Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A look at sources

I took a look at reliable sources comments on Foster's Golden Globes speech. Some do plainly identify her as gay, but some hedge in some way, or skirt around the issue.

"Ms. Foster publicly acknowledged, kind of, that she is, as anyone who cared already assumed, gay."The Lifting of a Veil, Discreetly - NYTimes.com

"any speculation over the star’s sexuality has come to an end." Jodie Foster’s Golden Globes Speech: What Did She Mean? - TIME.com

"The veteran actress unspooled a long speech that included tacit references to her sexual orientation and a public thank-you to her former partner"Jodie Foster's Golden Globes Speech: 'I Came Out a Thousand Years Ago' - Rolling Stone

"It’s just hard to say exactly what she did–or didn’t–reveal. The 50-year-old actress, who has long refused to discuss her private life, appeared to acknowledge publicly for the first time that she is a lesbian."In Golden Globes speech, Jodie Foster comes out. Or not. - MSNBC

"The deep breath that the actress took before announcing to the world that she was … "single" was masterful. The rumors about her sexual orientation had shadowed her for years."Jodie Foster delivers a jolt from the heart - Los Angeles Times

"Hollywood actress Jodie Foster confirmed long-running speculation that she is gay by coming out at the Golden Globes awards on Sunday" Jodie Foster comes out as gay at Golden Globes - Reuters

"Jodie Foster came out without really coming out" Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring - AP

"But without actually saying the words "I'm gay," Foster acknowledged that she's never lived her life any way other than as a gay woman." Jodie Foster's Stirring Golden Globes Speech: 'I Already Did My Coming Out a Thousand Years Ago' - Hollywood Reporter

"She never said “gay.” Or “lesbian.”"Jodie Foster comes out, gritting her teeth - Salon.com

"she addressed everything from her sexuality to her relationship with her mother."Jodie Foster Comes Out at Golden Globes - People.com

"It was a winking nod to her fans and followers who by now know that Foster is gay." Jodie Foster Comes Out and Maybe Retires - Advocate.com

Ten Wildly Varying Interpretations of Jodie Foster's Golden Globes Speech - Vanity Fair

Robyn Harper: Jodie Foster Gives Us a Glimpse of the Future: No Labels, No Announcements, No Difference - Huffington Post

And here is one reason why I personally am wary of using media identification of sexual orientation. They have a track record of playing fast and loose with this in the past. Two women who in the recent past went public with same-sex relationships, but without self-identifying with any particular sexual orientation, and subsequently were identified as gay/lesbian by the media: Amber Heard[1][2] and Maria Bello[3][4] (Bello clarified on twitter that her not identifying with a label was intentional.[5][6] Heard also subsequently clearly said she doesn't label herself.[7]) Huffington Post, one source that plainly identifies Foster as gay[8] previously identified Heard as a lesbian.[9] Us Magazine also identified Foster as gay[10] and previously did the same with both Heard and Bello.[11][12]

I already gave my views in the RfCs above, but I think the mixed coverage, combined with the media track record, makes it clear that, at the very least, we should not say Foster is a lesbian in Wikipedia voice. (And for the record, I'm not trying to say anything about Foster's sexual orientation here, just that she clearly, and very likely deliberately, hasn't self-identified.) Siawase (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Siawase, thanks for the excellent run through of the sources. I think your point about not using Wikipedia's voice is right on. That's why I still think that EvergreenFir's caveat version in "Comments for RfC 3" is still the best solution that should satisfy everyone because (1) we don't use Wikipedia's voice; (2) we still honor what RS say; and (3) we document Foster's "non-disclosure" status. Here is EvergreenFir's caveat version:

• Caveat - Per WP:RS, I would be mildly okay with a statement like "Many news outlets describe Foster as a lesbian, but she has never confirmed nor denied any identity of sexual orientation." This would seem to me to be okay with WP:BLP as well. (...) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Even Alison agreed with that version. That version follows all policies. Can't we just use that type of wording and end this discussion? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable. How about: "While many news outlets have described Foster as a lesbian, she has never publicly identified with any particular sexual orientation. During a speech at the Golden Globes last year, Foster said (and then fill in the quote about "I came out years ago" or whatever)". That sort of phrase is a huge distance from "Foster was born in 19xx. Foster is a lesbian actress." - and we do use that phrase a lot in wikipedia's voice: [13] - I just feel there's consensus to not do so here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely moving in the right direction. I'd suggest also adding the word "gay", since some sources also use that word: "...outlets have described Foster as a lesbian and gay..." How's that? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How about not? Unless you want to add bisexual as well. I'm sure there's a source there *somewhere* that says that. That should suitably blur things and muddy the waters. How about we generate a 'list of labels ever applied to Jodie Foster by the media' section? Seriously - once you start sticking labels on that various pundits pulled out of ... thin air ... things go to pieces. Because it's *all* speculation - Alison ^❤ 06:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Googling for it, I found these sources (all going back to her brother's 1997 bio:) [14][15][16] Siawase (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that settles that, then; she's a queer, gay, bisexual lesbian. Bring on the tagging! In seriousness, it's important to note that in the late 1990s, she was pretty annoyed by the speculation around her sexuality and those who would try to pigeonhole her into some category - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus building for phrasing of how news outlets describe Foster

Okay, attempting to use this momentum to hash out a sentence we can all (mostly) agree on. Will then open up an RfC if we get something we like. I see concern about adding the "coming out" part, so I'm going to leave that out for now. From the sources linked, it seems like she's most often speculated to be gay/lesbian by the news outlets (and not bisexual). How about this wording:

Though many news outlets have described Foster as a lesbian or gay, she has never publicly identified with any particular sexual orientation.

I understand Alison's concern about adding too many descriptors ("queer, gay, bisexual lesbian") and leaving out others, but it does seem that the majority of examples are "lesbian" and "gay" (the latter being a more generic term... funny how the masculine is the default/generic). This is a great example of bisexual erasure by the news, but that's what we need to report on. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that she came out publicly, in a speech, otherwise there's the implication that she hasn't made any statement about her sexuality. I can't see how this can be considered bisexual erasure, because no-one (other than a few commenters on this talk page) have made the suggestion that she might be bisexual. If the media did that, they could leave themselves open to being prosecuted for libel. Many famous actresses are openly bisexual and it hasn't harmed their careers. The suggested wording you've stated is good, and should be supported with examples of mainstream media articles which clearly describe her as gay or lesbian. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, you keep on saying this - that no-one has EVER speculated she may be bisexual. But, her own BROTHER did exactly that, in a book he published a while back. Please stop repeating this, as it's not true, bi-sexual rumors were not invented here... Note: I'm not propagating said rumor, I have no idea whatsoever...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think re: coming out the current wording is good, e.g. "In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago..." It's probably best to let her own words more or less speak for themselves, rather than call it a "coming out" (since, as she notes, she already "came out").--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That looks sensible to me. Report what the press said and report that they were speculating. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• She said, "I hope you guys weren't hoping this would be a big coming out speech tonight, because I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago." I take it that she does consider the Golden Globe speech to be a coming out speech, just not a "big" one. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I took it differently. I had read elsewhere that Foster didn't like the idea of having a big "coming out", doing interviews, etc. So I don't think she considered it a "coming out" at all, as she states, she had already "come out" to those who mattered to her, long ago.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

She was obviously referring to her private coming out, but now doing it publicly and reconfirming it by her declaration of love for Bernard. She was no longer hiding her coming out. She went there, albeit reluctantly. She's a private person, but for some reason decided to go public. By any definition, this was a small coming out in its own right, and I think The cheerful dwarf is right about that. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm not going to go into her head without knowing your sources, but I have difficulty reading "people that mattered to her" from the original: "proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met". She's met allot of people, so "everyone" would be extensively beyond mattered, which she did "proudly". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Her speech as a bit all over the place, as we currently have it in the article is best - just quote her words and let the reader do the interpreting. it would be odd for wikipedia to say she "came out" when Foster says "she already came out".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Without doing any OR or SYNTH, we can state that "she noted her early coming out by stating: ".....", or something like that. That way we get the wikilink in there without putting it in the actual quote, which is discouraged. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Something along these lines is fine, but the initial draft up there seems to belabor the point a bit much. WP:NOT#DISCLAIMER. Simply stating that sources frequently refer to her as a lesbian, that she came out publicly, and is married to another woman, is entirely sufficient. Our readers can make of this what they will without us beating them over the head with weasel-wording about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, been a few days since last comment. Going to try to cobble comments together and make a bold edit. If there's disagreement, feel free to revert and discuss more. Visible text in bold, refs in regular:

