Talk:Matt Bomer

Untitled

In early 2007 Matthew confirmed to Nylon magazine that he is indeed a homosexual but hopes that the media will respect his privacy.

Even though it's just in the discussion, do you have a more specific reference? Xadnder 08:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed "will premiere on May 10th" to "premiered on May 10th". 72.153.234.176 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)luhan10@gmail.com

Matthew's dad a former Dallas Cowboy?

The main article makes the claim that Matthew's father, John Bomer, is a former Dallas Cowboy. I'd like to see some evidence for this claim. The all-time roster in the official 2008 Dallas Cowboys media guide does not include anyone by that name, either as a player or coach.--Fgoodwin (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Was he in any other movies i think i saw him as a badguy cop in a movie once (it was on tv) Githyan (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Why was the information about the outing of Bomer removed? It was all sourced and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't me who deleted it, but I agree with this decision: although quite convincing, at this moment it's just gossip and speculation. Being somewhat libelous, it couldn't stay.Primaler (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That fact that the blogger stated this information, that the photographs were leaked and that AfterElton contacted Bomer's reps for confirmation is not speculation, they are facts that were sourced correctly; secondly, it is not libelous to indicate something about a person that is not illegal--this, in fact, has recently been demonstrated in a court case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that a blogger got some information, and AfterElton contacted a publicist, but the reaction was 'no comment'. We haven't heard anything from the only source that we can actually can trust in this matter: Matthew Bomer himself. We can't start editing encyclopedias with just rumor/gossip/stories from bloggers, no matter how good 'sourced' this is. With personal stuff, you really need some good evidence. Wikipedia is not a gossip or news magazine, it's an encyclopedia.80.127.58.65 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt the article cites the references correctly, the issue is that the sources are reporting on hearsay and including this information is irrevelent to his biography. The gay bloggers love to use thin information to try to out high profile people and drive traffic to their sites. AfterElton went on to point out in an op-ed piece that they can in no way report the information as factual because it is not confirmed. Also, if you are going to use the legality of homosexuality to claim the information is not libelous, you should consider that his body of work is international in nature, and that homosexuality is not legal in some countries, and that the court ruling only applies to the United States, while Wikipedia is accessible worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GinoP4 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It’s simply not true to say that things said repeatedly about a person by various friends and individuals in a position to know are irrelevant to informative articles about the person, especially when photographs supporting their assertions exist and are easily accessible by the general public; and because we don’t actually say he’s gay, only that it has been reported that he is, there is nothing libelous about the article content, especially given that both the sources and the article section here not that he has made no statement. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then you have to think of it in a personal way. People read this information as fact regardless of how objective the entry is. It's harmful to puport things about people that are not confirmed and are potentially damaging to someone's livelihood. Posting this information is not fair and just plain wrong. I don't understand why the stewards of Wikipedia are so adamant about damaging someone's reputation when they could just as easily leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.117.191.14 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From the BLP page: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Now, we've gone well beyond three reverts now. Ain't it time to discuss?

1) The paragraph seems to be quite balanced and heavily referenced. Is it not?
2) Someone's said it's against BLP. Is it?

Primaler (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I can determine. --WikidSmaht (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was referenced entirely to blogs (Perez Hilton, queerty.com, and afterelton.com). Per WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:RS, the paragraph should most assuredly not be included. Potentially defamatory information and exceptional claims need exceptional sources. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we are not making a statement that says he is gay( which I assume is what you mean by “Potentially defamatory information”). We are saying that it has been said, an important distinction. Since he doesn’t rate a separate Discussion about Matthew Bomer article, this is the article in which the information belongs. Tangentially: how is it “defamatory” or “exceptional” to say someone in Hollywood is gay? --WikidSmaht (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, Joe Daly from the Wikimedia Organization has made the decision that the paragraph be left off. Please honor that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.117.191.14 (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if Joe Daly commented here himself then, instead of asking an unregistered user to do it. - EdoDodo ^talk 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WikidSmaht: By your suggestion, we can say "someblog.com says Joe Bloggs is a rapist", which we clearly cannot. Reporting that an unreliable source suggested some contentious accusation is just as bad as stating it outright. We shouldn't be posting this up. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I find the page as currently shown (15 Jan 2009) substantially misleading. Please consider the following:

(1) Matthew Bomer is a celebrity and whether rightly or wrongly his sexuality is likely to be of interest to the public.

(2) The public will look to a trusted source such as Wikipedia for information.

(3) On reading the current version of the page, they will find the primary claim in the "personal life" section, where one would expect to read about personal relationships, is that he likes playing sports, a claim for which no references are provided and which is clearly intended to create an unsubstantiated (and on the balance of evidence probably false) perception that he must be straight.

