Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In re Jodie Foster article, please
+Category:Gay actors
Note Dead links, I think 1st one in Ext Lks, and another one in domain .nu
Thx, AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Personal Jodie Foster conceived her children through InVitro Fertilization. http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/424041/20130115/2013-golden-globes-awards-jodie-foster-acknowledges.htm#.UPXKBSc81_Q. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Kennymanna 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So I see there is an edit war going on regarding her being placed into LGBT categories. After a search, I've found endless reports in reliable third party publications indicating she "came out", so I think it warrants her being placed into the general LGBT categories, just not the specific ones because we don't know if she is specifically bisexual or lesbian. NYSMy talk page 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a detailed discussion on this subject in the above Edit dispute? section. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that well-meaning newcomers will continue to add inappropriate categories and text to this biography - would some clued-in admin please place it under pending changes? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples:

• addition of "Category:Lesbian actors"
• addition of "Category: LGBT people from the United States"

But she is a lesbian, so where's problem? --Sternax (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion a few sections up the page. Pending changes have now been applied, so the problems should be somewhat reduced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Personal Life section, it states that she was with her former partner from 1993 to 2008, but in the next paragraph it states that she was her "partner of 20 years". Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.240.144 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've revised the section. What Foster actually said in her Golden Globes speech was that Bernard was (among other things) her "most beloved BFF of 20 years", presumably from ~1993 to now. The AP misreported it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there some special tool needed for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be at least a passing mention in the lead section (alongside the award) that her role in Taxi Driver was John Hinckley's trigger? It's not like a 13 year old actress portraying a child prostitute is an ordinary thing... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

After the above thread, there should not be any further exhaustion and discussion about her well established homosexuality. Three RS, including Reuters and the NY Times, have been reverted out of the article. Please state a valid reason. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussion above again for the policies. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So if three references say that John Doe is gay, even if Doe never said it, it should be included? The only reliable reference is Foster, and her speech was so ambiguous she "came out" without came out. The above discussion explains why this is excluded, and it shouldn't be included per

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 15:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes... per

WP:SECONDARY. We're actually encouraged to look for reliable secondary sources rather than primary sources. Besides, having a confirmed same-sex partner puts her in that category by definition. Yes, by definition, because the definition of gay is having a same sex relationship. Maybe bisexual, but that would also put her in the LGBT category. Hearfourmewesique (talk

) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's great, with

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly!

1. Per
   WP:SECONDARY
   (underlined as policy): "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
2. Per
   WP:WPNOTRS
   : "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources."
3. Per
   WP:BLPSOURCES
   : "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source (...) While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred."
4. Per
   WP:WELLKNOWN
   : "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Let's review that last part again: if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Everything points to the following: there is a plethora of reliable sources that confirm that Foster's speech was her coming out, and that, coupled with the fact that she herself referred to "coming out" (her exact quotation), and also with the fact that she had a same sex relationship for several years, with consideration to all the policies quoted above, leads to the inevitable conclusion that she needs to be categorized as LGBT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What you are not understanding (

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 10:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. You wrote: "this website is not (...) a site where editors has [sic] to follow every single rule that exists in it." Wrong!!! If it is a policy, we must follow it. What I quoted is not a guideline, nor is it an essay/suggestion. These are policies, some of which are directly pertinent to BLP.
2. You wrote: "there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster." Again, wrong!!! I just cited the appropriate policies, which are: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred (...) If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
3. Continuing the previous paragraph: well-documented means covered by multiple reliable sources. In this case, there is, aside from NYT, Reuters, Associated Press, HuffPost, and a quick Google search will yield some more.
4. You accuse me of
   WP:IDHT
   , but you keep ignoring BLP policies while citing the same policies as the alleged reason to violate the same policies. In other words, your own reasoning goes against basic BLP policies.
5. No consensus can override an established policy. In this case, the "consensus" is simply a number of editors who voted "oppose", which is the same "
   test of democracy
   " you were mentioning earlier. It's not how many editors, it's the content of the dispute that counts.
6. As for your question about Thirteen: if the NYT, along with AP, Reuters, LAT, HuffPost, Time magazine, etc. would assert that she is a lesbian based on whatever, it would have been our duty to report on that, because, as the BLP policy states in a crystal clear manner: "BLPs should simply document what [reliable secondary] sources say." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll request more people to comment here because it has absolutely no sense that two people discuss this, because I won't convince you and you won't convince me. First of all,

© Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5

). 23:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what the precise question is here, but I saw this listed on BLPN. I think the current wording is fine and verifiable and should be retained (I'll post it here as things can change): "Foster broke up with her long-time partner, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.[67][68] In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation: "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked Bernard, calling her "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love but righteous soul sister in life".[69][70][71] Foster also thanked Mel Gibson as one of the people who "saved" her.[72]" While I think Foster has been publicly out of the closet for about 20 years, and privately out of the closet since the dawn of time, she is still not one to overtly publicize her private life to any great degree. Some editors on this page have made a fairly reasonable case that even so, she has not publicly stated on record the precise words "I'm gay" or "I'm a lesbian" (although you'd have to be pretty out of touch not to know she is, at this point), and therefore it is inappropriate to state that she is or to call her GG comment a coming out (it wasn't really since she's really never been "in") or possibly to add any LGBT categories to the article. I don't know the exact WP guidelines regarding this, but I wouldn't consider LGBT categories "libel" in this case (facts acknowledged or uncontested by the subject are not libel), just perhaps not within WP guidelines (what are they?) at this juncture. I'd say that the current wording should stand. It paints the documented picture as clear as day, and I don't think any further labels are necessary, especially if there is controversy or argument among editors about them. This does point up the fact, though, that there should be some sort of WP stated LGBT guideline somewhere regarding persons who have had a documented and uncontested single same-sex domestic partner and co-parent for well over a decade. That would settle such disputes as to whether LGBT categories can be added. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

my feeling is, we should not tag someone with a label they themselves have not embraced. THat said, in Foster's case since she spoke of 'coming out' I think it would not be untoward to add her to lgBT categories, but not get any more specific than that. Nothing wrong with covering this in the article as long as we make it clear what she did and didn't claim - eg I dated women, and I've come out if the closet - not 'I am lesbian' or 'I am bi'. It's her right to eschew labels if she chooses. But her behavior (eg dating a woman) should never end her up in a cat - we go by self-identification not behavior (if we went by behavior many more people could be tagged as 'bi' for that one time in college, etc--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do personally agree that some sort of LGBT category is warranted here, given that she has acknowledged more than once that she has for 15 years been in a monogamous same-sex domestic and co-parenting relationship. I don't know what more evidence, from the subject's mouth, there could possibly need to be. Softlavender (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the lack of an LGBT actor category was an accidental omission, since the article clearly says she acknowledged her long-time same-sex partner, and talked about her coming-out process and it's been fairly well covered in the press and it doesn't seem there's much doubt about what she meant. I'm rather surprised there's such a kerfuffle here; it seems to me that the BLP policy is being misapplied, perhaps due to sympathy about her long stint keeping such matters private. Clearly there is value in collecting biographies of people in this category, and this is a particularly notable one. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• "value in collecting biographies of people in this category" - collecting?? This is a person's life we're taking about. If she's not stated her sexual orientation, it's not our job to apply one based on our best-guess. Nor are we in the business of 'queer tagging', just to score points - Alison ^❤ 02:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought she made it pretty clear that she was either lesbian or bisexual, for which an LGBT category would be appropriate. I'm not tallying points for any particular side; it just seems like an error to have a well-known LGBT person missing from the list when people are asking themselves, "what kind of people are LGBT? How do celebrities deal with their LGBT status?" and they turn to Wikipedia to find relevant biographies. -- Beland (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly—it's a disservice to the reader. Despite the fact that Foster was coy with her wording at the Golden Globes, the intent was clear, as seen by the reports of the speech in reliable sources. By now it's not just newspaper reports but books: Pop culture writer Keith Stern says at the Jodie Foster entry in Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, page 171, that

Speculation about Jodie Foster ended in December 2007 when she publicly acknowledged her "longtime friend" and roommate for fourteen years, film producer Cydney Bernard... Foster has done nothing to discourage the press and public from recognizing this as her coming out.

