Talk:Jay Brannan

NPOV tag

It seems Mr. Brannan himself feels this article is not factual or neutral. I have asked him to specifically identify the problems here so that they can be resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

i have done that over and over, and it constantly changes and i dont have the time that you have to stay here and check on it all the time

and as the latest example, i feel my public distaste with wikipedia is very relevant to my article here

but you keep deleting it because you think you are jesus

and then you tell me to bring up my concerns on the "discussion" page --- which you promptly "archived" right after i did so

this is crazy behavior, am i the only one who sees how cultish and weird this is?

pleeeease delete me from this site!!!!!! please!!!!!!!!!!!

jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybrannan (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

i am trying to participate in the discussion, but wikipedia user "zhang he" continues to delete even my comments on the discussion page, telling me they are "vandalism"

this proves my point 100%

i give up.

once again, the wikipedia cult comes out on top.

congratulations everyone.

jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaybrannan (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Jay, you still have not specifically identified what is inaccurate or misleading with the article as it now stands. Instead you make insulting remarks and accusations. We can't help fix the problems if you won't tell us what they are... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm not the one being insulting

you try battling the shit i have read about myself on wikipedia for the past...3 or 4 years?

i cant wait til you have a wikipedia article and you can see how horrible it is to watch other people try to control you, and pass it off as an "encyclopedia" article

this is unbelievable. i cant stand this site.

i just want to make sure that everyone knows i have tried, even if you delete my presence from the world altogether.

--Jaybrannan (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, never mind, I hereby withdraw my offer to help fix this article, and I'm taking it off my watchlist. If you won't even bother to say what the problem is, I really don't care any more. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

--ha yeah right, the second i make another edit, you'll be back to undo it --Jaybrannan (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay, why won't you answer the question? It's not really appropriate for you to soapbox in the article. Whether you believe it or not, Wikipedia's rules are that it is supposed to be accurate and unbiased, and it wouldn't be if the article included a rant against Wikipedia by you, sourcing your own self-published material as a source. Beeblebrox is asking you what's inaccurate, and you won't say. If you want it to be corrected, you have to tell us what's wrong. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, Beeblebrox and Zhang He really did revert Jay's talk. What is the matter with you two? -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Actually Jay Brannan has been telling us what is wrong with the article from February 2008 as User:Jaybrannan (confirmed to be Jay Brannan, the subject of the article), and before that as an anon user. He is frustrated because he can't work his way through what appears to be an impenetrable Wikipedia process and culture.

1. First and foremost, he wants the Jay Brannan article on him deleted.
2. Although he has indicated he is gay in interviews and stories about himself, he does not want that orientation to be his defining public attribute. No "gay" or "openly gay" characterizations, and, in his words, "no identity and labels forced on me by others..." He is first an artist and does not want the most important defining attribute about him to be his sexuality. In his words: "...i hate when my sexuality is sewn to my very name as if it were on my birth certificate, particularly when it is completely unrelated to the ensuing paragraph."
3. My position is that the term "gay" or "openly gay" is an issue of self identification, regardless of what one does sexually. I believe that his right to self identity trumps any issues of his sexuality being newsworthy. And since there is clear evidence that he does not so publically identify himself, it has to go. He is not a poster child for gay political activism. The issue is no longer whether that identification is sufficiently sourced or not. It's moot. He has every right, as does everyone else, to publically or privately identify himself as he wishes, regardless of actual orientation, whatever that may be, per WP:BLP and especially WP:MOS#Identity.
4. His position is that the photo of him in the article is being used without his permission. However, that photo was taken and released by a fan with CC-BY-SA on Flickr.
5. Other incorrect facts in the article.
6. The article should have a section on the contentious relationship between him and Wikipedia.
7. He is correct that his posting here on the talk page have been redacted or moved into the archives before being answered.

I think that covers the major points. If not, please add to it, Jay Brannan. He has made some major points that deserve an answer and fixing if possible. Further comments on BLP:

1. Basic content inclusion principles for any article, especially including all biographies, should be "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity", as shown in this WP:ArbCom case from 2007: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.
2. From WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