Let's not obfuscate: there is a perception that gay men don't do sport, and the unreferenced claim about sports appears to have been prominently and deliberately placed in a location where a reader would expect to infer (from the details of domestic relationships) whether the subject of the article is gay. The claim is apparently made here with the intention of throwing the reader off the scent.

If it's forbidden to make unverified but circumstantially evidenced claims, then it's certainly unforgiveable to use the judicious insertion of apparently uncontroversial (yet unreferenced) claims to deliberately mislead the reader. I assume it is libellous to suggest that a gay person is straight (since the opposite appears to be true), and in the interests of avoiding any risk of litigation I hope that someone properly versed in Wikipedia's policies will therefore fix this page. Arcman (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good LORD, man! You've managed to call homosexuality "libelous", "harmful", akin to being a "rapist", "potentially damaging to one's livelihood"! Congratulations! You're ready to run as the next Republican presidential hopeful. Where are you from? Uganda? Or, when are you from? The 1950s?

Problem is, so long as there are people thinking along your (racist) lines, the likes of Matt Bromer will tend not to come (fully) out. And so long as they stay in the closet, people like you will never stop thinking about homosexuality the way you are now. Lucky you're a minority nowadays, but sure you can be annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.205.62 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Sports Quote? Interesting discussion. One point made above I agree should be changed: the sports quote. I want to delete "Bomer enjoys participating in sports such as football, baseball and tennis, as well as playing the guitar."

A search of the web revealed not one RS. Rather, this seems to be one of those "If enough people say it enough times it must be true" quotes. Such is the power of Wikipedia, and why I would like to discuss the change. I fear that if I simply go ahead and delete the above sentence, someone will reverse the change "because it's true."

After deletion, I propose adding the verifiable facts (with references) that Matt played football in his youth, and attended Sports Camp.--Watsammatta u (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Do it. It's a BLP, so unsourced facts should be removed.Primaler (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

POINT OF LAW: Something cannot be "somewhat" libellous. It is or it isn't.

Note that Wikipedia entries on celebrities generally read like they are written by publicists and fans. The moderators routinely remove "unsubstantiated" information that shows the celebrity in a negative light, but have no problems allowing unsubstantiated information that is favourable.

People do not view Wikipedia as a "trusted source".

WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS AN "EXCEPTIONAL SOURCE"? That really is a new one.

Why do Wikipedia entries on celebrities invariably sound like they are written by publicists or fans? Information that is in any way negative is routinely removed as "irrelevant" or "unsubstantiated" yet unsubstantiated positive information is allowed to stay. 81.159.60.195 16:59, September 8, 2011

81.159.60.195, since you left unsigned remarks inside other people's messages above, as well as remarks that clearly violated WP:Civility, I have moved your message down here, with a time-stamped signature, and removed the incivil portions of them. In answer to your points:

Primaler's remark "somewhat libellous" and Stifle's comment about exception claims needing "exceptional sources" should be taken as a grain of salt. While I do not speak for them, I understand their comments to be the normal shorthand in which people speak every day. They do not require a legal or technical exactness that you seem to demand, and they certainly do not justify your pejorative comments. Stifle is correct in that controversial material needs reliable sources. That he chose to use the word "exceptional" is unimportant.

Speaking as someone who applies a strict adherence to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:CS, Wikipedia articles do not leave in unsubstantiated positive or favorable information as a matter of practice. Since there are 3 million articles on the English Wikipedia, articles and passages are bound to be found that appear to be written in an overly promotional tone. This may be because the things for which entertainers are known for are both the things that their publicists promote, but are also the things that make them notable, and therefore, what qualify them for articles here. Naturally, those things will comprise the primary material of their articles. But the same may not hold true in reverse to the same degree with negative information, since editors trying to create articles on notable material will naturally outnumber vandals and those with an ax to grind. This is not because Wikipedia has "no problem" with positive material; it's just because the project is too huge to fix these problems all at once, as it is a constant work in progress. For my part, I always tag, rewrite, remove, or nominate for deletion passages or entire articles that contain nothing but overly promotional or unsourced material. You can check my edit history for this.

Many people do indeed rely on Wikipedia as a trusted source, just as many people do not. The fact that you fall into the latter camp does not mean that those in the former do not exist. Nightscream (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@79.27.205.62 & @all

In contrast to 79.27.205.62 I think that the following: The fact that being gay is something most people think is worth discussing and mentioning in an encyclopedia, clearly shows how long the road ahead of us still is and that being gay is still far away from being seen as "equal" to being straight. Everybody talks about the fact that being gay is not a big deal, but on the other hand people want to write paragraphs in encyclopedias about that fact. Maybe we should add an "sexual orientation" field next to "born" or "occupation". We could really do a bunch of those, like "favorite beverage" (I am sure there is public interest in what people drink), "average number of farts a day" and "standing while pissing?". I honestly think that those are of the same importance as the sexual orientation. --12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.50.58 (talk)

You made my day, and provide a valid point. 75.34.172.136 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When gay is really equal to straight, Matt Bomer will be able to mention his husband as casually as a straight person can mention his or her spouse, and insidious homophobic attitudes like this anonymously-posted one won't be around to try to keep it hushed up. Seansinc (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bomer's children

Every IP is trying to add information to the article that was shown on the Today Show about Bomer's three children. None of it is sourced. Much of it is barely English. At first, I thought the information was bogus, but I watched a video of the show on the web, and, sure enough, Bomer said he had three children (I've forgotten the names, gender, ages). It came out of nowhere, and the interviewer didn't follow up on it - like are they his biological children and, if so, who's the mother? Regardless, I have no problem putting this information in the article, but we need to be able to cite to a reliable source, and we can't source to the video because of copyright issues. I've looked for reliable news about it and, so far, I've found none.

I might also add that I can't keep reverting without risking violating WP:3RR, so at some point, unless someone else helps, the most garbagy edit may remain in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave in. I found one not-so-great source, reworded the information most recently added to match the source, and it will stay in the article unless someone objects.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

disagreement with reversals

not getting into a further edit war, but i disagree with recent changes/reversions to my recent edits.

• terminal categories are just that...terminal categories. the subject of article remains a candidate for "21st-century american people" and "20th-century men", et al. they are defining characteristics. at present, one CANNOT sub cat from these cats. yes, these terminal cats are indicated as "container cats", but NOT that it is verboten to populate. as names are added at this level, sub cats can be formulated and created. after all, wikipedia is – like all encyclopedias – also a database. these high-level terminal cats needs expansion. (for example, how does one poll wikipedia for "21st-century american people" at present and get the universe?)

• abbreviations are unnecessary in this format (non print). most cases of "united states" in this wikipedia are NOT abbreviated in the FIRST instance. this article thus deviates from the norm.

perhaps others will weigh in.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No the reversions were correct. United States is normally abbreviated U.S. in infoboxes and the categories in question are container categories and should not be populated. Create a sub category if you think it's warranted, but don't add container categories. GcSwRhIc (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

1. "container cats". as an IP (by choice...i operate in a cookieless/non-registration environment), i am unable to create categories. it is, however, only a matter of time before more subcats of those "container cats" are and should be created. generally a "subcontainer" cat also welcomes additions to its population to further advance wikipedia, not to keep it not well categorized.

2. "abbreviations". in my experience of wikipedia over quite a few years now, abbreviations remain discouraged in first instance. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See also section - general links and portals

I've already removed this section once as adding nothing to the article. In addition, contrary to the IP who wants the section to remain, these portals are not "standard". Please see the ongoing discussion at WT:FILMBIO. The section should not be reinserted into the article unless a consensus has been reached that it is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

the key to a good, professional-style encyclopedia is to provide a user with good navigational tools. the "see also" and portals help facilitate that. the items inserted are as finely honed as possible given the current incompleteness of wikipedia. they can always be further honed as wikipedia expands and refines.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we'll wait until your speculative expansion of Wikipedia occurs. At the moment, "finely honed" is not a description I'd apply to the lists or to the portals, which aren't honed at all, let alone finely.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

well, they are as "honed" as current wikipedia will allow at present. cats can't be subcatted. not a "list of American actors" created yet. perhaps we have to agree that we have different philosophies on how to build a comprehensive wikipedia. regards.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Matt or Matthew?

Most of the sources and his IMDB page refer to him as Matt Bomer. Is there a reason to keep this article styled Matthew Bomer? I don't see anything where he's used that spelling of his name professionally, and WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most common name for the subject when possible, which appears to be Matt.

