Talk:Rufus Wainwright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeRufus Wainwright was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

citations needed[edit]

I don't know how to add the "citations needed" supertext, but if I did, I'd put it on many of the paragraphs in this article. I've been trying to clean up some of the article's style, but I can't vouch for the content.

top picture[edit]

DO NOT REMOVE THE TOP PICTURE!!! the one you people keep putting in is horrible! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshmd (talkcontribs) 21:28, 10 August 2006.

Release The Stars[edit]

It's really annoying that I created a Release The Stars page and now that page automatically redirects to "Rufus Wainwright" and I don't know how to do redirects. I'm looking but not figuring it out. We have a track listing and an album cover but no album page. Could whoever applied the redirect please undo it? Thanks -Laikalynx 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's back now (I wasn't the one who took it away or restored it), although the album cover has been removed. --DearPrudence 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover[edit]

... his cover of Jeff Buckley's cover of Leonard Cohen's ..." seems confusing. Is there any particular reason why Buckley's cover is mentioned?

-Because his cover was intended to be a tribute to Buckley, as they were friends.

Actually, RW has stated that he hadn't even heard Buckley's version before he wrote/recorded his own. However unlikely this sounds, we can't prove that RW's Hallelujah is NOT a direct cover of Leonard Cohen, especially since there are ties between himself and Cohen (he lived at the house of Cohen's daughter for a while, I think LC had his own appartment at the same place). It is even possible that both Wainwright and Buckley were inspired by another source, the song has been covered a fair few times...

Buckley's 'Hallelujah' is mentioned because (as the article states) Wainwright references it in the song 'Memphis Skyline', and 'Memphis Skyline' is the subject of the paragraph. - NeilH

Songwriting saved my life - Tomas Bartlett "I had to sing "Hallelujah" for "Shrek," and I recorded my version before hearing his version, and then I heard his, and it just dawned on me at that moment the incredible loss, and the incredible talent that he was. The opportunity for me to sing with him would have been mind-blowing." the full text may be read here: [1] -Danny

The McGarrigle Hour[edit]

Should The McGarrigle Hour be listed in the discography? How? He was one of several performers (almost all related). --Samuel Wantman 09:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Somebody change the song title to Schooldays instead of Shooldays (I'm afraid to mess things up).

Other contributions (off the top of my head - which means correct but not complete):

  • What'll I Do on Antony and the Jonsons' I Am A Bird Now
  • So Easy (backing vocals) and Missing Children (writing credits) on Teddy Thompson's eponymous album
  • and of course he wrote and sings The Maker Makes on the forthcoming Ang Lee movie Brokeback Mountain

maybe special attention can be paid to these two:

  • harmony vocals on Elton John's American Triangle (on Songs from the West Coast)
  • he has sung Scarecrow together with Kristian Hoffman

both songs are about Matthew Shepard -Danny

The name of the Antony and the Jonsons track RW sings on is What Can I Do, not What I'll Do.--81.79.173.138 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Openly Gay"[edit]

Why is the fact that Rufus is "openly gay" the very first thing used to describe him? Shouldn't he be described as a "Canadian-American singer-songwriter" who is gay. --michael zimmer 15:43, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I removed "gay" from the introductory sentence. While i can think of some reasons for putting "gay" in the introduction, it is interesting to think about the fact that you never see a straight celebrity described as "straight," whereas a queer celebrity's queerness is often the first thing you hear about them. --Something 19:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's the fact that he was the first artist to be openly gay before being signed. All other artists were 'in the closet' when signed and then later in their careers came out.

I hardly believe that Wainwright was "the first artist to be openly gay before being signed." Such unsupported claims and other generalizations ("All other artists...") have little value in encyclopedic articles. --mtz206 13:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I can't think of any that were openly gay when they started their career, only those who came out later, or those who (tried to) live(d) a lie during their entire career. Nor has anyone I discussed this with ever offered any suggestions (not good ones anyway) or any of the writers who included this statement in their articles. Even if new acts wanted to, there is so much pressure put on them by the US record companies they depend on for their big break. (cf. British Pop Idol winner Will Young, who is openly gay now, who was asked by an American record company to start hiding his sexuality as a condition for a record contract. Young turned them down. New York-based Scissor Sisters have 3 gay members, their break came from a British record company.) Secondly, I think this is something Rufus himself claimed and it can be presented as such. Thirdly, although I understand that sexual orientation is only a small part of what makes a person who he/she is, there are precious few role-models for gay people and for kids, who need those most. -Danny

