Talk:Zachary Quinto

Movie

Inglourious Basterds? For sure? Think, that's Eli Roth not Zach Quinto. He looks a lot like him... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.144.30.66 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I changed it from a template picture, to a picture of Sylar as this is what he plays. I can change back to template if wanted. Cocopopz2005 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, you offered to do it so change it back. That picture is a publicity photo taken from the NBC website illustrating the character Sylar; it is not a photo illustrating Zachary Quinto. That's a rather subtle distinction but critical from Wikipedia's viewpoint. The key concept here is Wikipedia's fair use policy, specifically clause one:

"1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis added)

And the picture also matches example eight used in examples of unacceptable use section:

"8. An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph."

It is possible to create a free use picture of Zachary, but the absence of any known free use image does not automatically allow a fair use one to be used. Tabercil 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this picture. He looks like a hideous, sloppy troll. Something better must be available. - MSTCrow 21:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. Find another picture and upload it... just make sure that the picture that replaces it is free-use as well. Tabercil 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll upload some...he has some cute ones on zachary-quinto.com this picture makes him look really weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainforestsavior (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Make sure that you own the copyright, or you can get the copyright holder's permission. Annie D 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Him

Isn't he the dude from smpfilms on youtube? 79.114.224.171 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

-I think that guys name is Cory Williams Le Raine (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding IMDb

Wikipedia: Reliable sources - Are wikis reliable sources specifies that wikis are not allowed as reference sources. IMDb falls under that definition as it has solely user-generated content, and, as noted elsewhere at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, IMDb does not "have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." --207.237.223.118 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I’m not familiar with Italian (I assume his last name is Italian); is Quinto pronounced /kwɪntoʊ/ or /kintoʊ/, or something else? —Frungi (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

kwɪntoʊ is correct, [1] CTJF83 chat 07:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

R U Kiding Me?

These insanely BAD photos are all you can come up with to represent Zachary Quinto? Really? It's as if someone scoured the world for THE VERY WORST PIX THEY COULD FIND. Seriously, you had to go out of your way to find a bad shot of the guy, and you dramatically succeeded. How ironic. TakenREALhigh (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 02:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Activism

If activism is a significant enough issue that it requires a subheading, you should include these activities as well.

1) His activism supporting animal shelters and adoption. This issue is personal as his own dog Noah, was adopted from a shelter.

2) His activities regarding women's rights in the performing arts. This included acting recently in two short plays. This is significant as it ties into his career as an actor, and a man who works hard to support women's issues should be noted.

3) His activities supporting "up and coming" playwrights. This included acting in a short play, which is freely available on youtube and can be linked to the article.

I am not a writer or researcher, but I feel these are significant activities, especially when they include performance work. These activities are similar to his support of gay rights.

He is an activist and should be noted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.182.119 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bladerunner100 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well add them, but stop removing the gay rights activism. CTJF83 chat 03:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Activism

I will reinstate the "activism" section. it has been in this article nearly continuously since at least 2010, with only 1 editor, User:Bladerunner100, removing it twice (while arguing above for Quinto being described as an activist in other areas), once tagging the removal as a minor edit (they are not very experienced as an editor, so that is probably unintentional). If anyone thinks his activism is not notable enough for a mention, please discuss it here. sources for his other projects as an activist would be welcomed, again if not the routine sort of philanthropy that many actors engage in.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of compartmentalizing like this but it's probably the best solution at the moment. I've added some more and tweaked the prose a bit. On another subject, can someone who knows how tweak the columns in his filmography so that the date 2005 isn't sitting alone at the bottom of column 1? 70.226.172.220 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Filmography has been table-ized, using WP:FILMOGRAPHY guidelines. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Borders ‖ 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the compartmentalization issue. i reinstated as it was, as that was bold enough for me. others have changed it to Personal Life, which i am fine with.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

