Talk:Billy Dee Williams

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Dee Williams article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

Star Wars Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles.
Citing sources : Jedi, Sith
Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs
Other : * See the things to do page
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Pronouns

What's the evidence that Williams prefers "they/them/their" instead of the traditional pronouns? – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's rough consensus that Williams is non-binary. Should we state this explicitly in the infobox and the lead with an RS? – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only "evidence" are internet tabloids deliberately misinterpetting him awkwardly saying he has a sensitive side. It's already attracting trolls, so you might want to consider reverting and locking the page for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.143.51 (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy has already made me report this page to WP:RPP. If it's protected, experienced reviewers will have to accept every IP revision before it goes live. If the article is protected, I'll add a little comment to the top saying that this page was protected because of pronoun disputes and that relevant discussion should be found on the talk page, along with what pronouns are already being used. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the main question, UnnamedUser, I think it's safer to use they/them pronouns since this is a WP:BLP. When the facts are unclear, I default to they/them until it can be sorted out later. That's at least my logic at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It appears that a New York Times article refers to him as "he": But Mr. Williams, though he had not appeared on Broadway in 10 years and had only brief rehearsal time for Fences (four weeks as against several years and several different productions for Mr. Jones), brought his own well-worn pair of spikes to the part. The New York Times is generally considered a reliable source, although it's sparked some controversy looking at the RS noticeboard archives. Meanwhile, a Chicago Tribune article also uses "he": Williams, 58, posted a $50,000 bail after police arrested him Tuesday night at his Hollywood home. According to MOS:GENDERID, we first go by the person's preference, then by what reliable sources use, then assume the traditional pronouns by the gender. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Esquire interview that seems to have sparked this controversy uses he/him, but includes this quote: "I never tried to be anything except myself. I think of myself as a relatively colorful character who doesn’t take himself or herself too seriously." This is later followed up by "And you see I say 'himself' and 'herself,' because I also see myself as feminine as well as masculine. I'm a very soft person. I'm not afraid to show that side of myself." Therefore, the pronouns that Williams uses for themself is him and her, but I'm not exactly sure it is reasonable for an encyclopedic to rotate between the two without a WP:RS doing the same thing (which they aren't). That's why I just think it's safer to just use they/them until the statement gets clarified. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... judging from the punctuation, the interview appears to interpret it as "himself" and "herself", not "himself and herself." This means that he is fine with both pronouns but does not use both at the same time. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnnamedUser: If that's your read on it, then I think the safest thing to do is mention the interview and quote in the lead and restore the use of he/him. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous and interpreting a single quote way too literally. You can be both a man and non-binary (i.e. not conform to gender stereotypes), even empathizing with the feminine (e.g. rhetorically saying 'herself' in the first person), without actually becoming a non-gender entity. It makes the article very confusing, which is somwhat humorous, but utterly non-encyclopedic.

Oh, but I completely agree with UnnamedUser's recent edit which both addresses how Billy Dee uses pronouns in the lead and defaults to 'he' per the majority of RS. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The single quote is all we have so far; there is not much room to find other evidence. Also, to not confuse readers, articles that use non-standard pronouns should explain the non-standard pronouns as early as possible – the lead. The article isn't entirely non-encyclopedic with the pronoun mix-up – it's only one issue, and there are no other glaring issues with the article, although it could use a bit of copyediting. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 05:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "they" makes it sound like a plural entity. I know there are some transgender people who prefer the pronoun because they don't identify as either gender and have no other option, but I really fail how to see how that applies to Mr. Williams. Am I being politically incorrect by saying this or referring to the suave gentleman who played Lando as such?

Star Wars actors are notorious for trolling the public by acting like their characters when promoting new films. And Lando is a pansexual character; just pointing out the obvious. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They/them of course can be used to refer to singular entities and people, I have no idea why people assume it's strictly for plural. Plus, it's just the safest pronouns to use for people who don't subscribe to the binary system.--SupermanFan97 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my point about his rhetorical use of the word "herself" to point out that he has a feminine side. He never said he was a "they/them". UpdateNerd (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion as to which pronouns should be used, but can something be settled on (even if temporary) to make the article somewhat presentable? I only say this because the article has been seesawing back and forth for the past five hours and not many of the revisions are consistent. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-

Wasn't going to involve myself here, but guess I can't help myself. 1. I lean towards using masculine pronouns in article, per every current source, including Esquire interview,[1], Out.com,[2] Pride.com,[3] and PinkNews.[4] 2. Don't think we should devote a paragraph in the lead to gender, because it's not a significant aspect of his/her notability. I'm going to replace it with new explanatory footnote. 3. Let's be me mindful of WP:CIVILITY please. Comments like "This pronoun crap needs to stop" aren't super helpful. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: pronouns

Close as option 3/moot point - Williams has stated that the interview in question was not a coming out, instead an awkward wording, and as such this is no longer a point of contention -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option 1: he/him pronouns continue to be used in the article indefinitely, and the article mentions the interview.
Option 2: they/them pronouns are used in the article, and the lede mentions the interview.
Option 3: the article has no mention of the interview and he/him pronouns are used.
(if I've skipped your opinion, please add it here and !vote for it)

Discussion isn't really going anywhere, and there's been some edit-warring going on in the main article about this. Not many of the revisions have been stable and consistent. I don't care one way or the other, but I see there are strong opinions actively conflicting each other. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 07:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey/discussion

Option 1. I think we can only stray so far from the sources. I haven't seen a single source use they/them pronouns, or anything except masculine pronouns, including LGBT-focused sources. See: the Esquire interview [5], Out.com,[6] Pride.com,[7] and PinkNews.[8].

I don't see he/him pronouns as being violation of WP:GENDERID. Williams herself says: I think of myself as a relatively colorful character who doesn’t take himself or herself too seriously. Note that word "or". To me, she's giving the option between one or the other.

Do I think Williams' statement about his gender should be mentioned in the article? Yeah, there's been a decent amount of coverage of it. I support a short paragraph about it in his personal life section (and, of course, I'm in favor of the short footnote that I added.) WanderingWanda (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. And I like what you did there, but I'm personally against a footnote after the first word of a sentence; it's clear from the (included) quote that he wasn't asking for the PC police to stop the internet every time someone calls him a 'he'. If this becomes more of a thing, sure, but as has been pointed out, even the article quoting him just says he. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statement in Personal life section ~~plus footnote in lead.~~ I’ve adjusted both a bit. Until Williams makes a more definitive statement, either directly to Wikipedia or in a reliable source, as to their preference it should remain as is. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – see talk page comments above. In short, we follow MOS:GENDERID. Because the interview is ambiguous, we follow RS, which use the masculine pronouns. – UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per UnnamedUser. I say we mention what was said in the interview in a sentence in the lead rather than a footnote as well. It's good to be careful with these types of things as I said above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MJL:, UnnamedUser doesn’t say we should add a sentence in the lead. I think that would be Undue as of yet until we have Williams stating a change from what we have is needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Gleeanon409: An UnnamedUser does not say that, but I am adding on my own opinions. It wouldn't be Undue since we have a lot of coverage of the interview, and the lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @MJL:, gotcha. Well I disagree, for now, but as it may be heading that direction anyway maybe you could offer an example of what you think could work?
      I’m thinking 1. Sourcing that shows Williams has been on this path prior, and/or 2. Evidence this is being widely covered, and/or 3. that Williams’ declaration is part of a broader movement for non-binary awareness. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Gleeanon409: I got these to start with.^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @MJL:, I suggest using these to add to the content in the article, then create a condensed version that could potentially help the Lead. This Fromm CNN could also help. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I might be on board with mentioning it if the lead were more in-depth. The paragraph that I removed felt WP:UNDUE to me largely because the lead is so short. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am addressing the short lead issue. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Seems the safest bet. I see no reason not to mention the interview somewhere in the article. I dont think the lede is the place to do it, but i dont feel strongly about that part. Bonewah (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 As we don't really have Billy clearly saying one is preferred over the other, I think we should go with 'he' unless Billy unambiguously says otherwise. I don't think it should go in the lede; I like WanderingWanda's suggestion of an explanatory footnote. LizzieMack (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 It's the best choice here. HAL 333 00:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In light of his recent clarification in a follow-up interview, I support Option 3 or adding this additional interview for context - Billy Dee Williams: ‘What the hell is gender fluid?’ - He was misunderstood, he says. “But what I was talking about was about men getting in touch with their softer side of themselves...So, that’s what I was referring to. I was talking about men getting in touch with the female side of themselves. Additional source covering his clarification - Star Wars Actor Billy Dee Williams Says He Is Not Gender-Fluid - Instead of a gender-fluid identity, Williams said he was referring to the anima, the inner feminine side of men. The concept is part of the theory of the collective unconscious created by Carl Jung, the founder of analytical psychology. I also support removing the footnote from the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Isaidnoway. Was in support of Option 1 before (didn't vote as there already seemed to be a consensus) but with these new articles, it seems we are reading too much into one comment. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As he’s clarified his surprising statements and we’ve likewise updated the coverage, I think this can be closed for now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Billy Dee Williams also played the lead role of Scott Joplin in the 1977 TV movie if the same name. 84.66.64.115 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian's Song

Why didn't someone add Billy D Williams movie Brian's Song where he played true story of Chicago Cubs Gale Sares?! At the top it says he is best known as Lando and then names other movies! But for my generation (I'm 60) we knew him as Gale Sares in Brian's Song Movie 1971 first, then Lando the Star Wars Franchise! Please someone add! My login info wasn't working! Thank you! 2603:6010:7301:2A03:6193:2193:AE4C:D9BA (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]