Talk:David Ogden Stiers/Archives/2018

Missing Movie from Filmography
The Last Time We Were Together for the First Time (2008) with Julia Duffy, Joey Lawrence
 * The made for TV movie "Together Again for the First Time" is on the list. - Samf4u (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

gay redux
Discussions in the past have uniformly determined that "gossip-boy.com", a blog, is not a "reliable source" for claims of sexuality, and that self-attribution is the gold standard required for asserting sexuality of any living person. There is no source for such self-attribution for Stiers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why you've opened a new thread on this now, but since you have, let me add this for the record: Discussions in the past have been less than uniform in their determination of the reliability of ABC News. Rivertorch FIREWATER  19:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article specifies that it is only relaying a claim made by a blog, and does not assert factuality of such a claim. Meanwhile, gossip-boy.com is a blog which does not meet any of the requirements for WP:RS and this has been discussed several times now.  Lastly, WP:BLP now requires strong sourcing for any claims of religion and sexuality about living persons.  sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.   As there are reliable sources stating that Stiers has denied this, that suggests that Stiers does not self-identify as "gay."  The reason why this is started now - is that an IP added the claim to the BLP, and prudence requires that we go to the talk page. Collect (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Collect, longstanding consensus is to omit the content in the absence of additional sourcing (which we can cheerfully squabble over if and when the time comes). Fact is, IPs have been adding it for the past however many years, and you and I have both reverted them repeatedly without comment because the onus is on them, not us, to begin any such thread. Now, if you're truly as concerned about BLP issues as you have always appeared to be, you'll stop resurrecting the same old arguments on the talk page, thereby calling renewed attention to the matter. I'm sorry I replied to you earlier, and if you have no objection, I think this should be hatted. Rivertorch FIREWATER  03:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree - except with the caveat that ArbCom requires me, as a specific individual to do so for any BLP edits I make. Was ArbCom smart? I dunno, but I have stalkers checking my every single edit at this point. Thank you for sure that you agree with the policies invoked. Collect (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I didn't realize. For the record, I do not agree with the interpretation of BLP that led to the current consensus here. Nevertheless, I recognize that the consensus exists, and I enforce it. Rivertorch FIREWATER  22:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, with Stiers' passing its possible that an RS will make comment on this bit of possible info, and the self identification bit may be interprested less strictly now since it is no longer possible for him to make statements either way. 03:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yea there are quite a few new sources that could be used to expand on that from Fox news, ABC, Today show, USA today, etc... http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/03/04/david-ogden-stiers-fussy-m-s-h-doc-and-beloved-clock-from-disneys-beast-dies-at-75.amp.html, http://abcnews.go.com/entertainment/movies/story?id=7518323&page=1 , https://www.today.com/popculture/former-m-s-h-star-says-he-gay-wbna30607382 , https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/03/03/david-ogden-stiers-stuffy-major-winchester-mash-dies-age-75/392921002/      ContentEditman (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What you have there is a mix of sources we already looked at and new sources that have the same problem: they are citing gossip-boy (although the fox news is claiming to reference an abc interview, the date suggests they are just refering to ABC's coverage of the gossip-boy source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Was just going to write the exact same thing as Nat. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

While consensus can change, it would need to change based on actually reliable sources (ones that are not ultimately relying on gossip boy). None have been provided. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Stiers' management has explicitly said that he did not do an interview with gossip boy" The links you gave go to an account that has been permanently blocked and never showed any proof they were related or could speak for Stiers. There is nothing showing that is accurate. Other RS have also published he was gay and never did a correction, even with all the new news sources after his death. ContentEditman (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As you'll see in this 2013 archives of this talk page, a user contacted the agency directly, and they expressed that "they are very unhappy about Wikipedia having used Gossip Boy as an ultimate source, and blames Wikipedia having relied on Gossip Boy as being the reason why ABC News and MSNBC felt free to go ahead and publish this as a story". So that accords well with the edits in question. And if he didn't give that interview, then we've got no real source for the self-identification, whether he was gay or not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? A "user" said it was true. That falls entirely under WP:OR and has no proof on top of that. If he did not give that interview they would have been sued and easily lost. Yet other RS have reported him as gay based on his own interview. ContentEditman (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am serious. WP:OR is a limitation on what is included in articles; it is not a limit on what is excluded from articles. The editor in question is one with years of editing experience and no blocks, so I'm willing to give some good faith in that direction. Plenty of erroneous claims are made with no suit happening, so absence of a suit is not proof of anything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of if we can trust that user's statements the fact that gossip boy is a crap source, and we have an actual RS where he denies being gay that puts the onus of proof onto the include side of the argument. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A "brand new IP" -- re-added this stuff. I am forbidden to touch it. Will someone revert that "gossip-boy" stuff again? No discussion on this talk page has ever backed its use.  Please? Collect (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the problem with not including it at this point is that it has been recirculated by countless reliable sources, such as the New York Times, Variety, The Advocate—it goes on and on. In some cases, they directly link back to the gossip source, and in others they do not. That becomes an issue. The content of this interview regarding Stiers's sexuality is in mass-circulation from reliable sources. It is even referenced in academic books. I think the only tangible solution to this would be to cite the reliable source with the qualifier that "according to ______ (i.e. New York Times, ABC News), Stiers came out as gay in a 2009 interview"—that way it is not stated as patent fact. --Drown Soda (talk)`
 * I agree, there are tons of Reliable Sources that state what he said and there was never any public lawsuits over this or claims they are false from him, his agent, family, etc... before or after his death. As such we should post it using the RS that back it up. ContentEditman (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note US libel laws make it nearly impossible for any "public figure" to win in a defamation suit, no matter how egregious the claim. In addition, the "gossip-boy" blog appears to be "judgement-proof" as far as any damages are concerned.  Saying "he didn't sue so it must be true" is fallacious utterly. See User:Collect/BLP    Lack of a lawsuit is not in any way an admission of truth.  Really. Collect (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - He wasn't known for being gay. That should be enough reason to exclude it. We still treat "gay" as some kind of salacious fact that needs to be dragged from the shadows. If he were straight and didn't date publicly or talk about being straight, would we care? No, because that's the quote/unquote norm. But if someone might be gay, oo-la-la now we've an academic duty to put their private life on blast? No way. This is a bizarre social bias that we need to get over, because it only marginalizes gay folk further. Let the private guy be private. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The key here is to report on this as being a controversy that exists in sources... not as being accepted fact. Attribute all claims to those who made them, and don’t state them in WPs voice. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Or not report on this, because there's no clear academic benefit to randomly presenting an unclear portrait about a man who kept his private life private. Just by presenting the controversy people are going to think, "oh yep, he must've been gay if there was a controversy". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As someone who supported inclusion in the first place but who over the years has repeatedly enforced the consensus not to include, I'm a little conflicted about this. Blueboar's argument about attribution vs. WP's voice is similar to one I and several others made in the past, and I still think it's a valid one. I also agree with Drown Soda that the reports are in mass circulation in various reliable sources, and I think it's a little awkward for us to willfully ignore that. I do not buy Cyphoidbomb's reasoning that inclusion would be tantamount to treating "gay" as something salacious, and the "if he were straight" argument really doesn't wash. Straight and gay individuals' respective decisions not to disclose their sexual orientation are not equivalent; perhaps someday, when being gay is no longer a big deal and the act of coming out is a relic of the past, they'll be equivalent. For now, there remains a strong presumption of heterosexuality when nothing is said to the contrary. As I see it, that is the "bizarre social bias" that we need to get over. There's nothing in the article about Stiers's personal life, which is unusual and imo less than optimal. Then again, it's hardly unprecedented or hugely problematic; he largely kept his personal life out of the spotlight, and that was his prerogative. I remain uncomfortable with our decision to second-guess reliable sources. We really shouldn't be in the business of fact-checking ABC News or any other source that meets RS. If we had strong evidence that something they reported was untrue, that would be a different matter, but all we have here is evidence that their own sources were less than reputable. I'm finding it somewhat hard to reconcile these different arguments, but in the end, I think the case for inclusion is stronger. I don't think the article suffers very much for lack of inclusion, but I also think it cannot be an excellent article without inclusion. So my !vote is "weak support to include". Rivertorch FIREWATER  05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, I appreciate your "weak" !vote, because it suggests that you are open to nuance. I guess the difference to me is that in 75 years of life, this guy had maybe two things to say about being gay: "I'm gay" and "I'm not gay" and we are now debating just how we're going to stir up the pot for him posthumously for ___ academic reason TBD. I actually wouldn't mind input from our LGBT studies community, because I think we could use some perspective on posthumous outing, which I still think is the ultimate result, but assuming we are not here just to out him, I'm still not clear on what academic question we are trying to answer here. Did his sexuality contribute in any way to his portrayal of Charles Winchester or as Cogsworth? Did his sexuality contribute in any way to how he conducted an orchestra? Do we have any indication of how his sexuality contributed to his benevolence or other charitable factors? What is the question being answered other than, "Gasp! Was he gay?!" Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that we're trying to answer any academic question. Sexuality—like gender, ethnicity, and a host of other attributes—does inform a person's life in myriad ways, but we're usually not aware of that process in others, and sometimes not even in ourselves. Much biographical information that we commonly include in articles has little or no relevance to a subject's career, talents, or public activities. Consider: famous person x was born in Kingston, Ontario, graduated from McGill University, had a spouse named Juanita, and attended an Anglican church. These are just biographical details. In most cases, they will have had no discernible effect on what x is notable for, but we routinely provide them just the same. I'm pretty sure the question of sexuality will occur to many readers who notice the (glaring) absence of any mention of marriages, relationships, domestic arrangements of any kind in an article about a noted actor who died at age 75. But why would that question be "Gasp! Was he gay?!" Why not simply "Oh, was he gay?"
