Talk:Darren Hayes

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). LGBT studies: Person 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 This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. Australia: Queensland / Music Low‑importance Darren Hayes is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Pop music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Following a spot of vandalism this article was nominated for deletion and speedily kept after the vandalism had been removed. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 7 November 2007 - Article has been vandalised again, I have reverted the changes on it. (Vandal: 211.26.30.72) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.188.188 (talk) {|}

Does anyone have any suggestions they'd like to make regarding what sites should be included with this article? I've seen in the history that there has been a sort of battle between those who want their Darren Hayes fansite included and those who don't want this article to just act as a link farm for those who want to self-promote through Wikipedia.

What criteria are we looking for in links besides those we know to be official? Should we even have any outside of official sites? I'm thinking maybe not since in order to be fair we would have to include all sites and there are many fansites out there, so perhaps better to include no unofficial sites unless they present something noteworthy? Sunhawk 03:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this discussion, people need to read up on this Policy page regarding the External Links section, because it explicitly says that sites that do not contribute any original or unique information should not be included in the External Links section. As well, fansites should be limited to one large fansite so it would be best if we could have some kind of democratic vote rather than the same people putting up links to their own websites over and over again - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links Sunhawk 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is having looked at other artists pages some have fansites some do not I certainly don't think its one person's decision to remove them and I would appreciate you leaving them alone. Someone however has seemed particularly keen on removing mine for whatever reason. As I've only seen about 6 fansites added at any one time it feels as if they should just be left there - Maggz—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.49.239 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad to see some discussion finally on this issue. I don't know about removing particular fansites, when i check Darren's articles I remove all fansites to be fair. Someone does seem keen on adding your website more often than other fansites, perhaps that is why it appears that your site is removed more frequently, because in that sense it is. As well, the issue isn't that fansites cannot be added period, it is that they cannot be added unless they are providing something more than the average fansite which tend to have the same articles and photos. If you feel your site has something more to offer, please specify what that is and offer us some links to evaluate. Wikipedia is not supposed to be used a place to promote websites, that is also site policy. Nor is the removal of fansites being done soley by myself, I just appear to be the only person interested in discussing the issue. Sunhawk 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in case you missed this part of the External Links policy link I provided, this is something to keep in mind, as part of "Links Normally To Be Avoided" : "3. A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." - hence my bringing up this issue. Sunhawk 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site is ADDED more often as others seem more intent on removing it more often so don't mistake the order in which things happen. I would be very interested to hear why it is being removed by other people but as I suspect its being done out of spite they are not likely to speak up in which case that should not be made my problem. Clearly the site has a large amount of relevant information including the archive of hundreds of interviews, public postings made by Darren Hayes, the fact that it is updated regularly, lyrics, discography etc.. - Maggz—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.49.239 (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think your website is one of the larger fan sites out there and has reason to petition to be included. The thing is that there is a process to adding fansites to articles and it is done for the good of Wikipedia. You may not agree with that process or the limitations Wikipedia sets but that doesn't mean you can just ignore them and keep adding your site. A lot of people work hard to keep the articles on Wikipedia adhering to the standards set out, so unless you have actual proof that people are removing your site for malicious reasons rather than because you are ignoring protocol, another policy of Wikipedia states it is better to assume good faith about their intentions

WP:AGF

I get the impression you feel this discussion is unnecessary and being done out of spite as well but I am merely trying to solve this issue in the manner in which Wikipedia encourages - through consensus

