Talk:Kenny Omega

@KyleJoan: You began a conversation on my user talk page, but let's have it here on the article's talk page. For anyone else reading this, we are discussing the bottom paragraph of the personal life section in this version of the article, which has been reverted.

First all, the paragraph is primarily sourced by Yahoo News and WON/WOR. When I said "Primarily", I did not mean 6 divided by 3; "Primarily" means the information itself is mainly drawn WON/WOR and Yahoo News but augmented by addition of Outsports who confirm what's already stated by WON/WOR and Yahoo News. I can and will take out the Outsports sources if you'd like me to, but I feel that everything I've written will still stand on the Yahoo News and WON/WOR sources I've included alone. Also, WOR and WON are the same entity (in a near-literal sense, both being Journalist Dave Meltzer), in the same manner a video from CNN and a written article from CNN are both CNN, or a video with Journalist A and an article by Journalist A are both sourced from Journalist A.

Secondly, you suggested the paragraph breaks WP:BLP, but reading Dojo Cat#Personal life, Lil Nas X#Coming Out, and Miley Cyrus#Sexuality and gender, I don't see how my paragraph differs in any way. You cited WP:NOTGOSSIP, but again, my paragraph doesn't differ from the likes of Miley Cyrus#Sexuality and gender, which is also a GA rated article.

Finally, you object to the sourcing of the opening sentence, but I can provide an additional reliable source from CBC.ca which supports it. .

I am happy to remove Outsports and add CBC.ca if these would address your concerns; would this suffice?

And if not, could you please offer suggestions to how your concerns could be reasonably met.

Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Meltzer might be a journalist, but the WOR clip is an analysis of the documentary on Omega and not factual reporting, therefore, it does not help any reference to Omega's sexual orientation become due. The comparison you've drawn to CNN is incomplete. Dave Meltzer is Don Lemon. While CNN is reliable, we wouldn't cite Don Lemon's analyses on his former program and automatically deem them reliable or due.

The WP:OSE examples are not valid here. The prominence of the material about those subjects' sexualities is determined by the prominence of the coverage–Miley Cyrus, the GA-level article of the three, includes more than several exceptional claims that are supported by exceptional sources. The only exceptional source here, Yahoo!, only verifies quotes and not any of the general claims. One additional source is also not sufficient to justify the proposed length, which brings me to...

The CBC says Omega is involved in "LGBT-friendly storylines". There's nothing in that source that outlines any speculation or his sexuality itself.

I'm concerned that you believe everything [you've] written will still stand on [Yahoo! and 'WON'] alone, but given our past interactions, I'm not optimistic that anything I say could change that belief, so feel free to open a discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. KyleJoan^talk 11:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime since my last reply, I've been doing more examining of Wikipedia guidelines. One thing I wish I could have covered in my first reply relates to your concern that Outsports should not be used because it is "biased", however WP:BIASED states that a source should not be discounted on bias alone, rather than the bias of that source should be accounted for when considering them. In the same manner that Miley Cyrus#Sexuality and gender used the phrasing Time magazine reported", the phrasing Outsports reported that or Outsports suggested that could be used if necessary, which is the kind of language suggested in WP:BIASED. Outsports is a wing of Vox, which is considered a reliable source WP:RSPVOX. It's unfortunate that I didn't see that before the first reply.

The CBC says Omega is involved in "LGBT-friendly storylines". There's nothing in that source that outlines any speculation or his sexuality itself.

The CBC source can be used to support the opening sentence of the paragraph, which you have objected to. The Golden Lovers story is the LGBT storyline which CBC is referring to. I can alter the phrasing of the sentence if necessary, but source supporting the underlying assertion that Omega and Ibushi have suggested through the medium of wrestling that they are/were in a romantic relationship.

but the WOR clip is an analysis of the documentary on Omega and not factual reporting

A reliable source is stating what the content of a documentary is. Journalist Dave Meltzer stating that a component of the documentary is the implied romantic relationship between Omega/Ibushi is no different to Journalist A stating a component of the Jurassic Park series is the relationship between Humans and Dinosaurs. That's not analysis of something complex such as the themes of the film, It is a factual statement about the content of the film.

If I amended the phrasing of the paragraph and used additional sources, would this address your concerns? CeltBrowne (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Neither OutSports article even verifies that first sentence, so it's almost irrelevant whether its use is appropriate.

The CBC can only be used to support Omega and Ibushi being in a LGBT storyline but not about either subject's sexuality, the former of which has nothing to do with Omega's personal life regardless of how much synthesizing you're attempting.

Meltzer's description isn't fact. That clip is full of Meltzer referencing himself (e.g., "I think..."). The Jurassic Park comparison is absurd because you could find hundreds of sources–print and online–to support a claim about its exploration of human and dinosaur relationship dynamics. The same can't be said about an implied romantic relationship between Omega/Ibushi.