Stern goes on to say that Foster and Bernard are raising two boys produced by artificial insemination. Journalist Michelangelo Signorile says the turning point was The Silence of the Lambs, when he, Larry Kramer and others outed her as a lesbian who was hypocritical for appearing in a film they said was homophobic, a film that made a seemingly gay criminal character come across as extremely villainous (Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, pages 89–90, 309–310). Professor Janet Staiger gives an academic view of the issues surrounding Foster's sexuality with regard to the public, in "Taboos and Totems: Cultural Meanings of The Silence of the Lambs", a chapter in Film Theory Goes to the Movies (Routledge 2012). Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The DailyMail source is reliable, as is http://ca.eonline.com/news/467456/jodie-foster-enjoys-cozy-sunday-brunch-with-girlfriend-alexandra-hedison-see-the-pic. What's the problem here? MilesMoney (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The dailyfail is not RS, go read the archives on the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these meets

WP:RS as has been shown before. A series of covert photos taken by some paparazzi is not sufficient enough to declare someone is "in a relationship" with someone else, not to gay-tag them - Alison ^❤

22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Foster is openly gay; no photos needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you say so? Or because it's "openly known in the LGBT community"? Not good enough. Show me where she said it (and please, not the Golden Globes speech) - Alison ^❤ 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alison, you just posted on User talk:Darkness Shines so you can't reasonably claim you didn't see the link I posted there. And you need something a bit stronger than general dismissiveness to ignore the Golden Globes speech. Do you have anything? MilesMoney (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Those sources are not reliable, and while Foster is public about her (perhaps now previous) relationship she has in no way, shape or form suggested that she identifies exclusively with any particular sexual identity, which would be a requirement for adding a category. When she takes a new relationship public and that is repeated in a reliable source then we can include it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

She's a woman who (quite voluntarily) has sex with women. This is not in dispute. Whether she identifies as gay or bi or whatever seems secondary. MilesMoney (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because we don't have a category called Category:Women who have sex with women. And even if we did we would require some very much better sources to add Foster to that category. For example one in which she states that as a fact about herself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, Darkness, grow up and call it DailyMail. Not going to consider you as a serious debater if you're being a petty little child. Second, she may not have said Im a lesbian or I'm bisexual, but she did acknowledge herself as some form of LGBT. It's absolutely mind boggling why the LGBT categories aren't allowed to be added. There are sources upon sources of her comments, but none suggesting she wasn't LGBT. Go find a source saying that. Otherwise, to me this is an open and closed case. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a reason it is called the daily fail. And for the last time, read BLPCAT. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And your opinion is no longer relevant to me. Time to let the grown ups talk. Rusted AutoParts 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

And here we have People Magazine, a trusted source, discussing her coming out speech [2]. BLPCAT doesn't apply in this circumstance, just like it doesn't apply when we add these categories to every person who identifies as LGBT. It makes zero sense when it is scrutinized here. You're basically saying she didn't say what she said. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere, I will go back to my lego now. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Good boy. Rusted AutoParts 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

More citations? MilesMoney (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless she explicitly states what her sexual orientation is, then neither do we. That is what BLP & BLPCAT says, read them. Now back to the teddy bear picnic. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy the picnic, champ. We don't have to have her exact LGBT orientation in order to add LGBT cats. Numerous sources have reported on this, and she has yet to dispute. Now as we all know us editors on Wikipedia's ego inflates a trillion, but common sense shouldn't be wiped out.

