Talk:Jodie Foster

What the heck?

in 1991 she skipped an interview with the today show and later wrote an article about it in 1982? ms. foster has a time machine?

POV in lead

Isn't it supposed to be at least a passing mention in the lead section (alongside the award) that her role in Taxi Driver was John Hinckley's trigger? It's not like a 13 year old actress portraying a child prostitute is an ordinary thing... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden Globes and speech... again?

After the above thread, there should not be any further exhaustion and discussion about her well established homosexuality. Three RS, including Reuters and the NY Times, have been reverted out of the article. Please state a valid reason. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussion above again for the policies. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So if three references say that John Doe is gay, even if Doe never said it, it should be included? The only reliable reference is Foster, and her speech was so ambiguous she "came out" without came out. The above discussion explains why this is excluded, and it shouldn't be included per WP:BLP. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 15:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes... per WP:RS, namely WP:SECONDARY. We're actually encouraged to look for reliable secondary sources rather than primary sources. Besides, having a confirmed same-sex partner puts her in that category by definition. Yes, by definition, because the definition of gay is having a same sex relationship. Maybe bisexual, but that would also put her in the LGBT category. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's great, with WP:SECONDARY references we can say that John Doe is an homosexual homicide with federal charges in five countries, even when Doe is neither of them. It is great to see that WP:defamation is the spirit of SECONDARY references. Also, where are *you* obtaining she is "lesbian"? In her speech she said something like 'I made my came out many years ago', but never said "I'm lesbian", and if you can't prove that this is wrong, you are violating the BLP policy by saying she is "lesbian", when she never said so, this discussion should be closed, and you probably reported at the WP:BLPN. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly!

1. Per WP:SECONDARY (underlined as policy): "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
2. Per WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources."
3. Per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source (...) While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred."
4. Per WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Let's review that last part again: if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Everything points to the following: there is a plethora of reliable sources that confirm that Foster's speech was her coming out, and that, coupled with the fact that she herself referred to "coming out" (her exact quotation), and also with the fact that she had a same sex relationship for several years, with consideration to all the policies quoted above, leads to the inevitable conclusion that she needs to be categorized as LGBT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What you are not understanding (or not want to understand) that it doesn't matter if the NYT asserts she is "lesbian", as they called her, there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster. You are a House fan. Let's assume Thirteen is a real person. If the NYT says 13 is lesbian just because she left a bar with another woman, and they assert 13 is lesbian due to this, why this is not defamation?, and why Wikipedia has to back up such defamatory content? Yes, the links you posted above are valid (Wikilinks and references), but let me remind you that this website is not a democracy test, nor a burocracy, nor a site where editors has to follow every single rule that exists in it. There is an statement about her speech in the page, but the category(ies) you want to include violates WP:BLPCAT, as the statement you want to include is not mentioned in the article. Just because Foster dated/dates a woman, doesn't make her "LGBT" by default, and in this case "L". Lindsay Lohan dated Samantha Ronson and Lohan is not within the LGBT categories. There are two consensus to exclude those statements, one at the BLPN and one here because the first consensus was "bullshit" according to RAP. Your arguments are exactly the same as of his: "The acceptance speech failed qualifications for a lesbian category. No where does it disallow LGBT.--RAP 31 January 2013. But community consensus demostrates it does, and should not be changed unless you demostrate that what happened in January is different now, and for that you should read both consensus because apparently you haven't, and if you had, you are not saying something new that we had discussed in January. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I will address your reply in a bulleted list.

1. You wrote: "this website is not (...) a site where editors has [sic] to follow every single rule that exists in it." Wrong!!! If it is a policy, we must follow it. What I quoted is not a guideline, nor is it an essay/suggestion. These are policies, some of which are directly pertinent to BLP.
2. You wrote: "there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster." Again, wrong!!! I just cited the appropriate policies, which are: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred (...) If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
3. Continuing the previous paragraph: well-documented means covered by multiple reliable sources. In this case, there is, aside from NYT, Reuters, Associated Press, HuffPost, and a quick Google search will yield some more.
4. You accuse me of WP:IDHT, but you keep ignoring BLP policies while citing the same policies as the alleged reason to violate the same policies. In other words, your own reasoning goes against basic BLP policies.
5. No consensus can override an established policy. In this case, the "consensus" is simply a number of editors who voted "oppose", which is the same "test of democracy" you were mentioning earlier. It's not how many editors, it's the content of the dispute that counts.
6. As for your question about Thirteen: if the NYT, along with AP, Reuters, LAT, HuffPost, Time magazine, etc. would assert that she is a lesbian based on whatever, it would have been our duty to report on that, because, as the BLP policy states in a crystal clear manner: "BLPs should simply document what [reliable secondary] sources say." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll request more people to comment here because it has absolutely no sense that two people discuss this, because I won't convince you and you won't convince me. First of all, WP:consensus can override any policy that doesn't cause legal problems to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia:Libel is one of those that cannot be challenged and WP:NOR is one of those that can be, especially if your intention is to create to Wikipedia what happened with Tom Cruise. You can find this at WP:BLPN#Jodie Foster (again) . © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what the precise question is here, but I saw this listed on BLPN. I think the current wording is fine and verifiable and should be retained (I'll post it here as things can change): "Foster broke up with her long-time partner, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.[67][68] In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked Bernard, calling her "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life".[69][70][71] Foster also thanked Mel Gibson as one of the people who "saved" her.[72]" While I think Foster has been publicly out of the closet for about 20 years, and privately out of the closet since the dawn of time, she is still not one to overtly publicize her private life to any great degree. Some editors on this page have made a fairly reasonable case that even so, she has not publicly stated on record the precise words "I'm gay" or "I'm a lesbian" (although you'd have to be pretty out of touch not to know she is, at this point), and therefore it is inappropriate to state that she is or to call her GG comment a coming out (it wasn't really since she's really never been "in") or possibly to add any LGBT categories to the article. I don't know the exact WP guidelines regarding this, but I wouldn't consider LGBT categories "libel" in this case (facts acknowledged or uncontested by the subject are not libel), just perhaps not within WP guidelines (what are they?) at this juncture. I'd say that the current wording should stand. It paints the documented picture as clear as day, and I don't think any further labels are necessary, especially if there is controversy or argument among editors about them. This does point up the fact, though, that there should be some sort of WP stated LGBT guideline somewhere regarding persons who have had a documented and uncontested single same-sex domestic partner and co-parent for well over a decade. That would settle such disputes as to whether LGBT categories can be added. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

my feeling is, we should not tag someone with a label they themselves have not embraced. THat said, in Foster's case since she spoke of 'coming out' I think it would not be untoward to add her to lgBT categories, but not get any more specific than that. Nothing wrong with covering this in the article as long as we make it clear what she did and didn't claim - eg I dated women, and I've come out if the closet - not 'I am lesbian' or 'I am bi'. It's her right to eschew labels if she chooses. But her behavior (eg dating a woman) should never end her up in a cat - we go by self-identification not behavior (if we went by behavior many more people could be tagged as 'bi' for that one time in college, etc--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do personally agree that some sort of LGBT category is warranted here, given that she has acknowledged more than once that she has for 15 years been in a monogamous same-sex domestic and co-parenting relationship. I don't know what more evidence, from the subject's mouth, there could possibly need to be. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the lack of an LGBT actor category was an accidental omission, since the article clearly says she acknowledged her long-time same-sex partner, and talked about her coming-out process and it's been fairly well covered in the press and it doesn't seem there's much doubt about what she meant. I'm rather surprised there's such a kerfuffle here; it seems to me that the BLP policy is being misapplied, perhaps due to sympathy about her long stint keeping such matters private. Clearly there is value in collecting biographies of people in this category, and this is a particularly notable one. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "value in collecting biographies of people in this category" - collecting?? This is a person's life we're taking about. If she's not stated her sexual orientation, it's not our job to apply one based on our best-guess. Nor are we in the business of 'queer tagging', just to score points - Alison ^❤ 02:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought she made it pretty clear that she was either lesbian or bisexual, for which an LGBT category would be appropriate. I'm not tallying points for any particular side; it just seems like an error to have a well-known LGBT person missing from the list when people are asking themselves, "what kind of people are LGBT? How do celebrities deal with their LGBT status?" and they turn to Wikipedia to find relevant biographies. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly—it's a disservice to the reader. Despite the fact that Foster was coy with her wording at the Golden Globes, the intent was clear, as seen by the reports of the speech in reliable sources. By now it's not just newspaper reports but books: Pop culture writer Keith Stern says at the Jodie Foster entry in Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, page 171, that

Speculation about Jodie Foster ended in December 2007 when she publicly acknowledged her "longtime friend" and roommate for fourteen years, film producer Cydney Bernard... Foster has done nothing to discourage the press and public from recognizing this as her coming out.

Stern goes on to say that Foster and Bernard are raising two boys produced by artificial insemination. Journalist Michelangelo Signorile says the turning point was The Silence of the Lambs, when he, Larry Kramer and others outed her as a lesbian who was hypocritical for appearing in a film they said was homophobic, a film that made a seemingly gay criminal character come across as extremely villainous (Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, pages 89–90, 309–310). Professor Janet Staiger gives an academic view of the issues surrounding Foster's sexuality with regard to the public, in "Taboos and Totems: Cultural Meanings of The Silence of the Lambs", a chapter in Film Theory Goes to the Movies (Routledge 2012). Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New GF

The DailyMail source is reliable, as is http://ca.eonline.com/news/467456/jodie-foster-enjoys-cozy-sunday-brunch-with-girlfriend-alexandra-hedison-see-the-pic. What's the problem here? MilesMoney (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The dailyfail is not RS, go read the archives on the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these meets WP:RS as has been shown before. A series of covert photos taken by some paparazzi is not sufficient enough to declare someone is "in a relationship" with someone else, not to gay-tag them - Alison ^❤ 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Foster is openly gay; no photos needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you say so? Or because it's "openly known in the LGBT community"? Not good enough. Show me where she said it (and please, not the Golden Globes speech) - Alison ^❤ 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alison, you just posted on User talk:Darkness Shines so you can't reasonably claim you didn't see the link I posted there. And you need something a bit stronger than general dismissiveness to ignore the Golden Globes speech. Do you have anything? MilesMoney (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Those sources are not reliable, and while Foster is public about her (perhaps now previous) relationship she has in no way, shape or form suggested that she identifies exclusively with any particular sexual identity, which would be a requirement for adding a category. When she takes a new relationship public and that is repeated in a reliable source then we can include it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

She's a woman who (quite voluntarily) has sex with women. This is not in dispute. Whether she identifies as gay or bi or whatever seems secondary. MilesMoney (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because we don't have a category called Category:Women who have sex with women. And even if we did we would require some very much better sources to add Foster to that category. For example one in which she states that as a fact about herself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, Darkness, grow up and call it DailyMail. Not going to consider you as a serious debater if you're being a petty little child. Second, she may not have said Im a lesbian or I'm bisexual, but she did acknowledge herself as some form of LGBT. It's absolutely mind boggling why the LGBT categories aren't allowed to be added. There are sources upon sources of her comments, but none suggesting she wasn't LGBT. Go find a source saying that. Otherwise, to me this is an open and closed case. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a reason it is called the daily fail. And for the last time, read BLPCAT. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And your opinion is no longer relevant to me. Time to let the grown ups talk. Rusted AutoParts 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And here we have People Magazine, a trusted source, discussing her coming out speech [1]. BLPCAT doesn't apply in this circumstance, just like it doesn't apply when we add these categories to every person who identifies as LGBT. It makes zero sense when it is scrutinized here. You're basically saying she didn't say what she said. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere, I will go back to my lego now. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Good boy. Rusted AutoParts 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

More citations? MilesMoney (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless she explicitly states what her sexual orientation is, then neither do we. That is what BLP & BLPCAT says, read them. Now back to the teddy bear picnic. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy the picnic, champ. We don't have to have her exact LGBT orientation in order to add LGBT cats. Numerous sources have reported on this, and she has yet to dispute. Now as we all know us editors on Wikipedia's ego inflates a trillion, but common sense shouldn't be wiped out.