Though many news outlets have described Foster as a lesbian or gay<ref>For example, {{cite web | url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-501256/Jodie-Foster-comes-emotional-tribute-girlfriend-14-years.html | title=Jodie Foster comes out with emotional tribute to her girlfriend of 14 years | date=12 December 2007 | accessdate=12 May 2014 }} and {{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/14/jodie-foster-reveals-gay-suggests-retiring/ | title=Jodie Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring | date=14 January 2013 | accessdate=12 May 2014}}</ref> and she acknowledged coming out in a speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards,<ref name="APCL">{{cite news|url=http://seattletimes.com/html/entertainment/2020128429_apusgoldenglobesjodiefoster.html|title=Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring|author=Christy Lemire|date=January 14, 2013|accessdate=April 26, 2014|agency=[[Associated Press]]}}</ref><ref name="UPI.com">{{cite news|url=http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2013/01/13/Actress-director-Jodie-Foster-comes-out-as-gay-at-Globes/UPI-22611358133629/|title=Actress-director Jodie Foster publicly comes out as gay at Globes|date=January 13, 2013|accessdate=January 14, 2013|agency=[[United Press International]]}}</ref><ref name="ABCNews">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/01/full-transcript-jodie-fosters-golden-globes-speech/|title=Jodie Foster's Golden Globes Speech: Full Transcript|author=|date=January 13, 2013|accessdate=January 14, 2013|publisher=[[ABC News]]}}</ref><ref name="Fischoff">{{Citation |last=Fischoff |first=Stuart |date=23 January 2013 |title=Jodie Foster: To Come Out Lesbian Or Let Sleeping Rumors Lie |publisher=''[[Psychology Today]]'' |url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-media-zone/201301/jodie-foster-come-out-lesbian-or-let-sleeping-rumors-lie |accessdate=25 April 2014 }}</ref> Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation.<ref name="gaystarnews">{{cite web | url=http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ellen-page-defends-jodie-foster%E2%80%99s-much-maligned-coming-out-speech090514 | title=Ellen Page defends Jodie Foster’s much maligned coming out speech| date=09 May 2014 | accessdate=12 May 2014 | author=Hernandez, Greg}}</ref>

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to fault :) I've made a minor tweak to shift noun to adjective, but everything there is factual and sourced without actually labeling her using Wikipedia's voice. I'm okay with this - Alison ^❤ 06:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent solution! Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. Neljack (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC 1 - Should LGBT categories be added to page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Question: should Foster be added to LGBT categories? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments for RfC 1

• Support addition of categories - As I've said above, LGBT can be used to refer to any non heterosexual or non-cisgender person. Though we do not know what Foster personally identifies as, it's clear from her public marriage to another woman she's not strictly heterosexual. Unless Foster explicitly says she does not identify as LGBT, these category is appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Being in a long-term same-sex relationship does not mean that the person "has to be" LGBT or will inevitably in the future come out or otherwise self-identify in a way that puts them under the LGBT umbrella. If someone pointedly does not claim an LGBT identity, like several BLP subjects have done recently while in public same-sex relationships (I'm pretty sure I even saw one subject say "I do not want to be categorized") we cannot claim that they are under LGBT since they identified out of LGBT. And everything Foster has done so far puts her in this group. She has publicly acknowledged at least one same-sex relationship, and certainly had ample opportunity to self-identify if she so wished, so we can only conclude that she deliberately hasn't done so, so as far as we know, she is outside of LGBT identity. And we shouldn't include people in LGBT categories based on behavior alone, see WP:BLPCAT. And if we include her in the general LGBT category that would have to be a categorisation based on behavior, since she hasn't made any public self-identification. And, absent self-identification, we certainly don't include people in the LGBT category if they have no public record of their sexual behavior, or if the public record only shows heterosexual behavior, ergo, in this case she would be included based only on her known same-sex behavior, since there is no self-identification to go by. And if the general LGBT category is turning into some de facto behavioral category we need to have a broader discussion which threshold of (public, reliably sourced) hehavior should lead to people being categorised as LGBT. Siawase (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

She did not only marry a woman - she publicly represents that she is married to a woman. So, this is not about behavior, it is about the ordinary meaning of what she has publicly represented to be the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this reply earlier. Yes, she has been public about same-sex relationships, but that is not the same as self-identifying with a sexual identity, it is being public about same-sex behavior. People have been public about same-sex behavior (up to and including long term relationships) and then identified outside of LGBT (no labels) or even as heterosexual. In fact, right now in practice the generic LGBT cats seem to work in a reversal of WP:BLPCAT, ie, to be kept out of generic LGBT categories you have to self-identify as heterosexual, if you have been public about same-sex behavior. Siawase (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A marriage is not a behavior. It's a public contract of a legal status, and in this case it is a self-acknowledged public contract of a legal status. A person may or may not have same-sex relationships, without publicly acknowledging that one's status is married (secret marriages have been known to exist). As for the rest, if your point is that the category should be deleted, this is not the proper forum for that.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting married or going into any other legal contract is a behavior, and getting married is still not a self-identification with any sexual identity, as required by BLPCAT. You sign a marriage contract, not an "I am now part of the LGBT community" contract. And I don't think holding legally recognized same-sex marriage up as some gold standard is a good idea either, considering how many people live in jurisdictions where it's not an option. And no, I don't want to see the generic LGBT categories deleted (not sure where you got that idea.) I'm questioning the compatibility of the WP:BLPCAT policy with the way generic LGBT categories are currently applied to BLPs in practice. It's certainly a possibility to change the BLP policy to conform with current practice, but right now the two just aren't in concordance. Siawase (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No. It's a legal status. We're not talking about what she is doing with sex, we are talking about her legal status ("is married"). Moreover, here, you have what is commonly known as Gay Marriage, so, thus you don't pretend that it is not commonly known as a Gay Marraige. On top of that, here, it's not a secret marriage, it is openly acknowledged by the subject. Finally, your personal opinion about jurisdictions, so you don't want to acknowledge such a marriage state/status, is not in keeping with NPOV. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, if it is true that "the compatibility of the WP:BLPCAT policy [is not in keeping] with the way generic LGBT categories are currently applied to BLPs in practice" that just means by WP:Consensus your construction of the policy, or the category, or both is incorrect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Siawase (talk · contribs) makes a very compelling argument indeed, and I've pointed to it myself earlier. The subject in this case pointedly refused to self-identify as LGBT, and this has now been over decades. Also, adding LGBT categorizing based on behavior alone sets a dangerous precedent. Should Larry Craig be added, for example? He's not right now. Or better still, J. Edgar Hoover, given the dozens of stories, rumors, etc - Alison ^❤ 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We've got more than just "rumors" here.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is dependent on the unquestionable fact that she has "come out" as lesbian/gay (the only known and accepted use of the term "coming out", and she used exactly those words, so who are we to deny that fact). Her failure to use certain words is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since her meaning and actions for many years is clear. Regardless of whether or not she uses the words "gay" and/or "lesbian", RS use those words and we are obligated to use the words which the sources use. Wikipedia is concerned with what RS say, not what she doesn't say. If necessary, we can always attribute the wording to the source. She has never objected to accurate descriptions being used in the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Brangifer, to state the obvious, you can come out as other than lesbian/gay, and many people do. She could have come out as bisexual (heard of them?), pansexual, etc, etc. These things really do matter - Alison ^❤ 21:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your speculations are really unhelpful, but let me help you. Context means something, and in fact it means everything here. In this case there is NO DOUBT that she was referring to her lesbian relationship. She came out about it a long time ago. You don't really doubt that she's lesbian, do you? Seriously? -- Brangifer (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

'Let me help you' comes across as awfully aggressive here, BRangifer. And the tone in which you ask Alison what she believes about this is extremely confrontational and not likely to elicit a response. And for what it's worth, context does not make facts out of suppositions. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• on the fence some compelling oppose arguments above. The reason in leaning is because of her statement about 'coming out' which can be taken to mean (and was by RS) that she's part of the LGBT umbrella. It's not ideal but no-one could fault is for it. The other reason I'm leaning support is for the good of Wikipedia - otherwise this article will continue to be a battleground. If adding to LGBT categories is an acceptable compromise then that will reduce churn and conflict, and readers coming here who have seen her called lesbian this and lesbian that will not be surprised and will be expecting to see her at least in the category of LGBT actors. Not a great argument but whatever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow that has got to be the most wishy-washy comment I've ever seen! Why the hell are we even having this discussion? When someone marries someone of the same gender, they are either gay or bi. She should have been included in the LGBT categories at the very moment of her Golden Globe speech.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk • contribs)