And more. These reliable sources all understood her statements as her coming out as a lesbian. MilesMoney (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maria Bello just came out. Despite calling herself "whatever" (not lesbian or bisexual), she was quickly put in 2 LGBT categories. Jodie Foster is a much more documented case of "whatever". She should at least be in the LGBT actors category. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at

WP:LGBT right now on this subject, so I suggest you join there, as it applies more broadly - e.g. should LGBT actors only be a container category, or should we put people in when they are basically "out" as x-sexual (x!=hetero) but haven't affiliated specifically with any identification. There are many people who this would apply to, and many categories as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk

) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We have "reliable published sources" that say Foster self-identified as lesbian and this is relevant and notable. Your interpretation may differ, but you're not a reliable source, so what you think doesn't matter one bit. MilesMoney (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source - it is a hyperbolic tabloid rag that uses big headline print & short words for effect. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Foster being romantically linked to women is not in question. She came out at the Golden Globe Awards earlier this year.[3] What is in question is whether we have strong enough sources to call Hedison a serious girlfriend. A few newspapers said the two were having brunch. A few more say the two walked together down the red carpet of some awards dinner. E! Online says that they have an anonymous source saying the two are "totally in love".[4] However, I think we should wait for Hedison or Foster to say something in public, or some respected, named source who stands up and says the two are romantically linked. I don't think the evidence is strong enough yet for Wikipedia to call Hedison a girlfriend. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The best way to handle such situations is through attribution. If we're not sure that X is a fact, it may still be notable that a reliable source states X. MilesMoney (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal matters (religion, sexuality, partners etc) in a BLP require self-identification. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

They're married! Moncrief (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so where does this leave us with the categories? She clearly is amongst LGBT, can we at least add LGBT tags? Rusted AutoParts 21:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

previous consensus seemed to be against this, absent a clear statement of identity from Foster. It rather pains me to have to point out that marriage to someone of the same gender is not equivalent to being a lesbian, in the same way that marriage to someone of the opposite gender does not thus make you heterosexual. In Foster's case it seems clear she's part of the spectrum but if she hasn't clearly identified herself somewhere on that spectrum, it's not up to us to decide (perhaps she thinks she's queer, or pansexual, or ...).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested just categories that say "LGBT". We're identifying she is in the community, whilst not directly associating her with a specific sexual preference (gay, lesbian, queer all house within LGBT). And User:Binksternet provided up above a very compelling argument for this. Rusted AutoParts 22:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

why is gay-tagging this bio so important to people? Has she ever explicitly identified herself as L or B or G? If not how can we know she identifies within the broader umbrella? I agree circumstantial evidence is strong but it's not enough for a conviction your honor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not so much important, its just doing right by not just readers, but by Foster herself. I think its very clear more than enough evidence has been provided to prove she's at least LGBT. And it's encyclopedic. Why else would we have the categories? Rusted AutoParts 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How can you say it's "doing right by [her]" when you don't know what she wants? Clearly, she's a very private individual when it comes to her personal life. Or did she somehow forfeit that when she got married? - Alison ^❤ 23:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Because we're being accurate about her life! We add marriages. Children. Arrests. Other business ventures. All of this to sum up her life as its been presented to us. It's what an encyclopedia does, chronicle history. World history. Space history. History history even. And yes, human history. We add her films to correctly represent her career. Why can't we correctly represent her personal life? Rusted AutoParts 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

would you add a statement that says in wikipedia's voice "Foster is a lesbian" to the article? Because that's what adding her to a lesbian category means. We would only add such a statement if she identified as such (or, if dead, and scholars agreed).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on her specific orientation. But what do you call two women marrying? What does that imply? Rusted AutoParts 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

what would it imply if a man marries a women? Is that a guarantee of heterosexuality? We don't go by circumstantial evidence - if there were photos of Foster engaging in intimate relations with a woman that would not be enough. The key for these cats is self identity, nothing less nothing more. They are unique in that way presumably because it is felt on questions of sexual identity the best source is the individual. If Foster chooses to eschew labels who are we to label her?.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

We are an encyclopaedia, that's who. And we label people, places, and things all the time without verification from the thing labelled. Because verification from reliable sources is our concern! As for "the best source is the individual", one could just as easily argue the best source for whether a person is lying is the person lying. After all, who could possibly know better? This issue is about a political agenda that makes the individual the final authority on all matters sexual with everyone else denied a say.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is embarrassing, and I say that as an LGBT person myself. Why the need for 'gay-tagging'? She has never declared herself a member of anything, frankly, and this overcategorization is unnecessary, IMO, and unsourced, frankly - Alison ^❤ 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

