Talk:Ronan Farrow/Archive 6

RfC Ronan’s coming out
"In a 2013 Vice article, Christopher Glazek outed Farrow as gay—while noting his sexuality is missing from the narrative of two then-recent lengthy profile articles about him, attributing the omission mainly to homophobia.   Glazek noted that neither publication, Vanity Fair, nor The New York Times, seemed to care about his privacy, although The Times did mention "he is guarded about his private life," likely due to years of his family living through scandals, after mentioning his long-term socializing with podcast host and former presidential speech writer Jon Lovett, creating a double standard of purposely ignoring romantic lives of LGBTQ subjects [“It’s only by accepting a homophobic logic that we can perform the mental acrobatics required to decide sexuality should be off the table.” (added)]   Farrow has been a subject of longtime gay rumors.  Farrow publicly came out as part of the LGBTQ community in April 2018 while accepting the Point Courage award for his journalism on sexual assault allegations and coverage of transgender issues. In June 2018, he was named to the top spot in The Pride Power 50., recognizing New York politics’ most important LGBTQ figures. The same month Queerty’s Pride 50, named him number three on its list of LGBTQ people who reached professional milestones while “they‘ve stood up for the community.” In July 2018, Farrow won the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s Journalist of the Year award. In November 2019 he was named the Out100 Journalist of the Year. After coming out, LGBTQ media outlets have referred to him as a gay journalist. As of December 2019, examples of media referring to Farrow as a gay journalist include: In May 2018, Farrow and Lovett made public that they were dating since 2011. They became engaged in 2019 after Farrow used the books’ drafts track changes page for Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators to propose to Lovett. According to Variety, in August 2019 the couple bought a $1.87 million home in Los Angeles."

I think the above is a much more accurate representation of Ronan’s public life than what is currently in the Personal life section. KyleJoan has removed this content under various reasoning including that the awards are non-notable, the Vice article wasn’t written by Ronan, and that the LGBTQ sources aren’t as valid as other mainstream media. Also that Ronan is not on record as ever being in the closet.

Should the above content be added to the Personal life section to more accurately reflect history as noted in reliable sources? Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

