----- Original Message ----
From: Steve Bennett
On 22/04/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
As for unbalanced: I still have no idea what
people's fascination is
with celeb's sexuality. Anything more than a line unbalances an
article. Say what their sexuality is if relevant, put in a source and
go on. We don't need entire sections on the subject unless the subject
himself has frequently discussed it.
I agree. I have my own ideas why such paragraphs get written but I'll
keep them to myself. In general, unless you can honestly start the
paragraph with "X's sexuality has been fiercely debated", then
anything beyond "According to some biographers, X was gay" is probably
too much.
Steve
I fear you are barking up Tom Cruise's tree rather
than Sir Ian McKellan's! The latter has been a high-profile campaigner
for gay rights - he was a co-founder of Stonewall for instance. So some
talk of that in his article is right and proper.
Having said that, up until about a month ago the article came almost
exclusively from an interview in a gay magazine, so the
whole feel of the article came through a "pink filter" that was misleading
in a general encyclopedia. On top of that it was way out of date. That is my
guess for what he was finding objectionable.
Having said *that*, I now realise the article has already been getting
improvements over the last few weeks, presumably since the Empire
interview was done.
Pete