This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance). California: Los Angeles C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). LGBT studies B‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. United States C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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?

See User Talk:Jimbo Wales#Tools

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell is that on Jimbo's user page? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was chiming in on a discussion there, only thought of posting a cross-link to here (as a logical step after what I'd written) after I had hit the save button.

I think 69.196.171.23 had started the discussion there while all discussion on this page appeared to be closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise - I'm just surprised at the extensive discussion that's taken place there without any mention here. Why is Jimbo's talk page an appropriate venue? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

m:The Wrong Version#Involving Jimbo? Optimist's guide to Wikipedia #11? I wish I could be as lighthearted about it as those texts. Let's not bite huh? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh not this again. I think it's time Wikipedia moves to a more inclusive definition of LGBT anyway. Per its own page, the acronym includes a lot more than just those four labels. Just change the category wording if it's such a problem. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories with sensitive qualifiers need to be more narrow than lists. Wikipedians found out about that 10 years ago when the first bots started to convert lists to the newly invented category system. As a consequence Wikipedia:Categorization of people was developed, which stated exactly that. Note, this was pre-Seigenthaler, so before anyone thought about starting what is now known as the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Anyhow, the "don't include everybody who is vaguely related" conditions on categorization of persons continued their life, both in the CoP guideline and the BLPCAT policy, and proved useful over the years.

I think I've got reason to say oh not that again, this was extensively discussed 10 years ago [1] (note: GLBT categories turning up multiple times in the discussions of those days!)

Of course, consensus can change (see below), but maybe not a bad idea to take a closer look why a long standing consensus existed in the first place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change

There are two additional forums now that outdo RFC1 in breadth, length and number of contributors:

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164#Wikipedia policy being "overruled" by "consensus"
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive201#Jodie Foster and BLPCAT

There is no new consensus, but it is clear that the consensus of RFC1 has become stale and is de facto overturned. So I propose to remove the LGBT categories of the J.F. article until a new consensus emerges.

In the margin of these discussions it has become clear that the atheist categorisation appears undue, per:

• WP:COP#N: not a reason of J.F.'s notability;
• category:atheists: the info on which feasts are celebrated in J.F.'s household does not equal "it is known how she defines her atheism", as required by the inclusion criteria of that category.

So I propose to remove this category also from J.F.'s biography. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your logic. One well-populated RfC closed saying Foster should be categorized LGBT. Other subsequent discussions have no consensus at all. How do you see your way to changing the established categories before any new consensus has congealed? Binksternet (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's only 4 days since the RfC closed; this is massively premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It took only two days to disprove there would have been a Wikipedia-wide consensus. And...? what is the argumentation of your innuendo? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'argumentation of my innuendo'. I wasn't making any wider point; I just don't think that overturning a consensus decision less than 4 days after the closure of a 2-week RfC is what's intended by 'consensus can change'. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The archived discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 164#Wikipedia policy being "overruled" by "consensus" ends with these two summaries, no longer disputed by anyone there:

• Whether or not there was a consensus at the end of RfC1, and whether or not the closer of that RfC did a good job in assessing whether or not consensus had been reached at the end of that RfC seem to me quite irrelevant questions and discussion topics. By now whatever consensus that was: it has evaporated. Many more contributors turned their fresh eyes on the RfC1 question since, added new arguments, and came to a different conclusion, at least enough contributors did so, meaning that the (whatever) consensus doesn't stand any longer. No consensus today, and frankly not interested in what it was or was not a few days ago. Shouldn't we look ahead to what the new consensus could be? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In sum, finding the answer to the question whether or not J.F. came out as lesbian, bisexual or none of the previous is irrelevant for inclusion:

• For lists this question needs not to be solved, and she can be included [2]
• For categories this question needs not to be solved and she should not be included: her notability is not (or too marginally) depending on LGBT aspects of her (public) life — a.k.a. following the WP:COP#N recommendation.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to go with that last one as the current consensus on the categorization issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make another change against consensus unless you want to be blocked for edit-warring. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the close of RfC1 was problematic in that it did not at all adress why it considered the "support" argument strong. In my vie it is in direct contravention of policy, so I would like to know why the closer thinks it is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The simplest way to get a response to that is, I suppose, to post your question at User talk:Number 57. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see above a bunch of wikipedia editors cobbled together their original research about how Mrs. Foster self describes - writing "Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation" and citing [3]. Please review WP:OR, and WP:V. The source provided does not support the claim made. Please provide sources for possibly defamatory statements like "Foster has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation." Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Beyond not supporting the statement made, it directly contradicts it - "...she publicly acknowledged being a lesbian before a worldwide audience." Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The crux of the matter, as has been discussed here ad nauseum is that she has never "publicly acknowledged being a lesbian", whatever about the GayStarNews' interpretation of what she said - Alison ^❤ 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keyword: "explicitly" - Alison ^❤ 22:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{fact}}. The sources I provided disagree. Please provide citations for your possibly defamatory content that she "has never explicitly identified with any particular sexual orientation." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, the language we arrived at came through consensus. You've pointed out some good points here, so let's find a solution. For example, we could have something like this: "Though several outlets xxx, in Foster's speech she never explicitly used the terms lesbian or gay." - although I'm sure we could find other sources which say exactly what we're claiming, e.g. that Foster has never publically identified as lesbian.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that note she did not specifically use the words, so feel free to write something accurate as opposed to something the four of you just made up. The NYTimes article, for instance, discusses the important, or lack thereof, of saying the words. However, stating "Foster has never publically identified as lesbian" is directly contradicted by sources, which state "she publicly acknowledged being a lesbian," "reveals she's gay," or "came out as gay." Hipocrite (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone agrees that you can find thousands of sources that say she came out as a lesbian, but as the RFC above indicates, she hasn't self-identified as such, at least not in that speech. Perhaps it's too strong to say never, but we could certainly say "not in that speech", as sources discuss that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFC was poorly phrased and did not address the question at hand. At no point did I suggest saying "she is a lesbian." I suggested excluding the unsrouced, unsourcable statement that she "has never publicaly identified as lesbian." There are numerous sources which say she has, and so saying she has not, in wikipedia's voice is possibly defamatory, just as if we were to write "he has never publicaly identified as straight" in random biographies. Hipocrite (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, now. Someone above agreed that it could be said better. So why not just agree with them to say it better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to put the glue factory into my contacts. The issue is that we have conflicting information from sources. Most sources have interpreted Foster's words as saying she's lesbian, but we have not a single shred of evidence that she actually said that. All she's said is that she "came out". As discussed ad nauseum in the RfC and other sections, we cannot specify an identity label based on the systematically biased media (see Bisexual erasure). We do now know if Foster is lesbian, bi, pansexual, omnisexual, homoromatic, etc. We just know she's not straight. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - that answer to your "who" is on the talk page. I chose to only list a couple examples in the ref. Do you want more or can I remove that silly tag? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to replace

Though many news outlets^[who?] have described Foster as lesbian or gay^[1] and she acknowledged coming out in a speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards,^[2][3][4][5] she didn't use the words "gay" or "lesbian" in her speech.^[6] Foster broke up with her long-time partner, movie producer Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.^[7] Foster also thanked Mel Gibson as one of the people who "saved" her.^[8] In April 2014, Foster married actress and photographer Alexandra Hedison.^[9][10]

by:

In 2013, in a speech at the 70th Golden Globe Awards, Foster came out without revealing much of her private life apart from being single after her relationship with movie producer Cydney Bernard had ended.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} The relation with Bernard started in 1993, and ended in 2008.^[11][12] In April 2014, Foster married actress and photographer Alexandra Hedison.^[13][14]

After which the OR tag can be removed.

Reason: let's not indulge in trivia too much. The speech was 6 (or was it 8?) minutes of her life. Not something to elaborate in such depth. The links to the media reports and the full transcript of the speech are provided in the references. But doesn't need more attention than what she actually wanted to reveal in connection to her private life.

Further, I don't think Wikipedia should report "the cyclone destroyed one village, but not two other villages in the same state" kind of news. Leave the non-event part to the press. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating on non-event issues I might give this example:

Duncan Grant made paintings for the RMS Queen Mary. The paintings were rejected,

• For the article on the ship this is a non-event, so not mentioned there;
• For the painter this was a turning point in his career, so mentioned in his biographical article.

Similary, in her coming out speech Foster did not mention anything about her stance on LGBT issues, nor on her personal flavour of LGBT-ness (she didn't even say she was not going to tell anything about it, she just said nothing about it):

• For her biography a non-event (we don't base biographies on what the subjects "didn't" do);
• Celebrities coming out without endorsing wider LGBT issues is a topic that might be treated in LGBT studies, no problem to name Foster as an example there, if backed up with sufficient reliable sources (of course, sources that demonstrate it is a LGBT topic and that Foster is a notable example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-event in her biography? Not, really. No. Alanscottwalker. (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tx for proving my point, neither of these two biographies mentions she didn't use the words "gay" or "lesbian" in her speech, nor any information formatted in a "she didn't..." or "what didn't happen..." non-event-like style (hence the OR being discussed here). As you will see that's the difference between the current paragraph and what I proposed (both versions quoted above): describe the coming out, avoid describing the non-events. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is delicate, since a number of sources just said "She came out as gay" or "She came out as lesbian", but other sources note that she only sorta came out, and didn't mention gay or lesbian. Thus, I think the clarification is important for the reader.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources say "she didn't (whatever she didn't do or say)".

So we have no source for she didn't use the words (whatever words she didn't use) in her speech.

