Talk:T. R. Knight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion[edit]

The text of this article, particularly the second paragraph, is nearly verbatim off the ABC bio page. --Christopherlin 06:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School TR Knight went to the Academy of Holy Angels for high school...tom

Name[edit]

I think his name is actually TR (no periods) Knight. This may require a renaming of the article....I'm going to do more research, but in the credits, it's TR Knight. (unsigned comment)

Totally apropos of nothing - I realized why he goes by TR Knight - 'cause otherwise he'd be Ted Knight - and there already was a Ted Knight! NickBurns 19:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. R. stands for Theodore Raymond. He has been called T. R. (with the periods) since he was a baby. He said so on The Ellen DeGeneres Show last week.

Disclosing sexuality[edit]

He just came out to People magzine.

http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1548317,00.html

and he ROCKS for doing so, whatever prompted him to do it! (unsigned comment)

He addressed the fact that he is gay, not that he is homosexual. Calling someone homosexual is antiquated and implies that it is a clinical pathology. No where in his statements did he say "homosexual." Please respect Mr. Knight and get it right - he has addressed the fact that he is GAY. Get with the times, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMK390 (talk • contribs) October 19, 2006

It is true that on wikipedia we usually use the term the person prefers. Do you have an external source that confirms this? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that a homosexual is a man, a lesbian is a woman, and gay covers both. I don't think either of the three terms are "antiquated"; but I *do* think that the term "gay" has been co-opted as an insult or derogatory adjective describing people and things NOT homosexual or lesbian, mostly by the small-minded. He did call himself "gay", and not "homosexual", so I think we should respect that. Weirdoactor 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdoactor, sorry to say your understanding is wrong. The term "homosexual" can and has applied to a man or a woman, as does gay. Lesbian applies only to women. It is more rare to have a woman be referred to as "homosexual" since the term "lesbian" so specifically addresses that.

I can see AMK390's point that the word "homosexual" does sound a bit more clinical. I'm also sure that it might have been an honest mistake from the original poster. In any case, the article currently reflects his statement. Thanks! NickBurns 19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual simply means "liking the same gender" (as opposed to heterosexual, which means "liking the opposite gender"). Connatations aside, there is no difference in the two words. The fact that TR chose to say "gay" instead of "homosexual" doesn't mean he dislikes the term. It's just more casual and more oftenly used in everyday language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.198.163 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Very few gay people actually object to being referred to as "homosexual", and if you asked a gay person, more than likely he or she would say they were not bothered by it. Be that as it may, to clarify on a factual level (instead of all of the opinionated blabbering going on here,) the term "homosexual" implicitly refers to SEXUAL ORIENTATION - the orientation of a person towards persons of his or her same gender. The term "gay" stresses social and cultural matters over sex, and is preferred. It is far more acceptable to use the term "homosexual" adjectively, such as "a homosexual relationship" (though "gay" is also used adjectively.) You might loosely think of it as the difference between using "Asian" and "Oriental", though that's really a vague comparison at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.16.174.205 (talk) 02:4, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

