Jump to content

Talk:Charlie Carver

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

Homophobia

[edit]

To include a non-issue such as a persons sexuality is a reverse form of homophobia. Carver came out as gay, wonderful. Harping on it here, making special mention of it here, spits in the face of gay people everywhere by pointing out "abnormality". There are exceptions to this, the person comes out, and goes on to become the next Harvey Milk, but there is no sign of political aspirations along with his coming out Instagram post. Furthermore, including that Carver is gay here borderlines catty gossip and, to a lesser extent, bigotry. Wikipedia is not some trashy tabloid magazine. I move the information be stricken from the article once and for all, moving society one step closer toward true equality. LLArrow (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on people are meant to serve as a biography, and part of him is being gay even to a point he publicly announced it. Sexulity is featured among many articles- Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Colton Haynes, Michelle Rodriguez ... The list goes on. You can't pick and choose who gets what, it's either acceptebale for everyone or no-one. If you're going to insist it removing due to "homophobia" then you need to remove it from everyone's article. Also the point of homophobia is absurd as it is stating the facts and not depicting it in a negative way, due to Wikipedia's rules of a nuetral stance. You're being overly pedantic and your issue goes a lot higher than just this page, if you wish to change it you'll need to take it futher because at this point it is deemed acceptable as it is done all across Wikipedia. Kelege (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, I could barely get through reading this without tearing every last stitch of hair from my body. It's people that hold this opinion that are keeping gay people from being accepted as normal in society. I stated quite clearly that people of recognition (activists, politician's that run on the platform of gay rights, etc.) sexuality should be mentioned along with their activism. People who are no "flag bearers" for the cause are just ordinary people, who happen to identify as gay. Making special mention of it here, is beyond reprehensible, as I said, tabloid worthy. LLArrow (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Save the dramatics for your blog, hearing about your hair really isn't needed nor is it wanted. "It's people that hold this opinion that are keeping gay people from being accepted as normal in society." You're clearly biased and letting your opinion cloud your judgment when writing articles. You're not leading a revolution when writing on Wikipedia, you're reporting the facts and the fact is that he revealed he was gay and it pertains to his personal life. Your excuse of "activism" is ridiculous because people coming out can also be a form of activism, as they are possibly jeopardizing their future work opportunities to make the statement. Just like when the Olympics happened in Russia, coming out was used as a form of activism. Kelege (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Save your bigotry for people that will tolerate it. What you're conveniently failing to mention is that your stance is also an "opinion". The road goes both ways. We need a partisan third-party opinion to come in and share their thoughts, instead of hearing the same old tunes. "They are possibly jeopardizing their future work opportunities to make the statement." Are you freakin' kidding me?! That very sentiment is exactly why these non-announcements are so imperative to progress and fighting oppression. Stop trying to bull your opinion into being, and let's actually get another mind in this matter, because we're obviously going nowhere fast here. P.S. If I was editing articles emotionally and from a bias I would have been kicked off years ago. LLArrow (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bigotry by reporting a fact from a neutral point of view... From what I can tell you've already been warned on your lack of neutral stand-point and this is just another case of it. Also claiming I'm a bigot (which is funny because I happen to be gay) is utter bull when I haven't stated his coming out to be a negative issue. The only one that is stating that coming out is a negative thing is you. You're the one putting connotations on the words and facts. With "these non-announcements are so imperative to progress and fighting oppression" I repeat you're not fighting the revolution, you're meant to be reporting the facts from a neutral POV. Kelege (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is not saying anything a point of view? Because that is exactly what I'm suggesting. I could care less if you're gay, that is regardless of all, considering people's personal feelings toward themselves and other people. In other words you could be gay, and still commit atrocities against progress. You have advertently or inadvertently deemed his coming out negative by insisting the information be placed in an article where it absolutely takes zero meaning other than gossipy news headline. All of which leads one to draw the conclusion that this information being added, for you, is coming from a bias notion. Go digging around as much as you want in my "history", every battle I've fought has been because I wholeheartedly believed in what I was standing for, and this is no different. I'm no activist, I'm merely taking an opportunity to easily eliminate a little less stigma in the world. LLArrow (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a notable part of his life. As it was for Matt Bomer, Neil Patrick Harris, Ellen DeGeneres and various others. If it wasn't notable, then why is there a Category:LGBT people by occupation and nationality? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 09:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the very reasons I've stated; gossip. People love it. There is no reason whatsoever to have Bomer listed as gay, only a news bulletin concerning his partner and kids. Also traditionally society has been homophobic, we've just become so desensitized to subtle taunts that we don't realize when they're staring us dead in the face. LLArrow (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are passionate about your viewpoint, but you have not yet built support for it. May I encourage you to stop editing the Charlie Carver bio page to eliminate his coming out until you do so? I would suggest that demostrating your viewpoint by editing this page is not appropriate. Rather, why not start a talk page on this very issue, and see where folks stand?2602:306:CC00:67E0:F88E:29E5:F60C:357F (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell do you think this is?. LLArrow (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be most interesting if you could provide some documentation that this objection to being identified as having publicly come out is anything other than a personal crusade by you. Also, please stop editing the page to conform to your personal standard in the matter, unless and until you can present evidence of some consensus.Jrwsaranac (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is talk for a particular person's page, not a place to fight for a broad policy.12.49.105.34 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your overwhelming wisdom and observational prowess. LLArrow (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LLArrow Further editing by you to remove the reference to Charlie Carver's coming out, in absence of discussion and consensus here, will result in my reporting your behavior. I assume you are unaware that repeated deletions in this way is considered questionable.Jrwsaranac (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So should the gay-related categories be removed from the article too? Since without any mention of him being gay in the article, the categories are unsupported. If there are no objections, I'll remove them in the near future. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 08:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A most vehement objection. A celebrity's announcement of coming out is generally considered relevant. There is no consensus otherwise.Jrwsaranac (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was trying to make the point, in a roundabout way, that if there is no content in the article about him being gay, then gay-related categories should be removed too. But he is gay, and the categories should remain. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 04:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here via the LGBT Wikiproject. Lots of things aren't relevant, interesting, or notable to a person's fame, like their parents' names, their religion, their high school, and so on, but we traditionally include them. Singling out their sexual orientation to be excluded is improper. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. RivertorchFIREWATER 00:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that sexual orientation is a thing to be hidden, and not addressed in a person's biography at all, is itself a form of homophobia. Our rule about people's sexual orientation is that if a notable person comes out publicly, then it is acceptable and appropriate for us to mention that in their article as long as we don't sensationalize it by putting more weight on it than it actually deserves. The only thing we're not allowed to do when it comes to LGBT people is to use Wikipedia as a platform for outing closeted LGBT figures who haven't come out — but if they have come out, and put it on the public record as a verifiable aspect of their lives, then there's nothing inappropriate or homophobic about our article simply mentioning the fact in a neutral way. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So well stated I am humbled. Thank you.Jrwsaranac (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Carver. 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) 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Carver&oldid=1206563136"