Talk:Jason Collins

message: Jason Collins came out after the NBA season ended.  He's currently still unsigned.  It is entirely possible that he will never play a single NBA game as an out gay man.  Given this, should he be called the first 'active' out gay NBA player?  Seems misleading. 108.180.22.215 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Active?

message: I hate pointing this out, but it's kinda funny. The picture of "Jason Collins in 2010" is actually of Marvin Williams (feel free to compare pictures). Not sure how that happened, but it looks like an overzealous Hawks' fan confused Williams for Collins during warm ups or something. I'm not taking the picture down because I don't have a free one of my own of Jason Collins, but it's good for a laugh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This man just came out and already the page is under heavy vandalism. This page should be protected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polonium194 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about earlier, but it now mostly seems like a neutrality issue.  Comment here or at WP:RPP if it changes.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Already protected at 18:11.—Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: While Collins calls himself a free agent, he technically will not become one until July 1, when the July moratorium starts.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about a related point earlier. If he were to never get another contract, is it still fair to say that he came out as an "active" athlete?  It almost sounds like wishful thinking / crystal ball to say that he is "active". --B (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he is still part of Washington, and not yet a FA, I believe that is the interpretation of active that is being used.  At any rate,I haven't seen a source that has said he is not active.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This is all about the sources.  Every one of which I've seen has described him as an "active" athlete.  Wikipedia editors trying to divine whether he may, or may not, get another contract in the future is more WP:CRYSTAL than simply describing him the same way he's described in every single reliable source cited. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if he retires before signing another contract, he is still currently active. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He might be considered "active" as long as he does not say he retired.  If there are sources that make the distinction, it may be worth a mention or a footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't hurt to clarify "active" somehow. For people who don't follow sports, I'm not sure the distinction is necessarily obvious. Is "currently active" an improvement? I feel that "current" is a word that makes more sense to a broader audience. Though "active" seems to be the word the media is using, so I dunno. A clarification (mention or footnote, as noted above) could still be helpful. Moncrief (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually avoid "current", as I would assume everything is "current" unless otherwise specified. I would define "active", but I haven't seen a clear definition.  Frankly, I had the same concerns that he is not technically playing or "active" since the season is over for his team (though playoffs are still ongoing for others), but I would  consider it OR to call him otherwise unless I found sources.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the criteria that news sources are using is the fact that Collins has clearly stated that he would like to keep playing, so there is a perceived element of "risk" that comes with his coming out.  If he had said he planned to retire, then there would be no distinction between Collins and numerous others who waited until they were no longer playing (and had no hope/desire to continue to).  It seems like a clear distinction to me, but I suppose others may view it more literally. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard a radio talk show host say it's a PR stunt by SI to create a story, but I'm not even going to try to make it WP:V.  There is this from Forbes.com that says "I don’t know if Jason Collins counts as an “active player”", but it's from a "contributor", he says "I don't know..." It seems WP:UNDUE to mention.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to someone's sexuality as a "publicity stunt" just rings as a cheap-shot.  Unless this radio host is notable in their own right (for example, if they have a reliably sourced Wikipedia article of their own, that isn't just a self-promotional "stub", verifying that they're a legitimate member of the sports media and/or some sort of well-respected expert on "publicity stunts"), then I think we can chalk their remarks up as a cheap attempt to use the story to grab a little attention for themselves (aka: a "publicity stunt" of their own).  I'm not sure if a "contributor" who doesn't "know" is going to cut it either.  I suppose the information could be re-framed with what's already in the article: He's completed his 2012–2013 season with the Wizards and hopes to play for the 2013–2014 season, etc.., but I don't see a need to create an extensive sub-section on the issue.  He's publicly stated that he wants to keep playing and I think that's the point that all the reliable sources are making. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: It wasn't meant to be inciting by the host.  It was along the context that other retired players have come out, so being "active", even if he might never be out while actually practicing with a team, is definitely more of a story. The guy has a WP article, but I figure it will hit print media eventually if it really is a viable thought. I'm not advocating it be in the article, I'm just putting it here for future reference since I ran across it and User:B above had brought up the point above re: "active".—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see what you mean.  Still though, He's said (from his perspective at least), that he plans to keep playing and I think that's the point.  I'm still not sure about it being a "publicity stunt" even in the narrow context of referring to him as "active", since if Sports Illustrated honestly believed he was washed up, I'm sure they would have been more careful with the way they framed the story.  It's not like anyone who cares about sports hasn't already heard of SI, and they posted the article online for free, so I don't see how they benefit in any way by saying he's "active" if they didn't think he had a realistic shot at another season. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free agency 