!votes and brief comments

 * Support This is well-referenced, well-formatted, and interesting. I like it much better than what's currently in the article. = paul2520 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose in part, support in part, creating a double standard of purposely ignoring romantic lives of LGBTQ subjects. is unacceptable editorializing in Wikipedia's voice, and recognizing New York politics’ most important LGBTQ figures. is the exact kind of puffy statement that we should not say in Wikipedia's voice when a source says it about itself. Besides those issues, however, I think it's a reasonable synopsis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , issues addressed, thank you for the input. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, primarily per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It's also important to note that there have not been any consensuses that deem any of the cited sources–with the exception of one (BuzzFeed News)–reliable per WP:RSP. There is, however, a consensus that Gawker–which is cited multiple times in the proposed content–is unreliable. Further reasoning below. KyleJoan talk  02:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I find your overall attitude demeaning and insulting both to me and the other editors here. No one is purposely deceiving with unreliable sources, or otherwise, I’ve responded more fully below to your voluminous assertions of incompetence. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support, what is currently in place amounts to a false narrative: that Ronan wasn’t firmly in an odd glass closet—attending numerous high-profile society events for years with his equally high-profile boyfriend in the media capital of the world—while dodging questions if he was gay; that he wasn’t publicly outed in the media; that gay rumors didn’t swirl publicly about him; that he finally came out publicly years later. Wikipedia should not be complicit in fabricating falsehoods well documented in reliable sources and blindingly obvious to all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Most of this information is already in the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I'm comfortable with the way it's written now in the article. I don't like that first paragraph above at all. I searched his name only and he is consistently described as – investigative journalist and author, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, best-selling author. There's not even any mention of his sexual orientation at all (in any of the articles I read) until I reached page 7 of the search results, and it was briefly mentioned. I just don't think him coming out was that big of a deal, sure he received the requisite media coverage when he came out, and it was notable for a hot minute, but what's written above is waaay too much for me. I like the personal life section the way it is now, much like his partner Lovett's is, (although I don't like that stark 3 worded sentence at the beginning of his personal life section) . Isaidnoway (talk)  16:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. The problem with the present information is it’s deceiving by omission. That the relationship was an open secret, etc. It’s unsurprising that his sexuality is not a top google hit as he’s worked very hard to keep it a secret until very recently. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - original research. Bacondrum (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific as to what you feel is OR? Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose in strongest possible terms, especially the first paragraph, which is an unambiguous BLP violation and cannot be included regardless of consensus here. That paragraph gives overwhelmingly, bafflingly WP:UNDUE weight to Glazek's bare speculation; the other sources cited there devote barely a passing mention to the topic, if at all.  This is not the sort of source we can use to say anything about the sexuality of a BLP or something as controversial as the way they came out.  Worse, that utterly-unacceptable paragraph is then combined with the latter two (the bizarre after coming out, LGBTQ media outlets have referred to him as a gay journalist in particular, when contrasted with the excessive focus on Glazek's piece) to WP:SYNTH up a narrative of his coming out that is not present in any of the sources.  The overall thing is a mess of undue weight given to something that most sources do not imply is particularly significant to his notability, and nothing in here is an improvement - seriously, that "gay journalist" thing is downright bizarre and reads as WP:OR itself given that none of the sources highlight the term as uniquely meaningful - but the first paragraph in particular is ghastly. If you must note that he was outed by Vice, a single bare dry sentence would be sufficient (comparable to the brief ~five-word mention in those secondary sources), but I'm dubious that even that is justified.  Certainly devoting an entire paragraph to it is absurd.  As to the idea that the current version is "deceiving by omission", Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.  Farrow's article should focus on the work he's notable for; his sexuality is worth a brief mention, not this gossip-rag fixation.  EDIT:  Also, RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded.  The description here is anything but; Should the above content be added to the Personal life section to more accurately reflect history as noted in reliable sources? implies that this proposed addition would "accurately reflect history", which (keeping in mind that WP:DUE is a vital part of accuracy) it absolutely does not. --Aquillion (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. The first paragraph discusses a high-profile subject that attended high-profile events with his boyfriend in the media capital of the nation. It notes that it takes homophobia to dismiss his romantic life while reporting on everything else about him. Ronan is a unique case in that his family on both sides have been extensively covered in the media. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose While this is well-referenced, do we really need this level of detail about his love life? BIG BURLEY 22:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only additional aspect of his love life is that he was outed, which is surely relevant. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: I'm on the fence for the first paragraph, but the second and third are well-sourced and should absolutely be part of the article. Being in the closet publicly and then coming out is a major event in an LGBT person's life; it's not just gossip. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended Comments
*Strongly oppose, primarily per WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
 * In general, some of the sourcing used is questionable. What are these sources' reliability and editorial standards? Farrow has been a subject of longtime gay rumors. This might be a true statement per the Billboard citation, but the other two sources cited for this information are Queerty and Gawker. The two, especially Gawker, are textbook tabloid journalism, which WP:PUS advises against citing. As for Queerty, I'm not sure how appropriate it is to cite anything from that website. After all, one of their most popular articles from 2019 was titled, Chris Hemsworth’s power bottoming energy goes viral.