WP:CON As well, I've had a few people emailing me as to why your website was "allowed" to remain while other fansites were removed, I felt it would be best to try to make it as transparent as possible why the article is the way it is and show that we will, in fact, allow certain fansites if a consensus is reached about them. But that can only come through actual discussion. Sunhawk 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If there are several people emailing you to enquire why their sites were removed I find it confusing as to their lack of involvement in this discussion if they feel so strongly about it. How can the matter be discussed or resolved or a consensus reached if other people refuse to participate. Maggz—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.49.239 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I did not mean to suggest I am acting as a spokesperson for anyone, I am merely speaking for myself. I, in fact, share your frustration about the lack of participation in this talk page about this issue, hence why I started the original topic of External Links. But it may be that those interested simply have not been to Wikipedia since I started the topic, since it appears to be fairly common to take breaks from Wikipedia and as for myself, I don't spend all my time here and tend to leave for weeks at a time. Again, we should assume good faith rather than speculate that they have sinister reasons (such as "refusing") for not participating in this discussion. Especially since I get the impression that some of the editors here are also unfamiliar with Wikipedia and may not understand how a talk page operates, given the occasional awkward editing we get in the articles. I think patience is the best solution, hopefully we can get more editors involved and if we do not, ir may be best to go through the process of outside arbitration to resolve the matter without personal bias.

Incidently, if you want to reply to a reply, all you need to do is add a colon to the number I used for my reply (two) and then the reply will thread properly :) Sunhawk 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention should be made of Darren's Too Close For Comfort performances in the UK. He will be performing at the Sydney Opera House this month which willed be filmed for DVD.

Darren also recorded a duet with Olivia Newton-John for her (2) album.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.53.251.2 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just as excited as everyone else about the news but let's please try to limit the amount of speculative information we include that seems validated by Darren's announcement. Darren has always been very private and one announcement about his private life is not a green light to go crazy including everything thought to be known about that private life. Just my two cents Sunhawk 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this again, I'm also going to remove him from the "Gay Musicians" category seen as he hasn't stated whether he is bisexual or gay. I would probably assume bisexual, but if anyone has specific information, please site references and edit as appropriate. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiislam (talk • contribs) 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sunhawk 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Darren is both gay and bisexual...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiislam (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i've noticed that little edit-tussle going on *chuckle* Sunhawk 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible to be both gay and bisexual. The former implies exclusive interest in one's own sex, the latter implies there is no such exclusive interest. Either you swing one way only; or two ways. You can't do both. JackofOz 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayes has said he is a "gay" man not a "bi-sexual" man. If you go to YouTube you can find his online March 19, 2007 interview from an Australian program where he says "as a Gay man." He says "they knew I was gay before I did," and numerous other times he says he is gay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79Eric79 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By definition Darren must be one or the other. Considering he has married people of both sexes I would say he is bisexual. Yes, he is a private person but the evidence available suggests he is bisexual. Dankru 04:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is one of the reasons that Darren went so long without confirming anything more about his sexuality because we, as a social whole, are so quick and keen to label people this way. I say we make it bisexual since that's the less restrictive of the two labels. Sunhawk 00:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Darren is gay. Just because he was previously married to a woman does not automatically make him bisexual. As it is, unless Darren specifically states one way or another then his sexuality is his own business.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.53.248.3 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, you may say that Darren Hayes is a homosexual male (please avoid using the word gay as it has its denotations]], but it is said that he, himself, doesn't classify himself to be straight, gay, or bisexual. We aren't saying he's bisexual because he previously married a wife, but we are saying it as he himself stated it apparently. It doesn't actually matter, just say that he's sexual orientation current is either gay or bisexual. --Qwerty 07:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it really matter what his sexuality is? If he doesn't find the need to declare himself as either or any other, I think it's not our "duty" to decide one for him, and more importantly saying he's either when he hasn't said he is would just make the article inaccurate. --Hcblue 19:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kinsey, few people are 100% straight or 100% bi. My theory is that Darren Hayes is bisexual with a strong leaning toward men. In practice homosexual (exclusively if he's faithful to his new husband), but if, say, Cindy Crawford popped outta nowhere and mounted him, I think there's a slim chance he might enjoy that too. (and if that did happen and was taped, I'd pay big money for the video. But that's beside the point) 68.164.85.28 08:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) a random Elizabeth[reply]

