Talk:Colin Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Is it correct that Suzanne Packer (Tess in Casualty) is his sister? --MartinUK 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Yes. Her surname is adopted from her mother's maiden name as the name Suzanne Jackson was already registered with Equity.

[edit] Religion

Does Colin Jackson have any religious views? He strikes me as having an air of wouldn't-turn-down-Songs of Praise about him. --Bonalaw 10:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed 'personal life' entry

This entry consisted solely of reference to a rumoured fact 'in some circles' which hardly seemed substantive and proved not to be borne out by a google search. The presence of a 'Personal Life' entry doesn't seem a necessary element of wiki biographies of similar sportsmen for example: Linford Christie.

Therefore I removed it.


[edit] Sexual Preference

Can that user please stop removing the part about Colin's sexuality. We are in the 21st century and 'defamation' is NOT discussing whether someone is gay or otherwise. You should probably take a look at the Talk page of Ricky Martin, you'll be there for a while cleaning up all the "rumours"!. If anyone has any sources to prove he is 'gay' then please post them in the article, it IS relevant. But that will never appear in Wikipedia, and the explanation comes in this line: "We can't go around calling people gay..." Take out the word "gay" and try substituting: "straight," "Protestant," or "white," and the quote is ludicrous. Being classified as gay here is, unfortunately, still an insult and one must tread carefully. And nothing, absolutely nothing, short of a photo of Colin en flagrante with another male, will hold up in wikipedia's self-appointed court of correctness. 88.111.192.122 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a value judgement. The issue is simply, 'Is it True?' This is an encyclopedia. ALL statements have to be backed up with something. Jackson has never commented about his private life that i'm aware of, and there is no evidence to support the claim.Indisciplined 18:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I second this. Another point is why is it even relevant? David D. (Talk) 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. If he had a wife and kids then their names and residency would be put into this article quicker than you can say "homophobia". 88.109.223.182 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto if he had a boyfriend/partner. What's your point? Again, we need to get back to facts here. Indisciplined 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's important whether he's gay or not, but I do agree with the point the original editor was making, that "gay" (along with certain other neutral terms) seem to be wrongly taken to be defamatory by many Wikipedians. My guess is that it's largely American wikipedians who object to terms like "gay". The rest of the world (well, maybe not all of it) has moved on from assuming that "gay" is automatically a bad thing. --88.109.44.56 22:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but has nothing to do with the article. Without a factual basis, the claim can't come into this article. This is an encyclopedia. As I say, there are no value judgements behind that at all (like most Europeans, I tend to regard being gay or straight as about as important as being left or right handed. I believe that is what David D. meant when he said it wasn't relevant). Some users seem to be seeing a dark, sinister reason for removing the edit, which simply isn't there. Unsubstantiated gossip of all kinds is removed from articles on living people on a regular basis. If you want it to stay, find something to substantiate it with. Indisciplined 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting Mr. Jackson is anything BUT gay is ignorant and misinformed. With or without a citation of source(s), it is painfully obvious he is homosexual and therefore this article is lacking substantial information (or rumours). 88.111.85.198 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No, that's just what you think, based on no eveidence. I'm going to refer this anonymous contributor to Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability. The key points:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Now, again, if you can produce evidence or credible sources to back your claims up with, it can quite happily go in go in. If you can't, this debate is over. Indisciplined 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
How many articles about single men mention that they are heterosexual? That is what i mean by it is not relevant. Coupled with the fact it is hearsay (regardless of the truth), means it has even less chance of surviving in the article. David D. (Talk) 02:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I admire the superiority registered users feel they have over unregistered users. Brings an acerbic smile to my face every time. Anyway let's move away from that and discuss the real issue here: Mr Jackson. A person only needs to enter these words in google's search engine: "Colin"+"Jackson"+"gay", and you get many, many hits. Many lead to articles about Colin's sexuality, and in lopsided proportion, favour the notion that he is gay. But that will never appear in wikipedia. At which point does a source become 'trusted'. At which point do 'rumours' become fact? If you can clarify this for me then I will add the sources.
And to whip, Indisciplined, you have absolutely no say in whether this conversation is closed or not. If you feel you have nothing further to add then by all means, go elsewhere. We are not evenly matched, I know. 88.111.107.62 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)(Anonymous user)
Superiority? I think you are reading to much into the replies. Tabloids might work in the the format of xxx tabloid claims " quote". Which ones? What about answering my question? Again, "How many articles about single men mention that they are heterosexual? " You don't think it is a legitimate question? David D. (Talk) 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You do seem rather obsessed over Mr Jackson's sexuality. Rumours become fact, either when the subject makes a public admittance, or when Max Clifford gets the story and they decide to co-operate with the tabloids, or when they do a George Michael. Otherwise it's not in the public interest, so the newspapers won't touch it. And that makes it not encylopedic. We can't even put stuff on about Winterton and Prescott so you may have to just be patient. Catchpole 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a question of being obsessed, that is immaterial. So you are saying that because national newspapers have not run an article on it, then it is irrelevant information and cannot be trusted? Blogs are purely the creation of an individual, a civilan. And yet, what is the difference between this and a journalist writing in The Sun, for example? They are both conjecture, but because it appears in a NATIONAL publication it is taken as fact? How often have newspapers made errors or omissions anyway? 