I beg to differ. Homosexual actually means: "of the same sex." (homo=same, sexual= of, relating to, involving sex) I, and most other gays I know, do not care for this term at all. It's a clinical term that was made up in the 1950s ('40s?) 1880s due to the lack another, and was used to describe what was then thought to be deviant, aberrant behaviour of the mentally ill. Its emphasis is on the sex, and the sexuality of the 'subjects' it refers to, and does little to explain what's actually going on in the brain. --emerson7 17:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC) (corrected emerson7 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The term "homosexual" goes back at least to the 1890s. — Walloon 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kight's prediction has come true: this article currently devotes more space to discussing his sexuality than his work as an actor. — Walloon 18:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words discussing his sexuality: 242, words discussing his work: 385. So, you're wrong...but not by much; you make a valid point. Weirdoactor 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not counting credits, just the narrative text in the "Career" section vs. the amount of text in the "Disclosing sexuality" section. We may just be a tad obsessed with sex. — Walloon 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Gwernol: the information about Knight being one of the few openly gay actors on television is worthy of mention in the article. I do not appreciate your reversion of that information without discussion. Weirdoactor 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of yours I removed was: "Knight's declaration makes him one of the few openly gay actors on television; not to mention that he plays a prominent role as a heterosexual character on a top-rated show." I have a couple of problems with this: "one of the few openly gay actors on television": few isn't well defined. In your opinion there are few, but compared with what? The overall number of actors on TV? The overall number of gay actors on TV? The percentage of openly gay people in society? The second issue is "not to mention that he plays a prominent role as a heterosexual character on a top-rated show." First this is clearly commentary ("not to mention"); more importantly what relevance does it have? Gay actors play straight characters and visa versa all the time; its hardly worth commenting on, is it? Gwernol 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I defy you to name five openly gay actors (other than Mr. Knight) who have had prominent roles playing heterosexuals on hit television shows on broadcast television. I can't. By your argument, we'd need to remove any reference to Jackie Robinson being the first black player in the MLB, or any reference to Valentina Tereshkova being the first woman in space. The phrase "not to mention" being proof of commentary is ludicrous. I used the word "few" because I know there are not that many, but I do not have an exact number; that's what the word "few" means. As for your other points; do you really not understand the relevance of an openly gay actor (especially the relevance insofar as an encyclopedia entry about said actor) playing a heterosexual character on national television, or are you being intentionally obtuse? This wouldn’t be relevant if his show were on cable. He is on the top-rated show on television. That’s called a “break-through”. It remains to be seen if his revelation will affect the ratings, but considering the demographic of the show, I tend to doubt there will be any appreciable drop. The information is relevant. If you can figure out a way to express it differently, to sound less like commentary (to your eyes, anyway), knock yourself out. Weirdoactor 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've changed the goalposts here: you didn't say "openly gay actors in a hit show on broadcast television", you said "openly gay actors on television". Looking at Category:Gay actors and Category:Lesbian actors I can easily name 5 who have appeared on television, let's try some obvious ones: Richard Chamberlain, Stephen Fry, Nigel Hawthorne, George Takei, Sara Gilbert, Amanda Bearse, Miriam Margolyes. Sorry the list is a little UK-centric, but I'm more familiar with British TV than American. All of these actors have played major (straight) roles in hit TV series. My point is that T.R. Knight is not the first gay man to play a straight role, that - as he says - his being gay is no big deal and that ultimately its more important that he's an actor than that he's gay. If he were truly the "breakthrough" first gay actor in US TV then it would be worth making a point of. He isn't though: its common enough that I don't think its worth mentioning. If you want to replace the edit however I won't remove it again. Gwernol 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel the need to specify broadcast over cable, but I see your point; if you wish to edit my phrasing thusly, have at it. You can easily name five openly gay actors who have appeared on television. Can you name five who were openly gay at the time, who played MAJOR (as in starring or co-starring, NOT guest/stunt/cameo starring) heterosexual roles? Richard Chamberlain wasn't out until 1989 (he admitted that he was gay in 2003), George Takei wasn't out until 2005. I'll give you Amanda Bearse, Sara Gilbert, Stephen Fry and Miriam Margolyes; and comment that it really isn't as big a deal in the UK as it is in the US. I hope that we can agree that it's almost unheard of on American broadcast television to have an openly gay man playing a heterosexual character on a hit (indeed, the #1) show, and add to that, in a heterosexual romantic relationship. Information in a biographical encyclopedia entry about such an actor should include such information, in a NPOV/non-commentary style. Can you clean up my phrasing so that it meets that standard? Or should it just be removed? Weirdoactor 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I rephrased this statement in the article ever so slightly, hopefully clarifying it a bit - I mentioned he was one of the few gay actors in a contract role on a television program. This is probably the most correct way, in terms of industry lingo, of stating what you were trying to get at above - contract roles being "stars" of the show versus someone who is a recurring character (on Grey's Anatomy, for example, a recurring character would be Ellis Grey, or Olivia the nurse) or someone who makes a guest appearance (like most of the patients on GA). I hope this helps. NickBurns 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely perfect, in phrasing and tone. Thanks, Nick! Weirdoactor 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke MacFarlane[edit]

A few editors have added info about T.R. dating Luke MacFarlane, but without citing a reliable source for this information. If such information cannot be verified, it will be removed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a gossip/rumor page or the "Who's dating T.R. Knight?" message board. Heh. Thanks. -- Weirdoactor 15:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will & Grace[edit]

i could swear ive seen em on an episode of will and grace where he played will's love interest but with who will broke up with since he was in the closet because of his line of work (sports journalist) i think this would be VERY notable since it has obvious comparisons to his real life as a closeted actor in a position in which many people do not come out since they feel it may effect their career. its also notable since he was pretending to be straight/closeted at the time and was playing a gay charicter, i think comparing and contrasting the situations would be beneficial to the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.68.229 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Grey's Anatomy actor of which you're thinking is Patrick Dempsey. He played Matt, a closeted sports journalist in the third season for a few episodes who dated Will. Correct current TV show, but wrong on the cast member.

Photo Image:The heart of darkness 066.jpg[edit]

Is that really a picture of TR? It really, really doesn't look like him. Sorry to waste discussion space if it is. 77.123.45.89 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Jocelyn[reply]

The picture on the article is not of the actor T.R. Knight who is the subject of the article. Even a basic Google search turns up pictures of the T.R. Knight about which this article is written. The photo continually being added to the article is, again, not a photo of this article's subject. Because this photo is not relevant to the subject of the article, it should and will be removed. Before my edit or those of others who have made the same edit are reverted, please provide a legitimate reason for this image's inclusion in this article. If a fair-use image of T.R. Knight, the actor and subject of this article, can be found, then by all means it can be added, but random images should not be used as placeholders. DarkandTwisty29 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes I was trying to wrok out idf that was the case the problem was no one was tlaking ad all the google pics are rather posed meaning that it is hard to tell.Geni 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This most certainly is T.R. Knight. He has taken a break from filming and grown his hair out...which is naturally curly. A lot of these Hollywood types look completely different without makeup on and especially when not in high profile areas such LA or NY.