How civil of you. It's been common practice for awhile to provide each article with links to categories associated with such. Category:American actresses. Category:People from Nashville. Unsourced? Myself and numerous editors have been providing several links, including her Globes speech which was dismissed. If you're so against adding these categories, or "gay tagging" as you politely put it, why not submit the categories for deletion? Rusted AutoParts 23:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Alison makes a valid and rather important point. These categories, fundamentally, address what people say about themselves, and it's not Wikipedia's place or role to speak for them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bada-bing! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz gets it, so why can't you, RAP? It's for people who self-identify as LGBT(IQQA) There's something very uncomfortable about pinning that LGBT tag onto someone who has never publicly declared their orientation. Let people infer what they want from the narrative; don't shove "zOMGLESBIANGAYQUEER" in their faces just because you feel you need to. You don't - Alison ^❤ 06:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia should refrain from describing anyone in a way they have not publicly self-described, I dare say you have Wikipedia confused with a public relations firm. We follow what the sources say. Article subjects do not get a veto. See the "neutral point of view" doctrine.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question. That's directly from

WP:BLP. Your broad claim is just a strawman argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 21:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP does not override NPOV. It's in fact the other way around. It is no straw man to note that you wish to see article subjects handed a veto over the content of their articles. I'd add that this subject HAS publicly identified here ACCORDING TO RELIABLE SOURCES. Some editors are refusing to follow those reliable sources because they endeavour to substitute their own standards.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

it's rather droll that we have a public figure who has obviously been very circumspect about her identity and as far as we know has never clearly identified as either lesbian, gay or bi - but we have a constant barrage of editors who want nothing more than to tag bomb her article with teh gay tags on every new piece of news "she said she came out" "she kissed a girl" "she had a baby with a girl" "she married a girl!!" Etc. I hope some of you realize this has been going on for this bio for years. Y'all have to realize that the LGBT cats, and very few others, are quite unique in requiring self-identification (unlike other cats which are based on RS). This is longstanding consensus. But you can't treat the gay tags as similar to any other tags.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we require self-identification. However, media observers consider that Foster has already self-identified as lesbian, albeit in a coy manner. Why would you assume a contrary position to the majority of media observers? If you are interpreting Foster's words in a manner that is contrary to published sources then you are violating

WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk

) 06:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Published sources" being the Daily Mail and

various tattle rags? - Alison ^❤

06:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There's my earlier post pointing to Queers in History: The Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, page 171. Also: "Taboos and Totems: Cultural Meanings of The Silence of the Lambs", a chapter in Film Theory Goes to the Movies (Routledge 2012). And: Queer in America: Sex, the Media, and the Closets of Power, pages 89–90, 309–310. Good stuff to be found for those who care to look. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

not good enough. Self-identification is key. She did not self-identity as a lesbian, she did not self-identify as a bisexual. Many RS believe she coyly was saying she's a lesbian, but we still don't know, and many sources commented on the fact that she didn't utter the word 'gay' or 'lesbian'. It's not OR because 'interpretation' of the primary source - eg what the person said - is not needed. Binkster, you'll notice that in the "Comprehensive encyclopedia of Historical Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals", the entry on Foster STUDIOUSLY avoids labeling her, only acknowledging that she has "come out" and even her own brother speculated that she was gay OR bisexual (so, even he wasn't sure which).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-identification is NOT key if this is a neutral encyclopedia. Stalin may have self-identified as a nice guy. That does NOT mean Wikipedia slavishly follows the desires of the article subject. In any case, she DID self-identify, just not explicitly enough to satisfy some Wikipedian ideologues who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Consider what we find on the Guardian website back in 2007 (hardly a LGBT-unfriendly paper), even well before the 2013 Golden Globe Awards speech: "That's right, folks: Jodie Foster is a lesbian. This startling piece of news is akin to the shock revelation that Rudolph the Reindeer has a very shiny nose. In other words, if you didn't already know this, you seriously need to retune your gaydar."--Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

