This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laura Prepon 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
I added the sentence: "Since publishing The Stash Plan, Prepon has expanded her cooking career, launching a line of kitchenware products called PrepOn Kitchen and regularly posting instructional videos online." I'm concerned that this might be deleted on grounds that it's too promotional, so I wanted to preemptively argue that this is valid information to include in the article, as Prepon's cooking career has arguably been her primary professional pursuit over the last several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorgborg ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
the word "recently" has no place in ANY wiki article. recently when? when was it added? if the article was written in 2004, and it's 2008, then "recently" doesn't apply anymore. use a date, or don't even mention a time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Whosdatedwho.com is not a reliable source, it can be edited by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.41.56 ( talk) 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Did she get her hair blond for the film "Karla"? If so, and with confirmation, this should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.29.180 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 August 2005
Can we get a picture of her with red hair? That's how I think of her, how she looked when she first became famous, and I think would be more illustrative. -- DavidConrad 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
According to an interview given about a year ago (I'm going to look for it), she's naturally a brunette
69.225.2.238 (
talk)
Where it says, "and has done a TV advertisement for GAP clothing", everywhere i look, it says it wasn't aired. so i've changed it to say this: "and has done a TV advertisement for GAP clothing, although it was never aired." SuperWiki5 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Laura was once a rockstar in a band called JaheKeiK. she was also on an episode of king of the hill, called ♥talking shop"
The only reference I can find to this band anywhere on the Internet (or for that matter, Laura ever being in a band) is in this article. Can anybody find any citations for this? Because otherwise, it needs to go...-- Enwilson 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is she actually a member of the Scientology church? Where has she said this?
I had the same question -- is she really a Scientologist? She may well be one, but the sources provided here really don't pass muster by Wikipedia standards ( WP:RS and WP:BLP). Unless somebody can find something that would be considered authoritative by those standards, those categories will need to be removed. I will check back in a week or so and see if good sourcing has been found. Cgingold 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest somebody finds a good, reliable source, otherwise it should be taken out. Mtijn ( talk) 12:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
i don't know if she is a scientologist or not, but i know that danny and chris masterson being scientologists is totally irrelevant in an article about laura prepon. it's like saying "laura is a scientologist, and so is tom cruise". while it may be true, the part about cruise is irrelevant to an article about someone else. i'm taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If she is a member of the Scientology church why is she categorized as Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.61.104 ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are apparently reliable sources that Prepon is a Scientologist. vh1.com "Sexy Scientologists - Laura Prepon" foxnews.com "Tom Cruise Finally Meets His Match" eonline.com "Is Will Smith now a Scientologist?" Another editor is essentially insisting that WP:BLP requires that we discuss before adding reliably sourced information. I disagree. Whatever. Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Donna Pinciotti.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Could anyone put better picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.118.77 ( talk) 17:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Really, put a better picture. She is better know for her red hair.It would make more sense to put a red hair picture.
I cleaned up the copyvios that I spotted in the recent edits. The contributor was helpful enough to provide URLs right to the sources. Be on the lookout if any else have slipped through. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A line said she drives a 1998 Ford Explorer. I removed it. She might have driven it whenever the undated reference was made, but she could have traded it in two weeks later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 ( talk) 17:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to remove the {{ Lead too short}} template as outdated. I don't see what else should go in the lead that's not already there. Any objections? Elizium23 ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Russian, Jewish, Irish Catholic sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Lapadite ( talk) 02:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use the word 'original' in the phrase "the Netflix original series Orange is the New Black"? This is Wikipedia, not Netflix. Netflix doesn't need an advertising plug for Orange is the New Black on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolRon ( talk • contribs) 00:47, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, stop removing well-sourced, long-term relationships cited in the personal life sections of BLPs. You've a history of doing this and it's been commented many times not to in these cases. Need one cite a discussion you cite on your talk: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#BLP_gossip. Significant relationships may be and are widely sourced in BLPs; tons of articles, including GAs and FAs, have them noted. I expect you understand this and to not continue enforcing your personal preference over WP consensus. Lapadite ( talk) 12:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This editor is removing information sources to reliable sources and claiming "unnecessary gossip". Surely its relevant to mention that somebody was with somebody for 4 years? Would you fail to mention Bennifer in the Ben Affleck and J-Lo articles for instance?I mean the Ben Affleck article mentions relationships he had for just 2 years and says things like "Despite a wedding planned for September 14, the couple broke up in 2004, both blaming the media attention - including an alleged incident in which Affleck partied with Christian Slater and some lap dancers in Vancouver." It is a Good Article and if anything that is far more "gossipy" than the articles he's removing stuff from every day. I think its very relevant to mention long term relationships if covered in multiple reliable sources. Its different if it is a brief fling. Any thoughts because this editor removes information from every actor article even if well-sourced and encyclopedic. ... "Celebrity sex lives" are often very important to that particular individual if it is several years. You cannot even begin to have a comprehensive "personal life" section which ignores the main components of their personal life. The Brad Pitt article mentions his early relationships and who he dated. Its also an FA. Its perfectly appropriate. ... I would consider a relationship over two years to be considered notable enough for mentioning in an article if it is covered in scores of reliable sources. I feel that it is different to the tabloid story of the day xxx was seen leaving xxxx hotel with xxxx type of thing. I have though seen Hullaballoo delete information about long -term relationships which were widely covered in reliable sources like The Guardian etc and were very well known, it just seems a bit odd to remove anything but a marriage and label it "tabloid drivel". That's what I disagree with. I'll agree that Hullabaloo is right to remove unsourced content of brief flings and that but not relationships which people were in for 4 years and is well documented in multiple reliable sources.
BLPN discussion here. Lapadite ( talk) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Can the "Personal life" sections of BLPs include significant relationships cited in reliable sources? Lapadite ( talk) 01:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As discussed in the parent section above, this article's #Personal life section cited two significant relationships (one of 7 years, the other of 5). They were removed by an editor calling it "dating history" and "gossip" on WP. These two long-term relationships are noted in multiple reliable sources; the sources cited, commonly used for entertainment/celebrity news, include: Entertainment Tonight Canada, New York Daily News, Gawker, Zimbio, Harper's Bazaar. As noted above, many BLP WP:Featured Articles and WP:Good Articles cite celebrity relationships, including Mariah_Carey#Personal_life, Bradley_Cooper#Personal_life, Jennifer_Lawrence#Personal_life, Ben_Affleck#Personal_life, Brad_Pitt#Personal_life, Courtney_Love#Personal_life, Kylie_Minogue#Relationships - indicating wide WP consensus/practice and no policy violation. Per WP:BLP, all information about a living person must adhere to the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Lapadite ( talk) 01:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Prepon was in a relationship with actor Christopher Masterson from 2000 to 2007. They lived together in Los Feliz, California, before separating and selling their home in 2008. From 2008 to 2013, Prepon dated actor Scott Michael Foster, with whom she created their comedy web series Neighbros [or just "her Neighbros costar"].
RfC expired. @
Tenebrae,
Coretheapple,
Comatmebro,
Markbassett, and
L3X1: As the majority who commented did not oppose, what is the view on the writing I proposed: "Prepon was in a relationship with actor Christopher Masterson from 2000 to 2007. They lived together in Los Feliz, California, before separating and selling their home in 2008. From 2008 to 2013, Prepon dated actor Scott Michael Foster, with whom she created their comedy web series Neighbros.**
" **or just "her Neighbros costar
". The statements would be cited by the following sources (as linked above), which include interviews with the actors:
Entertainment Tonight Canada,
New York Daily News,
Gawker,
Zimbio,
Harper's Bazaar,
Vulture,
Los Angeles Times. Any different suggestion(s)?