He was most likely straight/bi but now is gay, ""When I first started realising that I was gay, there was definitely a sense of mourning that I had for the dream of a wife and 2.1 kids, a dog and a white picket fence," he explained."-[1] He is gay but for a substantial part of his life he was straight/bi. HE IS GAY. HE WAS STRAIGHT/BI. end of story.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.55.159 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly says he is gay, so it's fair enough. Changed as appropriate - Ashadeofgrey 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My girlfriend and I were at the Darren Hayes "Club Delicacy" show on Thursday, March 29th, 2007. During the show, he was making small talk to the crowd when he declared, "Things change as you get older. I wear glasses now. I'm gay. [audience cheers] And I wear glasses now." So the question of whether he is gay, bisexual, and the question of whether or not he openly talks about it are both answered in this funny excerpt from an amazing Darren Hayes show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.103.80 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tid-bit here; Elton John was also married to a woman, and now he's living with David Furnish. What exactly is the orientation of Elton John, then? Besides, why can't people's orientation change with age, with time? Also my comment above from last year was poorly constructed, sorry. Qwerty (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is 3 years later, but I just have to say how incredibly wrong the statement by Qwerty is; in point of fact, the word "homosexual" is considered passe, out of use and a strictly clinical term which has negative connotations simply because it implies that the only facet of sexual orientation is who one has sex with; whereas "gay" is considered, at least in the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia and, to my knowledge, most of the world, to be an all-encompassing, non-offensive term that should be used with the assumption it will not offend. CouplandForever (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why someone decided to (a) add information about his personal life in the trivia section and (b) add information that has already been stated is beyond me and is hence going to be removed. - A Shade of Grey—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdiislam (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Darren Hayes really study at QUT? I've heard UQ from some sources. They're two separate universities, and I'd like a source for the QUT reference (mainly because I'm there too hahaha). - Mydemand 203.100.24.127 04:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't Darren also performed for the Rosie Christmas album? Also "What's Going On" Tribute and 'Sol de Mio, Pavaroti & Friends...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.241.134 (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added above to article December 20, 2006. SERSeanCrane 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: "Many in Europe thought the song "I Want You" was actually sung by the Swedish rock/pop group Roxette for having a similar sounding style." (No citation)—Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mark edits as minor if material is removed. SERSeanCrane 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit is minor, I'm going to mark it as minor.--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See usage guidelines for minor edits. Specifically the second bullet of Things to Remember. It reads "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text." I'm not trying to nit-pick, it just helps make the editing process better. Agreed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's referring to major edits which remove text--Ashadeofgrey^Talk 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." I'm assuming you believe you're removal isn't subject to a dispute. You cite WP:NOTABILITY#Notability_is_generally_permanent, but by this logic one could add to the Lenny Hayes article that Darren is not related to Lenny. If this is the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to have mention to Lenny on Darren's article, perhaps in the See Also section. I'm assuming, in good faith, that the person who added the trivia bullet-point finds that Darren and Lenny are thought to be related in some circles...I'm not terribly familiar with Australian culture, though, so it might be something worth discussing...perhaps disputing. Hmmm... —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by SERSeanCrane (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

Should there be a mention of the Unlovable download?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.16.254 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you believe that to be notable, feel free to explain why you think it is worth mentioning. Sunhawk 05:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically should it be listed as a single. Even though it wasn't a "commercial release," it was released, and a video was made.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.43.191 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have clear documentation that the video is directly linked to the download release? Sunhawk 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything directly linking the video to the download release, but SonyBMG did call it a single in their news letter [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.28.34 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should clarify and just say that I think it should be added to the list of singles. Not necissarily a write up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.28.34 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has a good reason to contest this I'll be placing Unlovable in the list of singles. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 71.60.28.34 (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

The MySpace blog reference is from Darren Hayes' official MySpace. See http://www.darrenhayes.com if you'd like to confirm. This qualifies as official "authority," therefore there is no reason to remove the reference. —The preceding

The following reference/footnote has been removed several times citing "external links" guidlines:[1]^[2]

As mentioned above, the blog is official and should be allowed for use.