we could certainly report that 100 RS claim Foster is a lesbian (although it sounds like a bad idea for BLP reasons) but let me ask you think - we go by reliable sources, right? Who is the MOST reliable source as to your publicly declared sexual identity (not your inner freak, but what of our identity you're willing to share and how you choose to be labelled? yOu are. Thus, if 100 RS say she's gay and Foster says she's queer, I believe her, not them. Identity is different than most other things, where we do go by 3rd party sources, but I have a hard time believing anyone could be a better source than the subject themselves.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I want you I consider something else - Foster has been dogged by rumors since her college days, and she has several times been 'outed' by various publications or criticized for not being 'out' enough or for taking roles that were unfriendly to LGBT people - and the word lesbian has been tossed in her face more times than you can count. She has, as an actress in the public view for probably 40 years, nonetheless been able to avoid publicly labelling herself as a lesbian, or uttering that word, even once as far as we know. That is a powerful message to me. Maybe foster doesn't like labels. Maybe she doesn't identify as a lesbian. A condition of interviewing her was journalists were not to ask questions about her orientation. Her public 'coming out' was really just an acknowledgement that she has a serious relationship with a woman, but that doesn't make one lesbian OR bi - there are many other permutations and ways people identify that would fit the circumstances.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If, hypothetically speaking, 100 instances of having sex with someone of the same sex have been confirmed and there is zero evidence there was ever even any sexual interest in someone of the opposite sex, that person is objectively gay or lesbian and a claim by that person of being straight is presumptively true only in his or her own mind OR he or she is being less than frank. I suggest opening your mind to the possibility that people will from time to time self-describe (or self-perceive) in ways that are less than entirely consistent with the facts. You are picking one source here, with the ultimate conflict of interest, and elevating it to the level of infallibility such that it trumps all other sources. That's simply not the way it works around here when there are conflicting sources (and having the subject here as lesbian as a bottom of the page category is really not in contradiction with any sources anyway). No source is so privileged as to always be beyond question. You evidently think Wikipedia should just be handed over to article subjects or a public relations agent they designate depending on the topic. What's so special about the LGBT agenda that that agenda, and only that agenda, gets privileged status on Wikipedia whereby

WP:RS guidelines get tossed in the event of an LGBT issue? WP:BLP does not have the "pillar" status that WP:NPOV has.--Brian Dell (talk

) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely, and your claim of following a unique "LGBT agenda" is plainly wrong, and you know it's wrong. Precisely the same standards apply to categories based on religious affiliation. We don't examine a subject's behavior or opinions to evaluate their claim of a religious affiliation, nor do we accept such evaluations by third parties. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Rejecting "evaluations by third parties" is wrong and you know it's wrong since you're in a position to know that Wikipedia:Verifiability means Wikipedia is built upon "evaluations by third parties" as opposed to "evaluations" by either Wikipedia editors or the subjects of Wikipedia articles.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't necessarily show she's a lesbian, but it clearly makes her LGBT. Is there any dispute about this & if so, why? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone just added that and I reverted. It's a major assumption to make about anyone's identity - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has given us much hilarity over the years over the treatment of Foster's sexuality and just as you'd think the issue was settled beyond any doubt the craziness continues. The statement that a woman marrying another woman doesn't mean she is either bisexual or lesbian, ie belonging in the lgbt category, takes the prize for lunacy. If it's a 'major assumption' to conclude someone in a same-sex marriage is lgbt then we have truly entered la la land. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Are some people arguing that Foster might be

bisexual? If so, where is the indication of that? Is she known to have ever been in a heterosexual relationship? Jim Michael (talk

) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

She is so private we don't really know. There are rumors that she was dating certain men long ago but they could have just been friends.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So we're not supposed to consider rumours when it comes to a BLP except when Obi Wan invites us to consider mere rumours? If we stick to the established facts, she has a confirmed wife and no confirmed history of boyfriends and that means lesbian to anyone without some POV axe to grind against using that term. See again what is found in the Guardian website: "Jodie Foster is a lesbian". Editors are twisting themselves out of shape here to avoid following reliable sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, it'd be best to put her in the LGBT categories. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Because she might be transgendered? I believe some editors are advancing certain scenarios for reasons other than that they are genuinely plausible scenarios. There doesn't seem to be anything more to the argument here than she avoids the L word therefore we should. In any other context such an argument would be promptly rejected as inconsistent with