And if they're neither gay nor bi? What then? It's been repeatedly pointed out that it's a possibility, as well as the distinct chance that Ms. Foster doesn't want to self-identify as anything. Who are we to make best-guess and stick on a label, primarily to satisfy ourselves? - Alison ^❤ 06:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Chance? No, we go by RS. According to RS, she has publicly come out as loving other women. Do we therefore deny that she romantically loves other women? We cannot, nor should not. She is not silent, and we should not deny her self-revelation by silencing her, as well as silencing the reliable sources, certainly not for the sake of editor's own agendas -- having nothing to do with her documented biography. Out of respect for the subject, we do not repeatedly say, 'we will not hear you, say it louder.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What other possibly is out there? That Mrs. Foster merely identifies herself as queer? That still means that she should be included. This is the most stupid conversation since the Chelsea Manning incident! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jodie Foster has, pointedly and repeatedly, refused to self-identify in any of our sexual orientation categories. It is not our place to declare what her self-identification is, or what it should be. It doesn't matter whether her reason is privacy, uncertainty, rejection of the predominant taxonomy, or any other cause. We wouldn't do that with regard to any subject's religious affiliation/beliefs, and our standards for sexual orientation categories are congruent. I see no reason to deny Foster the individual dignity/autonomy we afford every other person in such matters, and cannot understand the fervor with which some editors here insist on making such decisions for her. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: How is use of an umbrella category denying her dignity/autonomy? I'd agree with this argument for use of "lesbian", but not LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue is what category she self-identifies as. She has chosen not to make a public self-identification. We don't have any right to make it for her. She may not accept the standard scheme for pigeonholing people. We have no right to force her into it. Our relevant policies direct us not to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it pigeonholing when an umbrella term is used. That would be more like blue whale holing. Given the number of reliable sources that say she's married to a woman, she clearly fits under that umbrella. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What is clear is that she's not hetero, so that places her in the LGBT category. RS label her as gay and lesbian, so the category is appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We are refusing to respect her individual dignity/autonomy by refusing to accept her open choice to live as a same-sex married lesbian who has come out very publicly. That's extremely disrespectful. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So you'll be able to show a reliable source in which she describes herself as a lesbian, then? Or are you proposing to 'respect' her by labelling her with a label she's never adopted herself? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support because it is what is best in keeping with the weight of the sources, and the oppose arguments while long on personal editor's philosophies are short on serious biographical consideration, which is the Pedia's overriding concern (See eg.[17] [18].) Moreover, let's not disregard and disrespect the subject of this article by refusing to give the ordinary meaning to her words: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked Bernard, calling her "one of the deepest loves of my life, my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life"[19] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alan, you make a very good point, and one that has bothered me for some time. The failure to show her respect is a serious matter. It's a form of homophobia, albeit likely not intended, but it is. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support - While I'm tired of the need to pigeonhole people, it seems fair to apply an LGBT general category to a person who has actually married a person of the same gender. Can we pick this and stick to it? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Of course Foster is in the LGBT category, no matter how complex some Wikipedians have made this issue. Nobody in the media doubts whether Foster is LGBT, and Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I feel that being in a same-sex marriage makes Foster LGBT. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: As per Binksternet.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support at the very least she is bisexual, period. I feel like there is an element of heterosexualism involved in the opposes, which is the idea that the starting point, and the status that is least objectionable, is heterosexual. To a degree that even though she married a woman people actually thinks it makes sense to deny that she is at the very least bisexual. Really, is being categorized as LGBT so controversial and distasteful to be considered part of that wide spectrum that even when a woman marries another woman legally we feel the need to keep her default to be straight? Because by opposing an LGBT categorization you are asserting we should not take away her heterosexual status, which is our default status for everyone. -David Shankbone 06:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I must say I disagree. Heterosexual is NOT the default status. The default status for the vast majority of categories is simply "neutral". There are no "straight" categories, and by being placed in an LGBT category, Foster remains in all neutral categories. So there is no way to generate a list or category of "straight" people. All you could do is say "Give me all actors who ARENT tagged as gay" - and all that tells you is, these are actors who have not publicly come out as gay, which is not the same thing as actors who are straight.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? He was criticizing about the fact that we have a debate on adding LGBT categories for an actress who not only just married another woman, she also had a big speech about coming out the closet, which I still can't believe there are people disputing what she meant. Yes, to say you're coming out doesn't always mean to publicly acknowledge you're gay or bi or trans, but that what she fucking meant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk • contribs)

And how do you know what she "fucking meant"? That's the crux of the matter here; she's never self-identified as anything, yet here you go claiming you know - Alison ^❤ 06:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, what the hell does Jodie Foster need to do to convince you that she's not straight? Because apparently her marriage and her speech means nothing to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Jodie Foster isn't trying to convince me of anything, in fact she's markedly silent on her own self-identification. Nor am I disagreeing that she's not straight; she's married to another woman so she's clearly not straight. What she actually is, however, is not so clear - Alison ^❤ 10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: She has publicly stated that she has come out - therefore the LGBT cats are valid, relevant and reliably sourced. Jim Michael (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support because a marriage is in some sense a public statement. By entering into a same-sex marriage she's publicly declared that she is not exclusively heterosexual. Therefore the LGBT cat is not inappropriate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Below you said her marriage doesn't mean anything about her sexuality. It looks to me like we've got classic herd behaviour going on here: people see a whole bunch of "opposes" and so pile in with that conventional wisdom. You see a bunch of "supports" here and are "me too." If this analysis were not correct you would not be using the exact same fact to come to two different conclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Dell: no, that's not correct. What I said below was Being married to a woman doesn't mean she's necessarily a lesbian, which is not the same as what you've written above. My point is that:

1. Marriage to a woman indicates that she is not exclusively heterosexual (therefore it's ok for us to use the LGBT cats etc), and
2. Marriage to a woman does not indicate that she is necessarily a lesbian (therefore it's not ok for us to state that she is one).

I don't see any inconsistency between these two statements. At the risk of stating the obvious, there are options other than heterosexual or lesbian. She could be bisexual.

Incidentally, I'd prefer it if you didn't impute motives to me. It doesn't seem consistent with WP:GOODFAITH.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can't she be straight? If the apparent lesbianism is just for show, just how do you know where that show stops and the inherent LGBT-ness begins?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in general "LGBT" categories — a confirmed and formalized same-sex relationship is enough of a public statement for that. We don't have enough evidence to clarify whether she properly belongs in the specific subcategories for "lesbian" or "bisexual", so for the time being I have to oppose filtering "LGBT" down to a particular quadrant, but we do have sufficient basis to support her inclusion in general "LGBT" categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Siawase makes the best argument. WP:BLPCAT is very clear about categorization based on sexual orientation when it says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question." Unless somebody can find a reliable, documented case of Foster explicitly identifying herself as a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender, she should not be categorized as such. JamesRoberts (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment She has self-identified as being a member of the LGBT community by coming out publicly and having openly had a 15-year lesbian relationship and later marrying another woman. Jim Michael (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• No. LGBT is not a sexual orientation (nor is it limited to your list) (And, btw, transgender is not a sexual orientation either -- it has to do with gender identity). (See also, other catagories for sexual orentation catagories). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't write a list. As I said, there is an LGBT community and Foster has clearly, publicly identified herself as being a member of it. Jim Michael (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, my comment was in response to James Roberts' and his list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I am inescapably driven to the conclusion that policy mandates that the LGBT category not be included:

(1) WP:BLPCAT states that "categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question..."

(2) The LGBT category is a category "regarding ... sexual orientation..." It is of course true, as Alanscottwalker points out, that "LGBT" is not a sexual orientation. However, the policy does not say "categories that are sexual orientations" - it uses the broader language "categories regarding ... sexual orientation..." Given that gay, lesbian and bisexual, which are subsumed under the general heading of LGBT, are unquestionably sexual orientations, LGBT seems to me to clearly be a category "respecting sexual orientations". I don't think the inclusion of transgender, which is properly characterised as a matter of gender identity rather than sexual orientation, affects this conclusion - all it means is that LGBT is both a category respecting sexual orientation and a category respecting gender identity.

(3) Ms Foster has never publicly identified herself as LGBT, or indeed as lesbian or bisexual. She has made statements about "coming out". However, it is original research to infer from this that she identifies as LGBT. Given that this is a BLP matter, we need a clear statement of identification, rather than having her identification interpreted by editors on the basis of statements that do not directly express it.