 * I think you're right that wider input may be helpful here. I'd be happy to leave a neutral notice at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies. Or would you prefer to do that? Rivertorch FIREWATER  07:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free! Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be in the business of fact-checking ABC News or any other source that meets RS We absolutely SHOULD be fact-checking. WP:GRAPEVINE is part of the WP:BLP POLICY. Point #4 of that policy is [remove material immediately which] relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. That advice solidly applies to this situation. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Grapevine does not apply as this was not a reported story but a self published statement, WP:SELFPUB, from David Ogden Stiers himself. Other reliable sources also reported him making those claims. His previous statement denying it also plays into it as he even went over why he said it before when he made his statement and why he wanted to correct it. MANY reliable sources have reported him making the statement he is gay and why he did so. It is not for us to use WP:OR and weasel out of known and well used reliable sources and their reportings. ContentEditman (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, it is absolutely NOT WP:SELFPUB, gossip boy was not Stiers personal blog. Obviously, if we actually knew that this was a legit interview this would not be an issue. the whole problem is that gossip boy is CLEARLY not reliable, and therefore there is reason to doubt that gossip boy actually had an interview with him, and therefore the entire statement is problematic. ResultingConstant (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're not in the business of second-guessing reliable sources, then we've got a real problem, because the reliable sources disagree with each other. Some, such as Variety and Fox News, claim that he came out in an interview with ABC... but ABC claims that he came out in an interview with gossip-boy. That is not to say that we should contradict the reliable sources, but by avoiding including the statement at all, we avoid contradicting then. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. One can't very well contradict something that one doesn't mention in the first place. On the other hand, by choosing to ignore the conflicting sources, we are omitting potentially noteworthy information from the article—information that our readers may expect to find. There are many instances where sources disagree about something but we don't use that disagreement as a reason to avoid mentioning it entirely. Instead, we mention that the sources disagree. I think that's generally the best practice to follow. I think it would be preferable to have a specific proposed addition on the table before contacting the WikiProject. (Being only a weak supporter of such an addition, I'm not inclined to propose it myself at this time.) Rivertorch  FIREWATER  08:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except we can't put forth a claim that "sources disagree" because we don't have a reliable third-party source claiming that they disagree, so that's original synthetic whatever. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is. If RS a says one thing and RS b says another, it's as plain as the sky is blue that they disagree. And if that's synthesis, WP is chock full of it. Rivertorch FIREWATER  02:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If Variety is no longer a reliable source then editors should be advised of same. As far as Stiers' sexuality, without any dissenting or contradicting news reports or even commentary from those who knew him, and in light of the difference between reporting on a living subject and one who has passed on (however recently), I believe we should include the verified and sourced text. Quis separabit?  14:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And I disagree. It should be left out until a consensus is reached here. The recently deceased are covered by our WP:BLP policy.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would further punctuate that we are not required through any policy I'm aware of to perfunctorily include content, even if verifiable. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The guy chose to keep his sexuality under wraps from the public for his whole life, but upon death we for some reason feel like it's our right to divulge his sexuality. Is it to satiate our own group curiosity, or is it to answer a legitimate academic question? Are we doing it to just to add another person to the list of gay celebrities? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If we did it, it would be to make the article as comprehensive and thorough as possible, which should be the goal for any article. Why do you keep saying "academic question"? Rivertorch FIREWATER  15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, maybe someone should mention the elephant in the room. If this were about his religion or ancestry or various other value-neutral characteristics, we wouldn't be having this discussion. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we'd be having a very similar discussion if a gossip blog announced that he was Jewish or Native American and we had him on a more reliable source earlier saying he was not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I would expect a person's religion to be exposed if the article subject had been cagey about their religion their entire life, or were not known for doing any public charitable work or activism related to their religion. If the subject were known for playing the Pope for a decade on television and he was Catholic, there might be a reason to tie that together. If they were Lutheran, that might open academic questions like: "How did his experience of playing the Pope change his views on Lutheranism?" Or "How did being a Lutheran influence his role as the Pope?" Or "How did being an atheist help or hinder his ability to play the role?" As to why I keep saying "academic question", because we are an academic resource and we should be certain that the content we are publishing is of academic value, not just satisfying our own curiosity or our need to bring everybody in on Stiers' secret. Is "Was he gay?" always of academic value? Is it of academic value here? And under what circumstances would we publish "After his death it was revealed that John Doe was heterosexual"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming that last question isn't a rhetorical one, I can only answer that I imagine such circumstances would be few and far between. Quoting myself from a little further up this page, "there remains a strong presumption of heterosexuality when nothing is said to the contrary". The only context I can conceive of where we'd say anything like that would be if someone during their lifetime had been widely reported, for whatever reasons, to be non-heterosexual and we were correcting the misconception. But your question seems somewhat odd, since no one here has suggested we put anything like that in the article. In fact, if anyone has revealed anything after Stiers's death, I haven't heard about it.
