Talk:John Barrowman/Archive 1

High school roles?
Do we really need a listing of Barrowman's high school theatre credits? Wouldn't it be better to replace it with a list of his West End shows, or (since that's adequately covered in the article itself) cut it entirely? &mdash;Josiah Rowe 03:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than erasing some of John's personal history, wouldn't it be better to just add to it?Gregory Y 12:32:14, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

He said on some show, that he lived in Scottland till he was 9. Hence the Scottish accent, that he normally uses. The show's up on YouTube, though I can't remember its name. Its presenters are four middle-aged/old women.82.156.100.120 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I might add, he showed much talent at a very young age. When normally some roles went to juniors and seniors, he was winning them at a freshman!Gregory Y 12:34:11, 2005-09-01 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedic doesn't mean exhaustive - as much as I admire Barrowman, Wikipedia isn't his press office either. What, ultimately, is more significant and useful to the reader; a detailed high school resume, or his actual professional credits? The freshman thing is notable, yes, but we don't need the additional detail. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Good compromise.Gregory Y 12:48:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Here's a thought, visit his official website, www.JohnBarrowman.com

Categories
I think I'm a bit confused about some categories. Category:Scottish television actors says that it's for television actors and actresses from Scotland, and it's a subcategory of Category:British television actors. So why isn't it redundant to have both in one article?

Category:Scottish television presenters is a bit more ambiguous, as the category description merely points towards Television in Scotland. If it's meant to be for "presenters of Scottish television" as opposed to "television presenters who are Scottish", then Barrowman probably shouldn't be in the category, as all his presenting work has been for national (British) television, hasn't it?

It just seems to be that having both "British such-and-such" and "Scottish such-and-such" is redundant. There may be an argument for one or the other (and it may be more appropriate to say "British" in one case and "Scottish" in another), but I don't understand why we need both. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wossy" Revelations
On tonight's "Friday Night with Jonathan Ross" John Barrowman said that he was a: an otaku B. did Shark Attack 3 for tax reasons (though he could have been kidding) and C. didn't realise they were going to leave the infamous "pussy" line in the film, and (again could have been joking) said he was horrified when he sat down to watch it with his nieces and nephews. Should this new info be included and if so where? --GracieLizzie 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that being an otaku is particularly noteworthy in and of itself. As for Shark Attack 3, I think that it might actually be more noteworthy on the film's page than here, but I am aware of the cult status of "the line".  Not sure whether it needs more discussion on this page or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Brother?
At the very end of his appearance on Something for the Weekend this Sunday, John Barrowman said, "My brother actually was on the American Olympic soccer team." (It's at about 6:45 in this excerpt on YouTube.) I looked on the US Olympic Committee's website and on ussoccer.com, and couldn't find any Barrowmans — but I suppose it's possible that he was on the team before the records on the website start, or that he has a different surname for some reason. Anyway, does anyone know any more about this? If we can find his name and confirmation from somewhere, it seems like it would be worth mentioning. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is "Shark Attack 3" really notable?
At the moment, the "notable roles" section in the infobox includes Captain Jack Harkness on Doctor Who and Torchwood and Ben Carpenter in Shark Attack 3: Megalodon. Is the latter really worth mentioning there? I know that the film has a certain cult following, but Barrowman's success as Jack Harkness has really eclipsed the Shark Attack 3 business, hasn't it? Frankly, it's only brought up as a vaguely embarassing bit from his past, much like Martin Clunes' appearance in the 1983 Doctor Who story Snakedance, put up on the screen when a talk show host wants to embarass him a bit and get a cheap laugh. Shark Attack 3 is covered appropriately in the article; I suggest we remove it from the infobox. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the infobox - definitely worth keeping in the text if only due to his fabulous "pussy" line; the film may have been utterly awful but he looks great in it and gets his kit off for a shower scene so I'm sure that John would hardly be embarrassed by it.-- Ashley VH 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that he was actually embarassed by it, but when he was on Jonathan Ross, Ross showed a clip from the film and his intention was clearly to embarass Barrowman. JB said then that he did Shark Attack 3 purely for the money.  He's obviously not easily embarassed, but I doubt it's an item on his CV that he's particularly proud of either.


 * That said, I agree that it should remain in the article text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of John Barrowman
The original image was deleted due to copyright violation. I have uploaded a CD cover as an alternative but perhaps someone has a photo they can release to the public domain?-- Ashley VH 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * sweet - hope he sings well; and i hope we are lucky :) ..luke 09:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) - just checked and saw it gets good reviews at Amazon. Maybe add your own thoughts to the article on his Albums as I don't have copies and haven't heard them yet. Also, check out the discussion *here* ..luke
 * Thanks for the link - it does appear that in this case the album cover was slightly over zealously deleted. Sigh. -- Ashley VH 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of a recent intervention by Jimmy Wales Wikipedia fair use has become more contentious recently, and I regret that I raised the issue of Barrowman image which lead to the problems here.. you can read some more details @ Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If I hadn't done so I doubt there would have been any problem :( Take care. ..luke 16:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's freaky, the CD cover scan I uploaded was deleted within 1 day with no notification (I thought my rationale for copyright was okay as this was the only page on wiki that includes this album and you are allowed to include album covers under certain restrictions). Does anyone know how I can track the history of a deleted page so I can see who deleted it and why?-- Ashley VH 10:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Added another, different image. This time under the "screen capture" copyright policy let's hope that the overzealous image deletors are happy with the justification. -- Ashley VH 12:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the texts of the tags you put on fair use images. CD covers can be used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". Screenshots can only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents", not to show what the person shown looks like. Per speedy-deletion criterion I7, "Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag may be deleted at any time." Also, please read Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and policy, in particular counterexample #8: fair use images can't be used to show what a living person looks like. Basically, only freely licensed images are allowed in biographical infoboxes about living people (unless they're recluses or in prison or something). So, until someone finds or makes a free image of John Barrowman, the article will have to do without a picture of him. —Angr 16:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that wasn't hard. I found a freely licensed pic of him at Flickr right away. There you go. —Angr 16:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * <> - luke
 * Well thanks! I'd rather have one from John Barrowman, though... what a babe! —Angr 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Link Added
I've added a link to reference 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.221.7 (talk • contribs) 15:18, January 4, 2007 (UTC)

"gay" before everything else?
It seems a little odd to define him as "a gay Scottish-American actor", with his orientation before everything else. I've moved it down to the Stonewall award, and added "openly" not because anyone should hide, but because that's rare in US showbiz. --Hugh7 07:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good call. Of course, Barrowman has had more success in UK showbiz than he did in the US, which may or may not be indicative of anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. http://www.holymoly.co.uk/holy-moly-blog/latest/no-torch-but-impending-wood.html. 213.218.224.115 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

im not a gay man but there is somthing about him i find so sexy and suave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.7.33 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ...good for you? ghostmoon EVP hauntings 10:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... (80.42.240.36 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

