Talk:Jim Rash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

2 issues: nothing is sited here, and it is ambiguous what "partner" means in this context: they are clearly writing partners but are they also acknowledged intimate partners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.225 (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straight?[edit]

He is so over-the-top as Dean Ubergay, is there any chance he's actually straight in real life?

Is this known/public info? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this channel, he came out as gay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVlevDlod_M&ab_channel=OSSA

2601:1C0:6A01:5DE0:D62:ED8E:EBA1:573F (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim Rash.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Jim Rash.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jim Rash.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram post[edit]

I am very concerned about using the Instagram post to verify the actor's sexual orientation. I tried finding other sources, including ones discussing the post itself, without avail. I removed the info, but then someone using an IP address reinserted it. I invited others for intervention, but no luck either. What can be done about the info? George Ho (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. The source is not acceptable. Rash doesn't describe himself as "gay" (for instance, he could be bi or pan) so we can't describe him as such. I can't find any other sources about his sexual orientation so we shouldn't mention it. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rburton66: I don't know why you reinserted the info and used the Instagram post as a source. The Instagram is still unreliable and shall not be used. George Ho (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Instagram post is definitely not enough in and of itself. It certainly verifies that he's somewhere in the LGBT family — and I strongly doubt that anybody who's familiar with him was actually surprised by that — but Bilorv is right, it completely fails to clarify whether he identifies as gay, bisexual, pansexual or queer. So yes, we need a better source than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywoodmask.com article[edit]

The article from hollywoodmask.com cites Instagram post, which has been deemed unreliable and vague (see above section). Honestly, I thought it appears gossipy and sensational without value. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Instagram post itself can be used, carefully, to say he came out as a member of the LGBTQ community. He certainly didn’t write that he is gay or homosexual. Gleeanon 22:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OR and WP:BLPCAT. No reliable secondary sources verify significance of his sexuality and belonging to the community AFAIK. --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A person is considered an expert on themselves, he would know if he came out or not. Gleeanon 00:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source. Gleeanon 00:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think his Instagram post adheres to WP:BLPSELFPUB. Do you? George Ho (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do, how do you think it doesn’t? Gleeanon 01:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Instagram post's authenticity? I have reasonable doubts about it, like its vagueness, language that may invite implicitness and rushed interpretations from others, and the possibility that the post can be deleted at any time. Furthermore, he didn't indicate whether he belongs to the community. He did mention "National Coming Out Day", but he also mentioned his mustache at that time. George Ho (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”I make it a point not to judge my timeline or regret not coming out earlier. I just love how I got to these selfies, and I love even more where I’ve been since them. For the past six years, I’ve been true, open and vulnerable. And, more importantly, I’ve been me.” We could just ask him, and use our system to confirm him. As for it disappearing that’s the same concern with all Internet links. Gleeanon 02:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user Gleeanon409 was verified and then blocked as a sockpuppet. Please feel free to either strike the user's replies to me or "hat" the whole discussion. (More at WP:STRIKESOCK) George Ho (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agenda[edit]

Stop reverting simple articles about how someone defines themselves. You quite possibly could or are doing this with anyone that is not heterosexual. STOP. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have to get the sourcing right. Gleeanon 02:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Striking verified sockpuppet's comment. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the Wikipedia board. Find a new crusade.Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing my conversation with Gleeanon409, who is verified and then blocked as a sockpuppet. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oh great. You added back the Instagram post. I can't tell whether he said that he is part of the community. But the post is interpreted that way. I don't know why editors insisted on using the Instagram post. Since this is becoming beyond my control, shall we take the matter to WP:RSN or WP:DSN WP:DRN? --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC); corrected, 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the issue can easily be resolved by contacting Rash himself to confirm the post, why not do that? Gleeanon 12:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think contacting him would solve sourcing issues. Furthermore, that would risk harassment, don't you think? If he can't publish his own confirmation, then why do you insist on using the Instagram post? George Ho (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve contacted subjects in the past, it resolved issues, and made their articles better.
This would verify both that the account is indeed his, and what he meant.
I’m not sure what you mean he can’t publish his own confirmation? Gleeanon 19:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the subject himself must publicize and publicly clarify his Instagram post. We can't use private conversations per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Since we can't compromise, I created WP:DRN#Jim Rash. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, OTRS handles these issues every day. Gleeanon 20:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think OTRS is necessary. What about WP:OTRS#Privacy and team members on the English Wikipedia? Furthermore, why do you want the article to provide an info citing the (unreliable) Instagram post? George Ho (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT you’re the only one suggesting Rash’s own post is unreliable, we accept a subject’s declaration on themselves all the time.
Using OTRS to confirm everything would resolve the issue. You seem to not understand how they work, they’ll verify the account is his, and then ask him to verify what he meant. Based on that process they’ll either remove, or amend what we have.Gleeanon 21:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You and the other editor (re)insert the info that shouldn't have been there in the first place. How he declares himself is subjective (if not objective) at best. Whether such declaration deserves to be inserted can be decided by consensus. BTW, I've not seen him reveal his contact info, so I don't know whether you insist that he reveal it publicly. George Ho (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one cares about his contact info, another red herring. Gleeanon 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the contact info. I've not yet seen the OTRS handling this matter as of date. How do you get the OTRS involved in this? George Ho (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On another BLP, of a trans woman, someone contacted her to get her take on a few matters, it helped a lot.
I’ve left a message at the OTRS board, awaiting response. Gleeanon 22:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't request something that hasn't been handled via email yet. WP:OTRSN can't handle private matters or private discussions. What makes you believe that the subject hasn't made his identity private? George Ho (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can, it’s been done before as I mentioned.
OTRS always handles private matters and discussions, it’s what they do.
What do you mean “made his identity private”? Gleeanon 00:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was saying, the OTRS is not supposed to disclose private material in the noticeboard, which isn't the request board of something that hasn't happened yet via email. Rather the noticeboard reviews primarily (if not only) case tickets. Furthermore, the actor hasn't explicitly declared himself to be part of the community (I don't mean the series itself) or sexual identity. The Instagram post isn't clear, even when he says briefly about himself, and it only invites hints leading to speculation. George Ho (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteer left closing rationale for the DRN case, saying that directly contacting the actor and using him as the source may constitute original research and that policy against generally using social media as a source still stands. I decided to re-remove the content. If you have issues with one of policies, best to go to either WT:BLP, WT:OR, or WT:RS. George Ho (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content should remain removed, yes. This isn't a Hollywood gossip rag. If Rash wants to talk about his sexuality to reputable publications then that's a reasonable indication that he would want it mentioned here; otherwise, reference to the Instagram post is simply not what Wikipedia is here to document. — Bilorv (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdoesitgo1: Of course, the discussion from RSN ("Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#Can the artist's Instagram be used as a source?") concluded that any subject's Instagram blog post about oneself can be used as a source. However, they didn't say that Instagram is reliable. If you disagree with my revert and others who are against using the actor's Instagram post, then please post your concerns at WP:RSN. Otherwise, I insist that you revert your undoing to my removal of the sordid info. George Ho (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, have you read the DRN discussion yet? George Ho (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in arguing with you; you have apparently decided what you are doing and nothing anyone on here, editors, deters you.Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not interested, then please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223#Is a BLP's own Instagram a RS?? and other discussions about Instagram. George Ho (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdoesitgo1: You and I are close to reaching the three-revert rule limit within 24 hours of the first revert made hours ago, but I've not yet reported you to the WP:3RRN for your edit warring because I've not yet given you a warning, which I'm doing so now. I suggest that you comply to other editors' agreement with the removal of the Instagram post. Otherwise, I can guarantee that you'd be blocked temporarily for that, but I predict you can disagree with me and then accuse me of edit warring, which you got involved in. You can read {{subst:uw-3rr}}, which I've not yet posted to your user talk page as of date. Furthermore, your recent remarks to another editor (diff 1, diff 2) and then to me (diff) imply that you're not interested in a healthy discussion with anyone, which is close to an WP:ANI case alongside edit warring. Again, I suggest you undo your revert of my removal, i.e. please re-remove the "Personal life" section, already agreed by others. George Ho (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stuff it. You want to accuse anyone who disagrees with you and even shows you where there are problems with your editing. Sorry, not sorry. No one cares. You don't even follow the rules you espouse; you stir up people. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use Rash's Instagram post?[edit]

This is being closed at the request of the initiator and in consideration of the fact that, even though less than 30 days have passed, it seems unlikely to attract further discussion.
There is no consensus to either include or not include the Instagram post in question. Chetsford (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The actor Jim Rash's Instagram post has been discussed. Many attempts to use the actor's post, including recent edits, have been challenged and been subject to rules like WP:BLP and WP:RS. Shall the Instagram post be used in the article? Why or why not? If so, how can the post be used? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions:

--George Ho (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say information about the Instagram post could be included on the page if it was covered in a news source that can support the post. In a cursory search, I don't see any sources of that nature, but there may be some out there. Quorum816 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sexuality[edit]

@George Ho: I'm pinging you based on the above discussion about his Instagram post. Billy Eichner did this Hollywood Reporter interview where he stated all the starring roles were played by openly gay actors, Rash being one of the actors in the main cast. Would this source paired with his Instagram post be sufficient to include on the article? Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Probably not, or rather "should not". I can see "openly", but I don't see his name anywhere. Why do certain editors insistantly want to use the Instagram post? Also, the combination of the interview and the post would be original research or synthesis of sources, right? George Ho (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been any actual quote of him stating he is gay? I think saying he “came out” on the article without saying what he came out as is a bit weird, but also the instagram post never says gay/bi/pan/queer/anything. Many articles reference it saying he is gay but don’t seem to cite anything other than the instagram post which says that. The fact that he plays a bi character in Bros makes me wonder if he’s bi since they tried to have representation Heymisterscott (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Rash&oldid=1205010047"