Talk:James Dreyfus

message: There seems to be some controversy about this. I can't find an answer, but I've found an article (Lesbians, bisexuals, gay men and transgendered people) that cites two publications with differing beliefs:
:Yet, at the same time, famous lesbigays are still frightened of, or extremely cautious about, coming out - for example, according to Terry Sanderson [1999]:
::“... there was the case of James Dreyfus [sic]*, who is ... making a tidy living out of playing the Nancy, firstly as PC Goodie in The Thin Blue Line and, more recently, in Gimme, Gimme, Gimme on BBC2. Over at Elle magazine, he was described as ‘the straight-in-real-life actor’. Could it possibly be the same James Dreyfus who gave a coming-out interview a week earlier in the Pink Paper? ...” (p59).
* Not sure what this 'sic' is for.
Perhaps we should delete the statement until we can cite some evidence one way or another. Grant 22:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: James Dreyfus is as gay as Sean Hayes: just neither will admit it. No explicit statements exists for either, though most of their work has been playing gay men. Dev920 18:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay or not?

message: The character name changed from George Sunday to George Monday when Dreyfus started playing the part. See IMDB for evidence.—Ashleyvh (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermoman 

message: This whole section appears to be WP:UNDUE and unbalanced according to WP:BLP. I would’ve thought ChiveFungi and KalHolmann would be a bit more careful, considering they were both instrumental in other editors being recently sanctioned for POV pushing.81.108.118.166 (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Many biographies have extensive "personal life" sections, or whole sections dedicated to the subject's political views (even if their main occupation is not politician or activist). If you google his name, this is the only real news about him from the past year. If he had been very active recently and this was just one of many notable things he'd done - maybe it would be undue. And KalHolmann has done a great job rewriting the paragraph to use the petition's own words to describe it - so it can hardly be said that the paragraph is unfairly cherry-picking descriptors from negative sources. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this Personal Life section, which is just a Controversies section by another name, smacks of WP:RECENT.  How is him recently signing a petition notable, except that it is a petition in opposition to a group you share a POV with?  BLPs MUST comply with WP:NPOV.81.108.118.166 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Ridiculous UNDUE. 82.28.201.216 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life section 

message: There has been reverting since early October regarding the petition, so I've added full protection, in the first instance for three days. Those wanting to include the information should gather up mainstream, independent, high-quality secondary sources (no primary sources, no highly partisan sources, no tabloid journalism) that discuss his signing the petition to establish whether WP:DUE is satisfied. If that secondary coverage exists, consensus should be sought here on talk, or on WP:BLPN, regarding how to summarize it. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition 

message: Dreyfus has frequently mentioned his sexuality on his Twitter account. Should probably be mentioned? Rqe1 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openly gay 

message: There seems to be an edit war going regarding pronouns that violates NPOV. On 29th January 2021 the human formerly known as James Dreyfus stated categorically that that human "does not use pronouns". Now, that human may be an idiot that doesn't know what a pronoun is, but we must respect that human's choices. I therefore, in compliance with that human's choices, removed that human's pronouns and replaced them with neutral equivalents. It seems there are some users on Wikipedia that are determined to cause trouble and not respect that human's choices, and keep reverting the changes to re-enforce their own preference for that human's pronouns, in total violation of NPOV. Please stop this.
:This is no more than a petty point scoring exercise, being celebrated and boasted about by multiple persons on Twitter. Until such time as reliable sources (not a Pink News piece based on a Tweet) actually reports on this, there is no reason not to continue to keep the WP:STATUSQUO version of the article. This behaviour is disruptive editing, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. AutumnKing (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Translation: "I don't want to reflect the facts, I want to enforce my opinion."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPhu (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  If facts were being provided there would be no issue. Please refrain from attempting to make personal attacks. Content needs to adhere to Wikipedia policies, and be based on a reliable sources. That is not an opinion but a fact. Interpreting information to suit a particular version is WP:OR. AutumnKing (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A WP:RS must be provided to justify the removal of pronouns. His twitter account, citing a statement which is likely being misinterpreted (he appears to have been referring to the fact that he doesn't put pronouns in his twitter bio, not that he doesn't want to be called 'he/him') is not a Reliable Source. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That human said that human doesn't use pronouns, and somehow that's not a reliable source. This is why Wikipedia editors irritate me. The disconnect between reality and statement is alarming, all to maintain a biased position. Shocking. Oh, and that wasn't a personal attack. It was an attack on a policy. Don't try and paint this as otherwise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPhu (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about Wikipedia "editors" (which is a personal statement), it is about Wikipedia policy. Reliable sources are required for such major changes in a WP:BLP, and a twitter remark that you appear to have misunderstood is not a WP:RS. There really is no other argument to be made. Your changes do not adhere to the rules. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone makes a statement that A is B, and you say I've "misunderstood it". Wow. Thanks for proving my point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPhu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I've protected this page to stop disruption. The page may be changed if a policy-based consensus determines that it should, but reliable and clearly understandable sourcing about the subject's preference will be needed. GirthSummit (blether) 19:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns 

message: Lots of vandalism recently regarding his views on the aggressive trans issue… methinks time to permanently protect this article? 91.125.10.93 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect article