Talk:David Ogden Stiers

Instrument?

This article mentions twice that he is a musician. Does anybody know what instrument he plays? It would be appropriate to add Lochok 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

According to IMDb, the french horn. Which makes sense as that the only instrument his character of Charles Emmerson Winchester on M*A*S*H was ever seen to play.

No credit for his role in the Perry Mason movies?

I can't find the name of the character he played in those movies anywhere in Wikipedia.--Will 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

The fan site listed in External Links is bad. This should be checked periodically and if it is still not valid after a time, the link should be removed. Kwyjibear 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Married?

Why no personal info? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

As well, IMDB mentions a child born in the 60's. Proxy User (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He recently revealed he is gay. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gay?

The assertion that he came out as gay will need to be supported by multiple reliable sources before it can be added to this article. This is a major assertion that needs multiple concrete, reliable sources to adhere to WP:BLP. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the editor who first added the information and did so with the assurances of the writer for Gossip Boy that they stood by the interview. I'm looking into it more now, it's quite possible that amidst all the staff at Nancy Seltzer some did not what the others were doing, like setting up interviews. It happens. I'll refrain from posting more until I have more concrete info. Portia327 (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7518323&page=1 SChaos1701 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

Once again, all the MSM stories I've found link back to the Gossip Boy story, which is denied by DOS's publicist and isn't being steadfastly corroborated by the editors at Gossip Boy. All I can get out of them is, "We stand by the revelations made in the story."; reply to me via email from someone called Lucas at Gossip Boy. I'm starting to wish I hadn't updated the article..Live and learn I guess. Portia327 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for where the publicist denies the story? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do so on his Discussion page here at Wiki. I personally believe he did the interview and the info is good as written, but that's not up to Wiki standards. It enables him to get the info he wants out there and take back what might hurt his career. Perhaps he's waiting to see Disney's reaction before admitting or denying the article? Dunno. Portia327 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: It appears that the only denials were in edit summaries by User:NSAPR on this article here and here. That user claims to be the publicist on their talk page. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mufka, my Wiki-link fu is weak. Portia327 (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like User:NSAPR isn't really DOS' publicist. I just called Nancy Seltzer & Associates at their NY number (212-307-0117), and the woman I talked to said that to the best of her knowledge, Nancy Seltzer & Associates does not represent DOS. She said the only possibility might be "if they were doing something with him out of the LA office" that she didn’t know about. I tried calling NS&A’s LA office (at 323-938-3562), but they aren’t open yet this morning. Red Act (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Red Act. That seems odd that someone would go to such trouble if they weren't for real, but certainly stranger things (Hitler Diaries, etc) have happened. Portia327 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I was wrong. I just called the LA office of Nancy Seltzer & Associates, and spoke with Nancy Seltzer herself. They do indeed represent David Ogden Stiers. I didn't ask about the NSAPR user name specifically, since she said she has underlings dealing with Wikipedia, so I figured she wouldn't know about what user name her underlings were using. But she did say that they are very unhappy about Wikipedia having used Gossip Boy as an ultimate source, and blames Wikipedia having relied on Gossip Boy as being the reason why ABC News and MSNBC felt free to go ahead and publish this as a story. She said that she really prefers that DOS' WP article not say anything at all about his personal life, until DOS has decided what to do about the current media coverage. Red Act (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Act, you've gone above and beyond on this and I really appreciate your work and tenacity. I don't know that Wiki has the power Ms. Seltzer claims, unless one acknowledges that salacious news sells better than no news; then Wiki could certainly be compelling as an ultimate source for the MSM. Should there be any mention of Gossip Boy's article in DOS' Wiki page, either as unverified or a potential hoax? Portia327 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We should leave it out altogether per WP:BLP until something verifiable comes along. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That it's published and referred to him is verified, though. I think the mention of it happening, being picked up by the mainstream media and ultimately being flatly denied by his publicist would keep most people (not the clueless vandal variety, of course) from adding the info to his page. I'm thinking ahead of trying to block potential edit-warring with well-meaning (?) newbs who don't read a Talk Page before they edit. Is that reasonable or allowed? Portia327 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying but BLP policy says if it's being denied, we can't add it, even though evey major news source in the world is now reporting it. I'll also say that Nancy Seltzer should learn how Wikipedia works before spouting off at the lip when she said she "blames Wikipedia having relied on Gossip Boy as being the reason why ABC News and MSNBC felt free to go ahead and publish this as a story". It was actually the other way around.. we used ABC News and MSNBC as the source because they published the story before it was even put in Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Ms. Seltzer, I added the info the day Gossip Boy posted their article, April 29. Then ABC, etc picked it up over the weekend and Monday-ish, best I can tell. I re-red the BLP page and I see that it stresses being conservative about personal information. It was a mistake for me to add it before getting secondary corroboration; I've learned a valuable lesson. I don't look forward to the reverts that are going to happen for the next month or so to DOS' page but I'll do my best to get to them as fast as possible and hope it dies down by the 4th of July. I appreciate all the input, effort and patience of everyone here who's been on top of this. Portia327 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if ABC and MSNBC picked it up over the weekend, I'd hardly blame us for it, they being the big and mighty news organizations that they are one would think they would get confirmation instead of relying on what's in a Wikipedia article. God himself has told publicly news organizations that they should always verify anything they find on Wikipedia before reporting it. As for the content additions, if we get much more drive-by additions of the content, we can always request full protection for a month. No one will be able to edit it but it will also keep the BLP violations out. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is over 112 news outlets covering this story including BBC News, CNN, MSNBC & E!. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever this shouldnt be included, if you are unsure of whether this should be included contact an Administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydog77 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate that this is frustrating to you, but if you take a moment and read this talk page and the linked letter from the actor's publicist, and then look at the numerous articles in the mainstream media and see that they all go back to the disputed Gossip Boy article, you'll understand that until there is third-party corroboration the information will not be allowed on his Wiki page. I'm sorry that this has frustrated you, it has me as well. Portia327 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected: I have protected the page from editing until this issue is ironed out. It appears that all of the reports are based on the same interview and it is prudent to use extra care in making these statements in the article. Either way, it is very likely that we will see a published statement from the subject himself that will resolve the issue. There is no hurry in publishing this information and there is no harm in waiting to look into any denials - all of which must be taken seriously. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mufka. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks seconded! Portia327 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Its highly unlikely we are going to see any confirmation or non confirmation about this subject, the story is out there. Wiki policy is shit on that basis as are we to believe that ABC, NBC, BBC are going to retrack the story...no of course not