Thoughts? Opinions? Agree? Disagree? A discussion on this topic would be great... SERSeanCrane 03:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sean Crane. EL doesn't hold here, but rather RS holds, RS has more weight and further see V which is policy. The overarching principle is that blogs writen by the subject of the article are perfectly acceptable sources. Wjhonson 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a RS if it's not verifiable: "This blog is set to private. This user must add you as a friend to see his/her blog." ---

WRE) 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm fairly certain Darren hasn't finished recording "This Delicate Thing We've Made". On his blog, he's still regularly talking about the recording process, and is about half way through now, I think. More info: it's going to be two discs, some of it produced with Justin Shave and some Robert Conaly. This might be a bit much detail for the article, I just wanted to point out it wasn't actually finished yet, predicted to be in August, and there is citation on his website. Kiwi from hell 03:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has finished his album, the blogs he posts are post-dated from earlier posts from his members only blog on his website Cor84 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Trulymadlycompletely.jpg

fair use

. Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Singles

I don't think "Who would have..." was an official single, although it was one of the tracks that was released with an animated video. As the album article states, the singles so far have been "On the verge...", "Me, Myself and I" and "Casey". --Nerwende (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a downloadable single, and I believe you could buy a hard copy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.130.130 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Stanely Hayes

Use dont noe this but he had 4 children. unfortunately 2 of them did not live and th other 2 are now 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.49.190 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous wording

The entire section about Hayes' personal relationships seems to be VERY intentionally ambiguous about NOT specifying his is a gay man. This seems likely the result of overly prudish editors with personal issues over the topic. Although I agree most readers would gleam from the way it is written that he is a gay man, using terms like "civil partner" do not IMPLICITLY denote being gay (straight people have civil partnerships all the time). I have added an implicit reference to his sexuality as well as a source. CouplandForever (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He married his boyfriend, it clearly states that. What is ambiguous about this? It's perfectly clear from the article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, it clearly states that he is in a civil partnership with a man. Stating in another paragraph that he is gay is not necessary at all. Laced Sarcasm (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't state on other biographical articles that the person in question is straight. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are presumed straight until evidence is given to indicate otherwise. This argument has been debated on WIkipedia in relation to GLBT people of note about a million times, and the administrator consensus has ALWAYS been that stating a public person's sexual preference, when other than heterosexual, is encyclopedic (providing it can be sourced.) When a person comes out of the closet, even in 2009 (and certainly before,) it is notable. There is absolutely NO reason to NOT state it in clear and unconfused terms. CouplandForever (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how stating that Darren is in a civil partnership with another man can be anything but clear. There's no reason whatsoever to state that he's "zomg gay!". It's more than clear from the article already. Laced Sarcasm (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show some references, and this administrator consensus (which seems a strange thing to me that administrator consensus overrides that of normal users) that we should be stating they are gay explicitly rather than it being obvious through the context and rest of the article? Canterbury Tail talk 00:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do state it explicitly: he's in 2 LGBT categories. Cats are as much part of the article as the text is. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So it seems redundant to write that he's gay when the categories clearly show that he is and it says that he's in a civil partnership with a man. How much clearer could it be!? Besides, it seems like a really weird place to write the "who is gay" statement, if you really have to state it in such an obvious way. Laced Sarcasm (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus according to

