Talk:Jónsi

This article doesn't cite its sources: most of it is copied straight from http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/. Benji 19:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please add to this page? I did a bit of hacking and slashing to improve the introduction, but we need concrete information. --Wick3dd 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think changing "Jonsi is gay" to "Jonsi is a homosexual" improves the introduction. Please see MOS#Identity for why this is deprecated. Also, check the Sigur Ros FAQ, cited frequently throughout the article. X3210 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jónsi is gay

I reverted a change in which an IP editor deleted a reliability sourced assertion that Jónsi is gay. See diff here. His orientation has been under attack before and deleted many times. It is relevant. Jónsi (Jón Þór Birgisson) himself is open about it, it is on their website, and he is listed in the Wikipedia list of LGBT people, and also because Sigur Ros did a controversial pro-gay music video called: Viðrar vel til loftárása (2001). The statement that he is gay has been in the article long enough to imply consensus, also the placement was a result of consensus, so please discuss here before deleting it again. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I've reverted that same IP vandalism probably 50 times and it hasn't let up. I asked an admin to semi-protect the page and was told that the vandalism wasn't "frequent enough, simply watch and revert". As if I've got all the time in the world to waste reverting the same vandalism. I guess a lot of Sigur Ros fans can't deal with Jónsi being gay. Or maybe just one very persistent vandal.

I take issue with the terminology "openly gay", since it's not phrased this way in the FAQ, and more importantly it implies a very problematic value judgement - suggesting that being gay is something to hide. I'm going to remove "openly" for these reasons but if people want to debate it I'll toss in my two cents. For the most part though I've dropped out of Wikipedia because 1) these debates usually go on forever, 2) the vandalism never lets up (particularly homophobic vandalism), and 3) I've found most people here to be incredibly argumentative and unfriendly. X3210 (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There certainly *are* a lot of argumentative editors! Thanks for explaining your edits here - helps with the whole communication thing! I put in "openly" because he's just that - open about it. While you and I may not think it's anything to hide, Larry Craig still does, so I usually add that word when the person is up front about their sexuality. Furthermore, he's been called that by many sources - [1] [2] [3] are just a few quick ones I found. If you'd like, I'll source that with one of those.

Thanks again - and hope that wasn't too argumentative! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity

"Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself."

Jónsi refers to himself as "gay". The Sigur Ros FAQ is an authoritative source on this issue. Adding qualifying adjectives is editorializing. X3210 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Allstarecho has reverted my change without addressing the violation of MOS#Identity. Until this is addressed, there is no consensus to include "openly". X3210 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

X3210, the first source says he is openly gay. You have now violated 3RR, having reverted at least 4 times this morning. Do it again and you will be reported and possibly blocked. Jeffpw 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As usual, Wikipedia rules are being manipulated to whatever end you feel like pursuing. This was a matter of debate, yet you made edits without participating in an attempt to build consensus. Editorializing in this case is clearly a violation of MOS#Identity, yet no one here even has the RESPECT to discuss this issue without making reverts. "Openly" was a recent add, made without consensus. I'll be happy to take this to dispute resolution, since my edit (of which I gave an explanation) was reverted countless times by various editors who didn't even take the time to read the talk page. Nice. X3210 09:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You can take this to dispute resolution after you sit out your block. I have reported you for 3RR, since you reverted at least 6 times this morning, inspite of being wearned here and on your own page (where you blanked the warning). Further, you did not engage in debate. After Satyr explained his rationale to you on November 26, you came here a week later and simply reverted again. Your actions here fly in the face of your words on this talk page, decrying our argumentative ways. The only one here who seems to want to argue and run roughshod over the rest of us is you. I would also add that since you are the only one reverting this material, and 4 others are telling you to stop, it is you violating consensus, not us. It's a rough world, and one doesn't always get one's way. The sooner you learn that the easier your life will go. Jeffpw 09:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

X3210, maybe we're not understanding you correctly. You seem to be objecting to the word "openly", though several sources do indeed use that word to describe him - including an excerpt from The Economist that Sigur Ros has on their own site. Why are you objecting to that word? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why he keeps calling it "editorializing" when it's coming directly from the source. The consensus has obviously been made by the several, myself included, who have reverted back to the "openly gay" version. -- ALLSTARecho 15:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the word 'openly' is unnecessary and a bit intrusive. Actually, I think the whole sentence is unnecessary - the next sentence starts with the words "his boyfriend", that seems like enough, at least for the lede. Haukur 19:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Intrusive?? How can it be intrusive when he himself is openly gay and the source states so? -- ALLSTARecho 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's intrusive because of its implications. Let's take an example from a different context. I found an article talking about "Students for Justice in Palestine in Pennsylvania who openly advocated for the end of Israel"[4] The word "openly" here gives the (correct) impression that advocating for the end of Israel is a fringe position which most people don't want to be affiliated with. Saying someone is "openly" gay has similar implications. These implications are no longer very accurate for people in Western Europe. That's why I think the word is intrusive. It's also completely redundant. Would Wikipedia ever flatly state "Person X is gay" in cases where person X denies being gay? I don't think it would. Haukur 22:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) But that's the point you are missing, Jon himself identifies as openly gay, he does want to be affiliated with being openly gay or else it wouldn't be on their very own web site. -- ALLSTARecho 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does he say so? I don't see the word 'openly' on the Sigur Rós web site. Haukur 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[5] -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That they've reprinted an article from the Economist doesn't mean that they agree with everything in it or that they endorse its presentation and word choice in every way. I still see no reason to include the word 'openly' in our article and a good reason to exclude it. Haukur 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Our article? See WP:OWN -- ALLSTARecho 23:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I frequently refer to Wikipedia articles as our articles and it never occurred to me that this might be misunderstood. I'm just talking about us collectively - us Wikipedians. I'd like to remove the whole sentence about him being gay (since the very next sentence starts with 'his boyfriend'). As a compromise I'd settle for removing only the word 'openly'. Is that acceptable to you? Haukur 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Of course it's not acceptable to me, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's also not acceptable with several other editors since they've seemed fit to also keep putting back "openly". Therefore, it would appear a consensus has already been met and it shall stay as it is. If you continue to remove the consensus-agreed upon content, I'll have to take it to review by admins. -- ALLSTARecho 23:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, people disagree about stuff - that happens all the time. We can still talk about it. Could you explain why removing the word 'openly' is unacceptable to you? Haukur 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think it's acceptable. If Birgisson allows the Economist to call him "openly gay" and then puts a copy of that article on his website, that's endorsement. Besides, he's been called openly gay here and here. Like it or not, Haukur, 10% is still fringe, so there's still a difference between being in the closet, being gay, or being openly gay. And if we seem a bit touchy, it's because removing the fact that he's gay (even if it says "his boyfriend") smacks of whitewash - sorry for that :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt Jónsi had much to say on the specific wording of that Economist article and I doubt that he cares deeply about this one way or another. I'm not trying to remove any information from the article. You can even keep the "he is gay" sentence if you want. There's just no need for us to go out of our way to marginalize gay people, the word 'openly' adds nothing useful. Haukur 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in a reliable source, so there's no way justifying its removal.[6] And actually, "openly" is a very important qualifier. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:55, December 2, 2007

All sorts of things which are found in reliable sources are not desirable in Wikipedia articles. What do you feel the qualifier adds? Haukur 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd that we're working towards the same end here, but have opposite views...

First, the word. As I mentioned above, there's a difference between being gay and being openly gay. The former implies that you may not be willing to talk about it. Obviously Jónsi is willing to talk about it - it's been in print, he has "I'm gay" all over his website and all over the net. So even if he didn't say specifically "I'm openly gay", he is.

Second, one could argue MOS about the word, since we don't have a RS saying it specifically, but the fact that he's allowed it in print articles about him is tantamount to endorsing it. And with reliable sources, particularly well known ones like The New York Times or The Economist, Jónsi has the ability to have the periodical change what is said about him - or even retract it. Furthermore, he published the same article on his website - not just cut-and-paste an image, but the text, which he has full control over. In fact, it seems he hasn't copied the *whole thing*, so he's at least chosen which part to put up on his own site.

Third, the reason the word is important is because if you're not open about it, like you said, it becomes more marginalized. People who are open about their sexuality are allowing others to push that part of them to the side. In my opinion, not including the word marginalizes gay people.

Sorry to soapbox, but it does add something to the article to include the word. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

if you're not open about it, like you said, it becomes more marginalized. People who are open about their sexuality are allowing others to push that part of them to the side. Exactly. And by specifically indicating that this particular individual is open with it we are implying that it isn't something people are generally open with and fortunately I think that is becoming less true by the year. The fact that Jónsi is forthcoming about his sexuality is still obvious from the context even if we omit the word 'openly'. Haukur 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I think the word 'openly' is needed in some contexts. For example the article Barney Frank says: "As of May 2007, Frank is one of two openly gay members of Congress" I think this is a case where it makes sense for us to use the word. Haukur 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That should have been "people who are not open, but fine - remove the word openly. But leave in the fact that he's gay. Perhaps:

He is gay[1]; his boyfriend Alex Somers does much of the graphic design for Sigur Rós...

Does tht work for everyone? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN's suggestion sounds fine to me. Just a point about the Sigur Rós website: it's not "his website". It's not run by the band, and Jónsi hasn't personally uploaded any articles or pieces of trivia onto it. It's an independent fan-run site that was adopted as Sigur Rós's official news source. [7] --Malfidus ~ (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool down!

Folks, can we please all take a step back from the above dispute and calm down? There's no need to get emotionally upset over edits on Wikipedia, and that's doubly true for things such as this.

I mean, come on. I've just noticed this dispute on my watchlist, and expected something about whether the article can state that Jónsi's gay or not (I can see why that would be controversial), and what is it actually about? Whether it's OK to say he's "openly gay" or whether it must be just "gay". Come on, give me a BREAK. Surely you can't be serious. -- Schneelocke 12:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't call me Shirley! Or them either. - Becksguy 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Schneelocke is right here. I can't see it as a big deal either way if the word openly is there or not. The fact is that he is openly gay, and it can be sourced. I don't think the word is intrusive, but don't think it's a huge loss if we don't have it either. Basically... ho hum. Aleta 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

While we're all here, does anyone know how to pronounce his name? Maybe add IPA to the article? Many thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I just added IPA and an audio file. Haukur 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Names

I think it is inappropriately informal to refer to him by his nickname. Haukur, would you please explain why you changed it back to the less formal name? In your edit summary you made a distinction I don't understand - between patronymic and familiy name, saying he doesn't have the latter.  ??? Aleta 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Birgisson is a patronymic. It means that his father's first name is Birgir. Icelanders never refer to each other by patronymics and this convention has been (mostly) taken up on Wikipedia. See also Icelandic name. But even failing that I think using the nickname/stage name of a musician is often the right thing to do - as with Cher. Haukur 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for the information, esp. the link to Icelandic names. I've learned something! :) Aleta 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) I should add this isn't a uniquely Icelandic thing - articles like Mengistu Haile Mariam, Megawati Sukarnoputri and Saddam Hussein also refer to their subjects by their names rather than their patronymics. Haukur 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)