"Controversy"?
Is the whole "controversy" thing really relevant to Barrowman's article? --Silvestris 21:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does the text keep being removed? I think it is perfectly relevant to the article. He gave an interview in a magazine which is aimed, primarily, at children, yet made some comments that didn't really belong in a children's magazine. JediLofty 09:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It didn't get printed in Doctor Who Adventures... DWM isn't aimed at children anymore, the production staff of said magazine consider it aimed at grown ups. --GracieLizzie 10:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The BBC actively targets children as a Doctor Who audience. Two aspects of this are the Totally Doctor Who tv series and the games and coloring book pages on the official Doctor Who website.  Quotes about Barrowman being overly endowed and being sexually aroused are Totally Out of Place in any Doctor Who publication.  Controversial, yes, and very well-earned controversy.  However, it has nothing to with Barrowman, who can shag whatever he wishes and say whatever he wants (though being boisterous about it could cost him his job if his employers feel he is having an unacceptable impact on the franchise.)  The controversy rests with the magazine that published the quotes.  If that was Doctor Who Magazine, then there should be a controversy section on that Wiki page.71.205.219.229 (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Accent
Just above the cast and crew table it says ''Barrowman is bidialectal. He learned an American accent after school children picked on his Scottish accent when he moved to the USA. He speaks with a Scottish accent when at home with his parents'', now i'm just wondering if this is true as when he was on the weakest link doctor who special, he was speaking with an american accent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.90.3 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, it would only be untrue if he shot The Weakest Link while at home with his parents.Gwinva 11:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On Any Dream Will Do on BBC TV 10 June 2007, he spoke with what I think is best described as his 'mid-Atlantic' accent, but at one point of real enthusiam he said of one contestant, "Brilliant! Brilliant!" - and that was broad Scots! Northfold 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He slips into his Scottish accent when he is with family, and sometimes when he is with other Scottish people in a non-professional context. For example, according to an interview with Blue Peter "cameo role" competition winner John Bell in Doctor Who Adventures: "David Tennant and I are both Scottish and John Barrowman was born in Scotland, so it was a bit of a Scottish invasion! John kept slipping into a Scottish accent and would ask if I'd like a 'Wee cup of tea?'". If anyone has a copy of this issue (I found out about it on the Torchwood.TV blog) they can use it for a cite for the "with other Scottish people" thing. --GracieLizzie 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason he went into Scots on Any Dream Will Do is because Keith, who is Scottish, had just impersonated Barrowman's "Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic!" which he'd said in his American accent in previous weeks. So he slipped into Keith's (and his own) Scottish accent to reply to Keith. It's nothing to do with excitement.-- Will2710 |Talk! 00:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "talking in a Scottish accent with his family other people" because the citation doesn't actually support this statement. All it suggests is that Barrowman put on a Scottish accent to amuse the kid. I'm not Scottish, but I'm sure I'd keep making references to a "wee cup of tea" in a faux Scottish accent if it made a 9 year-old kid laugh. Now, this may very well be his natural Scottish accent, but I don't think this incident supports the claim that Barrowman uses a Scottish accent whenever he's with his family or with other Scottish people. I also tagged the previous statement as uncited until someone actually provides a source for the means in which he adopted his American accent.--Sonance 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I have heard from him, he now has an American accent, and can put on a Scottish accent. He hasn't had the accent since he was about 10 years old. With his real speaking voice, he would be thought to be American. If he was not well known, he would hardly be mistaken for Scottish. There were people in Glasgow whose accents were so thick, I could not understand them.(75.69.241.91 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC))


 * This anecdotal evidence is fascinating, but useless. I could point out that Hugh Laurie frequently does interviews in his House accent now, but that doesn't help either. Unless his accent is covered by a reliable secondary source then there's nothing we need write about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertising for Birmingham Hippodrome?
Not sure that the line about his panto appearance this year in Birmingham should have the Box Office number AND the theatre's online booking link just after it. Surely that's the kind of inter-article advertising Wiki frowns upon?


 * seconds later* Ah. Someone's already deleted it. Never mind.Monsterzero uk 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Filmography v. Recordings
Is there a reason that filmography is listed in descending order (with 2006 at top, and going down in years) and the list of recordings is ascending (increasing increasing in years as you go down the list)? It just seems rather odd and a bit annoying when trying to see what all he's done to have these lists go in opposite directions. Aberwak 13:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Anniversary with Gill?
At Pride 2007 (30th June) John introduced Scott on stage announcing (very publicly) that it was their anniversary. As their Civil Partnership was in December 2006, this must refer to when they first considered themselves a couple. Would anyone disagree with adding this as a date in the personal section (i.e. 30 June 1991) then we could say that they have been together for 33 years, 8 days?--Ashley VH (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

acting career
hi

don't want to start a war

i think that the references to his sexuality that are not that relevant should not appear in his acting career history, except where they make a statement or have changed opinions, but rather in the personal life section - and i feel that the some of these references to sexuality are thrown in just to show how gay he is and how much we support him in that

i cannot condone the use of calling a torchwood character "pansexual" i do not believe that the scriptwriters planned for this to be part of the characters character and that this is just wishful thinking which has been left in.

In the doctor who episode 1 of the return of the master, there are a cpl of lines which do imply a sexual freedom and attraction from Harkness to the doctor, although not confirmed by the doctor - we used to call this bisexual, i cannot for the life of me understand how pansexual can be applied to either Dr Who or Torchwood Chaosdruid (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jack is officially supposed to be "omnisexual," that is the word he and the writers and creator use, and it's their call how to define him since they created him. It was certainly intentional, they've said so many times. Jack hit on a very non-human looking alien, and has made possibly joking references to kissing non-humans, so there is indication his orientation may not be covered by the term bisexual. Queer Scout (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Omnisexual is fine, it is a way of including alien attactions, for want of a better explanation, its the same as "bisexual + aliens = trisexual/quadrasexual/etc" so i can see it makes sense to cover all by calling it omnisexual - "all sexes"

Pansexual is loving/caring/involving "all sexes" and not about sexual contacts - for example "UNICEF is a pansexual organisation" this does not mean that they wish to make love to all ppls of all sexes lol

i am a pansexual person i can love all ppl without caring for their race sex or religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosdruid (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bidialectal- A real word?
I just checked the word "Bidialectal" On Microsoft word and it seems it doesn’t exist. I tried both US English and British English but it wasn’t there... Can some one enlighten me? (80.42.240.36 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Yes, it's a real word. OED defines it as: "having command of two regional or social dialects of a language, one of which is commonly the standard language".  Gwinva (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster also recognizes the word. One should not use Microsoft Word to confirm the nonexistence of words. (Or, apparently, the Google toolbar spellchecker, which does not know the word. )—Nricardo (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just related to the above, in case anyone isn't sure where in the blooper reel his Scottish accent can be heard (per my edit just now), Barrowman slips into Scots during the "simple clean-up operation" outtake, starting with the statement, "It's the director's fault" and again several times after that. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

John Barrowman speaking to his family with a Glaswegian twang. How cute is that? --82.18.14.143 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Scott Gill an Architect?
Scott Gill does not appear on the Architects Registration Board database though most newspaper articles that mention him use the term British architect to describe his profession. Are the newspapers wrong, or perhaps they are oversimplifying what his profession is and someone can supply an unambiguous source? --Ashley VH (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a Scott Gill that belongs to the AIA-CKC, American institute of Architects, Kentucky something.  Ğavin  Ťing  21:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the one you are mentioning, cause he's based on Chicago, etc. . But we do't know if Scott Gill is actually his real name, as only Barrowman is the public figure here. Then he may be architect but don't know under what name.--Magnvss (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When did Barrowman and Gill meet?
Not a huge deal, really, but in regards to these two edits:

First, it would be great if someone with a copy of his autobiography can look up Queer Scout's info so we have an accurate source. Secondly, does anyone have information on why there seem to be two different years that are being pointed to, 1991 and 1993? It's possible that the news stories simply have it wrong, so Queer Scout is quite right that we should use the information from Barrowman's own autobiography. But is there any significance at all to 1991? Perhaps they met in 1991 but started formally dating in 1993? Or moved in together in 1993? Does the autobiography shed any light on this? Like I said, not a huge deal, but I like my numbers to be precise, lol. Though the usability of any information will of course depend entirely on the source provided, since it's otherwise speculation or original synthesis. Either way, it's just so freaking sweet how long they've been together! --Icarus (Hi!) 06:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By all accounts they met when Gill attended the production of Rope, in which Barrowman appeared (and started dated an unspecified time later). That production of Rope was in summer 1993. The cited article makes a mistake in giving the wrong year for the production altogether. I'll add the autobiog details here later so the ref can be changed. You're absolutely right, it should be accurate. Queer Scout (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also this article at out.com Alien Sex Fiend where JB has a couple of paragraphs describing exactly how they met.—Ashleyvh (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Grease
Although frequently mis-stated, John did not appear in the West End production of Grease (your bio section). He was part of a studio recording, which is also listed in your article.

