This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Isaiah Washington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He was very good as Lane Stailey in an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street. He probably showed more emotion in the 10-20 minutes he was on that episode than he has in his entire run playing Burke, thus far anyway. Granted though he was playing a high-strung crook there and Burke's character is a reserved neat-freak. Anyway the Burke character's kind of important to the show so I might do a page on the character later. Granted they may write him out soon, but I think it'll be hard for them to do that.-- T. Anthony 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The recent dismissal of Washington from Grey's Anatomy should at most be a minor footnote, there are some serious WP:UNDUE weight issues being applied to this person's biography. RFerreira 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sexual harassment is illegal in the United States.
Wikipedia's own page on sexual harassment states that "sexual harassment is considered a form of illegal discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying."
In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission produced a set of guidelines for defining and enforcing Title VII (in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
1. and 2. are called "quid pro quo" (Latin for "this for that" or "something for something"). They are essentially "sexual bribery", or promising of benefits, and "sexual coercion".
Type 3. known as "hostile work environment," is by far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective.[21]
But sexual harassment is not a crime, which is what the article stated.
Sexual harassment is not entirely illegal either. The entire basis is an interpretation of "sexual harassment" as form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, there in fact is no law describing what you have listed, only an arbitrary interpretation which was only established in the eighties, thats a decade and a half after the law was originally passed.
At any rate Washington's behavior was not illegal, nor was it a crime, and it is a form of free speech protected under the first amendment, so even if there were a law it would be unconstitutional. 216.201.33.20 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats not what we were talking about. Buisness have policy yes, however that is differant from laws and from crimes. The last person suggested it was either a crime or illegal, it was neither. While it may have violated his workplace policy that doesn't make it illegal, it is legal grounds for termination of employment, but it is not illegal to say that. It is a form of free speech protected under the constitution.
Additionally it has to be proven that it did in fact violate workplace policy, and that it was sexual harassment. So far neither of these have been proven either. 216.201.33.20 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No I have not heard that example. However you are extremely wrong, inflamatory speech is protected under the constitution. Adolph Hitlers Mein Kampf is filled with inflamatory hate speech against jews, and it is protected under the Constitution as a form of free speech. The use of the word "faggot" is also protected under the constitution.
As for this being sexual harassment, once again there is no actual law against sexual harassment, merely a contraversial interpretation of a law, that has to be fought out in court, once more sexual harassment has to actually be sexual as well. Hate speech does not classify as "sexual" harassment. 216.201.33.20 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That example is a wiki example and proves nothing.
First of all if it weren't protected under the first amendment then you could be punished. Sexual harassment is protected under the first amendment, however companys have the right to fire somebody for any reason that they choose provided they can prove it is valid, and related to the company, at this time.
As for making threats, you are not arrested for using free speech but attempting to coerce somebody with illegal behavior.
I strongly suggest you take time to study constitutional law, free speech, and sexual harassment law before you go making any further untrue statements.
As I have already told you, there is no actual law against sexual harassment, only the interpretation of a law that prohibits sex discrimination, and this interpetation is widely disputed.
Furthermore it has to be sexual. Washington made no sexual advance at T.J. Knight, therefore you can't even construe it as that.
Hate speech is protected under the Constitution, if it weren't then it would be illegal to sell Mein Kampf in America. 216.201.33.41 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
For starters wikipedia is not a valid source in and of itself, secondly you really need to go back to school.
You seem to think that just because you have the right to sue that that means you will win. Anyone can go to court, that doesn't mean you have a case. Courts have rulled that tabloids can print naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston illegal taken on the grounds of free speech, despite the fact that it harmed her "happiness or the ability to live life the way they want."
Tabloids printing does not continue simply because movies stars over look them, they continue printing because they are protected under the consitution.
The fact is that hate speech is protected under the first amendment, it is a civil right. Every example you provide includes somebody using speech to incite illegal behavior. Speech itself, no matter what the speech is, unless it is untrue (which this wasn't) is protect under the Constitution.
If it were not the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, ect . . . would not be allowed to be active, and yet they are and still have their demonstrations.
At any rate the issue was sexual harassment, and this was not sexual harassment. 216.201.12.175 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a mild suggestion but as you seem to be so hot on wikipedia, you should check out wiki's article on hate speech here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech 216.201.12.175 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What you are forgetting though is that when tabloids are sued, it is not because they do not have a legal right to free speech, it is because they have defamed that persons character by slander (which has to be untrue), Isaiah Washington did not. Nothing Isaiah Washington was untrue. He called T.J. Knight a "faggot", (although this has been called into question) and whats more as "faggot" means "wuss" "nacny boy" "effimate" ect . . . that is a value judgement, and an expression of opinion, not slander.