Lapadite (
talk) 06:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
L3X1(distænt write) )evidence( 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor added hidden comments within the article that started with the sentence "See WP:BLP: DO NOT MAKE CLAIMS ... OF SUBJECTS' PERSONAL LIVES (...) THAT SUBJECTS DID NOT STATE THEMSELVES." I removed that instruction, as I believe WP:BLP does not say that. The statement would prohibit the use of independent sources of information, which I believe is directly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. My understanding is that Wikipedia generally prefers independent reliable sources over self-published information. Certainly we need to be cautious about adding contentious and potentially unreliable material, but I disagree with the idea that the topic of a BLP needs to approve of whatever the article says about their personal life. If someone thinks WP:BLP says that, please point me to the specific sentence(s) that allegedly say that. When I reverted the addition of these instructions, my revert was reverted, and I reverted it again. In the interest of trying to avoid a full-fledged edit war over material that isn't even part of the visible article content, I am opening this discussion here. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"including relationships, identification, and beliefs … as "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TABLOID; WP DOES NOT PUBLISH ORIGINAL RESEARCH, OR SPECULATION, OR PRESUMPTIONS". Please also refer to WP:NOT. This is pertaining to the BLP-violation edits making unverified claims of the subject's current beliefs or current personal relationship to any religious institution. We generally don't include speculation or presumptions on subjects' personal lives, and certainly not from blogs; the subject themselves should confirm their beliefs, identify, status for one to state that on WP. Like we don't cite tabloid articles speculating about celebrities' personal lives or claims about their sexuality and whatnot, unless the subject themselves states the status on their relationship(s), beliefs, sexual identity, etc. Again, "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TABLOID; WP DOES NOT PUBLISH ORIGINAL RESEARCH, OR SPECULATION, OR PRESUMPTIONS". Refer to WP:BLP, including: "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."; and "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research."; and "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". WP:BLP is policy, strictly adhered to, and the quoted excerpts will nearly always be favored over the opposite. If you prefer you can take this specific matter (citation of blogs to claim something about subject's beliefs or identity with something) to the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
<!--NOTE: Any changes that are not in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOTATABLOID will be reverted.-->
We should not be in the business of trying to summarize all the requirements of our BLP policy (a 50kb document) in one sentence. Anyone who cares will take the time to review those policies; anyone who doesn't won't alter their behavior because of a hidden comment.
General Ization
Talk 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Showbiz411, which is used in the article as a ref, is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. It should therefore be deleted as a ref, per wp guidelines. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 ( talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Both Halopedia and the Wikia/Fandom Halo wiki have her down as voicing a female UNSC marine in Halo 2. Would be interesting to go through her IMDb and see what other VA work she's done. - Dvaderv2 ( talk) 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Laura Prepon 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
I added the sentence: "Since publishing The Stash Plan, Prepon has expanded her cooking career, launching a line of kitchenware products called PrepOn Kitchen and regularly posting instructional videos online." I'm concerned that this might be deleted on grounds that it's too promotional, so I wanted to preemptively argue that this is valid information to include in the article, as Prepon's cooking career has arguably been her primary professional pursuit over the last several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorgborg ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
the word "recently" has no place in ANY wiki article. recently when? when was it added? if the article was written in 2004, and it's 2008, then "recently" doesn't apply anymore. use a date, or don't even mention a time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Whosdatedwho.com is not a reliable source, it can be edited by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.41.56 ( talk) 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Did she get her hair blond for the film "Karla"? If so, and with confirmation, this should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.29.180 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 August 2005
Can we get a picture of her with red hair? That's how I think of her, how she looked when she first became famous, and I think would be more illustrative. -- DavidConrad 04:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
According to an interview given about a year ago (I'm going to look for it), she's naturally a brunette
69.225.2.238 (
talk)
Where it says, "and has done a TV advertisement for GAP clothing", everywhere i look, it says it wasn't aired. so i've changed it to say this: "and has done a TV advertisement for GAP clothing, although it was never aired." SuperWiki5 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Laura was once a rockstar in a band called JaheKeiK. she was also on an episode of king of the hill, called ♥talking shop"
The only reference I can find to this band anywhere on the Internet (or for that matter, Laura ever being in a band) is in this article. Can anybody find any citations for this? Because otherwise, it needs to go...-- Enwilson 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Is she actually a member of the Scientology church? Where has she said this?
I had the same question -- is she really a Scientologist? She may well be one, but the sources provided here really don't pass muster by Wikipedia standards ( WP:RS and WP:BLP). Unless somebody can find something that would be considered authoritative by those standards, those categories will need to be removed. I will check back in a week or so and see if good sourcing has been found. Cgingold 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest somebody finds a good, reliable source, otherwise it should be taken out. Mtijn ( talk) 12:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
i don't know if she is a scientologist or not, but i know that danny and chris masterson being scientologists is totally irrelevant in an article about laura prepon. it's like saying "laura is a scientologist, and so is tom cruise". while it may be true, the part about cruise is irrelevant to an article about someone else. i'm taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If she is a member of the Scientology church why is she categorized as Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.61.104 ( talk) 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are apparently reliable sources that Prepon is a Scientologist. vh1.com "Sexy Scientologists - Laura Prepon" foxnews.com "Tom Cruise Finally Meets His Match" eonline.com "Is Will Smith now a Scientologist?" Another editor is essentially insisting that WP:BLP requires that we discuss before adding reliably sourced information. I disagree. Whatever. Discuss. - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Donna Pinciotti.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Could anyone put better picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.118.77 ( talk) 17:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Really, put a better picture. She is better know for her red hair.It would make more sense to put a red hair picture.
I cleaned up the copyvios that I spotted in the recent edits. The contributor was helpful enough to provide URLs right to the sources. Be on the lookout if any else have slipped through. Elizium23 ( talk) 05:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A line said she drives a 1998 Ford Explorer. I removed it. She might have driven it whenever the undated reference was made, but she could have traded it in two weeks later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 ( talk) 17:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to remove the {{ Lead too short}} template as outdated. I don't see what else should go in the lead that's not already there. Any objections? Elizium23 ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Russian, Jewish, Irish Catholic sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Lapadite ( talk) 02:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use the word 'original' in the phrase "the Netflix original series Orange is the New Black"? This is Wikipedia, not Netflix. Netflix doesn't need an advertising plug for Orange is the New Black on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolRon ( talk • contribs) 00:47, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, stop removing well-sourced, long-term relationships cited in the personal life sections of BLPs. You've a history of doing this and it's been commented many times not to in these cases. Need one cite a discussion you cite on your talk: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#BLP_gossip. Significant relationships may be and are widely sourced in BLPs; tons of articles, including GAs and FAs, have them noted. I expect you understand this and to not continue enforcing your personal preference over WP consensus. Lapadite ( talk) 12:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This editor is removing information sources to reliable sources and claiming "unnecessary gossip". Surely its relevant to mention that somebody was with somebody for 4 years? Would you fail to mention Bennifer in the Ben Affleck and J-Lo articles for instance?I mean the Ben Affleck article mentions relationships he had for just 2 years and says things like "Despite a wedding planned for September 14, the couple broke up in 2004, both blaming the media attention - including an alleged incident in which Affleck partied with Christian Slater and some lap dancers in Vancouver." It is a Good Article and if anything that is far more "gossipy" than the articles he's removing stuff from every day. I think its very relevant to mention long term relationships if covered in multiple reliable sources. Its different if it is a brief fling. Any thoughts because this editor removes information from every actor article even if well-sourced and encyclopedic. ... "Celebrity sex lives" are often very important to that particular individual if it is several years. You cannot even begin to have a comprehensive "personal life" section which ignores the main components of their personal life. The Brad Pitt article mentions his early relationships and who he dated. Its also an FA. Its perfectly appropriate. ... I would consider a relationship over two years to be considered notable enough for mentioning in an article if it is covered in scores of reliable sources. I feel that it is different to the tabloid story of the day xxx was seen leaving xxxx hotel with xxxx type of thing. I have though seen Hullaballoo delete information about long -term relationships which were widely covered in reliable sources like The Guardian etc and were very well known, it just seems a bit odd to remove anything but a marriage and label it "tabloid drivel". That's what I disagree with. I'll agree that Hullabaloo is right to remove unsourced content of brief flings and that but not relationships which people were in for 4 years and is well documented in multiple reliable sources.
BLPN discussion here. Lapadite ( talk) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Can the "Personal life" sections of BLPs include significant relationships cited in reliable sources? Lapadite ( talk) 01:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
As discussed in the parent section above, this article's #Personal life section cited two significant relationships (one of 7 years, the other of 5). They were removed by an editor calling it "dating history" and "gossip" on WP. These two long-term relationships are noted in multiple reliable sources; the sources cited, commonly used for entertainment/celebrity news, include: Entertainment Tonight Canada, New York Daily News, Gawker, Zimbio, Harper's Bazaar. As noted above, many BLP WP:Featured Articles and WP:Good Articles cite celebrity relationships, including Mariah_Carey#Personal_life, Bradley_Cooper#Personal_life, Jennifer_Lawrence#Personal_life, Ben_Affleck#Personal_life, Brad_Pitt#Personal_life, Courtney_Love#Personal_life, Kylie_Minogue#Relationships - indicating wide WP consensus/practice and no policy violation. Per WP:BLP, all information about a living person must adhere to the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Lapadite ( talk) 01:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Prepon was in a relationship with actor Christopher Masterson from 2000 to 2007. They lived together in Los Feliz, California, before separating and selling their home in 2008. From 2008 to 2013, Prepon dated actor Scott Michael Foster, with whom she created their comedy web series Neighbros [or just "her Neighbros costar"].