You may wish to check with John's official website at www.johnbarrowman.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.115.162 (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Exposing himself on air
Is this really needed? There was only one complaint by anyone about the affair. If it wasn't for Wossygate and John Sergeant quitting Strictly, no-one would give a fuck. Seriously, the story is just jumping on the "BBC are useless" bandwagon. Sceptre (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it would still gain coverage without the current context, I feel. Philip Cross (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it really wouldn't. Torchwood probably gets more than one complaint per episode because of the gays and the sex, even though it's post-watershed. Sceptre (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He is very well known for exposing himself - he talks about it in practically every interview he gives, and most of the people he's worked with mention it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenie Q (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an amusing bit of trivia, but trivia nonetheless. He openly jokes about it, but unless it becomes a significant part of third-party coverage, it doesn't really merit coverage here. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for example? DWaterson (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the time to look into this, weighing the pros and cons. For the moment, I am concerned about its relevance, and I've commented the passage out of the article. If I can figure out how to include it in a neutral fashion, I will add it back in, but right now it appears to be more sensationalistic than encyclopedic. I'm open to ideas. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Printing Error
Has anyone else noticed that page 3 won't print, even in the printable version? Since all the other pages print just fine, I'm wondering whether it's a technical error? 209.2.60.204 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives
Added new information that John Barrowman has been confirmed for a minimum of five episodes for Desperate Housewives later this season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.103.189 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Acting style?
It occurs to me that we don't have very much on his approach to the craft, his style, and likes and dislikes. For me at least, this kind of information would greatly improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Overly detailed
This article seems overly detailed with superfluous information, i.e. "On 27 February 2008, Barrowman and Gill adopted another dog, a Jack Russell, whom they named Captain Jack." among numerous other instances. --Kathimcgraw (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a problem, but we disagree on the type of problem and where it resides. For me, the main issue is with the massive amounts of data in the acting career section and subsections.  Lesser roles and minor appearances should be moved into a table/list with the prose focused on major career moves supported by critical commentary.  As for the name of his dog, thats relevant because it's ironic that he named the dog after his major role. and dogs are an important part of his personal life. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this subsequent removal, as the importance of "Captain Jack" in Barrowman's life is discussed in I Am What I Am (2009) and in other sources. I'm sure it can be rewritten, but it's not trivia.  Dogs and dog rescue is an important part of Barrowman's life.  There's no good reason for removal. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The text that was removed is trivia, pure and simple. It makes no mention of any involvement in animal rescue, nor does it add any unique details about him. All it tells us is that he had two dogs, one of them died, and he subsequently got another dog. Oh, and that he named some of the dogs after characters from Doctor Who. That doesn't really qualify as information that gives the reader a deep understanding of Mr. Barrowman. --Ckatz chat spy  22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are mistaken, pure and simple. For the record, I am not the author of the material.  Rather, I am someone who looked into this topic when I chose to help improve the article after seeing it listed for GA review.  When I was about to remove the material as trivia like yourself, I found that it was an essential part of his character.  While I'm sure it could be rewritten, the material certainly does give the reader an understanding of the importance of dogs in his life, and both his autobiography and secondary sources support this in spades.  This is the personal life section after all, and Barrowman's personal pets and rescued dogs are a huge part of his life.  I realize that this may not be apparent to the uninterested reader, so I recommend a rewrite.  However, considering this was already under discussion at the time you removed it, I think your unilateral deletion without contributing to the discussion was not helpful in the slightest. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was simply giving ONE EXAMPLE of overly detailed, superfluous information - ergo the i.e. Kathimcgraw (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationality in lead
Being a dual citizen of UK and America, is British-American correct, or is there a different variation since he was born in Scotland?TIA--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted my attempt to add nationality to the lead. This is one of those tricky ones :) --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Scottish-American" implies he was born in the USA and has Scottish and American parents. He was not born in the USA, he was born in Glasgow and both of his parents are Scottish with UK citizenship. Suggest you read this: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html before writing that he has dual citizenship. Do you really KNOW that he does? Roan Art (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no legal basis to say that someone's citizenship is Scottish - from the UK were are all British although people may well characterise themselves as being English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh etc. Someone born in the UK before 1.1.83 was automatically a Citizen of the UK and Colonies with the Right of Abode unless one of their parents was a diplomat as that disbars acquiring nationality by place of birth under one of Vienna conventions that the UK is a signatory to. Under the BNA 1981 everyone who was a CUKC with ROA became a British Citizen on 1.1.83. Barrowman would therefore have been born British. Whether he subsequently renounced his nationality when he became American is something we can only speculate on unless there is a source for this but there is no US or UK law prohibiting dual nationality. Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Filmography
Is it just me or is his filmography of films and television too busy? like having a "medium" column when things like that normally go in "notes" on a filmography; and then in "notes", the episodes of doctor who, usually in a table it just has the number of episodes, not breaking it down into which season and all the episode titles. If anyone is against me simplifying that, you can revert my edit and explain to me why it should be that way. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Prose needs to be laid out differently
It may be oh-so-very pedantic of me but as it stands, the article appears to be a bit clunky, in my opinion. By "clunky", I mean the prose seems very disjointed. Although it's nice to order his theatrical, TV, feature film (etc...) work, it seems like all that's happening is this: label this; label that; mention this; tap on that. But in all, it doesn't seem cohesive and nicely-flowing. I think it'd work better chronologically like most biography articles do. I'm gonna have a crack at it on my space and see what I can do. Watch this space! :) Stephenjamesx (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't look like much has changed. I suggest some very serious pruning, and sticking only to the most important aspects of a biographical article. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's far too much useless trivia, as many people have pointed out. The man has a vast career, some of his lesser parts and awards can surely be omitted, especially since they're noted in lists later. Many of the characters he plays come with a second sentence describing the story's plot and his character-- unless this is a major part, it's unnecessary. For a guy with this many accomplishments, we need to be parsimonious.
 * On another note, while the note on his accent is probably acceptable considering the attention the British press give it, to American ears it's very clearly fake (and probably made worse by the dialogue he's given, at least on Doctor Who). It's on par with the typical, atrocious American attempts at a British accent. Kenneth Branagh has an excellent American accent, John Barrowman does not. He's a great actor, and I'm not saying change it-- the British press fall all over themselves to talk about it so there are plenty of Reliable Sources-- but it had to be said by someone. 131.96.13.213 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree with you about the accent. I've followed much of his work, and his American accent is excellent. Its classification as "Mid-Atlantic English" is exactly correct.  When you say "to American ears it's very clearly fake", I'm curious who exactly you are referring to here. I don't see anything phoney about it at all.  Are you aware of just how many regional accents we have in the states? It might surprise you. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly well-versed on the subject. I'm also from the mid-atlantic region. His accent is clearly fake-- not "from a different part of the United States", just clearly someone from Britain trying to do an American accent. Like I said, he is a wonderful actor and I can understand the urge to defend him, but it doesn't fly in this case. Especially when there are other British actors who really can do convincing American accents. This doesn't affect his Doctor Who/Torchwood character, of course, since the character isn't from America and can have whatever accent he wants. 76.111.60.167 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you're just being a dick. He sounds American.  Good for you being "fairly well-versed" YOU POMPOUS ASS.  Do you have Aspergers?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.57.22 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Views on gay marriage/unions
I know that before, he would say he didn't like using the word "marriage" for gay unions, but recently may have changed his mind. from his verified Twitter account: https://twitter.com/Team_Barrowman/status/200365421457702913 "Well done President Obama for affirming you stand on Gay Marriage. Our government didn't have the balls today. jb " and he retweeted this: https://twitter.com/BevB66x/status/200370733594058752 '@Team_Barrowman John I'm now a little confused, because I always thought you were against the use of the word "marriage"? ' and replied: https://twitter.com/Team_Barrowman/status/200372374909104128 "My mind was changed by the vile reactions of people from some quarters when the issue came up for debate Its simply a matter of equality jb " 173.30.127.166 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is Scott Gill his husband or his wife? Can such terms be used of homosexual "marriages" between men?101.98.175.68 (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

