[WikiEN-l] Ian McKellen's article - a challenge

[Pete Bartlett]

 ----- Original Message ---- 
From: Steve Bennett  

>On 22/04/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm  wrote: 
>> As for unbalanced: I still have no idea what people's fascination is 
>> with celeb's sexuality. Anything more than a line unbalances an 
>> article. Say what their sexuality is if relevant, put in a source and 
>> go on. We don't need entire sections on the subject unless the subject 
>> himself has frequently discussed it. 
 >
>I agree. I have my own ideas why such paragraphs get written but I'll 
>keep them to myself. In general, unless you can honestly start the 
>paragraph with "X's sexuality has been fiercely debated", then 
>anything beyond "According to some biographers, X was gay" is probably 
>too much. 
 >
>Steve 

 I fear you are barking up Tom Cruise's tree rather
than Sir Ian McKellan's! The latter has been a high-profile campaigner
for gay rights - he was a co-founder of Stonewall for instance. So some
talk of that in his article is right and proper.

Having said that, up until about a month ago the article came almost
exclusively from an interview in a gay magazine, so the
whole feel of the article came through a "pink filter" that was misleading
in a general encyclopedia. On top of that it was way out of date. That is my
guess for what he was finding objectionable.

Having said *that*, I now realise the article has already been getting 
improvements over the last few weeks, presumably since the Empire
interview was done.

Pete