And more. These reliable sources all understood her statements as her coming out as a lesbian. MilesMoney (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maria Bello just came out. Despite calling herself "whatever" (not lesbian or bisexual), she was quickly put in 2 LGBT categories. Jodie Foster is a much more documented case of "whatever". She should at least be in the LGBT actors category. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:LGBT right now on this subject, so I suggest you join there, as it applies more broadly - e.g. should LGBT actors only be a container category, or should we put people in when they are basically "out" as x-sexual (x!=hetero) but haven't affiliated specifically with any identification. There are many people who this would apply to, and many categories as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP actually says:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

We have "reliable published sources" that say Foster self-identified as lesbian and this is relevant and notable. Your interpretation may differ, but you're not a reliable source, so what you think doesn't matter one bit. MilesMoney (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source - it is a hyperbolic tabloid rag that uses big headline print & short words for effect. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Foster being romantically linked to women is not in question. She came out at the Golden Globe Awards earlier this year.[2] What is in question is whether we have strong enough sources to call Hedison a serious girlfriend. A few newspapers said the two were having brunch. A few more say the two walked together down the red carpet of some awards dinner. E! Online says that they have an anonymous source saying the two are "totally in love".[3] However, I think we should wait for Hedison or Foster to say something in public, or some respected, named source who stands up and says the two are romantically linked. I don't think the evidence is strong enough yet for Wikipedia to call Hedison a girlfriend. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The best way to handle such situations is through attribution. If we're not sure that X is a fact, it may still be notable that a reliable source states X. MilesMoney (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal matters (religion, sexuality, partners etc) in a BLP require self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

They're married! Moncrief (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so where does this leave us with the categories? She clearly is amongst LGBT, can we at least add LGBT tags? Rusted AutoParts 21:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

previous consensus seemed to be against this, absent a clear statement of identity from Foster. It rather pains me to have to point out that marriage to someone of the same gender is not equivalent to being a lesbian, in the same way that marriage to someone of the opposite gender does not thus make you heterosexual. In Foster's case it seems clear she's part of the spectrum but if she hasn't clearly identified herself somewhere on that spectrum, it's not up to us to decide (perhaps she thinks she's queer, or pansexual, or ...).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested just categories that say "LGBT". We're identifying she is in the community, whilst not directly associating her with a specific sexual preference (gay, lesbian, queer all house within LGBT). And User:Binksternet provided up above a very compelling argument for this. Rusted AutoParts 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

why is gay-tagging this bio so important to people? Has she ever explicitly identified herself as L or B or G? If not how can we know she identifies within the broader umbrella? I agree circumstantial evidence is strong but it's not enough for a conviction your honor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not so much important, its just doing right by not just readers, but by Foster herself. I think its very clear more than enough evidence has been provided to prove she's at least LGBT. And it's encyclopedic. Why else would we have the categories? Rusted AutoParts 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How can you say it's "doing right by [her]" when you don't know what she wants? Clearly, she's a very private individual when it comes to her personal life. Or did she somehow forfeit that when she got married? - Alison ^❤ 23:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Because we're being accurate about her life! We add marriages. Children. Arrests. Other business ventures. All of this to sum up her life as its been presented to us. It's what an encyclopedia does, chronicle history. World history. Space history. History history even. And yes, human history. We add her films to correctly represent her career. Why can't we correctly represent her personal life? Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

would you add a statement that says in wikipedia's voice "Foster is a lesbian" to the article? Because that's what adding her to a lesbian category means. We would only add such a statement if she identified as such (or, if dead, and scholars agreed).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on her specific orientation. But what do you call two women marrying? What does that imply? Rusted AutoParts 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

what would it imply if a man marries a women? Is that a guarantee of heterosexuality? We don't go by circumstantial evidence - if there were photos of Foster engaging in intimate relations with a woman that would not be enough. The key for these cats is self identity, nothing less nothing more. They are unique in that way presumably because it is felt on questions of sexual identity the best source is the individual. If Foster chooses to eschew labels who are we to label her?.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

We are an encyclopaedia, that's who. And we label people, places, and things all the time without verification from the thing labelled. Because verification from reliable sources is our concern! As for "the best source is the individual", one could just as easily argue the best source for whether a person is lying is the person lying. After all, who could possibly know better? This issue is about a political agenda that makes the individual the final authority on all matters sexual with everyone else denied a say.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is embarrassing, and I say that as an LGBT person myself. Why the need for 'gay-tagging'? She has never declared herself a member of anything, frankly, and this overcategorization is unnecessary, IMO, and unsourced, frankly - Alison ^❤ 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How civil of you. It's been common practice for awhile to provide each article with links to categories associated with such. Category:American actresses. Category:People from Nashville. Unsourced? Myself and numerous editors have been providing several links, including her Globes speech which was dismissed. If you're so against adding these categories, or "gay tagging" as you politely put it, why not submit the categories for deletion? Rusted AutoParts 23:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Alison makes a valid and rather important point. These categories, fundamentally, address what people say about themselves, and it's not Wikipedia's place or role to speak for them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bada-bing! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz gets it, so why can't you, RAP? It's for people who self-identify as LGBT(IQQA) There's something very uncomfortable about pinning that LGBT tag onto someone who has never publicly declared their orientation. Let people infer what they want from the narrative; don't shove "zOMGLESBIANGAYQUEER" in their faces just because you feel you need to. You don't - Alison ^❤ 06:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia should refrain from describing anyone in a way they have not publicly self-described, I dare say you have Wikipedia confused with a public relations firm. We follow what the sources say. Article subjects do not get a veto. See the "neutral point of view" doctrine.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. That's directly from WP:BLP. Your broad claim is just a strawman argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not override NPOV. It's in fact the other way around. It is no straw man to note that you wish to see article subjects handed a veto over the content of their articles. I'd add that this subject HAS publicly identified here ACCORDING TO RELIABLE SOURCES. Some editors are refusing to follow those reliable sources because they endeavour to substitute their own standards.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

it's rather droll that we have a public figure who has obviously been very circumspect about her identity and as far as we know has never clearly identified as either lesbian, gay or bi - but we have a constant barrage of editors who want nothing more than to tag bomb her article with teh gay tags on every new piece of news "she said she came out" "she kissed a girl" "she had a baby with a girl" "she married a girl!!" Etc. I hope some of you realize this has been going on for this bio for years. Y'all have to realize that the LGBT cats, and very few others, are quite unique in requiring self-identification (unlike other cats which are based on RS). This is longstanding consensus. But you can't treat the gay tags as similar to any other tags.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we require self-identification. However, media observers consider that Foster has already self-identified as lesbian, albeit in a coy manner. Why would you assume a contrary position to the majority of media observers? If you are interpreting Foster's words in a manner that is contrary to published sources then you are violating WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Published sources" being the Daily Mail and various tattle rags? - Alison ^❤ 06:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There's my earlier post pointing to Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, page 171. Also: "Taboos and Totems: Cultural Meanings of The Silence of the Lambs", a chapter in Film Theory Goes to the Movies (Routledge 2012). And: Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, pages 89–90, 309–310. Good stuff to be found for those who care to look. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

not good enough. Self-identification is key. She did not self-identity as a lesbian, she did not self-identify as a bisexual. Many RS believe she coyly was saying she's a lesbian, but we still don't know, and many sources commented on the fact that she didn't utter the word 'gay' or 'lesbian'. It's not OR because 'interpretation' of the primary source - eg what the person said - is not needed. Binkster, you'll notice that in the "Comprehensive encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals", the entry on Foster STUDIOUSLY avoids labeling her, only acknowledging that she has "come out" and even her own brother speculated that she was gay OR bisexual (so, even he wasn't sure which).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-identification is NOT key if this is a neutral encyclopedia. Stalin may have self-identified as a nice guy. That does NOT mean Wikipedia slavishly follows the desires of the article subject. In any case, she DID self-identify, just not explicitly enough to satisfy some Wikipedian ideologues who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Consider what we find on the Guardian website back in 2007 (hardly a LGBT-unfriendly paper), even well before the 2013 Golden Globe Awards speech: "That's right, folks: Jodie Foster is a lesbian. This startling piece of news is akin to the shock revelation that Rudolph the Reindeer has a very shiny nose. In other words, if you didn't already know this, you seriously need to retune your gaydar."--Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

we could certainly report that 100 RS claim Foster is a lesbian (although it sounds like a bad idea for BLP reasons) but let me ask you think - we go by reliable sources, right? Who is the MOST reliable source as to your publicly declared sexual identity (not your inner freak, but what of our identity you're willing to share and how you choose to be labelled? yOu are. Thus, if 100 RS say she's gay and Foster says she's queer, I believe her, not them. Identity is different than most other things, where we do go by 3rd party sources, but I have a hard time believing anyone could be a better source than the subject themselves.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I want you I consider something else - Foster has been dogged by rumors since her college days, and she has several times been 'outed' by various publications or criticized for not being 'out' enough or for taking roles that were unfriendly to LGBT people - and the word lesbian has been tossed in her face more times than you can count. She has, as an actress in the public view for probably 40 years, nonetheless been able to avoid publicly labelling herself as a lesbian, or uttering that word, even once as far as we know. That is a powerful message to me. Maybe foster doesn't like labels. Maybe she doesn't identify as a lesbian. A condition of interviewing her was journalists were not to ask questions about her orientation. Her public 'coming out' was really just an acknowledgement that she has a serious relationship with a woman, but that doesn't make one lesbian OR bi - there are many other permutations and ways people identify that would fit the circumstances.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If, hypothetically speaking, 100 instances of having sex with someone of the same sex have been confirmed and there is zero evidence there was ever even any sexual interest in someone of the opposite sex, that person is objectively gay or lesbian and a claim by that person of being straight is presumptively true only in his or her own mind OR he or she is being less than frank. I suggest opening your mind to the possibility that people will from time to time self-describe (or self-perceive) in ways that are less than entirely consistent with the facts. You are picking one source here, with the ultimate conflict of interest, and elevating it to the level of infallibility such that it trumps all other sources. That's simply not the way it works around here when there are conflicting sources (and having the subject here as lesbian as a bottom of the page category is really not in contradiction with any sources anyway). No source is so privileged as to always be beyond question. You evidently think Wikipedia should just be handed over to article subjects or a public relations agent they designate depending on the topic. What's so special about the LGBT agenda that that agenda, and only that agenda, gets privileged status on Wikipedia whereby WP:RS guidelines get tossed in the event of an LGBT issue? WP:BLP does not have the "pillar" status that WP:NPOV has.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely, and your claim of following a unique "LGBT agenda" is plainly wrong, and you know it's wrong. Precisely the same standards apply to categories based on religious affiliation. We don't examine a subject's behavior or opinions to evaluate their claim of a religious affiliation, nor do we accept such evaluations by third parties. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rejecting "evaluations by third parties" is wrong and you know it's wrong since you're in a position to know that Wikipedia:Verifiability means Wikipedia is built upon "evaluations by third parties" as opposed to "evaluations" by either Wikipedia editors or the subjects of Wikipedia articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Married Alexandra Hedison

