Talk:Jay Brannan/Archive 1

first comments

64.81.244.83 06:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) "... he later stated that he felt repressed and that American society at large is repressive, especially in terms of sex and sexuality. Brannan also stated that this may be the cause of violence, drug abuse and other self-destructive behavior...." this information is judgmental and indicates a bias on the part of the author. also why are the subject's views on America, violence, sex, and drug abuse relevant in his introductory paragraph

"..His stay as a student at the College Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati only lasted six months. He got kicked out and was told that he could not be an actor....." ... again, biased.

"... Brannan is in no way worried about the effect that the sex scenes might have on his getting future acting roles... " clearly very biased statement

It is hereby asserted that this page does not meed Wikipedia's quality standards and of taking a neutral point of view.

He's an actor and song writer. It's silly that he hasn't got his own article. Perhaps an administrator could tell me why Aastrup 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly relevant any more, and that's good :). 130.226.234.130 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting LGBT info

An anon IP 162.84.242.196 (talk · contribs) keeps deleting the fact that Brannan is gay - specifically the sentence:

In Shortbus, Brannan, who is [[coming out|openly]] [[gay]],<ref name="logo">{{citation |url=http://www.newnownext.com/2007/07/video-lunch-jay.html |periodical=[[Logo (TV channel)|LOGO Online]] |title=Jay Brannan - "Body's A Temple" |date=[[July 30]], [[2007]] |accessdate=[[2007-11-26]]}}</ref>

Deleting material like this is considered vandalism and one can be blocked for doing so. Before deleting it again, please discuss your reason for doing so here. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

satyr guy -

you are a control freak. why are you the only one who can determine what changes to this article are relevant?

And why do you want to remove the fact that he's gay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

cuz its irrelevant and you're obviously obsessed with it -- your entire user page and contributions to this site are centered around who is and isnt gay -- its like a personal agenda

My agenda, and what I may or may not be obsessed with, is making this encyclopedia better through the consensus process. You might be interested in the welcome message I've posted on your talk page - it explains a little bit about Wikipedia and how it works. One of the guidelines we all try to follow is the consensus process. What you and I are doing right now is a content dispute - something that happens all the time on Wikipedia. You state your concerns about the content on an article, I state mine, and we try to work towards some agreement.

The fact that Brannan is gay is relevant, partially because of the role he played in Shortbus, partially because hiding his sexuality is whitewashing part of who he is. The four words (out of ~1500) *is* important - read the web page that's cited: [1]. Or take a look at the Advocate article: [2]. Hiding his sexuality is definitely against what Brannan is about. So please provide a reason you believe it to be irrelevant.

Since most of our discussion has to do with the article specifically, I'm copying it to the article's talk page. I invite you to continue discussing the issue there. Thanks for at least replying and not just deleting out of hand. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

if a person's sexuality is so relevant to their work, then every "non-gay" artist should have a qualifier stating they are openly straight. what you're doing here is the same as saying something like "whitney houston, a black person, recorded her first album in 19xx" and then linking the statement to a picture proving she's black. it's silly, extraneous, and kind of offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.242.196 (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um - it *does* say she's black - third sentence: "...Houston was one of a few black artists to receive heavy..." It doesn't link to proof, but it does state that she's black. As for straight people, they make up 90% or more of the population, so being straight is considered "normal". Being gay has to be stated. And when something like this doesn't happen anymore, then a person's sexuality will be irrelevant. But since we live in a world where that *does* happen, Brannan's sexuality is relevant. I don't see how it's offensive, though. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Brannon is open about his sexuality, it has reliable sources, and his appearance in Shortbus makes it even more relevant than it would have been otherwise. BTW, it's not that straight people are "normal", rather it's that heterosexuality is assumed. That another reason to include the verified statement that he is openly gay. It belongs in the in the article and I'm replacing it. — Becksguy (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• If 90% of the population is straight, then being part of that 10% is a fact worthy of note, particularly given it's relevance to his career. I would similarly include such facts as whether Jay is left handed, epileptic, or a Kentucky Colonel. It all adds up to forming an accurate biographical profile, which is the aim of this encyclopedia, an aim that certain quarters seem to be forgetting. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-> Look at this: [3] and I've also noticed that 162.84.242.196 ip is from NY... like Jay. Perhaps that was a coincidence... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.89.61 (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

I notice nobody is using the talk page, so I thought I'd try something radically different and discuss the article rather than engage in the war of reversions.

I would like to point out that the LOGO Online reference is to a blog. Can somebody explain why this should stay? Pairadox (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No one was using the talk page because we were too busy restoring the talk page and the article. Regardless of the sources, he can't just come blank the pages. Further, we don't really know if this is Jay Brannan or just some person claiming to be, especially with all the IPs that have been trying to remove the content about him being openly gay over the last 3 months. As to the blog, it's a site owned and operated by Logo, so it's acceptable. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But... it's a blog. I don't see any evidence of it being a "reliable, third-party published source[s] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Even less so in the second ref you posted, in which a pic caption describes him as an "Out singer/songwriter/actor/cutiepatootie." Cutiepatootie? Well, that may be accurate to some (most), but it's hardly the stuff that inspires confidence in their journalistic tendencies. Just sayin'... Pairadox (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Logo?? They are a reliable, third party with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Logo is owned by Viacom and Showtime, and it's news is partnered with CBS news. All 5 sources there now are acceptable. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite familiar with Logo, thank you, and I'm aware of the corporate associations. There is a difference between news and an opinion piece, which is what this appears to be. Note the presence of weasel words, such as "from what I’ve seen" and "I definitely feel." Look, I'm not saying the facts presented are untrue or should be removed. But don't you think you've found enough sources that the questionable ones could be sidelined? Pairadox (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey - look - people talking on the talk page! Sorry - I just re-added the blog. That was before I realized that someone besides an anonymous IP was actually discussing the issue! Kewl!

The Advocate article doesn't actually say he's gay. The Cutiepatootie article is an op-ed. The Dazed & Confused (magazine) one might be the best. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for actually thinking about it and discussing it rather than issuing a declaration that "All sources there now are acceptable." :D Pairadox (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay's blog post

As far as I can tell from jay's blog, Jay is upset about the following information:

1. Using the phrase "openly gay" as a description.
2. Using a picture that is he owns the copyright to.
3. Using unspecified "wrong information".

Is that a good summary? Did I miss anything?

"Openly gay"

I'm open to rewriting this paragraph. The fact that Brannan is gay is encyclopedic, and particularly since he plays a gay character in such a ground-breaking movie as Short Bus. But is there a better way to phrase the info?

Besides "He partakes of the same gender."? No, I don't think so.. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I kinda have some sympathy with his objections. If you check out WP:BLP we don't go into details about what people eat for breakfast or what there favorite color is. The scanned image from dazed doesn't actually say he is openly gay the wikilink is Come out(??) and some vague sexual encounter and growing up gay in a Texas Baptist household. I have explained on his blog what to do if he has problems with the article and have rephrased one or two sentences and removed rubbish. With gender issues we have to tread carefully, this is a very small stub and apart from playing a gay character does his sexuality make it important in the article? could we not drop "openly gay" as the introduction with the coming out wikilink to just a gay wikilink somewhere towards the end of the paragraph? Leibovits (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In Shortbus, Brannan plays a character named Ceth and performs one of his own songs in the movie. The movie was controversial because it included graphic depictions of gay sexual activity. Before being cast for the part Brannan disscussed the role with the director and recalled his own childhood growing up gay in a staid Texas Southern Baptist household. He subsequently appeared in the film Holding Trevor.(add link to dazed) Leibovits (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the possible identity of the IP editors that have been removing the phrase "openly gay" multiple times and User:Jaybrannan, as Jay Brannan, (subject to confirmation), I am requesting that the phrase "openly gay" be removed until the issue is settled, one way or the other. I am one of the editors that has been restoring that phrase and that argued that it belongs there. However, situations change, and so has my opinion as to appropriateness. The term "gay" or "openly gay" is an issue of self identification, regardless of what one does sexually, even in a movie as ground breaking as Shortbus where he obviously had male-male sex, or in making comments about having a boy friend, or growing up gay in articles or blogs. I realize that this change may not resonate with all the editors that have worked on this article, but I believe that his right to self identity trumps the other issues. Yes, his being gay is newsworthy, but since there is now some evidence that he does not so publically identify himself, at least now, it has to go. The issue is no longer whether that identification is sufficiently sourced or not. It's moot. He has every right, as does everyone else, to publically or privately identify himself as he wishes, regardless of actual orientation, whatever that may be, per WP:BLP and especially WP:MOS#Identity. It's why, for example, all mention of Larry Craig being gay, regardless whether he is, or is not, is kept out of the article on him, or categories attached to it. Yes, I agree that the paragraph needs to be re-written. But first, remove "openly gay". — Becksguy (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Larry Craig has never once said "I am gay". Jay Brannan has, in numerous interviews - some of which he is proud enough to host on his own web site. I would whole-heartedly agree with you if he had, as Craig has done, denied being gay. Brannan has not done so but has instead made it prominent in his public life via interviews. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's very clear that the subject dislikes the phrase "openly gay", and there are a lot of possible reasons for that (e.g: why should one have to be openly gay, is it something you are supposed to be ashamed of?). There are many ways of phrasing it better, all of which fall, more or less, under WP:ATT. Thus: "In an interview with x, y discussed the difficulties of growing up gay in Texas", or whatever. It's possible to include the fact (if people really really insist on it) in terms which are less aggressive, and therefore more likely to meet with the subject's approval. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what is "aggressive" about saying ",who is openly gay"? I don't get it. And why are we worried about meeting the subject's approval in the first place? This is Wikipedia, not Jaypedia where he can have what he wants and what he don't want in an article about him. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Unresolved

According to the information on the photo, it belongs to Jason Anfinsen and was released Creative-Commons Attribution 2.0. If anyone has an issue with that, the place to bring it up is WP:OTRS. Alternatively, release a better picture to the public domain (or similar copyright level) and we can use that one.

Well, that solves that. Jay doesn't own the picture. Its copyright is released to the public. Nothing can be done about that. This argument is moot. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 03:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First, assuming that Mr. Anfinsen owns the copyright, which is a big if since the only evidence is that he uploaded a digital photograph to Flickr, the page is still in violation of the license agreement. The license cited is a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License. This license requires attribution to the author. At this time there is no such attribution.

Second, Mr. Brannan does have rights in this situation. California, where the Wikimedia Foundation is located, recognizes a common law right of privacy that includes protection against appropriation of someone’s name or likeness. Wendt v. Host Intern., Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 811 (1997). This includes both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 989 (2006).

I would recommend, given Mr. Brannan’s preference, and the moral and legal issues involved, that his image be removed.

Are you speaking for Mr. Brannon here? Just curious, since we've gone through quite a lot of discussion on this article over the past few weeks and as an anonymous IP editor, this is your first edit to anything involving the situation. Redrocket (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Just someone who likes his music, and finds the idea that Wikimedia would endorse the use of someone's image against their expressed wishes a bit ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.86.67 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia has not responsibility other than making sure the actual image is appropriate. In this case, it is. Someone attended a show, took a picture of Brannan, put it on Flickr under a copyright that allows it to be used freely, and it's here. Brannan doesn't own the image. He owns his face in it, but not the image. Therefore, he has no say so in the image being used on Wikipedia, Commons, Wikinews, or anywhere else, unless he can prove a) he took the picture himself (highly doubtful considering the angles and the fact that he's busy playing guitar in the pic) or b) he paid someone - work for hire - to take the picture for him retaining ownership of the picture. Brannan has yet to prove any of this, he only wishes that Wikipedia bow down to his wants. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't argue that Mr. Brannan may not own the copyright to the image. What I did say is that Mr. Brannan has a right to control the use of his image and likeness, regardless of the medium or its use. Besides, if he doesn't want the image used on the website, I don't see why you would insist on using the image. As to the copyright of the image itself, there is no reason that Anfinsen's upload of the image establishes that he owns any copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.86.67 (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet Brannan hasn't offered up any proof that Anfinsen doesn't own any copyrights. This is Wikipedia, not Shortbus or The Jay Brannan Sing Along Show. He has no say here about content that is and isn't acceptable other than libel. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on, don't be rude. Of course everyone has a right of privacy and it is not allowed to publish photos of others without their consent unless the photo was taken in a public event. The latter might be the case here, so I ask the one who uploaded it as well as Jay Brannan. Barcovelero (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture was taken at a public concert in 2007, and was released under Creative Commons license, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0, according the the file description on the photo. — Becksguy (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong information

Rather than scream and yell, rant, and sulk - perhaps you should take heart that people who think you're a good actor, are notable by some pretty strict standards, and actually like the work you've done - these people want to make your article better. Work *with* us!

