Talk:Chirlane McCray

A fact from Chirlane McCray appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Chirlane McCray, who wrote the "groundbreaking" 1979 essay "I Am a Lesbian" for Essence, later married Bill de Blasio?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chirlane McCray.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

name pronunciation

My best guesses are Shir-LAAYN or Shir-LAH-nay, but i wonder if someone can put some appropriate IPA next to her name, for those of us outside of NYC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.222.87 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

she is a former lesbian

It's not a matter of opinion, she described herself as a lesbian at one time and now she describes herself as happily married to a man. Hence she is a former lesbian. --107.199.68.204 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make her a "former lesbian". When she was asked about her status after marrying de Blasio, she said she now eschews "labels". Therefore, we don't label her. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'she said she now eschews "labels".' which makes her a former lesbian on two levels. --107.199.68.204 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is her call to make, not yours. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And her call was made when she declared herself happily/monogamously married to a man. --107.199.68.204 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. According to guidelines that fall under BLP, we need a statement from a living subject about their sexual orientation; we cannot infer it from their choice of partner. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

her statement that she's happily/monogamously married to a man means nothing to you? --107.199.68.204 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good call. Trying to determine someone's sexual orientation on the basis of their spouse or partner's gender is futile guesswork and, for our purposes, original research. Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's also said she loves him. --107.199.68.204 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That she says she loves him and that she's happily married to a man means exactly that and nothing more. It does not mean she is a former lesbian. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You left out that she's monogamous. --107.199.68.204 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that changes, what? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection here. This is, as Roscelese says, a BLP violation. We can't verify that she is anything other than married to a man. Inclusions of "former lesbian" imply that she has denounced her status as a lesbian, and there's no evidence to suggest that. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self identification as a former lesbian

Looks like the newspapers are describing her as a former lesbian too.

What's more here's a quote from her "“In the 1970s, I identified as a lesbian" notice the past tense?

--107.199.68.204 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It doesn't necessarily mean what you claim it means. "Identify" also means the public utterance of identity. The utterance was in the past, the identification need not be. I think you should stop speculating; it's bad enough that semi-protection had to be applied to stop you from speculating in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more clear we can be. Per WP:BLP, we categorize people only as they categorize themselves. She used to categorize herself as a lesbian, so we note that. Now, she refuses to categorize herself. She has never categorized herself as a "former lesbian" or as "straight", so we don't assume that she is. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that newspaper is the Post, it's anything but an objective source. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

I was able to find her birthday by looking up her voter registration. How does one go about sourcing that? Frumpylittlefellow (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. You go to jail. NYS Election Law Sec 3-103(5) prohibits using information derived from voter registration records for non-election purposes.Wlmg (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chirlane McCray. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.billdeblasio.com/meet-the-de-blasios/about-chirlane

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

JesseRafe We're off to a bad start. Can you please explain why you insist on reverting my changes to the lead to turn a specific description about a prominent controversy into something mushy, vague, and confusing? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for a few days, but it looks like now you've removed the aspect that was controversial/criticized entirely from the lede. Did you change your mind about the interpretation of the MOS? JesseRafe (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]