Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03 Tyrone Power

Request Information

Request made by: Chandler75 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

The Tyrone Power Page...

Who's involved?

Arniep vs. others working on the site (Rossrs, Golden..., myself, JosieB [driven off the board], Marcus9, and Lorrhoben [also driven away].

What's going on?

We all hate the Karsh photo of Tyrone Power - it is awful. Rossrs, who knows about fair use, said we could use another fair use photo and lose the Karsh. But Arniep keeps putting it back in though we have another public domain photo. [see discussion - Tyrone Power]. ...

Also, there is a huge section on Power's alleged bisexuality which is ridiculous. People who actually were admitted homosexuals such as Montgomery Clift and Sal Mineo have at most ONE LINE on their pages. Errol Flynn, suddenly a rabid bisexual, has nothing on his page, and Gary Cooper, outed in print by the same man who went after Power, has nothing on his page. But Arnie and Onefortyone wanted references that Power was heterosexual - no one else has that either - and there are thousands. We put many in to counter his references which, only by Wikipedia's poor standards, are acceptable. All the page has to say is: "Since 1979 and the publication of a book by Hector Arce, there have been rumors of Power's bisexuality. However, these allegations have been refuted in many references." No one else quotes hundreds of books.

What would you like to change about that?

If the page can lose the Karsh, we'd love it. We need someone to tell us what the rule is. If we can't lose it, okay, but we would like it at the bottom at a normal or small size, not the life-size that Arniep wants. He keeps saying it has to stay in because it's free - does this mean that if we had 15 public domain photos, they would all have to be in the article? This makes no sense. However, if that's the rule, I'd prefer to know about it from someone besides him.

We would like the bisexual part to be one or two sentences at most, and we want it made clear that these allegations have been refuted. ArnieP now claims he tried to shorten it - I can guarantee you it wasn't his part of it that he tried to shorten.

The main problem is that Arniep is a bully. He arbitrarily changes things without discussing them with anyone, though he has been asked repeatedly not to. He has also accused one of the posters of being a sock puppet, but I think the other person left for good - s/he took all of their comments out of the talk page.

All of this is easily followed on the Discussion page.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Email me through Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to mediate yourself and accept an assignment as a mediator in a different case?

Of course, but I don't know anything. I am a film historian and researcher, [hence my interest] and if I can be of help there, I would love to.

This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do

what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

I'm not sure I understand that question, so maybe I'm wrong for this assignment. But I would always be happy to give it a go.

Mediator final response

I think I've noted before that this is my first time attempting a mediation. I would first like to thank all who have participated, and beg forgiveness if I was unable to make this process an effective one.

I would also like to apologize to everyone on behalf of everyone else, for assuming the worst intentions, for using foul language, for refusing to apologize, for being intractable in demands, for being brusque in actions and edits, and for being resistant to empathizing with those we disagree with. It is my impression that personal apologies are most likely not forthcoming from ayone, so please accept this general one in its stead.

Now, to the meat of the matter. After due consideration to the best arguments of both sides, I suggest the following:

Images

The Karsh image should stay, but be placed according to the current majority, and sized identically to other images.

I think it should stay because we are here to add to the base of data available, not to limit it to what is flattering or aesthetically pleasing to a certain group. I believe that there is a slippery slope to the idea that a majority of editors at any one time can decide an image should be deleted - eventually, we'll have nothing left. Not to mention, all that does is encourage the minority to build up enough of a base to become a new majority, and impose their will.

I think it should be placed according to the current majority because although the inclusion of an image generally unoffensive to the neutral observer by a minority party seems a worthwhile principle to protect, a minority party should not unilaterally dominate the layout.

Bisexuality section

The section needs rework for flow, since tit-for-tat quotes don't explain the issue well.

The section should be re-titled to "Post-death sexuality controversy" or "Post-death bisexuality allegations and refutations". The sources cited are clearly a mix of rumor and direct accusation, not just rumor.

The section should limit citations to direct sources - that is to say, personal allegations from autobiographies, rather than passing references most likely based on Arce's work...although Arce's work should probably be mentioned as its publication was a watershed in the controversy.

The section should have an introductory paragraph, agreed to by all, characterizing the nature of the controversy, followed by the references cited by the two sides. It should be made clear that direct accusations have been made, and direct denials have been made, but it should in no way assert that either the accusations are wrong, or the denials are wrong. Merely state them.

I think that other actors who have a perfunctory treatment of their particular sexuality controversies should not be held as an example for the treatment of Mr. Power - if anything, a well written section on Mr. Power should be an example for others to follow.

I think that although some of the references regarding his bisexuality may have been baseless rumor-mongering, there seems to also be more than enough direct assertions to warrant a significant treatment of the subject.

Okay, I see that you reverted the edit that I made where you accuse Tyrone Power of being bisexual. It is only correct to say "alleged bisexuality" since there is no proof that he was. So you are clearly accusing him of being bisexual. It seemed to me that you fully supported that bi-sexual rumors be spread on Wikipedia. This indicates to me that my suspicions that you have an agenda are correct. goldenerafn 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my wording implied to you I was accusing anyone of any particular sexuality, I apologize. I have no opinion on allegations of bi-sexuality on wikipedia, nor do I have any particular belief as to whether or not those allegations are rumors, proof, fact, or fiction - in Tyrone Power's case, I simply state that there are enough direct assertions to warrant a significant treatment of the subject - I have no ability to judge the veracity of those assertions, whether his alleged heterosexuality is fact, or his alleged bisexuality is fact. An individual's sexuality is about as significant as their particular favorite color or food to me. Regardless of any opinion anyone may have as to the veracity of allegations, the substantiveness of a given bit of evidence, or whether or not something rises above the level of "rumor" to "proof", is not an argument to be had on Wikipedia. We should be able to dispassionately describe both sides of the issue, within the same article, and leave it for the reader to decide on their own. I have no agenda here, and deeply apologize if I left the impression that I did. --JereKrischel 03:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying

Each participant in this particular dispute should take a step back, and redouble their efforts to be polite, diplomatic, sympathetic, and empathetic to others. It is clear that on all sides feathers have been ruffled, and it is unfortunate that the personal apologies necessary to mollify the egos on all sides are the most improbable thing imaginable at this point.

Again, please accept my earlier apology on behalf of everyone, and hopefully that can be a start.

--JereKrischel 07:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to response