New entry under Television presenter
would someone please add this http://www.playbill.com/news/article/191722-Sing-Your-Face-Off-Hosted-by-John-Barrowman-Debuts-on-ABC-Tonight thanks. 68.231.25.212 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mid-Atlantic" Accent
John Barrowman himself says, "I've been told that I speak with a mid-Atlantic accent. The midwest upbringing and the British background come together, so I sound like I'm from Providence, Rhode Island."

The link goes to the wiki article on "mid-Atlantic", but in the sense of "middle of the Atlantic": an accent combining features of American and British RP cultivated before WWII as "stage English" in the US and by certain public figures when speaking in a higher register. This is not the type of English Barrowman speaks when he speaks General American English.

Barrowman is using the term "mid-Atlantic" to refer to the "mid-Atlantic" states, that is, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,and Delaware. Rhode Island, however, is New England, and Barrowman doesn't sound like he comes from Providence either. He is correct in that the British influence — and his obvious stage training — pull his accent further east than downstate Illinois, but to my ears, he only makes it to Ohio. Unlike his sister, who teaches in Wisconsin, his English bears no traces of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.

My main point, however, is that the link to the "middle of the Atlantic" accent is a false one, as that can't possibly be what Barrowman meant. --Janko (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, the British press and Barrowman's fans are deeply invested in his accent being spot-on authentic to a particular region. As you point out, even Barrowman doesn't claim that. I'd put him with someone like Stana Katic, whose accent is very good but does slip from time to time. He's an excellent actor, but the accent in particular is mediocre so I don't understand the fixation on it. Notice the vitriol in the IP comment above-- people take this one aspect of this one actor very personally. Other actors like Kenneth Branagh or Yvonne Strahovski do a far better job imitating Americans.
 * The whole point is rendered somewhat moot since the character he's best known for isn't even from America. 131.96.47.17 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES
Just as a reminder, policy dictates that we cannot use tabloid journalism to source articles on living people, which this article is. --John (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I took out references to the Daily Record, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Metro, The Sun, YouTube and Hello magazine. None of these are remotely suitable for supporting claims on a BLP. Two innocuous claims early in the article I left in with tags; the others I removed. Other editors are of course at liberty to find better sources for these claims, but they should not be restored without this. --John (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John, let's begin this discussion by focussing on those "innocuous" claims, since that is the reason I reverted you. For some guidance on the reasons behind this reversion, it may be instructive for you to to compare the version you edited with the the old version of the good article I worked on that is linked up above in the header. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, I began the discussion already just above. These sources are not appropriate for a BLP. The best thing for you to do, if you want that material to remain, is to find better sourcing for it. If the material belongs on Wikipedia, this will be quite easy. If you cannot find it, it is best that it stay removed. I don't really have anything to add to that. --John (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John, there appears to be a communication problem on your end. I am directly addressing your addition of citation needed templates, as you discussed above, in this thread.  That was the reason you were reverted, and it was the reason you were asked to discuss you  edits on the talk page and to make incremental edits to the article. The innocuous claims you tagged are already sourced, but your edits make it seem like they are not.  I asked you to look at the GA version linked in the header to see your mistake.  This discussion is about your edits.  Will you be removing the citation needed tag now that you have been corrected on this point? A "discussion" begins when two editors are talking. Again, the reason for my revert has nothing whatsoever to do with your claims about BLP and poor sources. It has to do with the other edits you made, and you've acknowledged those edits in this thread.  Please focus on that problem first. Saying that you will not discuss a problem you caused is highly problematic, especially with your recent edit warring.  Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no communication problem at my end. Those relatively innocuous claims were sourced to the Daily Mail, and we cannot use this as a source on BLPs. As the claims were relatively innocuous I left them in place and tagged for proper sources. I see these sources slipped through the GA process; they are nevertheless unacceptable. As I said, the best bet for you is to get better sources for the material you want to keep or restore. --John (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are mistaken. The claims in question are reliably sourced to Playbill, which was evident before you erroneously altered the article, which is why you were reverted.  Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this was not evident to me; the article definitely cited the Daily Mail before I edited it. I don't want to insult your intelligence or reading ability, so I am sure there must be some innocent explanation of why you believe this to be true. The easiest way out for you at this point is to point out which of the challenged material can be sourced to reliable sources, so we can adjust the article. Reverting bad sources back into a BLP wholesale wasn't a smart thing to do and I am really glad you didn't do it again. --John (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I am not looking for a way out of anything.  Since you don't understand the point I just made, I'll set it aside and come back to it.  Can you now explain how a one on one interview with a journalist is not a reliable source?  Your blanket removal of the DM isn't supported.  Take your time explaining as I will be away for the next hour or more. I've reviewed the RS/N discussions and there is no consensus that the DM is automatically unreliable, especially when it is in conversation with the source itself. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Well, at least you have let go of your Playbill claim. I've done what you ought to have done and found a decent source for one of the tagged statements. If you read WP:BLPSOURCES you'll see what I mean about using tabloid sourcing on BLPs. I think we are done here now; please feel free to ping me if you need any more help. --John (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John, I haven't "let go" of anything here. Your continuing edits to this article appear highly problematic.  I asked you to look at the GA version because it would have resolved some of your concerns, but you failed to do that.  Instead you keep removing content already sourced in the article.  For example, you just removed a statement sourced directly to the Times Educational Supplement,  but you claimed that it was unsourced because another editor had previously removed the citation in a spate of vandalism.  If you had simply started a discussion on the talk page like I originally asked you to do, we wouldn't be having this continuing conflict. Furthermore, I specifically asked you to explain how the DM source written by the famous celebrity interviewer Jenny Johnston is unreliable.  Your removal of it boggles the imagination.  Johnston did a one on one interview with Barrowman; there is nothing unreliable about the article nor does it violate any policy or guideline.  You still have not explained how a celebrity interview by Johnston could possibly be unreliable.  Of course, it isn't.  Meanwhile, you aren't discussing your edits on this page as I asked you to do.  I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to bring yet another admin up for review at the admin's board, but it is certainly looking that way. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Times Educational Supplement

 * As the last good GA version clearly demonstrates, the material that was recently removed from the early life section by User:John was appropriately sourced, but a vandal had removed the citation. User:John was asked to refer to this last good version before removing what he assumed was unsourced, but refused to do so.  This material will be added back into the article with the source attached and this section will be linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The content has been restored. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail

 * The celebrity interview of John Barrowman by notable interviewer Jenny Johnston is a reliable source for this article. User:John has been repeatedly asked to explain why he thinks otherwise, but has refused to do so.  According to our policies and guidelines on BLP sources and the use of such sources, Johnston is a notable, authoritative celebrity interviewer and as such, the source is acceptable for Wikipedia.  Most importantly, the content in question is neither controversial nor negative, and documents mundane biographical information that is neither disputed by the subject nor in contention by any other source.  Content such as "Barrowman lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life...Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others...Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go" is not subject to debate, especially when the information comes directly from Barrowman in a one on one interview. It will be added back into this article this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail source indicating the uncontroversial and undisputed fact that Barrowman hosted Tonight's the Night on BBC in April 2009 is perfectly acceptable as a reliable source for this article. It will be added back and this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail source about the beginning of his acting career and the advice he got from his manager cites his autobiography and is a valid secondary source for these claims. It will be added back and this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Mirror

 * The Mirror source that was removed is a simple news story that reports the uncontroversial and undisputed fact that Barrowman presented ITV's morning talk show. It is perfectly reliable for this purpose and there is no reason it was removed. It will be added back into this article with this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Metro

 * The Metro interview with Barrowman is perfectly acceptable as a reliable source for this article and it will be added back in with this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

YouTube

 * While it was probably a copyright violation for an editor to link to the YouTube video of The Wright Stuff, featuring an interview with Barrowman, it is an acceptable source in plain, formatted text for the material that was removed. Instead of a link to YouTube, a properly formatted citation to The Wright Stuff will be added back if I can verify it, with this section linked in the edit summary. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The Sun