I beleive he just came out in a magazine interview. Can we use this as a source? http://nymag.com/movies/features/zachary-quinto-2011-10/ Indisciplined (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and on his website. I think we can take that as official. http://www.zacharyquinto.com/news/2011/10/post.html Indisciplined (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I cut that big blockquote down by reformulating, we have summary style to stick to the essentials, as an encyclopedia should. Someone reverted this edit citing other articles that have blockquotes. I believe this is an invalid comparison. Why use copyrighted material when we can simply summarize? The citations lead to the articles proper so people interested can look them up. The summary style also avoids the appearance of inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention. Hekerui (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, comparing an article about a person to other articles about a person is invalid? No. It is acceptable to use small amounts of copyrighted material and indeed elsewhere in this same article another quote has sat for a long time without there being an issue about it. Using a couple of sentences of quoted material, especially about a subject (the person's homosexuality) that has led to long, contentious and ultimately wasteful fights all over Wikipedia, seems completely reasonable. 70.226.172.220 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not removal of quotes - it's called editing: it does not add encyclopedic value to quote long monologues with bad spelling when we can say what the post says in a mere sentence. Wikipedia is not the news. All you did is revert constructive edits twice while pointing to other articles that you don't name. Hekerui (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This is precisely the sort of minimizing of anything related to GLBT topics which so often occurs. Those 'monologues' weren't really long and they do provide a clear insight into Quinto's artistic motivations. That, alone, makes them relevant. I'd like to see them returned, but am asking first to avoid the usual escalation involving anything positive towards the GLBT community or negative towards the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.122.84 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You boldly edited, you were reverted, now it's time to discuss and not edit war. Your attaching a value judgment to the supposed "bad spelling" (of which there is none, unless you think e. e. cummings and Don Marquis are "bad spellers") is troubling. One editor's "constructive edit" is another's "censorship". It's obvious that there are heated feelings around how sexual orientation is presented in this article specifically and on Wikipedia in general. More than one editor has expressed the opinion that the quotes do add encyclopedic value to the article. Instead of blindly reverting, hash it out here like you're supposed to. 70.226.172.220 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

1) How did I censor by editing a big quote? Summary style is not censorship - explain why we need to post a whole paragraph of his personal writings when we can summarize. 2) There are three paragraphs about sexual orientation in the "personal life" section, one a blockquote, but nothing else. Doesn't that reek of recentism, overemphasis of recent events? Would we post a whole blockquote of blogposts about his religion, political opinion, education, or musical taste? 3) What are these other quality articles that post big blockquotes because a summary won't do? 4) If Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, why is it less desireable to reformulate his statements in one's own words instead of writing a "personal life" section almost entirely made up of quotations? 5) Why is the inclusion of quotes and blockquotes necessary when the total content by Quinto is accessible via the citation and the statement "as a gay man" (to satisfy BLP concerns) can even be put in the quote parameter of a citation? Hekerui (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit took care of the unnecessary detail. Hekerui (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, the forces of censorship win again. Did it ever occur to you and the rest of the brain trust that the answer to the appearance of "too much information" about one aspect of his personal life is not to remove vast swaths of the information but to add more information about other aspects? Of course not, because it's always easier to tear chunks of information out than it is to do the research for improvement. Well done. Wikipedia is so much better thanks to your efforts here. 70.226.172.220 (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. I wonder how many times we will get to see that padlock show up on this article, how many hours of time wasted as the conservative Christian lobby here at Wikipedia treat us to another round of wikilawyering, letter,not spirit of the policy charges and endless bad feelings and bad publicity all around. Can't wait to see how they try to push their 'but his being gay is not a notable aspect of his career' agenda with an actor who is so deeply committed to full human status and all civil rights for all Americans. Here's to hoping I'm wrong this time.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.174.19 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

While i understand the argument against having a blockquote here of this size (due emphasis, not copyright, which is completely fair), i think considering that he is very much an activist, has played a massively iconic character (spock), and that the quote helps readers to understand why he in particular made the choice to come out (a very contentious issue), the quote is appropriate. if he was a lower profile actor or activist, it would be clearly excessive. If he gets any significant negative response, say from conservative groups, we can add that for balance. I see we also have a quote from the trek director thats pretty long, with no arguments about it. (as an aside, i do see lots of silly quotes on various pages, like actors saying "i get my inspiration from my upbringing" or "the acting process is complicated", bla bla bla-they should be removed)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, balance is a relative term. These epic battles over virtually every point of LGBT topics arise to some extent because members of the LGBT community (also in America) are being murdered, raped, beaten, losing their jobs, thrown from their homes as children, denied attendance upon the death beds of their spouses, and principally denied human status and the civil rights every other person in, for instance, the US is extended.