More later with specific responses, as I have to run. — Becksguy (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see "no harm" being done nor do I see any "dis-respect" being given, considering that he himself in numerous magazine interviews has said "I am gay" and considering that he practically engaged in gay porn in the Shortbus film with an in-real-life gay couple - all of this verified by reliable sources, not to mention from the subject's own mouth. I mean, for someone who is openly gay and has portrayed a gay character in 2 films now, I don't think hating on Wikipedia for including that fact is exactly acceptable. We present balanced, neutral and factual articles, not cater to the whims of the article subjects. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That someone has sex on camera for an acting/performing job doesn't mean shit about their sexuality or identity. Nor that they play gay characters in "legitimate" films. But I read the articles that are sourced, and I haven't found one where Brannan says "gay" himself, but all of them say that he's gay, and many of them have him talking about what that's meant for his life, especially re: growing up and his family, as if somewhere outside of the text his discussion with the writer certainly included identifying as gay. And in most of his songs he openly talks about love with men. He tweeted yesterday about his boyfriend. I don't understand his objection to being called openly gay here, when he's so open about it in his music and public comments, and he's called openly gay by every publication that mentions him. Maybe it bothers him that people put such emphasis on it, but I think it's just because he's extraordinary, in talent and being famous and out, and we gays are proud of him. If there's other issues he has, I wish he'd say so. But now he's seen even his discussion being reverted by two editors, and thinks that he's not only not allowed to edit the article, but not to talk about his problems either. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get to forum-y with praise here - of course deletion of posts is not cool either. As for the photo: it's legit if its in a public place. Concerts open for the public qualify. Hekerui (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---in any case the gay thing is only a minute fraction of my issue with the page here. the rest of my concerns i have voiced a million times, but no one listens (or cares). so....have it your way with your crazy site of inaccuracies that you pretend is an "encyclopedia"

and by the way, all you people who have nothing better to do than research where the photo came from -- when i was referring to copyrights i owned, i was referring to the photo that was posted before this one, not that any of you were around then.

it's always one problem or another with this stupid page (usually 10 problems at once)...i really can't wait til the whole site goes up in flames. and it will, eventually.

i'm sure you'll just delete this paragraph, too, or reverse the page like i was never here...again.

bye! --Jaybrannan (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sex

I tend support Mr. Brannan here: if he were publicly making an issue of his sexuality, it might be noteworthy, for example if he held a major position in an activist group. Otherwise, it seems gossipy and intrusive. We don't normally state sexual orientation on articles: I don't believe we have any articles which state "S/He is a heterosexual [whatever]" and I'd be surprised if we have any which state "S/He is a bisexual ..." but somehow if the subject is homosexual that is considered valid, and even important, content. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but right now this looks like intrusive gossip of the worst kind. Mr. Brannan has requested it be removed: we should respect his request. We're not Weekly World News, after all. We should have higher standards. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems here however I object to it being called "gossip" when he himself acknowledges the fact that he is gay in multiple magazine interviews, many being hosted in image format on his own web site. I also think it's going above and beyond the call of duty, and not in a good way, by not even mentioning "gay" in regards to the movies he's appeared in - both movies as a gay character. Being neutral and including only the facts is having "higher standards". By caving in to an article subject's objections to something he himself has already acknowledged or made known quite publicly via third-party reliable sources is not what I call having "higher standards". -    allstar▼echo    18:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking its undue weight, at any rate, and his request makes it also BLP. It may be factual that he had a puppy named skippy who was run over when he was nine, as a totally bogus example, but we don't need to put it in the lead or even in the article. "Factual" can still be gossip and not neutral. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with KillerChihuahua that the wishes of the article's subject in this matter should be respected; as she points out, we don't go around stating that people are heterosexual in the lead. Born Gay (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

LGBT tag

He's not an activist. He's not in any :GBT organization. I think its fairly obvious that Barak Obama has sex, since he has two children, but he's not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality, because he's not a sex researcher or have anything notable to do with sex. Likewise, there needs to be a stronger rationale than "he's gay!" to toss him in LGBT, especially as he's requested per BLP that not be made a focus of here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Being an activist or a member of any LGBT organization has nothing to do with being in a project's scope nor is including him in the project's scope for obvious reasons a BLP violation. Whitewash it from the article, fine.. but that does not determine for a project, who is and isn't within its scope. Jay Brannan most certainly is, not just because he really is gay, but also because of his portraying gay characters in film. Sounds like scope to me and I'm sure the majority of the WP:LGBT project members would agree. -     allstar▼echo     21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