 * It's interesting what you say about Wikipedia as an academic resource. I've been editing here well over a decade and I've never thought of it as that. Educational? Definitely. Academic? Not particularly. To answer your other questions, an article subject's sexual orientation is a basic biographical fact and, as such, there is always educational value in reporting it. This article is no different from any other in that regard. That presumption of heterosexuality that I keep mentioning all too often leads to an inaccurate depiction of the world across various media, and I think that Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. We ought to be better than that. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would love to pick this apart, semantic argument by semantic argument, but I think I'm just repeating myself at this point and I think the discussion would be best blown wide open for community scrutiny and feedback. And I'm happy to be wrong on this subject, so long as the discussion is dissected by people who know the subject area and feel strongly about either perspective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You may be right that community scrutiny would be a good idea (although an RfC may be premature, since no one has proposed a specific change yet). If it does happen, I think it might be a good idea to host it at RSN, not here, and keep it tightly focused on the question of a generally accepted reliable source that's used widely on WP possibly being less than reliable. Any RfC on this has the potential to deteriorate into something less than wholly constructive, and if that happens, better it happen in project space. (In the meantime, if you really want to pick apart my argument, there's always my talk page. ) <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Nat Gertler: Yeah, it's possible, although I can't think of the last time anyone here screamed bloody murder over rumors of Native Americanness finding their way into article space. By and large, though, when the professional journalists at ABC News report something—anything—and years later haven't retracted it, we assume they've done their fact-checking and that it's ready for prime time. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  03:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That "assumption" fails. ABC does not assert anything as a fact other than that a blog published an accusation. That does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for sources for contentious claims about any persons at all - even dead ones, and ABC News does not, and never has, "fact checked" old stories. That a story saying an allegation was made, and the source does not 'retract' it, does not mean the allegation was found to be true, nor that the publisher believes it to be true.     shows how "reliable" ABC News is. Collect (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Do you have anything to support any of the claims you just made? There are several reliable sources that say he stated he was gay and even talked about why he said he was not before. This does meet the requirements for inclusion and is quite notable. ContentEditman (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Which of those sources is not ultimately citing/quoting gossip boy? ResultingConstant (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-ogden-stiers-p6kx0dn9k Makes no mention of Gossip boy, just states what David Ogden Stiers himself has said for one. ContentEditman (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article is behind a paywall, could you please quote the relevant section? ResultingConstant (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. "In 2009, aged 66, Stiers revealed he was gay, blaming his earlier reticence on his work for Disney. “Many have this idealistic belief that studios such as Walt Disney are gay-friendly. For the most part they are, but that doesn’t mean that business does not come first,” he explained. He admitted to being overcautious: “Many of my fears in modern times were self-invented.”" As you can see their piece makes the claim and then uses his words on top of that as well. ContentEditman (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Um --- the cite given does not state that he self-identifies as gay. He does not do so in that piece. Sorry - you need a real source - not dependent on a blog and not dependent on taking inferences from comments which do not make the claim you assert. The quote is from the gossip-boy blog, as you should already know. Sources which simply quote unreliable sources do not make the unreliable sources into reliable sources.  Collect (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the snippet. These lines are direct quotes from the Gossip boy blog are you arguing that gossip boy is a WP:RS for biographical information ? ResultingConstant (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No where does it say it was from or based on Gossip boy. That would be synthesis of published material in violation of WP:OR. The source is reliable and the content they wrote is notable. Are you arguing that The Times is not a WP:RS? ContentEditman (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You are arguing that the times independently got the exact same word for word quotes in separate interview than gossip boy? We are deep into WP:BLUE territory. In any case, we are clearly at an impasse in this discussion. The article is covered multiple times by policy and discretionary sanctions. Policy mandates that information (especially contentious information) should not be added or readded into such articles without consensus. Clearly there is not consensus now. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec)The "quote" is word for word identical to the gossip-boy cite Either we believe that Stiers was able to iterate identical answers to a blog and to an unidentified interviewer or we must perforce accept that the quote was taken from gossip-boy without any attribution to gossip-boy which holds copyright to the quote and interview. Identical words sans attribution = plagiarism and/or simple copyright infringement. Collect (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly wrong photo
The photo in this article seems to be a photo of Larry Linville portraying Frank Burns. 179.198.175.2 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is Stiers. Samf4u (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming that is true (which I doubt; it looks VERY much like Linville) why highlight a photograph that does such a poor job of conveying his appearance? That doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. 124.190.115.39 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Though I can see a faint similarity if I squint, File:MASH Cast 1977.JPG is the source image, and there are a number of photos out there like this from the same session or the one here that make it clear it's Stiers. But another photo could be procured if it's unclear. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It is clearly Larry Linville and should be removed. 2600:1002:B11D:39E3:B457:EE21:BDB1:1D77 (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say in response to this other than "you are wrong." This is the CBS stamp from the rear of the image. Stiers appears slimmer in the image, but it's clearly him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The essential problem with the OP's claim is that the person in the photo looks remarkably like Stiers and not the slightest bit like Linville. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  05:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Though it's obvious to my eye that we are looking at Stiers, I can actually see many similarities. They both have thin lips, but Linville's are thinner. Stiers appears to be sporting a thinner build, which might be confusing. Both Linville and Stiers had dimples in the chin, but I think Stiers's was usually more prominent. Both Linville and Stiers wore caps for these shoots, thus hiding Stiers's receding hairline. Stiers was a few inches taller than Linville and I think that's made obvious in contrast to Klinger, who was probably in some form of heels in the shot. I mean if you looked at Alda and Farrell in this photo you could convince yourself they had the same bulbous noses, the same crooked smiles, almost the same shallow eyebrows, etc. Anyway, I support a more up to date photo if we can find one suitable for Fair Use or whatevs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this photo looks like the actor who played Frank Burns on MASH, and does not look like Stiers who played Major Winchester. I suppose it's possible that it's just a weird angle, but because it does not look like Stiers, it seems it should be removed and replaced with a more representative photo. A cropped version of the photo of Stiers currently in the MASH section would be better. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo
While the discussion above rages on, there is one other change that can be made to the article in the wake of Stier's death. per WP:NFC (particularly WP:NFCI point #10), we could now start searching for a better photo of Stiers to use. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I emailed the Newport Symphony about using their picture, but they don't have standing to release it under a free license. If they can track down the photographer, they'll get back to me. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC regarding the sexuality of David Ogden Stiers
A brief history of this story :
 * In 1997 "Philedelphia Citypaper" published an interview which said that stiers was asked if he was gay, and replied  that he was not. Are you gay? No, I'm not. But, I believe that we're all the same person differently expressed
 * In 2009, the blog "gossip boy" published an interview which purports to be with Stiers, in which Stiers came out. GB: You are gay. Right, David? DOS: Yes, I am. Very proud to be so.
 * The gossip boy story was subsequently picked up by many other sources, which cited the blog . ABC story here :
 * A prior informal RFC was closed without consensus to include Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers/Archives/2014
 * After Stiers death, the story made the rounds again (many sources again), including the NYT obit (explicitly citing the ABC story above, which cites gossip boy)  Or see the TimesUK story which uses direct quotes from the blog, but does not cite any sources and uses their own voice.


 * In 2009 wikipedia Accounts claiming to be PR reps of stiers made comments indicating the interview was fake (Account was subsequently banned due to not complying with username policy as "group" name)
 * During prior discussions of this content, wiki editor claim to have called Stier's PR firm where they told him the story was false Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers/Archives/2013
 * On internet forums, those who claim to be in the know argue that Stiers is in fact gay, but that the interview was false


 * 1) Does the gossip boy interview (bolstered by otherwise reliable sources which have copied the story) comply with policy (WP:BLP  (in particular WP:GRAPEVINE) WP:RS) sufficient to allow inclusion of this story in this WP:BDP
 * 2) If the information meets policy, How should this information be presented :
 * 3) A. Not included
 * 4) B. Describe conflicting interviews, and possible sourcing issues
 * 5) C. Describe conflicting interviews, do not mention gossip boy reliability
 * 6) D. Include only coming out, attributed to sources/gossip boy
 * 7) E. Include only coming out, in wiki voice.
