Talk:Luke Macfarlane

Irrelevant reference to sexuality

I disagree with the identification of anyone LGBT when it has no relevance to the job of Wikipedia to be encyclopedic.

People who do not identify as LGBT on Wikipedia are never identified as such, I see no reason to identify Macfarlane in this way.

He is an actor, and highlighting his sexuality in this was to "support all the LGBT-related categories the article is in" is at best superfluous and at worst prurient.

Delighted to hear why this reference might be considered necessary, and especially encyclopaedic when he is famous for being an actor, and not for his sexuality or campaigning for LGBT issues. Juddlackland (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Juddlackland:, the issue about the LGBT-related categories is more of a secondary issue, and my edit summary there was before I took the time to search how the media have covered his career after the first coming-out story in The Globe and Mail. Looking for sources now, it's hard to find an article that doesn't have some discussion of how his gay identity has affected his career. I'll list a few examples, but there are many more: Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, CBC News, San Antonio Current. Given the coverage in reliable sources, this biography would be incomplete if it does not mention Macfarlane's sexual orientation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok - I take that on board. Can you then update with these references - I do see this as significant to his biography then, it is encyclopaedic and relevant.

Had this been in place I would not have edited it. Thanks for this research. Juddlackland (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)