 * I have not been able to verify The Sun article added by another editor. Until I can, I will not be adding it back in. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - All of Viriditas' reasoning makes sense to me, and I endorse it fully. Threats to block him (on his talk page) are arguably an abuse of admin powers. Jus  da  fax   06:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I take a slightly less hardline view than John, but nevertheless I understand his point of view. There have been too many complaints from real, living people about what goes on Wikipedia, and I think we lose sight of that some times. Anyway, I generally dislike the use of The Sun and The Daily Mail, but sometimes celebrities do "exclusive" interviews where they reveal facts or insights that cannot be documented elsewhere. Where they reveal basic facts, such as forthcoming notable TV or radio appearances, books, or other aspects of their professional life, I am happy to listen to reasoned argument. Where they deal with personal life, I am less in favour. Based on that premise, of the changes in this revert I would keep the parts that mention his TV appearances, but remove the content about his homosexuality. He's openly gay, and it's reasonably well documented, but it's not his principal claim to notability, and is quite rightly out of the lead aside from what can be inferred from his partner's name. The blocking threats are unhelpful, and I feel it would be unwise for John to block Viriditas in this instance as he would be considered involved. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, User:Ritchie333. Per our policies on BLP and RS, and the consensus established at BLP/N and RS/N, celebrity interviews, provided they are not controversial or unusual, are acceptable reliable sources.  Let's look at one example John removed, an arranged, celebrity interview by Jenny Johnston that took place at the office of Barrowman's manager while he was eating lunch.  While the interview discusses quite a lot, one could speculate based on the information in the article, that the interview was arranged to promote his new single and album.  So this is essentially a professional interview with a notable interviewer arranged by a celebrity.  The interview was used to source the following uncontroversial facts in this article:
 * Barrowman lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life
 * Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others.
 * Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go."
 * John did not review the context of this source (celebrity interview) nor its content (uncontroversial biographical facts). He simply removed it because he personally does not like the Daily Mail.  The community corrected John's misunderstanding of the BLP policy on the matter of celebrity interviews last year.  Unfortunately, John has not listened to the community, and continues to delete sources he doesn't personally like, without regard to their context or content.  Is there any good reason I should not add this source (and corresponding content) back into the article?  Johh claimed it would be a BLP violation to do so, but we now see that not only is he wrong on this point, he was corrected by the community directly on this point but refuses to recognize community consensus. My preference at this time is to restore this material. Are there any objections?  If possible, I would like to hear from User:Jusdafax and User:Flyer22 as well. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed your discussion at User talk:Ritchie333 and thought I would come back here to see how you were getting on. As long as we still have WP:BLPSOURCES saying "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" it would be most unwise for anyone to add or restore material sourced only to tabloids onto this (or any other) BLP. On the other hand, the idea of opening a wider discussion, if such is needed, to help you to understand why we cannot use tabloids in this way, is a good one. The best solution of all, of course, would be to find better sources for material you wish to use on this article. --John (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, John, the community has corrected you multiple times on your misinterpretation of BLPSOURCES, so there's no need for a wider discussion. As you've been informed by the "wider" community on this exact topic, a celebrity interview arranged by a celebrity with a notable interviewer is not "tabloid journalism". It's acceptable as a reliable source.  Now, perhaps you should take your bizarre, unsupported interpretations of policy to the noticeboard of your choice once again.  You will receive the same answer as you did before.  I notice that you have ignored that answer and you have continued to disrupt the encyclopedia.  Is it time for you to be blocked, John? I ask because consensus on the noticeboard (linked above) is explicitly in favor of adding this source and consensus on this page is in favor as well.  That leaves you, John, and your threat to act as an involved admin in a content dispute while ignoring both community and local consensus. Isn't that grounds for removing your admin tools? Combine that with your use of a personal source blacklist against policy, and it seems you have very unclean hands on this topic.  How's that user space diatribe against the Daily Mail going? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Viriditas in every particular. John's actions are troubling and questionable, in my view. Jus  da  fax   11:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note how John did not address a single point raised at 03:53, 1 February 2014 up above. He won't because he holds a view of policy that does not exist on Wikipedia. Can you imagine what would happen if a non-admin composed a personal blacklist of sources he didn't like and then proceeded to remove each source on that list from any article against the consensus of the community?  That's what's going on here.  If this was any other non-admin, they would be indefinitely blocked on sight.  Yet, John is allowed to get away with this.  It's really unbelievable.  John says "it would be most unwise for anyone to add or restore material sourced only to tabloids onto this (or any other) BLP" which means he is once against threatening to block anyone who restores this material as an involved admin.  But the community has told John that the source under discussion is perfectly acceptable.  When asked to explain why his opinion differs from the community, John does not respond.  There is consensus to add the celebrity interview from the Daily Mail to this article.  There was consensus to use the source when it was passed as a Good Article, there was consensus when the question of using celebrity interviews in the Daily Mail was brought up on the noticeboards,, and there is consensus to add the material here on this talk page.  The only objection to using this source is John, who has threatened to block me as an involved admin because he claims it is a BLP violation.  Yet, he cannot show how it is BLP violation except to claim than a celebrity, one on one interview arranged by the celebrity itself to promote his work, is "tabloid journalism".  This point was raised on the noticeboards, and it was explicitly rejected by the community, therefore, I will be adding this material back in per WP:SELFSOURCE. There is no way, shape, or form that a celebrity like John Barrowman, can call a notable celebrity interviewer like Jenny Johnston, arrange an interview in his manager's office during lunch, and then have this interview described as "tabloid journalism".  Again, that's John's own personal, bizarre interpretation of reality, and it isn't supported by anyone anywhere.   One is almost forced to wonder if John has a conflict of interest on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. You seem upset. Let's focus on one of your claims. You state above that there is consensus here to use the Daily Mail source. Perhaps I am being stupid but I cannot see any mention at all of the Daily Mail in User:HJ Mitchell's 2009 review. Are you mixing this up with something else? Au contraire, here is a more recent central discussion which shows precious little support for using the Daily Mail in this way. Furthermore, there is more than just the Mail at issue here. Are you also maintaining that The Daily Mirror and The Metro are not tabloids, but are reliable sources? You have also restored these sources to this BLP. Why don't you suggest a proper RfC on the Daily Mail sources, on which you may have a chance of getting the result you seem so desperately to want? I advise you not to mention the Mirror or the Sun as I think you will be laughed out of the room. A talk page discussion where two of your friends support you won't do it! And well done, at least you are discussing (after a fashion) rather than restoring poor sources to a BLP. --John (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * John, I'm not upset. I'm just very concerned with your behavior, which appears highly disruptive and damaging to the encyclopedia.   I am not discussing The Daily Mirror nor The Metro here. I specifically said in this discussion, let's look at one example John removed and I highlighted the celebrity interview by Jenny Johnston as published in the Daily Mail.  This is one of the sources you removed, a source you neither looked at or evaluated.  This source is fully acceptable according to best practices (WP:SELFSOURCE) and according to community consensus.  That link shows this has already been discussed and you have already been corrected on this point.  It also shows that your personal interpreation of BLPSOURCES is at odds with the community, and that you subscribe to a unique interpretation of how we use sources that is not shared by the community.  The discussion you linked to above has nothing to do with the reliability of this source for celebrity interviews, and frankly, has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever.  Again, on what basis have you removed this information from this article: 1) Barrowman lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life; 2) Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others; and 3) Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go."  This information was published by the Daily Mail from an interview given by John Barrowman to celebrity interviewer Jenny Johnston in his manager's office.  It is a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about John Barrowman and does not represent a BLP violation of any kind.  Your continuing false claims that the use of this source in this article is a BLP violation is not supported by any evidence of any kind, neither policy nor guideline, or any consensus anywhere.  Consensus on Wikipedia is that celebrity interviews published by the Daily Mail may be used.  And you do not have consensus to create a personal "blacklist" of sources you personally dislike.  There is nothing wrong with this source, you have shown nothing wrong with this source, and you are unable to cite a single policy or guideline that disallows it.  Therefore, it will be restored.  And it was stable in this article for four years, so your removal of it represents not just POV pushing, but an attempt to destabilize a GA.  Sorry, John, but your entire argument fails to address the problem under discussion.  Arguing "I don't like the source" isn't acceptable.  Get consensus for your changes, because you certainly don't have them here or on any BLP or RS noticeboard, that's for sure.  All of our current policies and guidelines support using this source.  The very fact that you have been purposefully removing sources without reading the content is plenty of justification for an indefinite block and removal of your tools.  You cannot create a personal blacklist of sources you dislike and remove them without evaluating their use.  You should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, let alone be an administrator. That you are still allowed to edit is absolutely incredible. The evidence is clear. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I am not infrequently in agreement with Viriditas, he will be the first to agree that I have admonished him from time to time. So I am not sure about John's definition of me as a "friend" though I have awarded Viriditas with a barnstar or two. Certainly I have never talked with him off-wiki, and was only alerted to this discussion because I have Viriditas' Talk page watchlisted and asked him outright what was going on. So the seeming attempt to diminish the weight of my agreement here with Viriditas by dismissively refering to me as a "friend" can be seen as a questionable tactic by an involved admin to indimidate. In the above discussion, as Viriditas ably points out, John exhibits flawed reasoning that he then refuses to back up with solid reasoning or indeed any reasoning at all. That an involved admin should do this is disturbing enough, but using the threat to misuse his admin tools with an involved block of Viriditas is outright alarming, and merits a discussion of remedial action. Jus  da  fax   23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that John has brought this to the BLP noticeboard. But Viriditas has correctly reported how the previous discussion went, and I am glad to see that John has so far failed to get consensus despite his warning that Viriditas could be blocked for making what looks like a reasonable argument in good faith. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which previous discussion would that be? --John (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the one which concluded by finding a better source for the material. I'm afraid Viriditas has said so much that is wrong and confused on this subject that I have no intention of refuting that end of the argument. Let's restate for the credulous that I did not threaten to block him for "making what looks like a reasonable argument in good faith" but for edit-warring bad sources including the Sun and the Mirror onto the article. It's probably better for everybody that we move on from that episode as I don't think he is going to repeat the mistake, and talk about improving the John Barrowman article, which is what this page is for. --John (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Per the above discussion I have removed the quotes sourced to the Daily Mail. Please do not restore them as this is a WP:BLP matter. I advise anyone who thinks these quotes are vital to the article to find a better source for them. I advise anyone unhappy with my interpretation of BLPSOURCES to raise it centrally. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is completely false and is tendentious behavior on the part of John. Consensus was found to include these sources up above and in the noticeboard discussion.  To quote another editor up above, "John has so far failed to get consensus".  I'm therefore reverting back to the consensus version. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I really didn't want it to come to this. I have blocked Viriditas for returning this material to the article. Please see my statement above for recommendations on how to proceed. --John (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh bull (a different animal). A single edit and you block? Surely you are not going to tell me a single edit can be edit warring. Trust me...I went out of my way to discuss this on AN and no single edit can be an edit war. This comes down to you acting as an editor until you see something you "just don't like" and then suddenly you pull out the tools. Not everyone can see the little highlighted, glowing green "SYOP" badge at the top of your page. Bad block. Also, I really want to assume good faith here....but it is really being strained on this one. Viriditas is right about one thing...if the information is from an interview and comes from the actual subject.....it doesn't matter if it was a tabloid as long as it is being sourced correctly and summarized accurately. Even if you did actually state outright that you are here acting in an administrative capacity.....you are way wrong here. I see a good deal of discussion and even you, as an admin can use the normal DR process. You used your tools over a content dispute? Seriously? And over what? A date of birth that no one questions and YOU DID NOT ALTER? Or for this: "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others."? WOW. Gotta tell you...you chilled the hell out of this discussion. Even I am nervous posting this and interacting with you now.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Full protection
