Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 3

Edit request on 15 January 2013
In re Jodie Foster article, please +Category:Gay actors Note Dead links, I think 1st one in Ext Lks, and another one in domain .nu Thx, AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013
Personal Jodie Foster conceived her children through InVitro Fertilization.

Kennymanna 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
So I see there is an edit war going on regarding her being placed into LGBT categories. After a search, I've found endless reports in reliable third party publications indicating she "came out", so I think it warrants her being placed into the general LGBT categories, just not the specific ones because we don't know if she is specifically bisexual or lesbian.  NYSM y talk page  20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a detailed discussion on this subject in the above Edit dispute? section. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes?
I suspect that well-meaning newcomers will continue to add inappropriate categories and text to this biography - would some clued-in admin please place it under pending changes? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples:
 * addition of "Category:Lesbian actors"
 * addition of "Category: LGBT people from the United States"
 * But she is a lesbian, so where's problem? --Sternax (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See the discussion a few sections up the page. Pending changes have now been applied, so the problems should be somewhat reduced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in Personal Life section
In the Personal Life section, it states that she was with her former partner from 1993 to 2008, but in the next paragraph it states that she was her "partner of 20 years". Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.240.144 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've revised the section. What Foster actually said in her Golden Globes speech was that Bernard was (among other things) her "most beloved BFF of 20 years", presumably from ~1993 to now. The AP misreported it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending revisions
Is there some special tool needed for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Redo consensus
This consensus is bullshit. We are making the decision of what orienation she is for her. It is also incorrect to not have any categories regards to LGBT as she essentially made one at the Golden Globes. So, are we gonna get our thumbs out of our asses and get this right? I did my coming out ages ago. I honestly do not believe you think this doesn't mean she's LGBT. RAP (talk) 15:48 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the consensus at the BLP notice board. She has not stated at all that she is LGBT. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did my coming out ages ago. Right.... RAP (talk) 15:59 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Having given you this link already I propose you actually read it. Then read WP:BLPCAT Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I refuse to allow you to say what she is for her. The acceptance speech failed qualifications for a lesbian category. No where does it disallow LGBT. I did my coming out ages ago. I will not let this drop. If the consensus once again is bullshit, i'll start another. Nad another. Because we do not have the power to decide what she means. RAP (talk) 16:06 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your argument very confusing. Adding those categories would be labelling Foster's sexual orientation. Omitting them does not mean that she is heterosexual, simply that she has not stated her sexual orientation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support adding Category:LGBT actors There are reliable sources that state she did her coming out ages ago, either as a lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, queer etc. whatever, enough to put her in the catch all LGBT category. At BLPCAT it says "each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" which can be done, she made it clear she is something LGBT. Coming out doesn't mean anything else.  NYSM y talk page  18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support adding the category: she has self-identified according to reliable secondary sources. Also, it is worth noting that the people reverting and citing a "BLP violation" are incorrect. There is no BLP violation to say that she is lesbian or LGBT. In fact if there were, I would not be able to write that here in the talk page. Secondary reliable sources have called her lesbian, so it is entirely proper for us to report that. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a misunderstanding of policy plain and simple.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then, enlighten me please, what kind of policy permits us to interpret the primary source (her speech) as something other than what is reported in reliable secondary sources? Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't interpret it, and we don't use the interpretation of secondary sources. We use a clear self statement only. Lady  of  Shalott  21:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't use the interpretation of secondary sources - REALLY? What policy says that we are not supposed to do that? Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Try: WP:OR and EGRS.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per previous consensus, and per DC's comment above. She has not indicated her sexual orientation and there is no reliable source to indicate so. I'm LGBT myself, as it happens, yet I'm disturbed by the amount of fervent LGBT-tagging that goes on on Wikipedia - A l is o n  ❤ 18:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose identifying as having a partner of of a particular sex does not equate to identifying as being of a particular sexual orientation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If this were true, then most of the LGBT biographies on Wikipedia need editing, because for most, the fact the subject has a same-sex partner has been sufficient to label the subject as LGBT. --Crunch (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Foster has not said what her orientation is. Lack of a category does not imply that she is straight. Lady  of  Shalott  19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * She didn't just say she had a same sex partner, she said that she came out. You have to be LGBT to come out.  NYSM y talk page  19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? - A l is o n  ❤ 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh god, that stuff is just bologna.  NYSM y talk page
 * If by bologna you mean ignorant and homophobic, then yes, its bologna. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, those things are ignorant and disparage coming out as gay, as if they measure up equally.  NYSM y talk page  19:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that consensus does not override policy. Feel free to keep "voting", but it isn't going to make any difference. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your arrogance offends me. Support. RAP (talk) 16:59 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is such an awful and not-assuming-good-faith way to communicate. Feel free to keep "voting", but it isn't going to make any difference. Really? That's the inflammatory and rude phrasing you choose to interact here? Moncrief (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From the guy who said, "I will not let this drop. If the consensus once again is bullshit, i'll start another" - srsly? - A l is o n  ❤ 17:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of the arguments above are missing the point, to quote User:Only in death... from the BLPN: What BLPCAT also says is "and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability", which in her case they are not,. Totally agree, since when has her sexuality been a notable part of her public persona?  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, look at the thinly veiled homophobia on here. Get your shit together, people. I mean, really. She came out. "She didn't really say it" Actually, she did. Add her back to "LGBT actresses" (and the other similar categories that she was in for a day or two after the Golden Globes). "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago." And she described Cydney Bernard as "one of the deepest loves of my life" and "my ex-partner in love." She didn't "come out as straight". Anyone who tries to argue that, you really shouldn't be an editor on here, period. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that Foster is straight, simply that she has not been clear enough in her declarations for us to put her in a category. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is deliciously contradictory. If she isn't straight, what else could she be either than bisexual, gay, or transgendered (I'm pretty sure she's not the last of those)? If every person is by definition either LGBT or not-LGBT and you're saying that "no one is arguing" she's not-LGBT, isn't she LGBT? Moncrief (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Foster's sexual orientation is whatever it is. Lack of a category does not mean that Foster is straight. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you say she's not straight, isn't she therefore LGBT? That is the broad catchall category that includes anything "not straight," and therefore by default and definition, appropriate to her. (No one, to my knowledge, has argued that this article be added to the "Gay actors" category, but rather the catchall "LGBT actors" category. Is the crux of your argument that there is a third category of human sexuality (in addition to straight and LGBT) to which Foster might belong after her coming-out statements? Help me understand, because this may be at the root of the semantic gap here. Moncrief (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't we already had this particular discussion? I have a personal guess as to Foster's sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean I get to add her to whatever category I believe applies. I am not saying she is not straight. I am saying that the lack of a category does not mean that she is straight. If Foster said she was gay, we could add the LGBT categories. Likewise if she said she was bi, or if she said she was transgendered. We do not add the category because we suspect she is not straight. Get it? And if you don't know which of these things she is, how can you argue that her statements were conclusive? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that it doesn't matter which of the things she is in "GLBT." The category is catchall, all-inclusive of all of those nonheterosexual possibilities. If she's bi, that's the category for her (see the "B"). If she's gay, that's the category for her (see the "L" and "G"). If she specifies at a later date which of the elements that make up that acronym she is, change the category to suit. She has come out as nonheterosexual, so by definition she is GLBT. Honestly, though, I feel the same way you seem to: if you don't get it by now, I guess you're not going to get it. Moncrief (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. The LGBT category is for people who have self-identified as belonging to one of those groups. We can revisit this the next time Foster makes statement that alludes to her sexuality, but until then, this is just a waste of time. Consensus here will not override policy (and you clearly will not get consensus here). I'm done here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be very invested in the proper use of the LGBT category; that is great, and I commend you for it. Upon making this observation, however, I might suggest you may be interested in taking a look at every article in Category: LGBT actors (there are not many) and see if you can have all of them removed from that category; none of the subjects of articles in that category meet any requirements for inclusion that Jodie Foster does not also meet. I do not wish you to think of this as an "other stuff exists" argument, because it is not. If those other articles truly do not fit into that category, it would be a) good to get them out of that category and b) may keep people from looking at that category and believing Jodie Foster more than qualifies to be in it. The article you may wish to begin with would be Amber Heard; she "came out" in public, discussed sexual/relationship partners, and has been the subject of multiple third-party, reliable sources discussing her sexual orientation: very similar to the situation with Jodie Foster. The one way the situation seems to differ, however, is that Amber Heard is categorized as an "LGBT actor". "How is that?" you may ask. Well, there was a consensus found at the BLP Noticeboard to include Amber Heard in LGBT categories over the option of including her in bisexual categories (that is even with the fact that Amber Heard has specifically stated that she does not like labels). I say all of that, not to perhaps somehow magically change your opinion, but simply to advise against ever trying to predict what consensus will or will not be.  Chickenmonkey  20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. It should be evident from the phrasing of Foster's statement(s) that she has made a considered decision not to make the declaration that would (among other things) meet Wikipedia requirements. Unless we change our underlying policy (a rather bad idea), that should settle the matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per previous consensus and WP:BLPCAT. Cresix (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