This doesn't necessarily show she's a lesbian, but it clearly makes her LGBT. Is there any dispute about this & if so, why? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone just added that and I reverted. It's a major assumption to make about anyone's identity - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has given us much hilarity over the years over the treatment of Foster's sexuality and just as you'd think the issue was settled beyond any doubt the craziness continues. The statement that a woman marrying another woman doesn't mean she is either bisexual or lesbian, ie belonging in the lgbt category, takes the prize for lunacy. If it's a 'major assumption' to conclude someone in a same-sex marriage is lgbt then we have truly entered la la land. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Are some people arguing that Foster might be bisexual? If so, where is the indication of that? Is she known to have ever been in a heterosexual relationship? Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

She is so private we don't really know. There are rumors that she was dating certain men long ago but they could have just been friends.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So we're not supposed to consider rumours when it comes to a BLP except when Obi Wan invites us to consider mere rumours? If we stick to the established facts, she has a confirmed wife and no confirmed history of boyfriends and that means lesbian to anyone without some POV axe to grind against using that term. See again what is found in the Guardian website: "Jodie Foster is a lesbian". Editors are twisting themselves out of shape here to avoid following reliable sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, it'd be best to put her in the LGBT categories. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Because she might be transgendered? I believe some editors are advancing certain scenarios for reasons other than that they are genuinely plausible scenarios. There doesn't seem to be anything more to the argument here than she avoids the L word therefore we should. In any other context such an argument would be promptly rejected as inconsistent with WP:NPOV.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Only you have mentioned gender identity here. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? One can question whether B would apply but God forbid a Wikipedian doubts whether T applies? What's left here? G? Maybe she's gay as opposed to lesbian? Reliable sources indicate we've got an L here. There are not reliable sources for G or B or T. If our reliable source policy meant anything this issue would be quite straightforward.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

B/c she might be bisexual (though it's true there's no evidence of that (though there's no evidence confirming she's a lesbian either)). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

She's married another woman, but she's not classified as LBGT? How much more evidence is needed? This is near lunacy. (75.94.101.187 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

It's Wikipedia's political lean at work, which holds that because the LGBT lobby holds up the individual as the only acceptable source, the individual is Wikipedia's only acceptable source. USA Today says that this week's "wedding news" serves to further "clarify matters." But there's always an excuse for rejecting what reliable sources say if one is motivated enough.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from accusations of bad faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"the individual [is] the only acceptable source" isn't any sort of assumption. It's being quite openly called for despite the mockery it makes of WP:V.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In matters of personal identity, the individual is the final say. See WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, see WP:IDENTITY which directly contradicts your implication that Verifiability and Neutral point of view are to be suspended so that article subjects become the final, sole and unchallengeable arbiters of what Wikipedia says about them. I direct your attention to "Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources" in particular.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Really not interested in getting involved on this page, but just reviewed edits. LGBT often encompasses any non-heterosexual sexual identity, which Foster appears to be (see second paragraph of lead in LGBT). We need not quibble about whether she identifies as a lesbian, bisexual, queer, or whatever. The categories seem appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you just said the only thing that matters is the "say" of the "individual." Now you seem to be suggesting that what "Foster appears to be" is relevant and the LGBT category that some editors have been edit warring over should be included. Which is it?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: If we're specifically saying she's a lesbian, it's WP:IDENTITY. If we're adding categories that encompass an entire class of people, any WP:V or WP:RS would work. I'm trying to point out the distinction between the identity and the category/term of LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Note, if she were to say "I don't identify as LGBT" or "I identify as straight" then WP:IDENTITY trumps and we'd remove the category of LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That'd be a major surprise to her wife. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: Likely so, but the point is that what the individual regarding their gender and sexual identity trumps any actions or 3rd party sources. There are many married, heterosexual men who have sex with other men (see down-low (sexual slang) and Tearoom Trade). Their behavior is LGBT, but their identity is not. In this case, we have a public, out marriage between two women so I think it's safe to at least categorize this person as LGBT as a general term given a lack of any statements about personal identity. Again, LGBT would still apply to any non-hetcis person (e.g., a genderqueer person who identifies as pansexual). What ever Foster identifies as is covered by the term unless she (for whatever reason) identifies as cisgender heterosexual. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's safe to categorize Foster as LGBT unless she declares herself straight (which seems unlikely). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, LGBT category should be used here, since Foster married another woman. People have used heterosexual marriage to hide their sexual identity, but not same-sex marriage. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the LGBT category is appropriate, and so is labelling her according to what reliable sources use, which is gay and lesbian. We must follow the sources and stop the homophobia, which seems to work both ways here, especially the fear of using the proper term. It's not being used in a negative manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

General LGBT categories are appropriate here — but categories which make unsourced assumptions about which particular quadrant of the community (i.e. "lesbian" or "bisexual") she identifies with are not. Those quadrant-specific cats have to wait until she actually uses one word or the other in reference to herself in a reliable source — but there's simply no reasonable doubt to be had that she legitimately belongs in the general LGBT categories. No matter how obvious it may seem to you that she must be lesbian because she hasn't had any verifiably sourceable romantic or sexual relationships with men, keep in mind that until this happened her romantic and sexual relationships with women weren't verifiably sourceable either. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat above. There is no reasonable doubt that she falls within the LGBT category. This really has become silly at this point. --David Shankbone 05:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the consensus seems to be to include "LGBT" in the categories, but not "Lesbian". I have added Category:LGBT actresses back in. StAnselm (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Foster has made it very clear that she is openly lesbian. Everything indicates that and there is nothing to contradict it. Even if there were rumours many years ago of her having dated men, that is irrelevant, because we do not take notice of rumours because they are unverified. The media are always spreading rumours of celebrities dating various people, being pregnant etc. Other than on this talk page, I have never seen anyone even hint that Foster could be bisexual; it is not reasonable to suggest it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Name

Does this mean the article name should now be Jodie Foster Hedison? It seems to be the wikipedia convention to name articles of married women as Firstname Originallastname Marriedlastname. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure - just find multiple reliable sources which indicate that this is what she now calls herself. Then we can add it. BTW, Wikipedia uses people's common names, as indeed it should. PROTIP: never assume what a married woman's surname should be - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article not open with her WP:COMMONNAME, though? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That sometimes happens w/stage names. Other examples include Michael Keaton, Jamie Foxx & Alicia Keys. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's convention is to use whatever name the topic is actually known by in public contexts. For some women that's "First Married"; for some it's still "First Maiden"; for some it's "First Maiden Married"; for some it's "First Previous-Married", even after a divorce or a remarriage; and for some it's "Stage Name". We don't automatically presume that a married woman will automatically take on her spouse's surname; because women follow a wide variety of practices, we use whatever name the woman actually uses in reliable sources after her marriage. We didn't, for example, presumptively move Adrienne Clarkson to "Adrienne Saul", or Beyoncé to "Beyoncé Carter", or Ellen DeGeneres to "Ellen DeGeneres-de Rossi" — all three women continued to be publicly known by the same name after their marriages as they were before, so their articles stayed at the same titles. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should LGBT-related categories and characterizations be added to the Jodie Foster article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should LGBT-related categories and characterizations be added to the Jodie Foster article? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There are three separate issues to voice your thoughts on:

1. should Foster be added to LGBT categories
2. should Foster be added to 'lesbian' categories
3. in the article text, should we say, in wikipedia's voice, that Foster is a lesbian or gay? Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we use accurate descriptors and categories for Foster's lesbianism? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support use of terms like "lesbian" and "gay", as well as LGBT-related categories, when supported by reliable sources.

The matter is so clear that there is no violation of SYNTH when doing this, and since (in this case) this is not controversial or negative information, BLP does not apply. If this were controversial in the real world, and if the subject needed protection from inaccurate rumors, this would clearly be covered by BLP, but it's not.

Foster does not deny it; she has confirmed it by coming out quite openly and without leaving any question about her lesbian sexuality. She lived in a same-sex relationship with Cydney Bernard for "20 years" (according to her speech), and is now in a same-sex marriage to actress and photographer Alexandra Hedison.

That some editors are allowing an odd form of inverse homophobia(?) (fear of using the term, when there is no need to "protect" the subject) to govern their editing practices, even to the point of violating what RS plainly state, is unfortunate and unwikipedian, especially for admins. Let's stop this absurd nonsense and follow what RS say, and not the emotions of editors. Their little controversy here is not a RS. It only makes them and Wikipedia look silly. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support lesbian and LGBT categories. Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely oppose adding lesbian-anything to her article. See bisexual erasure for my rationale. I'm bisexual myself and can clearly see an issue where someone in a same-sex relationship (as she clearly is) gets misidentified when she has never explicitly stated whether she's lesbian, bi or otherwise, etc, etc. Even LGBT can be troublesome here, especially in a person who keeps their private life, and their sexual orientation, private and never once self-identified as LGBT. tl;dr - I'm marginally okayish with LGBT tagging, but utterly opposed to calling her lesbian - Alison ^❤ 19:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC) (and Brangifer, tone down on the rhetoric. It unhelpful. LOL "Unwikipedian" :D )
• support LGBT categories, oppose lesbian categories and oppose saying she is lesbian or gay in wikipedia's voice, she has not self-identified with these labels so per policy we should not tag her accordingly. Per Bearcat I changed my mind, again, and am ok with LGBT cats however. Anyone who mentions her marriage or her relationships- those are irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant, we do NOT decide people's sexual orientation based on observed behavior.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sexual orientation has three different aspects, behavior, "true" inner orientation, and self-identified sexual identity. And we're talking about several very different things here.

Article content: We can describe her behavior based on reliable sources (long term relationship(s), marriage etc.) If reliable sources have opinions on what her sexual orientation is, and if their opinions have enough WP:WEIGHT that could possibly be included in the prose, but it has to be made clear that it is their opinion ie, not "She is a lesbian" but "source X and Y have described her as a lesbian." Note that there is no way that any RS can factually know her true sexual orientation or sexual identity. There is no objective way to determine someone's true orientation from the outside, no brain scans or DNA tests to administer. All anyone can do is observe the behavior of others and form an opinion based on that, but it can never be factual objective truth, only an opinion.

Categories: categories leave no room for ambiguity or nuance. Consensus so far on Wikipedia has been that LGBT categories describe people's self-identified sexual identity. If we had categories based on behavior she could be included in those, say "Category:People in same-sex marriages" or something. But since she has not self-identified with any sexual identity we have nothing to base an inclusion in sexual identity categories on.

As for suggestions above that we base her categorization on exclusionary logic, no. That she hasn't denied being a lesbian, and there are no reliable sources describing any bisexual behavior does not mean she "has to be" a lesbian. If anything her public behavior and statements so far point only to her being one of several people recently who, while in public same-sex relationships, pointedly have refused to claim a sexual identity. And she doesn't "have to" fall under LGBT either. People who pointedly refuse to claim a sexual identity specifically identify out of falling under LGBT. And everything she has done and said so far puts her in this group.

And, just to make this even longer, if we are to treat the general LGBT container category as a behavioral category, where if you engage in a certain level of same-sex behavior you automatically should be included, we should have a broader discussion regarding what exactly the threshold of behavior that warrants inclusion is. Siawase (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC 1 - Should LGBT categories be added to page?

• Question: should Foster be added to LGBT categories? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments for RfC 1

• Support addition of categories - As I've said above, LGBT can be used to refer to any non heterosexual or non-cisgender person. Though we do not know what Foster personally identifies as, it's clear from her public marriage to another woman she's not strictly heterosexual. Unless Foster explicitly says she does not identify as LGBT, these category is appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Being in a long-term same-sex relationship does not mean that the person "has to be" LGBT or will inevitably in the future come out or otherwise self-identify in a way that puts them under the LGBT umbrella. If someone pointedly does not claim an LGBT identity, like several BLP subjects have done recently while in public same-sex relationships (I'm pretty sure I even saw one subject say "I do not want to be categorized") we cannot claim that they are under LGBT since they identified out of LGBT. And everything Foster has done so far puts her in this group. She has publicly acknowledged at least one same-sex relationship, and certainly had ample opportunity to self-identify if she so wished, so we can only conclude that she deliberately hasn't done so, so as far as we know, she is outside of LGBT identity. And we shouldn't include people in LGBT categories based on behavior alone, see WP:BLPCAT. And if we include her in the general LGBT category that would have to be a categorisation based on behavior, since she hasn't made any public self-identification. And, absent self-identification, we certainly don't include people in the LGBT category if they have no public record of their sexual behavior, or if the public record only shows heterosexual behavior, ergo, in this case she would be included based only on her known same-sex behavior, since there is no self-identification to go by. And if the general LGBT category is turning into some de facto behavioral category we need to have a broader discussion which threshold of (public, reliably sourced) hehavior should lead to people being categorised as LGBT. Siawase (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

She did not only marry a woman - she publicly represents that she is married to a woman. So, this is not about behavior, it is about the ordinary meaning of what she has publicly represented to be the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Siawase (talk · contribs) makes a very compelling argument indeed, and I've pointed to it myself earlier. The subject in this case pointedly refused to self-identify as LGBT, and this has now been over decades. Also, adding LGBT categorizing based on behavior alone sets a dangerous precedent. Should Larry Craig be added, for example? He's not right now. Or better still, J. Edgar Hoover, given the dozens of stories, rumors, etc - Alison ^❤ 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We've got more than just "rumors" here.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is dependent on the unquestionable fact that she has "come out" as lesbian/gay (the only known and accepted use of the term "coming out", and she used exactly those words, so who are we to deny that fact). Her failure to use certain words is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since her meaning and actions for many years is clear. Regardless of whether or not she uses the words "gay" and/or "lesbian", RS use those words and we are obligated to use the words which the sources use. Wikipedia is concerned with what RS say, not what she doesn't say. If necessary, we can always attribute the wording to the source. She has never objected to accurate descriptions being used in the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Brangifer, to state the obvious, you can come out as other than lesbian/gay, and many people do. She could have come out as bisexual (heard of them?), pansexual, etc, etc. These things really do matter - Alison ^❤ 21:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Your speculations are really unhelpful, but let me help you. Context means something, and in fact it means everything here. In this case there is NO DOUBT that she was referring to her lesbian relationship. She came out about it a long time ago. You don't really doubt that she's lesbian, do you? Seriously? -- Brangifer (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

'Let me help you' comes across as awfully aggressive here, BRangifer. And the tone in which you ask Alison what she believes about this is extremely confrontational and not likely to elicit a response. And for what it's worth, context does not make facts out of suppositions. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• on the fence some compelling oppose arguments above. The reason in leaning is because of her statement about 'coming out' which can be taken to mean (and was by RS) that she's part of the LGBT umbrella. It's not ideal but no-one could fault is for it. The other reason I'm leaning support is for the good of Wikipedia - otherwise this article will continue to be a battleground. If adding to LGBT categories is an acceptable compromise then that will reduce churn and conflict, and readers coming here who have seen her called lesbian this and lesbian that will not be surprised and will be expecting to see her at least in the category of LGBT actors. Not a great argument but whatever.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow that has got to be the most wishy-washy comment I've ever seen! Why the hell are we even having this discussion? When someone marries someone of the same gender, they are either gay or bi. She should have been included in the LGBT categories at the very moment of her Golden Globe speech.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk • contribs)

And if they're neither gay nor bi? What then? It's been repeatedly pointed out that it's a possibility, as well as the distinct chance that Ms. Foster doesn't want to self-identify as anything. Who are we to make best-guess and stick on a label, primarily to satisfy ourselves? - Alison ^❤ 06:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Chance? No, we go by RS. According to RS, she has publicly come out as loving other women. Do we therefore deny that she romantically loves other women? We cannot, nor should not. She is not silent, and we should not deny her self-revelation by silencing her, as well as silencing the reliable sources, certainly not for the sake of editor's own agendas -- having nothing to do with her documented biography. Out of respect for the subject, we do not repeatedly say, 'we will not hear you, say it louder.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What other possibly is out there? That Mrs. Foster merely identifies herself as queer? That still means that she should be included. This is the most stupid conversation since the Chelsea Manning incident! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jodie Foster has, pointedly and repeatedly, refused to self-identify in any of our sexual orientation categories. It is not our place to declare what her self-identification is, or what it should be. It doesn't matter whether her reason is privacy, uncertainty, rejection of the predominant taxonomy, or any other cause. We wouldn't do that with regard to any subject's religious affiliation/beliefs, and our standards for sexual orientation categories are congruent. I see no reason to deny Foster the individual dignity/autonomy we afford every other person in such matters, and cannot understand the fervor with which some editors here insist on making such decisions for her. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: How is use of an umbrella category denying her dignity/autonomy? I'd agree with this argument for use of "lesbian", but not LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue is what category she self-identifies as. She has chosen not to make a public self-identification. We don't have any right to make it for her. She may not accept the standard scheme for pigeonholing people. We have no right to force her into it. Our relevant policies direct us not to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it pigeonholing when an umbrella term is used. That would be more like blue whale holing. Given the number of reliable sources that say she's married to a woman, she clearly fits under that umbrella. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What is clear is that she's not hetero, so that places her in the LGBT category. RS label her as gay and lesbian, so the category is appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We are refusing to respect her individual dignity/autonomy by refusing to accept her open choice to live as a same-sex married lesbian who has come out very publicly. That's extremely disrespectful. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

So you'll be able to show a reliable source in which she describes herself as a lesbian, then? Or are you proposing to 'respect' her by labelling her with a label she's never adopted herself? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support because it is what is best in keeping with the weight of the sources, and the oppose arguments while long on personal editor's philosophies are short on serious biographical consideration, which is the Pedia's overriding concern (See eg.[4] [5].) Moreover, let's not disregard and disrespect the subject of this article by refusing to give the ordinary meaning to her words: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked Bernard, calling her "one of the deepest loves of my life, my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life"[6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Alan, you make a very good point, and one that has bothered me for some time. The failure to show her respect is a serious matter. It's a form of homophobia, albeit likely not intended, but it is. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support - While I'm tired of the need to pigeonhole people, it seems fair to apply an LGBT general category to a person who has actually married a person of the same gender. Can we pick this and stick to it? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Of course Foster is in the LGBT category, no matter how complex some Wikipedians have made this issue. Nobody in the media doubts whether Foster is LGBT, and Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I feel that being in a same-sex marriage makes Foster LGBT. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: As per Binksternet.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support at the very least she is bisexual, period. I feel like there is an element of heterosexualism involved in the opposes, which is the idea that the starting point, and the status that is least objectionable, is heterosexual. To a degree that even though she married a woman people actually thinks it makes sense to deny that she is at the very least bisexual. Really, is being categorized as LGBT so controversial and distasteful to be considered part of that wide spectrum that even when a woman marries another woman legally we feel the need to keep her default to be straight? Because by opposing an LGBT categorization you are asserting we should not take away her heterosexual status, which is our default status for everyone. -David Shankbone 06:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I must say I disagree. Heterosexual is NOT the default status. The default status for the vast majority of categories is simply "neutral". There are no "straight" categories, and by being placed in an LGBT category, Foster remains in all neutral categories. So there is no way to generate a list or category of "straight" people. All you could do is say "Give me all actors who ARENT tagged as gay" - and all that tells you is, these are actors who have not publicly come out as gay, which is not the same thing as actors who are straight.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? He was criticizing about the fact that we have a debate on adding LGBT categories for an actress who not only just married another woman, she also had a big speech about coming out the closet, which I still can't believe there are people disputing what she meant. Yes, to say you're coming out doesn't always mean to publicly acknowledge you're gay or bi or trans, but that what she fucking meant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk • contribs)

And how do you know what she "fucking meant"? That's the crux of the matter here; she's never self-identified as anything, yet here you go claiming you know - Alison ^❤ 06:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, what the hell does Jodie Foster need to do to convince you that she's not straight? Because apparently her marriage and her speech means nothing to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Jodie Foster isn't trying to convince me of anything, in fact she's markedly silent on her own self-identification. Nor am I disagreeing that she's not straight; she's married to another woman so she's clearly not straight. What she actually is, however, is not so clear - Alison ^❤ 10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: She has publicly stated that she has come out - therefore the LGBT cats are valid, relevant and reliably sourced. Jim Michael (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support because a marriage is in some sense a public statement. By entering into a same-sex marriage she's publicly declared that she is not exclusively heterosexual. Therefore the LGBT cat is not inappropriate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Below you said her marriage doesn't mean anything about her sexuality. It looks to me like we've got classic herd behaviour going on here: people see a whole bunch of "opposes" and so pile in with that conventional wisdom. You see a bunch of "supports" here and are "me too." If this analysis were not correct you would not be using the exact same fact to come to two different conclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in general "LGBT" categories — a confirmed and formalized same-sex relationship is enough of a public statement for that. We don't have enough evidence to clarify whether she properly belongs in the specific subcategories for "lesbian" or "bisexual", so for the time being I have to oppose filtering "LGBT" down to a particular quadrant, but we do have sufficient basis to support her inclusion in general "LGBT" categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Siawase makes the best argument. WP:BLPCAT is very clear about categorization based on sexual orientation when it says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question." Unless somebody can find a reliable, documented case of Foster explicitly identifying herself as a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender, she should not be categorized as such. JamesRoberts (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories?

• Question: Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments for RfC 2

Comment if we're doing this piecemeal, split this one up to. Prose and categories are handled by separate policies. Siawase (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose use of "lesbian" categories - We do not know if Foster identifies as a lesbian. Though she is married to a woman, she should be bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, homoromantic asexual, genderqueer heterosexual, or any other queer identity. Unless Foster explicitly says she is lesbian, we cannot use the label to describe her as it would be ascriptive and against WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:BLPCAT, no self-identification. Siawase (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:BLPCAT, as she does not self-identify as lesbian. She could be any of a number of other identities, per EvergreenFir, hence my comment earlier about bisexual erasure - Alison ^❤ 20:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per BLPCAT, she has not self identified as such. Behavior is utterly irrelevant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but RS trump that. A wikipedian follows the sources. Are you a wikipedian? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Discuss the article, not individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stricken. Now please respond to my comment below and use policy based arguments, not speculations. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This too is dependent on the unquestionable fact that she has "come out" as lesbian/gay (the only known and accepted use of the term "coming out", and she used exactly those words, so who are we to deny that fact). Her failure to use certain words is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since her meaning and actions for many years is clear. Regardless of whether or not she uses the words "gay" and/or "lesbian", RS use those words and we are obligated to use the words which the sources use. Wikipedia is concerned with what RS say, not what she doesn't say. If necessary, we can always attribute the wording to the source. She has never objected to accurate descriptions being used in the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per BLPCAT. 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Insufficient data. We don't apply categories that are quite likely, just ones that are virtually certain. I'm very surprised to find people insisting that WP:RS means we should make a guess - even an informed guess - in applying categories. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm very surprised to find you thinking this is no more than a "guess". Can you direct us to a source that says "some have guessed that..." or "I would guess that..." or are you just guessing here about who's guessing?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Journalists are not in the habit of laying bare the deficiencies of their methods; nevertheless, when it comes to knowing who someone is attracted to when they haven't said anything, I would suggest these methods are essentially guesswork. Unless psychic powers are now common practice in Fleet Street...? A reliable source is one that shows its working; one that uses, and demonstrates that it uses, reliable sources of its own when needed; one which rises above the lazy suppositions of the tabloid press. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't our first rodeo when it comes to assessing sources. WP:RS has been around a long time, and if that policy is deficient, best to fix it there and not just here. If you've discovered "deficiencies [in] their methods" I would think those "deficiencies" are a problem in more areas than just whether Jodie Foster is into women.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop mischaracterising what I say? Nobody has queried whether Ms Foster is into women - she obviously is; that's reliably attested across the board. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that that fact alone makes her indisputably lesbian, even though she has never said anything of the sort. You need to pay more attention to what people both here and in the wider world have actually said, as opposed to what you imagine they meant. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

How about setting the example then for correct characterization by quoting where I say Foster is "indisputably lesbian". If she's "obviously" "into women", as you say here, that's good enough for categorization purposes.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't attribute the words 'indisputably lesbian' to you; that was my characterisation of your argument. If I've misrepresented it, I apologise; but as you are arguing for the use of 'lesbian' and I am arguing against it, it seemed fair enough. And just to reiterate: No, a woman being into other women is not, on its own, sufficient evidence that she is lesbian and not bisexual. Bisexuality, as Alison has pointed out elsewhere on this page, is not a kind of super-gayness; it's an orientation in its own right, which usually (although I am aware of exceptions) precludes the adoption of a monosexual 'gay'/'lesbian' label. And as for any attraction to men: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There would be nothing extraordinary about a person experiencing attraction to a gender other than that of their long-term partner, and not doing anything about it. Categorising bisexuals as gay would be a substantial misrepresentation. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not enough info. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: sources suggest the category applies. The speculation that the subject might be bisexual is just that, speculation. More importantly, another category is not precluded anyway. It is entirely possible to be both German and American, for example, and for one category to apply more than the other.--Brian Dell (talk)

Lesbian is just as much speculation as bisexual. But I'm not sure how someone is both a lesbian and bisexual... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's true that "Lesbian is just as much speculation as bisexual" then let's see a source that agrees with you that the available information suggests roughly even possibilities. As for being both lesbian and bisexual, it's called being predominately lesbian in orientation but not absolutely. Talk to some LGBT advocates and they'll tell you not everything is neatly black and white here. Editors seem to be characterizing these categories as having some grand metaphysical significance (exploring philosophical questions like whether one identity precludes another) when really they are just navigation aids. There is no need to get so tied up in knots about this. We're not here to lead the world to enlightenment, we're here to help people find the information they need to draw more informed conclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you expect LGBT advocates to queue up and support your position. Of course this isn't black-and-white; that's why we should abandon the pretence that Foster is unambiguously a lesbian. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Enough with the straw man. Adding this category does not make Foster "unambiguously a lesbian". The issue is whether we continue with the pretence that Foster has so little in common with lesbians at any level or perspective that it would be unhelpful to not have this category. I'm struck by how the close-mindedness here is on your side of the debate. EvergreenFir is befuddled by how someone could be both into women and to some lesser degree into guys. You, in turn, apparently can't get your mind around any form of lesbianism that isn't completely "unambiguous".--Brian Dell (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's far from being a straw man argument; calling her a lesbian is calling her a lesbian. She may well not self-identify as such, and there are many other alternatives. This has been stated many times already. You (nor I) have no idea how much she is "into guys" and we should not preclude the distinct possibility that she may be. To someone who's neither gay nor bisexual, this may seem a trivial matter, but it's far from it - Alison ^❤ 17:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The straw man is that categorizing her as lesbian would be calling her exclusively lesbian. The editors who are "preclud[ing] the distinct possibility that she may be" into guys are the editors on your side of this discussion. Open your mind a little to what's possible here. I am astounded by the extent to which some editors believe Wikipedia is constraining people's lives by simply giving cited information to the public. We have a job to do, and even if advancing some liberation agenda were it, anyone categorized as lesbian on Wikipedia is in no way forbidden from swinging whichever way they please. Our concern here should be for those researchers who may be going through certain Wikipedia categories for legitimate research purposes. This case should be available for their consideration. There's a policy called --Brian Dell (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, that justification reads exactly like other gay-tagging justifications which have been used here before, and which led to the adoption of WP:EGRS, which states very clearly that "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". There are vast lists, available outside of wikipedia, of people who have been gay-tagged but which we are not yet ready to do. You seem unable to comprehend that Foster could love a woman, have sex with a woman, be married to a woman, and NOT be somehow a lesbian - as noted she could be bi, OR, she could be something else entirely which she has defined for herself. That's up to her. The world is not divided, as some have argued into "straight" and "LGBT" - its much more complex than that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are a little late to claim the "complex" mantle when I already took it and invited you to do the same, Obi.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, your claim was different - you are saying, Ok, maybe Foster is a lesbian++, a lesbian with a little extra something, somewhere on the lesbian-identity-chart. But we don't know that! We have no way of knowing that! I'm talking about people who are off the charts entirely, who REFUSE to identify as a lesbian even though they marry a lesbian. She has had AMPLE chances to do so, and has NEVER done so. You want to put her in a lesbian category, which is the same as wikipedia saying "She is a lesbian", but your basis is only behavior (irrelevant) and speculation of journalists (irrelevant). The only thing that is relevant to whether she is or isn't a lesbian is her own personal statement on the matter.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say we do know that. I said it's possible. And, no, it is not "same as wikipedia saying 'She is a lesbian'." Why is there a discussion below if there is no difference between this RfC and the next one? Again, your narrowing of what is relevant to exclude "journalists" isn't just close-minded but a pretty shameless rejection of WP:RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Goodness me! Nobody is "constraining her life" here, let's make that clear. However, there's a distinct possibility that we're unfairly mis-labeling her, and we're definitely engaging in bisexual erasure here. For certain. A woman who dates other women is not a de facto lesbian. She may be, or she may not; you don't know, and neither do I. My mind is wide-open to all sorts of possibilities as to what she may be, whilst being married to another woman. I'm ostensibly in that situation myself, as it happens, yet I don't self-identify as lesbian. Go figure - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If "Nobody is "constraining her life" here" then when will you give up the allegation that Wikipedia would be offending her, or anyone else? I'd say your mind is far from open when you refuse to entertain the possibility that she can be categorized as lesbian without her being exclusively lesbian. Here's another possibility for you: she isn't lesbian at all. Does that mean Wikipedia does not proceed? No, it doesn't. We do not exclude everything that has a one in a million chance of being wrong. We follow what reliable sources say, and that doesn't mean the sources are infallible.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG <deep breath> Firstly, you're conflating self-identity with current choice of partner(s). You say above, "swinging whichever way they please", indicating that you oscillate between lesbian and straight depending on your current partner's sex. It doesn't work like that. She could date women for evermore and still be bisexual, not lesbian. There is a very significant difference. If she says, "I'm lesbian", then she is unequivocally lesbian. She has yet to state this, so it's not our job to guess that based on her choice of partners that we know of. BTW - there is no such thing as a "lesbian bisexual" by definition; you're either one or the other. And of course we can proceed without tagging her as lesbian. And yes, we can state that various tabloids have called her such, without actually calling her such, ourselves - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"You're either one or the other." It's just that simple, is it? I invited you to open your mind here to the possibility of gradation and I see you refuse to. There is conflation going on here all right, conflating a Wikipedia category with ontology. We are not some Official Committee deciding whether Pluto is a planet. Foster will continue as whatever she TRULY is despite Wikipedia categorizing her consistent with the apparent evidence.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories do have an ontological quality to them, and it has long been consensus that we should not tag people with LGBT cats unless they self-identify accordingly. She has not, as far as we know, self-identified as a lesbian. Ipso facto, we should not categorize her as such. Yes there are gradations, Brian, but she hasn't even put herself on the lesbian chart. She's never said "I have gay tendencies" or "I have lesbian leanings" or whatever - all she said publically was that she had already "come out", whatever that means, in private. We don't categorize LGBT based on evidence (unless, they are dead, in which case it's a whole different ballgame - then we go by scholarly consensus).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't categorize based on evidence? It all just comes down to Wiki politics? The policy called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view suggests that it may be time to start taking the evidence into consideration and setting aside all the original research about what this category involves.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Everything about her life clearly shows that she is a lesbian; hence she should be in lesbian cats. There is no indication that she has ever been heterosexual. There is nothing to show that she has ever had, or pretended to have, a heterosexual relationship. She has clearly, publicly stated that she had a long relationship with a woman and is now married to another woman. I have never seen any person or organisation state that she is bisexual and this talk page is the only place I have seen anyone speculate that she might be. Jim Michael (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not the having of relationships that defines someone's orientation; it's how they experience attraction. I was bisexual, and knew I was bisexual, before I'd had a relationship with anyone. You don't get to dictate someone's orientation to them on the basis of your own partial knowledge about their relationships. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "dictating" to Foster her orientation here. Enough with the misrepresentation of what Wikipedia's role is here. I understand you think Foster should be given absolute sovereignty over what her Wikipedia article says on this point, but the fact is that following the sources instead of trying to read Foster's mind does NOT constitute "dictating" anything to her.--Brian Dell (talk)