message: The new photo that was swapped in by Crakkerjakk last night is not at all flattering to the subject, and is underexposed and out of focus. In my opinion, the previous photos is a better representation of Mr. Collins and is of better quality. - MrX 21:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The new photo has a better view of his face, a plus.  Focus is good enough for a thumbnail. However, in light of the fact that he came out, does he really need a picture with a "funny" expression?  I'd be OK with swapping back if people consider it unflattering.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. As in that I don't like either photo and I wish we had a better one available. One doesn't show his face, the other shows it weirdly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The one on the left was better imo. Best, Jonatalk to me 21:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked several photographers on Flickr to release the license for their photos and this was the only one that replied so far.  I agree the Hawks picture isn't the best, but then neither are 99% of the pictures I found that were taken of him while he was playing (most photographers at a basketball game are trying to capture the "action", not to take a "pretty" picture).  Regardless, the reason I asked the photographer of the Hawks photo in the first place is because I tend to believe the whole point of including a photo in the infobox of a BLP is to provide the reader with a general idea of what the subject looks like (as far as I'm concerned, the Celtics picture is essentially the equivalent to no picture at all). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the Hawks photo for the reason stated above.  A goofy face is better than hardly any face at all. - Maximusveritas (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for any particular photo, so I suggest we simply include both. We can add the original photo on the right, under the infobox. Any objections? - MrX 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Celtics photo is already included in the article.  I cropped it to the standard 4:3 ratio because the crop shown here (which is awkwardly cropped at more than a 2:1 ratio) made formatting within the article difficult, and I didn't think losing part of his arm was a big loss to the photograph, since the primary purpose it serves, as of now, is to show him wearing #98. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up. I misunderstood your comment.  Yes, I would object to moving any picture to the infobox that doesn't allow the reader to identify the subject's face, for the various reasons outlined above. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that looks fine, at least until better CC photos are available. - MrX 23:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the picture on the left is better. Teammm  04:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo: better or worse 

message: This edit removed that Collins was the first gay to come out in a "major American professional team sport", reducing it to "major American sport".  First of all, the original fomat was sourced.  Second, there are major individual American sports too, which may or may not have gays that have come out.  The original was more succinct and verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed when this edit was made.  I'm guessing the editor probably thought it seemed too "wordy" and the change was just a good faith attempt to simplify the sentence. But your point makes sense, so I don't have any problem with restoring the text to its previous form.  Like I said, I think the editor who made the change probably just thought the simplified wording "sounded" better, so I don't foresee it being a problem if you revert.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't intending to imply non-AGF, for sure.  I had already changed it, but did want to leave a wordy edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I know you weren't.  I just meant I didn't think there was much potential for it to turn into an edit war since it appeared to be more of a minor "prose" fix from their perspective, rather than an issue with the actual content. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team sport 

message: Why is "gay" not linked to the wikipedia article on homosexuality?
68.50.119.13 (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't realize gay was for the term and not the concept.  Maybe "gay" should be a redirect instead with a hatnote to the the term at homosexuality, but I'll leave it to the experts.  Changing this article as suggested.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I think so. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article should summarize its main points, and this is certainly that. It should probably be expanded with another sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the exact date can be 2013 instead, but haven't bothered because someone always will always like updating the latest news with exact dates in the lead while it is still "hot".  The lead can be expanded, but I think his coming out is fine with one sentence only.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence speaks for itself.  Being the first active professional athlete playing in the major 4 to come out is of historical significance and, arguably, may very well become the most significant thing he'll be remembered for long after his basketball career is over.  The Wikipedia article on Jackie Robinson (which is a Featured Article) includes the historical significance of his being the first African American in professional baseball in the very first sentence, so we probably shouldn't be too surprised, or get too bent out of shape, if the fact that Collins is the first pro-athlete to come out as gay eventually becomes the opening sentence in this article over time as well. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: As far as the date, I agree that over time it will be sufficient if the lede simply lists the year 2013.  However, since we're currently in the year 2013, it seems standard MOS to at least list the month: April 2013, and again, since we're in April, giving the exact date makes sense for now.  After the current year is no longer 2013, then 2013 will most likely be sufficient. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point on the dates.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  . . . on the magazine's website on April 29, 2013, he came out as gay 