POV in lead
Isn't it supposed to be at least a passing mention in the lead section (alongside the award) that her role in Taxi Driver was John Hinckley's trigger? It's not like a 13 year old actress portraying a child prostitute is an ordinary thing... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden Globes and speech... again?
After the above thread, there should not be any further exhaustion and discussion about her well established homosexuality. Three RS, including Reuters and the NY Times, have been reverted out of the article. Please state a valid reason. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above again for the policies. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So if three references say that John Doe is gay, even if Doe never said it, it should be included? The only reliable reference is Foster, and her speech was so ambiguous she "came out" without came out. The above discussion explains why this is excluded, and it shouldn't be included per WP:BLP. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 15:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes... per WP:RS, namely WP:SECONDARY. We're actually encouraged to look for reliable secondary sources rather than primary sources. Besides, having a confirmed same-sex partner puts her in that category by definition. Yes, by definition, because the definition of gay is having a same sex relationship. Maybe bisexual, but that would also put her in the LGBT category. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh that's great, with WP:SECONDARY references we can say that John Doe is an homosexual homicide with federal charges in five countries, even when Doe is neither of them. It is great to see that WP:defamation is the spirit of SECONDARY references. Also, where are *you* obtaining she is "lesbian"? In her speech she said something like 'I made my came out many years ago', but never said "I'm lesbian", and if you can't prove that this is wrong, you are violating the BLP policy by saying she is "lesbian", when she never said so, this discussion should be closed, and you probably reported at the WP:BLPN. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that escalated quickly!
 * Per WP:SECONDARY (underlined as policy): "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
 * Per WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources."
 * Per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source (...) While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred."
 * Per WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
 * Let's review that last part again: if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Everything points to the following: there is a plethora of reliable sources that confirm that Foster's speech was her coming out, and that, coupled with the fact that she herself referred to "coming out" (her exact quotation), and also with the fact that she had a same sex relationship for several years, with consideration to all the policies quoted above, leads to the inevitable conclusion that she needs to be categorized as LGBT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are not understanding (or not want to understand) that it doesn't matter if the NYT asserts she is "lesbian", as they called her, there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster. You are a House fan. Let's assume Thirteen is a real person. If the NYT says 13 is lesbian just because she left a bar with another woman, and they assert 13 is lesbian due to this, why this is not defamation?, and why Wikipedia has to back up such defamatory content? Yes, the links you posted above are valid (Wikilinks and references), but let me remind you that this website is not a democracy test, nor a burocracy, nor a site where editors has to follow every single rule that exists in it. There is an statement about her speech in the page, but the category(ies) you want to include violates WP:BLPCAT, as the statement you want to include is not mentioned in the article. Just because Foster dated/dates a woman, doesn't make her "LGBT" by default, and in this case "L". Lindsay Lohan dated Samantha Ronson and Lohan is not within the LGBT categories. There are two consensus to exclude those statements, one at the BLPN and one here because the first consensus was "bullshit" according to RAP. Your arguments are exactly the same as of his: "The acceptance speech failed qualifications for a lesbian category. No where does it disallow LGBT.--RAP 31 January 2013. But community consensus demostrates it does, and should not be changed unless you demostrate that what happened in January is different now, and for that you should read both consensus because apparently you haven't, and if you had, you are not saying something new that we had discussed in January.  ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 10:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I will address your reply in a bulleted list.
 * 1) You wrote: "this website is not (...) a site where editors has [sic] to follow every single rule that exists in it." Wrong!!! If it is a policy, we must follow it. What I quoted is not a guideline, nor is it an essay/suggestion. These are policies, some of which are directly pertinent to BLP.
 * 2) You wrote: "there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster." Again, wrong!!! I just cited the appropriate policies, which are: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred (...) If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
 * 3) Continuing the previous paragraph: well-documented means covered by multiple reliable sources. In this case, there is, aside from NYT, Reuters, Associated Press, HuffPost, and a quick Google search will yield some more.
 * 4) You accuse me of WP:IDHT, but you keep ignoring BLP policies while citing the same policies as the alleged reason to violate the same policies. In other words, your own reasoning goes against basic BLP policies.
 * 5) No consensus can override an established policy. In this case, the "consensus" is simply a number of editors who voted "oppose", which is the same "test of democracy" you were mentioning earlier. It's not how many editors, it's the content of the dispute that counts.
 * 6) As for your question about Thirteen: if the NYT, along with AP, Reuters, LAT, HuffPost, Time magazine, etc. would assert that she is a lesbian based on whatever, it would have been our duty to report on that, because, as the BLP policy states in a crystal clear manner: "BLPs should simply document what [reliable secondary] sources say." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll request more people to comment here because it has absolutely no sense that two people discuss this, because I won't convince you and you won't convince me. First of all, WP:consensus can override any policy that doesn't cause legal problems to the Wikimedia Foundation, Libel is one of those that cannot be challenged and WP:NOR is one of those that can be, especially if your intention is to create to Wikipedia what happened with Tom Cruise. You can find this at WP:BLPN . ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the precise question is here, but I saw this listed on BLPN. I think the current wording is fine and verifiable and should be retained (I'll post it here as things can change): "Foster broke up with her long-time partner, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.[67][68] In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked Bernard, calling her "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life".[69][70][71] Foster also thanked Mel Gibson as one of the people who "saved" her.[72]" While I think Foster has been publicly out of the closet for about 20 years, and privately out of the closet since the dawn of time, she is still not one to overtly publicize her private life to any great degree. Some editors on this page have made a fairly reasonable case that even so, she has not publicly stated on record the precise words "I'm gay" or "I'm a lesbian" (although you'd have to be pretty out of touch not to know she is, at this point), and therefore it is inappropriate to state that she is or to call her GG comment a coming out (it wasn't really since she's really never been "in") or possibly to add any LGBT categories to the article. I don't know the exact WP guidelines regarding this, but I wouldn't consider LGBT categories "libel" in this case (facts acknowledged or uncontested by the subject are not libel), just perhaps not within WP guidelines (what are they?) at this juncture. I'd say that the current wording should stand. It paints the documented picture as clear as day, and I don't think any further labels are necessary, especially if there is controversy or argument among editors about them. This does point up the fact, though, that there should be some sort of WP stated LGBT guideline somewhere regarding persons who have had a documented and uncontested single same-sex domestic partner and co-parent for well over a decade. That would settle such disputes as to whether LGBT categories can be added. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * my feeling is, we should not tag someone with a label they themselves have not embraced. THat said, in Foster's case since she spoke of 'coming out' I think it would not be untoward to add her to lgBT categories, but not get any more specific than that. Nothing wrong with covering this in the article as long as we make it clear what she did and didn't claim - eg I dated women, and I've come out if the closet - not 'I am lesbian' or 'I am bi'. It's her right to eschew labels if she chooses. But her behavior (eg dating a woman) should never end her up in a cat - we go by self-identification not behavior (if we went by behavior many more people could be tagged as 'bi' for that one time in college, etc--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do personally agree that some sort of LGBT category is warranted here, given that she has acknowledged more than once that she has for 15 years been in a monogamous same-sex domestic and co-parenting relationship. I don't know what more evidence, from the subject's mouth, there could possibly need to be. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the lack of an LGBT actor category was an accidental omission, since the article clearly says she acknowledged her long-time same-sex partner, and talked about her coming-out process and it's been fairly well covered in the press and it doesn't seem there's much doubt about what she meant. I'm rather surprised there's such a kerfuffle here; it seems to me that the BLP policy is being misapplied, perhaps due to sympathy about her long stint keeping such matters private. Clearly there is value in collecting biographies of people in this category, and this is a particularly notable one. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "value in collecting biographies of people in this category" - collecting?? This is a person's life we're taking about. If she's not stated her sexual orientation, it's not our job to apply one based on our best-guess. Nor are we in the business of 'queer tagging', just to score points - A l is o n  ❤ 02:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought she made it pretty clear that she was either lesbian or bisexual, for which an LGBT category would be appropriate. I'm not tallying points for any particular side; it just seems like an error to have a well-known LGBT person missing from the list when people are asking themselves, "what kind of people are LGBT?  How do celebrities deal with their LGBT status?" and they turn to Wikipedia to find relevant biographies. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly—it's a disservice to the reader. Despite the fact that Foster was coy with her wording at the Golden Globes, the intent was clear, as seen by the reports of the speech in reliable sources. By now it's not just newspaper reports but books: Pop culture writer Keith Stern says at the Jodie Foster entry in Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, page 171, that
 * Stern goes on to say that Foster and Bernard are raising two boys produced by artificial insemination. Journalist Michelangelo Signorile says the turning point was The Silence of the Lambs, when he, Larry Kramer and others outed her as a lesbian who was hypocritical for appearing in a film they said was homophobic, a film that made a seemingly gay criminal character come across as extremely villainous (Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, pages 89–90, 309–310). Professor Janet Staiger gives an academic view of the issues surrounding Foster's sexuality with regard to the public, in "Taboos and Totems: Cultural Meanings of The Silence of the Lambs", a chapter in Film Theory Goes to the Movies (Routledge 2012). Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New GF
The DailyMail source is reliable, as is http://ca.eonline.com/news/467456/jodie-foster-enjoys-cozy-sunday-brunch-with-girlfriend-alexandra-hedison-see-the-pic. What's the problem here? MilesMoney (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The dailyfail is not RS, go read the archives on the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of these meets WP:RS as has been shown before. A series of covert photos taken by some paparazzi is not sufficient enough to declare someone is "in a relationship" with someone else, not to gay-tag them - A l is o n  ❤ 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Foster is openly gay; no photos needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you say so? Or because it's "openly known in the LGBT community"? Not good enough. Show me where she said it (and please, not the Golden Globes speech) - A l is o n  ❤ 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Alison, you just posted on User talk:Darkness Shines so you can't reasonably claim you didn't see the link I posted there. And you need something a bit stronger than general dismissiveness to ignore the Golden Globes speech. Do you have anything? MilesMoney (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Those sources are not reliable, and while Foster is public about her (perhaps now previous) relationship she has in no way, shape or form suggested that she identifies exclusively with any particular sexual identity, which would be a requirement for adding a category. When she takes a new relationship public and that is repeated in a reliable source then we can include it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * She's a woman who (quite voluntarily) has sex with women. This is not in dispute. Whether she identifies as gay or bi or whatever seems secondary. MilesMoney (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because we don't have a category called Category:Women who have sex with women. And even if we did we would require some very much better sources to add Foster to that category. For example one in which she states that as a fact about herself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, Darkness, grow up and call it DailyMail. Not going to consider you as a serious debater if you're being a petty little child. Second, she may not have said Im a lesbian or I'm bisexual, but she did acknowledge herself as some form of LGBT. It's absolutely mind boggling why the LGBT categories aren't allowed to be added. There are sources upon sources of her comments, but none suggesting she wasn't LGBT. Go find a source saying that. Otherwise, to me this is an open and closed case. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a reason it is called the daily fail. And for the last time, read BLPCAT. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And your opinion is no longer relevant to me. Time to let the grown ups talk. Rusted AutoParts 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And here we have People Magazine, a trusted source, discussing her coming out speech . BLPCAT doesn't apply in this circumstance, just like it doesn't apply when we add these categories to every person who identifies as LGBT. It makes zero sense when it is scrutinized here. You're basically saying she didn't say what she said. Rusted AutoParts</i> 22:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP applies everywhere, I will go back to my lego now. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good boy. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * More citations? MilesMoney (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless she explicitly states what her sexual orientation is, then neither do we. That is what BLP & BLPCAT says, read them. Now back to the teddy bear picnic. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the picnic, champ. We don't have to have her exact LGBT orientation in order to add LGBT cats. Numerous sources have reported on this, and she has yet to dispute. Now as we all know us editors on Wikipedia's ego inflates a trillion, but common sense shouldn't be wiped out.
 * And more. These reliable sources all understood her statements as her coming out as a lesbian. MilesMoney (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maria Bello just came out. Despite calling herself "whatever" (not lesbian or bisexual), she was quickly put in 2 LGBT categories. Jodie Foster is a much more documented case of "whatever". She should at least be in the LGBT actors category. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion at WP:LGBT right now on this subject, so I suggest you join there, as it applies more broadly - e.g. should LGBT actors only be a container category, or should we put people in when they are basically "out" as x-sexual (x!=hetero) but haven't affiliated specifically with any identification. There are many people who this would apply to, and many categories as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP actually says:
 * Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