This leads to extreme caution on our part when editors start making edits which, superficially and individually adhere to wikipolicies but, in sum, are a purposeful attack on the LGBT community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.122.84 (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny how a quote about how he agreed to do a short film for his damn landlady is deemed encyclopedic but a quote dealing with his personal struggle to come out publicly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.172.220 (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hekerui, I genuinely don't know if your deleting information on Quinto's non-cis gendered, non-heterosexual, non-heteronormative, non-conservative Christian world view was motivated by the reasons you bring up in your long list at 8.36 17Oct. You might want to enlighten those of us who object. What I do know is that this is exactly the means by which those editors who don't like the GLBT community defend their deletionist and minimizing activities towards us across virtually every article touching upon either a positive portrayal of one of us or highlighting the viciousness with which we are persecuted, especially in the US. It always culminates in major edit wars. Certain select admins who just happen to be avaliable get roped in by the anti-GLBT editors. Major wikilawyering occurs. Calls for consensus are peppered with sweet little notes from the anti-GLBT editors on how all of us who object are either one-issue or just showed up and thus must be ignored. Finally, after enormous damage to the reputation of the encyclopedia, and tremendous time and effort, nothing good comes of it for either side. If, as you claim, your intentions are purely to enforce minimalist policies, then I do think it would be useful to explain why you chose to cut this bio instead of working on one of the thousands of articles which are tagged for genuine problems. Again, I'm not reverting, I'm asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.122.84 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Folks, if I can point out one thing: we are an encyclopedia. Let's look at the Oxford Dictionary definition for that word: "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." In short we are a summary of things and are not expected to be a complete biography. Tabercil (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How interesting that you focus on summarizing that content which the conservative Christians around here don't like. But, hey, as long as we are playing the game this way, let me point out to you that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia ans there is absolutely not one single solitary policy which forces us to cut or summarize exactly that information in a biography which is directly relevant to those notable aspects of the person being portrayed.

Quinto, regardless of his activism, has written directed, acted and now owns a production studio aimed expressly at the exact issues which were summarized into trivial nothingness. Yup, this is going down exactly the same way all these attacks on GLBT articles go down. You conservative Christians pull out all the "policy" you can to set up a smoke screen for your agenda. An agenda of riding Wikipedia of any positive GLBT commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.122.84 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And there we go - semi-proteced so the anti-GLBT cuts can be locked in. Yup, it's holding true to form. We all know what comes next. Sigh. Wouldn't it be easier for the Christians to actually just sit down and talk this through? Look at the other LGBT sites where the Christians first succeeded - in the end, verfiability and notability wins out. Will here, too. Eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.74.83 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is protected against your childish vandalism. You don't like it? Create an account. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me that it's not even mentioned in the lede. But then, it's not in opening for the Neil Patrick Harris or John Barrowman articles. If the information was being removed from Quinto's article completely, that'd be a problem.

I find ironic that there are accusations of conservative bias being made. In other articles, there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth that Wikipedia is full of lefty loons. Part of why Conservapedia was created, apparently. Argue merits, and not making personal or ideological attacks, will get much better results here. And in the real world, too. If there is such a thing; I have my doubts. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 22:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why this information was removed from lead is simple. Quinto is not know for being gay nor it has impacted his biographic life. Unlike Barrowman or Harris, Quinto came out recently. The only that may be noted in the WP:LEAD is that he is an LGBT activist if he is known for that. See Billie Joe Armstrong as an example, he is bisexual but is not known for that, or it has a major imapct on his life Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Childish vandalism? I have not made one change, not one. There is also no requirement that one register in order to edit here. You have, however, encouraged me. I won't register, you can't semi-protect without cause indefinitely. Once editing again becomes possible, I might just choose to. Making such statements as 'childish vandalism' will carry the day with the drive-by admins. sympathetic to your cause. It won't help you with those interested in actually making Wikipedia accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.117.40 (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was your vandalism, I was referring to IP users who start to disrupt as soon as something happens. Second, the page is not protected "indefinitely", is protected until 20 October. Third, you are not obligated to create an account, if you don't want. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the 'your vandalism' part of your statement obviously didn't mean 'your vandalism'. Right.