message: The article says it came out in the May issue of SI. But it happened in April. That sounds weird. not a big thing.   71.22.155.114 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The cover date was May 6, but it was released on April 29..  It should be rewritten once people aren't so tied to having every single exact date known, maybe relegate the May 6 date to a footnote, if it is even needed at all.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: There's nothing weird about it. The cover date of weekly national newsmagazines is always later than the date they appear on newsstands or online. Moncrief (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Magazine date

message: Should "Collins was a teammate of actor and comedian Jason Segel." remain in the article?
;Include
;#
#Moncrief (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no cause and effect relationship in his (?) comment. I don't think he was saying the information should be included simply because the section was too short, rather that he perceived your (or whomever he was talking to) behavior as odd considering how short the section was. This whole argument over one sentence, however, is beginning to feel like a parody of Wikipedia at its worst. It's beyond strange that you would insist on writing the summary of the other side's argument in a dispute. That is by definition not good faith. Let people on that side write their own argument! Moncrief (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being bold as the discussion was going back and forth and degenerating so I took it in a different direction. So we discuss any discrepancies and fix it. I think that is progress.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really get what you're saying above. I just know that when someone insists on writing both the pro and con arguments when they are clearly on one side and not the other (control issues?) -- and then having the gall to revert a change made to the pro argument by someone on that side of the fence --  that is, well, laughably bad Wiki manners. You might not understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Moncrief (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you call it "insists".  I took a first stab at summarizing the arguments.  It is not final, all input is welcome. Did you prefer to wait while the same arguments continued to repeat?  By all means, rewrite the entire side if you feel it is completely biased.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: "the gall to revert a change made to the pro argument": If you are referring to me, please be very specific which revert you are referring to.—Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why some editors take delight in deleting interesting bio info is beyond me. We are here to build a resource, not delete everything someone finds boring. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interesting" and "boring" are both subjective, so let's have everyone just state their opinion and arrive at a consensus.  I do not understand the benefit to paint the mere existence of the discussion as some injustice or atrocity when we are all here to improve this article, even if we don't all agree on how that is to occur.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I don't have a problem with the information. It adds some color, it's verifiable, and it's even the primary topic of a USA Today article. Yes, you can run into problems when you go down the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon route, but this particular fact doesn't seem egregiously bad. Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it's a reach to leave it here, but I at least added why anyone should care so it doesn't seem like a total name drop.—Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: User:Moncrief had objected to "the current high school section is too short" being used as an argument.  User:Bender235 earlier wrote "You act like the "High school" section of Collin's biography spilling over with information, when there are in fact merely two sentences." I have no problem if Bender235 wants to retract that point from consideration.  My summary was a good faith attempt to represent points raised by both sides.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no cause and effect relationship in his (?) comment. I don't think he was saying the information should be included simply because the section was too short, rather that he perceived your (or whomever he was talking to) behavior as odd considering how short the section was. This whole argument over one sentence, however, is beginning to feel like a parody of Wikipedia at its worst. It's beyond strange that you would insist on writing the summary of the other side's argument in a dispute. That is by definition not good faith. Let people on that side write their own argument! Moncrief (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being bold as the discussion was going back and forth and degenerating so I took it in a different direction. So we discuss any discrepancies and fix it. I think that is progress.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really get what you're saying above. I just know that when someone insists on writing both the pro and con arguments when they are clearly on one side and not the other (control issues?) -- and then having the gall to revert a change made to the pro argument by someone on that side of the fence --  that is, well, laughably bad Wiki manners. You might not understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Moncrief (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you call it "insists".  I took a first stab at summarizing the arguments.  It is not final, all input is welcome. Did you prefer to wait while the same arguments continued to repeat?  By all means, rewrite the entire side if you feel it is completely biased.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