retract that word "whitewash" or I will know for certain you are a bigot. I have not read beyond that inflammatory word. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF? You're gay and you're using the word "whitewash"????? I am completely at a loss. I suggest you rephrase your objection. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you are at a loss because you seem to be associating the term "whitewash" with something race-related. "Whitewash" in editing means to scrub clean, to bleach, to censor, to remove.. it doesn't mean anything about anyone's race. I assure you I'm not anywhere close to the definition of a bigot. I suggest you follow that quote by Durova on your userpage and refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification. -     allstar▼echo     22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash means to remove something derogatory about someone, or use weasel words to present something in a better light than the facts support. Its only about race if you're a racist. In this instance, since its about his being gay, the only conclusion I could manage to logically reach is that you think being gay is a Bad Thing, like being a liar or a murderer is a Bad Thing. Hence, my outrage, which I struck immediately as soon as I realized you did not mean that - you have a different meaning for "whitewash" - and why on earth are you responding to the post I had struck, rather than the one I posted after??? Makes no sense at all to me. I repeat my earlier request; since I cannot make sense of your accusation about whitewashing, please rephrase your objection to the removal. Thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding, you have nerve telling me to request clarification - I did so! "rephrase your objection" I said, but you chose to natter on about whitewash, which you have accused me of but not clarified. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the lede of the very Whitewash article you linked to: To whitewash is to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes, or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data.

That's exactly what has been done, especially the "glossing over" and "biased presentation of data", with this article and precisely describes what I meant by "whitewash". I can't, and will not, rephrase something I meant to say. If you're too knackered to actually read what I said, that's all on you.

You asked, why on earth are you responding to the post I had struck, rather than the one I posted after???. As far as I can tell, I did respond to the post after. In the post after you specifically said, You're gay and you're using the word "whitewash"????? and I specifically explained to you what the term meant and how I was using it. Please keep up with the sequence of events here. -     allstar▼echo     23:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. What precisely amd I "covering up" by removing a tag? You are making a serious accusation, whether you realize it or not, and I have been attempting to find out of what, precisely, you are accusing me. So far, you seem to have become more and more angry. I assure you angering you or fighting is not my intent. I did initially misunderstand your accusation to be that I was "whitewashing" the fact that the subject is gay; I was naturally outraged that anyone would consider being gay a crime or ill deed or shameful thing to be whitewashed. Once I realised you did not mean that, I struck my post. Since then, we've been talking in circles.

Of what, precisely, are you accusing me? What am I supposedly covering up? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that I am no where near angry. Not even mad or annoyed. Back to the topic at hand.. he's within the scope of the project for not just being gay in real life but for his gay work on film as well. Being an activist or being a member of a gay organization is not sole criteria for being within the scope of the project. As an example, I tag American football players who have played and starred in football at a Mississippi university, with the Wikiproject Mississippi tag because while they weren't born here in Mississippi and don't live here, they impacted our society and culture in some way. The same can be said about Brannan in the scope of Wikiproject LGBT Studies, especially his work in the film Shortbus. His performance alone garnered much attention within the gay community and general film community. In fact, if there's a wikiproject for film, it should be tagged on here as well. -     allstar▼echo     23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a clear post about the tag. I am glad to hear you are not becoming angry; text is notoriously hard to read in that respect and I had concerns given some of your verbiage.

I am now waiting for an explanation about the accusation of whitewashing - what shameful or evil thing was I supposedly covering up? You have dragged in race, I have no idea why, and "explained" the term to me, but you have failed utterly to clarify why you think this term was applicable to me in this precise situation. Is it possible that this was a poor word choice on your part, that I was not in any way attempting to "whitewash" this article by removal of a project tag from this talk page? Do you withdraw the accusation? If not, please explain it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep a cool head and don't let this debate escalate. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Placement of the WP:LGBT project banner on article talk pages means that the subject is of interest to the project, nothing more. Articles on many people and multiple subjects are included within the scope of the project. I agree with Allstar: "Being an activist or being a member of a gay organization is not sole criteria for being within the scope of the project." Obviously those of interest will include LGBT individuals, but there are also many individuals included for which there is no identification, or even rumors, of non-heterosexuality. Non-LGBT individuals that have been considered to be within the scope of the project include gay icons (Bea Arthur as an example), and those that are important because of their significant support for LGBT rights, or significant opposition to LGBT rights (James Dobson as an example). Actors, straight or gay, that have done significant gay roles on film or TV might be of interest, not necessarily because of their orientation, but because of their impact on LGBT life or culture. Jay Brannan, regardless of his orientation, is a person of interest to the project because of his acting in an unsimulated gay sex scene within the very groundbreaking major indie film Shortbus, as well as his gay themed songs, and his involvement in another gay themed film Holding Trevor. Bottom line: The WP:LGBT project banner is not a category for LGBT people. That would be Category:LGBT people. — Becksguy (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Some categories were removed (as seen here). There was no consensus for removal of all references to orientation from what I read on this talkpage. For clarity, I spelled out the source for the categories in the article, in case the factual veracity were to be disputed. The New York Times reported his sexual orientation in 2006 and the use of words is such that he doesn't dispute the fact and readily acknowledges it ("openly gay"), which means a privacy argument can't be made. The inclusion of the categories follows Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and is appropriate. Hekerui (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't see how it is acceptable to have categories Category:Gay actors, Category:Gay musicians, & Category:LGBT musicians from the United States if the text labeling Brannan's sexuality has been removed from the article following talk page discussions (as an example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at what I added, it's in there. Hekerui (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have removed the three LGBT/Gay related categories mentioned above as WP:BLP violations. There is extensive talk page discussion on this issue. — Becksguy (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. We don't blank reliably sourced content at request of a subject unless the content violates policy, which it doesn't here (the New York Times says "openly gay" interviewing him, as explained above). Hekerui (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See the section above curiously entitled "Sex". All participants agreed to remove the mentions of Brannan's sexuality, hence consensus, so I'll be reverting your change until a different conclusion has been reached here. While I'm not taking a position on whether or not this violates policy, the subject of the article has expressed his displeasure at the inclusion of such labeling. Since vast majority of biographies make no mention of their subject's sexuality, I see no reason to include it here, especially if the subject has specifically asked us not to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject shouldn't have a say in the matter as long as it's reliably and verifiably sourced, which it is, from the primary source himself and from third-party reliable sources. Just because the "vast majority of biographies make no mention of their subject's sexuality", doesn't mean there's a policy against it or that it can't be done in any article. Besides the fact that it's so obvious why it's done in LGBT bio articles, consensus should be founded on exactly that, consensus, not the hate of Wikipedia by an article's subject. All that having been said, you're well over the WP:3RR limit. Please stop edit warring. -     allstar▼echo     02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You say "it's so obvious why it's done in LGBT bio articles", but it's not obvious to me - can you elborate, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument in the referenced section is that it's not notable. Let's see: his movie roles were gay and in LGBT-themed movies, his music is frequently about LGBT themes (his love life) and the fact is featured in several interviews in reliable sources. Cite were WP:BLP contradicts the inclusion. Hekerui (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How is Brannon's sexuality notable? He's gay - so what? Gay actors are hardly unusual or uncommon. He has asked that such labeling not be included - regardless of whether it violates WP guidelines or policies, why is it necessary to include his sexuality in the article against the subject's wishes? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not censored and the comparison by the New York Times to Rufus Wainwright explicitly mentions homosexuality and the reasoning is misrepresented by censoring out this fact from the rationale included in the article. Hekerui (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing offensive about being gay, so I'm not sure why you are referencing WP:NOTCENSORED. Arguing that WP permits us to identify Brannan's sexuality isn't an argument for why we need to. Why is labelling his sexuality so important that we would do so against his wishes? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Removing a reference because Brannan is uncomfortable with it being written about despite him talking about it to printmedia is the censorship. It's a disparity to be openly gay in print media and on sold records and to appear in movies with LGBT themes and then wanting it to go unmentioned in an article sourced with reports on those. Besides, the article did not put undue weight on his orientation with only one article body reference in a comparison sourced in the NYT. Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are sufficient reliable sources to show that he is gay and I will stipulate that verifiability is satisfied. However, as a policy, WP:BLP trumps verifiability in this case. In other words, his orientation is moot. There is extensive discussion history on this issue specifically for Jay Brannan here on the talk page, in the talk page archives, in multiple entries in WP:BLP, WP:ANI, and the WP:LGBT WikiProject venues, and in an WP:AFD. A WP:OTRS was filed by Brannan also.

No one editing here wants to delete reliably sourced information about Brannan. No one is trying to censor the content. No one is pushing a anti-gay POV. What is happening is that orientation information on Brannon has been determined to be a BLP violation. That's the reason its being deleted. No other reason. Brannan is a NYC artist that happens to be gay, not a gay artist. He is not a gay poster child and doesn't want to be one. Being gay is not a particularly important aspect of his public persona, even if he has talked about it in interviews.

Wikipedia does not report all information about people, even if it's reliably sourced. I think it's clear that there is a tension between reporting everything about a person on one hand and respecting basic human dignity and doing no harm on the other. Wikipedia is on the side of dignity and doing no harm; that is, we are not a tabloid. So to me, it's about balance. People may disagree on where the balance point should be on any particular subject, but I think everyone agrees that there does need to be a balance.

Here are a few major discussions on this issue:

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 19#subject's preferences about including sourced, public, relevant information
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Brannan
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 13#Jay Brannan
• Talk:Jay Brannan/Archive 1

Also read Brannan's open letter to Wikipedia from his blog: [1].

Hekerui, I suggest you read all the above and then come back with some compelling arguments as to why this should not be considered a BLP violation, or that the balance point is in the wrong place. Here again are some basic BLP concepts:

• Basic content inclusion principles for any article, especially including all biographies, should be "Do no harm" and "Respect basic human dignity", as shown in this WP:ArbCom case from 2007: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.
• From WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

As an aside, before Feb 2008, I was making pretty much the same arguments as you for inclusion. Allstar, others, and I were even reverting what we thought was IP vandalism that kept removing the phrase "openly gay" from the article. But this article and Jan Brannan was an epiphany for me on BLP sensitivity issues when I saw the distress this, and the other content issues, were causing him. — Becksguy (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The links you give are concerned with a version of the article where that fact was stated in the lead. It was not in the revision where it was blanked the last time. If you tell the New York Times and other print media in interviews you are openly gay and film an explicit gay sex scene for distribution and sing about gay relationships in your music then a BLP violation per privacy concerns with regard to your sexual orientation is a moot point. I will add the information and point out the direct quote. Hekerui (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue here, and you have made an request for comment. Edit-warring isn't helpful. I will be reverting back to the version that had earlier consensus - I suggest you leave it as is until a new and different consensus has been reached here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read those discussions I don't see any kind of broad consensus for censoring the article according to Mr. Brannan's wishes. And if such a consensus had been reached, it's wrong and needs to be overturned. Dlabtot (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful to review the WMF's resolution about BLPs before declaring the earlier consensus reached as "wrong". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I took your advice and reviewed the resolution. The salient points here are that it calls for special attention to neutrality and verifiabiliy, for taking into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy, and in this instance, to treat Mr. Brannan with patience, kindness, and respect. Including well-sourced information that the subject of the article has himself publicized in the media and that is central to understanding why he is notable in no way violates any of these principles, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One by one on the Foundation's points:

1. Brannan was "compared to Rufus Wainwright, another openly gay young singer-songwriter", that's a neutral and verified quote from the New York Times
2. including his orientation respects his privacy because he is, as the New York Times says, open and made the fact public in print media, film, and music
3. point on technical mechanisms
4. I was not unkind to include the information, because he himself disclosed it prior to it being stated here

Hekerui (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that he's gay. However, that characterization in the article is clearly violating his personal privacy by turning him into a gay poster child when he does not present himself as such. He has not presented himself as a gay actor, gay singer, gay activist, or gay spokesman. He is not running around advocating for gay marriage. He is a notable singer/songwriter and actor, but his sexuality is not central to understanding his notability, rather it's personal. Much of the notability is from acting in the groundbreaking Shortbus, but he was not packaged as a gay actor playing a gay part. Compare that with Will, of Will & Grace, who happens to be played by a straight actor in a gay role, but that is not made into a big thing that defines his notability. Read Brannan's complaints here and on his blog and see if he feels that his dignity is being respected. Brannan feels that Wikipedia has treated him very badly. And he has some right to feel that way, as an admin in the AfD commented. And I agree. We are violating WP:BLP policy by being a tabloid paper relative to this aspect of his life. We would not treat his religion, political, or social views the same way. Further, the Foundation's statement on BLP is a high level policy and vision statement, not intended to be used for a detailed point by point argument. The more detailed policy is laid out in WP:BLP and other places. Also, those of us that are removing BLP violations are not supporting Brannan in controlling his biography, rather we are following the spirit and word of BLP policy, the ArbCom decision, the Foundation's overarching policy statement, and supporting human dignity and privacy. — Becksguy (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe your characterizations of the facts to be false, though no doubt well-intentioned and meant in good faith. Dlabtot (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Becksguy, you are citing complaints that are not applicable anymore, that AFD concerns a version of the article that is not even discussed. Hekerui (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that discussions in that AfD about overall notability of the article are mostly useful for historical reference, and the article has changed some since then, however discussions about BLP issues are still very much at point as the rationale hasn't changed since then. In fact, the Wikipedia standards on BLP have actually gotten stricter, so those concerns are even more applicable if editors add BLP violating material about Brannan's sexuality back in to the article. And the subject's basis for the WP:OTRS complaint is still valid and currently applicable, as evidenced by Brannan's last posting here. — Becksguy (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Becks, because I respect you, I'll bite my tongue on most of what I really want to say and just offer my final say on this issue. There is no BLP violation in having "openly gay" or any related categories because he has said it himself out of his own mouth (which moots any point about his so called privacy), it's reliably and verifiably sourced and it's fact. BLP is meant to prevent negative unsourced content and libel. As it's fully sourced and as it can't be libel since he's said it himself, BLP does not apply and there is no BLP violation. Now, carry on, I've had my final say on the matter. -     allstar▼echo     06:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC

The New York Times referred to Brannan as openly gay, is it then a BLP issue to include him in the categories Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors? Hekerui (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time understanding why this is even an issue. From someone who just came in and read all these discussions it seems it really is all about him wanting to have ownership of his Wikipedia article, and several editors supporting him in that effort. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question: Should I therefore add to the Chad Smith article "Chad Smith is an openly straight drummer..." and continue to stress his heterosexuality throughout? What if, per BLP, we did it anyway and he asked us not to talk about his sexual preferences so darn much, since he's not an activist in that field? Could we trim it a bit? Would it make sense to trim it? Per WP:BLP should we trim it? Why are youwe so obsessed with his sexual preferences anyway? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) - NOTE: edited to make it more clear I am continuing the hypothetical example, not addressing any one in particular or even anyone who actually exists at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in hypothetical questions concerning articles that I have never visited. I'd be happy to discuss this article, however, if you would care to do that - that is if you are willing refactor your personal attack against me. Otherwise, I have nothing to say to you. Dlabtot (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, that was merely hyperbole. I assure you it was not an attack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that I have made exactly one edit to this article, and first participated on this talkpage yesterday, saying that I am "obsessed with his sexual preferences" is not only clearly and undeniably a personal attack, it is a blatant and obvious falsehood. I strongly urge you to reconsider your recalcitrance, and to apologize and refactor. If you are unwilling to participate in the discussion in a collegial and productive manner, the next step is WP:WQA. Dlabtot (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand hyperbole? So far as I know you have never edited the Chad Smith article, which was my "example" and my further posts were all based upon a hypothetical editor, not named, editing that article to include and focus on references to his sexuality. The point was to draw a parallel. Now do you comprehend my meaning? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm more than happy to discuss this article, but I'm not going to respond to your attacks against me. I'm filing a report at WP:WQA. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind. This isn't worth my time. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting here for any who read this and are concerned, as I was, about Dlabtot apprently still feeling he has been wronged and not pursuing resolution merely because it "isn't worth (his) time" - I have attempted to resolve this and was rejected[2]. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I could help on this article. But I'm not interested in participating in an ugly, emotional discussion. I simply don't have enough interest in this subject. Unwatched. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for comment. I think that this person should be in Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors on the grounds that those categories each contain approximately 250 other biographies of similar format as this one, and depicting people of similar social status. I say this despite the claim that this person is not a figurehead for gay-related causes, because that precedent does not appear to have ever been set for including other people into those categories. A more interesting discussion would be whether those categories should contain these types of people, but that is not part of this debate, so find the relevant page to talk about that if that is anyone's point of contention. Blue Rasberry 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Gee maybe it is worth asking why we don't have a Category:Straight actors. Is it purely because categories only get applied to minority groups? Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Anything on the question at hand? Hekerui (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that directly applies to the question at hand. It just doesn't offer a solution. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blue Raspberry, have you read the discussions on the talk page, or are you merely responding to the RFC posting? I ask because I'm not sure how many of the people listed in those categories have specifically asked not to be labeled as such. The subject of this BLP has. Does that make any difference? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He has scanned articles about himself posted on his website where he discusses his coming out! How much more comfortable can you get? And it's categories and a style comparison by the New York Times, no gay mention in the lead. This BLP stuff was picked apart several times already and shown to not apply. Hekerui (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand your reply, nor why you are replying to my question to Blue Raspberry. The subject of the BLP has asked here and elsewhere that his sexuality not be included or labeled in this article. I have yet to see you offer any reason why it is necessary or desirable to include it over his objections. I have never offered a position on whether or not there is any violation of BLP guidelines (and I didn't even mention it in my comment), but I haven't seen it to be shown not to apply either. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also responding to the request for comment. I agree with Blue Rassberry and other users here who support the inclusion of this page in Category:Gay musicians, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, and Category:Gay actors. The intended purpose of those categories is to categorize people who are openly Gay, LGBT, or Gay actors. There is no issue here. Additionally, consensus on this issue appears to have been reached. Please move on everyone. There's lots of pages on Wikipedia that we can edit. --S.dedalus (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for comment. While I would personally support inclusion of this page in gay related groups, I think Jay's wishes need to be heeded as the policy of "Biographies of living persons" clearly states "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." When there is conflict, favor must fall to the option that protects privacy.