I find it interesting that you had the page protected after the Christian deletionists started their work and before those of us trying to reason with them could achieve resolution. If your are acting out of genuine good faith, then may I suggest you look at the large number of LGBT articles which have seen major edit wars over the last years. You'll have no trouble finding a clear pattern. The anti-GLBT group here swoops in with wikilawyering tactics, gets things locked down as they like and it then takes an enormous amount of time to get things back to a degree of competence. The bad feelings engendered along the way (that hockey player's son, George Reekers, etc.) lead to heightened interest from the GLBT community which, in turn leads to more wikilawyering by the Christians which...well, it doesn't have to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.117.40 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you brought your concerns to the attention of the LGBT WikiProject? They might be able to provide additional information on this matter. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 00:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That hadn't occurred to me, thank you. I shall look into that. I've followed this across quite a few articles over the last several years and there is a clear pattern to it. Wikipedia is not edited in a vacuum and it makes sense that civil rights advocates and Christians are not going to agree on truth. When verifiable and notable information gets cut in the name of a Christian agenda, then it is time to reconsider whether the current one-size fits all approach to conflict resolution is the best. Thanks for the tip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.117.40 (talk • contribs) 20:57, October 18, 2011

Sure, you live in Virginia, it is sooo obvious that it was you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I am not in Virginia, nor have I been since the 1970's. Whatever IP you think you are tracking, if it puts me anywhere other than Central Europe, you're doing something wrong - I'm not spoofing or redirecting or tunneling or anything else. An internet café might use different IP addresses, but Virginia? That is exactly the sort of aggressive nasty attack which will play well with the drive-by Christian admins but not with those truly interested in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.117.40 (talk • contribs) 20:57, October 18, 2011

Arbitrary break

I'm the author of the "Personal life" section that is currently in place. The frankly ludicrous posts about "gay-bashing Christians" had me convinced the IP editors were trolling this talk page, but it appears they are serious, so I think it's time for a serious discussion on the content of the "Personal life" section. Please do stop the ad hominem attacks on other editors; they only serve to make you look like loons, especially since you have no idea what other people's religious beliefs and sexual orientations are.

Alright, the section that is now in place covers the two most important aspects of Quinto's coming out: when (October 2011) and why (the suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer). In addition, it includes a quote that conveys both his desire to make a "significant contribution" to the LGBT social movement in the U.S., and his belief that there is "immense work" to be done to achieve "complete equality".

I removed the Angels in America quote (see here), in which Quinto states that the 1980s AIDS epidemic was terrible, and that there's much work to be done to achieve equality. The first point is a no-brainer and of no real encyclopedic value here, and the second point is relayed in the quote mentioned above. I also removed most of his website statement (again, see here), where he mentions that both he and Jamey Rodemeyer made an "It Gets Better" video. In my opinion it's not very significant and really takes away from the key statement mentioned above.

Re: his activism, I added his support for the Trevor Project but removed the existing examples. I was wrong to remove the "Standing on Ceremony" and "The Laramie Project" performances and will add them back. I'm iffy on whether the "It Gets Better" video should be cited as an example of LGBT activism. His appearance at the Gay and Lesbian Center gala should definitely stay out. It's the equivalent of citing someone as giving a homeless person five bucks and calling them a humanitarian.