When tabloids make up storys, they are lieing to harms someones reputation, Washington was expressing his opinion, which he has the right to do, and which is protected form of free speech.
You don't seem to realize that just because you have a right to free speech does not mean that you can't be fired for expressing it, nor does it mean that it is not protected.
At any rate the original statement which I deleted, stated that it was sexual harassment, which it wasn't, meaning that that was untrue, and could be construed as slander. 216.201.12.175 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
To chime in (and hopefully not get my head cut off), I will concede that sexual harassment as we know it is an intepretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that interpretation was one that was created by the Supreme Court of the United States, whose job it is to intrepret the law. It is just as illegal as quotas or housing discrimination because the body that is governed with intepreting laws says it is. I found all of this out with a quick google search and a little business law knowledge.
With that said, whether the people at Grey's interpreted Mr. Washingtons acts as sexual harassment and fired him on that basis or not is speculative and should not be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.137.33 ( talk) 02:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
You are completely correct on this issue, but it should be noted that the Supreme Courts rulings change with its members, and unless something is clearly written into law it wouldn't be wise to include it, paticularly since we now have a new Supreme Court, and also the fact that it could be construed as slander, especially since there was no sexual connotation connected to it. 216.201.33.27 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Supreme Court rulings do not change as the members do; Supreme Court rulings set precedents, which may change IF the issue comes up again in their court, but the interpretation of the law simply does not change if one member of the Supreme Court retires and a new one is installed. PeanutCheeseBar 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on Washington's charitable foundation is pure puff-piece promo stuff. What were people thinking? Should be axed unless it's rewritten in a neutral, simply informative way - if it even needs to be there. If the foundation actually happens to be important, perhaps it should have its own article, and material quoted from its mission statement (which is what the passage sounds like - something written by the press office for the org?) should appear as quotations. 24.90.17.134 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the best photo anyone could come up with? It's creepy-looking, IMHO. – AndyFielding ( talk) 12:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
We have a filmography section in this article. Excessive list in lead serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 17:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Isaiah Washington article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He was very good as Lane Stailey in an episode of Homicide: Life on the Street. He probably showed more emotion in the 10-20 minutes he was on that episode than he has in his entire run playing Burke, thus far anyway. Granted though he was playing a high-strung crook there and Burke's character is a reserved neat-freak. Anyway the Burke character's kind of important to the show so I might do a page on the character later. Granted they may write him out soon, but I think it'll be hard for them to do that.-- T. Anthony 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The recent dismissal of Washington from Grey's Anatomy should at most be a minor footnote, there are some serious WP:UNDUE weight issues being applied to this person's biography. RFerreira 04:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Sexual harassment is illegal in the United States.
Wikipedia's own page on sexual harassment states that "sexual harassment is considered a form of illegal discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying."
In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission produced a set of guidelines for defining and enforcing Title VII (in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
1. and 2. are called "quid pro quo" (Latin for "this for that" or "something for something"). They are essentially "sexual bribery", or promising of benefits, and "sexual coercion".
Type 3. known as "hostile work environment," is by far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective.[21]
But sexual harassment is not a crime, which is what the article stated.
Sexual harassment is not entirely illegal either. The entire basis is an interpretation of "sexual harassment" as form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, there in fact is no law describing what you have listed, only an arbitrary interpretation which was only established in the eighties, thats a decade and a half after the law was originally passed.
At any rate Washington's behavior was not illegal, nor was it a crime, and it is a form of free speech protected under the first amendment, so even if there were a law it would be unconstitutional. 216.201.33.20 03:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats not what we were talking about. Buisness have policy yes, however that is differant from laws and from crimes. The last person suggested it was either a crime or illegal, it was neither. While it may have violated his workplace policy that doesn't make it illegal, it is legal grounds for termination of employment, but it is not illegal to say that. It is a form of free speech protected under the constitution.
Additionally it has to be proven that it did in fact violate workplace policy, and that it was sexual harassment. So far neither of these have been proven either. 216.201.33.20 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No I have not heard that example. However you are extremely wrong, inflamatory speech is protected under the constitution. Adolph Hitlers Mein Kampf is filled with inflamatory hate speech against jews, and it is protected under the Constitution as a form of free speech. The use of the word "faggot" is also protected under the constitution.
