Talk:Colin Jackson

Charity Patron

This month Colin Jackson became the patron of the Fairbridge Cymru youth work charity. See - http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education-news/2008/09/11/jackson-winner-with-youth-charity-91466-21792556/

Is that relevant enough to include under his recent activities? I think that he is also a patron of a kidney research group, but I don't have a link about that. Dewi Rees (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Packer

Is it correct that Suzanne Packer (Tess in Casualty) is his sister? --MartinUK 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Yes. Her surname is adopted from her mother's maiden name as the name Suzanne Jackson was already registered with Equity.

Religion

Does Colin Jackson have any religious views? He strikes me as having an air of wouldn't-turn-down-Songs of Praise about him. --Bonalaw 10:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

removed 'personal life' entry

This entry consisted solely of reference to a rumoured fact 'in some circles' which hardly seemed substantive and proved not to be borne out by a google search. The presence of a 'Personal Life' entry doesn't seem a necessary element of wiki biographies of similar sportsmen for example: Linford Christie.

Therefore I removed it.

Sexual Preference

Can that user please stop removing the part about Colin's sexuality. We are in the 21st century and 'defamation' is NOT discussing whether someone is gay or otherwise. You should probably take a look at the Talk page of Ricky Martin, you'll be there for a while cleaning up all the "rumours"!. If anyone has any sources to prove he is 'gay' then please post them in the article, it IS relevant. But that will never appear in Wikipedia, and the explanation comes in this line: "We can't go around calling people gay..." Take out the word "gay" and try substituting: "straight," "Protestant," or "white," and the quote is ludicrous. Being classified as gay here is, unfortunately, still an insult and one must tread carefully. And nothing, absolutely nothing, short of a photo of Colin en flagrante with another male, will hold up in wikipedia's self-appointed court of correctness. 88.111.192.122 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a value judgement. The issue is simply, 'Is it True?' This is an encyclopedia. ALL statements have to be backed up with something. Jackson has never commented about his private life that i'm aware of, and there is no evidence to support the claim.Indisciplined 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I second this. Another point is why is it even relevant? David D. (Talk) 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. If he had a wife and kids then their names and residency would be put into this article quicker than you can say "homophobia". 88.109.223.182 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto if he had a boyfriend/partner. What's your point? Again, we need to get back to facts here. Indisciplined 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's important whether he's gay or not, but I do agree with the point the original editor was making, that "gay" (along with certain other neutral terms) seem to be wrongly taken to be defamatory by many Wikipedians. My guess is that it's largely American wikipedians who object to terms like "gay". The rest of the world (well, maybe not all of it) has moved on from assuming that "gay" is automatically a bad thing. --88.109.44.56 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but has nothing to do with the article. Without a factual basis, the claim can't come into this article. This is an encyclopedia. As I say, there are no value judgements behind that at all (like most Europeans, I tend to regard being gay or straight as about as important as being left or right handed. I believe that is what David D. meant when he said it wasn't relevant). Some users seem to be seeing a dark, sinister reason for removing the edit, which simply isn't there. Unsubstantiated gossip of all kinds is removed from articles on living people on a regular basis. If you want it to stay, find something to substantiate it with. Indisciplined 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting Mr. Jackson is anything BUT gay is ignorant and misinformed. With or without a citation of source(s), it is painfully obvious he is homosexual and therefore this article is lacking substantial information (or rumours). 88.111.85.198 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's just what you think, based on no eveidence. I'm going to refer this anonymous contributor to Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability. The key points:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Now, again, if you can produce evidence or credible sources to back your claims up with, it can quite happily go in go in. If you can't, this debate is over. Indisciplined 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How many articles about single men mention that they are heterosexual? That is what i mean by it is not relevant. Coupled with the fact it is hearsay (regardless of the truth), means it has even less chance of surviving in the article. David D. (Talk) 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I admire the superiority registered users feel they have over unregistered users. Brings an acerbic smile to my face every time. Anyway let's move away from that and discuss the real issue here: Mr Jackson. A person only needs to enter these words in google's search engine: "Colin"+"Jackson"+"gay", and you get many, many hits. Many lead to articles about Colin's sexuality, and in lopsided proportion, favour the notion that he is gay. But that will never appear in wikipedia. At which point does a source become 'trusted'. At which point do 'rumours' become fact? If you can clarify this for me then I will add the sources.

