Talk:Sean Hayes (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Please respect Hayes' privacy. 2 We do respect his privacy, but we also understand the interest. 3 Sean Hayes' reference to his sexuality 4 Doritos detials 5 Can we get a picture? 6 Trivia 7 Fan sites

[edit] Please respect Hayes' privacy.

Sean Hayes has a right to privacy just like everyone else.For this reason please be polite enough to refrain from discussing his sexuality on the internet.Frankly how does it even matter to you guys?

If and when the subject's orientation becomes verifiable it will be a suitable topic for this biography. However speculation about that topic without verifiable information is entirely inappropriate. -Will Beback 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We do respect his privacy, but we also understand the interest.

Nobody has said anything yet. However, when people choose to be private about who they live together with there will almost always be speculations, especially when the person is a well-known person (movie actor) and sexual orientation is not known. But he could also just be a straight guy playing a gay guy quite well as a role on the movieset.

Noone's denying that, but is Wikipedia the place for such speculation? Orpheus 07:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, but if there is notable, verifiable speculation from other sources, Wikipedia may be the place to record it. --24.9.83.251 07:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't verifiable speculation an oxymoron? If verifiable information on someone's sexuality is released into the public domain then it's valid fodder for Wikipedia. If it's speculation (I'm not sure how speculation can be notable, either) then it's not appropriate. Orpheus 08:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Speculation is verifiable and notable if it comes from verifiable and notable sources on the topic. For example, Wired Magazine speculating on future technology, or Starbucks speculating on its forecasted annual revenue. --24.9.83.251 22:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If reliable sources speculate about the subject, then other editors can double check the source to verify that they are speculating. In other words, we'd verify the fact that there is specualtion, not verify the content of the speculation. I'd suggest checking our article on Clay Aiken for a nuanced example. -Will Beback 19:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a good example. I take two key points from that article. 1) The speculation is from respected media figures. 2) Aiken addressed the speculation himself, publically, repeatedly, and in the same forum that the speculation was aired (talk shows). I don't think either of those really applies to Sean Hayes. Orpheus 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both points. -Will Beback 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

PLease leave everything like it is he is not gay leave it how it is -User:Djay926 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Hayes' reference to his sexuality

In Alice Doesn't Lisp Here Any More, Jack said 'my sexuality is my business', and 'I like to keep them guessing, you know?' while at the same time engaging in very gay behaviours (painting his nails, etc). This is surely a self-reference, teasing us over public speculation about Sean's sexuality (which doesn't necessarily mean that he's gay). - Richardcavell 12:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

>which doesn't necessarily mean that he's gay

Mary, please.

Moncrief 18:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doritos detials

The sentence beginning "In a Doritos ad..." seems a bit detailed. this is not an article about doritos adds. It simplified it. Amo 09:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I kinda wish you hadn't done that. I was curious to know which ad it was, but I see your point. Maybe my edit is better?

Also, I'm adding an external link to the ad. -- Crnk Mnky 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we get a picture?

I noticed there's no photo for Sean Hayes. I found a good and fairly recent pic, but I know nothing about uploading and whatever for this site, so if someone wants to use this pic, go on ahead.

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/4067/SeanHayes_Vespa_7057616_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Hayes,%20Sean%20(I)&seq=19

RattleandHum 5 August 2006

[edit] Trivia

Here's the trivia section that was deleted by Rossrs. Some of the information may be useful in other parts of the article.

• Lives in Los Angeles.
• He is the youngest of five children.
• As a teenager, he was an extra in Winona Ryder's first movie, Lucas (1986), which was filmed at his high school, Glenbard West.
• Drives a Toyota Camry.
• The first thing he bought after he made some money was a concert grand piano.
• Very close friends with Rosa Blasi: attended her wedding to Giants Fullback Jim Finn on Valentine's day, 2004.
• Was listed as a potential nominee in the 2004 Razzie Award nominating ballot for the Worst Supporting Actor Category for his performance in The Cat In The Hat.
• Guest starred in Episode 7, Season 1 of Scrubs as Nick Murdoch, a fellow intern.
• He was the youngest member of the "Will & Grace" cast.
• He bought the plot of land in Glen Ellyn on which he grew up, and built a house for his family to live in.

Orpheus 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but did you know he once saved someone's life after he came across someone who had been shot and applied first aid? Dev920 (check out this proposal) 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone apparently did. Orpheus 02:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty Rossrs... :) Dev920 (check out this proposal) 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know - I think deleting it is perfectly reasonable. Rossrs' edit summary was right, he didn't actually save the guy's life. Orpheus 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fan sites

My reading of WP:EL is that fan sites aren't really a good idea. Specifically:

What should be linked: 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

Links normally to be avoided: most of the items listed.

In particular: it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic

As a result, I removed the fan sites because they don't seem to add anything new to an encyclopaedia article. Now, I like fan sites. I visit a lot of them, and they're great sources for gossip, press photos and so on. What they aren't is a source of encyclopaedia information. Wikipedia is not a repository of links.