First of all, Danny, I can think of many artists that were openly gay before their careers took off - Bruce David Campbell (a.k.a. Jobriath) and Sylvester James, to name just two. Second, while it may be something that Rufus himself has claimed, it really has no place in the article's first paragraph - it's part of who he is and how he creates his music, true; therefore, it should go with everything else that forms a part of who his is, all of which is located in the main paragraphs. Third, while I think it's great that he's a role model for homosexuals, an encyclopedia is not at all the place for preaching incessantly about this. It can be stated in the main paragraph, just like every other fact about him.

Also, please sign your name using the four tildes -like this: ~~~~ --LittleRoughRhinestone 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Somerville/Bronski Beat, Andy Bell (Erasure), Two Nice Girls, Tom Robinson (in the 70s!), Phranc ... all were 'out' from the start of the careers. I'm sure there were many more too. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am bothered by the following sentences found in the article: "In 1999, he told Rolling Stone that his father recognized his homosexuality early on. "We'd drive around in the car, he'd play 'Heart of Glass' and I'd sort of mouth the words, pretend to be Blondie. Just a sign of many other things to come as well." Is this an article on Rufus Wainwright, or "How to Tell if Someone's Gay?" Or "Rufus Wainwright's Guide to Knowing if Someone's Gay?" Rufus' father knew he'd be gay by what kind of music he liked as a kid? And both he and his father knew and understood these as "signs" of what was to come? Really? I thought homosexuality had to do with who you find sexually attractive, not what kind of music you listen to, but that's just me. Wainwright may be gay, and his father may have known, but I think these sentences try to apologize for that. What music one starts to like as a child has little bearing on what sex that person will prefer. These anecdotal sentences do more to strengthen gay stereotypes than tell about Rufus' sexual identity as a child IMO. (IE, he could have talked about who he found attractive, instead of what music he liked...) Stereotypes can also work in reverse; boys who grow up to be tough star athletes but hide in the closet because they don't want to disappoint their parents who have viewed them as "straight" from childhood.

The first posters on the subject hit it on the button; Rufus Wainwright is first of all a talented artist. Why is it that he is gay, and how why he thinks he was gay as a child and whether his father recognized it have to take the presedence in importance? I think Rufus Wainwright's music is beautiful and could care less who he f***s on the side. I listen to artists because they create music I like. When I listen to music I don't think "this music is nice. Who wrote it and is he gay or straight?" To the person who brought up the importance of gay rolemodels, I think it's kind of sad that the need for a gay rolemodel makes a person deaf to music and more receptive as to whether an artist is "gay" or not. If a person who is gay finds an artist and he happens to be gay, that is something to be happy about. I think it's kind of sad, almost disrespectful to listen to someone BECAUSE s/he is gay. Kind of like someone who listens "only to black artists" or "only to white artists." Music first. Sexuality, gender, race etc. are secondary...113.34.33.154 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to soundtrack of Brokeback Mountain[edit]

You might want to add his two performances on the soundtrack. The first song is a cover of Roger Miller's "King of the Road" (with Teddy Thompson), and a good one at that. However, the second song "The Maker Makes" is an original, I believe. It may have even been written for this film. Either way it's classic, haunting Wainwright (to this non-Wainwright fan's ear).

The movie may or may not meet with wide acclaim or financial success, but it will undoubtedly be a milestone in mainstream cinema, at least for gay filmgoers. This was probably his motivation for contributing.

Whether or not the film or its actors do well during the awards season, the composer & arranger for the score (Gustavo Santaolalla) may receive a few prizes for good writing and bringing together a collection of iconic country and gay musicians as dichotomous as cowboys and homosexuals. 70.213.12.217 18:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC) T.Morris

American? Canadian-American?[edit]

I'm curious about the recent reversion of the Canadian-American label. Is he really not Canadian? Given that Kate McGarrigle is Canadian, he would automatically have Canadian citizenship under the rule of jus sanguinis (right of blood) at birth, even though he was born in the United States. Darkcore 22:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

What happened to the photo? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.6.78 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