What, exactly, is reliable about sources that assert Foster's sexuality in terms she has not used herself? How do the authors know? You may, by the way, want to go back to Talk:BLP and try again to answer clearly the simple questions I asked you there. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see such efforts at guessing her thoughts to be an exercise in OR. Our job is to document what RS say, and EvergreenFir captured that very well when (s)he wrote:

• Caveat - Per WP:RS, I would be mildly okay with a statement like "Many news outlets describe Foster as a lesbian, but she has never confirmed nor denied any identity of sexual orientation." This would seem to me to be okay with WP:BLP as well. (...) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's our job. What's in her mind (about such speculations) is not our concern. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unless we have WP:reliable sources that record her describing herself as one. It would be presumptuous for us to try to dictate her sexuality. Being married to a woman doesn't mean she's necessarily a lesbian. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (barring additional reliable sources evidencing her self-identified label). Largely per WP:BLPCAT as described by Alison, and in view of the dangers of systemic bias of bisexual erasure. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• I fully support her inclusion in general "LGBT" categories, as noted above — but until she actually uses one word or the other in reference to herself, it is not for Wikipedia to presume to know whether she's more properly described as "lesbian" or "bisexual" or "pansexual" or "queer". And to suggest that the burden of proof is higher on the claim that she might be bisexual than it is on "lesbian" is not on. Media sources used to describe Ani DiFranco as "lesbian" too — even though she'd always been out as bisexual, media sources ignored her own words and called her "lesbian" anyway, so persistently that when she married a man those sources went into shock and claimed she'd renounced her sexual identity, even though the action wasn't actually in any sort of contradiction with how she actually identified. So DiFranco's (and Foster's) own words on the subject take precedence over media assumptions about which label does or doesn't apply. Oppose anything more specific than "LGBT". Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC 3 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article?

• Question: Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments for RfC 3

• Oppose use of "lesbian" - Same reasons as RfC2. We do not know if Foster identifies as a lesbian. Though she is married to a woman, she should be bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual, homoromantic asexual, genderqueer heterosexual, or any other queer identity. Unless Foster explicitly says she is lesbian, we cannot use the label to describe her as it would be ascriptive and against WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Caveat - Per WP:RS, I would be mildly okay with a statement like "Many news outlets describe Foster as a lesbian, but she has never confirmed nor denied any identity of sexual orientation." This would seem to me to be okay with WP:BLP as well. Pinging a few people who also said "opposed" in this RfC to get their opinions on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with this, as it's an indisputable fact that it's been suggested she's lesbian in some reliable sources. That they say that, of course, is still problematic, but it may go by way of clarification to state that, in a similar manner to how you have done here - Alison ^❤ 23:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. That's very well put! This places RS in the high seat and still recognizes what RS say about her "nondisclosure" status, which is that she has not used certain words, while she still clearly implies her lesbian status through other methods, such as admitting she "came out", lived with and loved another woman, and is married to a woman. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what Alison said. Foster's 'lesbian status' does not indisputably exist outside of speculative reporting. Female-female relationships are not ipso facto 'lesbian'; even if one party is lesbian, the other - if bisexual - does not 'catch' lesbianism through the relationship. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose mainly on WP:UNDUE grounds. I'll just copy and paste what I wrote in the closed RFC above: We can describe her behavior based on reliable sources (long term relationship(s), marriage etc.) If reliable sources have opinions on what her sexual orientation is, and if their opinions have enough WP:WEIGHT that could possibly be included in the prose, but it has to be made clear that it is their opinion ie, not "She is a lesbian" but "source X and Y have described her as a lesbian." Note that there is no way that any RS can factually know her true sexual orientation or sexual identity. There is no objective way to determine someone's true orientation from the outside, no brain scans or DNA tests to administer. All anyone can do is observe the behavior of others and form an opinion based on that, but it can never be factual objective truth, only an opinion. Siawase (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are correct that we go by what the RS say. In fact, we should not go by the speculations (bisexual?) often repeated by Alison, which have no bearing on this. We go by what RS say, and they use words like lesbian and gay. We can quote and attribute them. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

'Lesbian' is just as much speculation as 'bisexual' is. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - per repeated comments and per RFC #2. We have no idea if she self-identifies as lesbian. We have no idea as to her interest in men. A woman can be in relationships with other women exclusively and still be bisexual. I'm not being a smartypants here; this can and does happen. Even more, just because there is no WP:RS which says she ever had a relationship (or even attraction towards) a man, does not indicate that it never happened. Calling her a lesbian in absence of a reliable source showing her self-identification, is being massively presumptuous. We have no way of knowing until she says it, and she hasn't in over four decades - Alison ^❤ 21:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• no v good arguments above. I will only add that 'bisexual' is but one possible identity, and another possible and quite probable identity for Foster is 'I don't like labels'. This is reasonable and we shouldn't call someone a lesbian even if 1000 RS claim it, if they don't self-identity as such it's meaningless, there are many different aspects to sexual orientation and identity and there are those who seem lesbian in behavior but who don't identity with that label. Foster has been dogged by rumors of her identity for decades yet has never said simply 'I'm gay' or 'I'm a lesbian' - at least not in public - she said she 'came out' to her friends, but what did she say? 'Hi mom, I want you to know that I'm attracted to women' or 'Hi mom I want you to know I'm a lesbian' - they aren't the same thing. She has studiously avoided commentary on her orientation and it suggests that her identity is very private and perhaps non-standard, and she doesn't want to get into explaining it.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This too is dependent on the unquestionable fact that she has "come out" as lesbian/gay (the only known and accepted use of the term "coming out", and she used exactly those words, so who are we to deny that fact). Her failure to use certain words is irrelevant to Wikipedia, since her meaning and actions for many years is clear. Regardless of whether or not she uses the words "gay" and/or "lesbian", RS use those words and we are obligated to use the words which the sources use. Wikipedia is concerned with what RS say, not what she doesn't say. If necessary, we can always attribute the wording to the source. She has never objected to accurate descriptions being used in the press. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Could you supply links to where Foster calls herself a lesbian? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's totally irrelevant because she has "come out", lived with a woman, and is married to one. What's relevant is that we go by what RS say, and they use words like lesbian and gay. We can quote and attribute them. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Completely relevant. How do we know she's not bisexual? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only relevant if we have RS to that effect. We don't, so our own speculations of that type would only be OR and straw man arguments, intended to disrupt this process, so let's stop using that one, okay? No more mention of "BISEXUAL" without a RS! It's disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have any RS on her personal sexual identity. Sources speculate at it, but without her saying, we do now know if she is bisexual, pansexual, lesbian, or whatever. And it's not disruptive to mention this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. She's quite likely not to be bisexual, but there's nothing here to enable us to decide that with any confidence. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and none speculate about that. They say gay/lesbian, and she came out in that context. We are refusing to respect her individual dignity/autonomy by refusing to accept her open choice to live as a same-sex married lesbian who has come out very publicly. That's extremely disrespectful. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of disrespect. I'm LGBT myself; trying to frame this prurient interest in whether Ms Foster is specifically lesbian as somehow fighting homophobia isn't going to wash. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not referring to you, but generally. I see it as disrespectful to not accept an openly gay person's personal choice. I think we can agree on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I kind of see your point, but this is my reason for endorsing only the broader category - it makes it clear that we've taken note of her choice and actions, but it stops short of saying something she hasn't. I've just been sent a link to this blog [7] about Tom Daley, whose situation is somewhat similar. What journalists say about LGBT people and what those people say about themselves are often so divergent that I'd strain to call them reliable sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That's why it's important to stick to, and possibly attribute, what RS say, not what she doesn't say. Her context makes her meaning clear, and RS are also clear, so I don't see a problem. BLP doesn't apply, because this is not negative information, it's not unsourced, and it's not controversial in the real world. No one outside of some few here doubt what she means or what RS say. BLP is designed to protect. She doesn't need protection in this case. Lesbian/gay definitely is within the LGBT spectrum, so the category is also okay. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue? So it's okay if I tag Larry Craig, then? Nothing to be ashamed of, right? To clarify; calling a bisexual woman 'lesbian' can be super-offensive, especially after the first ... oh, hundred times you've heard it. It's just not factually correct, regardless of what the popular press and the tabloids are saying. People see me as lesbian - all day, err'day - but I'm not. This is a really important point. If I, as a bisexual woman, was tagged as lesbian in a Wikipedia BLP, I'd be annoyed because it's just not factually correct - Alison ^❤ 22:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim any expertise on bisexual here, but I get the feeling some people think that bi-sexual is sort of like having dual-nationality - let's say American and British - so no offense in saying X is American even if you're actually dual nationality. But, if we take Alison (and many other bisexuals) at their word, it's not the same thing - bisexual is not an intersection of heterosexual and gay, it is a separate identity. And as Alison has pointed out, there are OTHER sexual identities, besides straight, bi, or gay, that people adopt and use and believe, and even if we don't have categories for all such identities it doesn't mean they don't exist nor that they don't hold meaning to those who use them. If Foster hasn't linked herself to a mainstream identity like "Lesbian" it's not our job to do so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if there is "offense" that does not settle the matter. We don't suppress material just because someone might take offense.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like you're saying you don't care if the BLP subject is offended by mis-identification; that our 'needs' to tag her trump her rights to self-identify. Not cool. The press is guilty enough of painting her with whatever orientation-brush they particularly feel using, without us doing the same - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

