----- 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 On top of that it was way out of date.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