We have "reliable published sources" that say Foster self-identified as lesbian and this is relevant and notable. Your interpretation may differ, but you're not a reliable source, so what you think doesn't matter one bit. MilesMoney (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Sun is not a reliable source - it is a hyperbolic tabloid rag that uses big headline print & short words for effect. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Foster being romantically linked to women is not in question. She came out at the Golden Globe Awards earlier this year. What is in question is whether we have strong enough sources to call Hedison a serious girlfriend. A few newspapers said the two were having brunch. A few more say the two walked together down the red carpet of some awards dinner. E! Online says that they have an anonymous source saying the two are "totally in love". However, I think we should wait for Hedison or Foster to say something in public, or some respected, named source who stands up and says the two are romantically linked. I don't think the evidence is strong enough yet for Wikipedia to call Hedison a girlfriend. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The best way to handle such situations is through attribution. If we're not sure that X is a fact, it may still be notable that a reliable source states X. MilesMoney (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal matters (religion, sexuality, partners etc) in a BLP require self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They're married! Moncrief (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, so where does this leave us with the categories? She clearly is amongst LGBT, can we at least add LGBT tags? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * previous consensus seemed to be against this, absent a clear statement of identity from Foster. It rather pains me to have to point out that marriage to someone of the same gender is not equivalent to being a lesbian, in the same way that marriage to someone of the opposite gender does not thus make you heterosexual. In Foster's case it seems clear she's part of the spectrum but if she hasn't clearly identified herself somewhere on that spectrum, it's not up to us to decide (perhaps she thinks she's queer, or pansexual, or ...).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats why I suggested just categories that say "LGBT". We're identifying she is in the community, whilst not directly associating her with a specific sexual preference (gay, lesbian, queer all house within LGBT). And User:Binksternet provided up above a very compelling argument for this. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * why is gay-tagging this bio so important to people? Has she ever explicitly identified herself as L or B or G? If not how can we know she identifies within the broader umbrella? I agree circumstantial evidence is strong but it's not enough for a conviction your honor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not so much important, its just doing right by not just readers, but by Foster herself. I think its very clear more than enough evidence has been provided to prove she's at least LGBT. And it's encyclopedic. Why else would we have the categories? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you say it's "doing right by [her]" when you don't know what she wants? Clearly, she's a very private individual when it comes to her personal life. Or did she somehow forfeit that when she got married? - A l is o n  ❤ 23:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because we're being accurate about her life! We add marriages. Children. Arrests. Other business ventures. All of this to sum up her life as its been presented to us. It's what an encyclopedia does, chronicle history. World history. Space history. History history even. And yes, human history. We add her films to correctly represent her career. Why can't we correctly represent her personal life? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * would you add a statement that says in wikipedia's voice "Foster is a lesbian" to the article? Because that's what adding her to a lesbian category means. We would only add such a statement if she identified as such (or, if dead, and scholars agreed).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on her specific orientation. But what do you call two women marrying? What does that imply? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * what would it imply if a man marries a women? Is that a guarantee of heterosexuality? We don't go by circumstantial evidence - if there were photos of Foster engaging in intimate relations with a woman that would not be enough. The key for these cats is self identity, nothing less nothing more. They are unique in that way presumably because it is felt on questions of sexual identity the best source is the individual. If Foster chooses to eschew labels who are we to label her?.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)
 * We are an encyclopaedia, that's who. And we label people, places, and things all the time without verification from the thing labelled.  Because verification from reliable sources is our concern!  As for "the best source is the individual", one could just as easily argue the best source for whether a person is lying is the person lying.  After all, who could possibly know better?  This issue is about a political agenda that makes the individual the final authority on all matters sexual with everyone else denied a say.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is embarrassing, and I say that as an LGBT person myself. Why the need for 'gay-tagging'? She has never declared herself a member of anything, frankly, and this overcategorization is unnecessary, IMO, and unsourced, frankly - A l is o n  ❤ 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How civil of you. It's been common practice for awhile to provide each article with links to categories associated with such. Category:American actresses. Category:People from Nashville. Unsourced? Myself and numerous editors have been providing several links, including her Globes speech which was dismissed. If you're so against adding these categories, or "gay tagging" as you politely put it, why not submit the categories for deletion? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 23:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alison makes a valid and rather important point. These categories, fundamentally, address what people say about themselves, and it's not Wikipedia's place or role to speak for them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bada-bing! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz gets it, so why can't you, RAP? It's for people who self-identify as LGBT(IQQA) There's something very uncomfortable about pinning that LGBT tag onto someone who has never publicly declared their orientation. Let people infer what they want from the narrative; don't shove "zOMGLESBIANGAYQUEER" in their faces just because you feel you need to. You don't - A l is o n  ❤ 06:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think Wikipedia should refrain from describing anyone in a way they have not publicly self-described, I dare say you have Wikipedia confused with a public relations firm. We follow what the sources say.  Article subjects do not get a veto.  See the "neutral point of view" doctrine.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. That's directly from WP:BLP. Your broad claim is just a strawman argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP does not override NPOV. It's in fact the other way around.  It is no straw man to note that you wish to see article subjects handed a veto over the content of their articles.  I'd add that this subject HAS publicly identified here ACCORDING TO RELIABLE SOURCES.  Some editors are refusing to follow those reliable sources because they endeavour to substitute their own standards.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * it's rather droll that we have a public figure who has obviously been very circumspect about her identity and as far as we know has never clearly identified as either lesbian, gay or bi - but we have a constant barrage of editors who want nothing more than to tag bomb her article with teh gay tags on every new piece of news "she said she came out" "she kissed a girl" "she had a baby with a girl" "she married a girl!!" Etc. I hope some of you realize this has been going on for this bio for years. Y'all have to realize that the LGBT cats, and very few others, are quite unique in requiring self-identification (unlike other cats which are based on RS). This is longstanding consensus. But you can't treat the gay tags as similar to any other tags.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we require self-identification. However, media observers consider that Foster has already self-identified as lesbian, albeit in a coy manner. Why would you assume a contrary position to the majority of media observers? If you are interpreting Foster's words in a manner that is contrary to published sources then you are violating WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Published sources" being the Daily Mail and various tattle rags? - A l is o n  ❤ 06:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's my earlier post pointing to Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, page 171. Also: "Taboos and Totems: Cultural Meanings of The Silence of the Lambs", a chapter in Film Theory Goes to the Movies (Routledge 2012). And: Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, pages 89–90, 309–310. Good stuff to be found for those who care to look. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * not good enough. Self-identification is key. She did not self-identity as a lesbian, she did not self-identify as a bisexual. Many RS believe she coyly was saying she's a lesbian, but we still don't know, and many sources commented on the fact that she didn't utter the word 'gay' or 'lesbian'. It's not OR because 'interpretation' of the primary source - eg what the person said - is not needed. Binkster, you'll notice that in the "Comprehensive encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals", the entry on Foster STUDIOUSLY avoids labeling her, only acknowledging that she has "come out" and even her own brother speculated that she was gay OR bisexual (so, even he wasn't sure which).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-identification is NOT key if this is a neutral encyclopedia. Stalin may have self-identified as a nice guy.  That does NOT mean Wikipedia slavishly follows the desires of the article subject.  In any case, she DID self-identify, just not explicitly enough to satisfy some Wikipedian ideologues who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the obvious.  Consider what we find on the Guardian website back in 2007 (hardly a LGBT-unfriendly paper), even well before the 2013 Golden Globe Awards speech: "That's right, folks: Jodie Foster is a lesbian. This startling piece of news is akin to the shock revelation that Rudolph the Reindeer has a very shiny nose. In other words, if you didn't already know this, you seriously need to retune your gaydar."--Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * we could certainly report that 100 RS claim Foster is a lesbian (although it sounds like a bad idea for BLP reasons) but let me ask you think - we go by reliable sources, right? Who is the MOST reliable source as to your publicly declared sexual identity (not your inner freak, but what of our identity you're willing to share and how you choose to be labelled? yOu are. Thus, if 100 RS say she's gay and Foster says she's queer, I believe her, not them. Identity is different than most other things, where we do go by 3rd party sources, but I have a hard time believing anyone could be a better source than the subject themselves.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I want you I consider something else - Foster has been dogged by rumors since her college days, and she has several times been 'outed' by various publications or criticized for not being 'out' enough or for taking roles that were unfriendly to LGBT people - and the word lesbian has been tossed in her face more times than you can count. She has, as an actress in the public view for probably 40 years, nonetheless been able to avoid publicly labelling herself as a lesbian, or uttering that word, even once as far as we know. That is a powerful message to me. Maybe foster doesn't like labels. Maybe she doesn't identify as a lesbian. A condition of interviewing her was journalists were not to ask questions about her orientation. Her public 'coming out' was really just an acknowledgement that she has a serious relationship with a woman, but that doesn't make one lesbian OR bi - there are many other permutations and ways people identify that would fit the circumstances.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If, hypothetically speaking, 100 instances of having sex with someone of the same sex have been confirmed and there is zero evidence there was ever even any sexual interest in someone of the opposite sex, that person is objectively gay or lesbian and a claim by that person of being straight is presumptively true only in his or her own mind OR he or she is being less than frank. I suggest opening your mind to the possibility that people will from time to time self-describe (or self-perceive) in ways that are less than entirely consistent with the facts.  You are picking one source here, with the ultimate conflict of interest, and elevating it to the level of infallibility such that it trumps all other sources.  That's simply not the way it works around here when there are conflicting sources (and having the subject here as lesbian as a bottom of the page category is really not in contradiction with any sources anyway).  No source is so privileged as to always be beyond question.  You evidently think Wikipedia should just be handed over to article subjects or a public relations agent they designate depending on the topic.  What's so special about the LGBT agenda that that agenda, and only that agenda, gets privileged status on Wikipedia whereby WP:RS guidelines get tossed in the event of an LGBT issue?  WP:BLP does not have the "pillar" status that WP:NPOV has.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point entirely, and your claim of following a unique "LGBT agenda" is plainly wrong, and you know it's wrong. Precisely the same standards apply to categories based on religious affiliation. We don't examine a subject's behavior or opinions to evaluate their claim of a religious affiliation, nor do we accept such evaluations by third parties. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rejecting "evaluations by third parties" is wrong and you know it's wrong since you're in a position to know that Verifiability means Wikipedia is built upon "evaluations by third parties" as opposed to "evaluations" by either Wikipedia editors or the subjects of Wikipedia articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Married Alexandra Hedison
This doesn't necessarily show she's a lesbian, but it clearly makes her LGBT. Is there any dispute about this & if so, why? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone just added that and I reverted. It's a major assumption to make about anyone's identity - A l is o n  ❤ 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This article has given us much hilarity over the years over the treatment of Foster's sexuality and just as you'd think the issue was settled beyond any doubt the craziness continues. The statement that a woman marrying another woman doesn't mean she is either bisexual or lesbian, ie belonging in the lgbt category, takes the prize for lunacy. If it's a 'major assumption' to conclude someone in a same-sex marriage is lgbt then we have truly entered la la land. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are some people arguing that Foster might be bisexual? If so, where is the indication of that? Is she known to have ever been in a heterosexual relationship? Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * She is so private we don't really know. There are rumors that she was dating certain men long ago but they could have just been friends.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So we're not supposed to consider rumours when it comes to a BLP except when Obi Wan invites us to consider mere rumours? If we stick to the established facts, she has a confirmed wife and no confirmed history of boyfriends and that means lesbian to anyone without some POV axe to grind against using that term.  See again what is found in the Guardian website: "Jodie Foster is a lesbian".  Editors are twisting themselves out of shape here to avoid following reliable sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be on the safe side, it'd be best to put her in the LGBT categories. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because she might be transgendered? I believe some editors are advancing certain scenarios for reasons other than that they are genuinely plausible scenarios. There doesn't seem to be anything more to the argument here than she avoids the L word therefore we should.  In any other context such an argument would be promptly rejected as inconsistent with WP:NPOV.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only you have mentioned gender identity here. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And your point is? One can question whether B would apply but God forbid a Wikipedian doubts whether T applies?  What's left here?  G?  Maybe she's gay as opposed to lesbian?  Reliable sources indicate we've got an L here.  There are not reliable sources for G or B or T.  If our reliable source policy meant anything this issue would be quite straightforward.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * B/c she might be bisexual (though it's true there's no evidence of that (though there's no evidence confirming she's a lesbian either)). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

