Talk:Jonathan Ames

Brother of Mark Ames?
Brother of Mark Ames?

No, he is not.

Removed website
I removed a link to the author's website, because it automatically redirected to an Amazon search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreetingsThree (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Ames is bisexual
This needs to be mentioned in the article. He wrote newspaper articles and biographical writing about how he is bisexual. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NPOV policy, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. And according to the biographies of living persons policy,
 * So reliable sources are needed to support this content; we cannot add original research to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * huh? It has nothing to do with neutrality. Did you ever even read any of his books, his memoir, or watch the short highly sexual documentary about him where Jonathan Ames himself writes and says how he is bisexual? 100.34.234.175 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:BLPLEAD/MOS:CONTEXTBIO also applies, e.g. "sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Without any cited sources establishing this, attempts to add this to the first sentence of this article appear to be necessary to delete per WP:BLPREMOVE. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * huh? What do you mean cited sources? Ames himself wrote about his own bisexuality in his own memoirs. It is not disputiable and a memoir written by Jon Ames himself is a source. This is not debatable, and if he were gay or homosexual, or heterosexual you probably wouldn't care if it were added to the article. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IP, this information is not cited to reliable sources in the article, nor is this information established by reliable sources as relevant to his notability. Therefore, it is not suitable for inclusion, especially in the lead of the article. I have linked to relevant policies and guidance in this discussion for your review; you can also ask questions at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)