Unsigned, I completely understand what you're saying and agree it is frustrating, but keep in mind two vital things; firstly, Wiki needs to be seen as above a 'story' that is 'out there'. We're encyclopedic, which means our edits must be factual, provable and neutral. Secondly, and most importantly, David Ogden Stiers is a living person. He deserves his privacy (if he wants it, and our default is that he does) and the ability to make a living. When controversy causes someone to lose their job or reputation, those that spread the controversy share the blame regardless of the information being right or wrong. To us it's words on a screen, to him it's his life. Consider his side; maybe you've been fortunate enough in life to avoid the pain of being bullied, but that's what it would be if we posted this uncorroborated information. Portia327 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This in itself is so POV (which is fine for a talk page, I know). You don't know the reasons for DOS's decision on this matter, so speculation isn't really that useful. The idea that an openly gay person can't make a living in Hollywood in 2009 is laughable, however. I agree with decisions for this article thus far, by the way, and that this page should stay as is until we get a better source than "Gossip Boy," but I had to chime in about your comment above. Moncrief (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While I surely can't read his mind, the fact that Mr. Stiers' publicist asked Wiki to refrain from posting the information is telling (to me at least) about his feelings on his image. That image is linked with his employability, which was my point. Who can and can't get hired in Hollywood is irrelevant to me, but it appears relevant to his publicist, who is his mouthpiece as far as we know. My comment most certainly has a POV, that's why it's here and not in the article. The usefulness of my comment was aimed at the unsigned poster, not the article itself, which is why it was framed as it was. Perhaps next time both you and I should put such comments on the appropriate User Talk Page so as not to distract from the article discussion. Portia327 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullied? This is wikipedia not Geraldo, it isn't even credible that there isnt any mention of the alleged interview on here even if he does deny it (which trust me they wont) to miss out this story is plane silly, we will see how this goes either way his "publicist" is doing a very poor job and should be fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.220.150 (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Are we so sure that DOS's publicist denied the contents of the interview? And even if his publicist denied it, when it is being reported by ABC and numerous other news sources as being accurate, why does Wikipedia need to make a special exception? It's obvious at this point that if DOS intended on denying it, he would have made a public announcement doing so. One can't wait this long leaving the story out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.28.143 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the following a reliable third party source? What else do we need for Wikipedia purposes? Why is the fact that he is gay such a touchy subject that Wikipedia has to go above and beyond to confirm? http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7518323&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.28.143 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All these questions are answered in WP:BLP and perhaps with careful re-reading of this Talk page. Portia327 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt worry the page will eventually be un protected and someone else will add the info and it will go full circle, pathetic excuses and silly policies make this whole thing laughable and Portia your buying right into it dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.220.150 (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• All of those "reliable third party sources" - ABC, NBC, CNN, they all use the original interview at Gossip Boy as their own source. Gossip Boy is not a "reliable third party source". The original interview with Gossip Boy is being denied by Stiers' publicists, not just denying he is gay but denying the interview even took place. Therefore, we can not include the information per our WP:BLP policies. Period. Why is this so hard to understand? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