This discussion is becoming futile, so rather than engage in hypotheticals, please present this new phrasing and sources on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I maintain that this paragraph is a WP:BLP violation. Good luck. KyleJoan^talk 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I was bold, you reverted, and now we are both discussing. I am willing to make compromises and amendments, and have already offered to do so. If we're going by what's suggested in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (which I acknowledge is optional, but is considered good etiquette) is seems like I should make the new phrasing as a new bold edit, and you can edit or revert that new edit if you believe it is still not addressing your concerns. I'd much prefer if you would edit your specific issues with the paragraph instead of bloc reverting the entire thing.

One of us can notify Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard of this discussion, but I would imagine anyone without knowledge of the genre of professional wrestling is going to struggle to follow this conversation.

The Jurassic Park comparison is absurd because you could find hundreds of sources–print and online–to support a claim about its exploration of human and dinosaur relationship dynamics. The same can't be said about an implied romantic relationship between Omega/Ibushi.

That's a measure of popularity, not truth. If only 3 written sources in the entire world noted that Jurassic Park is about dinosaurs, it'd still be true to say Jurassic Park is about dinosaurs. The reason there are 100s of sources about Jurassic Park is because it was an blockbuster Hollywood film(s) seen by a mainstream audience of millions and millions in dozens of languages. Omega/Ibushi occurred in Japan before a predominately Japanese speaking wrestling audience. In all probably, there are probably more sources in Japanese about this dynamic, but as someone who doesn't understand Japanese, that would be difficult for me to source them. If the Omega/Ibushi angle had been seen by as many people internationally as Jurassic Park, sourcing would not be anywhere near as difficult.

One thing I would like to try and clear up is that I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the paragraph is trying to state (and perhaps this part of the root of disagreement here). On Wikipedia, and in writing in general, there is a essential difference between writing John Smith is the most fiscally conservative President in history and John Smith has claimed to be the most fiscally conservative President in history.

My impression right now is that you think I'm trying to state

Tyson Smith is a gay/bisexual man

whereas what I'm trying to communicate with this paragraph is

Kenny Omega, both in and out of the ring, has suggested he is a gay or bisexual man

It may be a contentious thing to state "John Smith is the most fiscally conservative President in history" as a fact because it is possibly incorrect or heavily contested. However, it should not, ever, be a contentious thing to note that John Smith has claimed to be the most fiscally conservative President in history, and to use that as signifier of what he stands for. This difference is presenting information is outlined in WP:WIKIVOICE.

Using the Wikivoice to state Omega/Smith is gay/bisexual at this moment in time would probably be a BLP violation...but that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm noting the claims/language/insinuations.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I hope that helps clarify the purpose of the paragraph. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

We only include material that we could source sufficiently and appropriately. "I know this material is appropriate even though I can't fully respond to the policy concerns" does not cut it. Your clarification confirms that even the intent behind the paragraph is a violation because none of these sources supports claims/language/insinuations about Omega's sexual orientation. Our specialized wrestling knowledge cannot and should not determine what we include. Sources do. As fans, yes, we may have picked up hints from consuming the products that Omega's in-universe character has exuded LGBT undertones, but to note how that relates to his actual sexual orientation without sufficient sourcing is just unacceptable. This article does not get to circumvent the BLP policy just because it's a pro wrestling article. You can't convince me otherwise. KyleJoan^talk 16:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I was 80% into writing this reply when I saw you post on my talk page stating you don't want to keep discussing this. I am still posting the following for the benefit of any other editors joining the discussion, as clarifies the use of some sources, and also introduces some new ones.

I've never, at any point, suggested the article can violate BLP policy on the basis of it being a pro wrestling article. Previously, I simply said members of the BLP noticeboard may struggle to follow this specific conversation.^[a] Those are entirely two separate sentiments. I was and have always been open to other editors being involved in this discussion; in fact in the very first post of this thread I gave a clarification in the opening to help any editors navigate the discussion. For what it's worth, I've left a message on the BLP noticeboard directing them to this discussion.

You are correct that "Our specialized wrestling knowledge cannot and should not determine what we include. Sources do.", which is why I made a good-faith effort to improve the sourcing of the first sentence with several additional sources, something I'd like to segway into now.

In your edit summary, one of the reasons you gave for removing them was the author of the 'Mel' magazine says Omega is openly bisexual; that disqualifies these articles right away. However, I have three sources here where all three authors state that Omega is "openly bisexual":

1. Main-eventer and executive vice president Kenny Omega (real name Tyson Smith) is openly bisexual.^[1]

2. Omega also brings something unique to wrestling as far as representation goes. He’s openly bisexual and willing to discuss being so in interviews.^[2][b]

3. This bizarre dynamic plays into the controversy surrounding The Golden Lovers: Kenny Omega has come out as bisexual, and while Kota Ibushi has not discussed his IRL sexuality in public,fans continue to debate his proclivities.^[3]

So it seems like rather than being an outright error, there is a minority view amongst some authors that Kenny Omega the person is "openly bisexual". I don't think the sources should be disqualified for expressing a minority view; we can use them and account for the fact that their view on that specific aspect may be a minority one. We're not citing them to suggest Omega the person is bisexual, we're citing the part where they discuss the on-screen romantic relationship between Omega the character and Ibushi the character.

Another part of your edit summary stated

"major component" is according to Dave Meltzer only, so questionable whether due

Since last night I have come across this source. It is a press release from Bell, who funded and help broadcast the documentary. The press release explicitly states that the documentary is covering the implied "romantic relationship" between Omega and Ibushi. I would like to now add this source to the article, and return to the "major component" phrasing as the source explicitly supports that. However, because the preceding sentences were removed, I would have to write something like "A major component of the 2019 documentary Omega Man: A Wrestling Love Story was the implied romantic relationship between Omega and Kota Ibushi".

Now that I have a source explicitly stating a major component of the 2019 documentary was the implied romantic relationship between Omega and Kota Ibushi, can someone suggest how I can add this information to the article without it being objecting to?

Finally, to reiterate once again: I am not stating that Tyson Smith the person is definitely bisexual. I am stating that on-screen Kenny Omega the character and Kota Ibushi have had an implied romantic relationship that was a "storyline" in both DDT and NJPW, and subsequently Tyson Smith the person has been ambiguous about Tyson Smith's sexuality. If you want to cut off the Tyson Smith part, that's whatever. At this point I am simply trying to incorporate the information that Kenny Omega the character has been, on screen, implied to be in a romantic relationship with Kota Ibushi, in a way that is not objected to.

===Footnotes===

===References===

CeltBrowne (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Speculation about Omega's sexuality in his personal life section is WP:BLPGOSSIP. If this ambiguity is presented in wrestling storylines or as part of his wrestling persona, then it should be mentioned there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

If this ambiguity is presented in wrestling storylines or as part of his wrestling persona, then it should be mentioned there

In my most recent edit to the article, I did place discussion of Omega and Ibushi's implied romantic relationship while in DDT and NJPW (two Japanese wrestling promotions) in the persona section. The sentence that contained the discussion of the implied romantic relationship was removed, with KyleJoan citing that they were unhappy with the sourcing of that sentence. As discussed in my previous reply here, I've since come across an additional source ^{(kind of two actually, but I'll focus on just one for the moment)} that I feel support the claim that Omega and Ibushi were presented on-screen as having a romantic relationship, but I was trepidatious about (re)adding the phrasing "implied romantic relationship" because of the pushback. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That press release does not explicitly say what you're describing. Your proposed claim is your interpretation of the release, which can't be used for an exceptional claim. If we get to cherry-pick any part of that release and write what we believe it implies, I have several items to insert, one of them being "One-Winged Angel and the high risk and pain it involves are major components of the documentary", but it wouldn't be due, and this claim doesn't even contain information about living persons.

What disqualifies that MEL article is it doesn't even mention the Ibushi partnership. Neither does Prowrestling.net. INTO attributes that contentious claim to Reddit, so its content's partial compatibility with the other sources' does not matter. The New York Times and New York Post publishing a similar claim does not make the latter reliable for other claims. You're going to keep running into the same policy issues without proper high-quality, reliable sources that actually support the removed claims. Right now, it seems like you're throwing in any source you could find, hoping it's usable. Rather than not mind my level of scrutiny, please scrutinize sources yourself. KyleJoan^talk 11:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

To save everyone's time, here's a review of the two sources that aren't outright unreliable or low-quality:

• The other MEL article. Is this source reliable? Weak yes–the article's author has written for other publications that are reliable, but the defunct magazine's fact-checking and editorial process is unclear. Is this source high-quality? Based on the magazine's note of their own bias and how they "talk about dicks a lot", no.
• Vice. Is this source reliable? Uncertain. Is this source high-quality? No.

That apparently important first claim remains without support from multiple high-quality sources. KyleJoan^talk 07:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice at first that the CBC source has a transcript feature of the long format interview they conducted:

JAYME POISSON: Yeah. And maybe I wonder if one example of what you're talking about here is a story that unfolded over a decade, right, about you and your tag team partner, Kota Ibushi. Yeah. And you called yourselves The Golden Lovers, and you were two men who said you loved each other and you. You embraced and you kissed. And I'll note, I don't think you're ever explicit about your sexuality, but, you know, talk to me a little bit more about how you've tried to deal with these topics better than wrestling has in the past

KENNY OMEGA: ...I wanted to tell a different kind of story, and I wanted to investigate something that was was very personal to a lot of people, personal to me, even though I was really opening myself to the world. I felt that if I had done it in that fashion, that I could be true to myself and tell something that was very respectful rather than something that would be laughed at. I wanted to tell a story that whether you you're straight, whether you're gay, whether you were X, Y, or Z didn't matter. You could look at this story and you could appreciate the love between two individuals, the hardships of of being in a competitive business, struggling together, struggling apart. The power that they have when they're are then focused together as a team, how much more you can accomplish. There's so many messages within. And I say again, yes, at its core you could look at it as as a gay wrestling story, which which would be kind of was.^[a] But I like to look at it more as as a love story. And I don't want it to be defined necessarily by the fact that it was, you know, two male leads that could have been two females, it could have been a male and a female, it could have been anything. I I'm I'm a I'm an animal lover. I feel like I would love to tell this story, you know, with that as a central focus as well. Yeah, I love that that a person has for his pet or another another animal like these, these things you don't really see in wrestling and you think like, okay, how would that work? Well, at one time, people in wrestling or fans of wrestling would be like, okay, well, how would a gay wrestling storyline work at all? It wouldn't. But there was a time when you would say that you'd be crazy to try it.

I believe this is the creator and (one of the) performer(s) of the storyline stating that yes, the intention of the storyline between Omega and Ibushi was for it to be received as a romance/love storyline. I feel this is a pretty, pretty, pretty solid source.

Just in case there's any wobbling later; I interpret the final point he makes in the paragraph as "Years ago, wrestling fans would have said you're crazy to try and do a gay wrestling storyline, but we did just that and demonstrated it could work, and I feel that other concepts can work in wrestling as well".

I'm regretful I did not see the transcript feature earlier because I feel like this kind of source is really demonstrating what I was trying to get at previously.

This second Source from Fightful.com, which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia:PW/RS, states:

The Ibushi and Omega characters, while not explicitly mentioning their sexuality, have implied a relationship throughout their run.

This third source from Pro Wrestling Torch, which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia:PW/RS, in the form of reporting what occurred on-screen in the television build up to the Supercard of Honor XII PPV, states:

The Golden☆Lovers are believed by many to be in a romantic relationship with each other. While this has never explicitly been confirmed, Omega is openly queer. Many people will point to myriad [on-screen] indications that Omega and Ibushi are in love with each other, even if they’ve yet to openly address this in public. Playing into these rumors, [on-screen] Cody and his wife Brandi attempted to play mind games with Omega and Ibushi. First Cody would kiss Ibushi during a match in Japan. Then Brandi would force herself on Omega during ROH’s 16th Anniversary show. Cody claims that any talk of an Omega-Ibushi relationship is just a publicity stunt. Omega claims that 16th Anniversary wasn’t the first time he and Brandi kissed and probably wouldn’t be the last. This accusation left Cody seething.

This fourth source from CBS Sports, which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia:PW/RS, states:

Talk about a potentially huge swerve. While it's not fully clear this is the direction things are headed (although the ambiguous tease certainly seemed on purpose), WWE could be on its way to presenting its first same-sex relationship angle [storyline] with a tasteful undertone. Considering the successful precedent recently set in New Japan Pro-Wrestling with the Golden Lovers (Kenny Omega and Kota Ibushi), it's about time, if so.

I would like to use these sources to support the sentence, in the persona (fictional) section,

Over the course of his professional wrestling career, It has often been intimated on-screen that Omega and his "Golden Lovers" tag team partner Kota Ibushi have or have had a romantic relationship, particularly during their time together in DDT and NJPW.

or a sentence of similar construction but alternatively phrased such as

Over the course of their professional wrestling careers, Omega and his "Golden Lovers" tag team partner Kota Ibushi have been portrayed as having or having had a romantic relationship, particularly during their time together in DDT and NJPW.

Just to be clear; this is supposed to be the equivalent of writing in a Wikipedia article

In the fantasy book series A Song of Ice & Fire, the character Daenerys Targaryen is a princess with the ability to control Dragons.

NOT

Emilia Clarke has the ability to control Dragons.

===Footnote===

CeltBrowne (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

All four sources are great. The nature of the claim is no longer a BLP violation. I do suggest we tweak the phrasing to make it even more sensible and succinct. Wherever we place this claim, it's crucial that it doesn't contain suggestions involving the living people's real lives or a specific timeline. Writing "have or have had" suggests they're currently in an implied relationship or no longer in an implied relationship when sources only say the romantic undertones exist. Also worth considering is the removal of the unnecessary promotion mentions. Maybe something like...

KyleJoan^talk 01:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That phrasing works for me also CeltBrowne (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)