WP:NPOV.--Brian Dell (talk

) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Only you have mentioned gender identity here. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? One can question whether B would apply but God forbid a Wikipedian doubts whether T applies? What's left here? G? Maybe she's gay as opposed to lesbian? Reliable sources indicate we've got an L here. There are not reliable sources for G or B or T. If our reliable source policy meant anything this issue would be quite straightforward.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

B/c she might be bisexual (though it's true there's no evidence of that (though there's no evidence confirming she's a lesbian either)). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

She's married another woman, but she's not classified as LBGT? How much more evidence is needed? This is near lunacy. (75.94.101.187 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

It's Wikipedia's political lean at work, which holds that because the LGBT lobby holds up the individual as the only acceptable source, the individual is Wikipedia's only acceptable source. USA Today says that this week's "wedding news" serves to further "clarify matters." But there's always an excuse for rejecting what reliable sources say if one is motivated enough.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from accusations of bad faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"the individual [is] the only acceptable source" isn't any sort of assumption. It's being quite openly called for despite the mockery it makes of

WP:V.--Brian Dell (talk

) 01:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In matters of personal identity, the individual is the final say. See

WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk

) 03:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, see WP:IDENTITY which directly contradicts your implication that Verifiability and Neutral point of view are to be suspended so that article subjects become the final, sole and unchallengeable arbiters of what Wikipedia says about them. I direct your attention to "Wikipedia should use the term most used in sources" in particular.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Really not interested in getting involved on this page, but just reviewed edits. LGBT often encompasses any non-heterosexual sexual identity, which Foster appears to be (see second paragraph of lead in LGBT). We need not quibble about whether she identifies as a lesbian, bisexual, queer, or whatever. The categories seem appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you just said the only thing that matters is the "say" of the "individual." Now you seem to be suggesting that what "Foster appears to be" is relevant and the LGBT category that some editors have been edit warring over should be included. Which is it?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:RS would work. I'm trying to point out the distinction between the identity and the category/term of LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk

) 04:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Note, if she were to say "I don't identify as LGBT" or "I identify as straight" then

WP:IDENTITY trumps and we'd remove the category of LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk

) 04:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That'd be a major surprise to her wife. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: Likely so, but the point is that what the individual regarding their gender and sexual identity trumps any actions or 3rd party sources. There are many married, heterosexual men who have sex with other men (see down-low (sexual slang) and Tearoom Trade). Their behavior is LGBT, but their identity is not. In this case, we have a public, out marriage between two women so I think it's safe to at least categorize this person as LGBT as a general term given a lack of any statements about personal identity. Again, LGBT would still apply to any non-hetcis person (e.g., a genderqueer person who identifies as pansexual). What ever Foster identifies as is covered by the term unless she (for whatever reason) identifies as cisgender heterosexual. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's safe to categorize Foster as LGBT unless she declares herself straight (which seems unlikely). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, LGBT category should be used here, since Foster married another woman. People have used heterosexual marriage to hide their sexual identity, but not same-sex marriage. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the LGBT category is appropriate, and so is labelling her according to what reliable sources use, which is gay and lesbian. We must follow the sources and stop the homophobia, which seems to work both ways here, especially the fear of using the proper term. It's not being used in a negative manner. --

talk

) 22:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

General LGBT categories are appropriate here — but categories which make unsourced assumptions about which particular quadrant of the community (i.e. "lesbian" or "bisexual") she identifies with are not. Those quadrant-specific cats have to wait until she actually uses one word or the other in reference to herself in a

