Talk:Charles Nelson Reilly

	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 Musicians.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut 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.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GLBT persons category

Is there any particular reason why the category "GLBT persons" or whatever it is for gays and lesbians isn't listed here? It's no secret that he's gay. I will add it unless there's some criterion for inclusion that I'm not aware of. Moncrief 02:34, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought it was just part of his television personality. After all, just because a guy is idiosyncratic doesn't necessarily make him gay! Also, what's with the blanket category GLBT? I'd say a transsexual is distinctly different from a homosexual, and that one is not synonymous with the other. --M.Neko 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will chime in again with "it's no secret." The LA Times had an article on May 5, 2002 that referenced "Patrick Hughes, a set decorator-dresser and Reilly's companion of nearly 21 years." His MySpace page (I'm not kidding, http://www.myspace.com/charlesnelsonreilly, and it's linked from his latest project) notes that he's "in a relationship." Jaidit 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death

I don't understand why including the date of Reilly's death is considered "vandalism". This article is incomplete otherwise. Segan3900 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of problems in the past, adding a death date requires a published source as a citation. The early edits adding the date did not include a source. Jokestress 03:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a source, death dates are problematic. As of early Monday morning, the New York Times and CNN don't agree on date of death (25th and 27th, respectively). Accordingly, I'm not changing the article until the story develops and more sources can bear out one of the two as accurate. —C.Fred (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We note the discrepancy in cases like this rather than pick one. Generally, the AP (via CNN) is less likely to be reliable, especially when there is no byline. Jokestress 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the AP is now reporting May 25, quoting Reilly's in the New York Times obit. CNN is still running the uncorrected AP piece on their website. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Match Game quip by Dawson

Moving this here for discussion:

Ironically, a direct allusion to his sexual orientation was made in an early episode of Match Game. Reilly joked that he was an expert in maritime terminology because he "once rode the Staten Island Ferry." An off-camera panelist (presumably Richard Dawson) blurted out, "I thought you were the Staten Island Fairy." The comment was left in the show though many thought it was in poor taste.

Setting aside the unsourced last sentence, I don't know if this is necessary in an encyclopedia article. Thoughts? Jokestress 03:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start classification

I have classified this article as a start for the Bio project similar to its LGBT rating. It needs more sourcing. Capitalistroadster 06:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse?

How can he be listed as having a "spouse"? He has a homosexual partner, not a spouse. His partner could only be classified as a spouse if he were legally married in some jurisdiction, and possibly then only if the jurisdiction in which he resided recognized that marriage. I don't see any references that indicate he was married. Living with someone of the same sex does not make that person his spouse. Even a civil union would not make his partner his spouse. Does anyone have a reference indicating he was legally married? If not, the infobox needs to be changed. Talmage 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. Assembly Bill 205 essentially amended references in California law to "spouse" to include "domestic partner." Having said that, I am not aware of a published source that states Reilly and Hughes were spouses as provided by California law. What needs to be changed is the infobox template itself. Jokestress 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is something concrete to make his partner his legal spouse, he has no spouse and the infobox template should be adjusted accordingly. I am going to change it again. If someone believes "spouse" is accurate then he or she needs to discuss it here. Talmage 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That right there is the reason people argue for same-sex marriage. You've just invalidated a relationship of 27 years. While I recognize the letter of the definition of "spouse" is not met, since they (presumably) were not married, the spirit of the definition of spouse definitely applies. Especially since they can't get married, by federal law. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't invalidated anything. I don't write policy, and I'm not advocating anything except accurate documentation of fact! He had no spouse since he was not married. Would heterosexuals in long-term unmarried relationships be documented as "spouses"? I could cite numerous examples where that aren't. If you think you can change public policy or the law itself by advancing your political agenda through Wikipedia, then think again. Talmage 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I just added "partner" to the template for infobox actor to have a line for "partner" for long-term unmarried partners, & have now switched his partner to that line -- so hopefully now this edit war can cease. --Yksin 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm.....my only concern is whether a separate but equal concession is really progress. --emerson7 | Talk 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gee, who said anything about "equal"? Not me. But the fact is that the law, in most jurisdictions, has not caught up with the reality of our lives. And there are those editors -- Talmage obviously being one -- who will insist that in this regard Wikipedia follow the legal standard re: use of the word "spouse" -- but are yet willing to recognize that we have committed relationships with words like "partner" or "companion." So... Wikipedia will continue to reflect our culture's double-standard. Maybe one day it will change. Meanwhile, we have a peaceful resolution for the time being, without need to violate WP:POINT.--Yksin 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course i agree with you...you did the right thing. cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 03:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's often generational but I'm fairly confident "life-partner" is appropriate and will technically get by the homophobe detectors. Many queers hate the terms spouse, partner, wedding and all the other patriarchal baggage that goes with implied ownership of one's "wife." Having stated that, once people get older they simply love each other regardless of any labels or legal restrictions certain presidents may want to write into the US Constitution. p.s. Reilly was a scream and should be remembered for blazing a trail for nelly queens everywhere. Benjiboi 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If homosexuals marry in a jurisdiction in which they are legally entitled to do so, then the term spouse is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedic context. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to analyze nor to advance any social, political, or religious agendas. It has nothing to do with homophobia and the preceding comment is rather ignorant. The point is to document verifiable fact, regardless of how we feel about such facts. If someone were to come across the page on Charles Nelson Riley after emerson7's modifications, he or she might erroneously believe Charles Nelson Riley was legally married, since "spouse" was written. We would then be disseminating false information. As far as not wanting to condone a "separate but equal" mentality, promote your political views in the political arena, not through falsely editing an article on Wikipedia. Perhaps if I modify the article on Saudi Arabia to reflect that religious tolerance exists there it suddenly will. Perhaps if I modify Usama Bin Laden's article to say he was captured yesterday by U.S. troops, he magically will be. Somehow I doubt it. Talmage 16:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi: since when does "partner" connote "ownership"? To me, it connotes two people who have voluntarily & with equality joined in a relationship with one another. In the context of same-sex relationships, to me it means much as the original roots of the word "spouse": Middle English, from Old French spous, from Latin spnsus, from past participle of spondre, to pledge.... (see The Free Dictionary). In the sense of the original root words, there's no doubt that many same-sex partners have pledged themselves to one another, even if not as sanctioned by law, as Talmage belabors.