Therefore it would be a BLP violation to include the category. Neljack (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No. LGBT is not regarding a thing one person identifies as being. Nor is LGBT limited to lesbian, or gay, or bisexual, or transgender, it has broader connotation. Given her public statements, there is no violation of BLP and no original research, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Alanscottwalker. LGBT is used as an umbrella term for people of alternative sexual orientations, identities, etc. This is described on the LGBT article as well. --Precision123 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is "an umbrella term for people of alternative sexual orientations, identities, etc." That is why it is a category "regarding ... sexual orientation..." Neljack (talk) 06:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Categories are generally broadly applied. Despite the comedic vagueness in her public coming-out speech, it is understood that she was coming out as gay/lesbian (or, at the very least, LGBT).[20][21][22][23][24] --Precision123 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per BLPCAT, and local consensus does not override policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think categories have gotten a little out of hand on Wikipedia, and they can be POV by adding undue weight to whatever the category is. Are we supposed to chase down every LGBT person and tag them like this? Jodie Foster's notability has little if anything to do with her personal relationships. So I don't think adding the category is appropriate. It would be like adding a "divorced" category to George Clooney's article. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Useitorloseit I can barely make heads or tails of what you're trying to argue here. From what I gather upon a few reads, you're trying to say "don't bother because there are plenty of un-categorized LGBT pages". That is not a cogent argument. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My argument is: not every single person who's LGBT needs to have their page listed as part of the LGBT category. Putting categories on any page that might qualify is getting out of hand. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "might qualify" and what other purpose do categories have beside being put on pages? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think categories should be added unless it's clearly relevant to the subject, and I don't think it's relevant enough to Jodie Foster. That's all. Useitorloseit (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Question: Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments for RfC 2

Comment if we're doing this piecemeal, split this one up to. Prose and categories are handled by separate policies. Siawase (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "lesbian" categories - We do not know if Foster identifies as a lesbian. Though she is married to a woman, she should be bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, homoromantic asexual, genderqueer heterosexual, or any other queer identity. Unless Foster explicitly says she is lesbian, we cannot use the label to describe her as it would be ascriptive and against WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:BLPCAT, no self-identification. Siawase (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:BLPCAT, as she does not self-identify as lesbian. She could be any of a number of other identities, per EvergreenFir, hence my comment earlier about bisexual erasure - Alison ^❤ 20:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per BLPCAT, she has not self identified as such. Behavior is utterly irrelevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but RS trump that. A wikipedian follows the sources. Are you a wikipedian? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Discuss the article, not individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stricken. Now please respond to my comment below and use policy based arguments, not speculations. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This too is dependent on the unquestionable fact that she has "come out" as lesbian/gay (the only known and accepted use of the term "coming out", and she used exactly those words, so who are we to deny that fact). Her failure to use certain words is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since her meaning and actions for many years is clear. Regardless of whether or not she uses the words "gay" and/or "lesbian", RS use those words and we are obligated to use the words which the sources use. Wikipedia is concerned with what RS say, not what she doesn't say. If necessary, we can always attribute the wording to the source. She has never objected to accurate descriptions being used in the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per BLPCAT. 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insufficient data. We don't apply categories that are quite likely, just ones that are virtually certain. I'm very surprised to find people insisting that WP:RS means we should make a guess - even an informed guess - in applying categories. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm very surprised to find you thinking this is no more than a "guess". Can you direct us to a source that says "some have guessed that..." or "I would guess that..." or are you just guessing here about who's guessing?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Journalists are not in the habit of laying bare the deficiencies of their methods; nevertheless, when it comes to knowing who someone is attracted to when they haven't said anything, I would suggest these methods are essentially guesswork. Unless psychic powers are now common practice in Fleet Street...? A reliable source is one that shows its working; one that uses, and demonstrates that it uses, reliable sources of its own when needed; one which rises above the lazy suppositions of the tabloid press. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't our first rodeo when it comes to assessing sources. WP:RS has been around a long time, and if that policy is deficient, best to fix it there and not just here. If you've discovered "deficiencies [in] their methods" I would think those "deficiencies" are a problem in more areas than just whether Jodie Foster is into women.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop mischaracterising what I say? Nobody has queried whether Ms Foster is into women - she obviously is; that's reliably attested across the board. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that that fact alone makes her indisputably lesbian, even though she has never said anything of the sort. You need to pay more attention to what people both here and in the wider world have actually said, as opposed to what you imagine they meant. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How about setting the example then for correct characterization by quoting where I say Foster is "indisputably lesbian". If she's "obviously" "into women", as you say here, that's good enough for categorization purposes.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't attribute the words 'indisputably lesbian' to you; that was my characterisation of your argument. If I've misrepresented it, I apologise; but as you are arguing for the use of 'lesbian' and I am arguing against it, it seemed fair enough. And just to reiterate: No, a woman being into other women is not, on its own, sufficient evidence that she is lesbian and not bisexual. Bisexuality, as Alison has pointed out elsewhere on this page, is not a kind of super-gayness; it's an orientation in its own right, which usually (although I am aware of exceptions) precludes the adoption of a monosexual 'gay'/'lesbian' label. And as for any attraction to men: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There would be nothing extraordinary about a person experiencing attraction to a gender other than that of their long-term partner, and not doing anything about it. Categorising bisexuals as gay would be a substantial misrepresentation. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not enough info. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: sources suggest the category applies. The speculation that the subject might be bisexual is just that, speculation. More importantly, another category is not precluded anyway. It is entirely possible to be both German and American, for example, and for one category to apply more than the other.--Brian Dell (talk)

Lesbian is just as much speculation as bisexual. But I'm not sure how someone is both a lesbian and bisexual... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's true that "Lesbian is just as much speculation as bisexual" then let's see a source that agrees with you that the available information suggests roughly even possibilities. As for being both lesbian and bisexual, it's called being predominately lesbian in orientation but not absolutely. Talk to some LGBT advocates and they'll tell you not everything is neatly black and white here. Editors seem to be characterizing these categories as having some grand metaphysical significance (exploring philosophical questions like whether one identity precludes another) when really they are just navigation aids. There is no need to get so tied up in knots about this. We're not here to lead the world to enlightenment, we're here to help people find the information they need to draw more informed conclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you expect LGBT advocates to queue up and support your position. Of course this isn't black-and-white; that's why we should abandon the pretence that Foster is unambiguously a lesbian. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Enough with the straw man. Adding this category does not make Foster "unambiguously a lesbian". The issue is whether we continue with the pretence that Foster has so little in common with lesbians at any level or perspective that it would be unhelpful to not have this category. I'm struck by how the close-mindedness here is on your side of the debate. EvergreenFir is befuddled by how someone could be both into women and to some lesser degree into guys. You, in turn, apparently can't get your mind around any form of lesbianism that isn't completely "unambiguous".--Brian Dell (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's far from being a straw man argument; calling her a lesbian is calling her a lesbian. She may well not self-identify as such, and there are many other alternatives. This has been stated many times already. You (nor I) have no idea how much she is "into guys" and we should not preclude the distinct possibility that she may be. To someone who's neither gay nor bisexual, this may seem a trivial matter, but it's far from it - Alison ^❤ 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The straw man is that categorizing her as lesbian would be calling her exclusively lesbian. The editors who are "preclud[ing] the distinct possibility that she may be" into guys are the editors on your side of this discussion. Open your mind a little to what's possible here. I am astounded by the extent to which some editors believe Wikipedia is constraining people's lives by simply giving cited information to the public. We have a job to do, and even if advancing some liberation agenda were it, anyone categorized as lesbian on Wikipedia is in no way forbidden from swinging whichever way they please. Our concern here should be for those researchers who may be going through certain Wikipedia categories for legitimate research purposes. This case should be available for their consideration. There's a policy called --Brian Dell (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, that justification reads exactly like other gay-tagging justifications which have been used here before, and which led to the adoption of WP:EGRS, which states very clearly that "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". There are vast lists, available outside of wikipedia, of people who have been gay-tagged but which we are not yet ready to do. You seem unable to comprehend that Foster could love a woman, have sex with a woman, be married to a woman, and NOT be somehow a lesbian - as noted she could be bi, OR, she could be something else entirely which she has defined for herself. That's up to her. The world is not divided, as some have argued into "straight" and "LGBT" - its much more complex than that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are a little late to claim the "complex" mantle when I already took it and invited you to do the same, Obi.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, your claim was different - you are saying, Ok, maybe Foster is a lesbian++, a lesbian with a little extra something, somewhere on the lesbian-identity-chart. But we don't know that! We have no way of knowing that! I'm talking about people who are off the charts entirely, who REFUSE to identify as a lesbian even though they marry a lesbian. She has had AMPLE chances to do so, and has NEVER done so. You want to put her in a lesbian category, which is the same as wikipedia saying "She is a lesbian", but your basis is only behavior (irrelevant) and speculation of journalists (irrelevant). The only thing that is relevant to whether she is or isn't a lesbian is her own personal statement on the matter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say we do know that. I said it's possible. And, no, it is not "same as wikipedia saying 'She is a lesbian'." Why is there a discussion below if there is no difference between this RfC and the next one? Again, your narrowing of what is relevant to exclude "journalists" isn't just close-minded but a pretty shameless rejection of WP:RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me! Nobody is "constraining her life" here, let's make that clear. However, there's a distinct possibility that we're unfairly mis-labeling her, and we're definitely engaging in bisexual erasure here. For certain. A woman who dates other women is not a de facto lesbian. She may be, or she may not; you don't know, and neither do I. My mind is wide-open to all sorts of possibilities as to what she may be, whilst being married to another woman. I'm ostensibly in that situation myself, as it happens, yet I don't self-identify as lesbian. Go figure - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If "Nobody is "constraining her life" here" then when will you give up the allegation that Wikipedia would be offending her, or anyone else? I'd say your mind is far from open when you refuse to entertain the possibility that she can be categorized as lesbian without her being exclusively lesbian. Here's another possibility for you: she isn't lesbian at all. Does that mean Wikipedia does not proceed? No, it doesn't. We do not exclude everything that has a one in a million chance of being wrong. We follow what reliable sources say, and that doesn't mean the sources are infallible.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG <deep breath> Firstly, you're conflating self-identity with current choice of partner(s). You say above, "swinging whichever way they please", indicating that you oscillate between lesbian and straight depending on your current partner's sex. It doesn't work like that. She could date women for evermore and still be bisexual, not lesbian. There is a very significant difference. If she says, "I'm lesbian", then she is unequivocally lesbian. She has yet to state this, so it's not our job to guess that based on her choice of partners that we know of. BTW - there is no such thing as a "lesbian bisexual" by definition; you're either one or the other. And of course we can proceed without tagging her as lesbian. And yes, we can state that various tabloids have called her such, without actually calling her such, ourselves - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"You're either one or the other." It's just that simple, is it? I invited you to open your mind here to the possibility of gradation and I see you refuse to. There is conflation going on here all right, conflating a Wikipedia category with ontology. We are not some Official Committee deciding whether Pluto is a planet. Foster will continue as whatever she TRULY is despite Wikipedia categorizing her consistent with the apparent evidence.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories do have an ontological quality to them, and it has long been consensus that we should not tag people with LGBT cats unless they self-identify accordingly. She has not, as far as we know, self-identified as a lesbian. Ipso facto, we should not categorize her as such. Yes there are gradations, Brian, but she hasn't even put herself on the lesbian chart. She's never said "I have gay tendencies" or "I have lesbian leanings" or whatever - all she said publically was that she had already "come out", whatever that means, in private. We don't categorize LGBT based on evidence (unless, they are dead, in which case it's a whole different ballgame - then we go by scholarly consensus).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't categorize based on evidence? It all just comes down to Wiki politics? The policy called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view suggests that it may be time to start taking the evidence into consideration and setting aside all the original research about what this category involves.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Everything about her life clearly shows that she is a lesbian; hence she should be in lesbian cats. There is no indication that she has ever been heterosexual. There is nothing to show that she has ever had, or pretended to have, a heterosexual relationship. She has clearly, publicly stated that she had a long relationship with a woman and is now married to another woman. I have never seen any person or organisation state that she is bisexual and this talk page is the only place I have seen anyone speculate that she might be. Jim Michael (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not the having of relationships that defines someone's orientation; it's how they experience attraction. I was bisexual, and knew I was bisexual, before I'd had a relationship with anyone. You don't get to dictate someone's orientation to them on the basis of your own partial knowledge about their relationships. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "dictating" to Foster her orientation here. Enough with the misrepresentation of what Wikipedia's role is here. I understand you think Foster should be given absolute sovereignty over what her Wikipedia article says on this point, but the fact is that following the sources instead of trying to read Foster's mind does NOT constitute "dictating" anything to her.--Brian Dell (talk)