And to whip, Indisciplined, you have absolutely no say in whether this conversation is closed or not. If you feel you have nothing further to add then by all means, go elsewhere. We are not evenly matched, I know. 88.111.107.62 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)(Anonymous user)

Superiority? I think you are reading to much into the replies. Tabloids might work in the the format of xxx tabloid claims " quote". Which ones? What about answering my question? Again, "How many articles about single men mention that they are heterosexual? " You don't think it is a legitimate question? David D. (Talk) 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You do seem rather obsessed over Mr Jackson's sexuality. Rumours become fact, either when the subject makes a public admittance, or when Max Clifford gets the story and they decide to co-operate with the tabloids, or when they do a George Michael. Otherwise it's not in the public interest, so the newspapers won't touch it. And that makes it not encylopedic. We can't even put stuff on about Winterton and Prescott so you may have to just be patient. Catchpole 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a question of being obsessed, that is immaterial. So you are saying that because national newspapers have not run an article on it, then it is irrelevant information and cannot be trusted? Blogs are purely the creation of an individual, a civilan. And yet, what is the difference between this and a journalist writing in The Sun, for example? They are both conjecture, but because it appears in a NATIONAL publication it is taken as fact? How often have newspapers made errors or omissions anyway? 88.111.107.62 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The only fact is that it was in the paper. That is why if it was to be in the article it would be of the form "xxx tabloid claims quote." Nevertheless, why is it relevant? David D. (Talk) 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way your google search is a bit misleading, after the first page of conjecture in blogs most of the articles seem to be about Tyson Gay. Catchpole 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"How many articles about single men mention that they are heterosexual? " Oh what a question! You've just killed the whole argument there! Let me just retreat back into my hole. This is beside the point, please do not throw in hypothetical nonsense like this. Let's see. If a man robs a newsagents and is black, the description will also mention this fact: "6'1", black, short hair... etc". And YET if a white man should rob the same store, in the same circumstances, there is no mention of it. Why? Not because the announcer is racist! More like, because it is 'different'. Likewise, being gay is different and THEREFORE in the public interest, because it is the minority and THEREFORE people discuss it. I am not about to begin making a social commentary on homosexuailty in the UK in 2006, but come on. It isn't a profound idea.

There, I answered your question. Perhaps you could care to answer mine: At which point does a source become 'trusted'. At which point do 'rumours' become fact?88.111.107.62 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here? "White man robs store" is a pretty normal description of a robbery.

