Talk:Robert Reed

message: Is it worth noting that he was HIV positive? I'm looking around for a reliable source. --138.16.60.106 03:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV 

message: Robert Reed DID NOT die simply from AIDS. He also had colon cancer, and BOTH were factors of his death, however various cancers present as HIV progresses into AIDS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsentwinluv4ever (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of death? 

message: I remember an episode of "Medical Center" where Robert Reed played a married father who wanted a sex change.  At the end of the show, they showed him made up to look like a woman.  Does anybody remember that show?  RickK 03:07, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Center 

message: What's the reference for him being gay? Alison9 06:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every Brady Bunch book, television retrospective and reference out there? I know Florence Henderson knew after the first screen test, and he eventually confided in her (at least that is her story). Mike H 00:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's important to keep the reference to his threatening rent boys.  Otherwise, the entry is misleading in that it depicts him as some sort of nice guy when he was in fact threatening his rent boys.  It's bad enough for these young men to have to engage in this stuff to make money, but to have your customer threaten you on top of that is disgusting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.5.73 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2007
Does anybody know if Reed was a top or a bottom?  I think that would be helpful in understanding this complex man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.65.45 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2007
The whole section dealing with his supposed preferences and threats is based on a National Enquirer story?  What a joke!  The anti-gay bias here is clear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.41.96 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2007
Anti-gay bias? Seems declaring a man who married and had a child as gay is the bias. I found a reference claiming the book "Growing up Brady" quotes Florence Henderson saying he got excited every time she got in bed with him on the set. I'm not buying the book to confirm, but if someone has, it would at least knock the blocks out from under her comments after his death about knowing he was gay. It is not uncommon for fading actors to make unverifiable claims for attention, and Florence certainly was that after the TV show closed.
Because he dated, married a woman and had a child, was seen repeatedly in public with women, no gay ex-lover speaking out (almost always happens after a gay celebrity death), only a female friend attesting to his HIV infection (which wasn't the actual cause of death listed), no scandal regarding his relationship with three young boys constantly on the set, the declaration by all that he was a father figure to them with no exception, that the papparazzi never caught him at a gay bar though it was posthumously claimed in media, the only thing that could be legitimately said about the man is that he MIGHT have been bisexual. Claiming he was gay based on media hype flies in the face of documented evidence he did spend his time with women and fathered a child.Galentravels (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

message: I'm removing the section on his being gay - not because it's false, but because it's so poorly written and sourced.  The two sources listed are from a letter by some random person to findadeath.com and a National Enquirer article, neither of which are reliable sources.  I'll find better sources and write a better paragraph. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality (part 2) 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article needs better sourcing and less editorializing.  I removed several commentaries masquerading as a facts.Comix2008 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly Written

message: I'm not sure what is meant by this sentence :"On the Brady Bunch anniversary, "Still Brady after All these Years," the cast mentioned him taking co-star Florence Henderson out on dinner dates on several occasions."   Did they specifically say that he took Henderson to dinner so that people would think they were dating, and therefore not question his sexuality?   If so, I think that needs to be clarified, and cited.   On the other hand, if they said that Reed and Henderson went to dinner without explaining that it was part of deception, is a conclusion being drawn?   My point is that a gay man can go to dinner with a straight woman without necessarily attempting to deceive anybody, so the sentence as it stands doesn't really offer anything.  Reed and Henderson worked together for several years, were on friendly terms, and Henderson knew Reed was gay.   It would be more surprising if they didn't go to dinner occasionally.   I think this needs to be clarified because the information is not presented clearly.  Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is both uncited and not neutral.  It is a leading statement in that it is implying that the dinner date was either one of deception or denial.  Without an explanation from either parties we cannot tell what motivated either of them, and it could be an entirely unremarkable meeting between two friends.  So no matter which way you look at it, it certainly does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it does not belong in the article as is, so have removed it.  Rossrs (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about that. First thing, it is cited - it's from the mentioned TV show. We can cite television shows as reliable sources if they're documentaries. I'll admit that the cited show is definitely on the "infotainment" end of documentary. As for the relevance of the fact, it's just as relevant as any other supporting statement relating to Reed staying in the closet for professional reasons. That concept is definitely encyclopedic, and so I think the fact in question is as well. Regarding neutrality, I'm open to suggestions on better ways to word it, but just mentioning it seems to me the most neutral way to do it. Orpheus (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally, I completely agree with you that a gay man can go to dinner with a straight woman with no deception involved. It's just that in this case, he was going to some lengths to conceal his sexuality, and that changes the context somewhat. Think "Elton John's penultimate marriage" writ small. Orpheus (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Even supposing it was mentioned on the TV show (and we have no way of verifying this), what are we supposed to make of it?  If you were to place this fact after a paragraph about his co-stars, it would simply be an explanation of who he was friends with.  But by placing it after a details about him hiding his sexuality it is clearly implying something different.  How are we to tell what those on the anniversary show meant when they said it?  It could be that some-one has inferred a whole different story from the one that was intended. Wikipedia needs to stick to plain facts and not "help" the reader read between the lines. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't really have a problem with using a TV show as a source - as long as it's correctly attributed, which this was not - but what exactly are we saying?   Reed and Henderson had dinner together.    Is everything else supposition?   If they "dated" as part of a ruse, we could discuss it, but only if it can be supported.  If it can't be supported then we must avoid it completely in the interest of both neutrality and verifiability.   I disagree that just mentioning it is neutral because its deliberate placement leads the reader to a particular conclusion.   To me that seems like advocating innuendo in the absence of proof, and I would never support that.   On a side issue, but equally important,  WP:BLP extends to Florence Henderson so we should be mindful that this is as much about her as it is about Reed, even if the comment is specifically aimed at Reed. Rossrs (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems fair enough. I agree that we shouldn't guide the reader to any conclusions in a "nudge nudge, wink wink" kind of way. I think that this one's right on the border between a neutral statement and an innuendo of some kind. I'd personally lean towards inclusion, but I can definitely see the case for removal. Given the opinions of other editors discussing the matter, I'll cheerfully withdraw my objection to removing the statement. If any other sources show up I'll raise them here and see what you think then. Orpheus (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiding his sexuality

message: Why did his mother and sister refuse to attend his funeral?  That statement needs an explanation.  Was it because they were unable to attend?  Were they angry at him?  Were they upset at him being gay or HIV positive?  Did he not want them there?  Please explain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.93.180 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did his mother and sister refuse to attend his funeral 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Robert Reed in The Boy in the Plastic Bubble 1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: IMDB has her listed as Caroline Reed but it is referenced in the section about his funeral as Karen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.149.71 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter's name?