I agree with Bearcat above. There is no reasonable doubt that she falls within the LGBT category. This really has become silly at this point. --David Shankbone 05:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the consensus seems to be to include "LGBT" in the categories, but not "Lesbian". I have added Category:LGBT actresses back in. StAnselm (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Foster has made it very clear that she is openly lesbian. Everything indicates that and there is nothing to contradict it. Even if there were rumours many years ago of her having dated men, that is irrelevant, because we do not take notice of rumours because they are unverified. The media are always spreading rumours of celebrities dating various people, being pregnant etc. Other than on this talk page, I have never seen anyone even hint that Foster could be bisexual; it is not reasonable to suggest it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Name

Does this mean the article name should now be Jodie Foster Hedison? It seems to be the wikipedia convention to name articles of married women as Firstname Originallastname Marriedlastname. NorthernThunder (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure - just find multiple reliable sources which indicate that this is what she now calls herself. Then we can add it. BTW, Wikipedia uses people's common names, as indeed it should. PROTIP: never assume what a married woman's surname should be - Alison ^❤ 06:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article not open with her

WP:COMMONNAME, though? AlexTiefling (talk

) 22:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That sometimes happens w/stage names. Other examples include Michael Keaton, Jamie Foxx & Alicia Keys. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's convention is to use whatever name the topic is actually known by in public contexts. For some women that's "First Married"; for some it's still "First Maiden"; for some it's "First Maiden Married"; for some it's "First Previous-Married", even after a divorce or a remarriage; and for some it's "Stage Name". We don't automatically presume that a married woman will automatically take on her spouse's surname; because women follow a wide variety of practices, we use whatever name the woman actually uses in

reliable sources after her marriage. We didn't, for example, presumptively move Adrienne Clarkson to "Adrienne Saul", or Beyoncé to "Beyoncé Carter", or Ellen DeGeneres to "Ellen DeGeneres-de Rossi" — all three women continued to be publicly known by the same name after their marriages as they were before, so their articles stayed at the same titles. Bearcat (talk

) 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

To stop the edit war from escalating, I have protected the article for three days. Looks like the RfC has been initiated, so please use that to reach consensus. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, let's use the RfC, since common sense and RS don't seem to be enough. --

talk

) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Less snippiness, please. What you think RS implies here and what other people think it implies are very different. An RfC is tedious, but please have the grace not to complain about us having one just because not everyone accepts your view. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. RS don't "imply". They state very clearly using the words gay or lesbian. It is editors who are speculating and diverting. She came out in the context of a long term ("20 years") lesbian relationship. She has continued that lifestyle choice by marrying another woman. We should show her some respect by accepting her choice. We do that by documenting it. BTW, I started the RfC, which was then hijacked. No apology was given, only an assumption of bad faith. I could have tweaked it if requested. --

talk

) 22:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex means to say not everyone accepts RS because not everyone accepts the view that what the RS say is relevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I mean to say. Don't presume to speak for me; I don't appreciate it from people who do agree with me, and I especially don't want it from people who don't. What I am saying is that sources that report the subject's own words are more reliable in this sort of situation than sources that report the reporter's speculation as fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Speculation is irrelevant, while RS are what's relevant, and we know what they say. I know that there are situations where RS are ambiguous, and where editors can rightly disagree on the correct understanding, but here there is no doubt. They unambiguously say lesbian or gay (never hetero or bisexual), and her actions and coming out confirm that the sources have understood her correctly. She has never disagreed with them.

I see BLP invoked numerous times above, and usually BLP would apply, but BLP is used to protect individuals from unconfirmed and unsourced negative information, such as rumors, gossip, and slander. In a case like this, the subject does not need protection because what is being said (that she's gay/lesbian) is true, she confirms it by her words and actions, the claim is not negative, and it's backed up by RS. We don't need to speculate about it. This whole exercise is seriously disrespectful toward her. --

talk

) 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@

Spartaz ^Humbug!

05:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I would love to calmly discuss this. Let's discuss the BLP aspects I have mentioned. What is your opinion? --

talk

) 06:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am commenting in an adminsitrative capacity and not with any kind of editorial hat on. It is perfectly within your personal capability to calmly discuss this. You just need to not click the save page button until you are feeling calm about what you are writing and have checked that you have removed any emotive qualifiers from the text you wish to commit. Thanks.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)