Irrespective of whether you agree with it,material removed under blp isn't supposed to be replaced until there is a positive consensus to do so. Please have this discussion we we can unprotect this page, Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are too many WP:INVOLVED parties here. Neutral arbitration may be warrented to resolve this mess. It unfortunate that a BLP violation exists when the person is interviewed by an undesirable source.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  16:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Instead, reliability is heavily dependent on context.  A source may be reliable in one context but unreliable in another.   (See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for more).  Can anyone please tell me what exactly the problem is here?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See the large BLP discussion above. Nutshell: JB had an interview at a tabloid, said source is not reliable/desirable. Rather than normal tabloid journalism this was an interview of the subject. So ultimately, can a person's own words not be used because of the source.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  17:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was afraid of. It appears as if this dispute was caused by a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules.  The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. There are no sources which are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable". Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.  In addition to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this is also covered by RS/FAQ.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * John knows the rules, he just refuses to abide by them. If you look at his contribs, you'll find many edits (more or less than 100?) focused on removing sources like the Daily Mail from Wikipedia, without ever reading the content that they support.  As you rightly observe, this goes against our most basic policies and guidelines on the subject.  Unless a source is blacklisted, a source is evaluated on its individual merits.  John has effectively created and enforced his own personal blacklist against consensus, and he has threatened to block (and carried out those threats) anyone who disagrees with him.  Spartaz's revert and protection appears to have been made in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES, which states that such action may only be taken if the material is contentious and a clear BLP violation. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy shit...did he really just revert and then lock the article? That's actually freaking hilarious. And shows Spartaz isn't paying any attention to the consensus itself. Just an example of covering for another admin to make sure they get their way. I find this action pathetic and insulting. Par for the course it seems with some admin. The source is freaking fine...now unlock this page please.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Holy Shit did I just see a lot of accusations being thrown around rather then a discussion taking place to resolve the dispute? Yep, seems I did. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reversion to a preferred state, and then locking the article in that state seems to be a fairly straightforward misuse of administrator tools. Just my $0.02, though, and it may not even be worth that. LHMask me a question 19:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The following is from the BLP Policy. Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced The policy also says To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.   When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis Its perfectly normal when BLP has been cited to lock the article down for a consensus to emerge. Let me repeat, a positive consensus to restore removed data on a talk page is the policy mandated way of dealing with the dispute. Why not have that discussion and be done with this. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The material in question isn't "contentious." It's an interview of the subject. One editor randomly removing swaths of material based solely on where it came from, not what the material actually is, does not make that material "contentious." In my opinion, you've simply reverted to a preferred version and then protected, which contravenes policy, if I'm not mistaken. LHMask me a question 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that consensus has been reached. Can you please unlock the article?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I see a lot of rhetoric but I don't recognise a discussion. The resurrected discussion above does not appear to be resolved. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that the only editor who disagrees with this content was John who apparently dropped out of this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that BLPSOURCES prohibits using tabloids for BLPs. As stated above, this rules out the use of the Daily Mail to support these quotes. As Spartaz has said, we would need positive consensus that the material could be used, and it would need to be exceptionally strong and well-argued in order to overturn the application of BLPSOURCES. One editor's unevidenced opinion wouldn't cut it. --John (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BLPSOURCES does not "prohibit using tabloids for BLPs" for uncontroversial items like interviews. You're flat wrong on this, no one agrees with your interpretation, and Spartaz was flat wrong to revert to your preferred version and then protect the page in that version. LHMask me a question 21:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to understand what the actual objection is. In what way is this edit sourced to this article related to tabloid journalism (i.e. sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns, sexual practices, drug use, junk food news, etc.)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you please unlock the article? By my count, there are 6 editors  7 editors 8 editors who believe that this source is reliable (,, , , , ,  and myself) and only one editor  who doesn't.  Only WP:CONSENSUS is required, not unanimity.  And depending on whether you count John as WP:INVOLVED, maybe it is unanimous.  In any case, the article should be unlocked.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You may add me to the list. Routine tabloid journalism is not a WP:RS and should be challenged. A BLP's own interview, on the other hand, is not a violation unless the person claims falsehood/fabrication.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  13:29, 21 September:: 2014 (UTC)
 * On what grounds should we create an exception to our rule about poor sources on biographies of living people? Why are these anodyne quotes sourced only to a publication best known for telling lies? There is no point saying you want to use this source, we know that. Why do you want to use this source? I do not want to use this source as it contravenes our rules, which is a pretty good reason. Do you have a reason? Consensus is not a headcount, it depends on reasoning and you have not supplied any. --John (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * People have explained very well why your understanding of what is acceptable use of a tabloid is mistaken. You're just ignoring them. LHMask me a question 17:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? In that case it should be easy for you to reiterate the rationales they gave for why it is essential to use these quotes sourced from a tabloid on a BLP. You may do so here. --John (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to retype everyone's argument's, simply because you are ignoring them. Read them for yourself, John. LHMask me a question 18:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you would be unable to do so. That's because none have been given. I have seen your opinion, but an unevidenced opinion can never make a difference to a consensus discussion on Wikipedia. We need rationales and strong arguments based in policy if you wish to show a proper strong consensus to include this material. --John (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unable, unwilling. Your laziness does not behoove me to kowtow to your demands. The consensus is very clear just above, and the reference has been restored per that consensus. LHMask me a question 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unable, unwilling. Your laziness does not behoove me to kowtow to your demands. The consensus is very clear just above, and the reference has been restored per that consensus. LHMask me a question 19:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to wave your admin badge around in an attempt to enforce your mistaken views, John. Stop edit-warring against consensus. LHMask me a question 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. John is way, way out of line and defying consensus, in my view. Jus  da  fax   03:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The behavior of admins on this article & talkpage
The above administrator is misusing his status as an administrator to try and enforce his mistaken interpretation of BLP regarding the use of tabloids. He is also threatening to block me for implementing what has clear consensus above. Is this a matter to be dealt with by ANI, or can we deal with it at this talk page? LHMask me a question 20:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does consensus mean to you? It may be that you do not understand how Wikipedia uses the term. --John (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop with the lectures. Your behavior at this article has completely removed you from the "list of people able to lecture others on the meaning of policy." LHMask me a question 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Take this to ANI please, it has gone beyond the purpose of this talk page.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I wanted to discuss in this section: whether it's a matter for ANI. While John has not used any of his tools to enforce his mistaken views or to edit war against consensus, he has called a bald revert an "administrative action" (or something like that). Is that enough to go to ANI, do you think? It seems pretty clear that he's very out of line here. LHMask me a question 20:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He hasn't used any admin powers so him being an admin is entirely irrelevant. That said i see nothing wrong with the use of the Daily Mail source that John is edit warring over. Blethering  Scot  21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my initial instinct as well, but given that he claimed his bald revert was an "administrative action", it made me wonder. As for the content, no one other than John thinks there's anything wrong with it. LHMask me a question 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * John abused his admin powers when he blocked Viriditas. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So he clearly is involved then. Cannot see what he feels is wrong about the Daily Mail source backing up a fact saying he lived in Glasgow for 8 years. Certainly better than leaving it unsourced. Blethering  Scot  11:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Two things., this is not appropriate for an article talk page, so I'm hatting it. It's for ANI, or AN. Second, you reverted 's edit, even though , above, specifically said this material is not to be restored until "positive consensus" is achieved. The BLP is cited, and that should suffice: material is "contentious" if it is deemed contentious, which this is. What you're doing is the improper way to decide this, and I will revert you--not because I think this material cannot possibly be sourced to the Daily Mail, but because this is what the BLP mandates. Now, this needs to be solved. A quick and simple RfC, yes or no on this information, is one way. But if John can make a reasonable claim that there is consensus that the Daily Mail (and other such papers) are never to be used for BLPs, then it needs to be solved at a higher level--either at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or at Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or maybe somewhere else. And before we get the whole "ah you're partial as an admin you're a friend of John you're blah blah blah", I personally don't care. I understand John's objections, I understand them very well, and at the same time what we're talking about here is not so controversial that it couldn't be sourced to a lower-quality paper. Spartaz, I think that you are just as much neutrally in the middle as I am--please correct me if I'm wrong about what the proper procedure is here; given the two questions (a. is it acceptable in this case? and b. is it acceptable in the first place?), it seems advisable to me to get consensus on the first question first (given the number of editors in favor, that's probably easy) before the larger question is tackled. But you've been here longer than I have, so I will gladly let you speak your mind here, and I will bow to your superior wisdom. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already been "solved", Drmies. Consensus was reached above, and John is edit-warring against it. And now you've joined in, trying to wave your admin badge around to enforce the reversion. Stop doing so, and stop hatting useful conversations. LHMask me a question 18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)At the time I locked this down there hadn't been a proper discussion about John's edit. The prior discussion of John's edit was complaining about the action and screaming admin abuse not calmly reaching a consensus on the validity of a newspaper notorious for making up lies as a primary source. I locked the page to force that discussion but this did not immediately ensure. By the time that my protection ended I felt that that discussion had begun and because no-one has come forward to support John's position on the DMl sourced material I did not feel that I could justify further admin intervention on the point. Ideally a quick RFC would have been the best option but the editors working here did not go down that road. I think it would be bureaucratic to insist on that now. There does appear consensus to accept the material. Do I agree with it? Well my views on this rag that purports to be a newspaper are probably very clear now but I think further admin intervention now would be against consensus and the strict requirements for BLP have been met, Pretty much then we are left with the wider RFC on the DM as a source. That is probably a better vehicle for that discussion then trying to force it through a fairly non-contentious set of content here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that in many cases, the Daily Mirror would not suffice as a source. But context matters, and in this case, nothing controversial is being sourced to them. It is a simple interview, with the article's subject, nothing more and nothing less. This is what was outlined in the discussion above. LHMask me a question 19:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , if you say so. Feel free to unprotect: I have to run and get my kids from school; I have no doubt you understand my revert just now and the renewed protection. Please go ahead and so as you see fit. Lithistman, you are seriously out of line and your "personal" thing is ridiculous.
 * Lithistman, I removed your joke (with which I edit-conflicted ten minutes ago). Like it or not, this is an article talk page. You are hereby invited to post your complaint at ANI. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I readded my thread, which you had no right to remove. As for ANI, I don't like posting there, and have no interest in doing so now. Simply revert your misuse of your blocking tool, and this episode will be at an end. LHMask me a question 21:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