WP:BLP#Categories, those should probably be removed as they aren't relevant to their notable activities and public life. He's known as a singer, not as a gay person. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On wikipedia we really shouldn't be presuming anything. Whether people are gay, bisexual, straight, asexual or whatever is none of our business or concern unless sources say it is. Personally I have no problem mentioning he is gay, if it is well sourced. The trouble is, it isn't. Neither the source you used nor this source [3] which I found nor the primary source [4] make it clear if he is gay or bisexual. The fact that he married his boyfriend implies he is one, but without strong evidence which one we shouldn't be presuming similar to the way neither source presumes whether he is gay or bisexual. So we should just follow the sources and say what they say. Indeed the fact that you're mentioning this in the section about him marrying Colby Taylor is even worse since it implies his marriage broke up because he was gay which we don't know. The only thing we should presume is the reader is smart enough to realise if someone marries their boyfriend, they're probably not exclusively heterosexual. Also as with others above, it seems to me 'administrator consensus' is irrelevant. Administrators have no special say in this discussion, they are just ordinary users. They are entitled to protect the article or block users if necessary but otherwise, you should not be giving their words any extra weight then you would any other experience wikipedians with a good understanding of policy Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source which [5] does indicate he is gay although I'd prefer more sourcing if we're going to mention it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "who is gay" in the first sentence is very clunky, and also redundant. Stating that he married his boyfriend seems perfectly adequate. Is there a source for his "usual practice of not talking about his sexual orientation"? It does read a little like we are saying he had something to hide. Kevin (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a pass at it all. I do this pretty often.

-- Banjeboi 14:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Rewritten utilizing his first interview after coming out.

-- Banjeboi 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that, your version is a lot better. As Kevin mentioned, the 'who is gay' part was rather clunk and rather confusing since it seemed to suggest he knew he was gay at the time he got married, which doesn't seem to be the case ([6]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, clunky is bad except in shoes and jewelry!

-- Banjeboi 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no qualm with a criticism of grammar, and I thank you for making it smoother and better written. However there are always going to be ridiculous people who don't understand why it is relevant to state that a public figure has come out of the closet, and these types of edit wars are going to constantly go on for articles of GLBT celebrities. For the record, though, my orignal source - The Advocate magazine - really was more than sufficient. It's a respected GLBT publication, and the article I linked said without question that Hayes had come out of the closet; the only potential ambiguity there, I suppose, is if he came out as gay or bisexual, but I think the context was fairly clear. Anyhow, I can't imagine anyone who would have the nerve to alter the article as it stands now, so thanks again. CouplandForever (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These discussion happen all the time. The Advocate source, to me, also seemed fine although it was likely a derivative of another source and we prefer to have the subject self-disclose "I am ____" to end all the nonsense. Happy to help.

-- Banjeboi 16:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Now reads much better. Thanks Kevin (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Smug

should this be included in darrens studio albums? yes, hes a part of the band, but thats exactly what it is, a seperate band. 122.111.163.199 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of Brisbane City

References in both Darren Hayes and Daniel Jones's personal life refer to growing up in Brisbane City. Both Mabel Park and Shailer Park High Schools are in Logan City (between Brisbane and Gold Coast) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.141.85 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Darren Hayes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

several discussions in past years

, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have only one question: was Colby really a make-up artist? I thought she was a school teacher.

Last edited at 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

British Citzenship

Darren Hayes has revealed that his is a British Citizen on a Facebook post: [7]. I don't know whether that means he has dual Australian-British citizenship or not but should we update to reflect this? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayes Joins Conservatorium High School Sydney's Figure Head's

 Darren Hayes has joined the Conservatorium of Music High School's Figure Head Programme that con high's very own Head Dean,
 and owner of the company since the death of there former Head Dean who owned the company Dr Malcolm Peterson.
 Dr Peterson left his entire estate to his new head dean and owner now Dr Nina Pickett.
 who started the figure head programme for children with scolarships that can't afford the fee's since head dean Dr pickett
 isn't allowed to bring down due to the catholic education departmen't not backing down in there last meeting.
 
 Dr Pickett decided to start this programme and each celebrity Figure Head's pay school fee's for the children that can't
 afford to pay them so they can forfill there music dream's.

 Darren has become really good friend's with Dr Pickett and has recently signed over his savage a Garden song's to her all writes.

And now is writting her come back to music Album called Black out from a ten year break.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neenypicko (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Darren Hayes performing in 2023.jpg
• Darren Hayes performing on tour in April 2023.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]