Talk:Luke Evans

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

Edit suggestion[edit]

Now that the last one has closed maybe we could add this to the "personal life" section:

In September 2010, Evans was romantically linked with a woman,[1] but as of June 2011 she is merely mentioned as being one of his friends.[2]

Exactly. I'm stunned that the statement "Evans was romantically linked with a woman" is in the Wikipedia entry. This is nothing more than rumor and heresay. The only first-person record of Evans' genetic sexual orientation is that he is gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.134.245 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which kind of nuances the "he's gone straight" debate and also adds some credence to certain editors' claims that this was a very beardy relationship. Any thoughts? CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a tabloid. LadyofShalott 19:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't like it. If you're getting the assertion from the statement "Evans was surrounded by family, friends (including Katherine Kingsly, Holly Goodchild and Tonya Meli) as well as Giacomo Nicolodi and Sophia Kokosalaki from Diesel", it's a big stretch for us to imply that there is no longer a romantic relationship and, even worse, to imply that there wasn't in the past a romantic relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - There is nothing clear and recent to suggest the subject is loud and proud homosexual at all, in fact he has not even mentioned his sexuality for years. He talks about how he likes cooking for women and how they always come back for more - no reports of men friends at all - no boyfriends, no homosexual related activity at all in the last seven years. Hopefully he or the woman he has been dating or his promotional people will clear this up for good with a clearer updated statement. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that's not relevant. I like cooking for women and they come back for more, too, but it's not about sex, it's about the food. We don't deal in nuance or gossip, and we should not speculate, since that's clearly OR. If he addresses the issue, we report what he says, but we don't draw our own conclusions. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I know, I know, yes to all of the above, but the first half of the statement is in the article and just seems to hang, and is tabloidish in itself, it's not really speculating as the gq article mentions three friends, maybe he's dating all of them and if he comes clear about it we can create Category:Very heterosexual actors from Wales. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw it was only a suggestion, let's leave the text as is for the moment, my intention was not to kick off a whole raging debate again. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...merely.. is a bit of a weasel - ...although in 2002 Evens said he was homosexual he later said he dreams of sleeping with women and in 2010 was reported to be dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) But the last raging debate was closed, leaving us only with BLPN and BLP Talk. What's a poor editor to do with only two forums to rage in? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob, please stop saying "homosexual" like a taxonomic classification. Also, Cosmo is not journalism — that's a puff peice where he's playing the pronoun game. It is evidence (for Wikipedians' purposes, but not for Wikipedia's main space) that he might be playing down his gayness tactically, but that's just speculation. We can't use it. You're now crusading. The personal life section as it was this morning is perfect and factual. Let's remove the LGBT categories (per BLPCAT) and retain the prose (per BLP) which relates to his identifying as gay in 2002-4 and his dating a woman in 2010 and leave it at that.Zythe (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the whole of this is tabliodesque titillation - The Advocate/QX all of them - no quality publication is as yet interested about his sexual preferences at all - he is only of lowish notability as an actor never mind as a sexuality person. Homosexual is a male male sexuality, simple as. I am less on a crusade than I am defending this living person against a crusade. Yes remove the BLP cats, they are clearly disputable totally. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Bbb23, how about follow me around and revert my edits, I'll copiously insult you as a vandal, POV-pusher and Foo-hater, then we can go and have a good ding-dong over at ANI? CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we make it simpler. We can each dream about edit-warring with each other and then go to ANI and report each other. Cosmopolitan did an article on "Tips on being a Contentious Editor on Wikipedia". Every editor should read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the page is protected, there's not much point discussing changing it since it's not a policy issue, this is just tweaking the content. Incidentally, Captain, the reason the sentence seems to 'hang' is that it was originally followed by a statement from his manager but was removed by someone (Shalott, I think) for being unencyclopedic. The discussion is further up the page but nothing really came of it. AlbionBT (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was the one where I complained that Goodchild's name should have been used and that "woman" sounded like an epithet, and someone said that someone else said that Goodchild's name shouldn't be used (wasn't it Rob?) because she's not a "public figure," which I labeled (not particularly tactfully) as nonsense. See, Captain, we're still "raging" - nice try, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were two separate issues. There was originally a sentence quoting a statement from Evan's management essentially say yes, he said he was gay in the past but he's not going to talk about it any more. I'm paraphrasing obviously. Then it was removed and the reliability of the source was questioned leading to another long argument, consensus was reached saying that the source was reliable so it was added back in only to be removed again for not being encyclopedic enough. It is a bit complicated, isn't it? AlbionBT (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still am dubious that Goodchild's involvement and depth of reporting requires naming her - has there been more/multiple reports about their relationship and statements from her? I have seen a picture of them together and some comments from her in an interview - is there consensus to name her? At least we have the name and reports of a recent reported heterosexual relationship, compared to the fact that reporting of his homosexual activity we have not even a mention for over seven years - no named boyfriend, not even reports of an unnamed boyfriend, no reports of any male male same sex dates , nothing homosexually related in any way at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a little bit of this discussion before, so at the risk of repeating myself, naming her is completely uncontroversial. We have a quote from her in a reliable source. That's sufficient. If we don't think it's reliably sourced that he was dating her, then we should include nothing. As it stands, it sounds like we're playing a game (is he or isn't he?) with his sexuality rather than just reporting facts.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal feeling is that if a significant other does not have an article (i.e. notable in their own right), they should not be named unless they are married or in some other formal relationship, or if their relationship is in itself notable, possibly by its longevity. A handful of recent magazine articles does not qualify. --Golbez (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the subjective question of how you determine notability in this context, how would you then write the assertion that so-and-so is dating unnamed-person?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not entirely sure it's necessary at all. Normally we don't/shouldn't carry gossip such as "Reports as of August 2011 say that X was in a relationship with Y", unless both X and Y are otherwise notable. In this case it's slightly more relevant, but only because it supposedly counters the previous statement of homosexuality, wherein her identity - callous as it sounds - is irrelevant. She's not being mentioned because he's in a relationship with her, she's being mentioned because it is relevant to previous statements in the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so what you're saying is that in any article, you would not cite a dating relationship unless the datee is notable. And what is the basis for that? Not newsworthy enough? It seems to me that a better standard would be how serious the relationship is (which you allude to above) then the notability of the datee. Is somehow the fact that Actor X is dating notable-so-and-so more important to the article than he's dating unnotable-so-and-so? I doubt it's more important to Actor X. Returning to Evans, I think under your standard, there should be NO sentence about him dating a woman because we're then implying that a gay person can't date a person of the opposite sex, that there's some sort of dissonance there. It's POV and OR in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't print what is newsworthy; we print what is encyclopedic. Keeping an ongoing log of whoever someone is shagging this week is not entirely encyclopedic. The fact that Actor X is dating someone notable is more important because for some reason people care about that stuff. I agree that the seriousness counts, I kind of poorly worded that when I said 'the relationship becomes notable, in its longevity'. A serious relationship for a long time? Sure, mention her name, as I'm sure many third-party sources have. Started going out last week? Don't bother. --Golbez (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with your standard, although I'd probably have continuous battles with other editors of actor articles. With that standard in mind, in my view, the sentence about Evans dating a "woman" should be eliminated entirely. Its only rationale for inclusion is the speculation as to what it means vis-a-vis his saying he's gay. There are too many editors injecting their own speculation about Evans's sexuality here, and that includes speculation by implication and by selecting what to report and what not to report and how to word it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And in Goodchild's the reporting of the relationship is from her point of view, not from Evans. The source seems reliable enough, but in the bits Evans is quoted, he doesn't mention Goodchild at all. And the relationship is undercut in this daily mail gossip. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing the Mail of gossip? Heh. But I don't get it, the Mail confirms the story ("Handsome Welsh actor Luke Evans, 31, who stars with Gemma Arterton in Tamara Drewe, is dating fashion industry PR Holly Goodchild, 27 – even though she describes herself as single on Facebook.") Surely the Facebook phrase isn't what you mean, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. Goodchild has been reported to have self-identified by a (somewhat) reliable source to be both dating Evans and single. And in the Walesonline article, Goodchild says they are dating, but the interview portion with Evans doesn't mention Goodchild at all. The GQ article describes Goodchild as a friend. The first two articles headline with the assertion that they are dating, but the assertions within the articles are pretty weak, and all three are pretty much just gossip columns, with some interview material from Evans which do not address the whether he's dating Goodchild at all. My thought is we can't really use any of this stuff. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy any of this. First, the articles seem to be repeating pretty much what each other says - not sure who is first, but I think it's the Wales article. Second, calling yourself single while dating someone is not a contradiction; it's the truth. Third, Goodchild has said that they were friends before dating - so what? That's not unheard of. The only thing we have that possibly undermines the credibility of the dating claim is that Evans himself hasn't confirmed it. But, hey, remember, Evans supposedly isn't talking about his personal life with the media.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to comment in depth - but "merely" rings alarm bells with me. --Errant (chat!) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can this even still be an issue? Does anyone here seriously believe just because there have been no reports on Evans' homosexuality for years, and he might have dated a woman, lo and behold, he might be straight? Really? So from out-and-proud theatre actor to film star has also paralleled a complete 180 in terms of his sexuality? This whole Goodchild issue seems like a bit of a crock to me. She's single on Facebook, they're now friends, who even knows? Yes, let's report every little date or fling the actor has, because to reaffirm a certain sexuality, that has to be talked about. He's LGBT, accept it. I find it nigh-impossible to believe Evans would go from talking about the best part of gay porn being how big the guy's tool is to self-identifying as straight. (Not indenting because this was a general comment more than anything.) Ss112 15:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
accept it? I personally could not care less about his sexual preferences just like reuters, the BBC and all other quality reporting outlets. Its the desperate desire to hang a label around his neck that is starting to fit less and less - again - no recent reports of any homosexual activity at all. No reports of male male relationships - no boyfriends - nothing homosexual at all in comments from him for the last at least seven years and hes reportedly dating a woman and she is commenting about it and so on. Personally I hope to see an additional comment from him or his team to clear this up - a dubious uninvolved person could see it all as promotional - playing to whatever community the subject is selling to at that time. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even you use the word "reportedly" - i.e. not confirmed, other than through an ambiguous comment from a Z-lister who has everything to gain from being "linked" to a rising star. Smurfmeister (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think his management made it quite clear that he's unlikely to clarify the situation any time soon. AlbionBT (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better word to use instead of "clarify" in this instance is "comment" as "clarify" means there is something that needs clarifying, and it's not clear (sorry) to me there is. I also think we're going in circles. Rob (and others, including me) have repeated their arguments more than once.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. To be fair though, it obviously isn't as clear to others considering the number of arguments the whole thing has spawned. Incidentally, why did you remove Ss112's comment? Surely since he was just stating an opinion, it wasn't covered by BLP. All he said was he found it nearly impossible to believe Evans had suddenly turned straight. AlbionBT (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not the only thing Ss112 said in the removed sentence, and the BLP violation parts were not stated as an opinion but as if they came from Evans himself. Obviously, I'm not going to repeat it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm being pedantic but wasn't he just paraphrasing this? - AlbionBT (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about pedantic, but persistent and also right. Even though it makes me cringe a bit, I'll restore his comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the cringiness (is that a real word?), he obviously liked to over-share in those days. AlbionBT (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I may have misunderstood one of the comments above, but there is no reason to put off discussion simply because the article is protected, regardless of whether the issue is a minor one or a major one. In fact one of the reasons for protection is to give people time to discuss all issues with the article, and how it can be improved, rather then edit warring. If consensus is reached on a change, an edit protected request can be made, and no it doesn't have to be a major issue. In fact edit protected templates are probably far more commonly used for such minor issues since they are an area where consensus can be reached, whereas sadly it's fairly common for protection to expire without a consensus on whatever the issues were that lead to protection (remember the protection can be removed early if all disputes are resolved and it's not expected there will be any more edit warring). Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing Evans has publicly confirmed about his sexuality is the 2002 interview in which he describes himself as gay. Some woman claiming they're in a relationship with no confirmation from Evans himself is not evidence that he is straight. On that basis, we could add to David Beckham's page that he cheated on his wife with Rebecca Loos - after all, she said he did... However, it doesn't say that because he has never confirmed her claim. Unless Evans specifically states he is straight and withdraws comments made in earlier interviews, he belongs in the LGBT actors category. As for the ridiculous comments that there have been 'no reports of homosexual activity', he's a person, not a crusing ground being monitored by the police. Smurfmeister (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with the above comment as far as adding anything goes, but I feel the need to ask something else. Even if it turns out he undoubtedly 100% is with this woman, why are so many people assuming that because he's become attracted to a woman that he must have lost all attraction towards men? If it's really necessary to label him, maybe he's bisexual. There's nothing to suggest he isn't still attracted to men; dating a woman doesn't cancel it out. 109.149.5.194 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A woman claiming that she has dated Evans should not be mentioned in his Wikipedia article or anywhere else on Wikipedia, unless the matter has been confirmed by Evans; the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) policy is clear about things like this. Therefore, I removed the material. And like I stated in this WP:Dummy edit, I highly doubt that piece would be accepted at the WP:BLP noticeboard. If it is added back, I will take this matter there. I'm surprised it has remained in this article for so long. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections......[edit]

......to me amending a paragraph as below?

In September 2010, Evans was romantically linked with a woman.[1] However, many [who?] believe the romance to be a fabrication [citation needed] , and that for all intents and purposes [citation needed] the actor has gone back into the closet.[2]

Keeping WP:Synth in mind this ---> ref [3] doesn't justify all claims made in the last sentence. Moriori (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the paragrapgh has been axed. But, as things go in the article, I'll leave my query. Moriori (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should just stay as romantically linked with a woman. There hasn't been any new info other than that. SilverserenC 00:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turner, Robin (September 19, 2010). "Tamara Drew star lands love and new role - Wales News". WalesOnline. Retrieved August 9, 2011.
  2. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/hed-zachary-quinto-luke-evans-and-the-politics-of-coming-out-in-hollywood.html
  3. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/hed-zachary-quinto-luke-evans-and-the-politics-of-coming-out-in-hollywood.html

Contradiction on the mainpage?[edit]

Hi, folks. Unless I am misreading it, the mainpage text says Evans played Apollo in Clash of the Titans, but the filmography says he played Zeus.  ?
— James Cantor (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he played apollo in clash and zeus innimmortalsMrphilip (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

excessive trivia under personal life[edit]

I assume this will quickly be reverted anyway, but a blogger's opinion on the extent of Evans' outness is not in itself noteworthy.

"Evans is gay and dating Spanish model Jon Kortajarena." That's plenty, right? 74.95.5.249 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I recently removed some content from the Personal life section. Per WP:BLP, I agree with your removal of this text that was inserted by WP:Disruptive IP 99.227.245.147, who should have been blocked by now. But regarding this edit you made, I feel that the "[Evans] is reticent to discuss his homosexuality to the media for fear of losing the heterosexual audience support" aspect should stay; that's not trivia; it explains why he is not very publicly open about his sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be high-handed -- I've reverted that removal. 74.95.5.249 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the IP has been reverted again and blocked by Diannaa (though I'm sure that IP will pop back up at this article again, whether as the same IP or with a different IP or as a registered account), I went ahead and tweaked the bit you restored...similar to what I quoted above, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've removed the Kortanjarena material as unsupported and unreliable and therefore a WP:BLP violation. For a fuller explanation, see my report at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to note that you removed that material. I don't know if that source is a tabloid, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As seen with this edit, All Hallow's Wraith questioned the notion that the source supports the entire "[Evans] is reticent to discuss his homosexuality to the media for fear of losing the heterosexual audience support" part. Having, for the first time, minutes ago, looked at the source specifically to see if it does support that line in full, I saw merit in All Hallow's Wraith's concern, and reworded the sentence to be truer to the source. Flyer22 (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the source, it is one of his publicists who stated, "It’s not something he is hiding, but not a fact he wishes to discuss in the press." I think if that publicist is wrong on that, Evans would have had the article corrected or taken some other action regarding the commentary...unless he was trying to avoid having all that widely publicized. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television Appearance[edit]

I don't know about the reliability of the source, but should he not be credited for his appearance on The Kylie Show? http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1156316/?ref_=m_nmfmd_slf_18 --Cprice45 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luke Evans (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luke Evans (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 February 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– The other two don't have a shred of notability.[3] Unreal7 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I[edit]

My 2A02:C7D:EA2C:D300:2D0B:D93C:C64F:8058 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My name tahina coqueran-mateso but I love action movies with you 2032[edit]

I seen you 

Ma and 10+ 10

So we can be in movies 🎥 

Thanks you for your movies

I love ❤️ your movies 🎥 and I want to be a actor 2A02:C7D:EA2C:D300:2D0B:D93C:C64F:8058 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luke_Evans&oldid=1207153635"