selfish act -- you want this person you've idolized to be the person you want him to be, not the person he says he is. Give him some peace and let him define himself. He's earned that, after trying to make *you* happy all these decades. Moncrief (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This idea that there's some cabal of editors who are fans of Manilow but can't bear to think he's gay is just really ludicrous, and you should be embarrassed to have suggested such a thing. Stop imputing absurd motives to other editors. And apologize. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The drama is available, for all to see, in the above discussion threads. It seems that the main bone of contention was whether or not "Suzanne Somers is literally on video publicly stating that she was "best man" at Manilow's wedding" was sufficient evidence that a wedding took place. Not that a wedding ever provides sufficient evidence for a given sexual orientation. Now that we have a self-report by Manilow about his sexual orientation, maybe we have more support for the wedding? But I suspect many editors would discount People as a tabloid and thus not WP:RS. If you want a definitive news statement about Manilow's announcement, I'd highly recommend tonight's PM on BBC Radio 4 which framed the news, quite hilariously, with reports about The Pope and bears in the woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The People magazine article was, it must be said, an authorized interview with the person in question. I'm not sure how much more comically awful the clawing denial on the part of some people here could be. Moncrief (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Is the comically awful clawing denial of the marriage or the gayness? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Are people denying both? Both. Either. This article's denizens have a screw loose. Moncrief (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Loose or not, I've never seen a few screws stop a dedicated band of wiki-editors on their relentless crusade to establish reliable sources. ... of which, apparently, People is one. Poor Bazza doesn't even get a mention over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Facelift

In the health section it is mentioned that he has had a facelift. The article referenced has sourced this to the National Enquirer. It needs to be removed. Karst (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is no longer any facelift, health section or National Enquirer. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

2014 marriage to Garry Kief

Several news sources are reporting that Manilow has married his long-term (male) partner and manager Garry Kief last year. It was originally a story in the National Enquirer, which is hardly a credible source, but it now being reported more widely, including People magazine at http://www.people.com/article/barry-manilow-marries-garry-kief

Perhaps it is finally time for a Personal Life section? Sah10406 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The one nagging thing about this is that People said neither of them signed any official documents, and I don't know how it's possible to get a marriage license in that case. The press called Elton John married back when he only had his commitment ceremony (before England allowed same-sex marriage, which he then entered into), so that may be the case here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer we get some independent confirmation of this that doesn't rely only on the National Enquirer before we add it to this article. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added the Personal Life section and included a brief sentence regarding the union. Whether their marriage is legally binding ot not, the fact that he and his partner have held such a significant ceremony is surely worth noting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It is, I agree, if and only if there's a reliable source. Jonathunder (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