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact that the article was semi-protected without the slightest real grounds for doing so speaks for itself. Quinto's activism on GLBT rights is not something he has done on the side for publicity, it has been one of the primary interests of his professional career and personal investments. Once the protect comes off, I will reinstate most of what was stripped on these topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.168.237 (talk • contribs) 13:43, October 19, 2011

Vandalism is a valid reason to semi-protect. If you reinstate the info without discussion, it will be removed again. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed. I have stated valid reasons. I have not changed anything. You, on the other hand, have made changes then had things locked down. Now you are preemptively accusing me of vandalism. This is precisely the way all these articles on GLBT topics are fought out. That semi-protect comes off, I make changes with clear reasons given here on the discussion page (being bold is only permitted for those with a Christian agenda, obviously), you revert, I revert back - unless, of course you revert then have a drive-by Christian administrator lock things down at once again and the whole thing blows up the way it does on so many GLBT articles.

You could, of course, drop the threats, break the pattern and actually accept that your Christian viewpoint is not sufficient reason to alter verifiable aspects of a notable GLBT biographie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.33.191 (talk • contribs) 00:41, October 20, 2011

Again with the "gay-bashing Christians" rhetoric. I'm done. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Obvious trolling, please don't feed. Hekerui (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling me a troll is helpful. Actually, making changes and then locking the article down is not helpful, either. You are going to have to lift the semi-protect eventually and then we can have a discussion about making changes. Be bold is not meant in the context of your side gets to change things and then the side of civil rights is locked out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.33.191 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember everyone to Act in Good Faith and comment only on content and NOT people.

It does no one any good to start an edit war or argue without seeing the other person's point.

I'll be watching how things progress from here.

Thanks Jenova20 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that the IP intends to be disruptive. "civil rights advocates and Christians are not going to agree on truth", "Christian agenda", "Christian deletionists", "Christian administrators" - all out of thin air. I asked for some guidance on how to proceed on the admin noticeboard. Hekerui (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I haven't seen that from him as yet but it shouldn't continue from this point.

Christians and LGBT don't need to agree anyway, they just need to be neutral and avoid edit wars Jenova20 16:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive?

I haven't made a single edit. Nor have I said I would automatically revert anything without discussion. Nor have I made changes and then had things locked down with a semi-protect to prevent changes from being made. Yes, once the semi-protect comes off, I do intend to be active in editing this article. That is not being disruptive. And, yes, I do think there is a clear danger of LGBT articles in Wikipedia being altered by a group of people with a clear agenda (whom I subsume as 'Christians'). One need only look at the discussions on several LGBT associated topics or biographies to see that there is, indeed, quite a bit of conflict. Still - not one edit have I made, not one disruption have I committed and yet have been vilified as both a vandal and a troll.92.194.33.191 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First, you clearly threatened to edit-war here. If that was not your intention, maybe you need to be more careful with how you word your posts. Second, and for the last time, the article was semi-protected because of vandalism (i.e. "fag who will burn in hell", "likes it up the butt", etc.). This is standard protocol. Third, you are disrupting this conversation. It's baffling that you can't seem to grasp that people's hackles are raised when you accuse them over and over of being homophobic without the slightest foundation. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we call the bickering to an end at this point and just come to an acceptable format of the missing text?

Thanks Jenova20 09:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What missing text? The personal life section is detailed regarding his sexual orientation and the omission of blockquotes from his blog does nothing to hamper understanding as their content is summarized already. As mentioned before, we are not a soapbox or a news outlet but an encyclopedia and the current style is more than sufficient lest we give undue weight to recent events. Hekerui (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, scrap that, there doesn't appear to be missing text.

The personal life section is indeed detailed and not missing anything noteable.

I don't see a problem with including a few of the quotes if they're relevant and don't take up too much space since they can actually improve the article.

I'm still looking through the history of the article to see though before i give a full opinion.

Thanks Jenova20 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, my verdict is that the article is good at the moment but that our anonymous friend here had a point with the quotes as they do really give an insight into his mind and his reasoning for his decisions. That said, they still take up too much space and so i've trimmed them down to what really fits. Do you have a problem with these two Hekerui?:

• "when i found out that jamey rodemeyer killed himself - i felt deeply troubled. but when i found out that jamey rodemeyer had made an it gets better video only months before taking his own life - i felt indescribable despair."
• "in light of jamey's death - it became clear to me in an instant that living a gay life without publicly acknowledging it - is simply not enough to make any significant contribution to the immense work that lies ahead on the road to complete equality."

