Talk:Tig Notaro/Archive 1

Lesbian
Tig is openly gay, it's known, but I can only find a source of one of her best friends saying it. If you scroll down where they ask Sarah Silverman if she has any gay friends, is that usable? Blindeffigy (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a received an OTRS e-mail from the subject of the article stating that she does not publicly self-identify as gay. Per WP:BLP, which states requires a presumption in favour of privacy, we shouldn't include this information unless a source can be found in which she states that she's gay (and, as she's communicated by e-mail that she doesn't publicly self-identify as such, I very much doubt that such a source will be found). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So, you're telling me that because she doesn't feel the need to publicly address her sexuality we should just assume she's straight? I think it's a little dishonest, even for Wikipedia. A lot of people don't feel the need to talk about it, but ARE gay -- how will Wikipedia ever address that? Apparently they won't, ever. Whatever, I just think it's pointless. She is gay, whether WP cares or not. Blindeffigy (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all: where in the article does it say she's heterosexual? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 99 times out of 100, when someone says "so, you're telling me ...", it's about a claim that no one made or even implied. The rest of the comment, along with the one below, displays similar irrational thought processes. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, we just assume. Unless you're trying to be a smartass, and then I could just say: "It doesn't, I guess she's asexual!" Blindeffigy (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may assume whatever you like, though I'd strongly suggest as a bit of personal advice that you divest yourself of the assumption that a person is heterosexual unless otherwise specified. Likewise, it wouldn't be appropriate to assume that the absence of information about her sexuality means that she's asexual any more than it would be appropriate to assume that the absence of information about her legs means that she doesn't have any.  The issue here is that we have no source meeting the standard required in WP:BLP that says anything about her sexuality, so it's inappropriate for us to say anything about it.  Readers stuck in the twentieth century will probably conclude from this that she's heterosexual, but we're not here to specifically dispel people's prejudices. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How wrong is that. I can find several sources that say "lesbian comedian Tig Notaro" - here - which includes Logo Online.  But she, like Jay Brannan, seems to think being "out" is a bad thing.  I'm not liking this. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those appear to be reliable sources to me, at least not to the standard required by WP:BLP. Even if we accept that Logo Online is an acceptable source, it says that she's an "out lesbian comedian", which means that we have its assertion that she is an "out lesbian" taken against her assertion that she isn't.  This isn't a difficult case.  In any event, I'll try to solicit some more discussion on this subject via WP:BLPN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, don't bother. I learned from Jay Brannan.  If she says she's not "publicly a lesbian", despite being called out by her friend Sarah Silverman in The Advocate, fine. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia really should re-define what's acceptable resources, because it's incredibly annoying. I guess we're just going to have to wait until Tig mentions SOMETHING herself; whenever that may be.  Ridiculous. Blindeffigy (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you have to "wait" for anything? Christ, let people identify as they wish, how would you like it if we just decided overnight that you had a new identity and had to go by it publicly 69.122.244.46 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia really should re-define what's acceptable resources -- no, it shouldn't. because it's incredibly annoying -- if it annoys someone like you, that's probably a good thing. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"lesbian woman" is redundant. "lesbian" is enough. 109.186.52.100 (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I did a pass on this in light of how things went on Sally Ride. I think the best we can do is to include her response from the NYT profile and not use any labels, per BLP and apparent OTRS requests. Jokestress (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not liking this. -- quite irrelevant. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter whether the sexuality of a stand-up comedian is mentioned on Wikipedia? She hasn't said anything, so chill out and wait 'til she does. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 00:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been catching up on Professor Blastoff, and she's much more open about it now than she was before her year from hell. She mentions her girlfriend constantly, (and actually as her "girlfriend" and not her "human" as she used to), and just now, on episode 135, Kyle referred to her as gay and she agreed. So... I'm not sure we need to deal to much with six-year-old OTRS requests, it seems safe now to say it. --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we also add her to the Category of LGBT comedians as well? If she's been open about it, then she should be recognised as such. - Saints09

Tig Notaro False Accusation Incident
I saw this online. I was wondering if any of this could be substantiated to the point that we could take note of it on the page. Most of the website article seems to be made up of actual court documents so I thought this could be of interest. http://alisablogq.blogspot.com/2017/07/dismissed-in-interests-of-justice.html --SamuelConners (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Not unless and until it is covered by third-party reliable sources, which seems extremely unlikely. Steve Smith (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)