She's married another woman, but she's not classified as LBGT? How much more evidence is needed? This is near lunacy. (75.94.101.187 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC))
 * It's Wikipedia's political lean at work, which holds that because the LGBT lobby holds up the individual as the only acceptable source, the individual is Wikipedia's only acceptable source. USA Today says that this week's "wedding news" serves to further "clarify matters."  But there's always an excuse for rejecting what reliable sources say if one is motivated enough.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly refrain from accusations of bad faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "the individual [is] the only acceptable source" isn't any sort of assumption. It's being quite openly called for despite the mockery it makes of WP:V.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In matters of personal identity, the individual is the final say. See WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, see WP:IDENTITY which directly contradicts your implication that Verifiability and Neutral point of view are to be suspended so that article subjects become the final, sole and unchallengeable arbiters of what Wikipedia says about them. I direct your attention to "Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources" in particular.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Really not interested in getting involved on this page, but just reviewed edits. LGBT often encompasses any non-heterosexual sexual identity, which Foster appears to be (see second paragraph of lead in LGBT). We need not quibble about whether she identifies as a lesbian, bisexual, queer, or whatever. The categories seem appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you just said the only thing that matters is the "say" of the "individual." Now you seem to be suggesting that what "Foster appears to be" is relevant and the LGBT category that some editors have been edit warring over should be included.  Which is it?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're specifically saying she's a lesbian, it's WP:IDENTITY. If we're adding categories that encompass an entire class of people, any WP:V or WP:RS would work.  I'm trying to point out the distinction between the identity and the category/term of LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, if she were to say "I don't identify as LGBT" or "I identify as straight" then WP:IDENTITY trumps and we'd remove the category of LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That'd be a major surprise to her wife. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Likely so, but the point is that what the individual regarding their gender and sexual identity trumps any actions or 3rd party sources. There are many married, heterosexual men who have sex with other men (see down-low (sexual slang) and Tearoom Trade).  Their behavior is LGBT, but their identity is not.  In this case, we have a public, out marriage between two women so I think it's safe to at least categorize this person as LGBT as a general term given a lack of any statements about personal identity.  Again, LGBT would still apply to any non-hetcis person (e.g., a genderqueer person who identifies as pansexual).  What ever Foster identifies as is covered by the term unless she (for whatever reason) identifies as cisgender heterosexual.  EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's safe to categorize Foster as LGBT unless she declares herself straight (which seems unlikely). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, LGBT category should be used here, since Foster married another woman. People have used heterosexual marriage to hide their sexual identity, but not same-sex marriage. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the LGBT category is appropriate, and so is labelling her according to what reliable sources use, which is gay and lesbian. We must follow the sources and stop the homophobia, which seems to work both ways here, especially the fear of using the proper term. It's not being used in a negative manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