Nothing delicate about it, just no sources.

Apart from that, bad style for a biography. That's my point.

The version I proposed above says "...she came out..." (confirmed by all sources, and avoiding all discussions about the actual words she used, so no OR) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we DO have sources Francis - for example, this one: [4] "Foster never said the word 'gay' or 'lesbian' in her speech giving fuel to those already critical of the two-time Oscar winner for not coming out earlier." There are plenty of other sources which discussed the ambivalence. Finally, I think calling it a "coming out" is also potentially wrong, again even if sources call it that, as Foster claims in her speech that she came out long ago.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) was just in the process of rephrasing, I realised that.

What I wanted to say:

No biography does "she didn't (whatever she didn't do or say)".

So, bad style for a biography. That's my point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further on Obi's last comment: WP:NOR 0.0: don't interpret primary sources, say what secondary sources have to report on them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOR also says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That's why I've called for simply stating that she addressed her sexuality, and give the quote, and note that she mentioned her longtime partner who is female.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the version I proposed above is fine with you? You're also in favour of not elaborating on what she didn't address herself? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is also about compromise, and we must realize Jodie Foster's sexuality has been a battleground and subject of discussion for literally years, so I think if we go a bit overboard in clarifying here what was and wasn't said, that is not untoward. Look at the huge disputes all over the wiki on whether she's put into LGBT categories or not. As far as the broader world is concerned, Foster is a lesbian, but she had a chance during her speech and yet never said it - instead she made a joke/admission "I am single", and then said that she had already come out long ago, and that she wasn't going to give a coming out speech. It seemed all very spur of the moment if you watch it, it seemed mostly ad-libbed, but if sources have misrepresented what she said (eg that which we can hear with our own ears) we should not perpetuate that even if the sources are all singing the same song. THis is why, for example, there was strong consensus to not call her a lesbian, nor to put her in lesbian categories, since while it may be obvious that she's not straight, it's not obvious what she does identify as. Hence, the desire by some here, which I completely understand, to highlight the fact that she didn't specify her sexuality. capturing this nuance is extremely tricky, but I'm confident we can get there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception history, that's the word, not ==Personal life==. For all we know the Bush murder attempt had more significance on her personal life than any of the reports on her speech. So, definitely keep the "discussion in the media" out of the personal life section. See also what I wrote above regarding the reception in the LGBT community: non-event for Foster, *maybe* noteworthy in LGBT context.

As far as reception history is concerned in the Foster article, her achievements in the film industry are what this is all about (oscars and the like). The reception of her little speech is no more than a footnote. Literally, in the footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to wade into an edit war on the main page, but a user has just removed two LGBT (generic) categories from the article, and added a note instructing other editors not to re-add them. Doesn't this contradict the decision taken in RfC 1? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above #Reopening discussion on RfC 1

Re. "added a note instructing other editors not to re-add them", incorrect: the note must have been there a long time (someone forgot to erase it?). A rationale was added, that's all. (note: the complete note and rationale have been erased in the mean while, I'm not particulary partial to such hidden notes) --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening the discussion, as well as being unncessary, does not give you a license to ignore its findings. If nothing else, the result of the RfC should stand while any further discussion continues. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can other users please refrain from ignoring the outcomes of RfCs 2&3 while we're at it, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think AlexTiefling is referring to me. Although I disagree with his characterization of my edit, I'll leave it at that and only request that he restore the deleted part of my edit "from acting" which seems to be collateral damage of his revert, and I'll depart from this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help - and please don't feel you have to depart altogether; I'm just trying to spare us all yet another retread of some very well-worn issues. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.

Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, an effect on categorization in LGBT (sub)categories. Input welcome!

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be getting ignored again, please stop adding LGBT cats to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Reading the whole article, why there is no mention of "LGBT" ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the RfC and other talk page discussion seems to be in favor of including LGBT cats. There's 2 there already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone There's mention of "coming out" and marrying someone of the same sex. LGBT umbrella applies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the outcome of three separate RFCs? I understand that multiple editors have added those categories but something has to be done about this recent content dispute. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the RfCs and their outcomes:

• #RfC 1 - Should LGBT categories be added to page? - Outcome: "Consensus appears to be in favour of this proposal based on the strength of the arguments put forward"
• #RfC 2 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in categories? - Outcome: "Consensus is against this proposal."
• #RfC 3 - Should "lesbian" be used to describe Foster in the body of the article? - Outcome: "Consensus is against this proposal."

The first two LGBT cats (LGBT actress and LGBT entertainers from the United States) were added immediately after the RfCs by ‎Binksternet. The most recent LGBT cat is what spurred this mini edit war and talk page section EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For note, Darkness Shines did participate in the RfCs opposing all three. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone is right: People at the RfC felt that a woman getting married to a woman fell under the LGBT umbrella without an explicit statement by Foster. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]