 * The first paragraph (i.e., In a 2013 Vice article, Christopher Glazek outed Farrow as gay . ..) is filled with issues. The entire paragraph chronicles a writer who speculates, pontificates, and theorizes Farrow's sexuality. The article referenced opens with the sentence, "Ronan Farrow is gay, according to friends who have slept with him, but you wouldn’t know it from reading about Farrow in Vanity Fair or the New York Times"; therefore, summarizing the article as the writer outing him fails WP:SYN because it would be a subjective interpretation of materials in a secondary source. The writer attributing why a profile would omit his sexuality also fails WP:DUE; why is this writer so prominent in the article and why is their analysis so important? The only part I could see being worthy of inclusion is the New York Times quote about Farrow being guarded about his personal life because that is appropriate to put in Wikipedia's voice.
 * The second paragraph (i.e., Farrow publicly came out . ..) has issues as well. The use of the term "coming out" fails WP:V and WP:SYN right away. The Out article cited never mentioned coming out; it mentioned him acknowledging that he was "a part of the LGBT community". In June 2018, he was named to the top spot in The Pride Power 50. By whom? Why is the list prestigious? The Out100 and National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association honors already exist in the recognition section, which is the more appropriate place for the information, so I would recommend striking it from the RfC. After coming out, LGBTQ media outlets have referred to him as a gay journalist. Why does it matter how they reference him? Furthermore, only annotating LGBTQ sources versus general reliable sources to support a statement also fails WP:DUE.
 * A version of the third paragraph (i.e., In May 2018, Farrow and Lovett made public . ..) already exists in the article. I would recommend striking it from the RfC as well because its inclusion was never in dispute. KyleJoan talk  02:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, gay rumors...turned out to be spot on. The first paragraph is all about how two high profile biographic articles omitted discussion of his sexuality while noting his boyfriend was in attendance, etc.
 * Secondly, coming out does not need for the subject to say “I hereby declare I have been in the closet and now I come out as gay;” if someone doesn’t understand that they have no business editing any sexuality content.
 * The awards recognizing Ronan as part of the LGBTQ community followed his coming out, they can be summed up, no problem mentioning them in more than one section. The Pride 50 is a perfect example of that, Ronan the top of an annual LGBTQ pride list.
 * After coming out, LGBTQ media outlets have referred to him as a gay journalist. Is a fairly common practice in *all* minority media emphasizing a member of their community. And common sense should follow that LGBTQ media, just like their counterparts in other minority-focused media, are *most* likely to be experts on their community. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is all about how two high profile biographic articles omitted discussion of his sexuality . .. All from the viewpoint of one writer, so once again, why is this writer so prominent in the article and why is their analysis so important?
 * Secondly, coming out does not need for the subject to say “I hereby declare I have been in the closet and now I come out as gay . .. So we're going to editorialize in Wikipedia's voice–as outlined by Seraphimblade–how Farrow stated he was "a part of the LGBT community" as a coming out? That does not meet WP:SYN.
 * . . . they can be summed up, no problem mentioning them in more than one section . .. What would be the point of having any sections at all when we can spread any information anywhere in an article? The Pride 50 is a perfect example of that . .. The Pride 50 is a list on a website that also published an article titled 'Chris Hemsworth’s power bottoming energy goes viral'.
 * And common sense should follow that LGBTQ media, just like their counterparts in other minority-focused media, are *most* likely to be experts on their community. This doesn't answer my question in terms of what these outlets' reliability and editorial standards are. Experts or not, WP:DUE is not met. And you said it yourself: *most* likely; anytime there is a question mark, refrain. KyleJoan talk  04:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing: Farrow has been a subject of longtime gay rumors. None of the sources cited–not even Gawker or Queerty–ever uttered the term gay to describe the speculation regarding Farrow's personal life. The Billboard citation states that "Farrow took the time to quell long-standing rumors about his sexuality", therefore, categorizing the speculation as gay rumors is another instance of WP:OR not being met. And let's not forget, Farrow has never identified as gay, so how spot on are the gay rumors, really? KyleJoan talk  10:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Slezak’s Vice article is quoted by numerous other media outlets, it’s also well written all on the subject of outing gay celebrities.
 * If you *still* don’t understand the coming out process I recommend you read Wikipedia’s article on it.
 * Similar, even identical content can easily fit into two or more sections if it helps readers understand a subject.
 * If you seriously want to question any particular source we can ask at WP:RSNB for support.
 * You can ask Ronan’s husband, I mean fiancé, how accurate those gay rumors turned out to be. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is Slezak and what numerous other media outlets?
 * If you *still* don’t understand the coming out process I recommend you read Wikipedia’s article on it. I'm very familiar with the concept of coming out, but thank you for the article recommendation!
 * If you seriously want to question any particular source we can ask at WP:RSNB for support. Seeing that I'm not the proposer, the WP:ONUS is not on me to prove why the sources proposed are reliable, especially the source that has published an article titled 'Chris Hemsworth’s power bottoming energy goes viral'.
 * You can ask Ronan’s husband, I mean fiancé, how accurate those gay rumors turned out to be. That would violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. I'm surprised that's not clear. KyleJoan talk  02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t intend to pick through every word with you as it seems fairly obvious you’re intent to block all this information from being used, regardless of how well written or sourced. I’ve already used considerable energy in first researching it all, it seems obvious to me that any discussion with you is fruitless. I think the sources and facts can speak for themselves, let’s see what other editors think. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

