Talk:Jim Parsons

Additional source

Parsons' CBS bio I'll add the source and copyedit when I can. Tealwisp (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal info

The personal section appears to rely entirely on poptower.com - hardly ideal. Can nobody find a published interview to cover this sort of celebrity trivia? Ash (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

http://www.queerty.com/big-bang-theorys-jim-parsons-is-engaged-to-boyfriend-todd-spiewak-20100908/

Don't know if Queerty is enough for "proof", I'm sure the National Enquirer isn't normally considered proof, but both his sexuality and his engagement to his boyfriend could be added to the page 87.194.86.204 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the LGBT category, but re-added it, is there another, maybe better source you could find for it though? --186.87.18.30 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I would consider a proper source, most just reference the National Enquirer as a source.

http://celebgalz.com/jim-parsons-girlfriend-kaley-cuoco-cuoco-parsons-updates-photos/

And there's a whole load (like perez hilton's site, the examiner, et al) I didn't even bother posting as I know they're not sourceworthy. Could the NE be considered sourceworthy as it's not a story about "aliens stole my husband" or some other rubbish like that? :-) 87.194.86.204 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, National Enquirer / Queerty / Perez Hilton are NOT sources. This may be true but there's no realiable source yet. Stu21202 (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What about this?

http://noypistuff.blogspot.com/2010/10/jim-parsons-and-todd-spiewak-to-marry.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.173.142 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are almost never considered reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that maybe the post on Current's website might be legit. Of course, it still might not. And since AE had trouble getting his publicist to confirm it, it will probably continue to be a mystery. --Janers0217 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Current cites another page which itself cites the National Enquirer, so I wouldn't consider that reliable. Evil saltine (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Most unreliable sources state that Parsons would got married after Christmas, something that at this point, would have to been covered by many reliable sources. Could left this topic in the closet until Parsons, if he is LGBT, wants to come out? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Evil saltine (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said if he is LGBT, I am not confirming it nor dening it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand; I didn't mean to direct that at you specifically. Sorry if I was rude. Evil saltine (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I was listening to an interview with him on NPR... Fresh Air, maybe? where he discussed coming out. Almost like 99% sure. Xadnder (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This one? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No comment (not even minimal) on Jim Parsons's sexuality in this article feels like a straightwashing. Straight celebrities frequently have comments on their relationships (and marriages) whether or not the celebrity is willing to make any public comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.202.120 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like for a celebrity to actually "be" gay, they have to go on talk shows and yell at the cameras or have an interview with a famous magazine.

This is as absurd as saying that Anderson Cooper is heterosexual; they just haven't "come out" in a public display. If someone actually took their time to do some research, they would know all of this, but of course there is always heteronormativity and the idea that being labelled as "gay" constitutes an attack. Von Karma (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Von Karma. If the argument for including references to the romantic lives of heterosexuals is that this encyclopedia should contain as many useful facts as possible (we can debate the utility of including this information another time, I suppose) then why then shouldn't this apply for homosexuals as well? Why is the burden of proof so much higher for gays? Considering the lengths that some straight stars go to keep their personal life private - no mentions of loved ones or family or romantic lives at all in interviews, no photos in magazines, etc. - shouldn't the same standard be applied to them before information is included on their pages? In other words, why don't straight actors have to prominently proclaim their heterosexuality in the press before it can be discussed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.111.123 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just being gay is (arguably) not notable. The most up-to-date news I found says the marriage was called off. If Parsons were in fact married, it would be good to include a brief mention ("In [year] Parsons married [person], [brief description of person if no wiki link is available]. The couple live in [city]."). Without him being married I don't see how any of this is notable enough to include anyway. I also found no reliable source confirming any of these rumors; everything is on blogs and/or traces back to the National Enquirer.

As a fan, I wish him all the happiness in the world with a husband, wife, teacup poodle, or whatever. That he doesn't seem to deny the rumors confirms them to me, but of course that's not enough to merit inclusion. My feelings on the subject are really irrelevant here anyway. 208.107.152.253 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the NYT considered a reliable source? See p. 3 of article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/theater/jim-parsons-prepares-for-his-lead-role-in-harvey.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1337795475-BCUwfXY7UqiHeb4aM4KlQw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.17 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Stage appearances

One editor removed this section entirely. I noticed but didn't revert because none of the entries in the section was sourced. However, another editor reverted. I've added a tag to the section. It needs sources to remain.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Are there any reliable sources that state the article subject's religion and/or ethnicity? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is AFAIK no public statement on article subject's religion. This site http://www.flixster.com/actor/jim-parsons claims that he is catholic but gives no source. He graduated from the University of San Diego, a Roman Catholic university. In an interview http://shows.ctv.ca/TheBigBangTheory/article/Big-Bang-Theory-star-Jim-Parsons-on-his-newfound-fame-his-Emmy-nomination-and-being-typecast#c_0 he states that he prays sometimes. His father's funeral service was held at Trinity Lutheran Church (Klein, TX) http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/obits_3371347/milton.html and his mother taught prekindergarten in a private Lutheran school http://classroom.kleinisd.net/webs/jparsons/meet_the_teachers.htm But that is all sparse and indirect information and as long he does not make a public statement this question remains open. And even if his religion is known it is a question of relevance for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.217.1.6 (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mboisson, 19 September 2011

In personal life : He is openly gay and engaged to Todd Spiewak. Source : http://www.queerty.com/big-bang-theorys-jim-parsons-is-engaged-to-boyfriend-todd-spiewak-20100908/

Mboisson (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: I do not believe that that source is reliable enough to make an edit like that on a BLP, especially since it seems to source the National Enquirer. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding Muppets (2011) to Filmography

Imdb reports that he played "Human Walter" in The Muppets.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1433588/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.54.3 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Poptower

There was a discussion in Ptwiki about the site and we found the site to be non-reliable. Mainly due to terms of use stating that the site is not responsible for the published information, but also due to excessive popups and to copied material from other sites. See [1] and [2]. As such, I've removed this from the article: " His hobbies include playing the piano and watching sports, especially tennis, baseball, and basketball."

Chico Venancio (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012

There's nothing about him <blp issue>... WTF? 68.217.121.159 (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done You are welcome to see the section #Sexuality. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Voice actor in Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil

Jim Parsons provided the voice of Larry Wilder, in episode 20 (Season 2), "Poll Position / Jock Wilder's Nature Camp" of Kick Buttowski: Suburban Daredevil 173.238.166.40 (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2012

Please change the birthplace information to Spring, Texas, as Parsons has stated that he was born and raised in Spring

Calliope4 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Can you provide a source? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"came out as gay" not in citation given

Can you add a Template:Failed verification on the sentence "In 2012, he came out as gay, having been in a relationship for ten years."? In the article linked, it does not say that Parsons "came out" or made any statement at all about his sexual orientation. It just claims that he is gay. --208.80.119.68 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and it's not clear-cut to me. The article never says that Parsons said, "I'm gay." At the same time, it's fairly well implied by the context and, in particular, because it was an interview. There's a quote from Parsons (not about being gay) followed by this:

"The Normal Heart" resonated with him on a few levels: Mr. Parsons is gay and in a 10-year relationship, and working with an ensemble again onstage was like nourishment, he said.