Hence, I think Jay's privacy would be best served by heeding his request to detach any LBGT tags and to even delete the article entirely. Daniel518 (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Birthday

Is there a reliable source for March 29? Hekerui (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I added his own message about his birthday, that should suffice. Hekerui (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopen discussion on categories

There was never concensus to remove the LGBT categories, only page ownership and reverting the addition of the categories, so I'll list the arguments for inclusion of the categories again:

1. Brannan posts magazine stories where he talks about his coming out on his own website
2. removing the LGBT categories on BLP grounds pointing to Brannan's "uncomfortableness" is therefore ridiculous
3. Brannan was described by the New York Times as "openly gay"
4. LGBT themes are obviously there throughout the career, omission amounts to censorship

I'll readd the categories. Hekerui (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As said, it's posted on his own website, here an outtake of the April 2007 interview with Zoo Magazine, posted on http://jaybrannan.com/images/brannan%2013-03.pdf : "It didn’t help that he was accidentally outted when he kissed a boy outside his house one night, thinking nobody would see them. But his brother did, and told their mom. To Brannan’s parents, homosexuality “fits in this category of, like, the whole sin, sinner, hell thing,” he says with a sort of weary resignation." You're welcome. Hekerui (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the thing: you've posted speculative material here that proves nothing, and definitely doesn't satisfy the requirements of BLPCAT and BLP generally. Quit readding this without more solid proof than you currently have shown. If you readd it again, I'll be forced to ask that you be blocked. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, my bad. For some reason, it only loaded the first page when I tried to look at the PDF, and I thought it was synth based on a pic. My apologies, and I've self-reverted. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The PDF loads slowly, it broke off for me when I first tried to load it, so no problem. Hekerui (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just stumbled into this article (and its heatened discussions), and, although I didn't even who this dude was, I'm all for including those categories, as well as quoting the NYtimes. Let me say why:

1. Categorising is quite normal on wikipedia, as long as those categorisations can be proven. I mean, what if we got rid of the LGBT-themed categories? Has anyone ever seen the categories at the bottom of pages of African Americans (African-American actors, African-American singers, etc.), or people hailing from Greece (Greece female singers, Greek musicians, etc.), just to name a few ad random. Should be get rid of those either?
2. This article does not imply anything, it's merely quoting, not even from a cheap gossip magazine or shady tabloid, I might add. We are not the ones that kick him into a box were he doesn't want to be. Everything that makes him, sexuality included, is all found on the internet, with more than enough supporting sources. I mean, if even Jay himself talks and sings about it, why are we the ones who should be silent? And at that point you reach the censoring-area, coming to point 3.
3. What if Kim Jong-Il doesn't like the way he and his country are being 'portrayed' on Wikipedia, and writes a letter/ email/ telegram/ whatever, stating that he doesn't wish to be on Wikipedia. Should we just get rid of his article, or get rid of the things that he doesn't like? If he doesn't like his country being depicted as 'having one of the world's worst human rights records', should we then deny the Human Rights Watch report, and get that section out of the article?

So what I'm trying to say is: Oprah Winfrey isn't blogging that she hates Wikipedia, because they categorise her as African-American, Despina Vandi doesn't ask Wikipedia to save her the headache by keeping her off this site because she is been categorised as Greek, etc., because that's just what it is: not the most important thing about a person (well, for anyone who is considered sane, at least ;)), but nevertheless something that partially makes the person who he/ she is. Wikipedia isn't spreading around lies about Brannan, we simply quote things relevant, and no one in the world, well, besides Kim Jong-Il himself, I guess, would even consider removing the HRW report about Nort Korea.

People can ask why it is so important to include this all in, but those questions have been answered rather a lot. What I don't get, is, if it is included, why people would be agitated by all of this. When I was little I used to hate I am a redhead, and especially people calling me that. Nevertheless: I am. I can't be bugged by being called gay, because I am. And whether people think highly, negative, or neutral about the Netherlands and the Dutchies, I can't (and won't, for that matter) deny the fact I'm from NL and thus am a Dutchie. So why be só offended by things that are facts? It hasn't hold me back from becoming who I am, nor will it ever do so. The moment this article calls him things that are untrue, the moment that this article does everything to reveal his love- and/or sexlife, etc. then there is no doubt that it is harming him. This, however, are just a few categories, and one quote from the NYtimes. That's all. If one can be harmed by merely those things, then how many people all around the world must feel really harmed in some way, just because they are who they are? :s Robster1983 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Structure restoration