Thanks Jenova20 14:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

These two quotes are exactly what I would have liked to have seen reinstated. I'd like to see the two paragraphs returned to the article. Quinto has given several interviews and made several statements on the topic of civil rights these last days. I'd like to revisit them in a while and incorporate them. At this point, I don't see how anyone can argue that he has not made civil rights a priority in his notable private artistic and commercial ventures. Thanks Ebyabe for suggesting the LGBT Wikiproject. Thanks Jenova for taking the time to help make this article better.92.194.16.13 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As Prayer for the wild at heart said, these are unnecessary detail. They are redundant to the text already in the article, which even mentions Jamey Rodemeyer. They add no new information and are merely longer. They do not significantly improve the coverage and I oppose their inclusion. Quantity does not equal quality (and sexual orientation has a lot of content in the article already). Hekerui (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. They are neither redundant nor are they superfluous. This is not a paper bound encyclopedia, we do not have to all be minimalistic in our approach. These two paragraphs add a necessary amount of depth. Given the clear and well established fact that Quinto does not separate his immutable sexual orientation from his professional life, I see them as worthwhile additions to a biography on him. So, here we are. I want to put them in, you want them out. Where do we go from here? I mean that seriously, by the way, so don't go running off to have me locked out for asking - it is a genuine question as opposed to just putting them back in.

I tend to agree that the quotes are unnecessary for the article. They would, as block quotes, overwhelm the short personal life section. Are they truly necessary, considering that the facts contained in them are already included in the written text?. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, there needs to be balance. That said, this is a biography and - I do realize this is a philosophical dispute which extends beyond this article - there are two perspectives on non-paper based encyclopedias. Some people are minimalists, they want to keep the limitations of paper based reference works and apply them to Wikipedia. Others (I am one) feel that the limit should be what is verifiable and notable (I also believe in truth but that concept has no place in Wikipedia).

The direct question for me is whether these two quotes contribute materially to a biography of Quinto, not whether one could reduce him to: GQ model, gay, out, actor, production company owner, director, civil rights advocate, 34 years old, male.

I think they contribute materially. If one follows his activities over the last years, not just those since the bullying death of that poor child, then this is not flash-in-the-pan personal life material on a level of Leonard Nimoy's decision that Quinto had the acting chops to wear his ears. This is material which reflects long-term aspects of this actors private and commericial work.

I want them in. I want quite a bit more about him in the article, especially regarding his notable status as a force within the battle for civil and human rights for a group of people who are murdered, raped, beaten and persecuted in America more than any other minority group - gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgender.92.194.214.93 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want quotes in the article not because they provide new biographical information (which is already included, as Tony Fox said), but so an issue of "a group of people who are murdered, raped, beaten and persecuted in America" is given more attention, you run afoul WP:NOTADVOCATE. Hekerui (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I want them in because they are directly relevant to this man's notability. I have already acknowledged that truth place no role in what is permitted in Wikipedia. That does not mean that you get to ignore significant, notable contributions from the person who is subject to the article simply because he is an advocate for justice as opposed to oppression. I'm putting them back in.

Now, I freely admit that my editing skills are not that great, if somebody can better place the two quotes, that would be great. Thanks.92.194.214.93 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Did you even bother to read the article before editing? The second quote you added was already included: 'He explained that, after the suicide of gay teenager Jamey Rodemeyer, he realized "that living a gay life without publicly acknowledging it, is simply not enough to make any significant contribution to the immense work that lies ahead on the road to complete equality."' The second quote is superfluous; the fact that both Quinto and Jamey made an "It Gets Better" video is really not relevant to Quinto's biography. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read, it, no I didn't see it, yes I admitted that I am inexperienced (this is my first edit at all) and, frankly, instead of calling me names (vandal, troll) why don't you help by deleting the duplicate and not going out of your way to be hostile? You've already made your position crystal clear. Now, please help because, obviously, we have both managed to attract enough attention from the powers that be that the only way forward is to work together.92.194.214.93 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Prayer for the wild at heart is correct, these quotes are redundant to what's already in the article and in addition their formatting makes them stick out - we are not advocates. As for the name calling accusations: following what you wrote on this talk page this can't be taken seriously. Hekerui (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow. I ask for help, you snarl back that we are not advocates.92.194.214.93 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what I would like to put back into the article. Comments?92.194.214.93 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"in light of jamey's death - it became clear to me in an instant that living a gay life without publicly acknowledging it - is simply not enough to make any significant contribution to the immense work that lies ahead on the road to complete equality."