I don't know how this works, maybe we need to at least acknowledge how we feel about JereKrischel's response. With regards to the image, I agree. This is substantially what we agreed to earlier. I think we need to commit to honouring our previous agreement. Bisexuality - I think the suggested reponse is excellent. Bullying - for my part I will commit to being willing to compromise and to work as part of a group. With regards to User:Arniep, I will retract my earlier comment that I would not apologise. I feel that I do owe you an apology Arniep. While I disagree with some of the things you've done and some of the ways you've handled certain aspects of discussion, I apologise for assuming that you were acting in bad faith and for responding accordingly. I apologise also that some of my comments have been less than friendly, but I assure you that they came from frustration and not from malice. I think your intentions to the article and to Wikipedia in general, are sound. Likewise I believe the other editors have only good motives. I hope that if we can acknowledge that we have opposing viewpoints and methods in some areas, we can get past that and not have conflict. To all contributors, I hope that we can go away now and work together, and to User:JereKrischel my sincere thanks and appreciation for your time and patience, and for your thoughtful recommendations. Rossrs 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make my final post to this site --- and then I intend to leave the editing to others who don't mind working on a rag sheet. I do mind, and I am abandoning my intentions to go to other pages to beef them up. My next stop was going to be the page on the wonderful actress, Annabella, which could use some more information, but I believe my efforts are not productive. That page could become trashed as quickly as Tyrone Power's was, and I'm not up for another losing battle. I do not feel that we actually had a mediation. Mediation is typically between the parties involved in the dispute. Early in the "mediation", it looked like we might be coming to some sort of compromise language on the bi-sexual issue. I was actually getting hopeful. Then Arniep began bringing in people to sway the issue, and we were totally sidetracked from negotiating the issue at hand. It ended up with us getting a ruling from a frustrated mediator, rather than a mediated agreement. Honestly, I feel that the mediator did not make an attempt to see both sides -- His mind was made up on how things should be before I and others posted their first note. I believe this shows incredible weakness in the system of Wikipedia, where people can just run wild with their own agendas. I feel that the bi-sexual section is going to be as big a mess as it has been. I don't see that it will be reduced at all, and I feel that it trashes the page. And, with Arniep soliciting help from editors with the same agenda as he has, it's going to get even worse. That page is no better than what we read in rags that claim there have been monkey sightings on Mars. Frankly, I regret having ever contributed my writing to the page. What I wrote was from more than two years of research, and that writing is trashed by the agenda of some people. I would actually like to remove all the facts that have been laid out that tend to give credibility to a rag sheet. The ugly non-representative photo is now at the top of the page --- so we are worse off than before this so-called mediation got started. As far as apologizing to Arnie, that's not going to happen, and I resent the mediator insisting on an apology and interjecting one when I don't feel that I have anything to apologize for. I am not a child, and I don't need someone stepping in to insist on an apology. The mediator's time and energy would have been better spent by getting to the root of the problem and re-directing the mediation to suggested compromises. My feelings that Arniep bullied me and others by dropping invitations on the talk pages of others not a party to the dispute have not changed. If he actually would make a good faith effort to now resolve this issue --- to bring down the bi-sexuality segment to something that isn't so offensive and tabloid-like, then I would probably amend my thinking. I'm not holding my breath, however. goldenerafn 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

Initial impressions

First of all, I'm new to this, so please bear with me. I asked for cabal mediation just yesterday, indicated I was willing to accept assignments, and got assigned this today.

• I'm not at all visually oriented, so I can't see the awfulness of the Karsh photo you pointed out. It certainly looks comparable in size to the other photos on the page. I would suggest standardzing on a single thumbnail size (I see right now they range from 200 - 270px), if that would be acceptable to everyone. In general, I don't know of any rule insisting that available images must be put in, but its inclusion does not seem so egregious as to warrant deletion.

• Insofar as the rumors of bisexuality, I think the section can be considerably pruned, but probably not down to two sentences. I would suggest referencing the accusations en masse, listing the accusers and their books, and referencing the refutations en masse as well. I think it reads a bit long just because every particular quote is highlighted, tit for tat.

• Regarding the tenor and tone of the talk page, it certainly seems that emotions have flared on both sides, but not to a terribly intense degree. I've scanned through the comments by Arniep, and haven't seen anything particularly harsh, but I can see how some of them push buttons.

More to come as I read through the talk page and look through the edit history. --JereKrischel 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free image rules

Arniep wrote this:

Sorry but it doesn't matter whether you don't like it. Free images should have prominence in articles and we aren't going to change the ideology of Wikipedia to suit you.

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the Image use policy. It is not that free images should have prominence, but that we should be wary of any images which are not free. The quote from the policy is this:

In short, Wikipedia media (with the exception of "fair use" media — see below) should be as "free" as Wikipedia's content — both to keep Wikipedia's own legal status secure as well as to allow for as much re-use of Wikipedia content as possible.

Regarding disputes over which images to include, and which images not to include, we should follow the Writers' rules of engagement, "Work toward consensus".

That being said, I think the Karsh photo is not so terrible as to warrant deletion. Certainly it makes sense to keep all the images of equal size, and if the consensus regarding the Karsh photo is that it should not be the "headline" photo, I think that should be respected by Arniep, but I think that its inclusion is not a terrible burden on the article, and that should be respected by the other editors.

More to come, including proposed bisexuality edits, and analysis of tone and tenor of talk page. --JereKrischel 17:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Compromises

• Regarding the Karsh image, it seems that there are fairly strong feelings on both sides as to its merit. From a third party point of view, it seems harmless, but I can understand the point of view which sees it as an inferior representation of a man asserted to be good looking. I would like to suggest two possible options:

1) Keeping the image as per ArnieP's wish, but leaving it to the other editors to decide both placement and caption, for example:

[[Image:Tyrone power.jpg|230px|thumb|
Unflattering photo of Tyrone Power by [[Yousuf Karsh]]]]

2) Linking to the image in a separate "Photos and Images" section:

=====Photos and images=====
*[[:Image:Tyrone power.jpg|Photo of Tyrone Power 
by Yousuf Karsh]]
*additional image links/external links

I vote for door #2.Chandler75

I also prefer the second option. Rossrs 07:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (and agree with Arniep that the "unflattering" description is POV) Rossrs 13:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry but I believe other free use advocates will agree with me on this, unless all the other fair use images go that image should stay. We can also not have a caption that says unflattering as that is personal opinion. Arniep 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for door #2. Number 1 does not offer a compromise. The consensus was that the photo should be removed. There is no other place on the page which will improve the page. goldenerafn 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not subject of mediation The mediator was not asked whether or not the photo should be deleted, but rather, if said photo can be deleted as per Wikipedia stance.Lorrobhen 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conundrum here, Lorrobhen, is that as per Wikipedia stance, the photo can be deleted, and the photo can be re-added. Both sides are perfectly within their rights to edit the article to remove it on the basis of personal opinion. This, however, is obviously not constructive. Although the majority believes it should be removed, that is not an absolute right to disregard the minority viewpoint. Similarly, although the minority believes it should be included, that is not an absolute right to disregard the majority viewpoint. Compromise is necessary.

I think that another possible compromise would be to agree on just one free image to keep visible, and place all other images at the bottom as links only, so as not to unfairly treat the Karsh image. Any comments on that? --JereKrischel 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding accusations of bullying, and other bad feelings, I strongly suggest that everyone let bygones be bygones, and forgive any previous trespasses. Assuming the best intentions of everyone involved, it is clear that although the communication may have been rough around the edges of both sides, nobody is really being evil here. Certainly there is no reason to feel offended that people have asked for mediation, and made clear their impression of bullying - the very fact that they asked for mediation is a sign of good faith, and gives us all a chance to stand back for a second and reflect upon how this looks from a third party point of view.

It makes it extremely difficult to "let bygones be bygones when, just today Arniep goes to |Gmaxwell] to enlist his help in squashing the wishes of those who were original participants in the discussion of the Karsh image. Gmaxwell totally disregards the discussion and rearranges the pictures -- moving the Karsh image back to the top of the page and the other free image, from John Brown's Body, down the page, as well as removing other screenshots and publicity shots on the page. This type of behavior is what makes me feel bullied. goldenerafn 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I will do so.Chandler75

Absolutely agree. Rossrs 07:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely offended by the accusation of bullying and totally refute it. I think I can be forgiven for failing to take User:JosieB and her sockpuppet seriously considering she stated:

""I thought this site was put up to show respect and honor to one of America's actors of screen and stage. I find no homage paid in the Karsh photo. None. It's not even a good fag shot to represent bi-sexualism. If your going to represent bi-sexualism, lets find something that everyone would like to date, not run from. JosieB" [1]

AND

"I'm Marcus9. Being a FAG, (Forever n' Always Gay), I agree the photo of Tyrone Power by Yousuf Karsh doesn't factually represent an actor known for his good looks." [2]

Could not find above remarks in 'talk'. From short time reading referenced talk page I believed there was what could be termed bullying. Poster/commenter Rossrs did not mention above posts from JosieB and Marcus9 in his explanation.Lorrobhen 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I removed them as I found them offensive. You can now see the links after the quotes. Arniep 18:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, sir, those deleted comments were not why I, too, considered you a bully. I never saw them.Lorrobhen 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the bisexuality section, I'd like to suggest the following:

==Post-death Rumors==
Over 20 years after Tyrone Power's death, Hector Arce, in his book ''The Secret Life of Tyrone 
Power'' (1979) cited anonymous sources to support his claim that Power was bisexual.  Other
accusations of bisexuality followed, although they have been criticized by many as baseless 
and heavily influenced by Hector Arce's initial unsourced work.