[found more, I’ll add as they come in]
 * Comment. As KyleJoan seems determined to build a wall of text I’ll try to let the sources speak for themselves, here, on gay rumors statement:
 * ”Times has hint-hinted that future MSNBC host Ronan Farrow “prefers not to address rumors about whom he’s dating,” “is guarded about his private life,” and that he shows up at a lot of parties with former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett, who is gay.”(Gawker, 01/16/14)
 * ”During his speech, Farrow took the time to quell long-standing rumors about his sexuality and to thank his community for their continued support.”(Billboard, 4/11/2018)
 * ”He also just confirmed what many a rumor had long rumbled: he identifies as a queer man.”(Queerty 5/16/2018)
 * ”When Times editors deemed Ronan Farrow’s rise at MSNBC worthy of a profile, the paper noted that he is “guarded” about his private life and “prefers not to address rumors about whom he’s dating,” but not that both the New York Post and Vice had reported that he has dated men.”(Gawker 4/22/2016)
 * ”And, people not coming out is still news — and still happening. Although multiple outlets have reported on Ronan Farrow's sexuality — as either gay or bi, depending on your publication — the New York Times' profile of him this week noted that "he prefers not to address rumors about whom he's dating." And he's about to start hosting his own TV show!”(Buzzfeed News, 1/5/2014)
 * Using a phrase from Vice’s Slezak, it takes some mental gymnastics not to be able to see the sum total of these—granted I didn’t search too hard—verifies that gay rumors have swirled around Ronan for years. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Thank you for proving my point that none of the cited articles–not even the one from a website that has also published an article titled 'Chris Hemsworth’s power bottoming energy goes viral'–uttered the word gay to categorize the speculation surrounding his sexuality! KyleJoan talk  04:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious, when a man’s sexuality is questioned it is almost certainly about if he is gay or has gay affairs. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally we have one reliable source in this entire proposed content! That aside, the BuzzFeed News article mentions that the speculation was that Farrow was "either gay or bi". Why is the word "gay" annotated in the proposed content but not "bi"? There's that editorializing that does not meet WP:DUE again. KyleJoan talk  02:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were well-versed in outing you would know that gay rumors include bisexuality, as heteronormative activities are seen as standard, just the homosexual (gay) ones become rumors. Sad that that has to be explained. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVICE states: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field." If the casual Wikipedia reader has to be well-versed in outing to understand the proposed content, then said content violates the policy referenced. Sad that has to be explained indeed. KyleJoan talk  06:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly you demonstrated that it needed to be explained to you. I’m confident that readers will understand the material as presented. But I’m also confident you’ll find some wikilawyerish way to argue about the blindingly obvious anyway. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Big expose in the NYT
Will send to anyone who wants it: buidhe 22:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Allegation similarities
Should we really be placing the allegation of Bret Kavanaugh and Weinstein as similar allegations

As worded Farrow's subsequent investigations exposed similar allegations
 * 'this makes it seem like what Weinstein was found guilty of and what Kavanaugh was accused of being similar. That seems misleading':
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

2604:6000:100E:4516:7571:AB7A:1CE9:FB68 (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed "similar" to "other". ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 09:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)