More issues with admin edit-warring against consensus
Now we have another administrator edit-warring against consensus, abusing his tools to protect a non-consensus version, and nothing is ever done. John has simply handed off the edit-warring baton to Drmies. LHMask me a question 20:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I mean, for god's sake man, even Spartaz--who earlier protected John's preferred version--agrees that consensus has been reached above. LHMask me a question 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relevant pings

Note
This admin, Drmies, was specifically recruited at his talkpage by admin John, who earlier edit-warred against consensus. LHMask me a question 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you missed it, but this has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is reliable for this content. Please see the following diff.  Can you please self-revert and unlock the article?  Thanks.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There really are only two options: (A) He did miss the discussion directly above (even though I mentioned it directly) when he decided to edit-war and protect, while threatening to block me; or (B) He saw it, ignored it, and edit-warred against consensus he knew existed, and the then protected and threatened to block me. Either way, it was a very bad use of his tools. LHMask me a question 21:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:A Quest For Knowledge, what does consensus mean to you? It may be that you do not understand how Wikipedia uses the term. --John (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * AQFK, you missed it: I have already unprotected, your fellow editor has already reverted. See my note on Spartaz's talk page. Lithistman, your false accusations are to be placed on ANI, not here. I think it's time you cease your vendetta, and that you stop trying to be a mind reader. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This issue is not resolved at all, but the discussion at ANI can be cut short if Lithistman apologizes for their unacceptable accusations and their shit-stirring behavior on this talk page., in the history you'll find a comment of mine, responding to your remark, but Lithistman saw fit to remove it. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's some chutzpah. You've removed my thread TWICE, doing so while adding a comment, and then act like I intentionally removed your comment when I reverted your removal. I readded one such comment, and will find and readd the other, since you don't seem willing to do so. LHMask me a question 21:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh how grand of you. You don't seem to understand that your false accusations about editor's behavior (of John and me) are not for article talk pages. TPNO already prevents you from it. That's what ANI is for. You want to accuse, do it in the proper forum. I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you, but that's kind of basic knowledge. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The nature of consensus
Just a reminder; consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by a head-count but by the quality of argument. I argue that WP:BLPSOURCES being part of long-standing policy, prohibits the use of the Daily Mail to source these quotes. What we would need to undo this would be a discussion to which more than just a few contribute, and in which convincing policy-based arguments are made for why this material sourced to this tabloid is essential. I do not see this. Perhaps a RfC is appropriate at this point? It would need to run for a couple of weeks and be closed by an uninvolved admin. --John (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS interacts with WP:BLPSOURCES? LHMask me a question 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A chimerical uninvolved admin

 * Oh. crap.  I somehow missed (looking at an old version?  I don't know how) there was a whole new BLPN thread started earlier today, as announced in the section above.  So to be clear, Whatever that BLPN thread decides should apply; if it counteracts my thoughts below, the BLPN consensus should rule. Consider the following paragraphs an interim decision. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is stupid. For many reasons, but one that annoys me the most is our definition of "consensus", which (if we're being honest with ourselves) is usually "a super-majority of roughly 60% or more of the people blindly voting", unless a more strict definition is desired by a closing admin. Although the "consensus" here still doesn't mean what consensus means in the real world, 8 of 9 people involved would be interpreted as a consensus by pretty much everyone on WP except the 9th person.

So, having read this mess above, as a first step, I - a mighty and infallible and uninvolved admin - hereby announce and decree that there is consensus on this talk page at this time to use the Daily Mail as a source for the interview information in the article. I am not saying it is suitable as a source for, well, anything else. But the required discussion has been had, and claiming a BLP exemption to remove this material is no longer a valid reason to revert against consensus. As always, consensus can change, and if further RFC's and BLP/N and RSN threads are desired, that's fine. Perhaps a consensus will develop to take it out. Perhaps an editorial consensus will form that it isn't really important to the article. Perhaps another source can be found. But (a) the material can stay in the mean time, and (b) the particular material sourced here is really pretty innocuous stuff, guys; aren't there more important BLP battles to be fought?

Also, sections devoted mostly to alleged misbehavior of some editors, rather than focused on article improvement will soon be archived. A case could be made for their deletion; a case could be made for leaving them alone. I'm compromising by moving to the archive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Spartaz's collapsing is probably just as good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As the admins edit-warring against consensus have now stopped, I too agree with Spartaz's collapsing of that section. LHMask me a question 19:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright then. I think conversation at BLPN is headed that way also (pinging and, uninvolved participants there)--but I cannot stress enough that finality in such a discussion is what avoids problems in the first place. If a discussion looks like it's ongoing, there is no reason to treat it as if a decision/consensus has been reached. Floq, thank you for your infallible service, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP is not very strong on "finality". Some things we will never agree on--some things that look like isolated issues turn out to involve very broad questions. The overall trend is how literally to take the BLP policy and guidelines has varied over time, and will continue to vary--partly in response to changes in the attitude of the real world towards such matters. I think we need to avoid using difficult special cases to upset general rules--we are almost always better in making use of our fundamental ability to make exceptions when warranted. Agreement to use an exception can be attained on an article talk page; a change in general rules cannot. But even for making a particular exception,  I agree that a decision at a central noticeboard takes precedence over an article talk p., because the very purpose of such noticeboards is to get input from people who aren't involved in the particular question.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG, "finality" here meant something like "this discussion is closed and here's the decision". But for now the matter is settled, and the edit warriors can perhaps go back to more productive work. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is purely speculation, but as an admin, you may be frequently called in to make formal closes at an RfC or an AfD. The fact is many discussions are completely informal, and there is no official close.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , yes, I agree with you in that sense;, it is true we do not normally close at most of the noticeboards, because the consensus is usually obvious, or the opinion is merely advisory. But I have sometimes done so, it order to be unambiguous.     DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard submission
A noticeboard submission has been created. Please bring any and all comments related to the Daily Mail interview over to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  02:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100% background-color:white" 
 * style="vertical-align:top; border:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#f1f5fc;" |

Conversation conclusion
There shouldn't be a problem with using the DM in this instance. There was clearly no consensus to blacklist the Daily Mail, as consensus was that the DM was an acceptable source for the material in question. Main arguments:

It appears that general consensus is that whilst very few people like the Daily Mail, there is a belief that it's use in this instance is acceptable:
 * it's an uncontested interview, which doesn't necessarily fall under the description of tabloid journalism
 * any editor can claim something is contentious if they wish
 * style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |
 * }-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agnostic?
John is currently categorized as a "British agnostic". There's nothing about his religion in this article, and I couldn't find any reliable source supporting this. Anyone against me removing it? Victão Lopes Fala! 18:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since nobody objected, I've just removed it. Victão Lopes  Fala! 20:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Openly gay"
This is broader than but directly relevant to this article: Is it not time to stop introducing a subset of humans as "openly gay"? (1) Articles about heterosexual humans never begin a paragraph by stating their heterosexuality. (2) How is it any less informative or effective to begin the paragraph in question, "Barrowman met his husband..."? (3) Continued use of "openly" implies that there exist valid reasons why one should be covert about it. Even if "openly" is itself affirming, it plays into the mindset that there's something questionable about which to be open. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)