One link in particular keeps getting added back, as well as being added at the top of the link list, in the info box and other "prime spots". This stretches my good faith a spot. This message has two purposes. 1) To start a discussion and see what the consensus is. 2) To address the user(s) who add the same link back repeatedly and to ask them to discuss the matter rather than simply reverting.

Orpheus 11:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this site and I was not aware that adding a website had to be discussed. Additions should not be so freely allowed if they have to be discussed and approved first. It also seems that there are some very conflicting rules or perhaps double standards here, because other pages have fan websites listed, eg Megan Mullally's page has fan sites and forums listed. However, I have deleted my entry as I don't like being accused of not playing fair, but perhaps all entries/websites should be treated equally...... Robski4013 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a Wikipedia expert, so take this as opinion rather than holy writ. In general, if you think something should be added, go for it. In the words of the policy, be bold. Add as much as you like, that's what builds the encyclopaedia. However, I personally take the policy that if someone thinks what you've done should be approached a different way, it's better to discuss than to revert (at least after the first couple of reversions). That doesn't mean discuss everything to death, just engage in a discussion if there appears to be a difference of opinions - like this. I wasn't accusing you of not playing fair, although I accept that my comment above can be read that way. I'm sorry about that, and I withdraw the implication.

As for the equal treatment, it comes up a lot from what I've seen. My personal opinion (and that's all it is, not consensus or policy) is that there's too many pages on Wikipedia to hope for absolute equity. The policies are theoretically the same for all, but they tend to be applied unevenly depending on which editor is interested in which page. Looking over the links there, I would personally delete a few of them, as they don't seem to add encyclopaedic content. I'm not sufficiently motivated to go over all the actor pages and hunt down fansites, because I don't feel that strongly about the matter. I just edit what I notice.

Also, I'll add back the Doritos ad link, because that's a piece of media directly related to a statement in the article. If you feel strongly that it should be removed, or if you feel strongly that the fan sites should stay, then don't forget - your opinion carries just as much weight as mine, and you are as entitled as I am to make your argument here.

Orpheus 13:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I kept adding the website is because I didn't realise there was a problem. I thought something was going wrong with the way I was adding the information. To be honest, for someone who is unfamiliar with this site, it is not very user friendly.

I do feel that we have been singled out and treated unfairly. If it’s too much trouble or inconvenient to apply rules equally to all, then they shouldn’t just be applied to a few, however that's just my opinion and has no reflection on anyone else from our website. Adding our website to this page was simply an experiment, but it will have very little impact on our membership.

You say that my opinion carries as much weight as yours. You also say that if I feel something should be added to go for it, yet you are acting as the arbitrator who will continue to delete anything I add, so that's not really the case is it? Robski4013 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the reason you kept adding the website - that's fair enough. The way to avoid that in future is to look at the page history and read the edit summary. It should have an explanation of why things were changed. If it's not there, or you don't see what the issue was, then post a message on the talk page asking for clarification. If noone responds to it then go ahead and put it back. Actually, this is partly a mistake on my part - I should have followed this procedure myself, earlier.

As for the arbitrator - I'm not actually doing that. The purpose of the talk pages is to build consensus within the community. There's more people than you and I who are interested in this page, so this is an opportunity for them to chime in and give their opinion. If the deleted content is added back without explanation then yes, I would probably delete it. However, if you put forward any sort of opinion as to why it should stay then I would not feel that it was my place to judge the merits of it. I gave my opinion, I can't judge yours. That would be for a third party to do. I might, however, respond to your opinion with a rebuttal, but again, the merits of that are for the community to judge, not either of us.

So if you want the link to stay, give a reason for why it should and add it back. I won't delete it. If someone else feels strongly enough about the subject they will weigh in on the talk page and eventually consensus will come out. That's the way it's supposed to work, at least - in practice it's less idealistic on most subjects. Orpheus 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will add the link again. You are unlikely to be inundated with other Sean Hayes fan websites because there are very few that are solely dedicated to Sean alone. Our site is actually the only one that is current, constantly updated, monitored and active. Our information and news items are sourced from a multitude of areas and are as accurate as possible. Other sites that are available for Sean Hayes are very much out of date and the owners appear to have little interest in maintaining them. I would find it very hard to believe that anyone (who is presumably a Sean Hayes fan) would object, but instead I think they would be very grateful for the link. However, I am happy to hear other people's opinions. Robski4013 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in discussion about this, and I hope you keep contributing to Wikipedia. I would, however, like to draw your attention to two policies: WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Don't take this as criticism, just something to bear in mind. Orpheus 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why has the Simply Sean link been deleted? We had an agreement that you wouldn't delete it. So far no one has posted any objections, so I hope this doesn't mean you have gone back on your word. Robski4013 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try asking the person who deleted it? I will note, however, that there seems to have been a bit of a rash of fan-site removal lately. The Megan Mullaly article had them removed, as have others. Orpheus 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, there appears to be a lot of double standards and too much interference from unknown sources here. If some nameless person is going to delete something then they should be honest enough to admit to it. www.seanhayesfan.com has an extremely good reputation, so I really don't think we should be involved with this site anymore anyway. I wish you well. Robski4013 10:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)