What, exactly, is reliable about sources that assert Foster's sexuality in terms she has not used herself? How do the authors know? You may, by the way, want to go back to Talk:BLP and try again to answer clearly the simple questions I asked you there. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see such efforts at guessing her thoughts to be an exercise in OR. Our job is to document what RS say, and EvergreenFir captured that very well when (s)he wrote:

• Caveat - Per WP:RS, I would be mildly okay with a statement like "Many news outlets describe Foster as a lesbian, but she has never confirmed nor denied any identity of sexual orientation." This would seem to me to be okay with WP:BLP as well. (...) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's our job. What's in her mind (about such speculations) is not our concern. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unless we have WP:reliable sources that record her describing herself as one. It would be presumptuous for us to try to dictate her sexuality. Being married to a woman doesn't mean she's necessarily a lesbian. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (barring additional reliable sources evidencing her self-identified label). Largely per WP:BLPCAT as described by Alison, and in view of the dangers of systemic bias of bisexual erasure. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• I fully support her inclusion in general "LGBT" categories, as noted above — but until she actually uses one word or the other in reference to herself, it is not for Wikipedia to presume to know whether she's more properly described as "lesbian" or "bisexual" or "pansexual" or "queer". And to suggest that the burden of proof is higher on the claim that she might be bisexual than it is on "lesbian" is not on. Media sources used to describe Ani DiFranco as "lesbian" too — even though she'd always been out as bisexual, media sources ignored her own words and called her "lesbian" anyway, so persistently that when she married a man those sources went into shock and claimed she'd renounced her sexual identity, even though the action wasn't actually in any sort of contradiction with how she actually identified. So DiFranco's (and Foster's) own words on the subject take precedence over media assumptions about which label does or doesn't apply. Oppose anything more specific than "LGBT". Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly right. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Evergreen Fir, Alison and AlexTiefling. She has not publicly identified herself as lesbian. In the absence of such identification, we cannot decide based on our own or others' suppositions whether she is lesbian, bisexual or something else. Neljack (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per BLPCAT, and local consensus does not override policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC 3 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Question: Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments for RfC 3

• Oppose use of "lesbian" - Same reasons as RfC2. We do not know if Foster identifies as a lesbian. Though she is married to a woman, she should be bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, homoromantic asexual, genderqueer heterosexual, or any other queer identity. Unless Foster explicitly says she is lesbian, we cannot use the label to describe her as it would be ascriptive and against WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Caveat - Per WP:RS, I would be mildly okay with a statement like "Many news outlets describe Foster as a lesbian, but she has never confirmed nor denied any identity of sexual orientation." This would seem to me to be okay with WP:BLP as well. Pinging a few people who also said "opposed" in this RfC to get their opinions on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this, as it's an indisputable fact that it's been suggested she's lesbian in some reliable sources. That they say that, of course, is still problematic, but it may go by way of clarification to state that, in a similar manner to how you have done here - Alison ^❤ 23:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. That's very well put! This places RS in the high seat and still recognizes what RS say about her "nondisclosure" status, which is that she has not used certain words, while she still clearly implies her lesbian status through other methods, such as admitting she "came out", lived with and loved another woman, and is married to a woman. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what Alison said. Foster's 'lesbian status' does not indisputably exist outside of speculative reporting. Female-female relationships are not ipso facto 'lesbian'; even if one party is lesbian, the other - if bisexual - does not 'catch' lesbianism through the relationship. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly on WP:UNDUE grounds. I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in the closed RFC above: We can describe her behavior based on reliable sources (long term relationship(s), marriage etc.) If reliable sources have opinions on what her sexual orientation is, and if their opinions have enough WP:WEIGHT that could possibly be included in the prose, but it has to be made clear that it is their opinion ie, not "She is a lesbian" but "source X and Y have described her as a lesbian." Note that there is no way that any RS can factually know her true sexual orientation or sexual identity. There is no objective way to determine someone's true orientation from the outside, no brain scans or DNA tests to administer. All anyone can do is observe the behavior of others and form an opinion based on that, but it can never be factual objective truth, only an opinion. Siawase (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are correct that we go by what the RS say. In fact, we should not go by the speculations (bisexual?) often repeated by Alison, which have no bearing on this. We go by what RS say, and they use words like lesbian and gay. We can quote and attribute them. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

'Lesbian' is just as much speculation as 'bisexual' is. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - per repeated comments and per RFC #2. We have no idea if she self-identifies as lesbian. We have no idea as to her interest in men. A woman can be in relationships with other women exclusively and still be bisexual. I'm not being a smartypants here; this can and does happen. Even more, just because there is no WP:RS which says she ever had a relationship (or even attraction towards) a man, does not indicate that it never happened. Calling her a lesbian in absence of a reliable source showing her self-identification, is being massively presumptuous. We have no way of knowing until she says it, and she hasn't in over four decades - Alison ^❤ 21:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• no v good arguments above. I will only add that 'bisexual' is but one possible identity, and another possible and quite probable identity for Foster is 'I don't like labels'. This is reasonable and we shouldn't call someone a lesbian even if 1000 RS claim it, if they don't self-identity as such it's meaningless, there are many different aspects to sexual orientation and identity and there are those who seem lesbian in behavior but who don't identity with that label. Foster has been dogged by rumors of her identity for decades yet has never said simply 'I'm gay' or 'I'm a lesbian' - at least not in public - she said she 'came out' to her friends, but what did she say? 'Hi mom, I want you to know that I'm attracted to women' or 'Hi mom I want you to know I'm a lesbian' - they aren't the same thing. She has studiously avoided commentary on her orientation and it suggests that her identity is very private and perhaps non-standard, and she doesn't want to get into explaining it.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This too is dependent on the unquestionable fact that she has "come out" as lesbian/gay (the only known and accepted use of the term "coming out", and she used exactly those words, so who are we to deny that fact). Her failure to use certain words is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since her meaning and actions for many years is clear. Regardless of whether or not she uses the words "gay" and/or "lesbian", RS use those words and we are obligated to use the words which the sources use. Wikipedia is concerned with what RS say, not what she doesn't say. If necessary, we can always attribute the wording to the source. She has never objected to accurate descriptions being used in the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Could you supply links to where Foster calls herself a lesbian? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant because she has "come out", lived with a woman, and is married to one. What's relevant is that we go by what RS say, and they use words like lesbian and gay. We can quote and attribute them. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Completely relevant. How do we know she's not bisexual? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only relevant if we have RS to that effect. We don't, so our own speculations of that type would only be OR and straw man arguments, intended to disrupt this process, so let's stop using that one, okay? No more mention of "BISEXUAL" without a RS! It's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have any RS on her personal sexual identity. Sources speculate at it, but without her saying, we do now know if she is bisexual, pansexual, lesbian, or whatever. And it's not disruptive to mention this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. She's quite likely not to be bisexual, but there's nothing here to enable us to decide that with any confidence. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and none speculate about that. They say gay/lesbian, and she came out in that context. We are refusing to respect her individual dignity/autonomy by refusing to accept her open choice to live as a same-sex married lesbian who has come out very publicly. That's extremely disrespectful. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of disrespect. I'm LGBT myself; trying to frame this prurient interest in whether Ms Foster is specifically lesbian as somehow fighting homophobia isn't going to wash. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not referring to you, but generally. I see it as disrespectful to not accept an openly gay person's personal choice. I think we can agree on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I kind of see your point, but this is my reason for endorsing only the broader category - it makes it clear that we've taken note of her choice and actions, but it stops short of saying something she hasn't. I've just been sent a link to this blog [25] about Tom Daley, whose situation is somewhat similar. What journalists say about LGBT people and what those people say about themselves are often so divergent that I'd strain to call them reliable sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why it's important to stick to, and possibly attribute, what RS say, not what she doesn't say. Her context makes her meaning clear, and RS are also clear, so I don't see a problem. BLP doesn't apply, because this is not negative information, it's not unsourced, and it's not controversial in the real world. No one outside of some few here doubt what she means or what RS say. BLP is designed to protect. She doesn't need protection in this case. Lesbian/gay definitely is within the LGBT spectrum, so the category is also okay. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue? So it's okay if I tag Larry Craig, then? Nothing to be ashamed of, right? To clarify; calling a bisexual woman 'lesbian' can be super-offensive, especially after the first ... oh, hundred times you've heard it. It's just not factually correct, regardless of what the popular press and the tabloids are saying. People see me as lesbian - all day, err'day - but I'm not. This is a really important point. If I, as a bisexual woman, was tagged as lesbian in a Wikipedia BLP, I'd be annoyed because it's just not factually correct - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim any expertise on bisexual here, but I get the feeling some people think that bi-sexual is sort of like having dual-nationality - let's say American and British - so no offense in saying X is American even if you're actually dual nationality. But, if we take Alison (and many other bisexuals) at their word, it's not the same thing - bisexual is not an intersection of heterosexual and gay, it is a separate identity. And as Alison has pointed out, there are OTHER sexual identities, besides straight, bi, or gay, that people adopt and use and believe, and even if we don't have categories for all such identities it doesn't mean they don't exist nor that they don't hold meaning to those who use them. If Foster hasn't linked herself to a mainstream identity like "Lesbian" it's not our job to do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if there is "offense" that does not settle the matter. We don't suppress material just because someone might take offense.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like you're saying you don't care if the BLP subject is offended by mis-identification; that our 'needs' to tag her trump her rights to self-identify. Not cool. The press is guilty enough of painting her with whatever orientation-brush they particularly feel using, without us doing the same - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

God forbid Wikipedia reflects what the "guilty" "press" has to say about a topic, eh? I happen to "self-identify" as the coolest guy on the planet. I hope my future Wikipedia article respects my "right" to so "self-identify." Because it's all about me.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you can see the difference between your innate sexual self-identity and calling yourself "the coolest guy on the planet", right? And please, less of the "scare quotes" - they're "seriously" "unhelpful" - Alison ^❤ 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference being my subjective experience of myself versus my subjective experience of myself. In other words no difference at all if the OBJECTIVE difference is dismissed as irrelevant. Those are not scare quotes. Those are direct quotes. Withdraw your statements and they will not be quoted.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that's exactly it! Thank you! :) And I'd go further to say that while there's intersection between lesbian and bisexual politics, they are actually different in many ways. Lesbians have a distinct community, identity pride, etc, etc - sometimes to the exclusion of bisexuals, who can often feel marginalized by both straight and lesbian communities. It's a complex issue, and boiling a person's identity down to "lesbian" or "straight" bothers me greatly. It's just wrong - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as unsupported by reliable sources, as well as per the principles underlying BLPCAT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alison and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; I'm surprised this is even being considered. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason as RfC #2. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This question cannot be asked apart from the specific context in will be appear. It's possible to overstate things here. Whatever is said should not be stated with more finality than is appropriate given the sources. I'll add that the standard here is higher than for categorization purposes in my view because the category is useful for navigation purposes, inviting users who arrive here by way of the categorization to at least consider this case. What appears in the text, however, is meant to be taken as the definitive answer to any reader asking the question of this particular subject. While someone could argue that the category can also be used as the definitive answer I don't think that's true, as people understand that categories may not be perfect fits. Someone classified as, say, Jewish, may be very far from "pure" Jewish, just to take an example. People look to the text for the caveats and qualifiers, like whether it was just one parent who was Jewish, whether it was just a matter of being born in Israel, etc etc This RfC can't resolve anything beyond ruling out making a black and white statement of finality.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support saying that many mainstream media sources describe Foster as a lesbian. She had a 15-year lesbian relationship, has publicly come out and is now married to another woman. Unlike Alison, who is openly bisexual and has corrected people who have wrongly described her as a lesbian, Foster has never said any such thing; Foster clearly enjoys a lesbian life and nothing contradicts that. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, a relationship between two women is not automatically a 'lesbian relationship'. I've known many all-female couples myself where both parties were bisexual. Your comments here exemplify the sort of false logic that leads people to assume they know someone's sexuality: "Tom Daley has a boyfriend > Male-male relationships are gay > The participants are gay > Tom Daley is gay". Journalists reason, and write, like this all the time; it doesn't make their assertions trustworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A sexual relationship between two women is a lesbian relationship, even if it is not the case that both women are lesbians. A bisexual is a bisexual regardless of whether (s)he is in a relationship with a man, a woman, both, or no-one. There is no indication that Foster is bisexual.

Tom Daley's situation is significantly different. In December, he came out as bisexual. He said that he has been in a relationship with a man for several months, and that "I still fancy girls". This month, on Celebrity Juice, Keith Lemon said to him "You're a gay man now"; Daley said "I am". Daley did not "correct" Lemon by stating that he is bisexual, which I think he would have done had that been the case at the time, even though it was on a comedy show.

Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry. This particular RfC question is defective. We don't a priori censor words from articles. We need written context and cited sources. WP:NOTCENSORED; WP:V. Only then can we judge WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Working together to find consensus on what language to use doesn't seem the same thing as censorship to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly is censorship when you ban a word from an article, without knowing the context it will be used in, nor the sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Alan, exactly. People are going to misuse this RfC to overturn any and all usage of the word in the article. I trust that whoever closes this RfC will clearly state that this RfC is meaningless and anyone citing it is misusing it. This is not how we resolve disputes over how article text should read. We do not prejudice future discussions.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred that the RFC read "Should we describe Foster as lesbian in wikipedia's voice, e.g. "Foster is a lesbian" or something similar. I don't think the suggestion here was to ban the use of the word, but rather to not USE the word lesbian unadorned and in wikipedia's voicee in the same way we would say "Foster is an actress". When someone has publicly identified as a lesbian we have no problem doing so, but she hasn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this back to what's relevant for Wikipedia. It's all about what the reliable sources say, not any "truth" about her actual sexual orientation. The question of using Wikipedia's voice or not is relevant, and since there is disagreement, we do what we always do - we quote RS and attribute the quote. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

no, thats not what we do. We dont say 'according to Billboard magazine, Foster "starred in silence of the lambs" rather for many non-controversial facts about a person we state them in wikipedia's voice. In this case we should not do so - there is a big diff between saying "several media sources have speculated that Foster is a lesbian, but she has not explicitly identified as such' and 'Foster is a lesbian' (1,2,3)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

??? That's what I'm saying. We are in agreement. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The RfC says Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article?. I don't see how this equates to ban[ning] a word from an article, without knowing the context it will be used in, nor the sourcing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Because by policy RfC's are not suppose to suggest the answer in the question, they are suppose to be written neutrally. Wikipedia does not itself describe the subject, it describes how reliable sources describe the subject. Without knowing the context the word "lesbian", is proposed to be used in, nor the sources, the question here is the same as "should we ban the use of "lesbian" in describing Foster." Note, the only quoted word in the RfC, "lesbian". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Regarding that some mainstream media outlet sources are describing Jodie Foster as a lesbian, I say there is nothing wrong with noting that in the Foster article. She recently got married to her love of some 15 years. Jodie Foster has publicly come out now and is now married to a woman. Carriearchdale (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unless we have WP:reliable sources that record her describing herself as one. It would be presumptuous for us to try to dictate her sexuality. Being married to a woman doesn't mean she's necessarily a lesbian. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (barring additional reliable sources evidencing her self-identified label). Largely per WP:BLPCAT as described by Alison, and in view of the dangers of systemic bias of bisexual erasure. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until she actually uses a particular identity label in reference to herself, it's not for us to decide which one applies to her. We know that she's entered a marital relationship with a woman, but we do not know whether she considers her own identity to be "lesbian", "bisexual", "pansexual", "queer" or something else — and contrary to the assertions made by some people above, the burden of sourcing for "lesbian" is most certainly not lower than it would be for one of the other labels. I wouldn't have any objection to the "some media sources have speculated..." alternative suggested by a few people here, but until we know how she identifies herself it's not for us to presume. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Nope, not according to policy. If there are any notable sources that have described her as a Lesbian, then it may be worth discussing whether that should be mentioned. But saying that someone has been called X and that they are X is not the same thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  Suggestion Open a new RfC of Should we state that many media sources describe Foster as a lesbian? Jim Michael (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Will do! Going to hash out the exact wording first though in the "sources" section below. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "lesbian" to describe her, unless and until she uses that word herself to describe herself. We can describe her same sex marriage accurately and in full compliance with BLP policy without using a word that she has not yet used to describe herself. Let's respect her decisions and limits about self-identification. We are neither a tabloid nor the celebrity gossip section of a "respectable" newspaper. We have a BLP policy, and it is important to uphold it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alison, Cullen and Evergreen Fir. From reading some people's arguments, you wouldn't think bisexuality existed. Bisexual erasure is indeed an apt term. Neljack (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. A zillion sources use the L-word in connection with this subject: "Jodie Foster Comes Out As A Lesbian During Golden Globes Speech" (Hollywood Life), "Jodie Foster has split from her lesbian lover" (The Telegraph). She can "come out" and "marry" her girlfriend, but the L-word is taboo, at least on Wikipedia? The self-identification standard places ourselves above our sources, as if we know better than they do. How about, "Some media stories have claimed that Foster is a lesbian"? The cheerful dwarf (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@The cheerful dwarf: wording similar to what you suggest is discussed below at #Consensus building for phrasing of how news outlets describe Foster EvergreenFir (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support, but... I'm okay with the direction EvergreenFir is running with this, to reword it as a claim being made by sources, not by WP. However, I'm ultimately not opposed to using "lesbian" since we have loads of sources for it. We do not need to fetishize subject self-identification. Hell, most of our subjects are dead and our articles say all sorts of sourced things about them that they did not themselves say or publicly state they agreed with when they were alive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This is a hard one. Wording like "coming out," her "sexuality," or her "sexual orientation" can definitely be used. The word lesbian has been used in the media, thought it is written with care. For some ideas of how, look here. --Precision123 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jodie Foster has always been private about these issues. Do we explicitly state that Johnny Depp is a heterosexual? People are way too obsessed about Jodie Foster's sexual orientation, and, frankly, I think it's irrelevant. There's twenty or thirty years worth of speculation in reliable sources and quite a bit of commentary in the past year or so, but none of this is absolutely necessary to understand why she's encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Proposal How about something like:

  During Foster's coming out speech at the 2012 Golden Globe Awards, she did not use the words "gay" or "lesbian," though it was widely understood that she was acknowledging she was.

This way we (1) avoid directly describing her as gay, lesbian, or anything else; (2) are true to the sources; and (3) confine the context to the coming-out speech at the Golden Globes. In other words, there is no need to say something like "She has never come out as..." / "said..." / "publicly identified as..." Let more know your thoughts. --Precision123 (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. She has never said she is lesbian, BLP is quite clear on this. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post RFC edit-warring

FYI, I have reported the IP here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:69.196.171.23_reported_by_User:Obiwankenobi_.28Result:_.29.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not following RfC 1's finding

I'm not about to wade into an edit war on the main page, but a user has just removed two LGBT (generic) categories from the article, and added a note instructing other editors not to re-add them. Doesn't this contradict the decision taken in RfC 1? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

See above #Reopening discussion on RfC 1

Re. "added a note instructing other editors not to re-add them", incorrect: the note must have been there a long time (someone forgot to erase it?). A rationale was added, that's all. (note: the complete note and rationale have been erased in the mean while, I'm not particulary partial to such hidden notes) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reopening the discussion, as well as being unncessary, does not give you a license to ignore its findings. If nothing else, the result of the RfC should stand while any further discussion continues. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and can other users please refrain from ignoring the outcomes of RfCs 2&3 while we're at it, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think AlexTiefling is referring to me. Although I disagree with his characterization of my edit, I'll leave it at that and only request that he restore the deleted part of my edit "from acting" which seems to be collateral damage of his revert, and I'll depart from this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help - and please don't feel you have to depart altogether; I'm just trying to spare us all yet another retread of some very well-worn issues. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reopening discussion on RfC 1

See User Talk:Jimbo Wales#Tools

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell is that on Jimbo's user page? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was chiming in on a discussion there, only thought of posting a cross-link to here (as a logical step after what I'd written) after I had hit the save button.

I think 69.196.171.23 had started the discussion there while all discussion on this page appeared to be closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise - I'm just surprised at the extensive discussion that's taken place there without any mention here. Why is Jimbo's talk page an appropriate venue? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version#Involving Jimbo? Optimist's guide to Wikipedia #11? I wish I could be as lighthearted about it as those texts. Let's not bite huh? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh not this again. I think it's time Wikipedia moves to a more inclusive definition of LGBT anyway. Per its own page, the acronym includes a lot more than just those four labels. Just change the category wording if it's such a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories with sensitive qualifiers need to be more narrow than lists. Wikipedians found out about that 10 years ago when the first bots started to convert lists to the newly invented category system. As a consequence Wikipedia:Categorization of people was developed, which stated exactly that. Note, this was pre-Seigenthaler, so before anyone thought about starting what is now known as the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Anyhow, the "don't include everybody who is vaguely related" conditions on categorization of persons continued their life, both in the CoP guideline and the BLPCAT policy, and proved useful over the years.

I think I've got reason to say oh not that again, this was extensively discussed 10 years ago [26] (note: GLBT categories turning up multiple times in the discussions of those days!)

Of course, consensus can change (see below), but maybe not a bad idea to take a closer look why a long standing consensus existed in the first place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change

There are two additional forums now that outdo RFC1 in breadth, length and number of contributors:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164#Wikipedia policy being "overruled" by "consensus"
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT

There is no new consensus, but it is clear that the consensus of RFC1 has become stale and is de facto overturned. So I propose to remove the LGBT categories of the J.F. article until a new consensus emerges.

In the margin of these discussions it has become clear that the atheist categorisation appears undue, per:

• WP:COP#N: not a reason of J.F.'s notability;
• category:atheists: the info on which feasts are celebrated in J.F.'s household does not equal "it is known how she defines her atheism", as required by the inclusion criteria of that category.

So I propose to remove this category also from J.F.'s biography. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. One well-populated RfC closed saying Foster should be categorized LGBT. Other subsequent discussions have no consensus at all. How do you see your way to changing the established categories before any new consensus has congealed? Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's only 4 days since the RfC closed; this is massively premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It took only two days to disprove there would have been a Wikipedia-wide consensus. And...? what is the argumentation of your innuendo? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'argumentation of my innuendo'. I wasn't making any wider point; I just don't think that overturning a consensus decision less than 4 days after the closure of a 2-week RfC is what's intended by 'consensus can change'. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The archived discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164#Wikipedia policy being "overruled" by "consensus" ends with these two summaries, no longer disputed by anyone there:

• Whether or not there was a consensus at the end of RfC1, and whether or not the closer of that RfC did a good job in assessing whether or not consensus had been reached at the end of that RfC seem to me quite irrelevant questions and discussion topics. By now whatever consensus that was: it has evaporated. Many more contributors turned their fresh eyes on the RfC1 question since, added new arguments, and came to a different conclusion, at least enough contributors did so, meaning that the (whatever) consensus doesn't stand any longer. No consensus today, and frankly not interested in what it was or was not a few days ago. Shouldn't we look ahead to what the new consensus could be? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• In sum, finding the answer to the question whether or not J.F. came out as lesbian, bisexual or none of the previous is irrelevant for inclusion:

• For lists this question needs not to be solved, and she can be included [27]
• For categories this question needs not to be solved and she should not be included: her notability is not (or too marginally) depending on LGBT aspects of her (public) life — a.k.a. following the WP:COP#N recommendation.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose to go with that last one as the current consensus on the categorization issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't make another change against consensus unless you want to be blocked for edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the close of RfC1 was problematic in that it did not at all adress why it considered the "support" argument strong. In my vie it is in direct contravention of policy, so I would like to know why the closer thinks it is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The simplest way to get a response to that is, I suppose, to post your question at User talk:Number 57. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Change proposals to WP:COP#N relating to LGBT categorizations

WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.

Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, an effect on categorization in LGBT (sub)categories. Input welcome!