I object to "life-partner" on the grounds that just as those legally sanctioned married people so commonly divorce one another, thereby proving the non-life-partner status of their relationships, so do many of us un-partner ourselves from one another after even lengthy periods together. "Partner" or "domestic partner" is far more honest: the partnership exists as long as it exists, even if not for life -- just as marriage. --Yksin 18:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that spouse would be most appropriate for those who are legally wed. I also should have stated "many" queers hate the terms spouse, partner, wedding, etc. and they do so for varying reasons. Some feel the gay marriage issue has taken energy away from other needs of the LGBTI communities, others feel that the entire institution of marriage and being in a nuclear family unit is a flawed construct. Others may feel that marriage used to be the passage of a wife as valuable property of her father (or brother) to her husband is patriarchal. We can skip the evolution of marriage discussion for now.

Having stated all that "life-partner" seems to be the phrase many (gays and non-gays) favor to describe themselves and self-definition is highly valued even if it has to be qualified as such. I understand the nuances of saying "partner" which many find faulty as just another layer of covertness as it could easily be only a business partner; and "domestic partner" has its own problems as it indicates that either there is an international partner and/or the relationship (our love) isn't for life, it's just for the time being. Benjiboi 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A principal meaning of domestic is of or relating to the family or household (The Free Dictionary), which is the sense in which the word is used in domestic partner. (Or for that matter, domestic violence, which is hardly the opposite of international violence.)

I agree that, as you say, self-definition is highly value. I call my same-sex partner, with whom I recently celebrated my 14-year anniversary, my partner, as do many other lesbians, gay men, & yes, even nongay people who aren't married too.

I think the many LGBTA folks who believe that the marriage issue has taken away from other issues important to our community have a helluva good point. Even so, recognizing the existence & validity of our relationships, regardless of how long they last or whether they are exlusive or not (as in polyamory), is important.

Re: just for the time being -- well, of course, sometimes it is. Just as marriage is, despite the common vow of "till death do us part." It's hardly an insult to be honest that for however many of us aspire to having lifelong relationships, a very high proportion of us do not -- regardless of whether we're gay or straight. Life-partner flies in the face of that reality, & excludes a good many of us. Unless of course you'd like to list the relationships of people like Martina Navratilova, Rita Mae Brown, or Ellen Degeneres -- each of whom has had more than one serious, long-term same-sex relationship -- as all being "life-partners". Right. --Yksin 01:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some greats points and the whole lexicon of the gay marriage issue in our polarized political climate is changing as suits the needs of different folks involved. Love, to me is the underlying issue and self-determination overrides other's labels for who we are. In the end I'm not, ahem, wed to one term for everyone and know that there is not a consensus amongst the differing communities who have a vested interest. When the gay marriages were taking place in SF people just wanted to be married but the paper was just an indicator of the relationship not the beginning of it. Benjiboi 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! The conversation seems to maybe be continuing at WP:LGBT, btw, about what terminology to use, & perhaps working on other bio infoboxes. --Yksin 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia purposes, it is not relevant as to what he could be called, it is only relevant what WP:RS generally called him (if anything). If they generally called him "spouse" then he is spouse for purposes of the article. If they generlly called him "partner," the he is partner in the Wikipedia article. If there is little to no mention of his relationship to Riley in WP:RS, then the answers obvious, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. By placing the burden on WP:RS, we can avoid injecting our personal beliefs in the article content. -- Jreferee 18:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that this issue is resolved -- that one can now (retroactively) speak of "spouses" not "partners" -- and that all the legalistic strategies designed to deny recognition to 27-year old life partnerships/marriages can be discarded. Just say the obvious in 2022. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1977regularsrayburnshot.jpg

Image:1977regularsrayburnshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better lead photo?

I would hope there is a slightly better photo, if anyone has energy please see what's available. Benjiboi 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular References

I don't know if this is worthy of inclusion, so I thought I should post it here for feedback. There is a song by the dead milkmen entitled "Serrated Edge" CNR features prominently, even equating him with Jesus. The lyrics are posted here: http://www.geocities.com/dmtabs/lyrics/biglizardinmybackyard.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.151.235.142 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the corner on Match Game

I am not sure of the provenance of this. Reilly's experience at the Hartford Circus Fire, and subsequent lifelong refusal to sit in an audiences is properly noted. On Match Game he sat in the upper corner because of this aversion to sitting in crowds. He felt more comfortable there than in the front row or between people. Randall Bart Talk 19:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more dominant reason he sat "in the corner" was simply that the show positioned its male panelists in alternation with females, giving the males the two end positions on the upper tier, and lower tier center. That last was occupied by Richard Dawson since before CNR's debut, leaving ends of the upper tier as the only options. There could've been any number of reasons for choosing the "far end" for him; a likely one would simply be that the other seat was used for male "guests", and producers wanted such guests to have the more "prominent" location. 2601:545:8202:4EA5:ACA7:C9D4:83E7:6799 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte's Web

I'm seeing a number of random sites that make the claim that he was in the 1973 Charlotte's Web, but I can't anything concrete as to what role he played. The relationship is not currently listed on imdb's entries for any of the Charlotte's Web adaptations. Without seeing a screenshot of the film credits, it makes me wonder if it isn't a perpetuated mistake. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the cast and crew for Charlotte's Web and he wasn't on it. I think someone may have him mixed up with Paul Lynde who voiced the part of the Rat, Templeton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.129.10 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why further discussion is needed. The former poster is correct. Templeton was Paul Lynde. None of the sites dedicated to the movie (imdb or otherwise) indicate he was in the movie. So it should be removed. Period. TheKurgan (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"his death" ambiguity

In the infobox, it states "Partner(s) Patrick Hughes III (1980–2007; his death)". Unfortunately, due to a failing of the English language, "his death" is ambiguous in this case (Both Charles and Patrick could be described by "his"). Is there a practical alternative?--173.58.199.176 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

I think Mr. Reilly's work as an Opera Director is understated here. That is a major function for an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:9036:4B4:7D3:EE02 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Nelson Reilly. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely or never?

The article currently states that after surviving the Hartford Circus Fire, "... he never sat in an audience again throughout the remainder of his life. Because of the event's trauma, he rarely attended theater, stating that the large crowds reminded him of what happened that day." (Emphasis added.) Never, or rarely? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toupee issue

The article goes on a bit too long about his toupee, making it sound like a loosely held secret. Reilly appeared in several productions in the 1960s without it. In fact he was bald on screen for the entire run of The Ghost and Mrs. Muir except for scenes in which his character attempted to wear a toupee and was comically foiled by the captain. It should be more clearly indicated that he affected the toupee in the late 60s and abandoned it in the 90s, but that it was never really a secret that he was bald. Canonblack (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reilly does not appear to be "bald" in photos from The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. He has a receding hairline -- yes. But that is not the same as bald or even balding. He does not even have the typical "ring" hair of later years. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]