88.111.107.62 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The only fact is that it was in the paper. That is why if it was to be in the article it would be of the form "xxx tabloid claims quote." Nevertheless, why is it relevant? David D. (Talk) 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way your google search is a bit misleading, after the first page of conjecture in blogs most of the articles seem to be about Tyson Gay. Catchpole 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"How many articles about single men mention that they are heterosexual? " Oh what a question! You've just killed the whole argument there! Let me just retreat back into my hole. This is beside the point, please do not throw in hypothetical nonsense like this. Let's see. If a man robs a newsagents and is black, the description will also mention this fact: "6'1", black, short hair... etc". And YET if a white man should rob the same store, in the same circumstances, there is no mention of it. Why? Not because the announcer is racist! More like, because it is 'different'. Likewise, being gay is different and THEREFORE in the public interest, because it is the minority and THEREFORE people discuss it. I am not about to begin making a social commentary on homosexuailty in the UK in 2006, but come on. It isn't a profound idea.
There, I answered your question. Perhaps you could care to answer mine: At which point does a source become 'trusted'. At which point do 'rumours' become fact?88.111.107.62 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is here? "White man robs store" is a pretty normal description of a robbery.
How about Lance Armstrong? Both blogs and tabloids pursuing this story. Should that be in the Armstrong article? Possibly but wikipedia will become an extension of the tabloid mania if every tabloid story is worth inclusion. How would this article be improved with the addition of this information. Maybe we should model it after the Armstrong article? David D. (Talk) 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The Armstrong article doesn't appear to have any mention of such rumours. Listen out on the news or on Crimewatch next time to highlight the 'robbery' exxample, the difference between descriptions is astounding. 88.111.107.62 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get to see Crimewatch here (USA). Just did a google search for "suspect white male" 2,780 hits, compared to "suspect black male" 450 Others such as "robs store" "black male" or "white male" give similar numbers. Not sure what this means but Crimewatch might be the exception rather than the rule. David D. (Talk) 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you are in the States then you should be familiar with the "George bush says that the Black people are looting, and Whites are simply looking for food" or whatever the direct quotation is. Anyway we are losing site of the original discussion here. Once I know how to DEFINE a trusted source then I shall add a wealth of sources to the article. If you could help me with this, for the third time, I would appreciate it. 88.111.107.62 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have already suggested a way to write it: "xxx tabloid claims quote." You have to get the quote from the published tabloid. With respect to tabloids i don't think you are going to find a definition for "trusted" that all agree on. But at least you will be including a citation. And that is the most important thing at this stage. How it is worded and whther you can persuade others it is worthy of inclusion comes later. Without a source it is a non starter. This has nothing to do with superioirty, it is just the convention used in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 22:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So just to check, since I left, this page has not moved one iota. Our un-named editor (and what else can I call you?) has still not been able to produce a shred of evidence to back his claims. It also appears that they have not read the verification page I pointed them to, which would have advised them of what sources can be used, and how (instead they keep asking other editors how it could be done). The google example is laughable. You could put in "George", "Bush", and "Anti-christ" and get hits, but it wouldn't count as evidence. So as I said, the debate was actually over a long time ago. Unless they can produce a source, nothing changes. Produce a source we can use, and we will all be happy to see it's inclusion. Indisciplined 22:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary! How thoughtful of you to pop back in, I was having trouble keeping up! Now, to help YOU out as a thank you for the favour, I shall summarise what I am having trouble understanding. It lies within the phrase "reputable sources". What does that mean? How do we define that? Is a blog classed as reputable on Wikipedia? Is a newspaper? What if a newspaper article is national, INTERnational? Isn't that STILL conjecture? An article appearing in The Sun, for instance, would that be classed as fact or fiction? Does it vary with article to article, as I presume it would? I have sources to underline the notion Mr Jackson is gay, I POSTED them onto Wikipedia but -- they -- were -- removed, probably by you. Can we think and act like adults here? Nobody's going to place a bed-cam into Colin's boudoir, or anyone's, for that matter. EVERYBODY'S sexual orientation is a matter of conjecture. Merely reproducing, in itself, is not proof either. Lesbians can give birth (e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt) and gay men can father children the old-fashioned way (e.g. Rep. Ed Schrock). Merely hearing about it in tabloids: "I was cruised by John Travolta in a steambath!" is also he said/he said. Blogs are no proof. Gossip is no proof. What, then, is proof? It's funny, you accuse me of having not taken the time read what you have written yet YOU either did not read it or you are just too dimwitted to bother to think of an explanation. 88.111.107.62 23:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not do original research but report what others have said; your bed-cam fails WP:OR. Do not editorialise, but quote what others have said. Blogs are not good, see WP:RS. Published articles are good whether they are fact of fiction; they can be presented as claims from other parties. Wikipedia is not about proof or truth. It just reports what published opinions are out there. Everycase is different, and every case requires consensus. There are no lines that can be drawn that say this is reliable and this is not. Consensus building is the key. Some sources are much better than others and common sense would dictate how different sources lie on the reliability gradient. If this is not clear enough then read WP:RS and WP:WEB. David D. (Talk) 03:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Forgive me for giving up three-quarters of the way through all that but I just thought I'd say, for whatever it may be worth, in a newspaper article (probably in the News of the World, if not, then The Sun) a man spoke of his gay affair with Colin Jackson. I can't recall it all but I remember reading Jackson ended the relationship by saying something like "You're thick. You are way below my intellect!" That was pretty much verbatim, funnily enough. This all happened when Jackson was on the TV a lot, so during some athletic games or Strictly Come Dancing. It was within the past year. Now if anyone's got the edition of that paper...