On the one hand, it sounds like the article author is saying that Parsons said both things in support of it resonating with him. On the other hand, it doesn't quote Parsons and the "he said" at the end of the sentence could apply only to the part about working with an ensemble. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what to do with what we say in the article, so I've left it alone. I'd be interested in hearing what others think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Now, it's correct...saying he said he's gay. – Teammm ^{Let's Talk! :)} 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think the article says that Parsons said he's gay. Reading the sentence (Mr. Parsons...) out loud as a normal person would read it, it sounds like two sentences with a big pause in the middle connected by an "and". The "he said" at the end does not sound like it encompasses the part before the "and". --208.80.119.68 (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why he permited to be called "gay" by the NYT, and say nothing about that after a whole day. The message is implicit but clear in their interview. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How about we simply say "He is gay and as of 2012 he has been in a relationship for 10 years" ie exactly what the source states. Siawase (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether he is gay and in a relationship (that is supported by the source); the issue is whether he stated so himself, which is a big deal (I'm not convinced that is supported by the sources). Since he is (supposedly) gay, he wouldn't object to being called gay, and wouldn't make a big deal about whether he said it or not; but that does not mean he said it. --208.80.119.68 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 208 and with Siawase. We can say he's gay in the body of the article based on the NYT source. However, we should not put him in gay cats without a clear self-identification - and this was not that. By the same token, we should not say he came out or that he revealed, or even my last word he said, because it's not clear what he said. Unless I hear some persuasive argument to the contrary, I will change the body of the article per Siawase's wording and remove the gay cats.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like double-speak to me. If it's not OK to put him into any gay categories (because he has never publicly outed himself), then how can it be OK to say he's gay in the body of the article? Categories must be supported by article text, which in turn must be supported by reliable external citations. If a reliable citation is available, then we can both mention his sexuality in the article and put him into a gay category. If there's no reliable citation, we can do neither. It's an all-or-nothing thing. There's no way in which one of these would be OK but the other not. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion of the material in the body is the usual standard, which is that it must be relevant and reliably sourced (as well as other limitations like WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, etc.). WP:BLPCAT has a higher standard for including the cats. It isn't "double-speak". BLPCAT even explains the basis for the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I struggle with this, I must say. Are you saying we could conceivably write volumes about his homosexuality on the basis that there are plenty of reliable sources about it (assuming there were), but we can't put him into any gay categories until he says the exact words "I am gay"? What if he publicly refers to some man as "my boyfriend" and is seen holding hands and kissing him, but never says the precise words "I am gay"? What if he marries a man, but never says the words "I am gay"? OK, I'm stretching the point here. Obviously, entering into a same-sex marriage would constitute "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question", so that would be clear. But short of that, it's often as much about what people don't say as about what they do say, that leads the rest of the world to form pretty definite ideas of their sexuality. I know, I know, we can't use nods and winks and knowing looks as the basis of WP articles, but ... -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not everyone who are in a same-sex relationship are gay, even if they are in a same-sex marriage, so we absolutely cannot use that as the lone criteria for inclusion in gay categories. (Other possible orientations/identifications include bisexual, queer, and deliberately unspecified.) And it has happened before that the media, even usually reliable sources, have declared someone X sexual orientation, only for that person to identify differently when something is published where they define themselves in their own words. In the prose we can reflect the nuance of these things, but categories have no room for nuance, so out of respect for the individual/BLP they should only be used when the person has clearly self-identified.

"we could conceivably write volumes about his homosexuality on the basis that there are plenty of reliable sources about it (assuming there were), but we can't put him into any gay categories until he says the exact words "I am gay"?"

This is exactly right, Wikipedia can and does (while accurately reflecting the sourcing situation) include high quality media coverage of same-sex relationships and sexual orientation even when the subject hasn't commented themselves, while eschewing inclusion in categories, see for example Jodie Foster#Personal life and Anderson Cooper#Personal life.

See also Sexual orientation#Sexual orientation distinguished from sexual identity and behavior, where categories on Wikipedia strictly follows self-identification, not behavior or presumed orientation.

And with all that in mind, re the prose in this article, we could add a "Per the New York Times" here to make clear to the readers where the "he is gay" originates. Siawase (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose we replace the current sentence in the article with:

In a report about an interview with Parsons in May 2012, The New York Times said Parsons is gay and has been in a relationship for the last ten years.

I also propose deletion of the gay cats pursuant to WP:BLPCAT as there is no clear self-identification.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

To add another opinion, I disagree. The relevant category inclusion criteria is "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". I read the NYT quote, "Mr. Parsons is gay and in a 10-year relationship, and working with an ensemble again onstage was like nourishment, he said", as applying "he said" to the entire sentence, so Parsons publicly (by knowing he would be near-quoted) self-identified as gay. The whole question is whether or not this interpretation is correct. I believe it is, since (1) the article discusses interviewing Parsons, (2) if "he said" applied only to the ensemble clause it would have preceded "working", and (3) the alternative is that the journalist outed Parsons against his will, which would be completely unacceptable for a paper as respectable as the NYT and would call for immediate action which doesn't seem to have taken place.

I prefer your rewritten version to what's there, though I would make some other changes. I dislike his personal life section having a single sentence, though. The section should be expanded soon or the info should be moved elsewhere in the article. Anyway, my version:

In May 2012, The New York Times reported that Parsons is gay and was currently in a ten-year relationship. 75.76.162.89 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)