===Works asserting bisexuality===
*[[Bob Monkhouse]], ''Crying With Laughter'' autobiography
*[[Mr. Blackwell]], ''From Rags to Bitches'' autobiography
*William J. Mann, ''Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood, 1910-1969''
*Ricardo J. Brown, ''The Evening Crowd at Kirmser's: A Gay Life in the 1940s''
*Lois M. Santalo, ''Ooops, I Lost My Sense of Humor''
*Robert Aldrich/Garry Wotherspoon, ''Who's Who in Contemporary Gay and Lesbian History: From
World War II to the Present Day''

===Works asserting heterosexuality===
*[[Linda Christian]], ''My Own Story'' (second wife)
*[[Lana Turner]], ''The Lady The Legend The Truth'', ''Phil Donahue Show''
*Mai Zetterling, ''All Those Tomorrows''
*[[Robert Buck (aviator)|Bob Buck]], ''North Star Over My Shoulder''
*[[Alice Faye]], ''Eyewitness news''
*Ed Sikov, ''On Sunset Boulevard''
*Fred Otash, ''Investigation Hollywood''
*Hildegarde Knef, ''The Gift Horse''
*''Whisper'' magazine, 1954
*Debbie Reynolds, ''Debbie: My Life''
*John Kobal, ''People Will Talk''

In my opinion, this is an excellent distillation. However, I don't believe the other pages contain references. You have to be able to have the references if challenged, but I don't see them listed except in rare occasions. If you look at our discussion, someone asked for proof of heterosexuality, and since references were in the bisexual paragraph, they were added in the next paragraph.Chandler75

Agree with this also. Agree in general, but Arniep and Golden have made some interesting points that I had not considered before. I'm concerned that over time the list might grow to something unmanageable but I guess we worry about that when/if it happens. Pages numbers etc might be useful if we can find them. Rossrs 07:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To save space the full book titles can be referenced at the bottom of the page but there is certainly no justification for censoring allegations. Arniep 12:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing at the bottom of the page would be tidier, although it would be difficult to cite so many books. Can I clarify what you mean by saying "no justification for censoring allegations" - do you mean you wish to retain the various quotes? And is it only the allegations you want to retain or also the quotes refuting them? Rossrs 13:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Other accusations of bisexuality followed, although they have been criticized by many as baseless and heavily influenced by Hector Arce's initial unsourced work." should definitely not be included as as far as I know no criticism of Mr Blackwell or Bob Monkhouse's claims has been published in a reputable publication (the accusations were made in the 1990s). Arniep 15:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may not have been specifically criticised but people such as Lana Turner and Linda Christian criticised and refuted the claim of bisexuality completely, regardless of who made it or when. Maybe the sentence needs to be rewritten, but if we bring back Blackwell's and Monkhouse's specific statements, we then need specific statements to counter them, and before long we're back where we started. Maybe something like ""Other allegations of bisexuality followed, however they were refuted by several of Power's closest associates, and many of the allegations were criticized as being heavily influenced by Arce's initial work" Remembering that our job is not to attempt to prove nor disprove the claim. Would you consider this to be more accurate/suitable? Rossrs 16:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only Arce's work has been criticised for having anonymous sources. We should certainly not exclude the later allegations where the person making the claim is clearly identified and we should not place any criticism or commentary on those allegations at all as none has been made. I have no problem with including the comments saying they had no knowledge of any homosexuality. Arniep 16:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm concerned that it should not become verbose. One or two sentences that basically say there were allegations from several people and that several people close to Power refuted the allegations. As long as it's brief, neutral and does not attempt to draw a conclusion, I'm less worried about the actual wording. So, we're both saying that we don't completely agree with suggestion given by Jere. I think the general tone is correct, it's only the precise wording that I think needs some modification. Do you agree that it's close to correct? And do you agree that the comments should be kept concise? If we can agree on at least that basic philosophy, perhaps you should write it as you think it should be written and see if everyone agrees. We don't need so many sources. I would suggest keep the info brief and cite sources in a reference section, maybe 2 of the most credible on each side of the debate. Rossrs 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The others were influenced by Arce's work. Not one of these people came out and made their claims until Arce started this over 20 year's after his death. Only then did these others decide that they wanted to claim a relationship with Power. So the statement is accurate. And, see below for the source that does debunk these copycat claims. goldenerafn 16:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you have no evidence for that. We can't post personal opinions on Wikipedia. Arniep 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this point, I agree with Arnie. It's drawing a conclusion, which may or may not be a correct one. Rossrs 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Buck, a highly respected pilot for TWA, wrote North Star Over My Shoulder, which was published in 2002, after the Monkhouse and Blackwell claims. Buck detailed his close friendship with Tyrone Power, which began when he served as Power's co-pilot in a 1948 trip to Europe and South Africa. The friendship continued until Power's death. Buck maintained that he knew him well and all his wives well. He stated emphatically that Tyrone Power was not a homosexual. He was absolutely sure of this. While he did not name each author by name, he was debunking the authors collectively when he said that the rumors were absolutely false. goldenerafn 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of a paragraph and then a list for "proving his gayness" and a list for "proving his heterosexuality" gives about as much attention to the unsubstantiated rumors as before. The eye is immediately drawn to the rumor section and away from the information about his career. Seems a shame to me to trash a page with all these rumors --- to use Wikipedia as a way to spread rumors. I agree with Rossrs that the list will continue to grow and take over the page. I am baffled as to why there has to be such a huge case made out of this, with witnesses for and against, when other people like Montgomery Clift have just one sentence or people like Sal Mineo, an admitted gay, have no reference whatsoever. All this said, I suppose to have a list for and a list against is a little bit better than the way it was. But, the bottom line is that this much attention simply trashes the page. goldenerafn 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that Bob Buck knew anything about Blackwell or Monkhouse's claims as neither were anywhere near as widely publicized as the Arce book so we can't just assume he knew about them. Arniep 16:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Buck never heard of Blackwell or Monkhouse, but do we have to get so specific? It's not up to us to try to prove the case either way. We don't have to analyse the data in such detail. Golden is right in saying the list is excessive. I can't see why we can't make a simple one or two sentence statement, and cite 1,2 or 3 of the most credible references, in a reference section, for each side of the coin. We don't need to continue listing every publication that commented about Power's sexuality one way or another. Rossrs 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Many other pages contain section called 'Outside Reading'. All references should-could be listed with no indication of whether or not they contain bisexual-heterosexual opinions in the same way other articles list them. See: Articles on Bogart, Cary Grant, Greta Garbo. In quick perusal of articles of celebrities, no references were noted with regard to sexual conduct in body of articles. I have no comprehension of this subject being in this particular article when it is entirely missing as noted above from others. This includes Marlene Dietrich. This suggests agenda other than completeness or relevance. Why isn't this being noted in mediation.Lorrobhen

I don't agree with the list above as no other article uses that kind of format. Really I think we just need to say unsourced allegations were made in the Arce book but then say two people came out as having encounters with Power and maybe make a short quote from the relevant books. We can then say that various people have denied any knowledge of homosexuality in Power namely his widow Linda Christian (ref), Lana Turner whom he had a relationship with (ref), and Bob Buck (ref) whom co-piloted a trip to Europe with Power. Arniep 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

I cannot agree re the Karsh photo. The consensus is that the Karsh photo needs to go. It is not in any way representative of Tyrone Power. The majority would like to get rid of it. If there is no rule that it should be kept and we take it off, it is not right that one person should be able to put it back in without discussion. We have had discussion, and we want it out. The only one who wants to keep it is Arnie. He has consistently changed the size of it depending on how much retaliation he is inflicting. If you look at the history page, you will see some of what has been going on.