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay in his blog says something like he hates being labeled gay when it has nothing to do with the ensuing paragraph. I suppose what he means is we should say something like "Jay who is himself openly gay plays the gay character Ceth..." then it would have more explicit relevance. Wjhonson (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (see my sig is short)

In that regard, I actually like Leibovits's proposal above. It makes it relevant. All it needs is the source in it. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Pairadox (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does he not STATE plainly that he is gay on the Making of Shortbus documentary? And in some of his Youtube videos? I do not think we would violate the spirit in which BLP was made to include the category.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he DOES state such, in the doc, in magazine interviews, etc. But he doesn't want it on Wikipedia and apparently we have to bow down to what the subject of an article wants, rather than preserve neutrality and factual information. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 11:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And his facebook profile also says Male interested in: Men.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes it "encyclopedic?"

• • editor's note: I'm not here to offend any party...just think of me as Switzerland (neutral)**

Ok, so I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest by offering my $0.02, but I've read through the edits, discussion, Jay's blog, etc. and wanted to voice my opinion on this matter (if anyone cares). Allstarecho said that Jay being gay is encyclopedic. I'm trying to figure that one out. How is someone's physical/emotional attraction to another person worthy of being mentioned in a website that claims to be an encyclopedia? I can see mentioning it if it was for something noteworthy like the first gay congressman, or the first gay person to host the Oscars. But should we edit every single article that deals with heterosexuals and label them as being "straight?" By pointing out the fact that he's gay only demonstrates to heterosexuals that we somehow are different, and need to be described differently...rather than being known as a normal human being. (Allstar, I hope I don't come across as rude. :) I'm just trying to make a point.) I once had a fruit fly that would always introduce me to her friends this way: "Hey guys, this is my friend, (my name). He's gay." or "Hey guys, this is my gay friend." I told her that a) I'm a human being, b) then I'm (my name), c) and that I enjoy (fill in the blank) and these (fill in the blank) are my goals in life, d) and THEN I'm gay. My life doesn't revolve around being gay and being labelled that way. Basically, what I think Jay is saying in regards to the "openly gay" objection is what I've said to many friends. I'm 100% proud of being gay, but announcing it to every person I meet is idiotic because how many hetero people do that? It only makes us look different. I'm much more than being an "openly gay" man and I'm sure Jay is as well. If he objects to being labelled that way, then why should it stay in the article? If he was objecting to something controversial he did or said, then yeah, I could see ignoring his objection. But anyone with a brain can realize he's gay if they watch the movie that is mentioned in the controversial sentence. If anything I said doesn't make sense or is later objected to...I blame it on the 5 Jagerbombs I had this evening. Ok, I'm done.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Straight people play gay for movies all the time. So I'm not so sure that it's just a matter of "seeing him gay in the movie should let anyone know he's gay in real life". The encyclopedia value of including that he is gay and out, comes from his general notoriety. No one would care if my neighbor is gay because my neighbor isn't even somewhat known or famous. Brannan on the other hand is. It just needs to be stated that he's gay in the article and as I said above, I think the best way to accomplish that without making "gay" be all that Brannan is, is to use the content as proposed by Leibovits above. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 08:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by it being obvious he's gay in the movie is that not many hetero people would do some of the sex scenes that he did. Yeah, hetero people play gay for movies and television, but there are very few that would go as far as he did. (AgnosticPreachersKid is upset he wasn't in the scenes as well...but that's beside the point)--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay may consider himself bisexual now; there are lots of bi-guys who would. Pairadox (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If he does, all the more reason to remove the 'openly gay' reference.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it immensely ironic than we've reached some sort of point where gay people don't want to be "labeled" as gay - not because they're ashamed, but because it's part of their everyday life. This is actually the second subject of an article that's expressed this exact same thing. They're both from New York, which I think is part of the situation. In New York, being introduced as "This is Joe. He's gay." is quite silly. In Caspar, Wyoming, it's still a big deal.

So fine - we'll take out "openly". His sexuality, if it's part of who he is, is encyclopedic, IMHO, so I'd like to see some mention of it. And part of the reason is the character he played and the movie he was in. But part of it is because <start rant&gt>kids in Topeka need to know that gay people are out there, are movie stars, are making lives for themselves. Until AIDS rates among teens drops, until suicide rates among gay kids drops, until Matthew Shepard is forgotten, visibility is important!<end rant>

Sorry. Soapbox. The short of it is that self-identification is fine - up to a point. He's open about his sexuality, so why do we need to hide it here? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in Topeka, a flamboyant 15 year old named Tristen thanks you. ;) --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or a 15 year old cub in flannel named Howard.. :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Until Matthew Shepard is forgotten..." So, not in our lifetime, or that of our children? Pairadox (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole? Or Dramatics - you decide. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I'll go with dramatics, just for the opportunity to throw in a gratuitous link to Drama queen. Pairadox (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We now have three discussion threads on essentially the same subject, or very intertwined subjects: the phrase "openly gay", wrong information in the article, and the encyclopedic value of the phrase. And it's getting harder to follow. Can we get consensus to refractor them into a coherent single thread? And move the picture thread up and out of the way, since it's resolved (so marked). — Becksguy (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say him being openly gay is encylcopedic for the same reason Ellen Degeneres is— it's covered by multiple independent secondary sources and is even covered on his website. If part of the reason for someone being well-known has to do with him/her being gay, then yes, it's encyclopedic. Furthermore, we actually do flaunt the sexuality of other biographical articles (including straight dudes) by almost always covering the verifiable information of their relationships/love interests.

Now, there's something to be said about undue weight in that it might not be appropriate to paste his sexuality all over the article; however, it should definitely not be axed completely if it's a substantial part of the history of the person, including, as several of the sources have put it (if I recall correctly), a major contributing factor to the artist's development. He made the choice to take the interviews for magazines/newspapers/websites and state his sexuality clearly, just like Nathan Lane has done; and, that cannot simply be blotted away because the person might think it's bad for business (or whatever other reason). --slakr^\ talk / 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Graphic depictions" removal

Okay - this is bulls**t! First, the actor is gay - there are a dozen different reliable sources that say so. Why is this a BLP issue when he himself has said so, not just once or twice, but in a bunch of different places?

And now the removal of the phrase "which includes graphic depictions of sexual activity". Have you seen this movie? It's full of graphic depictions of sexual activity! Don't take my word for it: AfterElton.com, NY Times, Variety (which says "Unquestionably the most sexually graphic American narrative feature"). I mean, come on - how is this a BLP issue? That phrase is about the *MOVIE*, not Jay!

So what's going on? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the graphic sex reference is odd. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

lol Just keep watching.. next they will remove the LGBT Project banner up there ^ . - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as it was unreferenced, and if untrue could certainly be negative. Simple as that. WP:BLP. It can be replaced if referenced from a reliable source.--Doc^g 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"Although it has the style, pacing, oddball characters and unknown cast of many low-budget independent movies, “Shortbus,” which is unrated, has sex scenes as graphic as those in a hard-core skin flick." (emphasis mine) That quote's from the NYTimes link Satyr posted above. That should do it! Aleta (Sing) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it was unreferenced when I removed it. Had it been cited from the NYT I would not have removed it.--Doc^g 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added just that ref, Aleta :)

I'm still curious how whether or not the movie has graphic sex scenes could possibly be negative? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit an article whilst it is protected - you can be desysopped for that!! The claim that someone has been involved in a graphically sexual movie is not one that can ever be made unless backed up from reliable sources. It would obviously be extremely problematic were a claim like that ever to be falsely made.--Doc^g 01:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Its backed up, and it looks like an uncontroversial edit that would have been confirmed by editprotected anyway. Avruchtalk 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Still not good form. Anyway....--Doc^g 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I'm even more confused! Adding a reference to information is bad form? And I still don't understand why being in a sexually graphic movie is considered problematic, even if it were false? Believe me - I'm a big fan of BLP, I understand a bunch (though probably not all) of it, but this one is eluding me. And why is adding a source considered something I could be de-sysoped for? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are an admin you really SHOULD understand this.