How about Lance Armstrong? Both blogs and tabloids pursuing this story. Should that be in the Armstrong article? Possibly but wikipedia will become an extension of the tabloid mania if every tabloid story is worth inclusion. How would this article be improved with the addition of this information. Maybe we should model it after the Armstrong article? David D. (Talk) 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Armstrong article doesn't appear to have any mention of such rumours. Listen out on the news or on Crimewatch next time to highlight the 'robbery' exxample, the difference between descriptions is astounding. 88.111.107.62 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get to see Crimewatch here (USA). Just did a google search for "suspect white male" 2,780 hits, compared to "suspect black male" 450 Others such as "robs store" "black male" or "white male" give similar numbers. Not sure what this means but Crimewatch might be the exception rather than the rule. David D. (Talk) 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are in the States then you should be familiar with the "George bush says that the Black people are looting, and Whites are simply looking for food" or whatever the direct quotation is. Anyway we are losing site of the original discussion here. Once I know how to DEFINE a trusted source then I shall add a wealth of sources to the article. If you could help me with this, for the third time, I would appreciate it. 88.111.107.62 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already suggested a way to write it: "xxx tabloid claims quote." You have to get the quote from the published tabloid. With respect to tabloids i don't think you are going to find a definition for "trusted" that all agree on. But at least you will be including a citation. And that is the most important thing at this stage. How it is worded and whther you can persuade others it is worthy of inclusion comes later. Without a source it is a non starter. This has nothing to do with superioirty, it is just the convention used in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So just to check, since I left, this page has not moved one iota. Our un-named editor (and what else can I call you?) has still not been able to produce a shred of evidence to back his claims. It also appears that they have not read the verification page I pointed them to, which would have advised them of what sources can be used, and how (instead they keep asking other editors how it could be done). The google example is laughable. You could put in "George", "Bush", and "Anti-christ" and get hits, but it wouldn't count as evidence. So as I said, the debate was actually over a long time ago. Unless they can produce a source, nothing changes. Produce a source we can use, and we will all be happy to see it's inclusion. Indisciplined 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary! How thoughtful of you to pop back in, I was having trouble keeping up! Now, to help YOU out as a thank you for the favour, I shall summarise what I am having trouble understanding. It lies within the phrase "reputable sources". What does that mean? How do we define that? Is a blog classed as reputable on Wikipedia? Is a newspaper? What if a newspaper article is national, INTERnational? Isn't that STILL conjecture? An article appearing in The Sun, for instance, would that be classed as fact or fiction? Does it vary with article to article, as I presume it would? I have sources to underline the notion Mr Jackson is gay, I POSTED them onto Wikipedia but -- they -- were -- removed, probably by you. Can we think and act like adults here? Nobody's going to place a bed-cam into Colin's boudoir, or anyone's, for that matter. EVERYBODY'S sexual orientation is a matter of conjecture. Merely reproducing, in itself, is not proof either. Lesbians can give birth (e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt) and gay men can father children the old-fashioned way (e.g. Rep. Ed Schrock). Merely hearing about it in tabloids: "I was cruised by John Travolta in a steambath!" is also he said/he said. Blogs are no proof. Gossip is no proof. What, then, is proof? It's funny, you accuse me of having not taken the time read what you have written yet YOU either did not read it or you are just too dimwitted to bother to think of an explanation. 88.111.107.62 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not do original research but report what others have said; your bed-cam fails WP:OR. Do not editorialise, but quote what others have said. Blogs are not good, see WP:RS. Published articles are good whether they are fact of fiction; they can be presented as claims from other parties. Wikipedia is not about proof or truth. It just reports what published opinions are out there. Everycase is different, and every case requires consensus. There are no lines that can be drawn that say this is reliable and this is not. Consensus building is the key. Some sources are much better than others and common sense would dictate how different sources lie on the reliability gradient. If this is not clear enough then read WP:RS and WP:WEB. David D. (Talk) 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for giving up three-quarters of the way through all that but I just thought I'd say, for whatever it may be worth, in a newspaper article (probably in the News of the World, if not, then The Sun) a man spoke of his gay affair with Colin Jackson. I can't recall it all but I remember reading Jackson ended the relationship by saying something like "You're thick. You are way below my intellect!" That was pretty much verbatim, funnily enough. This all happened when Jackson was on the TV a lot, so during some athletic games or Strictly Come Dancing. It was within the past year. Now if anyone's got the edition of that paper...