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPCAT

Seems to be getting ignored again, please stop adding LGBT cats to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Reading the whole article, why there is no mention of "LGBT" ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, the RfC and other talk page discussion seems to be in favor of including LGBT cats. There's 2 there already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone There's mention of "coming out" and marrying someone of the same sex. LGBT umbrella applies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What was the outcome of three separate RFCs? I understand that multiple editors have added those categories but something has to be done about this recent content dispute. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are the RfCs and their outcomes:

• #RfC 1 - Should LGBT categories be added to page? - Outcome: "Consensus appears to be in favour of this proposal based on the strength of the arguments put forward"
• #RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories? - Outcome: "Consensus is against this proposal."
• #RfC 3 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article? - Outcome: "Consensus is against this proposal."

The first two LGBT cats (LGBT actress and LGBT entertainers from the United States) were added immediately after the RfCs by ‎Binksternet. The most recent LGBT cat is what spurred this mini edit war and talk page section EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

For note, Darkness Shines did participate in the RfCs opposing all three. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone is right: People at the RfC felt that a woman getting married to a woman fell under the LGBT umbrella without an explicit statement by Foster. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What the heck?

in 1991 she skipped an interview with the today show and later wrote an article about it in 1982? ms. foster has a time machine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.85.139 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 January 2013

1982 article is about assassination attempt, not about Today Show cancellation. Reordered paragraph to clarify. HollywoodCowboy (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No source for statement about her self-declaration

I see above a bunch of wikipedia editors cobbled together their original research about how Mrs. Foster self describes - writing "Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation" and citing [28]. Please review WP:OR, and WP:V. The source provided does not support the claim made. Please provide sources for possibly defamatory statements like "Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation." Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: Beyond not supporting the statement made, it directly contradicts it - "...she publicly acknowledged being a lesbian before a worldwide audience." Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• The crux of the matter, as has been discussed here ad nauseum is that she has never "publicly acknowledged being a lesbian", whatever about the GayStarNews' interpretation of what she said - Alison ^❤ 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keyword: "explicitly" - Alison ^❤ 22:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

{{fact}}. The sources I provided disagree. Please provide citations for your possibly defamatory content that she "has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the language we arrived at came through consensus. You've pointed out some good points here, so let's find a solution. For example, we could have something like this: "Though several outlets xxx, in Foster's speech she never explicitly used the terms lesbian or gay." - although I'm sure we could find other sources which say exactly what we're claiming, e.g. that Foster has never publically identified as lesbian.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are sources that note she did not specifically use the words, so feel free to write something accurate as opposed to something the four of you just made up. The NYTimes article, for instance, discusses the important, or lack thereof, of saying the words. However, stating "Foster has never publically identified as lesbian" is directly contradicted by sources, which state "she publicly acknowledged being a lesbian," "reveals she's gay," or "came out as gay." Hipocrite (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that you can find thousands of sources that say she came out as a lesbian, but as the RFC above indicates, she hasn't self-identified as such, at least not in that speech. Perhaps it's too strong to say never, but we could certainly say "not in that speech", as sources discuss that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your RFC was poorly phrased and did not address the question at hand. At no point did I suggest saying "she is a lesbian." I suggested excluding the unsrouced, unsourcable statement that she "has never publicaly identified as lesbian." There are numerous sources which say she has, and so saying she has not, in wikipedia's voice is possibly defamatory, just as if we were to write "he has never publicaly identified as straight" in random biographies. Hipocrite (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, now. Someone above agreed that it could be said better. So why not just agree with them to say it better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I need to put the glue factory into my contacts. The issue is that we have conflicting information from sources. Most sources have interpreted Foster's words as saying she's lesbian, but we have not a single shred of evidence that she actually said that. All she's said is that she "came out". As discussed ad nauseum in the RfC and other sections, we cannot specify an identity label based on the systematically biased media (see Bisexual erasure). We do now know if Foster is lesbian, bi, pansexual, omnisexual, homoromatic, etc. We just know she's not straight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

PS - that answer to your "who" is on the talk page. I chose to only list a couple examples in the ref. Do you want more or can I remove that silly tag? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I propose to replace

Though many news outlets have described Foster as lesbian or gay and she acknowledged coming out in a speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards, she didn't use the words "gay" or "lesbian" in her speech. Foster broke up with her long-time partner, movie producer Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993. Foster also thanked Mel Gibson as one of the people who "saved" her. In April 2014, Foster married actress and photographer Alexandra Hedison.

by:

In 2013, in a speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards, Foster came out without revealing much of her private life apart from being single after her relationship with movie producer Cydney Bernard had ended. The relation with Bernard started in 1993, and ended in 2008. In April 2014, Foster married actress and photographer Alexandra Hedison.

After which the OR tag can be removed.

Reason: let's not indulge in trivia too much. The speech was 6 (or was it 8?) minutes of her life. Not something to elaborate in such depth. The links to the media reports and the full transcript of the speech are provided in the references. But doesn't need more attention than what she actually wanted to reveal in connection to her private life.

Further, I don't think Wikipedia should report "the cyclone destroyed one village, but not two other villages in the same state" kind of news. Leave the non-event part to the press. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Elaborating on non-event issues I might give this example:

Duncan Grant made paintings for the RMS Queen Mary. The paintings were rejected,

• For the article on the ship this is a non-event, so not mentioned there;
• For the painter this was a turning point in his career, so mentioned in his biographical article.

Similary, in her coming out speech Foster did not mention anything about her stance on LGBT issues, nor on her personal flavour of LGBT-ness (she didn't even say she was not going to tell anything about it, she just said nothing about it):

• For her biography a non-event (we don't base biographies on what the subjects "didn't" do);
• Celebrities coming out without endorsing wider LGBT issues is a topic that might be treated in LGBT studies, no problem to name Foster as an example there, if backed up with sufficient reliable sources (of course, sources that demonstrate it is a LGBT topic and that Foster is a notable example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-event in her biography? Not, really. No. Alanscottwalker. (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tx for proving my point, neither of these two biographies mentions she didn't use the words "gay" or "lesbian" in her speech, nor any information formatted in a "she didn't..." or "what didn't happen..." non-event-like style (hence the OR being discussed here). As you will see that's the difference between the current paragraph and what I proposed (both versions quoted above): describe the coming out, avoid describing the non-events. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is delicate, since a number of sources just said "She came out as gay" or "She came out as lesbian", but other sources note that she only sorta came out, and didn't mention gay or lesbian. Thus, I think the clarification is important for the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources say "she didn't (whatever she didn't do or say)".

So we have no source for she didn't use the words (whatever words she didn't use) in her speech.

Nothing delicate about it, just no sources.

Apart from that, bad style for a biography. That's my point.

The version I proposed above says "...she came out..." (confirmed by all sources, and avoiding all discussions about the actual words she used, so no OR) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But we DO have sources Francis - for example, this one: [29] "Foster never said the word 'gay' or 'lesbian' in her speech giving fuel to those already critical of the two-time Oscar winner for not coming out earlier." There are plenty of other sources which discussed the ambivalence. Finally, I think calling it a "coming out" is also potentially wrong, again even if sources call it that, as Foster claims in her speech that she came out long ago.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) was just in the process of rephrasing, I realised that.

What I wanted to say:

No biography does "she didn't (whatever she didn't do or say)".

So, bad style for a biography. That's my point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Further on Obi's last comment: WP:NOR 0.0: don't interpret primary sources, say what secondary sources have to report on them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

NOR also says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That's why I've called for simply stating that she addressed her sexuality, and give the quote, and note that she mentioned her longtime partner who is female.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So the version I proposed above is fine with you? You're also in favour of not elaborating on what she didn't address herself? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is also about compromise, and we must realize Jodie Foster's sexuality has been a battleground and subject of discussion for literally years, so I think if we go a bit overboard in clarifying here what was and wasn't said, that is not untoward. Look at the huge disputes all over the wiki on whether she's put into LGBT categories or not. As far as the broader world is concerned, Foster is a lesbian, but she had a chance during her speech and yet never said it - instead she made a joke/admission "I am single", and then said that she had already come out long ago, and that she wasn't going to give a coming out speech. It seemed all very spur of the moment if you watch it, it seemed mostly ad-libbed, but if sources have misrepresented what she said (eg that which we can hear with our own ears) we should not perpetuate that even if the sources are all singing the same song. THis is why, for example, there was strong consensus to not call her a lesbian, nor to put her in lesbian categories, since while it may be obvious that she's not straight, it's not obvious what she does identify as. Hence, the desire by some here, which I completely understand, to highlight the fact that she didn't specify her sexuality. capturing this nuance is extremely tricky, but I'm confident we can get there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Reception history, that's the word, not ==Personal life==. For all we know the Bush murder attempt had more significance on her personal life than any of the reports on her speech. So, definitely keep the "discussion in the media" out of the personal life section. See also what I wrote above regarding the reception in the LGBT community: non-event for Foster, *maybe* noteworthy in LGBT context.

As far as reception history is concerned in the Foster article, her achievements in the film industry are what this is all about (oscars and the like). The reception of her little speech is no more than a footnote. Literally, in the footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What rubbish. She is MARRIED to a woman. QED216.96.77.80 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)