General LGBT categories are appropriate here — but categories which make unsourced assumptions about which particular quadrant of the community (i.e. "lesbian" or "bisexual") she identifies with are not. Those quadrant-specific cats have to wait until she actually uses one word or the other in reference to herself in a reliable source — but there's simply no reasonable doubt to be had that she legitimately belongs in the general LGBT categories. No matter how obvious it may seem to you that she must be lesbian because she hasn't had any verifiably sourceable romantic or sexual relationships with men, keep in mind that until this happened her romantic and sexual relationships with women weren't verifiably sourceable either. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bearcat above. There is no reasonable doubt that she falls within the LGBT category. This really has become silly at this point. -- David  Shankbone  05:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: the consensus seems to be to include "LGBT" in the categories, but not "Lesbian". I have added Category:LGBT actresses back in. StAnselm (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Foster has made it very clear that she is openly lesbian. Everything indicates that and there is nothing to contradict it. Even if there were rumours many years ago of her having dated men, that is irrelevant, because we do not take notice of rumours because they are unverified. The media are always spreading rumours of celebrities dating various people, being pregnant etc. Other than on this talk page, I have never seen anyone even hint that Foster could be bisexual; it is not reasonable to suggest it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Name
Does this mean the article name should now be Jodie Foster Hedison? It seems to be the wikipedia convention to name articles of married women as Firstname Originallastname Marriedlastname. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure - just find multiple reliable sources which indicate that this is what she now calls herself. Then we can add it. BTW, Wikipedia uses people's common names, as indeed it should. PROTIP: never assume what a married woman's surname should be - A l is o n  ❤ 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the article not open with her WP:COMMONNAME, though? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sometimes happens w/stage names. Other examples include Michael Keaton, Jamie Foxx & Alicia Keys. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's convention is to use whatever name the topic is actually known by in public contexts. For some women that's "First Married"; for some it's still "First Maiden"; for some it's "First Maiden Married"; for some it's "First Previous-Married", even after a divorce or a remarriage; and for some it's "Stage Name". We don't automatically presume that a married woman will automatically take on her spouse's surname; because women follow a wide variety of practices, we use whatever name the woman actually uses in reliable sources after her marriage. We didn't, for example, presumptively move Adrienne Clarkson to "Adrienne Saul", or Beyoncé to "Beyoncé Carter", or Ellen DeGeneres to "Ellen DeGeneres-de Rossi" — all three women continued to be publicly known by the same name after their marriages as they were before, so their articles stayed at the same titles. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should LGBT-related categories and characterizations be added to the Jodie Foster article?
Should LGBT-related categories and characterizations be added to the Jodie Foster article? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There are three separate issues to voice your thoughts on:
 * 1) should Foster be added to LGBT categories
 * 2) should Foster be added to 'lesbian' categories
 * 3) in the article text, should we say, in wikipedia's voice, that Foster is a lesbian or gay? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we use accurate descriptors and categories for Foster's lesbianism? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support use of terms like "lesbian" and "gay", as well as LGBT-related categories, when supported by reliable sources.