I'd go ahead and boldly move it, but looking at the article's history, there might be some objections. I want to get clear the reasons for the objections before I make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with an article name change. I agree he's most often referred to as Matt in the press. My only problem was a name change within the article that contradicted the article name.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since no one has objected to your proposal, I'm going to move it per WP:COMMONNAME. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The redirect Matt Bomer has been edited, so no cigar. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

I would like to edit Matt Bomer's 'Personal Life' section. On Jimmy Kimmel live this year, when he was interviewing, he had on a wedding ring. I would like to add this to the page. Here is the source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWtvZQtqrhA Jeureka12 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot add such material on the basis of an editor's personal conclusion when watching a TV clip. Please see WP:SYNTH and WP:SECONDARY. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Heritage

Bomer is such a typical German surname. Can anyone edit anything to Bomer's possible German American descent? Thanks! 91.66.8.15 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable, published source supporting this, which specifically references Matt Bomer, would be required to do this. Please see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:IRS. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

His patrilineal line goes back to a John Bomar, born in Devonshire, England around 1660. John Bomar was Matthew Bomer's eight times great-grandfather. It looks like the surname was changed sometime in the 1800s, as was not uncommon (casual spelling changes, I mean). You can follow that line here. Not a reliable source, of course, but there is your answer. He may have German ancestry through one of his (many) other lines, but not that one. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Coming out

I heard he recently came out as "gay". Does that mean bi or what? And how long do we wait for the dust to settle before we slap him with a cat? (Sorry, no wet trout today; come back in the spring.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

He's in a homosexual relationship with another man, as indicated by the text and its sources in the article, so "gay" seems appropriate, I'd imagine. Nightscream (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and since the 'Personal Life' section mentions his skirting the subject in 2010, but makes no mention of the fact that he's actually come out now (this past weekend), shouldn't something be added? This article from People has the story as well as the exact quote that is already in the 'Personal Life' section, might as well also minimize the references since they're both there, eh? http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20570017,00.html I would do it myself, but my account isn't confirmed or autoconfirmed or whatever it is that allows edits to semi-protected pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetdeagon (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It already says he came out as gay in Feb 2012 in that section.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

College graduation

Did he graduate from Carnegie-Mellon in 2000 or 2001? Both dates are given in consecutive paragraphs--how did someone not notice this? Rontrigger (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What does the citation say? Nightscream (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2001 date is sourced. The 2000 date, indeed the entire sentence, is unsourced. I've removed the sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

I think all the discussions on this page missed the real point: he wasn't born in Texas. It seems like his parents moved there in the mid to late 1980s, but there's no record of him being born there (i.e. on ancestry.com and elsewhere), and the same is true of both of his siblings. I know articles say he is a "native" of Texas, but that doesn't always necessarily mean he was actually born there. A definitive source is needed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

His Yahoo biography stated it, but that's been challenged. Since the place of birth was removed, I've also removed the date of birth, since it ties to the same Yahoo source. Either the source is valid or it isn't; it can't be valid for the date but not for the place. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2012

Alysia Sands (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Change photo to <Matt Bomer.jpg>

•  Not done. Copyrighted image.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I replaced the image

A new image has been uploaded and I think proper permission has been added.

Just to be clear, the choice of image resides with a consensus of the editors. However, in the case of close calls, it may be relevant to know what the subject prefers. The subject's representative requested this image.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, you have not established any "close calls". And there's a big difference between arguing that it's "relevant to know" what the subject prefers, and "I changed the photo" because it's what the subject prefers. The latter seems to be your rationale; The former is just a euphemistic use of the passive voice.

Second, the subject does not get to control his own article, and neither does his representative, since this isn't his personal webpage. It's an encyclopedia belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation. You indicate that "editors can reach their own consensus", yet you didn't bother waiting until other editors could weigh in on the matter in order to form such a consensus, nor nor did you provide any argument for why this new photo is a better choice for the article.

The photo should be the one that best serves the article, and a grainy, low-res, black & white photo that is cropped to chop the top of the subject's head off is not a better choice of photo than a clear, high-res, color one taken on the set while he was in costume filming an episode of the TV show for which he is best known.

It also makes little sense to change the photo but to keep the caption, when the new photo was not taken on the same occasion. Nightscream (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You totally misunderstood my point, as I am in agreement with you. I not only didn't say that the subject or the representative gets to control the article, I made a point of emphasizing that the decision rests with "a consensus of the editors". What on earth did you think that meant? I haven't read the article, I know nothing about the subject and have no interest in it. As for "you didn't bother waiting until other editors could weigh in", please read WP:BRD. An editor would have made the change, but could not because of the semi-protection. OTRS is badly understaffed, with hundreds of open tickets. I could have just processed this one, and moved on, but I took the extra step and made a bold edit. I need to stop caring it is just causing me grief. Plus, consider not jumping to conclusions. Such as:

• Claiming there is no evidence of OTRS,
• Making up an out-of-the blue rebuttal to an argument not made (close calls),
• Thinking that my emphasis that the decision rests with the editors (as opposed to the subject) means I think the subject controls the article. How on earth did you come up with that one?

