Talk:Mike Doyle (actor)

Mike Doyle and Andrew Rannells

@74.71.216.45: Hello. You reinserted the claim of the breakup, citing some SAG-AFTRA interview. Can this video verify your claim? I already requested some protection, but it's not a technical lock actually. More like monitoring and reviewing... --George Ho (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to reply to you on here - but if you go to the video and go to 1:01:25, Rannells SAYS they broke up. I've already known for months they were broken up, but he confirms it there. Also, you undid someone else's change to this months ago and I looked up the IP and the IP was an Omaha, Nebraska IP... maybe you blocked Andrew's mother's change or something. It's not that serious - I don't really care, but they definitely DID break up and Andrew says it out of his mouth in that video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.216.45 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about being emotional and that. I just... I just got worked up and assumed vandalism. I assumed that I watched the video, and I'll quote what he said: "I [w]ent through a breakup in the middle of that show [Falsettos], which was really hard and telling a love story every night was, like, devastating." Hmm... I see implications, but both actors are well known. WP:WELLKNOWN illustrates this. Even if the video might not verify the claim, if I remove the "relationship" content, this would affect the categorization of Doyle, i.e. verification of his sexuality. Per WP:BLPCAT, I must prove notability of his sexuality. If I suppress the categorization, then... I don't know. However, Rannells and the video are the primary sources. original research is disallowed by policy; in other words, I have to strictly interpret the video in a literal sense. ...I'll request third opinion about this. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC); edited. 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I could not find sources verifying his sexuality without involvement with Rannells. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement over verification of the relationship and the breakup.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Mike Doyle (actor) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The video cited for the relationship status is a WP:PRIMARY source. Typically, we require reliable secondary sources for verification. Furthermore, this is a WP:BLP, which has higher sourcing requirements. Therefore, there is a strong presumption against including the breakup information. While I understand the concern that since the person says it directly in the video, the status might not be completely accurate at the present time, we are bound by sourcing requirements. Interpreting primary sources is fraught with problems; perhaps they got back together, who knows? Unless one finds better sources, there's not much to be done, I'm afraid. One possible route is to say that the relationship status is "as of <last date source is available>". It's not ideal, but probably the best that can be done. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Irish1515, may you please undo the edit? Meanwhile, the issue is discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Repeated unverifiable claims at Mike Doyle (actor). Also pinging Kingsindian about this. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Aristophanes68. May you please undo the edits? If you were referring to the YouTube video, the video doesn't explicitly verify the breakup between Doyle and Rannells unless I missed something. Also, the update has been attempted but then reverted several times for lack of verification. --George Ho (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So he broke up with someone else besides Doyle during Falsettos? Also, the Rannells article completely ignores this relationship. Maybe we should too. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol(?)...... Anyway, I found out that some IP user removed the info as "typo". Fortunately, Aristophanes68, I reinserted the info coming from one of the revisions of the Doyle article. I did that before. --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

About the first half of your post... It's a possibility... maybe? Rannells didn't mention a person's name in the video. Can I start an RFC on the YouTube video? Some other editors repeatedly asserted the breakup. --George Ho (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... maybe we should do the RFC, right? --George Ho (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC); fully unstruck, 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait... How about WP:RSN instead? George Ho (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC); never mind, third opinion already done. George Ho (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess it's too soon for an RFC. Why not WP:DRN instead? George Ho (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC); Hmm... might not work either. WP:BLPN attempted without response. George Ho (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For now, I removed the whole "Personal life" section and then de-categorized him per consistency with recent removal from the other article. Of course, the info may be reinserted if anyone else disagrees. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Doyle (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911140915/http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2011/unionsquare to http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2011/unionsquare
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thequire.com/2014/06/26/who-is-mike-doyle/

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) 09:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-categorization

@Rafe87: May you please read WP:BLPCAT and then revert your re-addition to the categories that you added? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a dialogue instead of just reverting me, George. Last year you removed Mike from that category based purely on the fact that he separated from his same-sex partner last year. The category is not merely a catalog of actors who are in a same-sex couple, so you shouldn't have removed of him from the Gay actors category in the first place.Rafe87 (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Rafe87, there's not one verifiable proof, especially from a reliable secondary source, that he broke up with his partner. Also, including info about him and Rennells together would (somewhat) automatically categorize him as such, though sometimes that's not the case; contrast this with Lindsay Lohan#Personal life. Also, there should be reliable sources, not just from primary sources, that the break-up was reported. Certain editors in the past tried to add the break-up without a good reliable source. Therefore, I figured that eliminating the info about the relationship would mean de-categorizing him. To retain the categorization, there must be reliable sources of the break-up. Otherwise, I think reversing the categorization is the best way. (BTW, I see that you've been working on related subjects, so I wonder whether WP:LGBT project interests you.) George Ho (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, there's not any other info verifying his sexuality and the importance of it. George Ho (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Rafe87: It's been three or four days. Can you reconsider, i.e. self-revert, the re-addition please? George Ho (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Reinsertion of sexuality-related categories

The sexuality-related categories were reinserted, but the article is still missing prose content that would verify the categorization. The matter was discussed a couple weeks ago. It was also discussed last year, but the discussion was extensively also about keeping or retaining content that was supposed to verify the categorization, leading to the removal per WP:BLP and consistency with the other article that currently doesn't mention the removed content. I'm re-discussing the categorization matter in a newer thread to avoid appearing toward one side or the other; nevertheless, bold edits to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)