It's been orphaned due to copyright issues. --Closedmouth 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just for a bit more context, images on Wikipedia have to be properly tagged as to their copyright status. This one wasn't, and Wikipedia has no other way of confirming its status. Policy explicitly spells out that images can be deleted under those circumstances. You're always welcome to upload a new image, if you can find one with compatible copyright status (i.e. something expressly licensed for promotional use, a personal photo that can be released under GFDL, etc.) and tag it correctly when it's uploaded. Bearcat 23:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We have four perfectly good free licensed images on the commons. Use one of them.--Fallout boy 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is a really odd choice of pictures, isn't it? None where you really see his facial features - as opposed to almost any picture you will find when googling his name - but instead three really similar guitar pictures AND three from Sundance? (This is unsigned as I don't know how to do that, sorry - but please do think about my comment)

Themes[edit]

I think much of the recent additions to the "Themes" section lacks NPOV and is original research. For example, I don't agree at all with the notion that becuase "many of his songs contain phallic references" necessarily makes "it largely impossible for anyone but a gay man to author or perform his songs." One, it doesn't seem accurate to state that "many" songs contain phallic references, and two, just becuase they have phallic references doesn't mean that only a gay man could write or perform them. --mtz206 03:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right... As far as I can tell, there isn't much "research" when it comes to Rufus Wainwright. From what I have seen, however, the question of whether RW's songs do not reach wide spread appeal because a straight man and/or woman can't sing along without realizing that he/she has just said a very gay thing or not is much discussed. I think it is an important question and should be addressed in one way or another. As for "many phallic references" I could supply you with a list, but we're easily talking about 15-20%. That's a theme. I invite anyone to expand "themes" but when I arrived... there was nothing there of any worth. RW's themes are vitally important to understanding and appreciating his music and, really, what set RW appart. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theowarner (talk • contribs) 05:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

"RW's songs do not reach wide spread appeal because a straight man and/or woman can't sing along without realizing that he/she has just said a very gay thing or not is much discussed." That just doesn't make any sense to me at all, and I still question the encyclopedic value of the sentiments of this section. --mtz206 13:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... let me try again. 1) Why is it that RWs songs are both critically successful and popularly unsuccessful? 2) One reason may be that some of RWs songs are about gay love. 3) But, wait a minute, saying, "I love you" is neither gay nor straight. 4) That may be true, but some times RW says, "I'm a man and I love a man." 5) Oh... I see. A straight man or woman can't identify with "I'm a man and I love a man," in the same they can identify with "I love you."

Maybe there's another section that this deserves to be in. Any ideas? But, that some of RW's songs are from a gay voice to a gay object is an undeniably important theme. It's got to go somewhere. -theowarner

yeah, i can see that the "gay voice to a gay object" might be an important theme to mention, I'm just not sure about the argument that such a theme keeps non-gay folks from enjoying his songs. I can sing along to a gay song and appreciate it for what it is, no matter whether I can fully relate to its sentiments. --mtz206 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the 11:15, March 13, 2006 edit by Theowarner does a good job indicating some of the themes, without opining/speculating as to their "possible implications" --mtz206 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How is Rufus's list of gay icons related to the themes of his songs? Could this information be removed? Unetta 13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters whether he is singing about men or women. Love is a universal term that everyone can interpret in their own way... just a thought. --Ignatiuswiki 02:14 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Contributions[edit]

Not sure why RW's contribution to Craig Armstrongs Album has been deleted, but I've just added it back in Ninefish 01:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This list is getting way too long. Is it really necessary to mention eg. the tv shows that have featured his music, or compilations that include music already on his studio albums? Unetta 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether I Am Or Not[edit]

This is listed here as an album due to come out in 2007. Could anyone please provide any more information? Will this be a full-length album? I've tried looking it up on Google but haven't found anything. --DearPrudence 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture dates[edit]

Just to point something out, the photo at the top says January 21st and the one at the end says January 22nd. He's wearing exactly the same clothes, in front of the same backdrop, and is photographed from the same angle. Is this a mistake?

Not sure on which date is correct, but certainly we only need one of such photos. Removed the one at the bottom --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Harvester of Hearts laugh[edit]

Is that really his laugh at the end of Harvester of Hearts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.96.49 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes. (Okay, I don't have written proof, but I know what his laugh sounds like and it's definitely his.) --DearPrudence 01:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Loudon Wainwright as 'folk singer'[edit]

To assert that father Loudon Wainright is a 'folk singer' is quite absurd (why? Because he plays acoustic guitar?) Wainwright himself has made fun of this stereotype on the song 'Taking New Bob Dylan Blues' in 1992. He's a songwriter who plays acoustic guitar. Folk? In 37 years I think he's done about 2 cover versions. User: Tim Gadd

"Gay Messiah" - political song or not?[edit]

There seems to be a bit of a dispute at the moment over whether or not "Gay Messiah" is a political song or not. Thoughts?

(I have no real opinion on the issue, so please do not direct your arguments at me. I can see it going either way - no, the lyrics aren't necessarily explicitly political, but even the title could be taken as a political statement.) --DearPrudence 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the song can definitely be considered political. Rufus himself has described it as a protest song. (source) Unetta 09:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'm adding it back in. --DearPrudence 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Poses cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Poses cover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 08:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rufus Wainwright cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Rufus Wainwright cover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 10:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing citations[edit]

The "Themes" section seems to be missing quite a number of citations. While the content of some of his songs are obvious, the less obvious ones ("Tulsa" and "Matinee Idol", as examples) should have citations for their inspiration. Also, if there are rumors about Wainwright and Brandon Flowers being lovers, that should definitely have a cite, as that's potentially highly controversial. Parthenogenetic 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

True, and I also think we're being a bit broad with the "themes". Brandon Flowers would not count as a theme unless Rufus had written a number of songs about him. I vote that we either remove this piece of information entirely (it's mentioned on the Release the Stars page, anyway) or move it - and other bits like it, such as the anecdote about Jeff Buckley - to another part of the article or section. --DearPrudence 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

anecdote[edit]

I don't know how useful this may be to this article but I found this on one of the OK Go members' blogs. Rosa 03:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ref: http://thewilltorock.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html

Rufus Wainwright hit on me. Swear to God. After telling him that the quality of his music and talent of his band was depressing me, he simply replied with, "Oh sweetie, I can make you happy." While he and I don't play on the same team, I can't help but think that getting hit on by a guy NME calls "one of, if not the best, songwriters of his generation" is a victory for Ol' Rusty. Rufus wins, too, because everyone knows that getting turned down by a member of OK Go is an honor in itself.

Hee. I'm not sure that we can fit it into the article, but thank you for sharing that anyway. :D --DearPrudence 04:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed good article nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Symbol unsupport vote.svg Generally the article is a pleasure to read, but there are a few issues that require some extensive work.
  • According to the guidlines of WP:LEAD, the article's intro is severely lacking. An article of this size (33.7 KB) should have an intro of 2-3 paragraphs at least. It fails to mention his film appearances, make sufficient assertion of his notability (as in through mention of chartings for singles and albums), and fails to sufficiently discuss the impact and characteristics of his music.
  • The Themes section is poorly written, and sometimes reads like a prose trivia section rather than an academic, encyclopedic discussion of his musical themes. A consolidation and cleanup of the section is in order, giving special attention to good flow of words and ideas.
2. Factually accurate?: Symbol unsupport vote.svg As this article is under the purview of the WP:BLP, it is subject to much more stringent application of verifiability. There were several instances of potentially controversial facts that were either not cited or were not given direct citations. General references for such facts are inappropriate. In addition to other major issues, cleanup and citation tags present in an article are part of the quick-fail criteria. Thus, I did not apply the customary hold period to the article. A few of the examples include:
  • The fact about his celibacy.
  • The Rolling Stone bits in the Rise to fame section.
  • The assertion that Wainwright was "less than pleased" with an album's reception. BLP or no, assertions about a particular individual's feelings on a subject need to be directly cited.
  • Several of the facts in the Addiction section.
  • The {{fact}} tagged assertions in the Music and Want albums sections.
3. Broad in coverage?: Symbol support vote.svg The article is most certainly thorough in most respects, though it makes no mention of his future plans.
4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol support vote.svg The article meets this criteria so far as I can tell.
5. Article stability? Symbol support vote.svg The article seems to be stable for the most part, but should probably be semi-protected right now because of all the recent vandalism and spam trolling. Hopefully someone will suggest this at the appropriate page.
6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Images seem to be quality and properly licensed.
7. Misc.: This not a part of the GA-criteria technically, and I would not under any circumstances fail the article for this alone, but the YouTube links in External Links are almost certainly copyright violations, and thus should be removed forthwith.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I'll give it a B anyways, since this article is way beyond the "start" phase. Rosa 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on the B-class rating. VanTucky (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening for the band Sloan?[edit]