<<not just denying he is gay

I see no such denials. His publicist denies that the interview took place. I've not seen the publicist address the matter of his sexual orientation one way or the other. I'm not arguing for any action different from what's been taken so far here, but let's keep the facts, er, straight. Moncrief (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion of the information is still the prudent thing to do. It doesn't appear that they are denying he is gay according to Red Act's statement above at 16:33, 7 May 2009. No harm comes from excluding it but harm could come from including it. We need to see this in another independent reliable source. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I agree with the actions thus far re: this page. I'm only noting that, contrary to Allstarecho's comment, the publicist has not denied DOS is gay (nor has she confirmed it). She's only denied that the "Gossip Boy" interview took place. I agree entirely with your post just above. Moncrief (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say denying the interview where he supposedly came out as gay even took place, is denying the allegation that he's gay. It's called reading between the lines. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely not true. Denying that an interview took place is not the same as denying (or confirming) a topic about which the alleged interview pertained. If you can't see the difference between the two already, I'm not sure any attempt to illustrate it will help you achieve that state.

Let's try an illustration: Let's say your lunch is missing from the work fridge. A co-worker, Jane, sidles up to you and says, "Joe told me he stole your lunch out of the fridge." If that conversation between Jane and Joe never took place, the co-worker may be fabricating such a conversation because she knows, from some other source (spying or perhaps a third party told her), that Joe did it. Or Jane could have no idea who stole the lunch and could be just trying to stir up problems by making the whole thing up out of thin air. Either way, when you confront Joe, and Joe says, "I never told Jane that!" he's not denying he stole your lunch, he's denying he told Jane he did so. (To infer more would indeed be "reading between the lines," but in this case there's no proof the lines you're reading have anything to do with reality or what really happened.) Again, I said the publicist did not confirm or deny the larger subject about which the alleged interview took place. The larger subject was not the basis of her complaint. And all of this is not particularly important or earth-shattering; my only intent is to stick precisely with what we know, and not, as you say, "read between the lines" (such between-the-line-reading, when it's based on supposition, assumptions, and not hard evidence, is bad for Wikipedia -- which is why, at this point, it would be bad form to include the "Gossip Boy" rumor, since we should err on the side of caution, not having BLP-standard proof). By the way, this "Gossip Boy," whoever he is, could well have hit upon a new form of outing: generating fake interviews and then getting other media to cover them. It's rather fascinating, actually (and mostly irrelevant to this article, so I'll stop). Moncrief (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ummm, really? These aren't run of the mill news outlets. If this story is a hoax then I would expect to see any sort of retraction or official denial of rumors, etc. in a reliable source. Do we have those? The original source actually also seems to be credible. So we're using, no disrespect intended, the upset of someone who may or may not have all the facts. At this point I'd say we have cause to add "In May 2009 it was widely reported by mainstream news sources that Steirs came out as gay attributed to a lengthy interview published at GossipBoy." This is the encyclopedic approach. If we have any reliable sources that counteract this then we can look to what weight to give them. If Stiers himself denies this and has any explanation for the interview - "it never took place", "a bad joke", "I was researching a role on againg closeted actor", etc. then we match those up as well. ____ was reported but it's untrue. We don't deny reliable sourcing because we don't like something, we present it neutrally and let the sources do all the talking. -- Banjeboi 20:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Update. I called the LA office and they won't confirm or deny anything until next Tuesday when they are back from holiday. Unless there is compelling reason to leave this out our reliable sourcing guidelines in line with BLP supporting including this with due weight. -- Banjeboi 21:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand your passion and frustration about this subject, but a compelling reason not to include it is the consensus on this page to leave it out. Several editors have gone out of their way to post their feelings against inclusion and you are one person. I'm new here for sure, but is there a poll or vote or something besides this Talk page where a more accurate feeling can be gleaned? I still think inclusion would violate the BLP. Portia327 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Under other cicumstances it may but we have piles of reliable sources that all state the same things and nothing that counters that they are in error in any way. If it is false or untrue, if the interview was fabricated, where is there any evidence of this? Meanwhile internation media have stated he came out. If we report NPOV and dispassionately I think policy is fine, BLP would apply if we had anything to deny the content, and then we would state the above sentence and add that ...however this was disputed etc. The issue is that that was widely reported so we aren't making something up we are following the sources. -- Banjeboi 07:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did the piles of reliable sources get their information? It is widely reported, yes, but every report I've seen on MSNBC, etc goes back to the same source - the Gossip Boy interview his publicist denies. They deny the disputed content, so all we could reasonably add to the article is, "Gossip Boy claimed an interview that his publicist denies."; this isn't encyclopedic, no matter how much discussion or interest it provokes. Thank you, Portia327 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

But the problem here is common sense. "His publicist denies" is supported only by loose statements on this talkpage and when I contacted them they didn't deny anything but deferred making any statement. If this actually was disputed in any way any of those reliable sources would have stated so rather than simply reprinting something libelous. The original interview would also likely be sued for defamation, if any of this were untrue. Meanwhile we have a preponderance of news stories reporting something that Wikipedia is therefore censoring based on wobbly information that we likely are getting wrong. Again do you have any evidence whatsoever that this information is actually untrue, disputed or otherwise false in any way? I don't see it but if it exists let's check it out. -- Banjeboi 00:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Benji dude. I wouldnt bother these lot on here are clearly deluded. If MSNBC/BBC or CNN are not reliable sources because they go back to an interview then this is one of the reasons wikipedia is critizsed for, and Portia keeps reverting edits made and class them as vandalism yet coming back with "I understand your passion". You cannot find any retraction by Stiers or his people if you google it, if were really such an issue for Stiers he would have retracted it immediatly and it hasnt publically, sooo silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottydog77 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Several editors have gone out of their way to post their feelings against inclusion and you are one person" No Portia he isnt just one person there are also a group of us who feel this should be included so stop with the oratorical fireworks and identifying this as vandalism, when in actual fact its truth, I agree with Scottydog the words delusion come to mind and thats not a personal attack on anyone but the whole policy stinks, do we not think all these 3rd party news outlets checked the source and I see that gossip boy have not removed the article from the site, therefore it should be included!!!