That quote is already used in the article! Hekerui (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I just did a text search to confirm it, that quote is not currently in the article. I would like to see it put back in.92.194.214.93 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is in the article - it's the second sentence under Personal Life. What it isn't is in 18point pink blockquotes. It does of course want to be in the article - it's a really powerful statement of how he feels about it, and I would oppose anyone trying to take it out, but it doesn't need to be in a pull quote. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the exact wording, but at this point, I'll just say thanks for the support. It is a powerful statement. The level of hostility towards LGBT topics from many editors is quite something.92.194.214.93 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek project rating

After reading importance scale criteria, changed Star Trek importance for this article. C. Williams (talk)

Name

In an effort to improve cooperation, I have decided to take on a username. I'm the formerly anonymous user here who wants to expand the LGBT aspects of Quinto's biography.Pauci leones (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. I personally find it easier to relate to usernames (no matter what they are) than strings of numbers, so I appreciate you doing that. In terms of the article, there is an element of 'the long run' here. It may well be over time that reactions in the media increase, or he has an increased level of activism that warrants it's own section etc. "Coming out" is still an important act for a Hollywood actor (unlike a UK politician, where we seem to have got to the stage where we would prefer an honest declaration of partnership than embarassingly revealing a lover at the end of a financial scandal), so we should wait and see what transpires further. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And - recalling a strange conversation elsewhere when John Barrowman suggested he might play James Bond - some of the hostility may be as much a wierd element of uncomfortableness/disappointment/betrayal as anything else ("but I really liked him....and he's gay!"). I wouldn't see a vast conspiracy here - or make too many accusations at others. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Elen. I'm European, married to a wonderful man and we split our time between Europe, where we are fully human with full civil rights and the US where we aren't even granted human status. It does tend to leave one rather impatient when dealing with Americans who demand their persecution of us be seen as NPOV and recognition of our civil rights is 'advocacy'. Well, whatever. After this bit of theater, I'm in it for the long haul. Wanted the user name 'janto', by the by.Pauci leones (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I would think that was long taken. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Relationships

Just to note that I seem at the moment to be persistently reverting inclusions of 'is/was/rumoured to be dating X' type information. This is not because I have any objection to adding information on a same sex partner, just that none of these additions are ever sourced, and if they were all true, he seems to be dating half of Hollywood. I rather imagine that if he does have a partner, he would say. When he does, even if it's to Hello magazine, it can go in the article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect most of these are 'I wish they were dating' instead of 'I have verifiable sources that they are dating'. Personally, I totally see him with Ryan Gossling, but that's (sadly) not verifiable. Now, one speculation I see coming up, but not yet in a 'serious' source is that Spock in the next film will reflect Quinto's orientation.

This would resolve the 'no gay characters' problem in the franchise very well.Pauci leones (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd have said that would spoil the slashers' day, but given that Janto didn't..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, slashers are used to making a lot of soup out of one teeny-tiny oyster, so, no, I doubt this would stop them, either. It would be cool though. After all these years, we need to have StarTrek catch up.Pauci leones (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chair

Should it be included that Quinto, producer of The Chair, called Shane Dawson's film Not Cool offensive, and he should not be making movies? He also took his name off Dawson's film but left his name on the film he was competing against. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Quinto was born at the age of 39? Really?

Quote from the top page: "Born Zachary John Quinto

June 2, 1977 (age 39)

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S. "134.247.251.245 (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The age there to tell people how old he is. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Angels in America

What sources say he's well-known for this? This edit summary doesn't actually support the wording or the prominence. --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have removed it as well without references. Never heard it mentioned anywhere that he was in the play, or discussed by him in any interview. --Ebyabe (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Worth adding mention?

The Investigation: A Search for the Truth in Ten Acts ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)