i originally thought this pic could be knight if it were taken years ago...but if the claim is that it is recent....well, i question the voracity of the claim. i've placed recommendations for deletion on the image, and requested the submitter to pony-up with more details. --emerson7 | Talk 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What else specifically do you want to know Pags182 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with recommending the image for deletion, especially in light of the dubious claims as to its authenticity. While his hair does have some natural wave, it is nowhere near that long or curly--to say nothing of the clear differences in face shape, length, width, and symmetry. Some of the first image results on a Google search are T.R. with longer/wavy hair, and there is no resemblance to the individual in the picture being debated. In terms of specific details--you've claimed this is a recent picture from T.R.'s break--a date that the picture was taken would be a good start. DarkandTwisty29 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would click on the photo you would know that it was taken January 10th. There is a strong chance that he was under the influence of marijuana as he seemed kind of out it, which would explain the expression on his face. Pags182 04:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expressions or not, there is not a strong enough physical resemblance to T.R. Knight's features. I do apologize, I overlooked the date on the photo, you had in fact provided that information. However, the date of January 10 in and of itself is evidence enough that the individual in this photo is not T.R. Knight. The entire cast of Grey's Anatomy, including T.R. Knight, was busy filming in January--T.R. was most definitely not on a filming break. Additionally, T.R. was in attendance at the People's Choice Awards on January 9, and many reputable agencies (Getty, WireImage) photographed him at that event--with short hair. It is impossible that the individual in your picture is T.R. Knight--at least not the one this article is about. DarkandTwisty29 04:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well if you could revert back then?Geni 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Glad we got this straightened out. DarkandTwisty29 04:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this straightened out? You are ignoring a whole side of the debate. If you would note that piece of discussion that was recently deleted it would tell you that casts are routinely given a day or two off after an awards ceremony to celebrate a win (like the producers want them acting hung over after a night of raucous partying). He remarked to his friend "even with the wig I get noticed," implying that this was not his real hair and that he wanted his privacy, something I regretfully already invaded. I am a huge grey's fan and depriving me of my chance to put a picture up of one of my favorite actors is really despicable. i know you have the best intentions, but please. Pags182 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afaraid untill we have some fairly soild confermation that it is him we can't use it.Geni 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added to all of the other compelling reasons that this is not knight are the missing blemishes. knight has a blemish on his left cheek, and right jaw. i call shenanigans. --emerson7 | Talk 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the blemishes on T.R. Knight's face--those are very specific identifying marks, and I hadn't even thought about those. Knight also has a much fuller face than the individual in the debated picture. To the poster of the photo: I'm sorry if you feel your arguments are being disregarded. However, there is substantial doubt that this individual is T.R. Knight. I am aware that actors are often given the morning following awards banquets off, but they are not given ample time to fly to Jamaica, as the caption for your photo implies. In addition, you first stated that this was a legitimate photo because T.R. was growing his hair out, and it was naturally very curly. Now, after evidence of his short hair just one day before your photo was taken has surfaced, you're saying it was a wig. It doesn't work both ways, and with the evidence against it, it doesn't work either way. While I'm willing to believe that you believe your photo is T.R. Knight, there is much more evidence to support that it's not. DarkandTwisty29 04:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy[edit]

not sure that link in his acting roles needs to be there. It links to boys (as the opposite of girls). And while the disambiguation page for boys does list several movies named "boys"; no plays are listed. unless it is the stage version of a movie, or a stub for that play is created, or there is a stub buried somewhere for the play that is not linked even to the disambiguation page, i'm not sure the link has much valueChildhoodtrauma 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

"In June 2008, Knight revealed in an interview with tabloid television program Extra that for the past six months, he was dating Mark Cornelsen.[8] The two remain a couple." Quick note: I requested a citation for the comment in bold. Difficult to tell who and who is not still together without constant monitoring of both the subject and the WP page. Needs a source, or to be removed, if that fails. Bodypuzzle (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing it. Unless there is a split, there is no need to reference their current status.THD3 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.R. Knight and Mark Cornelson are no longer together. This should be referenced in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.57.238 (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. R. Knight → T.R. Knight – There should be no spaces between "T" and "R" as the name uses initials so there should be no spaces. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to let everyone know, his name shows as "T.R. Knight" without a space on every website except WP including his own website. That's reason enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: it seems that a lot of feelings are involved here. I have noted that the first two letters in you user id are T and R. Are you in anyway related or a personal friend of Knight? If so, it would constitute a conflict of interest to get involved in this article. (And you dont have to shout!) HandsomeFella (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lol, no. My username is has "TR" in it for other reasons. Also, I wasn't "shouting", I was just trying to make note that it was a comment. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Messy[edit]

This article barely has a lead, and it has way too many sections, it also needs more references due to the length of the article. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on T. R. Knight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on T. R. Knight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:T._R._Knight&oldid=1208004606"