Because The Sun and The News of the World are the two most reliable British newspapers on the shelves. Cipher ^(Talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm maybe a little late on for this discussion but I hope anyone else finding this sees's this article. I'm not personally a big fan of any UK newspapers as they seem to print what they want when they want but this at least appears to be quoting Mr Jackson (who having met when I was a young athlete, is as good a role model as there can be for youngsters). I'll just throw it in here (if you read the URL it is a little different to the content itself, and therefore a little misleading at first glance). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-529649/Im-gay-I-like-single-says-Olympic-star-Colin-Jackson.html. I do think sexuality "can" play a part in something like wikipedia, in the relams of noting if someone is married or if any partnerships (of any orientation) are of particular interest. Otherwise I feel like others in this post where it does not matter if it is not posted on their wikipedia page, and if someone wants to keep that part of their life out of the private eye, we should be gracious enough to observe that fact, and to go all out to get a defnitive "straight or gay" answer is a little insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smellyape (talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Favourite food

Why is it mentioned four times that wine gums are his favourite food? Do they even classify as a proper food? Will (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stirring the shit, it's a lot more interesting than whether he's gay or not. WT 10/8/16

How can wine gums not be 'proper food'? Some men like snails, some like oysters, and some prefer wine gums. It's a free country, mate. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

100m Time

Does anyone know his PB over 100m flat? I seem to recall that he ran the event a few times at the height of his career - usually as a "novelty match-up" against Linford Christie. Despite his prowess over the hurdles, I seem to think that his 100m time was fairly "ordinary" (no slight intended....). It might be worth putting in to highlight his mastery of the technical aspects of hurdling....Just a thought... 82.3.148.90 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

10.29 ain't so bad... This article is still in need of a bit of work. I've added the personal bests section now. I did the lead as a brief career summary a while back, but we're still missing a lot of content for such a major athlete. If you speak French then hop on over to fr:Colin Jackson for more. SFB 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove media-covered coming out

User:Kevin_McE has arbitrarily decided to delete the well sourced reference to Colin's admission that he's gay, deciding all by himself that this is "not exceptional" and that it is "Not part of a career" and therefore not worth noting. Wikipedia is not a Jobs Encyclopedia - it has always covered the biographical and personal side of notable people even if they are known primarily for their careers, athletic and otherwise. So I'm inserting it back. Straight personalities, for example, have confirmed information about relationships and sexual identity inserted into their entries without major controversy. It is always LGBT people (especially LGBT male people in masculine professions) who are subjected to this concern trolling campaign by certain editors who consciously or not are engaged in a campaign to deny awareness of non-heterosexual identities of everyone except perhaps porn actors and professional activists. (Curiously enough, Colin's past denials of being gay have never before being edited out. Why should his admission that he is, then, be?) Rafe87 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Arbitrarily" is a ridiculous accusation: you know nothing of my mental process, and Wikipedia editors are meant to be bold. Of course I decided to do it: it wasn't accidental.

I moved it from the section "Post retirement career", because announcing one's sexuality is not part of one's career. And yet that is where you have put it back, with apparent total disregard for the section heading. Would you like to defend that decision?

"Straight personalities, for example, have confirmed information about relationships and sexual identity inserted into their entries without major controversy." You find me one single biography of a living person on Wikipedia that asserts that the person is heterosexual without reference to specific relationships. This is a thoroughly ridiculous statement: I could refer you to thousands of biographical articles that make no reference to anyone's sexuality. If we have information about Jackson's relationships, that might well be suitable for a "Personal life" section (not for a career section).

"It is always LGBT people": reading something like that makes me assume that you are more interested in campaigning than building a valid encyclopaedia.

"this concern trolling campaign": I can only guess at what this is meant to mean, but please find and cite one example of my taking part in such a campaign that you seem to believe exists. You do not know me, and have no evidence of trolling behaviour on my part.

I have no interested in denying anybody's sexual identity, and you have no grounds for suggesting that I have. If it is usual practice in wikipedia not to refer to anyone's sexuality other than in the context of their relationships, so I see no good reason to raise it here. Indeed, the only reasons why one might sensibly consider it necessary to raise his homosexuality it is if A) he has previously denied it in reliable sources, B) he is actively involved in Gay Rights campaigns, or C) the editor who wants to include it considers it exceptional or extraordinary in some way. I'd like to think that we have gone beyond the last by now, and see no applicability of the first two.