When something is removed per the BLP policy, it should not be added back without discussion. We need a better source. Jonathunder (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're being wholly unreasonable. The source I used was UK's The Independent [2]. It fully references The National Enquirer source. Even if were untrue, it's a big enough story to warrant a mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It relies on the The National Enquirer which is a notoriously unreliable tabloid. We need a better source. There's nothing unreasonable about demanding one for this kind of claim. It's perfectly fine if Wikipedia is not at the leading edge of reporting this. Jonathunder (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no chance of Wikipedia being "at the leading edge" of any kind of reporting, as far as I can see, not least about Barry Manilow. The fact there have been no denials suggests this is authentic. But the fact it has surfaced in The Independent lends credibility to any claim that is phrased "it was revealed that" or "it was reported that". Maybe it should go in the "In the media" section, although that looks a lot like hiding it away. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I question Jonathunder's motivation. What's your real reason for trying to keep bonafide news about a person's spouse out of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.226.137 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Now, there's no call for that. Jonathunder's stated motivation is perfectly reasonable and adequate to explain his position; there's no need to go looking for ulterior motives. --Trovatore (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I came here expecting to find some useful information on Manilow's current and previous relationships. The BBC have reported Barry Manilow's "marriage" (which looks more like a commitment ceremony than a marriage to me) here. Surely it's time to include this in the article. RomanSpa (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Jonathunder. All these sources are relying on the National Enquirer, which itself is relying on shadowy, unnamed, anonymous, unattributed "sources" who may or may not be accurate and who may or may not have their own agenda. The fact that there are no official documents of any kind is a massive red flag.
As for the comment of, "Well, they didn't deny it, so it must be true" ... really? That's the standard? That's not even the standard for responsible journalism, let alone an encyclopedia. The fact is, we don't know if there was a marriage, a commitment ceremony or just a lunch with casual outing to close friends. We just don't know. And just because he National Enquirer says it's true doesn't mean it is.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Who made that comment? I certainly didn't. I guess all we "know" is that he appeared wearing a wedding ring. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You said: "The fact there have been no denials suggests this is authentic." Authentic is a synonym of "true".--Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You very kindly paraphrased what I said into something that I don't agree with. And then you commented on the "level" of that comment? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. If you didn't mean "authentic" to suggest "true," what does "authentic" in this context mean to you?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
We all have to avoid the t-word at Wikipedia, don't we. We report what sources say. If the National Enquirer isn't WP:RS, so be it. I think a re-report in The Independent seems to add weight. Since then we've also had The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, Metro and Hello Magazine. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Those aren't RS cites. Those are newspapers re-reporting the same non-RS, not doing doing their own reporting. An encyclopedia has a higher standard than a newspaper's celebrity-gossip page. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Hypocrisy. Half of the preposterous "Health" section is drawn from People magazine and similar sources. His recent union has now been very widely reported, including comments from his ex-wife wishing him well. Sah10406 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. People is a Time Inc. publication, and has to abide by that publisher's fact-checking and legal standards, same as Time Inc.'s Entertainment Weekly. It relies on anonymous sourcing more, an anything anonymously sourced generally isn't usable, but a Time Inc. publication is certainly not the National Enquirer.
The big red flag is the comment that the purported couple signed no official papers. Well-wishers who colloquially consider them married aside, how does one have a legal marriage with no official papers being signed? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the word "married" can't be used. I just assumed this "occasion" was significant in Manilow's life, in terms of him making a semi-public commitment to a "significant other"? But maybe he does this kind of thing all the time? I really have no idea. But I'd expect some kind of help from an encyclopedia article about him. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with you. Yet without confirmation from the parties themselves, and with the ultimate source being unnamed, unattributed. shadowy "sources," who may have their own agenda, we really don't have any concrete facts. And without facts, it's just a widely reported rumor. Fortunately, there's no deadline, and facts almost always come out eventually. So to speak. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well the best (wo)man is now speaking about their union publicly, clearly with their blessing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3043790/They-dearest-friends-Suzanne-Somers-confirms-Barry-Manilow-secretly-wed-longtime-manager-Garry-Kief.html
Ah, bless. If only Suzzy had given her interview to The Times (or even Harper's Bazaar)?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to get to the bottom of this mess, and at the bottom all I can find is... a mess.

1) Every reported traces back one way or another to the National Enquirer. 2) What is being reported is not actually a marriage or a wedding, but a commitment ceremony. 3) The report specifies that no legal paperwork has been filed.

After that, the reports conflict each other in many ways. Some are reporting that this commitment ceremony was sprung as a surprise upon 20 luncheon guests, while others say nothing of a surprise and the number of guests vary up to 50. Some reports say the reason for no "public" announcement (i.e. a reliable source) is that Barry wants to keep it quiet because of his career, while others say Barry is dying to go public while Garry wants to keep it quiet because of his family. Some are reporting that Barry is proudly wearing a wedding ring (or I guess a commitment ring) yet these reports are without source on who saw the ring where and there are no pictures. The Suzanne Somers video posted by the Daily Mail (which is the U.K.'s version of the National Enquirer) does not have her saying she was at the ceremony but that she was present at "the announcement" last year, while some of the reports have her standing as best man in the ceremony.

As for there being no response from Manilow or Kief, Manilow has rarely talked about his private life and no comment is par for the course from him.

So I see nothing I can call a reliable source on any of the various stories being thrown about. Until there is verification from Manilow, his representatives, Kief, or a legal marriage document presents itself, this is not material for Wikipedia.

BTW, how often DOES Wikipedia report celebrities' non-legally binding commitment ceremonies anyway? Is that a thing? History Lunatic (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

If we had one additional reliable source other than People I think it would be acceptable to include the discussed information.
Per WP:BLP: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
I haven't been able to find an additional source but the People source (at http://www.people.com/article/barry-manilow-marries-garry-kief) IS reliable, based on the following:
It is a statement of fact, not of rumor: "Barry Manilow and his longtime manager Garry Kief tied the knot last year in a private ceremony, multiple sources [emphasis mine] confirm to PEOPLE." This article did not claim to draw on National Enquirer, it merely credits Enquirer as the first to break the story.
Per WP:SOURCE: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."
You can even find reliable sources that state that People is a reliable source: "Like other Time Inc. publications, People has an army of fact checkers. (Kurt Anderson wondered recently in a New York magazine column whether a Time Inc. fact-checker really confirmed that Demi Moore wears a blue La Mystere embroidered-Swiss-tulle-lace bra.)" (http://variety.com/2006/film/news/people-who-need-people-1200340454/)
Now, while I personally think it's absurd that no mention of this has gone into the article, because it is (1) documented by a reliable source; (2) widespread information that after a year has not been refuted (per WP:SET); (3) noteworthy; and (4) not contentious (Wikipedia:Contentious), anyone who is against including it can probably cite the above requisite for multiple reliable sources and by letter-of-the-law, have it removed.
Thoughts? Shiggity (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The cite is not bad, and I don't think there's any doubt that something happened and Manilow has some kind of serious relationship with Kief. But the fact that it specifically says nothing official was signed still leaves it a bit ambiguous if it was an actual, official, wedding or not. Being married is a legal status, and about more than someone wearing a ring. But what we have is only based on what some eye witnesses believed they saw, which Manilow steadfastly declines to confirm.
As for being contentious or not, that can be a matter of opinion. I think it might be contentious being told you are married to someone you are not. But I think carefully worded, this source could work. Something along the lines of "Friends reported they attended.." --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So, six months on from the above discussion, what's wrong with this source? Why has the one remaining mention of his marriage now been deleted? 86.184.26.105 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2016

(UTC)

I'm afraid that we need to follow the guidelines that are set out under Biography of Living Persons. That means we need multiple reliable sources about this. The Desert Sun article takes a gossip-style approach and it is questionable if this was an authorised interview with Manilow. What is clear from his comments is that he was surprised about the National Enquirer article. It is also clear that he wants to keep his private life just that, private. As noted above and below, some kind of announcement was made that Thanksgiving, while a small amount of people were in attendance. That has already been established. But in absence of multiple reliable sources it invokes WP:PUBLICFIGURE and we need to be cautious in adding a personal life section altogether. And it certainly needs to be discussed first, considering the past issues with it. Karst (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are now innumerable sources that agree that the ceremony took place, whether or not it was legally binding. In reality, the definition of marriage does not exclude commitment ceremonies; they happen to "marriages" that are not recognized by law, if they are referred to as such. Those who want to split semantic hairs can do so; if we did that, we'd simply spend our lives editing nearly every Wikipedia page and adding nothing. There is no reason to keep removing what is clearly FACT from this page. Providing the truth must trump protecting Manilow's image, which supposes that there's an image to "protect" and that somehow it will be threatened by truth. It is irresponsible for anyone to edit this out. It is not meant to attack Manilow. It simply reports what took place. Lorraine_Maplewood (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Has anything been added to the sources discussed above? That's what need to be discussed here. Refrain from re-inserting the material without consensus. That is not how Wikipedia works. Karst (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no way to edit out the truth anymore. Suzanne Somers CONFIRMS what many have long suspected. When Wikipedia ignores fact, it becomes a big nothing. There should be no more editing out of these facts. Note that many people have no problem with Manilow's sexuality, and some may strongly approve. Deleting truth literally violates the mission of Wikipedia. There is nothing discriminatory here to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraine Maplewood (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
This is now escalating to a higher level. The editor is simply deleting truth. This kind of editing undermines the veracity of Wikipedia and gives it bad optics.Lorraine Maplewood (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not engage in an edit war. The issue of Somers has been discussed below. She is considered to be an unreliable source in all of this, I'm afraid. The main point about the discussions about this page has been finding reliable sources about this event. It has nothing to do with whatever personal opinion we might have about the singer. As this is a biography of a living persons page it needs solid references about anything of a personal nature. I noticed for instance that the line about a facelift in the Health section is also sourced to the National Enquires - it should also be removed. Karst (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Eight reasonably reliable sources are listed below, including the New York Daily News, the Huffington Post and Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia already lists Manliow and Kief in on the Same-Sex Married Couples page... so why not here? How high is the bar for sufficient evidence?

I do not mean to be engaged in an edit war, though I am a major proponent of telling the truth. Also, please pardon the longwindedness. I'm trying to be precise about a sensitive and important topic.

This is the text I added to the media section:

In 2014, Manilow married his longtime manager, Garry Kief, in a private ceremony held at his home in Palm Springs. [1] The two have been a couple since the early 1980s, when Kief rescued Manilow from financial difficulties. [2] The marriage confirms author Patricia Butler's assertions in her 2002 biography, "Barry Manilow: The Biography", that outed the singer-songwriter.[3]

Manilow's close friend, Suzanne Somers, confirmed the marriage publicly in an televised interview on “Watch What Happens Live!”.[4]

This was the dispute that I presented:

Despite whatever editor Karst (or others) may say about my conduct... well... I'd note that despite my being a new user, the truth would seem to be more important. I can certainly learn to be more dispassionate in my interactions, but the truth does not change. Pardon me, if you can, for making so many edits. I'm still getting used to the process. There is ample evidence that Barry Manilow married Garry Kief. Sources include:

Wikipedia Same-Sex Married Couples* [1] New York Daily News [2] Daily Telegraph [3] Huffington Post [4] Billboard [5] People [6] Daily Mail [7] E! News [8]

References 1. Jump up^ Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry Manilow 2. Jump up^ http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/barry-manilow-secretly-wed-manager-2014-report-article-1.2178211 3. Jump up^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11524150/Barry-Manilow-wed-his-manager-Garry-Kief-in-secret.html 4. Jump up^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/17/suzanne-somers-barry-manilow-gay_n_7085874.html 5. Jump up^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6524491/barry-manilow-secret-marriage-manager 6. Jump up^ http://people.com/celebrity/barry-manilow-marries-manager-garry-kief/ 7. Jump up^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3035008/Barry-Manilow-s-former-wife-speaks-news-married-long-time-manager-Garry-Kief.html 8. Jump up^ http://www.eonline.com/news/644346/barry-manilow-married-manager-garry-kief-in-suprise-ceremony-check-out-details

There is even a video clip with his close friend, Suzanne Somers (televised on "Watch What Happens Live!"), making this claim. The link is provided above, in the Huffington Post article. The talk page shows that this has become an enormous issue, with some even claiming LGBT discrimination. When no source, no matter now intimate, is considered "reliable," then... in my opinion... the truth becomes irrelevant. In this case, it would seem that impression management and "image" are being favored over fact. There innumerable articles that substantiate the claim, including comments by Barry's ex-wife and, again, by Somers. At the very least, it would be responsible to allow editing of the article that acknowledges that many sources (cited) have claimed that the marriage took place. A tremendous number of Wikipedia articles have presented far less substantiated information. The very fact of the colossal controversy on the talk page should be concerning to Wikipedia. It merits investigation.

I'm concerned that the deletions may be contrary to Wikipedia's mission as an impartial provider of truth. Also, I'm concerned that, in this case, omitting the truth might be offensive to gay Americans.

Will we continue to be denied the truth? Should fear of outing someone who has already been outed so overwhelm the truth, in which case, is Wikipedia a legitimate source of facts? Let me state, for the record, that I am a proponent of same-sex marriage and am thrilled that Barry is married to someone he loves. Cause for celebration. But my opinions are irrelevant. The point is... truth is truth, and deleting truth would seem to be deceptive. How long can Wikipedia survive omitting truth? Lorraine Maplewood (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I will leave the WP:SOAPBOX issues aside here. Concerning the eight sources. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, please see WP:USG. Most of the other sources have been mentioned before, but for the sake of argument I will reiterate them. The New York Daily news uses the National Inquirer report as does the Telegraph while citing unnamed sources. They also state that Manilow's representatives refused to confirm anything. The Huffington post article wheels out Sommers again and this has been discussed at length. The Billboard, E!online and People.com articles are also based on the National Enquirer. The Daily Mail cannot be used as a source, see here.
What this leaves us with is a report in a gossip magazine, the National Inquirer, that 20 to 30 people attended some kind of ceremony where no official papers were signed. Manilow, an utmost private person has thus far refused to comment on this event. So unless there are any new sources that how come to light since the last discussion, I cannot see how this can be added to the article. Karst (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly this talk page is WAY out of date and given Manilow's public 'coming out', I am modifying his page accordingly to reflect both of his previous marriages. I have included his musical artist as a subsection to the infobox person. Feel free to do any re-writes within his article itself as I don't have time at the moment. [5] There really isn't any point in NOT listing it as it is FACT.--B4theword (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are often "out of date". They provide a historical record of past discussion. That's just how they work. Editors usually just start a new thread when an article update has been made or proposed. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Surprise! Barry Manilow Has Married His Manager Garry Kief". People Magazine. April 8, 2015.
  2. ^ "How Manilow fooled his fans for 40 years: Shocked by the news that Barry Manilow's married a man? MICHAEL THORNTON wasn't - and here's why". Daily Mail. April 10, 2015.
  3. ^ "EXCLUSIVE - 'I'm glad that he's found love and happiness': Barry Manilow's ex-wife speaks out following revelation he married long-time manager last year". Daily Mail. April 11, 2015.
  4. ^ "Suzanne Somers Opens Up About Barry Manilow's Gay Wedding". Huffington Postl. April 17, 2015.
  5. ^ FoxNews. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/04/05/barry-manilow-opens-up-about-being-gay-explains-why-kept-sexuality-secret.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barry Manilow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry Manilow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barry Manilow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

2018 Barry is Headlining at Westgate Hotel Las Vegas

This article could be updated to show that Barry Manilow is currently headlining at the Westgate Hotel in Las Vegas. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8A8C:C900:CC74:2FAE:9E3B:7BD9 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_Manilow/Archive_2&oldid=1142381474"