He has driven several people off of editing. You can certainly solicit comments from some of the other editors to get their views, including Rossrs, and the person who signs golden...

If you look at the other pages where bisexuality is mentioned - if it is mentioned - it is at most a line or two. Sal Mineo, whom I knew personally and was gay and not bi, has no mention at all, and yet it is referenced in books, specifically, Conversations with my Elders by Boze Hadleigh, a reference I do not consider good but is accepted by Wikipedia. Montgomery Clift, whose sex life was detailed in "Montgomery Clift," by Patricia Bosworth, has one line: "He hid his alleged homosexuality and turned to alcoholism and drug use." Claudette Colbert's page says: "Colbert was a bisexual and her known affairs with women included Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, and a long standing relationship with Verna Hull who owned a home in Speightstown, Barbados, adjacent to hers, and with a gate between their properties." This is completely unverified in references, and, may I add, untrue regarding Garbo. Garbo, whose lesbianism has been described in many references, has this: "In recent years it has been revealed through countless sources about how common homosexuality and lesbianism were in the early years of Hollywood...Garbo's biographer Barry Paris notes that she was technically bisexual, predominantly lesbian, and increasingly asexual as the years went by."[2] I should add that Barry Paris is my boss, and I have worked for him as a researcher for many years.

When I first found this page on Tyrone Power, the bisexual section was the biggest part of the page. I'm not going to fight these references anymore, it's too exhausting, but I don't understand why Power, who during his lifetime and 21 years after his death never was considered bisexual, has to have more than everyone else, with the possible exception of Rock Hudson - and even there, it's hedged. -- Chandler75

I'd like to ask, what is specifically not representative of the Karsh photo? It doesn't seem particularly offensive or different than his other photos - is this merely an judgement in taste? Is there any middle ground regarding its size or placement that would placate you? Again, as a third party with no axe to grind, it doesn't seem unreasonable on its face, although perhaps I'm missing something. Certainly it doesn't help for someone to insist that the inclusion of the photo is wiki policy - perhaps if Arniep had just said, "can we please keep it", a different response would have been elicited - but in and of itself, it seems like an odd thing to want to remove.

In my opinion it's a technically good photograph but it doesn't "fit". You have a person who is admired as one of the best looking men in films, who has a particular image that is identified with him. Any image chosen should satisfactorily reflect that image. Not necessarily present the person in their best light, or flatter them, or pay homage to them, but correctly illustrate them. This shows him looking somewhat bloated and ill looking - this is certainly a question of interpretation, but it's out of character. Personally, I loathe the photograph, but I have tried to view it objectively, and no matter how I look at it, it doesn't fit. The other images meet the requirement of being representative. Excuse me if it's a kind of clumsy analogy but to take it to an extreme degree to clarify my point, it would be like using a photo of Marilyn Monroe without make-up, or Lucille Ball wearing a blonde wig. It's not that the photos would be bad, but that they would not accurately reflect the accepted image of this person. Rossrs 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the bisexuality issue, let me see if I can suggest an edit that would be short enough for your purposes, and detailed enough to present the reader in the direction of more information if they'd like it. --JereKrischel 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jere, thank you for such prompt attention. You will have to get other opinions on that photo. For my money, it is not a fair representation of Tyrone Power. I realize this is not a fan site but nor is it a site which is supposed to trash someone either. He has a five-o'clock shadow, just for starters, one of his eyes is drooping, and on the day he died, he didn't have lines in his face like that. Trust me - I've seen pictures of him on the day he died, and I can direct you to them.

I have no understanding of putting an unattractive photo of a man who was considered one of the handsomest men ever in cinema on a page the bears his name. If I hadn't seen literally thousands of photos of this man, I wouldn't complain. Also, let us ask why a Karsh photo is in the public domain - possibly because he discarded it. I refer you to a message from Rossrs, who jumped into this, to me:

"Hi, I honestly don't know what the rules would say about that horrid Karsh image. My personal opinion is that it does not absolutely have to stay as we have a PD image, but on the other hand the second PD image kind of balances the fair use images. ie the fair use images are more necessary simply because the Karsh is so unrepresentative. I tend to think that it would come down to consensus...perhaps if there was a section headed "Ty Power sick and old" or "Ty Power loses his good looks" or "Ty Power wears a tastelessly large ring", it would fit...I'd love to see the image vanish altogether..." Rossrs 09:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If I were alone in this, I'd just say okay (unlike some others) but I'm hardly alone as the discussion shows. Right after I came along and expressed an interest in this page, it became a POV page for people who want to "out" celebrities. We can't remove that section - although it was not in there originally - because of Wikipedia's policy of using sloppily researched books that use anonymous sources and write hearsay on the basis of the fact that the dead can't sue. However, I notice many bisexual accusations are out of other people's pages now even though they're referenced, and by better sources than on the Tyrone Power page. I have the transcript of an interview where the interviewer, right to Mr. Blackwell's face says, "Well, your story is very interesting. And that's all it is. A story." The fact that information is in a book doesn't make it viable, but until someone can convince Wikepedia of that, there's no arguing it. I'd be happy, as I think others would be, to see a shortened version, so thanks.Chandler75

Thank you Chandler75, for your detailed response. I certainly didn't notice the 5 o'clock shadow, but then again, I'm color-blind, which may be part of the issue that I don't see. Given that you feel it is unrepresentative of him, is there caption text that would help better explain the picture? Something like "A terribly unflattering picture of Tyrone Power"? Maybe it would be more helpful if your point about him looking uncharacteristically bad in that picture was made clear to the reader?

Some food for thought regarding your particular sensitivity to this - I know I can tell when someone is playing a stringed instrument terribly (for example, the cello and violin playing in Witches of Eastwick), and it bugs the hell out of me. But the average viewer really can't tell.

I think what I might also suggest as an alternative would be to create a link to the photo at the bottom, rather than having it embedded in the page. Maybe a section called "Other Photos", with pointers would keep the content available, but reduce its prominence in regards to the general consensus. I'd like to get ArnieP's take on that compromise. --JereKrischel 01:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally see and know what you mean regarding sensitivity to certain issues, of course. However, I still am unclear as to why that photo needs to be in the article or linked to it. You mention "reduce its prominence in regars to the general consensus" but that is not the general consensus. The general consensus is to remove the photo.Chandler75 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came to Wikipedia, I was appalled to see that a huge segment was dedicated to unsubstantiated rumors regarding Tyrone Power's sexual preferences. At that time, there were only a few sentences with known facts about his career. I then set about doing extensive writing, based upon research that I have done the past couple years, to provide Wikipedia readers with information on Tyrone Power's career and personal life --- something other than rumors which have been soundly refuted by people who actually knew him well. It seemed that some Wikipedia users had an agenda of “proving” that this long-deceased legend was gay or bi-sexual, rather than contributing known facts about his career or personal life. I do not understand why it is necessary to have more than a couple sentences dedicated to rumors on Tyrone Power, when no more than that suffices for others who were admittedly gay or bi-sexual, or where information came out prior to their death. Why should so much space be given to unsubstantiated rumors that were generated more than 20 years post-death? goldenerafn 00:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As quoted above: Regarding disputes over which images to include, and which images not to include, we should follow the Writers' rules of engagement, "Work toward consensus". We have a consensus regarding the Karsh photo. It has not been honored.Chandler75

My two cents - I'm not an expert on fair use but I have tried to familiarise myself with Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright laws in relation to fair use. My understanding is that a public domain image should always be the first choice, but not necessarily that any and all public domain photos available should be used. The consensus is that the Karsh photograph is not representative of the subject. The photo in itself is a good photo technically (crisp, clear, in focus), but in representing Tyrone Power it is not really suitable. ie it doesn't really look like him, and it does not reflect or illustrate anything about his career as an actor. The fact that it's not flattering is beside the point. We have a public domain image that the majority has considered acceptable. I see no reason why the Karsh needs to be used. Of the 7 or so users that have discussed the image, User:Arniep is the only one who supports its continued use. While other users have been discussing issues (in relation to the Karsh image, but also in other similar discussions) to reach a consensus he has steamed on ahead and made changes contrary to the points being discussed, and seems to be taking the attitude that he has the final say on any and all edits. This is frustrating. Twice I've started discussions on the talk page to politely and civilly reach a consensus before making significant changes to the article, and in the middle of these discussions, Arniep has gone ahead and made his own edits, contrary to the points being discussed. For example we were discussing which images to use to illustrate Power's first and last films, Lloyds of London and Witness for the Prosecution. Arnie disagreed with just about everything and then in the middle of it all adds an image for the film Luck of the Irish. This doesn't seem like a big deal. But did it push buttons? You bet it did. We weren't discussing that film, and it was added without any of us agreeing, but we accepted it. The image is good, actually, but the point is that while all of us were staying on the talk page, Arniep was taking it upon himself to be editing the article itself. That is just not in the spirit of the aim of reaching consensus. Why even bother having a talk page or starting a discussion? This, and other edits created a situation whereby we could either accept his edits or engage in an edit war. We've resisted engaging in an edit war. He has made comments about other editors being members of a Tyrone Power fanclub and in cahouts with each other here and has attempted to discredit the arguments presented by myself, Chandler75 and Goldenerafn here on the basis of (admittedly illogical) comments here and here made by a different user (JosieB). I think Arniep's belief that other editors are part of a Tyrone Power fan club is assuming bad faith. This has not helped, and naturally if he is assuming bad faith, it makes me wonder if this is causing him to automatically disagree and brickwall the other users on virtually every point. It makes me wonder if this is why he is in favour of the Karsh image. I don't know but as he has questioned our motives, I'll reserve the right to question his. The bottom line is that there have been about 7 users commenting. 4 have commented and discussed on a regular basis. Of the four of us, ArnieP is the dissenting voice. I agree with some of his comments and I think some of his suggestions are sound, but he's just one editor and his opinion should only be of equal importance to the opinions of other editors. His manner is polite and civil, but in my opinion often dismissive and there appears to be a lack of respect for opinions other than his own. As for "pushing buttons" it's not only the comments on the talk page that push buttons, but the article edits that run parallel to them. I'll admit that the tone of my comments on the talk page changed as my frustration grew, and after noting that there was a general agreement between Chandler, Golden and myself, and Arnie seeming to disagree for the sake of it (I could be mistaken), I went ahead and edited the article. A very, less-than-ideal situation.

The bisexuality issue I feel should be covered in the article. The rumours have been so widespread that people directly affected, such as Linda Christian and Lana Turner have been drawn into making public comments about it. So it is necessary to discuss it, but I think it's covered within the article in more depth than is warranted. I would prefer the whole issue summarised into one paragraph which attempts to provide the origin of the rumour, plus one or two credible references supporting and refuting the allegation. Rossrs 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Karsh photo was taken on a day when Tyrone Power was obviously stressed out and very tired. When he came back from military service after World War 2, he wrote to his mother that he suffered weakness in one eye. When he was tired or stressed, the weakness was more noticeable. The photo shows that one eye droops noticeably. Also, his expression shows stress. I have seen literally hundreds of photos of Tyrone Power, and, in my opinion, the Karsh photo is absolutely the worst. It seems to me that it is not right to put up a photo that is not typical of Tyrone Power photos, when there is another public domain photo on the page and other “fair use” photos that are more representative. Others who have posted about the photo have said that the photo should go. Only one person has asked that it remain. Why should one person’s wishes be honored above the objections of every other person who has posted? goldenerafn 02:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you raise a good question goldenerafn - what is the worth of one person's wishes? In the case of our jury system, just one person can prevent conviction - it just takes one person to disagree to stop complete consensus from taking place. In the case of my personal Wikipedia philosophy, I think that to a certain extent we should be extremely tolerant of minority opinions, and not try to assert that because we have a majority of opinion we can completely dictate the terms of the discussion.

That being said, a single person should not be able to enforce their POV upon the majority either. The answer to this conflict, between the wishes of the majority, and the wishes of the minority, in this context, should be based on compromise. And again, personally, I would feel that as long as both sides were willing to show at least some good faith attempt to soften their position, both sides would be in the right. And I believe that everyone involved in this dispute has the ability and capacity to engage in a worthwhile compromise.

Later this weekend, after reviewing the comments further, I'll post some proposed compromises, and see if we can get agreement to them. --JereKrischel 02:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a murder case. In a civil case, it's the majority of the jury. When we all worked together to try to put photos into this section, it was very good, and the ideas were flowing, and then suddenly, photos went in that were not discussed as Rossrs indicates. I'll happily look at a list of compromises, but I don't consider leaving that photo in is a compromise and I don't understand how in any way, shape, or form it could be construed as one.Chandler75 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is what I have to say on this:

• • • • I am extremely offended by accusations that I have bullied anyone.
      • I am not responsible for the majority of the rumour section which was originally created by User:Onefortyone and a large amount of counter arguments were then placed by some of the other users mentioned here.
      • I believe we should use as many free images as possible within reason. We only have two free images of Power so we should at least use these. We should not make exceptions to exclude free images just because some users think the image doesn't show someone in light that users wish as we should strive to be as free as possible. Obviously in some cases where we have large numbers of free images for a subject it is not possible to use them all. The Karsh image is a high quality, high definition colour photo, which shows Power smiling and looking quite cheery. Arniep 03:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While otherwise I have no opinion on this matter, Wikipedia's fair use policy is to only use fair use images when no free images are available. Since it seems two free images are available, the available choices are to use both, one, or none - but not any fair use image. Alternatively, one could search for another free image. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy at Wikipedia:Fair use says "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and the point here is not that free images are not available, but rather that equivalent free use images are not available. In this instance we can't find or create free use images that show Tyrone Power, an actor, in the process of acting. The two public domain images are posed portraits. The place I've seen this discussed most often is with featured article nominations. I've seen instances where a public domain lead image has been used in conjunction with fair use images, and in that forum the consensus has been to allow them because they demonstrate or illustrate points that are not demonstrated or illustrated by the public domain image ie they are not equivalent. I've not seen policy applied in precisely the way you describe it, even by users who are highly conscientious in regards to spotting improper claims of fair use. Rossrs 14:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually the top photo shows him acting in John Brown's Body so we have one free image of him acting and another extremely high quality image of him posing (and smiling) taken by a top photographer. Arniep 15:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he's "acting" in the top photo but I concede that it is an accurate staged shot. It seems unlikely to me that Van Vechten would be up on stage with his camera during a performance but close enough I guess. Why do you always emphasise that he's smiling in the other photo? What is the big deal with that? Also I don't think Morven has quoted policy as it is written or as it is applied, and I'd like to see if he comments further. Rossrs 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the fact he is smiling because I think he looks pretty happy regardless of the bags under the eyes and one of the above users who had complained about the Karsh photo had complained that none of the photos on the page showed him smiling. It has always been my aim to include as many free images as possible in articles especially where we have very few of them. If we start making exceptions then any free images that people don't like (which is in my experience a lot) are going to be replaced by copyrighted images just because people prefer those. Arniep 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I missed the original comment about smiling. I can understand your point here about free images in general. I disagree, but I understand what you're saying. I believe that one free image should suffice but that is just my opinion. Unfortunately neither your opinion nor mine are supported by anything that is spelt out in black and white in policy, more's the pity. If only it was, we wouldn't be here debating it. Rossrs 16:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on Tyrone Power, but the section on his sexuality in the article seems quite well-sourced. I see no compelling reason to abbreviate it drastically; when there are sources to back up a claim, they should be mentioned, as the section does. People should not feel compelled to remove assertions that a celebrity was bisexual or homosexual to protect the celebrity's reputation, because that perpetuates the notion that non-heterosexual sexuality is something to be kept secret; moreover, even if there were something shameful about it, Wikipedia is in the business of recording facts, not protecting reputations. Catamorphism 18:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in the business of recording facts, not protecting reputations.... I'm afraid you're wrong. It is erroneous to say that it is a fact that Tyrone Power was gay. It is a rumor which many who knew him refute. So, no, Wikipedia isn't in the business of recording just facts. A good dose of rumor is allowed, too. goldenerafn 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This section should be on a par with everyone else's. There are plenty of sources to back up Montgomery Clift's homosexuality but there is one sentence on his page. There is no mention of homosexuality on Sal Mineo's page, and yet, Sal Mineo never hid his sexuality and gave interviews about it. Take a look at the hedging on Rock Hudson's page. If there are sources and they should be mentioned, why is it only being done on this page? Where are these references on Claudette Colbert's page? On Dietrich's page? Why is Garbo's section so short - and, if I might add, incorrect? Chandler75

Just because other articles don't have good sources is not a reason to delete them here. If you want to add something about sexuality in other articles you are free to do that. Arniep 18:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Arniep on this point. The construction of a given article should not be limited to the standards held by another article - we are in the business of making better articles, not making all the articles equally bad. I can understand pruning down what seems a tit-for-tat quote after quote, since it doesn't make for good reading, but any pruning down should not be used to eliminate specific references. --JereKrischel 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly. Who said the other articles are bad? And who said that they don't have good references? The Patricia Bosworth Montgomery Clift and the Maria Riva Marlene Dietrich are far superior references to those listed in the first paragraph of Power's bisexuality section. And why should anyone's private life be more important to their careers on any page? And what is wrong with a suggested reading list?Chandler75

Both Sal Mineo's and Montgomery Clift's articles are barely above the level of being what Wikipedia calls a "stub". Neither one is in any way adequate as a representation of either the topic or Wikipedia's best standards of article writing. Even Marlene Dietrich's article could use some expansion, frankly. That's what makes them "bad". Bearcat 20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should work on improving them.Lorrobhen 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, Wikipedia does not have a rule that specific details about a person's life only merit a specific length of subsection and no more; as long as it's referenced, the section can be as long as it needs to be to adequately discuss the topic. What makes this a special case, where the sexuality discussion needs to be longer than on some other articles, is the controversy around it: the fact that people disagree about whether he was gay, bisexual or straight. There's no similar controversy around Sal Mineo or Montgomery Clift — it's a known fact that they were gay or bisexual, and there's no controversy about whether they were or not. In Power's case, there are multiple conflicting claims about what he was or wasn't, so there's more there to say about it. It's virtually impossible to adequately write about the controversy in as short a section as you can get away with on the article of someone whose sexuality isn't a matter of public debate.

And Arniep is also right in that each article has to stand and fall on its own merits. Montgomery Clift's article is itself inadequate and in dire need of expansion. And Sal Mineo's article, while better than Clift's, could stand to be significantly expanded as well. They're both far weaker and stubbier articles than what's currently written at Tyrone Power. So considering that they're not up to Wikipedia's standards at this point, I really don't see how they can be held out as some kind of gold standard for the ideal length of a subsection on sexuality — they both fall far short of representing the ideal anything on Wikipedia. It's not that Power's article is overemphasizing the matter; as currently written, Mineo's and Clift's articles are underemphasizing it.

And for what it's worth, "he was all man" hardly stands as a convincing refutation of homosexuality. Gay or bisexual men are still men, after all — and we're not all nelly queens, you know. We can be butch, macho all-man he-men, too. And the protestations of women he dated don't a priori disprove the claim, either — there's this little thing called the closet which a lot of gay people hide in due to societal homophobia. And the fact that the rumours didn't start coming out until 20 years after he died aren't inherent disproof, either — that's not even remotely abnormal for the time. Rock Hudson's sexuality wasn't known by the public until the 1980s, either. Raymond Burr's sexuality wasn't public knowledge until after he was dead. That era was not like today, and you simply can't apply modern standards of "if it was true, then somebody would have blabbed in the press before that". The only person who could possibly provide an absolute, unequivocal confirmation or refutation of Power's alleged bisexuality is Power himself, and what with being dead and all, he ain't tellin'.

So the bottom line, for me at least, is that the section can be as long as it needs to be to cover the topic and its attendant controversy adequately. Three paragraphs is not an unreasonable length for this kind of thing, especially in an article that's already quite long and detailed. If three paragraphs constituted something like 75 per cent of the entire article, then you might have a more legitimate complaint...but given the actual length of this article, the section is in no way disproportionately long. Bearcat 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dang! I shouldn't have written all the facts about his career and personal life down.... paragraph after paragraph to give some idea of Tyrone Power's career. Prior to what I did, the page had only a few sentences dedicated to his career and the full blown section on rumors. I guess I weakened our own case. goldenerafn 20:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for the rest of the public but I always knew about Rock Hudson and Raymond Burr. Controversy belongs on the talk pages, as it is on the James Dean and Claudette Colbert pages. All this section needs to have in it is a paragraph on bisexuality being rumored and refuted. Why do you state that it is incorrect to say, "you can't say that if it were true, someone would have blabbed" - why wouldn't they have? The press "blabbed" about Lizabeth Scott, they "blabbed" about William Haines, they "blabbed" about George Nader, they "blabbed" about Cary Grant and they would have "blabbed" about Rock Hudson if Universal hadn't bought them off. You cannot honestly say people did not know about Dietrich and Bankhead during their lifetimes. You can't say it about Van Johnson, Sheila James, Johnny Ray, or Vincente Minnelli either. That's just off the top of my head. The section can be kept as it is, yes, but it would be cleaner another way. If everyone wants to keep it as it is, fine. I just thought while we were dealing with the photo in mediation, we could deal with this, too. I'm perfectly happy to leave it alone.Chandler75

You're right, Bearcat. He's dead. Been dead for almost half a century. That's the whole point. It is so easy for some gays, such as Mr. Blackwell and William J. Mann, to make all kinds of claims after a person is dead, and some gays been doing this for years. The sources listed that I checked out on the Tyrone Power page were all from people who made a career of roping in people to the gay community. And, it's so easy to make a claim after a person dies. The deceased can't possibly refute it. I could claim anything about any dead person, because there is no way to prove one way or the other. If Wikipedia is just to be like a rag sheet, rather than reputable information, I'm not sure why any of us bother to put down facts. By the way, you were not part of the original discussion on the Tyrone Power discussion page, so I'm wondering how you came to this page. goldenerafn 20:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "people who made a career of roping in people to the gay community" is a crap POV that has no place on Wikipedia. There is no person in the world who makes a career out of alleging that people are gay in the absence of concrete evidence. None. "Gays" do not do what you're claiming, and they have not "been doing this for years".

And using terminology like "crap POV" is considered objective and okay for use on Wikipedia? goldenerafn 21:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV. It's perfectly within reason to label bias as bias; in fact, it's a necessary part of the process of ensuring that Wikipedia remains unbiased. Bearcat 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "you were not part of the original discussion on the Tyrone Power discussion page, so I'm wondering how you came to this page" — I was asked to come weigh in, because I'm a site administrator who's generally known for having a reasonable and clear-headed perspective on gay-related matters. How exactly would you propose that this debate ever be resolved if you expect that only people who were already involved in the original discussion are allowed to participate now? Bearcat 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you do a little research on some of the writers. You will see that they have made a career out of doing this. What else would you call writing numerous books on the subject? If that's not a career, then I don't know what is. goldenerafn 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books. Books based on facts. Your original claim was that people have made careers out of making unsubstantiated allegations of homosexuality against straight people for the sheer hell of it, which is a crock of shit. Not one person has ever made a career out of doing that. Bearcat 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is true, with the exception of Hector Arce, Boze Hadleigh and Charles Higham.Chandler75

Don't forget Diana Maychik who couldn't produce her precious tapes in court and "thanked" Gregory Peck in her introduction when he had never met her. Not one person? Beg to differ.Lorrobhen 00:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the "facts" are simply rumors. Too many people have debunked the so-called facts. Is foul language an accepted practice on Wikipedia? goldenerafn 21:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you to come in? goldenerafn 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. I have a right to offer input no matter who did or didn't do the asking. Bearcat 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's very relevant. You would not have been invited if the particular person thought you would disagree with him. You could have just politely answered the question. Goldenerafn had every right to ask. Rossrs 01:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay... just was curious as to whether it was perhaps Arniep. Never mind. I apologize for asking. goldenerafn 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already managed to track my edits to Gmaxwell's page at 20:48, are you saying you managed to do that but honestly still didn't know I had asked Bearcat for their comments? Please. Arniep 22:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not goldenrafn had known or not is besides the point - every additional bit of constructive input is appreciated and welcome. I think that it is clear that the controversey regarding Tyrone Power's alleged sexuality deserves fair treatment, and our goal should be towards that end. Regardless of the opinions as to the motivations or accuracy of the various authors, I believe it is possible to discuss the topic sensitively and appropriately.

Please, let's work on getting beyond hard feelings regarding our opinions of the various authors who have made claims of hetero/bisexuality, and accept that the subject deserves treatment in an informative and tasteful way. A tit-for-tat, excessive quotation of sources doesn't read well, but neither will two short sentences do the job. Simply put, Tyrone Power has been accused of being bisexual by both anonymous and named sources, and that has been denied by others close to him. Wikipedia is not the place that will decide, or even indicate, which side is proper, correct, or accurate. It is our job to demonstrate that such controversey exists, and present both sides of the issue in a sympathetic light.

I understand that there are those who feel that accusations of bisexuality are malicious. Certainly the homophobia of years past still stings many. To me, accusations of homosexuality or bisexuality are as insulting as saying someone had size 10 shoes and liked the color blue - sexuality, one way or the other, should hold no negative connotation in anyone's mind. If the people who are offended by the "rumors" and "accusations" of bisexuality can realize that the people who want to discuss it are not trying to assert any malintent, or any sort of insult to Mr. Power, perhaps we can assume good faith on everyone's part and come to an agreement on a good way to present it? --JereKrischel 22:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, accusations of homosexuality or bisexuality are as insulting as saying someone had size 10 shoes and liked the color blue.... Do not assume that those who do not want unsubstantiated rumors on a page are homophobic. That is an unfair assumption. I would argue as strongly if someone slapped down other rumors ... such as "Tyrone Power was 5 feet 2". I just think that a reputable website doesn't deal in rumors. Wikipedia becomes no better than a gossip log if such is allowed --- but, maybe enough people want that kind of site, so that's the kind of site this will be.goldenerafn 00:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I gave the impression that people offended by the "rumors" of his bisexuality are homophobic - that was not my intent. I assumed that regardless of the opinion of those objecting to the "rumors", they felt that such assertions somehow reduced Mr. Power's status in the eyes of others who are not so tolerant. If you object to the unsourced rumors, do you object to the direct, sourced allegations goldenerafn? --JereKrischel 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that because someone says that they had a relationship with him makes it a fact? Or is it possible that people make claims that aren't true? goldenerafn 02:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jere, no, I don't think we can. It's hard for me to believe there are actually people here who think that everything in a book is factual, number one, and because I can't believe it, I don't think we can assume good faith. Just ask someone who has been in publishing for as long as I have. I asked for what the rules were on the Karsh photo, period. Now we have no photos, period. I suppose to you this is a compromise. It is not. So why should I assume good faith. I have asked to have the bisexuality section shortened. I see no reason to assume good faith on that either. I am sure it will remain just as long as it is now. I have absolutely no problem stating that someone is rumored to be gay or bisexual. None. I do, however, as a professional film historian, writer, and researcher, question the references. Wikepedia does not. You (meaning Wikipedia) believe that a man who used anonymous sources and wrote about a man's thoughts while he was alone, someone he didn't know, is a viable reference. You believe that a man sitting in a small town who "heard" someone in Hollywood is gay is a viable reference. I don't. You think that a reference that outs Jesus Christ as gay is a viable reference. I don't. If Barbara Leaming stated it with source notes, if Barry Paris stated it with source notes, if Ron Chernow stated it, if anyone of two or three dozen biographers who use source notes, first-hand interviews, personal papers, studio notes -- as has been done with Greta Garbo, Montgomery Clift, et al., anything other than the Larry Quirk fourth hand "so it must be true" school of journalism stated it, it would be fine. On learning that Wikepedia couldn't care less, I let that go. Someone suggested a reading list. Apparently that's no good either. You wrote a paragraph. Shot down. I don't see much left since you have let the page erode to this point. On a personal note, I was at the deathbed of my two dearest friends. We lost both of them from AIDS. They were both gay. I loved them as I have loved many gay people in my life. Being gay is NOTHING to be ashamed of. AT ALL. Bad books who trade in on a person's name to make money are shameful. Fabricating a history of someone and presenting it as fact - that's shameful. But let it all go - it's just a page in a bad source.Chandler75

Agree, let them play their silly games. Time most surely can be spent better elsewhere than on this.Lorrobhen 00:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make claims about what "gays" as a group do. Refer to the specific people you have in mind; don't make unprovable generalizations about what a group consisting of millions of humans does. Catamorphism 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catamorphism, I did refer to the specific people, not "what gays as a group do". I referred to “the sources that I checked out” from the Tyrone Power page on Wikipedia. The list is not all inclusive of the gay community at all --- only of those sources that I checked out. For example, look at the personal website of William J. Mann, at http://www.williamjmann.com. You will see that he is a gay writer who has, indeed, written quite a few books on the subject. This is why I call it “making a career”. goldenerafn 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to your comment: It is so easy for gays to make all kinds of claims after a person is dead, and they've been doing this for years. Sounds like a generalization to me. Catamorphism 22:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I amended my comment. See above. goldenerafn 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation process

This is the first Wikipedia mediation process I've been involved in, and I hope it's the last. I've read through Wikipedia:Mediation and with particular note to "Why should mediation be confidential?". This led me to believe this was going to be a private discussion between the 4 of us who disagreed on points, with mediation provided by an unbiased 3rd party. I have no faith in this process now. After the process was underway and Arniep was not happy with being the lone dissenting voice, he invited other users to participate. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Mediation that says he has the right to do this and it has been done without the consent of the other participants. Do I now have the right to invite people that may agree with me to join the fray so that I can tip the scales back to my way of thinking? Let Golden and Chandler do the same? This is crazy. It is natural to assume that in inviting people to enter the discussion, whether they are admins or not, Arniep would select people who are likely to share his viewpoints. I can't think of anything that better demonstrates "bad faith" or that more decisively ruins the mediation process. Arniep has changed the dynamics of the discussion, as far as I can see, only because things weren't going his way. We are further away from reaching a consensus, than we ever have been. From "Why should the mediation be confidential?" - "Mediation as a public process can also be impaired, because other well-meaning people may get involved, with little understanding of the current situation, and will in effect do more bad than good. Typically, it will become a mess when someone comes along and takes the side of one of the disputants." Well, that seems to have successfully occurred - this is a mess. I am outraged that editors have made substantial edits to the article under discussion before the mediation process has been completed, making this whole process a farce, and a complete waste of the time that I have contributed to it in good faith. I am particularly disappointed with Jere's comment "every additional bit of constructive input is appreciated and welcome".