 * The matter is so clear that there is no violation of SYNTH when doing this, and since (in this case) this is not controversial or negative information, BLP does not apply. If this were controversial in the real world, and if the subject needed protection from inaccurate rumors, this would clearly be covered by BLP, but it's not.


 * Foster does not deny it; she has confirmed it by coming out quite openly and without leaving any question about her lesbian sexuality. She lived in a same-sex relationship with Cydney Bernard for "20 years" (according to her speech), and is now in a same-sex marriage to actress and photographer Alexandra Hedison.


 * That some editors are allowing an odd form of inverse homophobia(?) (fear of using the term, when there is no need to "protect" the subject) to govern their editing practices, even to the point of violating what RS plainly state, is unfortunate and unwikipedian, especially for admins. Let's stop this absurd nonsense and follow what RS say, and not the emotions of editors. Their little controversy here is not a RS. It only makes them and Wikipedia look silly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support lesbian and LGBT categories. Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely oppose adding lesbian-anything to her article. See bisexual erasure for my rationale. I'm bisexual myself and can clearly see an issue where someone in a same-sex relationship (as she clearly is) gets misidentified when she has never explicitly stated whether she's lesbian, bi or otherwise, etc, etc. Even LGBT can be troublesome here, especially in a person who keeps their private life, and their sexual orientation, private and never once self-identified as LGBT. tl;dr - I'm marginally okayish with LGBT tagging, but utterly opposed to calling her lesbian - A l is o n  ❤ 19:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC) (and Brangifer, tone down on the rhetoric. It unhelpful. LOL "Unwikipedian" :D )
 * support LGBT categories, oppose lesbian categories and oppose saying she is lesbian or gay in wikipedia's voice, she has not self-identified with these labels so per policy we should not tag her accordingly. Per Bearcat I changed my mind, again, and am ok with LGBT cats however. Anyone who mentions her marriage or her relationships- those are irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant, we do NOT decide people's sexual orientation based on observed behavior.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sexual orientation has three different aspects, behavior, "true" inner orientation, and self-identified sexual identity. And we're talking about several very different things here.


 * Article content: We can describe her behavior based on reliable sources (long term relationship(s), marriage etc.) If reliable sources have opinions on what her sexual orientation is, and if their opinions have enough WP:WEIGHT that could possibly be included in the prose, but it has to be made clear that it is their opinion ie, not "She is a lesbian" but "source X and Y have described her as a lesbian." Note that there is no way that any RS can factually know her true sexual orientation or sexual identity. There is no objective way to determine someone's true orientation from the outside, no brain scans or DNA tests to administer. All anyone can do is observe the behavior of others and form an opinion based on that, but it can never be factual objective truth, only an opinion.


 * Categories: categories leave no room for ambiguity or nuance. Consensus so far on Wikipedia has been that LGBT categories describe people's self-identified sexual identity. If we had categories based on behavior she could be included in those, say "Category:People in same-sex marriages" or something. But since she has not self-identified with any sexual identity we have nothing to base an inclusion in sexual identity categories on.


 * As for suggestions above that we base her categorization on exclusionary logic, no. That she hasn't denied being a lesbian, and there are no reliable sources describing any bisexual behavior does not mean she "has to be" a lesbian. If anything her public behavior and statements so far point only to her being one of several people recently who, while in public same-sex relationships, pointedly have refused to claim a sexual identity. And she doesn't "have to" fall under LGBT either. People who pointedly refuse to claim a sexual identity specifically identify out of falling under LGBT. And everything she has done and said so far puts her in this group.


 * And, just to make this even longer, if we are to treat the general LGBT container category as a behavioral category, where if you engage in a certain level of same-sex behavior you automatically should be included, we should have a broader discussion regarding what exactly the threshold of behavior that warrants inclusion is. Siawase (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days – again
To stop the edit war from escalating, I have protected the article for three days. Looks like the RfC has been initiated, so please use that to reach consensus. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, let's use the RfC, since common sense and RS don't seem to be enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Less snippiness, please. What you think RS implies here and what other people think it implies are very different. An RfC is tedious, but please have the grace not to complain about us having one just because not everyone accepts your view. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. RS don't "imply". They state very clearly using the words gay or lesbian. It is editors who are speculating and diverting. She came out in the context of a long term ("20 years") lesbian relationship. She has continued that lifestyle choice by marrying another woman. We should show her some respect by accepting her choice. We do that by documenting it. BTW, I started the RfC, which was then hijacked. No apology was given, only an assumption of bad faith. I could have tweaked it if requested. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Alex means to say not everyone accepts RS because not everyone accepts the view that what the RS say is relevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I mean to say. Don't presume to speak for me; I don't appreciate it from people who do agree with me, and I especially don't want it from people who don't. What I am saying is that sources that report the subject's own words are more reliable in this sort of situation than sources that report the reporter's speculation as fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speculation is irrelevant, while RS are what's relevant, and we know what they say. I know that there are situations where RS are ambiguous, and where editors can rightly disagree on the correct understanding, but here there is no doubt. They unambiguously say lesbian or gay (never hetero or bisexual), and her actions and coming out confirm that the sources have understood her correctly. She has never disagreed with them.


 * I see BLP invoked numerous times above, and usually BLP would apply, but BLP is used to protect individuals from unconfirmed and unsourced negative information, such as rumors, gossip, and slander. In a case like this, the subject does not need protection because what is being said (that she's gay/lesbian) is true, she confirms it by her words and actions, the claim is not negative, and it's backed up by RS. We don't need to speculate about it. This whole exercise is seriously disrespectful toward her. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I remind you that this is a BLP and that belligerant polemic posting here does not create the necessary atmosphere to calmly discuss sensitive edits. I urge you to dial it down yourself before someone decides to dial it down for you. Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to calmly discuss this. Let's discuss the BLP aspects I have mentioned. What is your opinion? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am commenting in an adminsitrative capacity and not with any kind of editorial hat on. It is perfectly within your personal capability to calmly discuss this. You just need to not click the save page button until you are feeling calm about what you are writing and have checked that you have removed any emotive qualifiers from the text you wish to commit. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT 101
I feel like some commenting here could do with some useful reading materials on sexual orientation. I've seen logic that goes "she's married to a woman therefore she must be lesbian" or "she came out, it means she's either lesbian or bi, and we have no evidence of boyfriends, therefore lesbian" Here's a simple piece that captures it nicely - feel free to add more resources --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - especially this quote: :"Why do we keep saying "often" or "may"? Because some people don't think these labels describe them accurately. Some people don't like the idea of labels at all. Some people feel comfortable with certain labels and not others. It's up to you to decide how you want to label yourself, if at all."

While this is interesting and informative, this thread seems to be a talk page violation. See the top of this page:


 * "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

We should be discussing what RS say and how to present that information, not what has not been said, or what we imagine is going on inside someone's head. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This link IS relevant to the current discussion, because there is a feeling amongst some !voting above that identity is either straight, gay, or bi, and if you don't label yourself within one of those three, dammit, we're going to do it for you. It's just simply wrong, it's not the way sexual orientation works, so maybe some would do well to read up a bit on the subject. If you have a link which says the opposite - e.g. "Hi, welcome to the LGBT advocacy center. If you're not ready to label yourself, don't worry! If you like women, it means you're a lesbian. Thanks for stopping by!" please post it. I'm quite sure you'll never find such advice. The literature on sexual orientation is pretty consistent, and aligns with the experiences of real people. Some people who love women and sleep with women and even marry women NEVER identiy as lesbians. That's their perogative. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not getting my point. The actual orientation is of less consequence than what RS say. That's what we go by. Yes, the information is interesting and helpful for a personal, real world, understanding of these issues, but again, what RS say is what's relevant for Wikipedia and our editing. That's where much of our discussion above goes wrong. The aspects that get into discussing what you're referring to above (and I'm guilty too) are actually talk page violations and seriously distracting from policy based discussion. RS need to be in the high seat here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, completely, except that this particular case, and I'm not aware of many others, IS an exception. The reason is, we judge sources for reliability based on their claims - not all sources are equally reliable for all claims. No-one would dispute the NY times if it said "Today Obama said X" - but if New York times said something that contradicted a widely cited peer reviewed study, we would doubt them. In this case, the New York Times, respected as she is, is NOT a reliable source for guessing at Foster's sexual orientation. ALL 3rd party sources are inherently unreliable in this regard. If they are not reporting a statement of the person themselves identifying with identity X, it is pure speculation. They may be right, but it is still pure speculation, since NY Times has no possible way of knowing anyone's sexual orientation absent dissecting their brain and finding the magic gene. Since they can't do that (there is no way to independently test someone's sexual identity AFAIK), so-called reliable sources regularly engage in a game of "guess who is gay" and repeat rumor, or just make assumptions based on behavior. It's natural, and I don't fault anyone for calling Foster a lesbian - for all intents and purposes she indeed does seem to fit the mold. But we can't be sure unless she says so, and since she hasn't said so, indeed she has gone out of her way in an extreme way over the past 40 years to specifically AVOID saying so, neither should we.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no "exception", as you say, to WP:NPOV. I call your attention to the "N".  It is not a "S" for subject.  It is an "N" for neutral.   BullRangifer is correct here.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what NPOV has to do with what I said above - we're not talking about neutrality, we're talking about the reliability of sources. NEWSORG says "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" and "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate." and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." So while you keep beating the "Reliable sources" drum, I'm afraid you need to read the RS policy more carefully. More importantly, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, meaning "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The claim that I, and others, are making, is that no 3rd party source, even if it's peer reviewed by 1000 specialist academics, can be trusted to say authoritatively of a BLP "X is gay" or "X is queer" or "X is bisexual" if X has not explicitly stated this themselves, as sexual orientation and identification with a given label is SOLELY determined by the individual, unlike whether someone ate a hamburger or made a speech or committed a crime - again there is no way to VERIFY sexual identity or orientation other than the source themselves (a similar example would be "Is X in love with Y" - you can do all the studies you want, but ultimately only the subject can tell you if they're in love or not) This claim is backed up by extant policy, guidance, and long-standing consensus. You are trying to overturn that consensus, here, but if you want to overturn that consensus you need to work on BLPCAT policy and not try to make an exception at this article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you and a few others are trying to overturn the Wikipedia-wide consensus that we follow the three "core" policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and the "self-identified" doctrine is a rather obvious effort to change the N in NPOV to S. If you are not trying to evade these policies, there is no disagreement here.  You seem to think those who disagree with you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT and that re-education in "LGBT 101" is needed.  The only re-education in fact needed here is a refresher on Wikipedia's core policies (of which BLP is not one).--Brian Dell (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Brian you keep citing WP:RS but I fear you haven't read it carefully enough. Please tell me, how can a source - any source besides the person - be reliable for sexual orientation? What sort of fact checking might they undertake to be sure they were right? By exception, what I meant was, there is a very small set of 'facts' about people about which we have no way to reliably confirm except by listening to the person themselves. sexual orientation is one of them, gender identity is another, and depth of feeling about another person is the third. Try to frame your argument based on what WP:RS tells us about judging sources, and what methods might be used to determine sexual orientation at the Guardian newsroom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I fear you have not read NPOV carefully enough and I suggest you "try to frame your argument" in a way that respects what it and WP:RS actually say as opposed to what you imagine it says.  Allow me to quote from NPOV: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus."  What you call "the person"'s POV and Wikipedia's POV are two INDEPENDENT things.  Is that clear enough for you?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you the same guy who was against moving the article Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct - he doesn't approved of people who advocate what he sees as "a more liberal take on sexual identity" - A l is o n  ❤ 20:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not correct. The Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request was, in fact, to revert the article to the original title Bradley Manning and I "voted" on August 23 to keep it at Chelsea Manning (that doesn't mean I did not take issue with some of the same sort of dubious arguments we've seen on this page).  It was reverted back to Bradley Manning anyway, which says something about where consensus is outside of this page which is dominated by a few extremists.  Now what does this have to do with Jodie Foster?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right re. the move. Sorry about that. However, those are your words quoted above. Ok - moving on - A l is o n  ❤ 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have moved on before contending, as you just did here, that you were right to take my words out of context in order to falsely claim that I do not "approve of" a certain class of people. What I in fact don't "approve of" is hijacking Wikipedia to "further the agenda of interest groups calling for a more liberal take on sexual identity"--Brian Dell (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "hijacking Wikipedia" here - A l is o n  ❤ 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Obi-Wan Kenobi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk • contribs)

WP:POINT and WP:STICK. We get it. ,, and have all made their points. The above RfCs are for a variety of voices and positions to be heard, not for a few users to overwhelm the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT categories
Since a significant majority of people (by my count, 11 were in favor, 4 were against and 1 was on the fence) responding to RfC 1 supported adding LGBT categories, should they be added or not? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * not until the RFC is closed by a uninvolved admin. BLP issues are not resolved simply by headcounts. You may, of course, request closure at an appropriate noticeboard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * LGBT cats should be added. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So participate in the RfC, not this fork. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)