As for this being sexual harassment, once again there is no actual law against sexual harassment, merely a contraversial interpretation of a law, that has to be fought out in court, once more sexual harassment has to actually be sexual as well. Hate speech does not classify as "sexual" harassment. 216.201.33.20 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That example is a wiki example and proves nothing.
First of all if it weren't protected under the first amendment then you could be punished. Sexual harassment is protected under the first amendment, however companys have the right to fire somebody for any reason that they choose provided they can prove it is valid, and related to the company, at this time.
As for making threats, you are not arrested for using free speech but attempting to coerce somebody with illegal behavior.
I strongly suggest you take time to study constitutional law, free speech, and sexual harassment law before you go making any further untrue statements.
As I have already told you, there is no actual law against sexual harassment, only the interpretation of a law that prohibits sex discrimination, and this interpetation is widely disputed.
Furthermore it has to be sexual. Washington made no sexual advance at T.J. Knight, therefore you can't even construe it as that.
Hate speech is protected under the Constitution, if it weren't then it would be illegal to sell Mein Kampf in America. 216.201.33.41 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
For starters wikipedia is not a valid source in and of itself, secondly you really need to go back to school.
You seem to think that just because you have the right to sue that that means you will win. Anyone can go to court, that doesn't mean you have a case. Courts have rulled that tabloids can print naked pictures of Jennifer Aniston illegal taken on the grounds of free speech, despite the fact that it harmed her "happiness or the ability to live life the way they want."
Tabloids printing does not continue simply because movies stars over look them, they continue printing because they are protected under the consitution.
The fact is that hate speech is protected under the first amendment, it is a civil right. Every example you provide includes somebody using speech to incite illegal behavior. Speech itself, no matter what the speech is, unless it is untrue (which this wasn't) is protect under the Constitution.
If it were not the American Nazi Party, the Ku Klux Klan, ect . . . would not be allowed to be active, and yet they are and still have their demonstrations.
At any rate the issue was sexual harassment, and this was not sexual harassment. 216.201.12.175 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a mild suggestion but as you seem to be so hot on wikipedia, you should check out wiki's article on hate speech here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech 216.201.12.175 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What you are forgetting though is that when tabloids are sued, it is not because they do not have a legal right to free speech, it is because they have defamed that persons character by slander (which has to be untrue), Isaiah Washington did not. Nothing Isaiah Washington was untrue. He called T.J. Knight a "faggot", (although this has been called into question) and whats more as "faggot" means "wuss" "nacny boy" "effimate" ect . . . that is a value judgement, and an expression of opinion, not slander.
When tabloids make up storys, they are lieing to harms someones reputation, Washington was expressing his opinion, which he has the right to do, and which is protected form of free speech.
You don't seem to realize that just because you have a right to free speech does not mean that you can't be fired for expressing it, nor does it mean that it is not protected.
At any rate the original statement which I deleted, stated that it was sexual harassment, which it wasn't, meaning that that was untrue, and could be construed as slander. 216.201.12.175 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
To chime in (and hopefully not get my head cut off), I will concede that sexual harassment as we know it is an intepretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But that interpretation was one that was created by the Supreme Court of the United States, whose job it is to intrepret the law. It is just as illegal as quotas or housing discrimination because the body that is governed with intepreting laws says it is. I found all of this out with a quick google search and a little business law knowledge.
With that said, whether the people at Grey's interpreted Mr. Washingtons acts as sexual harassment and fired him on that basis or not is speculative and should not be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.137.33 ( talk) 02:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
You are completely correct on this issue, but it should be noted that the Supreme Courts rulings change with its members, and unless something is clearly written into law it wouldn't be wise to include it, paticularly since we now have a new Supreme Court, and also the fact that it could be construed as slander, especially since there was no sexual connotation connected to it. 216.201.33.27 05:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Supreme Court rulings do not change as the members do; Supreme Court rulings set precedents, which may change IF the issue comes up again in their court, but the interpretation of the law simply does not change if one member of the Supreme Court retires and a new one is installed. PeanutCheeseBar 12:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on Washington's charitable foundation is pure puff-piece promo stuff. What were people thinking? Should be axed unless it's rewritten in a neutral, simply informative way - if it even needs to be there. If the foundation actually happens to be important, perhaps it should have its own article, and material quoted from its mission statement (which is what the passage sounds like - something written by the press office for the org?) should appear as quotations. 24.90.17.134 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the best photo anyone could come up with? It's creepy-looking, IMHO. – AndyFielding ( talk) 12:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
We have a filmography section in this article. Excessive list in lead serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 17:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)