As I said, I've not been involved in a mediation process with Wikipedia, but several times I have acted as a mediator in the real world. I know things are different here, but in the real world allowing a mediation process to turn into a free-for-all, is, to put it mildly, frowned upon. All in all, not a bad concept. Rossrs 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I haven't performed the mediator job well, Rossrs - unfortunately, I have no power here to arbitrate, or control the comments of others. I have no connection to ArnieP, or any other people he has joined into this conversation, nor do I have a connection to you, or Chandler75, or those on the other side of the issue. Frankly, although the additional commentary and drift by others have been distracting, I think I've gotten a pretty good handle on the issues now, and believe that there are several clear compromises available. Whether or not anyone has any reason to listen to me is really up to them.

First of all, I stand by the assertion that everyone needs to apologize for giving offense, and rededicate themselves to assuming good faith on the parts of others. This seems to be the core issue, and continues to dominate the conversation.

Secondly, the Karsh image is not patently offensive, and the argument over it seems to be more a symptom of assuming bad faith on the part of others than for any reason of its own. It has become symbolic in this struggle, and unfortunately, without first letting go of the assumptions of malintent on both sides, it seems intractable.

Third, although the bisexuality section can certainly use some work to improve readability, and make clear what sources are anonymous and which ones are direct, its removal or suppression to make it match other articles is not reasonable. Although certainly many of the sources are purely rumor, the directly attributed ones seem perfectly reasonable to include. So long as we are clear in the article regarding the sources, and the controversy regarding them, inclusion of that information is not offensive either.

I don't know how this process is supposed to end - certainly a unanimous decision seems very distant at this point. I hope I've made clear what my 3rd party thoughts on the matter are, and welcome you all to act upon them in good faith. Again, my apologies if this has been less than helpful. --JereKrischel 02:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact I do think you've done the mediator job well, and given the circumstances I'm sure it's caused you more grief than you expected. I'm really past the issues of the images or the bisexuality. Those issues have been talked to death. My annoyance now is purely the way this forum has been manipulated with some users being invited here to discuss the bisexuality issue and others to discuss the copyright issue. The aim being to derail the mediation which was at its core a disagreement between 4 users. I remain annoyed by that, but my annoyance is towards Arniep, and I will cool down. If, in my annoyance and frustration, I have said anything that has offended you, or that has seemed to have beem directed at you, for that I sincerely apologise. I also thank you for the time and consideration you have given to this problem. Rossrs 07:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip

Gossip has no place in wikipedia. References to "allegations" that are tracking back to "anonymous" should be entirely deleted from the article, and the existence of such books should not even be mentioned here. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, nor should it to be used to promote them. Based on the "evidence" in the aritcle, I think the "Post-death rumors" section should be entirely deleted as being just what it claims to be, "rumors".

By that standard though, there are several direct allegations, that aren't anonymously sourced. It seems that "rumors" is probably a bad title for the section. Perhaps "Post-death controversy regarding sexuality", would be better. --JereKrischel 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "actor Bob Monkhouse claimed that he had repelled advances from Power" and that "the fashion critic Mr. Blackwell, in his 1995 autobiography From Rags to Bitches claimed that he met Power when a young actor for 'romantic moments in his dressing room and took long rides speeding down Sunset to Malibu'", belongs, if anywhere, on their respective wiki pages, which it isn't; it certainly is nothing more than irrelevant gossip, here.

Pictures

As far as pictures go, this article is not exactly "overcrowded" with them. The more, the better. Wyy not keep them all? A portrait as the initial picture seems like a very fine idea to me, but I haven't read the discussion page... It should be a consensus issue, and if consensus can't be reached, it should be a 2/3 majority vote (taken after a "30-day notice" tag in the article, and if that can't be achieved, then I guess it should boil down to persistence, because what else is there?

I'm hesitant to boil it down to a simple vote - that kind of thing seems to bring out the worst sock-puppeteering. I think if everyone gives just a little, a compromise is possible. Personally, I see the middle ground as including the Karsh image, but deferring placement/size to the current majority. It seems a harmless enough image, and its outright exclusion based solely on personal taste, or opinon of how "representative" it is seems a slippery slope. --JereKrischel 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JereKrischel - this has gotten out of hand. Please, in your role as mediator have a look at the invitations Arniep has been extending to a select few, I would imagine, likeminded editors. This is not an election. It is not a free for all. It is supposed to be a formal process to reach a solution and a consensus. Arniep is acting in bad faith and attempting to hijack this discussion with the same arrogance and disregard he showed in the discussions on the talk page. Whether he is right or wrong about the images or the bisexuality allegations is beside the point. He is completely wrong in his behaviour during this mediation process and is showing nothing but a contempt for the process.

Please have a look at Arniep's user contributions and see how many users he has been spamming. Here is what the invitation looks like. I do agree with him when he calls this a debacle. Although I think he's created the debacle and is making it worse.

"Hi, there is a bit of a debacle occuring in relation to bisexual allegations in Tyrone Power's article- I would appreciate your viewpoint at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03_Tyrone_Power. Thanks Arniep 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

We have the right to a fair process here and Arniep is circumventing that at every turn. Rossrs 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossrs, I think this is exactly why the idea that a majority vote is the answer to this is a basically flawed one - today, you have the majority against the Karsh image. Tomorrow, if Arniep manages to rally his friends to the cause, you'll be in the minority. The idea that we'll just take a vote to decide what to do just isn't going to work.

My deep hope is that both sides can sincerely apologize for giving offense, and rededicate themselves to working constructively together in good faith. What is needed here is a dedication to compromise, but that is impossible if we cannot see the other person as acting in good faith.

Those people who have gotten Arniep's invitation, please limit your contributions to suggested compromises. --JereKrischel 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but other users have just as much a right to express their opinion on the article as anyone else, by trying to discourage any meaningful comments you are fixing the debate as it was fixed from the start by the appearance of these users with a clearly one sided point of view. Arniep 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing an opinion is fine, I'm merely asking further contributions to this mediation to be limited to proposed compromises. Both sides have made their opinions very clear, and I think the only meaningful addition to this mediation process would be proposed compromises. I will be posting my final recommendation soon, and closing this case, leaving it up to the parties to choose to follow my recommendations or not. --JereKrischel 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Arniep 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jere, for the record, I'm not going to apologise. I've tried to be fair in this from the very beginning. I have offered a willingness to compromise all along. I have nothing to apologise for and I've said nothing that I regret saying. I agreed to try to work with everyone else when you suggested that as part of the compromise and I'll stand by that commitment. Rossrs 02:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you wonder why I felt I needed some support? Other users have just as much right to comment on and be involved in the Tyrone Power article. Certain users only turned up after the bisexual allegations were added (not by me) to the article and then attempted to remove or distort the allegations. I restored them and was reverted several times by all these users here except Rossrs. I put the picture back when it was removed multiple times. If that is bullying then I must be guilty and punished. Arniep 02:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wonder that you felt you needed support. I feel however that by deliberately targetting specific users to support your case, rather than a general solicition for the Wikipedia community at large, you have manipulated the mediation process nd steered it in the direction you wanted it to go. You specifically called in User:Bearcat knowing that he would comment on the bisexuality issue and User:Gmaxwell to comment on the copyright issue. They are good editors, and they said what they truly believed without you leading them, but you knew which stance they were going to take before you invited them in. To say that "other users have just as much right to comment" is disingenuous - the only others users that had the opportunity to comment were those that you chose. What you did may have ultimately been in the best interests of Wikipedia and in the best interests of the article - that's another debate which I'll refrain from going into here. But for the mediation process it was manipulative and deliberate. We agreed a couple of weeks ago to use John Brown's Body as the lead image. Now the Karsh is the lead. After all the words that have been written, we are back where we started, and the only difference is that we are now more suspicious and disjointed than we were before. That's sad. For the record, I don't see you as bullying. But there are aspects of your behaviour that I find contrary to the objective of team work, community and fair play. Rossrs 07:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]