God forbid Wikipedia reflects what the "guilty" "press" has to say about a topic, eh? I happen to "self-identify" as the coolest guy on the planet. I hope my future Wikipedia article respects my "right" to so "self-identify." Because it's all about me.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you can see the difference between your innate sexual self-identity and calling yourself "the coolest guy on the planet", right? And please, less of the "scare quotes" - they're "seriously" "unhelpful" - Alison ^❤ 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The difference being my subjective experience of myself versus my subjective experience of myself. In other words no difference at all if the OBJECTIVE difference is dismissed as irrelevant. Those are not scare quotes. Those are direct quotes. Withdraw your statements and they will not be quoted.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that's exactly it! Thank you! :) And I'd go further to say that while there's intersection between lesbian and bisexual politics, they are actually different in many ways. Lesbians have a distinct community, identity pride, etc, etc - sometimes to the exclusion of bisexuals, who can often feel marginalized by both straight and lesbian communities. It's a complex issue, and boiling a person's identity down to "lesbian" or "straight" bothers me greatly. It's just wrong - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as unsupported by reliable sources, as well as per the principles underlying BLPCAT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alison and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; I'm surprised this is even being considered. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason as RfC #2. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This question cannot be asked apart from the specific context in will be appear. It's possible to overstate things here. Whatever is said should not be stated with more finality than is appropriate given the sources. I'll add that the standard here is higher than for categorization purposes in my view because the category is useful for navigation purposes, inviting users who arrive here by way of the categorization to at least consider this case. What appears in the text, however, is meant to be taken as the definitive answer to any reader asking the question of this particular subject. While someone could argue that the category can also be used as the definitive answer I don't think that's true, as people understand that categories may not be perfect fits. Someone classified as, say, Jewish, may be very far from "pure" Jewish, just to take an example. People look to the text for the caveats and qualifiers, like whether it was just one parent who was Jewish, whether it was just a matter of being born in Israel, etc etc This RfC can't resolve anything beyond ruling out making a black and white statement of finality.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support saying that many mainstream media sources describe Foster as a lesbian. She had a 15-year lesbian relationship, has publicly come out and is now married to another woman. Unlike Alison, who is openly bisexual and has corrected people who have wrongly described her as a lesbian, Foster has never said any such thing; Foster clearly enjoys a lesbian life and nothing contradicts that. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, a relationship between two women is not automatically a 'lesbian relationship'. I've known many all-female couples myself where both parties were bisexual. Your comments here exemplify the sort of false logic that leads people to assume they know someone's sexuality: "Tom Daley has a boyfriend > Male-male relationships are gay > The participants are gay > Tom Daley is gay". Journalists reason, and write, like this all the time; it doesn't make their assertions trustworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A sexual relationship between two women is a lesbian relationship, even if it is not the case that both women are lesbians. A bisexual is a bisexual regardless of whether (s)he is in a relationship with a man, a woman, both, or no-one. There is no indication that Foster is bisexual.

Tom Daley's situation is significantly different. In December, he came out as bisexual. He said that he has been in a relationship with a man for several months, and that "I still fancy girls". This month, on Celebrity Juice, Keith Lemon said to him "You're a gay man now"; Daley said "I am". Daley did not "correct" Lemon by stating that he is bisexual, which I think he would have done had that been the case at the time, even though it was on a comedy show.

Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry. This particular RfC question is defective. We don't a priori censor words from articles. We need written context and cited sources. WP:NOTCENSORED; WP:V. Only then can we judge WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Working together to find consensus on what language to use doesn't seem the same thing as censorship to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly is censorship when you ban a word from an article, without knowing the context it will be used in, nor the sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Alan, exactly. People are going to misuse this RfC to overturn any and all usage of the word in the article. I trust that whoever closes this RfC will clearly state that this RfC is meaningless and anyone citing it is misusing it. This is not how we resolve disputes over how article text should read. We do not prejudice future discussions.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred that the RFC read "Should we describe Foster as lesbian in wikipedia's voice, e.g. "Foster is a lesbian" or something similar. I don't think the suggestion here was to ban the use of the word, but rather to not USE the word lesbian unadorned and in wikipedia's voicee in the same way we would say "Foster is an actress". When someone has publicly identified as a lesbian we have no problem doing so, but she hasn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this back to what's relevant for Wikipedia. It's all about what the reliable sources say, not any "truth" about her actual sexual orientation. The question of using Wikipedia's voice or not is relevant, and since there is disagreement, we do what we always do - we quote RS and attribute the quote. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

no, thats not what we do. We dont say 'according to Billboard magazine, Foster "starred in silence of the lambs" rather for many non-controversial facts about a person we state them in wikipedia's voice. In this case we should not do so - there is a big diff between saying "several media sources have speculated that Foster is a lesbian, but she has not explicitly identified as such' and 'Foster is a lesbian' (1,2,3)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

??? That's what I'm saying. We are in agreement. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Regarding that some mainstream media outlet sources are describing Jodie Foster as a lesbian, I say there is nothing wrong with noting that in the Foster article. She recently got married to her love of some 15 years. Jodie Foster has publicly come out now and is now married to a woman. Carriearchdale (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unless we have WP:reliable sources that record her describing herself as one. It would be presumptuous for us to try to dictate her sexuality. Being married to a woman doesn't mean she's necessarily a lesbian. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (barring additional reliable sources evidencing her self-identified label). Largely per WP:BLPCAT as described by Alison, and in view of the dangers of systemic bias of bisexual erasure. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until she actually uses a particular identity label in reference to herself, it's not for us to decide which one applies to her. We know that she's entered a marital relationship with a woman, but we do not know whether she considers her own identity to be "lesbian", "bisexual", "pansexual", "queer" or something else — and contrary to the assertions made by some people above, the burden of sourcing for "lesbian" is most certainly not lower than it would be for one of the other labels. I wouldn't have any objection to the "some media sources have speculated..." alternative suggested by a few people here, but until we know how she identifies herself it's not for us to presume. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Nope, not according to policy. If there are any notable sources that have described her as a Lesbian, then it may be worth discussing whether that should be mentioned. But saying that someone has been called X and that they are X is not the same thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  Suggestion Open a new RfC of Should we state that many media sources describe Foster as a lesbian? Jim Michael (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Will do! Going to hash out the exact wording first though in the "sources" section below. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days – again

To stop the edit war from escalating, I have protected the article for three days. Looks like the RfC has been initiated, so please use that to reach consensus. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, let's use the RfC, since common sense and RS don't seem to be enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Less snippiness, please. What you think RS implies here and what other people think it implies are very different. An RfC is tedious, but please have the grace not to complain about us having one just because not everyone accepts your view. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. RS don't "imply". They state very clearly using the words gay or lesbian. It is editors who are speculating and diverting. She came out in the context of a long term ("20 years") lesbian relationship. She has continued that lifestyle choice by marrying another woman. We should show her some respect by accepting her choice. We do that by documenting it. BTW, I started the RfC, which was then hijacked. No apology was given, only an assumption of bad faith. I could have tweaked it if requested. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex means to say not everyone accepts RS because not everyone accepts the view that what the RS say is relevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I mean to say. Don't presume to speak for me; I don't appreciate it from people who do agree with me, and I especially don't want it from people who don't. What I am saying is that sources that report the subject's own words are more reliable in this sort of situation than sources that report the reporter's speculation as fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Speculation is irrelevant, while RS are what's relevant, and we know what they say. I know that there are situations where RS are ambiguous, and where editors can rightly disagree on the correct understanding, but here there is no doubt. They unambiguously say lesbian or gay (never hetero or bisexual), and her actions and coming out confirm that the sources have understood her correctly. She has never disagreed with them.

I see BLP invoked numerous times above, and usually BLP would apply, but BLP is used to protect individuals from unconfirmed and unsourced negative information, such as rumors, gossip, and slander. In a case like this, the subject does not need protection because what is being said (that she's gay/lesbian) is true, she confirms it by her words and actions, the claim is not negative, and it's backed up by RS. We don't need to speculate about it. This whole exercise is seriously disrespectful toward her. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Can I remind you that this is a BLP and that belligerant polemic posting here does not create the necessary atmosphere to calmly discuss sensitive edits. I urge you to dial it down yourself before someone decides to dial it down for you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would love to calmly discuss this. Let's discuss the BLP aspects I have mentioned. What is your opinion? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am commenting in an adminsitrative capacity and not with any kind of editorial hat on. It is perfectly within your personal capability to calmly discuss this. You just need to not click the save page button until you are feeling calm about what you are writing and have checked that you have removed any emotive qualifiers from the text you wish to commit. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

LGBT 101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like some commenting here could do with some useful reading materials on sexual orientation. I've seen logic that goes "she's married to a woman therefore she must be lesbian" or "she came out, it means she's either lesbian or bi, and we have no evidence of boyfriends, therefore lesbian" Here's a simple piece that captures it nicely - feel free to add more resources --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• [8] - especially this quote: :"Why do we keep saying "often" or "may"? Because some people don't think these labels describe them accurately. Some people don't like the idea of labels at all. Some people feel comfortable with certain labels and not others. It's up to you to decide how you want to label yourself, if at all."

While this is interesting and informative, this thread seems to be a talk page violation. See the top of this page:

• "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

We should be discussing what RS say and how to present that information, not what has not been said, or what we imagine is going on inside someone's head. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This link IS relevant to the current discussion, because there is a feeling amongst some !voting above that identity is either straight, gay, or bi, and if you don't label yourself within one of those three, dammit, we're going to do it for you. It's just simply wrong, it's not the way sexual orientation works, so maybe some would do well to read up a bit on the subject. If you have a link which says the opposite - e.g. "Hi, welcome to the LGBT advocacy center. If you're not ready to label yourself, don't worry! If you like women, it means you're a lesbian. Thanks for stopping by!" please post it. I'm quite sure you'll never find such advice. The literature on sexual orientation is pretty consistent, and aligns with the experiences of real people. Some people who love women and sleep with women and even marry women NEVER identiy as lesbians. That's their perogative. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not getting my point. The actual orientation is of less consequence than what RS say. That's what we go by. Yes, the information is interesting and helpful for a personal, real world, understanding of these issues, but again, what RS say is what's relevant for Wikipedia and our editing. That's where much of our discussion above goes wrong. The aspects that get into discussing what you're referring to above (and I'm guilty too) are actually talk page violations and seriously distracting from policy based discussion. RS need to be in the high seat here. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, completely, except that this particular case, and I'm not aware of many others, IS an exception. The reason is, we judge sources for reliability based on their claims - not all sources are equally reliable for all claims. No-one would dispute the NY times if it said "Today Obama said X" - but if New York times said something that contradicted a widely cited peer reviewed study, we would doubt them. In this case, the New York Times, respected as she is, is NOT a reliable source for guessing at Foster's sexual orientation. ALL 3rd party sources are inherently unreliable in this regard. If they are not reporting a statement of the person themselves identifying with identity X, it is pure speculation. They may be right, but it is still pure speculation, since NY Times has no possible way of knowing anyone's sexual orientation absent dissecting their brain and finding the magic gene. Since they can't do that (there is no way to independently test someone's sexual identity AFAIK), so-called reliable sources regularly engage in a game of "guess who is gay" and repeat rumor, or just make assumptions based on behavior. It's natural, and I don't fault anyone for calling Foster a lesbian - for all intents and purposes she indeed does seem to fit the mold. But we can't be sure unless she says so, and since she hasn't said so, indeed she has gone out of her way in an extreme way over the past 40 years to specifically AVOID saying so, neither should we.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no "exception", as you say, to WP:NPOV. I call your attention to the "N". It is not a "S" for subject. It is an "N" for neutral. BullRangifer is correct here.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what NPOV has to do with what I said above - we're not talking about neutrality, we're talking about the reliability of sources. Wikipedia:NEWSORG#News_organizations says "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" and "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate." and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." So while you keep beating the "Reliable sources" drum, I'm afraid you need to read the RS policy more carefully. More importantly, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, meaning "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The claim that I, and others, are making, is that no 3rd party source, even if it's peer reviewed by 1000 specialist academics, can be trusted to say authoritatively of a BLP "X is gay" or "X is queer" or "X is bisexual" if X has not explicitly stated this themselves, as sexual orientation and identification with a given label is SOLELY determined by the individual, unlike whether someone ate a hamburger or made a speech or committed a crime - again there is no way to VERIFY sexual identity or orientation other than the source themselves (a similar example would be "Is X in love with Y" - you can do all the studies you want, but ultimately only the subject can tell you if they're in love or not) This claim is backed up by extant policy, guidance, and long-standing consensus. You are trying to overturn that consensus, here, but if you want to overturn that consensus you need to work on BLPCAT policy and not try to make an exception at this article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, you and a few others are trying to overturn the Wikipedia-wide consensus that we follow the three "core" policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and the "self-identified" doctrine is a rather obvious effort to change the N in NPOV to S. If you are not trying to evade these policies, there is no disagreement here. You seem to think those who disagree with you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT and that re-education in "LGBT 101" is needed. The only re-education in fact needed here is a refresher on Wikipedia's core policies (of which BLP is not one).--Brian Dell (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian you keep citing WP:RS but I fear you haven't read it carefully enough. Please tell me, how can a source - any source besides the person - be reliable for sexual orientation? What sort of fact checking might they undertake to be sure they were right? By exception, what I meant was, there is a very small set of 'facts' about people about which we have no way to reliably confirm except by listening to the person themselves. sexual orientation is one of them, gender identity is another, and depth of feeling about another person is the third. Try to frame your argument based on what WP:RS tells us about judging sources, and what methods might be used to determine sexual orientation at the Guardian newsroom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I fear you have not read NPOV carefully enough and I suggest you "try to frame your argument" in a way that respects what it and WP:RS actually say as opposed to what you imagine it says. Allow me to quote from NPOV: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus." What you call "the person"'s POV and Wikipedia's POV are two INDEPENDENT things. Is that clear enough for you?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same guy who was against moving the article Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct - he doesn't approved of people who advocate what he sees as "a more liberal take on sexual identity" - Alison ^❤ 20:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not correct. The Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request was, in fact, to revert the article to the original title Bradley Manning and I "voted" on August 23 to keep it at Chelsea Manning (that doesn't mean I did not take issue with some of the same sort of dubious arguments we've seen on this page). It was reverted back to Bradley Manning anyway, which says something about where consensus is outside of this page which is dominated by a few extremists. Now what does this have to do with Jodie Foster?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right re. the move. Sorry about that. However, those are your words quoted above. Ok - moving on - Alison ^❤ 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You could have moved on before contending, as you just did here, that you were right to take my words out of context in order to falsely claim that I do not "approve of" a certain class of people. What I in fact don't "approve of" is hijacking Wikipedia to "further the agenda of interest groups calling for a more liberal take on sexual identity"--Brian Dell (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is "hijacking Wikipedia" here - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to Obi-Wan Kenobi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.63.35 (talk • contribs)

WP:POINT and WP:STICK. We get it. Bdell555, BullRangifer, and Obiwankenobi have all made their points. The above RfCs are for a variety of voices and positions to be heard, not for a few users to overwhelm the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A look at sources

I took a look at reliable sources comments on Foster's Golden Globes speech. Some do plainly identify her as gay, but some hedge in some way, or skirt around the issue.

"Ms. Foster publicly acknowledged, kind of, that she is, as anyone who cared already assumed, gay."The Lifting of a Veil, Discreetly - NYTimes.com

"any speculation over the star’s sexuality has come to an end." Jodie Foster’s Golden Globes Speech: What Did She Mean? - TIME.com

"The veteran actress unspooled a long speech that included tacit references to her sexual orientation and a public thank-you to her former partner"Jodie Foster's Golden Globes Speech: 'I Came Out a Thousand Years Ago' - Rolling Stone

"It’s just hard to say exactly what she did–or didn’t–reveal. The 50-year-old actress, who has long refused to discuss her private life, appeared to acknowledge publicly for the first time that she is a lesbian."In Golden Globes speech, Jodie Foster comes out. Or not. - MSNBC

"The deep breath that the actress took before announcing to the world that she was … "single" was masterful. The rumors about her sexual orientation had shadowed her for years."Jodie Foster delivers a jolt from the heart - Los Angeles Times

"Hollywood actress Jodie Foster confirmed long-running speculation that she is gay by coming out at the Golden Globes awards on Sunday" Jodie Foster comes out as gay at Golden Globes - Reuters

"Jodie Foster came out without really coming out" Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring - AP

"But without actually saying the words "I'm gay," Foster acknowledged that she's never lived her life any way other than as a gay woman." Jodie Foster's Stirring Golden Globes Speech: 'I Already Did My Coming Out a Thousand Years Ago' - Hollywood Reporter

"She never said “gay.” Or “lesbian.”"Jodie Foster comes out, gritting her teeth - Salon.com

"she addressed everything from her sexuality to her relationship with her mother."Jodie Foster Comes Out at Golden Globes - People.com

"It was a winking nod to her fans and followers who by now know that Foster is gay." Jodie Foster Comes Out and Maybe Retires - Advocate.com

Ten Wildly Varying Interpretations of Jodie Foster's Golden Globes Speech - Vanity Fair

Robyn Harper: Jodie Foster Gives Us a Glimpse of the Future: No Labels, No Announcements, No Difference - Huffington Post

And here is one reason why I personally am wary of using media identification of sexual orientation. They have a track record of playing fast and loose with this in the past. Two women who in the recent past went public with same-sex relationships, but without self-identifying with any particular sexual orientation, and subsequently were identified as gay/lesbian by the media: Amber Heard[9][10] and Maria Bello[11][12] (Bello clarified on twitter that her not identifying with a label was intentional.[13][14] Heard also subsequently clearly said she doesn't label herself.[15]) Huffington Post, one source that plainly identifies Foster as gay[16] previously identified Heard as a lesbian.[17] Us Magazine also identified Foster as gay[18] and previously did the same with both Heard and Bello.[19][20]

I already gave my views in the RfCs above, but I think the mixed coverage, combined with the media track record, makes it clear that, at the very least, we should not say Foster is a lesbian in Wikipedia voice. (And for the record, I'm not trying to say anything about Foster's sexual orientation here, just that she clearly, and very likely deliberately, hasn't self-identified.) Siawase (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Siawase, thanks for the excellent run through of the sources. I think your point about not using Wikipedia's voice is right on. That's why I still think that EvergreenFir's caveat version in "Comments for RfC 3" is still the best solution that should satisfy everyone because (1) we don't use Wikipedia's voice; (2) we still honor what RS say; and (3) we document Foster's "non-disclosure" status. Here is EvergreenFir's caveat version:

• Caveat - Per WP:RS, I would be mildly okay with a statement like "Many news outlets describe Foster as a lesbian, but she has never confirmed nor denied any identity of sexual orientation." This would seem to me to be okay with WP:BLP as well. (...) EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Even Alison agreed with that version. That version follows all policies. Can't we just use that type of wording and end this discussion? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable. How about: "While many news outlets have described Foster as a lesbian, she has never publicly identified with any particular sexual orientation. During a speech at the Golden Globes last year, Foster said (and then fill in the quote about "I came out years ago" or whatever)". That sort of phrase is a huge distance from "Foster was born in 19xx. Foster is a lesbian actress." - and we do use that phrase a lot in wikipedia's voice: [21] - I just feel there's consensus to not do so here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely moving in the right direction. I'd suggest also adding the word "gay", since some sources also use that word: "...outlets have described Foster as a lesbian and gay..." How's that? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How about not? Unless you want to add bisexual as well. I'm sure there's a source there *somewhere* that says that. That should suitably blur things and muddy the waters. How about we generate a 'list of labels ever applied to Jodie Foster by the media' section? Seriously - once you start sticking labels on that various pundits pulled out of ... thin air ... things go to pieces. Because it's *all* speculation - Alison ^❤ 06:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Googling for it, I found these sources (all going back to her brother's 1997 bio:) [22][23][24] Siawase (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well that settles that, then; she's a queer, gay, bisexual lesbian. Bring on the tagging! In seriousness, it's important to note that in the late 1990s, she was pretty annoyed by the speculation around her sexuality and those who would try to pigeonhole her into some category - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus building for phrasing of how news outlets describe Foster

Okay, attempting to use this momentum to hash out a sentence we can all (mostly) agree on. Will then open up an RfC if we get something we like. I see concern about adding the "coming out" part, so I'm going to leave that out for now. From the sources linked, it seems like she's most often speculated to be gay/lesbian by the news outlets (and not bisexual). How about this wording:

Though many news outlets have described Foster as a lesbian or gay, she has never publicly identified with any particular sexual orientation.

I understand Alison's concern about adding too many descriptors ("queer, gay, bisexual lesbian") and leaving out others, but it does seem that the majority of examples are "lesbian" and "gay" (the latter being a more generic term... funny how the masculine is the default/generic). This is a great example of bisexual erasure by the news, but that's what we need to report on. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that she came out publicly, in a speech, otherwise there's the implication that she hasn't made any statement about her sexuality. I can't see how this can be considered bisexual erasure, because no-one (other than a few commenters on this talk page) have made the suggestion that she might be bisexual. If the media did that, they could leave themselves open to being prosecuted for libel. Many famous actresses are openly bisexual and it hasn't harmed their careers. The suggested wording you've stated is good, and should be supported with examples of mainstream media articles which clearly describe her as gay or lesbian. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, you keep on saying this - that no-one has EVER speculated she may be bisexual. But, her own BROTHER did exactly that, in a book he published a while back. Please stop repeating this, as it's not true, bi-sexual rumors were not invented here... Note: I'm not propagating said rumor, I have no idea whatsoever...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think re: coming out the current wording is good, e.g. "In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago..." It's probably best to let her own words more or less speak for themselves, rather than call it a "coming out" (since, as she notes, she already "came out").--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)