• Admins are not supposed to make edits to protected articles, unless there is very clear agreement. Other editors CAN'T edit, so we shouldn't - as it is using admin tools to give us an advantage. In this instance, it is not big deal. But in general don't do it.
• WP:BLP is an exception, as material failing BLP must always be removed.
• BLP states "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced"
• The claim that someone has been in a sexually graphic movie would obviously be extremely problematic if it were false. Indeed it could well be libellous. It thus can only be made in an article if properly sourced. It was not, so I removed it.

Clear?--Doc^g 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not clear, and yes, I'm an admin, that's why I'm asking your help in understanding your statements. I'm sorry if I come across as obtuse, or if I seem angry - this is so clear to me in exactly the opposite way that it's clear to you, so I'm frustrated and trying to understand.

a) Editing the article: I understand that articles that are protected should not be edited. However, here's the timeline as I see it:

1. You deleted material.
2. I (and others) provided sources for that material on the talk page. You even agree they're good sources.
3. I re-add the information, with the new sources.

Why was I subsequently admonished?

b) Sexually graphic: I could agree with what you're saying if the statement that was removed said something like "This person was involved in several graphic sexual scenes onscreen." That *could* be construed as "This person was in porn" or something that might conceivably be considered negative or contentious material. Possibly.

But that's not what was removed. The statement you removed said/says "The movie has graphic sexual scenes." Nothing specific about the actor, nothing specific about the character. Why do you believe this statement about the movie is contentious?

Thank you for helping me to understand. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An admin edits a protected article and then noms the article for AfD, another admin edits the same protected article, a third admin edits the same protected article but gets admonished for editing a protected article by the same second admin that edited the article while it was protected... hello?? And no, this is not trolling, canvassing or whatever else my friends want to throw at me.. I'm seriously saying this so as to understand policy. Consider this a temporary adoption to help me understand this confusion and how it relates to policy. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The irony of an admin who had just edited the protected article warning another admin against editing that same article is rather striking. Pairadox (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP removals are explicitly always allowed. No irony here at all.--Doc^g 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So you did it because of BLP? Seriously, I'm just trying to grasp the policy side of it. Definitely wasn't meant to be mean or "call you out". It just confused me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of disputed material from protected articles per WP:BLP and in handling complaints from subjects is absolutely permitted. Adding material to protected articles, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact, is a problem. I'd be wary of assuming malice where a simple mistake would explain it - it's dead easy to miss the "protected" notice and inadvertently edit a protected article, I've done it myself and I know I'm not the only one. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, was Jay part of the graphic sexual depictions? If so, then provided it's sourced I see no problem with it. But if not, then I don't see it as relevant that the movie he started in happened to have graphic sexual depictions which didn't involve him. You're welcome to mention it in the article about the movie, but not here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doc & Guy, I'm confused, too. In my understanding, a proposition (x violates BLP) is only valid if it is supported either by evidence or argument. That you state it's a BLP issue doesn't make it so, any more than making any unsupported assertion establishes anything beyond your belief in the assertion.

In the interest of consensus-building, we could stop saying he was gay & involved in graphic sex scenes. Instead, we could say that in Shortbus, Brannan was filmed in acts of fellatio, analingus, and anal sex with other men. That's absolutely factual and involves no expression of opinion. Is it better? Subjectively, I'd say no. It's more detail than is needed to explain Brannan's role in the film. However, I'd rather see something like that included in this article than to once again decide that an article about a living person should be hamstrung by that person's autobiographical views. --SSBohio 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference List

1. New York Times, October 8, 2006. Article specifically about him, his apartment, music and Shortbus. Highly relevant. [4]
2. New York Times, September 24, 2006. Article on Shortbus including a significant, non-trivial amount of coverage on Brannan specifically. [5]
3. Advocate, October 24, 2006. Cover story in the American national gay newspaper. here and full article on Brannan's press page [6]
4. Attitude, December 2006. Cover story in British award winning gay lifestyle monthly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page [7]
5. Next Magazine, September 15, 2006. Cover story in New York City gay lifestyle weekly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page. [8]
6. Next Magazine, January 6, 2006. New York City gay lifestyle weekly magazine. Full article on Brannan's press page. [9]
7. Cincinnati Enquirer weekly CINWEEKLY, October 25, 2006. Full article on Brannan's press page. [10]
8. Variety, May 21, 2006. Article is mostly on Shortbus, but does mention Brannan. [11]
9. Dazed & Confused, December 2006. British style magazine with article on Brannan's role in Shortbus. Full article on Brannan's press page. [12]
10. Zoo Magazine, 2007 # 14. Interview about his music and Shortbus. Full article on Brannan's press page. [13]
11. The Vancouver Sun, January 26, 2008. Newspaper article mostly on a music producer that wants to manage Brannan. [14]
12. Xtra West, January 18, 2008. Vancouvers (Canada) Gay Newspaper. Article on Brannan. [15]
13. Gay Times, July 2007. The leading gay magazine in UK. Music issue with article mostly on Brannan's music, but also memtions Shortbus. Article on Brannan's press page. [16]
14. Connecticut Post, October 22, 2006. Newspaper article mostly on Brannan in Shortbus, but also some on his music. Full article on Brannan's press page. [17]
15. Logo, July 30, 2007. Gay TV channel. [18]
16. Logo, January 25, 2008. Gay TV channel. [19]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Becksguy (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article overhaul

As discussed in the AfD, the article needs rewriting. The lede needs a bit more. As it is, no one will get why he is notable. Then I propose a section on his early life before 2006 (essentially what is currently there), then a section on his music, and finally a section on his movies, including Shortbus and Holding Trevor. I think that will provide balance and avoid WP:UNDUE. The YouTube stuff that was deleted can go into the music section. Since his music is the focus of Brannan's creative life, according to the interviews, the music section should be much stronger than it is now. There are more than enough reliable sources (above) to flesh out this article, provide some good quotes, and avoid BLP issues. Thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather insulting and annoying that there's no mention of this gay man's sexual orientation at all now, save for a couple of categories - and I'm sure they won't last much longer. Utterly ridiculous. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 19:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He doesn't want to be known as gay. Even though it's stated all over the internet. I've removed the categories - WP:POINTedly, but there you go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The reworked article will mention, from his interviews, the problems he had growing up gay in Texas. Will it have the phrase "openly gay", as it did before the brouhaha? Will it label him gay? No, since that became a BLP issue. There is a tremendous difference between what a person does or feels, or identifies with, and the public label a person assumes. Brannan has the right to label himself, per BLP. Those facts of his life are a matter of record, and a well sourced one, but again, self identification is just that, a matter of self determination. Some believe that it is the defining part their public persona and wear their sexuality very openly, and others believe it's private, and don't, as apparently does Jay, whatever he believes himself to be. Everyone is different. I fought just as hard to keep the openly gay reference in as others did. But, as Satyr said, he doesn't want to be known as gay, or to be a gay poster child. So be it. The article will be as balanced and avoid UNDUE as I can make it, and yet provide as much as possible. I'm not happy with the way this has turned out either, so yes, it's ridiculous and a shame that it caused so much drama and unhappiness. — Becksguy (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A neutral, well-sourced biography does not bow to the subject's wishes, else every biography on wikipedia would be whitewashed with only compliments. If a considerable proportion of the sourced content/media coverage revolves around his sexuality, then it's actually undue weight to exclude it completely (as is currently being done). If he didn't want to be a gay icon, he should have rethought doing interviews for multiple gay magazines. Wikipedia is not the place to be blotting out what one perceives to be a mistake in his life. In summary: too bad, so sad, fame is a double-edged sword. --slakr^\ talk / 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has gone quite far enough that I'm willing to bring in an administrator to mediate. In fairness to ALL STAR, WP:Consensus has been reached time and over in this talk list that the content regarding the subject person's sexuality should NOT be included in the article. While you are within your bounds to continue arguing for certain information to be included, above all else, Consensus establishes the norm and final ruling of a page, even if it does not necessarily follow WP guidelines overall. If you are not satisfied Consensus has been reached, we can always take a straw vote. On a more important note everyone should be focusing their efforts on expanding this article with verified sources. There is more to a subject biography than merely their favorite color. You should focus on the music career of this particular subject. .:DavuMaya:. 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 1 month ago today was the last post to this page. So what are you talking about???? Additionally, your interpretation of the consensus appears to be wrong. I see more people calling for his sexuality to be restored, including an admin, to the article than I do people calling for it to be removed. So, even though no one has commented on this page in a month, if you feel the need to stir this up again, by all means, go get an admin. That's your prerogative. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

joke paragraph?

I'm pretty sure the cut text below is someone's joke, but I'll leave it here for now just in case.

An outspoken advocate for victims of CFS ("Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"), he has received numerous awards from various charities for his tireless work on behalf of victims of the disease. In a tragic irony, he was recently diagnosed with CFS himself. Speaking candidly in an interview with Maury Pouvich about his diagnosis, he inspired fans and other victims with his positive attitude and his wise words, "I may be tired but I'll never tire in the fight against CFS".

Dybryd (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed fake, see: http://jaybrannan.blogspot.com/2008/07/lol-why-was-this-paragraph-in-my.html JACOPLANE • 2008-07-4 14:56

The same editor had added a joke paragraph to Jane Goodall which, not being glaringly obvious vandalism, went unnoticed for months and was copied to all the scavenger sites like Yahoo Answers. Embarrassing. Dybryd (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP question

Sorry to reopen the issue, I wasn't actively editing when this was discussed previously. I'm curious whether omitting Brannan's orientation at his request is really according to WP:BLP policy. Although I would expect that everyone who knows who Brannan is also already knows he's gay, this does seem like a test case that's worth exploring -- I'm hoping the wider community and a couple of admins will chime in.

Here's the sitch as I see it:

• Brannan openly self-identifies as gay -- in his public blog, his dealings with prominent media outlets, etc.
• His work in music and acting has focused almost entirely on gay sexuality, so the topic is certainly relevant to his notability.
• Alas, he understandably thinks Wikipedia is a big dumb joke.
• He doesn't want his orientation mentioned here, although he's fine with it being published elsewhere.

What does WP:BLP say about this? By my reading, it doesn't really call for the deletion.

Dybryd (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Dybryd (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. You can not rely on a person misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is or stands for to add or erase information that is relevant. In this case, not only it’s relevant, his sexuality molds his art –as a singer and composer- and is not concealed by no means by him. He may not do his art as a sexual identity orientated message, but I think it wasn’t the assertion here. Thus, we are not dealing with speculation or uncited assertions here. Anyone can add to the Wikipedia relevant verified information. If he is cited as having an annoyance to this wiki, this could –potentially- be added as information. But I don’t think that that’s relevant data. --Magnvss (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

other stuff

Enough of the talk about gayness, lets try and focus on the article as a whole. I have tried to expand on what was here by creating a discography section and an article on his album. However I'm no wiki editor and not too good at writing pages. Any chances we can make this a decent article rather with some real content about his music rather then going on and on about the gay issue? Vanillav (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are a wikipedia editor :-) — see the welcome message on your talk page. Avb 22:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've started to break the article into sections, I know there's not much in each at the moment but I'll come and fill a bit more in when I have time Vanillav (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

help

can one of you boring people with no life (slash/extensive knowledge of Wikipedia coding & protocol) please get my article deleted from this site packed with false information?

or else get my paragraph about my War With Wikipedia ensconced on the page, so that people will stop coming here for false information that can't be deleted because of all the psycho control freaks?

i AM the person in the article, i should have some say about what is true, what is not, what is relevant. and i have an actual life and career, so i don't have the time to waste on this. please please please just delete the damn thing.

thanks jay

Housewife

You're right Dybryd, WP:BLP says nothing about how we shouldn't mention that he's gay because he doesn't want us to, the fact that he's self-identified is all that matters. We don't do anything purely because the subject of an article wishes it. I find it very confusing that Brannan went on that rant against Wikipedia saying he was gay, that he didn't want such attention focused upon his gay identity, in light of the new promotional video for a song on his upcoming album; "Housewife".[20] If Brannan really didn't want a focus to be on his homosexuality, he wouldn't have singled that song out for promotion. I wonder if he was messing around when he wrote that blog entry about Wikipedia, he's kind of known for being histri-ironic. -- AvatarMN (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)