Didn't Rufus open for the Canadian band Sloan several times on their tour in either 1998 or 1999? I know he opened for them for three of four shows in a row performed at the Palais Royale in Toronto back in November of 1998 or so...Though none of his performances were recorded and added to the live Sloan double disc album "4 Nights At The Palais Royale". I was just wondering if this would be something to add to the article? (I'm not quite sure but I remember reading somewhere that he opened for them a number of other times before the Palais shows and this is why I'm bringing it up.)

Fair use rationale for Image:RufusWainwright AlbumCover 2002 Poses .jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RufusWainwright AlbumCover 2002 Poses .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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RufusWainwright AlbumCover 2003 Want One.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RufusWainwright AlbumCover 2003 Want One.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutley Fabulous Cameo[edit]

Under the addiction subheading, it's mentioned that during his debaucherous week, Rufus "played a drug addict in a cameo role in a UK comedy television programme 'Absolutely Fabulous.'" I have just seen the cameo in the episodes entitled 'Gay' and his role is less than five seconds, and only consists of him small talking with Patsy, echoing her drunken mannerisms. Am I missing something? I will retool the reference. Kurtto (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nationality[edit]

Is there a source for his nationality? TIA --Tom 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Does he hold Canadian citizenship?TIA --Tom 22:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is my Canadian bias, but I thought he was more often referred to as Canadian. His mother is Canadian and he was raised mostly in Canada. This Rolling Stone interview refers to him "calling from his native Canada". This 2008 article says he holds both American and Canadian citizenship. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I will try to edit the article accordingly. Thanks for the source! Cheers, --Tom 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Promiscuity/Celibacy[edit]

The article currently says that the sexual assault at age 14 "postponed his becoming promiscuous", whilst the cited article says that at first "Wainwright's first homosexual experience traumatised him so much, he embarked on a promiscuous spree." This earlier article explains how he later ended up staying celibate for so long: "I was out for sex, and boy did I get it," he says. "It was insane, and basically I ended up thinking I had AIDS for the next seven to ten years." I believe this fear should be added because it plays quite an important part in his work (most notably in Barcelona, it also nudged him further towards opera; he would "write little operas, and I wrote a requiem for myself.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by SubtleKnife00 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Direct descendant"[edit]

[Loudon Wainwright III (a direct descendant of Peter Stuyvesant, the last Director-General of New Netherland.]

What does this mean? If he is a "direct descendant of Peter Stuyvesant" in the male line, then why isn't his surname Stuyvesant? If he is not a descendent in the direct male line, what is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.5.121 (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Artists that have covered Wainwright[edit]

Just for the record, in case this information pertains to an "impact" section for the article, following is a list of artists that have covered Wainwright:

Feel free to add to the list if more covers emerge in the future! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Shakespearian sonnet cycle[edit]

There should be something here about the Shakespearian sonnets he was commissioned to score for a play in Germany that debuted recently. 66.41.253.22 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Mendes[edit]

What happened to the film version of a Wainwright concert Mendes planned to make? 66.41.253.22 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That never came to fruition. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture[edit]

In the Nick Hornby book "Slam", the main characters baby is named after Wainwright, as his album is playing when the baby was born. The album was a choice of the main characters mother-in-law, but it is not mentioned which song is playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.40.187 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Baby![edit]

This article isn't structured such that it has a personal life section, so I am not sure how to include this. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Marriage[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 20:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven albums??[edit]

The intro says 7 albums. Isn't this outdated with release of so many more? werldwayd (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Seven studio albums is accurate. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Want albums, references badge[edit]