"Colin's past denials of being gay have never before being edited out": Really? What line of the article are these accusations on right now?

So I would ask you, if and only if you can establish that it is an established part of Wikipedia's BLP to record everybody's sexuality, to establish a proper personal life section supplemented with appropriate other information, and an answer to the challenges I make above to justify your accusations. Kevin McE (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course I decided to do it: it wasn't accidental. I'm glad we agree that it was an arbitrary decision.

You find me one single biography of a living person on Wikipedia that asserts that the person is heterosexual without reference to specific relationships.

This is utterly idiotic. This very entry is an example of such an article. For years this entry has displayed Collin's previous denials that he is gay, thereby implying he is straight. There are tons such articles all throughout Wikipedia. If denials that one's gay are notable enough to include in the entry, then so are admissions.

I could refer you to thousands of biographical articles that make no reference to anyone's sexuality.

Probably of people who have never said anything about that aspect of themselves. Colin has. It's you who are invested in denying that fact. If you delete this information again, we're going to arbitration.

reading something like that makes me assume that you are more interested in campaigning than building a valid encyclopaedia.

Oh you got me. I'm really campaigning all over Wikipedia, by including links to reliable sources relaying things that happened. I'm that biased a Gay Agendist!

Really? What line of the article are these accusations on right now?

It is still there, sweetheart. You should read the entry you're so impassioned about editing things out of.Rafe87 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason not to make an appropriate, reliably sourced mention of coming out etc. in the article. I believe the article body is OK in this respect as it currently stands (content-wise, while presentation could be improved upon).

Regarding the categories, this is what WP:EGRS#Sexuality has to say:

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, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Note WP:EGRS is two-pronged (self-identified and relevant), and while the first prong is obviously satisfied, in my opinion the second isn't. I don't see evidence that his public coming out (which is all we have at the moment) is particularly notable or impactful, and I don't see that some sort of instant-relevance can be established in a matter of days after his announcement. So, at least for the time being, I'd favor a conservative approach in accordance with the spirit of WP:BLP, and I'd support the removal of LGBT-related categories from the article. GregorB (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

All that is required for a person's sexuality to be relevant to their public life is that they are reliably sourceable as being out as LGBT, as opposed to being sourced to rumour or speculation or hearsay. By definition, a person has made it relevant to their public life through the act of openly coming out. It is rarely, if ever, actually possible for anybody to meet any special higher standard of "significance" beyond the fact of their outness — and even if it were, we would then get sucked into constant debates about how much higher significance is required. Is it enough that he brings his husband to public events, or do they have to engage in full public PDA? Does a writer have to write specifically LGBT-themed work for their sexuality to be "relevant", and even if they do does it cease to be relevant anymore the moment they've decided to write a book about something else? Does a musician have to perform music that addresses LGBT themes before their sexuality is "relevant"? Does an actor or actress have to play an LGBT character before their sexuality is "relevant"? Is a politician's sexuality "relevant" to their career only if they work on LGBT issues to the exclusion of municipal zoning or immigration policy reform or taxation or other "general interest" issues? The answer to all of those questions is no.

So no, all CATEGRS requires for "relevance" is that the person is properly sourceable as having placed it on the public record by coming out. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the mention and the categories. The simple fact is that biographical articles on Wikipedia contain a lot of cruft that's not particularly relevant to the person's notability (who cares who Jackson's sister played on Casualty, the name of his primary school, or his exact ethnic breakdown) and that's not likely to change any time soon. Jackson's sexual orientation has received much more coverage than a lot of this other stuff, and deciding to set a higher standard for someone's statement that they're gay can only be the result of bias. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Roscelese, given the fact that WP:EGRS actually does "set a higher standard for someone's statement that they're gay" - since it explicitly says that someone's public self-identification is not by itself sufficient for membership in a category - are you in fact saying WP:EGRS is "biased"? If not, what exactly is biased then?