RfC expired. @
Tenebrae,
Coretheapple,
Comatmebro,
Markbassett, and
L3X1: As the majority who commented did not oppose, what is the view on the writing I proposed: "Prepon was in a relationship with actor Christopher Masterson from 2000 to 2007. They lived together in Los Feliz, California, before separating and selling their home in 2008. From 2008 to 2013, Prepon dated actor Scott Michael Foster, with whom she created their comedy web series Neighbros.**
" **or just "her Neighbros costar
". The statements would be cited by the following sources (as linked above), which include interviews with the actors:
Entertainment Tonight Canada,
New York Daily News,
Gawker,
Zimbio,
Harper's Bazaar,
Vulture,
Los Angeles Times. Any different suggestion(s)?
Lapadite (
talk) 06:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
L3X1(distænt write) )evidence( 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor added hidden comments within the article that started with the sentence "See WP:BLP: DO NOT MAKE CLAIMS ... OF SUBJECTS' PERSONAL LIVES (...) THAT SUBJECTS DID NOT STATE THEMSELVES." I removed that instruction, as I believe WP:BLP does not say that. The statement would prohibit the use of independent sources of information, which I believe is directly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. My understanding is that Wikipedia generally prefers independent reliable sources over self-published information. Certainly we need to be cautious about adding contentious and potentially unreliable material, but I disagree with the idea that the topic of a BLP needs to approve of whatever the article says about their personal life. If someone thinks WP:BLP says that, please point me to the specific sentence(s) that allegedly say that. When I reverted the addition of these instructions, my revert was reverted, and I reverted it again. In the interest of trying to avoid a full-fledged edit war over material that isn't even part of the visible article content, I am opening this discussion here. — BarrelProof ( talk) 18:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"including relationships, identification, and beliefs … as "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TABLOID; WP DOES NOT PUBLISH ORIGINAL RESEARCH, OR SPECULATION, OR PRESUMPTIONS". Please also refer to WP:NOT. This is pertaining to the BLP-violation edits making unverified claims of the subject's current beliefs or current personal relationship to any religious institution. We generally don't include speculation or presumptions on subjects' personal lives, and certainly not from blogs; the subject themselves should confirm their beliefs, identify, status for one to state that on WP. Like we don't cite tabloid articles speculating about celebrities' personal lives or claims about their sexuality and whatnot, unless the subject themselves states the status on their relationship(s), beliefs, sexual identity, etc. Again, "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TABLOID; WP DOES NOT PUBLISH ORIGINAL RESEARCH, OR SPECULATION, OR PRESUMPTIONS". Refer to WP:BLP, including: "BLPs must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy...it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."; and "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research."; and "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". WP:BLP is policy, strictly adhered to, and the quoted excerpts will nearly always be favored over the opposite. If you prefer you can take this specific matter (citation of blogs to claim something about subject's beliefs or identity with something) to the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
<!--NOTE: Any changes that are not in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOTATABLOID will be reverted.-->
We should not be in the business of trying to summarize all the requirements of our BLP policy (a 50kb document) in one sentence. Anyone who cares will take the time to review those policies; anyone who doesn't won't alter their behavior because of a hidden comment.
General Ization
Talk 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Showbiz411, which is used in the article as a ref, is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. It should therefore be deleted as a ref, per wp guidelines. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:95D3:5A5F:D9B5:5BA4 ( talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Both Halopedia and the Wikia/Fandom Halo wiki have her down as voicing a female UNSC marine in Halo 2. Would be interesting to go through her IMDb and see what other VA work she's done. - Dvaderv2 ( talk) 22:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)