So why aren't you so kind and tell us what you want to be sourced? What in that paragraph do you doubt? It's just ordinary data, nothing controversial. No reader will stumble upon this thinking, "oh is this really true". That stupid button does help nothing at all.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sylvia Anna that the 'Unreferenced' tag is unnecessary for this section. However, that's not because sources are unnecessary (they nearly always are) but because the section already contains perfectly good sources, i.e. wiki-links to the Want albums themselves. Adding other book, journal or magazine sources would be superfluous. Vacarme (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Internal links are not considered reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR. If the linked articles have reliable sources, they can and should be copied to this article. If they don't have reliable sources, that's a problem with those articles. Doniago (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my questions and comments.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I somewhat thought you were being rhetorical given the tone you opted to use. Frankly, it looks like every statement in that section should have a citation as its discussing years of release of various albums, even if it's multiple uses of the same reference. One doesn't need to doubt that information is true nor feel that it is controversial to feel that it should be cited...you might want to review WP:V. As to "that stupid button does help nothing at all", that's simply incorrect. Among other things using that tag places the article in a category so that editors concerned with article clean-up are alerted to the fact that this article could use improvement. It's also, I believe, far more polite (and appropriate in this case) than simply removing the unsourced information, which is also a legitimate form of addressing it, though oftentimes not "best practice". Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The least would have been to explain on the talk page what in that paragraph you think should be sourced. I don't know if there is a policy here that requires one to do so, but it would have been a reasonable and helpful thing to do. Just putting in a badge and moving on is not quite helpful. Those "editors concerned with article clean-up" would certainly appreciate it, too. Apart from that, they have probably better things to do than to look for sources for something that has not and probably never will be challenged. And readers seeing that badge may thnk that there is something wrong with the information in that paragraph, although there actually is no reason to doubt that information. IMO, a badge like the one you used makes only sense if you have reason to believe that the information given is incorrect.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the tag is unclear. "This section does not cite any references or sources." seems pretty clear-cut to me, and marking the section seems infinitely preferable, IMO, to tagging every sentence individually. For the record, by putting the tag in place the information has been challenged. I'm not inclined to remove it anytime soon, but there would certainly come a point, probably in 3 months or so, where I'd remove it for lacking sourcing...I'd probably move it here at that point, in fact. The fact that the information has no reliable sources is wrong. We provide citations so that readers don't have to assume that information is accurate, and there is no requirement that an editor believe information is incorrect before tagging it for being unsourced. The standard for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth. Doniago (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth considering whether our time would be better spent updating the information with reliable sources rather than arguing over whether a tag is appropriate...especially since if the former is done the latter will be a moot point. Doniago (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
So you have challenged the information by inserting this badge, but you have no concrete reason to challenge the information. Very funny. "This section does not cite any references or sources" does imply to a reader who doesn't now about the internals of WP that there must be something wrong with the information given. This is absolutely not necessary here.
When was the last time - if at all - that you have done constructive work on this article? There are two people taking care of this article (me and Another Believer), both of us dedicated to keeping it up to date and in good state. I would never allow wrong or in any way harmful information to stay in this article. But I have a life outside WP. And you have nothing better to do than to bother us with the threat to remove perfectly fine information. A hint on the talk page that it would be good to source this information when we find time would have been enough. Your behaviour is definitely not motivating to the editors of an article.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really in the mood to be snarked at, thanks. The information isn't sourced, it should be. I won't remove it at this time. You've got a few months before I'll do anything about it. You're welcome to source it, you're welcome to remove it. Obviously I can't speak for whether other editors might remove it in a shorter timeframe, but there are editors who will argue that it's better to include no information than to include unsourced information. If you want to discuss my personal conduct, this isn't the place for it, and I'm pretty sure you've been around here long enough to know that, just as I'm sure you know that an editor's claim that they're keeping an article accurate while failing to provide sources doesn't actually mean much of anything. Editors aren't reliable sources either. Done here unless you'd like to continue discussing this in a way that involves discussing the article rather than discussing me. Doniago (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like another editor chose to set up and take care of the problem. Awesome. Doniago (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship[edit]

I don't know why people keep changing it. Rufus is American-Canadian. He is both of American and Canadian descend and he has dual citizenship. I'm adding a reference from a Vanity Fair article where he comfirmed dual citizenship.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

Resolved

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rufus Wainwright/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I beleive this is untrue;

"Rufus has enjoyed many happy years with his wife and the mother of his 3 children, Rachell Elizabeth Stricker-Wainwright."

He is not married. He is openly gay.

Last edited at 08:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved and is no longer applicable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rufus Wainwright. 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}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rufus Wainwright. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rufus Wainwright. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 06:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rufus Wainwright. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)