 * 8) F. Include in some other way

Note : I have neutrally notified several noticeboards and wikiprojects regarding this RFC ResultingConstant (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Note : I have asked for an uninvolved party to close this discussion at ANRFC. Since requests at that board regularly take a month or more to get processed, that should leave plenty of time for any additional discussion below. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure ResultingConstant (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * NO. A Gossip boy is not an RS, and per WP:GRAPEVINE any source relying on gossip boy is not RS for this information even if otherwise reliable. On top of gossip boy obviously not meeting RS criteria, the (unverified, themselves unreliable) comments from others give reason to actively dis-believe the story. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NO. A Single source that's been challenged - no way can we include that, especially when we have RS pointing the other way. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  22:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, what do you mean "it's been challenged", because it seems the sources have not challenged it - every source seems to accept that he actually "came out" in 2009, that the interview with Stiers actually occurred and he actually said what is attributed to him. The interview does also express a reason why he chose that venue, a friendship. Moreover, him "coming out" in 2009 is also logically consistent with earlier denial two decade previously.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No. Agree with the above. What I think Sarek means is that a statement like this requires very good sourcing, in multiple sources, to meet BLP requirements. Even then, it should have some relevance to his notability, otherwise a persons orientation is pretty much just trivia. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Choice A. This is extraordinarily thin sourcing for a fairly important claim. --Calton | Talk 01:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Inadequately sourced.  Even if the claim is absolutely true, we should err on the side of omission from the encyclopedia rather than inclusion if it cannot be verifiably and reliably sourced.  See Verifiability, not truth. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Include Similar to the way the New York Times did. WP:BDP does not apply, this is not a suicide or a violent crime or anything even remotely like those -- it's something that multiple reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy include in multiple accounts of the subject's life - his biography. It's long-standing public RS record. Reliable sources treat it at the least, like approved WP:ABOUTSELF -- it's not remotely salacious, scandalous, malicious, libelous, surprising, extraordinary, or anything but treated as biographical material as demonstrated in multiple RS, who in writing about his life say he came out. There is not the least hint in RS or in commonsense, that this information harms anyone. (WP:NOTABILITY has no relevance here, otherwise we would not include most everything in biographies, and NOTABILITY only applies to whether we keep an article or not.) We are to strictly follow NPOV, which is to follow the treatment of RS - they do not treat it as a 'secret', 'shameful' or anything of the kind - they report it. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A in the immediate time frame but open to reconsider when BLP no longer applies. This is the type of situation I think that "BLP applies to the recently deceased too" readily applies. Right now, no, we should not include it, in part because while we know that there are questions from someomne claiming to be his publicist that the interview was a fraud, we dont have any RSes to back that facet up. In a year or so, I do think mentioning the situation along the lines of option B (describing it as controversial, not a fact) would work. --M asem (t) 04:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Invalid RfC. There are at least two basic problems here. First, I believe this isn't the optimum venue; this should be posed as a question at RSN before any RfC happens here. That would bring the issue to the attention of editors who regularly assess the reliability of sources. It would also help keep discussion focused on the larger question, which has everything to do with what to do when the reliability of RSes is challenged, and avoid providing a setting for pointless speculations about Mr. Stiers's intentions, motivations, and so on. Second, and much more importantly, the wording of this RfC is unacceptably far from neutral, and any "results" gleaned from it should be discarded as invalid. My suggestion is that we don't let it get that far but instead hat this now before any more time is wasted. It could be opened again if it were rewritten from scratch by someone with experience wording requests of this sort it in an impartial way. Added: I have expanded on this in the subsection "Seriously flawed RfC", under threaded comments below. For the record, I lean toward including the disputed content in some way because it clearly meets our verifiability policy and its adjunct, the reliable sources guideline. 15:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC) <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  04:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. A - For reasons I've explained in previous discussions including that he was not known for his sexuality and actively kept it under wraps. Even if we can find solid sources about his sexuality, we are not required to cover this information and if we do, we should be sure that we are providing a legitimate academic/educational service, not just tallying all the "non-normals" in showbiz or otherwise slinging gossip under the guise of education. I would say that a huge aspect of that would be to provide significant context for why we should care about this information. Respectfully disagree with Rivertorch above that this is an invalid RfC. This is a local consensus issue, so this is the right place to have the discussion. If we're hoping to arrive at wider opinion for how to deal with sexuality revelations in BLPs and other biographical articles, then perhaps we should seek that discussion elsewhere, but I don't see that that has been proposed here. So for now, my !vote is No. A. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. A - Sent here by bot. No per above. Content does not seem to meet adequate sourcing requirements per BLP guidelines.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Lean Include: It's a bit of a tough call, frankly--if not for most of the reasons cited above. I'm not sure the detail is worthy of inclusion, but I am concerned by the fact that so many of the !votes above are problematically dismissive of the matter in a way that does not jive with policy in this area.  It's surely a concern that the ultimate source of the subject's supposed public disclosure is a single blog.  But if this topic has been covered at length in reliable sources, then in most instances, we would be compelled to follow suit; it is not our role as editors on this project to go through the mental gymnastics of inserting ourselves into the editorial processes of reliable sources to second guess their own editorial processes and safeguards.  Further, despite the fact that it is sometimes invoked as a magic talisman in situations such as this, BLP does not trump WP:V or WP:WEIGHT and community consensus has never supported the notion that concerns about an individual's reputation can keep out sufficiently sourced facts.  And in this case, nobody here seems to be suggesting that the Gossip Boy interview (which seems to have extended quotes from Ogden Stiers on the subject) is a fraud.  Indeed, given that the subject had nine years to publicly denounce the interview if it was a fake, or even seek substantial legal redress, I have a hard time believing that it was not genuine, in the absence of any evidence put forward to suggest that it was.


 * Further, as Alanscottwalker points out, heightened scrutiny under BLP here would only make sense if we were talking about something that was inherently deleterious to Ogden Stiers, and a statement that he was maybe or probably gay is hardly that. This would be less of a concern for me, if not for the fact that I see a pattern of this kind of hand-wringing just about any time we see a public figure come out and said subject does not do so by blasting it across the media landscape--when the editors of the relevant article first come to grips with whether or not to mention the fact, there's almost always an effort to "protect" the figure from a false claim.  But, my dear colleagues, it's not 1950 any more and there's nothing slanderous about identifying someone as gay.  I don't mean to imply that anyone here or in any other particular discussion is being homophobic, but this trend is so pervasive in similar discussions that I've recently arrived at the opinion that it cannot be explained but for an unstated assumption amongst many editors that mistakenly identifying someone as gay would be a much more serious editorial error than your average work-a-day factual error, and I think it's well past time that people begin to re-evaluate that perspective.  I have a hard time believing that we'd be seeing the same degree of squeamishness if we were talking about verifying that the man was a democrat, or the holder of a masters degree, or a vegan, and the fact was first broken in a blog, before being discussed at length in numerous high quality secondary sources.


 * The only thing which keeps my support for inclusion a little on the tepid side is a fact that Cyphoidbomb has already mentioned: this just may not be a significant detail concerning the man as an encyclopedic subject. On the other hand, a similar analysis generally does not stop this community from routinely covering at least the basic details of the family life of just about every modern person notable enough to have a biographical article on this encyclopedia, whether or not those details really have what I would call substantial WP:WEIGHT in the sources.  In any event, I am convinced that in this case, the weight is established by the number of sources and their quality. I see no principled reason to avoid discussing that the man came out in an interview, provided that we attribute that interview and make it clear that it was a single blog and that it was a singular statement. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 07:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the hatted bits; there are indeed reasons for suspecting that the interview may be a fraud. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you bringing those details to my attention. However, policy is clear that we cannot use assertions from purported representatives or  put forward on internet forums as a basis for our editorial decisions--any such assertions, regardless of whom they come from, have to be made through sources which meet our WP:Verification policies.  Even Red Act's efforts, even if true and done in good faith, cannot be used to make an editorial call that is meant to be predicated in sourcing.  There is too much potential for miscommunication and abuse in claims by editors that they have confirmed/discredited sourcing on the basis of personal communications--which is why our system of checks (as a matter of long standing policy and overwhelming community consensus) proscribes such WP:Original research.  Nevertheless, I'm grateful you brought additional information about the previous discussion to my attention. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 09:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment First my compliments for a well-drafted RfC, as so many are not. This is a close call but i would say that at the present time it is a yes. Gossip boy is not usable, obviously.  But if it indeed has been utilized by many reliable news sources then I do believe our practice is to include. But as I said, this is a close call, a tough decision, and I think the "excludes" raise many valid points and may be right. But that's how I lean. Coretheapple (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lean include, but echo Rivertorch's concerns with the RFC. This would indeed be better taken to RSN first. As an RFC, the question as posed is non-neutral. The relevant question is whether the information is verifiable. If the sources merely copied an online blog, they would not be reliable, and it would fail verifiability. If the sources did additional fact-checking and verification before running the story and stating in their own voice that Stiers actually made the statements in question, they would be reliable. That's why the definition of a WP:RS refers to a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When we cite claims in reliable sources, that reputation is what we rely on, and I see no reason to depart from that reliance given the array of reliable sources available here. Efforts to do our own fact-checking, which appear to entirely consist of reviewing anonymous online posts, remind me why its so important to adhere to WP:V rather than trying to do our own original research.--Trystan (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Invalid RfC I have to agree with other editors, this was not done properly and should be at RSN and was not written neutrally. ContentEditman (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude all that is substantially reliant on the Gossip-Boy Blog  This RfC seems already to confirm the discussion at at WP:RS/N and other boards.  Collect (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak include, though definitely not in WP voice that he 'came out', or is known to have been gay. Something like option B, the fact that this has been 'picked up' by RS, has itself become part of the known story, but does nothing to confirm the initial 'interview'. We need to treat this as what has been reported without endorsing the initial claim - which ultimately is his own private business, but which is difficult to ignore when repeated in so many RS. Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude No matter how many repetitions a non-reliable blog gets, its still a non-reliable blog. Attempting to include it here under "other RS talked about it" is analogous to the "Teach the Controversy" nonsense.  They both attempt to use talking about talking about unreliable information as an excuse to squeeze in the unreliable information.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong include per my WP:RSN comments. Many of the comments above are exactly wrong.  A blogpost that gets extensive coverage in reliable sources (while it itself is not reliable) becomes notable and worth inclusion; and those sources are reliable insofar as we can use them to describe what the blog post said.  This isn't even slightly controversial or unusual - it's essentially the only way we can ever describe the contents of blogs in a Wikipedia article.  Is the position of people arguing for exclusion essentially that we can never cover or describe something from a blog under any circumstances, no matter how much coverage it gets?  Because that seems clearly absurd.  We have to follow and reflect reliable sources; if they say that a blogpost is important, and give it coverage as if it's important, then we are required to reflect that in our articles.  Using reliable secondary sources to describe the content of an unreliable-but-noteworthy primary source is extremely basic sourcing.  Edit: I strongly urge the closer to disregard any comments that rely on WP:BLP or WP:GRAPEVINE.  The precedent created by allowing people to second-guess the sourcing used by an otherwise-reliable source would be unbelievably dangerous and would make it almost impossible to say anything about a BLP (or, indeed, anyone at all.)  WP:GRAPEVINE applies only to the sources we cite directly, and any argument that implies otherwise is not grounded in policy to the point where it needs to be disregarded.  --Aquillion (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the analysis by those arguing exclude above is unsupportable, as it begins with a conclusion that is unsupported (that unsupported conclusion is that any blog is unreliable in total, which is a claim made without evidence). Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS a source may be unreliable for some things but reliable for others. In this context, multiple reliable sources contradict the unsupported conclusion that is used to exclude  - in this particular matter.
 * Even if we assume the blog is generally unreliable, that would not demonstrate it is unreliable in this matter - and the conclusory argument to exclude, flies in the face of multiple reliable sources. In short, this exclude argument is both unsupported by any reliable source evidence, and contradicted by reliable sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Further bolstering the case that this is well sourced and relevant to David Ogden Stiers life and work: Rowman & Littlefield (known for their scholarly publishing) in 2016 published, "Also, gay and lesbian actors often lend their voices to Disney characters . . . Rosie O'Donnell . . . Nathan Lane . . . and David Ogden Stiers . . .. This is also evidence that this RfC is not neutral, relying on poor research and failing intentionally or not in misrepresenting the sources, from the very first RS to the tons of other RS, it is not a matter of 'private-stuff', it was and is a matter of this biography and working as an actor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Exclude The only source we have that says he's gay is a non-notable gossip blog. There's no way in hell we can include this, especially when notable publications say the  opposite.  <span style="background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> ►К  Ф Ƽ Ħ◄   12:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NO. Look at WP:RS: A blog (in this case ""Gossip boy) or "gossip boy" are is not a reliable source. The name of the blog already says it all. Gossips are probably not true, so are not allowed to be used for a BLP. . Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 05:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 05:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude - This is a matter about the personal life of a public figure who has done little to publicize that personal life. We have sources in blatant contradiction with one another, a good old source against a bad newer source saying opposite things. Rather than saying "maybe he was, maybe he wasn't gay," the logical thing is to skip the unimportant issue altogether. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not include the information. The Gossip Boy interview by Wayne Fuller appears to be genuine, but since it's such an obscure source and Wayne Fuller is practically an unknown, the information fails WP:RS and should not be included. Who is Wayne Fuller? Bright☀ 10:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not the only source, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-ogden-stiers-p6kx0dn9k. This RfC was not written neutrally so many have not seen a RSN or other sources that are being ignored. ContentEditman (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The RFC explicitly calls out other sources, giving links to the NYT and the uktimes link you posted there. And the uktimes article uses direct quotes from gossip boy, so that source is really no different than ABC which at least cited their source correctly. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Exclude - Conflicting sources and his sexual orientation is not a defining characteristic of what he is primarily known for. And also agree with Carrite in that it is an unimportant issue altogether. If it really had been that much of an important issue to Stiers, I would expect to see another interview or two where he self-identified as such, instead of using an obscure and now defunct gossip blog to try and definitively answer an unimportant issue. Isaidnoway (talk)  13:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, and leaning toward include: I don't feel strongly one way or the other about including this information, but I do share others' concerns that it is up to us to follow what the reliable sources state instead of question the sources and analyze and interpret the matter on our own. As also noted, the content could be included in a way that it notes that reliable sources have covered the matter. We don't have to directly call Stiers gay. In a similar vein, after a lot of debating on how to cover the "Jodie Foster coming out" material, editors agreed to note that a speech she made "led many news outlets to afterwards describe her as lesbian or gay, although some sources noted that she did not use the words 'gay' or 'lesbian' in her speech." There is also the fact that although WP:BLP still concerns Stiers's family, he is no longer alive, which lessens the adherence to WP:BLP. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. A Summoned by a bot - source provided doesn't seem reliable. <b style="color: green;">Comatmebro</b> (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Include, but make clear that the source of the claim is dubious, even though it's been repeated by credible sources such as the NYTimes. Nixon Now (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude for now. The claim is very plausible. His 1997 denial followed by alleged coming out in 2009 is consistent with wanting to protect his career in 1997, then deciding 12 years later that this was unlikely to be a problem anymore. However, due to lack of collaboration for the original unreliable source, it should be omitted for now. If close friends or family confirm this information in a RS, it could be included. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
Given the mountain of reliable sources that accept the interview occurred as written, I am leaning toward this being valid WP:ABOUTSELF, what's the argument that it's not? It's not something extraordinary in 2009 for someone to say these things, nor a 'dirty little secret' when the New York Times and multiple other RS report it: "In early 2009, at 66, Mr. Stiers announced that he was gay and “very proud to be so” in a blog interview that was reported by ABC News. His secrecy, he said, had been strictly about the fear that openness about his sexuality might affect his livelihood. Now he regretted that. “I wish to spend my life’s twilight being just who I am,” he said." In the article, let's just say who reported what, when. And these multiple reliable sources also do make it relevant to his biography. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The question isn't whether the blog itself is a reliable source - obviously it isn't. But ABC News, the NYT, and the TimesUK are reliable sources, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The RFC question refers to "otherwise reliable sources which have copied the story," as if it was some random thing they found online that went unfiltered into their own publications. There is no reason to assume they did not do any fact-checking on this story. We don’t know what these publications’ sources were for confirming in their own voice that DOS made these statements, but it’s quite a leap to assume they were just basing the claim on reading the blog itself. I can’t really answer the RFC question as it is phrased, as I disagree with its assumptions.--Trystan (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Although not a fan of trendy new words, citogenesis (circular reporting) does not to seem to be a very good reason for inclusion. When multiple otherwise-reliable sources copy Wikipedia we don't accept it as reliable (and it does happen). If the original source of the interview is unreliable, then the difference is the same. In any event, how does it help me understand this person? Do we report when people are straight? What is the relevance to his notability? Zaereth (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see point 4 under WP: GRAPEVINE which is part of the blp policy.Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [...] relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. We agree that the blog is unreliable. Clearly the other sources depends on that source. Blp/grapevine says not to use them. The vast majority of the sources do not say it in their own voice, almost all attribute the blogResultingConstant (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong, RS, including the New York Times, demonstrate the reliability and variability of this information, since RS accept it is about himself, there is no rational basis not to. Alanscottwalker (talk)
 * Given that so far the consensus is against adding the content, you really need to stop arrogantly declaring other editors "wrong" and start thinking about the strong arguments they have made against its inclusion. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that your appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy (what, you have a handful?), and that it is wrong, there is certainly not a reason why I should not say it is wrong. Your !vote argument, itself, is not at all strong, the whole topic is completely verifiable by reliable sources, and your just wishing those sources away by references to an essay that does not support your point is incredibly weak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Grapevine is not an essay. It is a formal part of WP:BLP policy. And that policy completely contradicts your argument.ResultingConstant (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoever posted this: Grapevine point 3 aboutself supports inclusion, so your contention is not supportable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not. No sources involved in this are self published. If they were we wouldn't be here. the story was published by the blog, and there is reason to think that the blog made it up. The blog is not an RS. the blog is not self published. It completely fails point #4. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. These are words he said himself about himself, and no according to the RS, including the New York Times, your contending their validity is complete OR, they have validity according to multiple RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right. This is a self published source. It was self published by Wayne Fuller. Note that Wayne fuller is NOT the same person as David Ogden Stiers. Therefore this information completely fails WP:SELFPUB point #2. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (which you do not have, by policy) treat them as statements made by him, David Ogden Stiers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We get into complications regarding "who reported what", as we have multiple normally-considered-RS sources (Variety, Fox News) claiming that it was an ABC interview rather than merely ABC reporting on the gossip-boy interview. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even more of a reason. If he wanted to shout it from the rooftops and give interviews to Katie Couric and Steve Kroft he would. As a big proponent of people's right to privacy, I still say it should bear some relevance to their notability. For example, if he was famous for being a gay-rights activist or something like that it would make sense to need to know his orientation. In the 1950s it was a big deal, even though many celebrities were known to be gay, reliable newspapers didn't report it. Even then it was considered gossip. In the 80s and 90s when people started coming out publicly, it became a big deal, and almost became trendy for news outlets and tabloids to try to out people to get their headlines. Today it's like, whatever. You may as well tell me what kind of ice-cream he likes or if he hates broccoli or not. It really has no bearing on who he is as a person. The only thing that's remained constant is it's still trivia and still just gossip, and Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Zaereth (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether you think it's important or not (we are not here to enshrine your bias, or your theories on recent history, or your personal theories on what you don't approve of what RS write about, or your very peculiar ideas about what people need to shout about), per NPOV, it matters what RS have written, and multiple prominent RS that have written about his life have written this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

RS/N discussions on "gossip-boy",  inter alia. Wordpress blogs are not "reliable sources" and do not suddenly become reliable when someone quotes such a blog. Collect (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I say something while standing on the street corner, I'm obviously not a reliable source. If the NYT reports that I said something while standing on the street corner, it is a reliable source that I made the statement.--Trystan (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If a blog says you said something, and you did not say it, but the NYT quotes the blog, then suddenly the "quote" becomes fact? Really? Sorry - that is the "Daily Mail fallacy" in spades. Collect (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the scenario where I had not actually made the statement, the NYT would have failed to live up to its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But by definition a reliable source does have such a reputation, meaning they tend not to run unverified claims.--Trystan (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has extremely few fact-checkers on staff. In fact, for many years, zero.  ". Peter Baker, The Times’s chief White House correspondent, said that he had never before in his 30-year career come across a full-time newspaper fact-checker."  Their sole fact-checker is assigned to political stories. They have zero fact-checkers for obits.   "Reuters accidentally published its advance obit for billionaire George Soros, complete with XXXs where age and date of death would appear. Reuters did not take the obit down for 30 minutes."  "Do not assume a report is legitimate simply because it confirms the reader’s, including the reporter’s, point of view."  "Newspapers often publish obituaries among news stories pulled from social media. These and other news stories many times are outright fake reports or twist the truth to support a particular bias."  tells readers what to beware of. Collect (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. So when it comes to the David Ogden Stiers article, The New York Times and everyone else that, whatever their flaws, we consider trustworthy the rest of the time, suddenly become suspect and have to meet an impossibly high bar. Because, you know, someone might mistake our careful wording that The New York Times reported something for incontrovertible proof that that something is true. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  21:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) @Collect: No, they don't. But neither do reliable sources suddenly become unreliable when they quote Wordpress blogs. @Cyphoidbomb: I disagree. This raises questions (about the use of reliable sources) that have implications far beyond what any local consensus can determine. But that's not why I called it an invalid RfC. RfCs are supposed to be neutral and brief; this one is neither. I really don't care about the brevity—sometimes that can't be helped—but a lack of neutrality in an RfC's wording is always unacceptable and has the potential to undermine or even invalidate any supposed consensus found to emerge. I would point out that Wikipedians with widely differing opinions on this question have been editing collegially on this article for years, often enforcing the terms of a consensus with which they disagree but which was arrived at fairly. This "RfC" has the potential to poison that environment. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  17:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We know since these sources use the exact gossip-boy quote that gossip-boy is the source. We also know that Stiers said at least once that he was not gay. We also know that no sources iterated the gossip-boy claim until after Stiers' death. We also know that no source makes the claim without being clearly related to the gossip-boy source by dates claimed as well. We lastly know that gossip-boy is now a deceased blog. Editors are supposed to use common sense, and if it looks and sounds like a duck as a claim, it remains a duck even if someone quotes it. Collect (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, because us ragtag collection of volunteers are obviously way more adept at judging the reliability of sources than The New York Times, ABC News, or any other group of professional journalists who do that for their livelihood. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  01:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that "gossip-boy.com" (the Oklahoma City blog) is deceased as a website. Collect (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretending that this information is not in multiple reliable sources is an entirely imaginary world of nonsense -- anyone the least bit serious reading or writing of his life will have this information - we will even link to this information in this article, as it is in multiple reliable sources about his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What information is in the RS? That this blog published a "coming out" interview? That is not disputed, but whether the initial report of the interview was accurate, or even that the interview took place, is disputable. I'm in favour of cautious inclusion of the various claims, including those made post-mortem, but nothing can detract from the fact that we have no RS that Stiers ever chose to speak publicly about his sexuality, beyond an early 'denial' of being gay. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You already know what information in reliable sources, begin with the New York Times and the Sunday Times (read the whole thing like any reading and writing researcher would) and then make your way to RS around the world - it is nothing but misrepresentation of these sources that they don't say what they say, and mean what they mean. It's certainly not relevant that you or others don't approve of what they relate Stiers did and said, or think Stiers should have done it another way. If your issue is about attribution, as far as I can tell everyone wants attribution.  As for whether anything those reliable sources wrote in writing about his life is "disputable", then bring the reliable sources that dispute the international coverage  (that's how WP:WEIGHT is done). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where exactly do I imply that I don't approve of anything printed in the sources? I'm in favour of inclusion, but believe we should not state in WP voice that he was gay, nor that he came out, but rather that sources X and Y reported him as having done so in a blog interview. The only source that I can see that does not refer explicitly to the blog as their source is the Times post-mortem, and as we all know dead men can't sue nor complain. I think it probable that he did say this in some form and probable that he was gay, but the fact that he chose to remain silent on the matter, when he could so easily have confirmed or denied, should be respected by us as leaving an element of doubt. Not only doubt about whether he had come-out, but doubt as to whether he thought his private life should be public property. The only thing we are sure of is that several RS reported the fact of the interview having been published, none of them contain any confirmation that any content of the interview is true, so if their fact checking included contacting him or his PR, they clearly didn't get an answer that they could use to confirm. Regardless of whether being gay is a 'good' or 'bad' or 'indifferent' thing, either people have a right to remain silent about what makes them tick in their private life, or they don't. Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We agree on attribution and on general matters of presentation in our article. By following the reliable sources, though, we do know why it was made public: David Ogden Stiers said why it was made public and talked about coming out in relation to working, and specifically working for Disney -- ABC News, a subsidiary of Disney, and others reported all that - David Ogden Stiers is the source, and he's reliable for this according to to multiple reliable sources - there is nothing in reliable sources that suggest that he had to say it, again, and again - and there is no reason anyone, including us would force him to say it again and again. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm actually only asking him to say it once - to a reliable source. Of course the non-RS might be 100% true on this occasion, or 0% true, that's why it is a non-RS. Because we have no idea whether it is wholly true or wholly fiction and the only way that the RS repeating the story changes this picture is that they establish that the interview was printed, not that the interview itself was accurate, nor even that it actually happened, that's why the RS attribute. Of course there are plausible explanations as to why he might have said this once only, but how many plausible explanations could I conjure up in which he never said it at all, or not understanding that it was going to be used in the printed interview. We probably agree on an approx attributed text, so in a sense this discussion is about justification for our conclusion - mine is pragmatic, that the reporting of the interview has itself become part of the narrative and that therefore sensitive, concise, attributed text is preferable to total exclusion. Nonetheless, I see no evidence that Stiers ever voluntarily 'came out' to any RS and the RS confirming that the interview was printed persuades me of little except that they were confident that they wouldn't get sued. Good faith repeating of an actually false claim is, I believe, an acceptable defence under US libel law. Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to conjure - and we are prohibited from conjuring - multiple reliable sources expressly say as a matter of fact, David Ogden Stiers said it. There is also nothing in reliable sources on which to base a claim that he did not say it voluntarily - or that contradict the fact that he said it, and there is nothing whatsoever in reliable sources except it being true as true gets. As between Wikipedia editor conjuring, and following reliable sources, we are to strictly follow reliable sources (and no reliable sources do not just publish this, as long as they won't get sued, and you have not provided any evidence for that conjuring) -- per V and NPOV and OR, all of our central content policies, we follow what the reliable sources have written. Finally, whatever unsubstantiated beliefs there are about libel law, we know for a fact it does not take a lawsuit to get a retraction. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that the RS are not being used to describe the blog, the are being used to describe Stiers. this is explicitly addressed in BLP policy under WP:GRAPEVINE Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [..]relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.. If we were writing about the meta-controversy, then indeed then sure. But what would the proposed content be? "The NYT obit wrote that ABC wrote that the gossip boy published an article which said that Stiers came out as gay, which contradicted an earlier interview where Stiers said he was not gay" That accurately describes the situation here, but that is a really really horrible biographical article. ResultingConstant (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GRAPEVINE refers exclusively to sources we use; that's all we're permitted to consider. The moment we have a reliable source (or, ideally, two or three to be safe, in contentious situations), it no longer applies, regardless of what sources those sources depend on.  Second-guessing the content of reliable sources and trying to pick and choose for sources whose content you prefer (including ones whose own sourcing you approve of) is WP:OR.  It is absolutely against policy to second-guess the primary sources used by our own sources - otherwise, we would never be able to cover eg. conversations or private writings at all. If you feel that reliable sources are, themselves, using a source they shouldn't be using, you could write to them and request a retraction, but it is an argument with absolutely no weight whatsoever here - we are bound to follow their lead (with only a little bit of wriggle room if you want to argue that our source itself is unreliable due to bad sourcing; but that argument vanishes completely when something is heavily-covered in multiple sources, as it is here.) The sources here are ABC News and the New York Times, and those are the only ones to which the "remove immediately" text applies in any way, shape or form; you must argue that those sources are unreliable in order to invoke BLP.  Any argument that depends on using WP:GRAPEVINE to analyze the primary sources of an otherwise reliable secondary source is against policy and must be disregarded by whoever closes the RFC as a comment without basis in policy.  Again, this is transparently obvious if you stop and think about it, since literally everything ultimately, if you dig down far enough, depends on some secondary source performing original research on an unreliable primary source.  If a significant number of reliable sources are reporting something as fact, we are required to treat it as fact - arguments based around second-guessing their research and reporting hold absolutely no water whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I daresay the fact that a reliable source in the 1890s might have used Protocols as a source - and we are prohibited from noticing that the reliable source did, indeed, use an unreliable source? In the case at hand, the original source was anonymous, not fact-checked, and now defunct.  This, by the way, is why older medical articles run in reliable sources are deemed unreliable now in Wikipedia.  Collect (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously flawed RfC
Although others have echoed my objection to the wording of this RfC, there clearly is no consensus to scrap it and try again. I have been asked (at another venue) to explain why I think the wording is flawed, and I'd like to articulate that here.

WP:RFC advises: "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project." Although those questions had already been raised on this talk page, the user who started this RfC did not solicit the opinion of other contributors as to the advisability of an RfC or, if one were begun, what it should ask and how it should ask it. WP:RFC further advises that the opening statement should consist of a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" and that "[if] you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise."

The user who created this RfC did none of the above, as far as I can tell. If they had, we might have had a productive, consensus-producing discussion at RSN instead of this RfC. Failing that, we might at least have had an RfC that was worded neutrally so as not to sway participants toward a particular outcome. Instead, we have an RfC whose wording appears expressly designed to virtually guarantee a certain outcome, with cherry-picked bullet points defining a supposed "brief history" of the off-wiki events underlying the dispute, supplementary information inexplicably hatted (why?), and then two questions, the first one sloppily written and ungrammatical, asking RfC participants to make a policy-based determination that literally cannot be made. Parsing the sentence as best I can and reducing it to its essence, what it says is: Does an interview comply with certain (cherry-picked) policies [sic] sufficient [sic] to allow inclusion. Huh? Tortured prose aside, that is a meaningless question, since Wikipedia policies do not apply off-wiki. Translating the question into what I suppose it's intended to ask, one is left with a feeling that, if this RfC is deemed valid, the outcome here is a foregone conclusion. Really, the outcome of any RfC beginning with the words "Does the gossip boy interview..." seems almost inevitable. Fortunately, that's not quite so.

The RfC is the standard method by which content disputes are resolved at Wikipedia. They work by soliciting input from the entire community, and in so doing they bring to a given talk page editors who have no knowledge of the dispute or of the subject of the associated article. It is essential that such uninvolved editors be allowed to determine on their own the locus of the dispute and the appropriate remedy; they must not be guided toward a particular decision. Therefore, '''it is longstanding practice for RfCs to be worded neutrally. When they are not, the closer may take that into account and find that consensus either does not exist or was arrived at through invalid means and needs to be determined by other means, such as a new, neutrally worded RfC.''' Closing this RfC in the usual way, with a finding of consensus one way or the other, would risk setting a dangerous precedent. It is critical that we affirm that RfCs should be carefully, neutrally written. Since there are implications here beyond this particular content dispute, and even beyond this article, regarding the continued acceptability of various major news outlets that the community has long deemed reliable for sourcing biographical information, it seems especially important that we get this right—not only the decision itself but the way we arrive at it. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost no RfCs have an RfC to see whether there should be an RfC.   Normal practice is to pose the RfC, and the closer can weigh strength of arguments, and, in this case, whether WP:RS/N has had discussions on the source used, and the like.  RfCs are not beauty contest votes - where issues regarding policy are concerned, cavils about the wording of the RfC fail.   Note that "recently deceased" people do fall under WP:BLP on Wikipedia even though news media understand, legally,  "you can not libel the dead". Wikipedia has stronger rules. WP:DEADHORSE applies.Collect (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a dispute about this content and the relevant policies. This dispute has been going on for almost a decade. It has been to RSN multiple times. There has never been consensus to include the information or that the sources are reliable for this blp information in any venue. The RFC is to get a better/wider consensus. The wording was chosen to inform people what the dispute is. I asked you for what your proposed wording would be, and you did not answer. But based on your comments and those of Alanscottwalker, I am forced to guess that your hypothetical wording would be one which completely fails to inform other editors about what the dispute actually is. You may have policy right. but an RFC which assumes you are correct in your policy evaluation completely misses the point of the RFC. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @ResultingConstant: You've been here less than two years and are lecturing me on the history of this dispute? That seems a little odd. In any event, if you honestly believe the potential outcome of this dispute carries no implications beyond this content and this article, I don't know what to tell you except that I disagree. As to what neutral wording would be, it would be wording that asked one or more non-leading questions. Background information generally need not be given, since RfC participants are quite capable of reading the talk page and their fellow participants' comments; if it is given, it should be scrupulously crafted to ensure that it does not point casual RfC participants (i.e., those not bothering to do their homework) in a particular direction. I don't think this is the time or place to draft such wording, but if a suitable context presents itself I'll be happy to collaborate on it.
 * @Collect: Pot meet kettle. Dead horse does indeed apply, and I catch quite a whiff when I walk past your stable. You have been beating this particular horse mercilessly, and often needlessly, for years now. I can assure you with complete certainty that no one has the slightest doubt as to your opinion. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? Seems to me that my position has been consistent and has prevailed consistently on this matter,  mainly because this is a matter of non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, whilst some seem to think accusing an editor of stinking is of any value in any discussion at all. Collect (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Collect, for well over a decade you have rarely missed an opportunity to opine that your personal interpretation of BLP is non-negotiable. That's the dead horse that I was referring to, and I'm truly sorry if I was unclear. Here's clear:
 * (1) "Beating a dead horse" is a metaphor; I assumed you knew that since you're the one who invoked it to begin with. (2) Metaphors are never intended to be taken literally. (3) I did not call you a dead horse, although I implied there was one in your "stable"—an extended metaphor. In fact, I don't believe for a moment that you're a horse at all, and I stand ready to come to your defense should someone claim that you are. (4) Although I've never had the opportunity of smelling a dead horse (for which I am thankful), I assume it smells like other dead things, i.e., not nice. I'm guessing you would concur with my assumption and keep your distance from such a horse, thus remaining free of any dead-horse odors. (5) Nevertheless, I continue to believe—in a strictly metaphorical sense—that there's a horse is there.
 * If that's not clear enough—or if you'd like to complain at my riffing off your own metaphor—I would encourage you to pursue it elsewhere because this falls well outside the topic of this thread and the proper scope of the page. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  22:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So, your objection to this RfC seems to be that didn't hold a RfC to decide on the wording of this RfC?  Isn't that a bit like having a staff meeting to plan tomorrow's staff meeting?  WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY certainly applies.  There's nothing in WP:RFC that requires the RfC author seek consensus on the RfC wording before opening the RfC.  In many cases, it would be impossible.  The RfC author is merely encouraged to formulate a neutral statement.  The only way to determine if there is consensus that that formulation has been achieved is ti actually run the RfC, as has been done here.  And, whadyaknow? it looks like the majority of RfC !voters have no problem with the statement, or at least are not bothered enough by it to refuse to register their opinions.  It is clearly being actively engaged by sufficient numbers that a closer will not have great difficulty finding an outcome. This section reads like an attempt to shut down the RfC and start over because the consensus has shifted away from your preferred outcome. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * tl;dr reply: Huh? Full reply: How you infer all that from what I said is beyond me. I never implied there should have been an RfC to decide anything about this RfC; what I suggested is that there should have been discussion. Discussion ≠ RfC. The former happens thousands of times a day at Wikipedia and is the basis for the consensus we value so highly. The latter is a comparatively uncommon, formal process that should be employed with great care, especially in the case of longstanding disagreements and questions that potentially have widespread implications for the interpretation of basic policies.
 * I wasn't aware of any shift in consensus, and I find your reading of my comments to skirt the edges of an accusation of bad faith. If you're unconcerned about procedural correctness and believe that it doesn't matter whether RfCs are worded neutrally, that's fine, but please don't make unwarranted suggestions that my concerns in this area are some sort of smokescreen for a tactical ploy. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  19:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , "reads like..." means "can give rise to the impression that..." or "is capable of being inferred to be...". I intended it as a note of caution, not as a personal judgment of your motives. I should have made that disclaimer clear and I apologize for the offense. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so much offense as bafflement, but thank you. If consensus did appear to be shifting, I might see your point, but it really doesn't. By the numbers, consensus hasn't shifted one iota. By strength of argument, it arguably has shifted somewhat in a direction I'd prefer. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  19:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be drifting a bit from the main questions posed in the RFC. While I appreciate that a fundamentally flawed RFC could be problematic and grounds for starting over, and I accept that some legitimate questions about the structure had been raised, I think the best course is to let this RFC run its course. The challenges have been articulated. If a close it determines that they are sufficiently egregious the closer can recommend that this RFC be closed with no consensus and urge a reformulated RFC. Alternatively, the closer can conclude that it is the rare RFC that is perfectly formed, and the flaws are not sufficient to justify throwing out and starting over, and in that case the closer can reach a conclusion as to the consensus regarding the fundamental questions asked in the RFC.

On a positive note, I am impressed by the number of cogent arguments posed on both sides of some points, as well as the generally high level of the discussion. The closer will have some challenges but the ratio of light to heat is decent. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Commment The wording of the interview seems tailor-made for an obituary and reminds me of this incident. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While the larger point about media fact checking is applicable, this story was published almost a decade ago, so even if fake was not faked for the purpose of an obit. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, thanks. As you say, the whole point is that reliable sources with reputations for checking facts have been shown to fail at obituary details, then discreetly cover up their failings. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)