You are actually a sysop? Good grief. Please consider taking a class on reading comprehension.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't say that the subject gets to control the article is irrelevant. The point is what's inferred by the fact that you changed the photo, and used the subject's representative's wishes as the rationale for doing so.

You didn't make a comment about close calls? Sure you did. It's above, where you said, "Just to be clear, the choice of image resides with a consensus of the editors. However, in the case of close calls, it may be relevant to know what the subject prefers."

As for reading comprehension, try reading WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and see how well you comprehend that. Nightscream (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page, as this no longer involves this article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• If a second opinion is requested or needed in this discussion, I'd like to say that I don't think Sphilbrick has done anything wrong and they have tried to go about this with a common sense approach. I don't think it's realistic to always discuss a change prior to actioning it, as per WP:BRD. It's only once there's a clear difference of opinion that it should head to the talk page for discussion / a straw poll. I do think that Nightscream has jumped the gun a bit and assumed more bad faith than was evident. However, I do still prefer the previous colour lead image. It would just be nice if it could be discussed with a bit more more civility... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image consensus discussion

I am starting a consensus discussion to determine which of the following two photos is a more appropriate choice for the article's Infobox:

• 
  Color Photo
• 
  Black & White Photo

So which do you prefer? The color one? Or the black and white one? Nightscream (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The color picture is the better choice IMHO, because it gives a clearer/more accurate/more complete indication of what the subject looks like. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The color one is better because it's in color, because it's not profile, because he doesn't look kind of smirky as he does in the B&W photo, and because the B&W photo looks like a publicity shot.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the color one, the B&W one looks better of course, but most infobox images look like the color photo, and aren't usually headshots. Jetdeagon (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I, to the contrary, prefer the black and white version. The colour version looks like he has just been blinded but it does give a more accurate perspective of the article, but if we are just going by the look of the article, then the black and white in my opinion. — M.Mario (T/C) 23:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Color, imo. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Colour. The B&W image is too stylised and promotional, and doesn't really reflect a neutral POV. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I put the black & white picture into the article (down with the filmography), since why not have two pictures. If the consensus is to have it in the infobox instead, that's fine with me, I'd probably prefer the color one in the infobox. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(Input requested on my talkpage). Using the colour version would be more standard WP practice. In some senses the B&W one is nicer, but it can go elsewhere in the article. I would however suggest cropping the colour version to balance it more, taking a little off the right (removing the cleaning lady in the background) and perhaps a little off the bottom to give close to standard image dimensions. --jjron (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I can give a truly objective answer regarding which is the better picture. I processed the OTRS permission, so know that the subject prefers the B&W. That colors (so to speak) my view, and while I agree, there is a distinct possibility that I agree partly because the subject prefers it.

I made a point in the prior section, inexpertly. I'll try again: the subject of any article has a COI. For that reason, we do not want them writing the text, or determining which photo may be most flattering. NPOV is one of the pillars of this project, and we must adhere to it. Which means that we as a community decide which wording is the best encyclopedia coverage, and which image is best at providing neutral, as opposed to sensationalized coverage. That said, we do not go so far as to block out any input from the subject. We discourage direct editing of the article, but we encourage posting to the talk page, so that the community can have an informed view of the options. We do not encourage subjects to decide which pictures are used, but we do encourage subjects to provide and license images where free images are scant or inadequate. We do not automatically acquiesce to the views of the subject, in fact, we ought to see a red COI flag, and take care when reviewing the views of the subject. IMO the only time a subjects views ought to be given some weight is if the community is genuinely split on a choice of wording or a choice of pictures. In the case of wording, there is often a way to identify a third alternative, which meets NPOV and satisfies more editors, but in the case of two photos, there isn't a clear third option.

I'm too involved to make a choice, but if an outside observer were to conclude that the arguments for both images had equal weight, I don't see a problem including the subject views as a tie-breaker. (While a see an attempt at a third way—using both—I think it is clear that the infobox choice is th e main choacie. That's the one most people see first)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In my experience, the picture that is the highest quality is usually picked as the lead image in an article. The B&W suggested above looks fairly good in the thumbnail. However, when you look at the picture at full size, it's poor quality, has moderate noise throughout the picture, and it looks like he has salt and pepper stuck to his face. It's not a good picture. The color version however, is of fair quality, has light noise scattered throughout the picture, but the resolution is better, the angle and color contributes more encyclopedic value IMO. I highly recommend choosing the color picture from the quality POV. Dusty777 00:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that salt and pepper is facial hair. Insomesia (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• B&W. I think the equality is better and his head doesn't get lost in the flag behind him. Insomesia (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would vote for the color. Various reasons above sums it up for me. C. Williams (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)