I restored structure to the article, it recently lost its lead and the sections. Putting it all in one section reduces readability and the lead needs no citations per WP:LEAD as a summary of the article. The article also lost sourced info on his style that was partly replaced with unsourced info, as well as categories, which I fixed. I removed the external links in the article body per WP:LAYOUT and also removed unsourced material and a list of appearances that make the article sound promotional. Wikipedia is not a directory. The videography makes no sense since every song of his has a video and the list included more than the professionally produced, and there is no evidence cited that the song with Margaret Cho was commercially released. Hekerui (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Although amendments are welcome, one cannot just revert 112 edits that I have thoughtfully passed with one entry as if what we had earlier was cast in stone. In fact the very subjective presentation that we had earlier had caused huge objections to the extent that it became unbearable to continue any objective way of amending anything. This has to end. The intro that I had introduced was by far much more comprehensive than what was offered. We cannot go back 180 degrees back. We can simply improve on the already very much improved text beyond all the subjective fluff hat we had. Regarding his style, it was just a bunch of subjective opinions trying to make him similar to some other srtists based on the opinions of one writer. An artist should be given integrity rather than be shown as resembling some other artists. The artist himself had huge misgivings about being categoriized as a gay artist and those were removed. I have reverted to my last version for everybody to see, hoping that we can improve on the last version that we have rather than dismiss 112 edits in one "undo" click with a very general and I may add unconvincing reasoning put forward. As for losing the sections, I see no need to elaborate sections on what must be a very little-known artist with no record whatsoever of any success in the charts at all. Sectins would be fine for an established and long-standing artist which Brannan clearly isn't. I have introduced an all-inclusive yet concise intro of what he has actually done, leaving all other details to one global career section. It would be more than enough for this artist werldwayd (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You removed biographical content because he is "a very little-known artist with no record whatsoever of any success in the charts at all" as per your own admission, which doesn't make sense. We don't remove reliable sourced content for such a reason. You don't have to be Michael Jackson to have reliably sourced information in your article. You add Houston as birth city without a source. You remove the LGBT categories even though he self-identified as such as proven by his interview in Zoo Magazine linked on this talk page. You remove analysis sourced in reliable sources with quotation as subjective? It's analysis and they're quotations and the sources are identified - how else can we get info on his style? Instead you restore a list of what magazines he appeared in? This is a biography, don't remove biographical information for an list of magazines. And you say the New York Times is somehow biased against Brannan? On Wikipedia verifiability matters so if you think an analysis was somehow unbalanced produce a reliable source that discusses this and don't simply remove content and sources. The previous version was reliably sourced, your revision is not anymore. I went back to the previous revision because I think it's more encyclopedic. Hekerui (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not argue further. I tried for once to propose a much more "encyclopedic", "dry" and truly "neutral" presentation, yet you preferred twice in a row in two days to revert to an earlier existing controversial subjective text word for word. But if you are expecting another lengthy discussion of how and why from me, I am not the guy frankly. My rule of thumb is try once and then move on. I shy away from lengthy discussions that lead nowhere. I came in to propose a non-controversial version that would be acceptable. That was on October 20, 2010 my first ever edit here, and long long time after all these futile discussions that led to nowhere and the text remained despite it all. It seems all the acrymonious discussions above on this page which is now 20 times as long as the text itself hasn't still convinced you that an inflexible attitude can cause. On my talk page you invite further discussion so that we don't go into "edit war". Tell you what, I don't want to be involved in any article editing that remotely has to do with any type of "edit war". No one single Wikipedia article, regardless of how important it is, is worth making an edit war about. So I move on to less controversial edits and far away from this page. Keep everything as is. werldwayd (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N

Re "openly gay" and the LGBT category, please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jay_Brannan. --JN466 12:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to resolve this debate by adding a comment to the category itself [3] emphasizing that it is simply the overlapping subset of people, and doesn't say anything about the type of music. Maybe someone can think of a way to fine-tune it. I hope that, at least to some degree, such a notation directly addresses what Jay Brannan actually wants, though not in the way he asked for. Wnt (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

His music is about gay relationships and their particular foibles and difficulties; his career was kicked off by a film in which he had unsimulated gay sex; his privacy shouldn't detract from the relevance of the category. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. It's important and integral to him as an artist, despite what he might have said about privacy in a blog some years back. Zythe (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Brannan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713092456/http://jaybrannan.com/images/brannan%2013-03.pdf to http://jaybrannan.com/images/brannan%2013-03.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130180138/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2003312892_shortbusint20.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2003312892_shortbusint20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)