text: "the gall to revert a change made to the pro argument": If you are referring to me, please be very specific which revert you are referring to.—Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why some editors take delight in deleting interesting bio info is beyond me. We are here to build a resource, not delete everything someone finds boring. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interesting" and "boring" are both subjective, so let's have everyone just state their opinion and arrive at a consensus.  I do not understand the benefit to paint the mere existence of the discussion as some injustice or atrocity when we are all here to improve this article, even if we don't all agree on how that is to occur.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I don't have a problem with the information. It adds some color, it's verifiable, and it's even the primary topic of a USA Today article. Yes, you can run into problems when you go down the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon route, but this particular fact doesn't seem egregiously bad. Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Still think it's a reach to leave it here, but I at least added why anyone should care so it doesn't seem like a total name drop.—Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Please correct the month to April in "from the original on Spril 30, 2013", reference Wertheim, Jon (April 30, 2013). Thanks. 78.43.86.56 (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The text about Glenn Burke being the 1st gay man in pro sports has now been added twice.  From what I can tell, The Atlantic is the only source that has reported this, saying that Burke was open to his team and the press knew but did not report it. Many sources report Collins as the first active male to publicly come out, with "publicly" being the key.  If Burke was open, but it was never known publicly, regardless if it was because the press did not want to report it, then we should not call Burke an active player that was publicly out. Even the The Atlantic says he "came out to the world outside baseball in a 1982 article for Inside Sports"; he had retired already in 1979.  Also,this 2010 report in SI said Burke "came out publicly to Inside Sports magazine and the Today Show" a few years after retiring. I think this would be suitable to expand in Burke's bio, or even in an article like Homosexuality in sports, but the current text of "Notably, Glenn Burke was out but the media at the time refused to cover this" seems to WP:UNDUE and even distracting from the majority view that Collins is the first to publicly come out while active. Note that being "publicly out" is more than just having teammates know, as John Amaechi has said his Orlando teammates knew he was gay.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I worry we are bending over backwards to mislead our readers about something our sources suggest isn't quite true. It might be better to plainly say that Collins was the first yada yada whose coming out was widely reported by the media, rather that expect our readers to have an exact idea of what the term "publicly" means in this context. -- Kendrick7talk 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a reflection that the overwhelming majority of sources have said that Collins is the first to "publicly" be out. I agree it would be clearer if the distinction between being "out" and "publicly out" was spelled out. There was a similar point about clarity regarding the media calling Collins an "active player" in the #Free agency thread above. Unfortunately, I have not found a definition of "publicly out" in sources, and Wikipedia editors inferring and placing it into an article seems to border on  WP:OR. Even The Atlantic never said he was publicly out. The use of "publicly", even if not explicitly explained, seems to be used consistently in stories about Collins, Burke, and Amaechi. Even sources for American football player Alan Gendreau only use the term "publicly" for him after the media publicized his orientation, even though he was open to his teammates for years. The concerted effort is to give WP:DUE weight to him being noted as publicly out; we need to be careful when WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that enough reliable sources are reporting the alleged error.  Until there are more sources, it would seem more appropriate to expand on this in Glenn Burke, Homosexuality in sports, or even in Coming out.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:RGW specifically suggests that's a problem when no reliable sources support an assertion, whereas The Atlantic is a journalistic pinnacle in the English speaking world, if you ask me. I originally edited in support of a footnote -- even a q.v. would perhaps be just as good -- but saying we'll just clarify the matter in certain articles that aren't even linked to from this one doesn't really allay my concern. I also think it's a tad insulting to imply to a run-of-the-mill person whose boss, co-workers, family, and friends all know that he or she is gay or lesbian, that they aren't "publicly out" just because their sexual preference hasn't made the cover of a major news magazine. I believe as a tertiary source, rather than merely a news aggregator, we have a responsibility to step back from the hype, and provide a broad summary of the relevant information at hand. -- Kendrick7talk 23:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say that Collins was "widely described" as the first player to publicly come out, with an explanatory note to discuss Burke and any other cases that happen to come up. I do feel a little uncomfortable making bold claims that hinge on hazily defined terms. Zagalejo^^^ 02:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of my reservation with mentioning this is that I didn't like that it was only one source.  However, I figured a legitimate story (in this day and age) would eventually be covered by others.  The San Francisco Chronicle with their story "Burke's story timelier than ever" (it's only free if you click through Google) writes "Did Sports Illustrated get it wrong?"  It doesn't explicitly say they are wrong, and doesn't discuss "out" vs "publicly out", but does treat Burke as some sort of pioneer.  Maybe this will end up like Wataru Misaka, an Asian who took decades to be acknowledged as the first non-white NBA player, after credit had previously always been given to a black player.  Until then, we need to be careful with when and how to report minority views.  I'm now ok with including some mention, just not sure about the proper verbage.  A clearly understanding on the concept of "publicly out", if any exists, would help.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm with Kendrick7 on this. The world was a different place in Burke's MLB days, and we do need to guard against anachronisms, but by any reasonable definition of "out" that I can imagine, Burke was out. That people other than Burke successfully concealed the truth from the public doesn't mean he wasn't out. The adverb "publicly" doesn't bother me; I think it helps draw a useful distinction and should be rather self-explanatory. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is of course a massive distinction between "out" and "publicly out," and if it can be more gracefully worded in the article for those to whom it's not intuitive, great. A great percentage of people now "publicly out" were out to friends and family and even colleagues for years and years before they came out publicly. This is original research, so do not quote me, but I'd wager that for every Jim McGreevey, coming out in a news conference all at once and just as suddenly to the public as to his closest intimates, there are at least three Anderson Coopers, out to everyone directly around him for ages before announcing his sexual orientation in a forum meant specifically for on-the-record public consumption and redistribution. The distinction to me of "publicly out" is to have announced in a forum meant for widespread public consumption. By that standard, Glenn Burke as an active player does not count as "publicly out." He may have been out to lots of people, including teammates, but he never, as an active player, came out, well, publicly, in any mass-media sense. Is the distinction between Burke's story and Collins' not as clear to other people here? Moncrief (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It appeared there might have been appeal to mention Burke to imply that Collins was not really the first.  However, most sources are clear that Collins was the first to be publicly out.  While Burke might have wanted to be publicly out while he was active, it did not happen until after he retired.  It's becoming clearer to me that "publicly out" is very different from being "privately out", such as in the recent news on eight Premier League players. If they are different, is Collins being used as a WP:COATRACK to draw attention to Burke?  Maybe a "see also" to Burke is sufficient, or I'd prefer for this to be in Homosexuality in sports, and a single "see also" to that more general article would suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

text: @Rivertorch: "The adverb 'publicly' doesn't bother me": Are you implying that Burke was publicly out? If not, are you advocating to mention Burke because he was out before Collins, but just not publicly?—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter. Just to clarify, I think that providing a brief mention of Burke is useful here because it provides context for Collins's coming out. Sure, "publicly out" is different from "out", but the distinction is less clear when comparing notable figures from different eras. Clearly, "publicly out" was not an option for professional athletes in the United States three decades ago, no matter how open they were with everyone in their personal and professional lives, including journalists. But Collins demonstrated that it was possible to be out back then (even if the public didn't learn of it until later), and that is a meaningful bit of well-sourced knowledge that lends historical perspective to Collins's coming out story. Consider all the ballplayers before and after Burke who were genuinely in the closet. Burke and Collins are both pioneers, in a sense, and it would be odd to discuss the "out" status of either of them without mentioning the other. Rivertorch (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But Burke isn't at all alone in being in the "even if the public didn't learn of it until later" category, nor was he the first. David Kopay was a (just-)former NFL player when he came out to much media attention way back in 1975. If we're broadening the category to "he told his teammates" (hard to prove or, more importantly, how many teammates being told makes it notable or not) or "the public found out later," then the category is unhelpfully broad. Collins is notable as a first (and he is notable) only when all the words/qualifiers are there, including "active" and "publicly." By all means, provide context and mention Burke, and Kopay (or Roy Simmons or Esera Tuaolo, just to name two; check out the LGBT athletes category for many more) and the number of other athletes like them who blazed a trail, but they do not belong in the same "active" and "publicly" category as Collins. I understand that Burke's era was different, so mention that too if you are providing context and history. (Edit: Per this link at least, Burke said he was fired from the team because "management suspected he was gay." That is a very long way indeed from being "publicly out.") Moncrief (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable to leave that Collins is the first to be publicly out, but mention in the body that Burke came out before to his teammates.  Do we mention The Atlantic saying he wanted to be publicly out, or do we leave those details for his own bio and not Collins'?—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I wouldn't worry too much about WP:COATRACK; historic claims deserve to be put in their proper historical context. For example, Christopher Columbus was lauded in the media of his time for having discovered America, but it isn't a coatrack to provide the context that, ya know, technically there were already people there, right? So I think it is fine to give a brief back story / overview here. Sure it's a WP:BLP, and we normally wouldn't want to distract from the subject, but it really just comes with pioneering the territory. I'd spin something out myself, but none of this is an area of my expertise, so I leave this whole matter in y'all's capable hands and will check back in a few months to see how things worked out. -- Kendrick7talk 01:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also so recent, it's hard to put him in historical perspective yet. I'd err on the side of being brief with mentioning others, and invite editors to place the bulk in Homosexuality in sports.  Certainly, his bio should expand later if he really is viewed as a trend-setter.—Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rethinking this just a bit . . . Assuming we have really good sourcing about the multiple athletes mentioned by Moncrief, then maybe it would be better not to single out Burke for mention here, at least for now. I'm not sure. I admit to being rather intrigued by the piece in the Atlantic, a source I generally hold in high regard, but I'm starting to wonder if we shouldn't just go with what the sources say about Collins and leave it at that. If multiple sources, independently of each other, start talking about Collins and Burke in the same articles, then we could revisit it. In the meantime, we might say something to the effect of, "Although there had been openly gay athletes as early as [insert year or the 1970s or something], Collins was the first to come out publicly." Qualifying it like that might put Collins's coming out into clearer perspective without seeming to detract from its significance in any way. Rivertorch (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been openly gay athletes (on various teams or non-teams, in various stages of openness) since time immemorial, so saying something totally broad like, "Although there had been openly gay athletes as early as [insert year or the 1970s or something]..." is a nonstarter. Really, why can't Collins just stand in his own category, as he is now: the first gay athlete who is actively playing in one of the top 4 U.S. professional sports to come out publicly? That's his niche, that's his achievement, and why not leave it as that, as, just as an example, the (of course well-researched and airtight, since it was probably their biggest scoop of the year and they didn't want to mess it up) Sports Illustrated cover story on him did? I mean, mention Burke if you want, but he and the others were not in the same situation, which I guess you now realize. Moncrief (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since time immemorial? That would depend on how you define "openly". Even limiting it to the big four pro sports in the U.S., there have been so many players "since time immemorial" that it's quite impossible to determine who may have been open with someone. Burke seems like a special case because he reportedly tried to be out to basically everyone, but you seem to be implying that such players were a dime a dozen. Rivertorch (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm implying no such thing. I'm saying that a sentence like "Although there had been openly gay athletes as early as [1975, let's say]..." is not an example of ideal phrasing for a Wikipedia article. "Athletes" needs qualifiers, as an athlete could be your aunt who runs a half-marathon or an Olympic sprinter. That being said, I think we've resolved the main point here, and I know you were just throwing out an example and probably didn't think too closely about the phrasing. Moncrief (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: True. In my defense, I did say "to the effect of". I guess I could have thrown a "vaguely" in there, too. Of course, I was referring to this sort of athlete. Just to reiterate, I think it may be better not to single out Burke for mention at this time. (Trying now to envision any of my aunts running a half-marathon and finding myself bewildered and speechless.) Rivertorch (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I think I hear that the text in the lead re: first public active ... is fine, so we can remove the tag from there.  For Burke, I am ok with 1) not mentioning, 2) a footnote in the body that he came out to his team while active, 3) a see also to Burke, or 4) (least favorite) one sentence mention in body, not footnote.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get this focus on Burke, when he wasn't the first Big Four pro athlete to come out after playing, nor is it proven he was the first to be open to teammates. Why not mention David Kopay, who came out years before Burke, if you're going to delve into the history? This article makes absolutely no claims that Collins is the first pro athlete to come out at any time during his life; nor does it make any claim that other pro athletes weren't out to some or even all members of their own team while playing. Why go into this at all? I mean, go for a footnote if it's consensus, but the claims about Collins here are very specific and unmatched by other athletes. This is probably not the best analogy, but it's what I've come up with now: it's as if in the article about Hattie McDaniel being the first African American to win an Oscar, we insisted on putting in a footnote that she was not the first woman to win an Oscar. Well, no one is saying she was, so why go there at all? Moncrief (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: They still say Collins was active when he came out. It's a distinction between "active" and "under contract". He is an active player, but he's still a free agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn Burke 

message: We're calling him gay. Does that mean exclusively homosexual or bisexual? --Uncle Ed (talk)
:He simply described himself as "gay" in the Sports Illustrated piece. I haven't seen anything that goes into more detail, and we shouldn't make any assumptions. Zagalejo^^^ 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He's gay. Teammm  06:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bisexuality

message: when he signed with the Nets and became the first publicly gay athlete to play in any of four major North American pro sports leagues since Glenn Burke in 1978.
Mthorpnoe (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sing! 02:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jason Collins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130615103233/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/jason_collins_20991.html to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/jason_collins_20991.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakersnow/la-sp-ln-lakers-vs-brooklyn-nets-game-updates-20140223,0,4252513,full.story
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130615103233/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/jason_collins_20991.html to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/jason_collins_20991.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified