Speculating if someone who has not come out as a BL can be a dangerous and potentially libelous. Plus, I feel strongly that we should not engage in that. Is there a way you can reword the intro to that section to make it a little less inflammatory and make it focus more on that the man enjoys working with boys etc.. and has many boys in his films and let people draw their own conclusion for that? BTW, thanks for all you work. As I am sure User4 will tell you, I am not a big "thank you' kind of guy" or a flatterer.. just know that your efforts are appreciated. --Etenne 12:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I will find a way to rework it without the speculation. Thomasmann (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"This has led to speculation regarding his sexual orientation."
- User4, I think in order to say something like that, Etenne would want the speculation to be from some kind of mainstream newspaper or something. It's ok I think. I just revised the article completely leaving out any speculation or my own thoughts. It's just the facts posted there now. And you don't have to be a genius to see what the facts indicate here. This guy is without a doubt, a 100% and complete _________. Personally, I hope we never can verify it through news media because the only reason that'd be in the news is if he got in trouble for something. He's one of my very favorite directors. I want him to stay safe and making excellent movies with cute boys for the rest of my days. Thomasmann (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm... so here's the conundrum we face: You-know-who's won't out themselves. The media lies and distortions are not countered in the major media. Until gays "came out" in large numbers, there was no "gay liberation movement." We allow ourselves to be tyrannized by a small number of very vocal nutcases. And so "the love that dare not speak its name" remains silent. Have you read America's War on Sex yet? User4 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in the Education business. I disseminate important information about us to concerned others. Almost no one else in the world is doing what I am doing and in the way I am doing it. For example, I made information available about safely and easily setting up blogs--blogs that couldn't be automatically shut down by a few "complainer" antis. Several blogs were subsequently set up by BoyLovers, and continue to this day. I have made many many many books, articles, etc. easily available that educate the public, including other BoyLovers. I still have a huge amount of work to do--making obscure books easily available, etc. "Outing" myself could mean the end to all my activities. Do you think I should risk all that by "outing" myself? User4 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Coming out" is indeed a very risky business. I "came out" (in confidence, so I thought) to one family member, who then "outed" me to the rest of the family. This did not improve at all my relationship with the other family members...
- Just yanking my chain, huh? That's OK. I yank it by myself all the time... User4 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
features vs. feature in
My understanding is that "to feature" means to place strong emphasis on, while "to feature in" means that something is merely one element, among many. To state that "he features young boys in his films" is a much stronger statement than "young boys feature in his films". Would you agree with the distinction I make here?
Actually, if you don't mind, I'd like to go through the article and make what I think are some minor but important corrections. You can always revert them, if you don't agree with the changes that I make. Do you mind if I edit the article? User4 (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)