What EGRS says isn't that sexuality has to meet a higher bar than anything else, actually. It says relevant to public life - and reliable sources evidently feel that this is the case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No, EGRS explicitly requires a higher bar: the fact asserted by the category does not merely have to be true (like all other categories), it also has to be relevant. The single source we have (The Guardian) merely reports about the event, not claiming that it's notable or exceptional. Cf. Michael Sam, an entirely different case in this respect ("the first publicly gay player to be drafted in the NFL"), where the LGBT categories are quite warranted. GregorB (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Apart from that, your argument is flawed. What you're saying is: 1) there is cruft in some bios, 2) Jackson being gay is more important than that cruft, 3) ergo his being gay should be reflected in categorization. The flaw is that this argument is completely disconnected from WP:EGRS and is essentially arbitary. To use categories here, one must demonstrate this would be compatible with WP:EGRS, and not some other arbitrary criterion constructed along the way. GregorB (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the mention and the categories. Perhaps someday in the future, no one will need to come out because no one will feel pressured to be anything other than their true self in the first place. In the world as it actually exists today, however, coming out is almost invariably a big deal, and a public figure's coming out is inevitably noteworthy. Re GregorB's comment: it is contrary to the spirit of BLP to attempt to suppress a reliably-sourced report that someone has voluntarily emerged from the closet. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is "suppressed" if the facts are stated in the article body. They already are, and that's fine, as I've already noted. There is a reason why categories need not (and should not) always mirror what is stated in the article. GregorB (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And that would be...? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

In other words, avoiding to categorize by non-defining characteristics is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories. That is: if Jackson is a sportsman who happens to be gay, rather than a gay sportsman, this is his non-defining characteristic. I believe that to be the case here. GregorB (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I see. So Jackson is not a gay sportsman? Hmm. What would an example of a gay sportsman be? And how are readers who are looking for, er, "sportsmen who happen to be gay" supposed to find them? Do we create Category:Sportsmen who happen to be gay? This is frankly absurd. What you seem to be saying is that something in the neighborhood of 99 percent of notable people who happen to be gay should not be placed in a "gay" category. I wonder what's next...maybe removing all categories that have minority groups in their names. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, 99% percent of, say, Catholics (other than clergy), aren't categorized as such. Same guideline, same basic reasoning. GregorB (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can think of a whole load of people who are categorized as Catholic who aren't clergy, as long as they've made public statements about it rather than it just being assumed because of their parents or something. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Or more like apples and motorcycles. In the First World in the 21st century, people don't come out as Catholic. Whether you like it or not, the sexual orientation of public figures who come out has become a noteworthy biographical detail, and that means that they're appropriate candidates for placement in relevant categories. If you want to promote erasure by deleting those categories, CFD is over that way. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And your point is over this way. GregorB (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

By definition, not. You said "[s]ame guideline, same basic reasoning"; I showed how little sense that made. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. For the reasons I pointed out in a comment above, all that is required for a person's sexuality to be "relevant" to their BLP is that they are properly sourceable as being out about their sexuality, rather than merely having their sexuality rumoured or speculated about. If he's out, and properly sourceable as such, then it's fair game for the article to mention and categorize him as such — being verifiably out is all the "relevance" we require. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not even sure what this discussion is all about; if the category "LGBT sportspeople" exists and we now know Colin Jackson is a sportsperson who's also gay, he should obviously be included in that category. Also, he labeled himself as gay; who are we to argue with someone using labels to describe who they are? You might believe labels will not be necessary one day (or hope so, at least), but that won't stop people from labeling themselves in an attempt to better describe their identity. We can try not labelling others (and "sportsperson who happens to be gay" as a rational instead of "gay sportsperson" also seems like label some might create to compartmentalize and divide parts of someone's identity, not understanding that's not really how identity works, regardless of social militancy), but we can't stop them from labelling themselves. --Luisftd (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)