This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sondra Locke 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 |
![]() | A news item involving Sondra Locke was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 December 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I graduated from Shelbyville Central HS in 1965 at age 18. My birthdate is Jan 15, 1947, three months BEFORE the listed birthdate for Ms. Locke. Sondra did graduate in 1962, but to have been born in 1947, she would have been 15 years old. I'm pretty sure she was 18, making her birth year 1944. 67.72.98.115 ( talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Erikeltic is absolutely correct that neither public records, nor your own analysis, nor IMDB are allowed, per WP:RS and WP:OR. However, Eikeltic is wrong in one point: simple subtraction does not constitute original research--it is, in fact, very common to determine birth years by matching up printed ages with the date of publication of a reliable source. As such, we should be including both birthdates; one based on the book, and one based on the 3 different reliable news sources that all confirm an older age. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to Yahoo! News [16], ABC News [17], the Associated Press [18] [19], Leigh Valley News [20], and The Boston Globe [21]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies [22], the Internet Movie Database [23], and the Notable Names Database [24]. Many printed publications erroneously list her birth year as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [25] appearing in a production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Locke's age is stated as 45 in this 1989 People magazine article [26], correlating to a 1944 birth year. As of August 2011, Locke is 67 years old according to public records [27] [28], correlating to her being born in 1944.
I don't understand how this could be disputed. It is quite obvious that Ms. Locke lied about her age when she began her Hollywood career in order to get roles. PlaceboComp8705 ( talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you understand that you cannot use public records searches as "proof" and that none of what you've written respects Ms. Locke's privacy, as required per WP:BLP? Erikeltic ( Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am using the public records merely to increase the benefit of the doubt of those who have power on wikipedia. The only things that the Intelius page lists are her name (that is not private, as she is a famous actress), her residential city (Los Angeles - duh, that is not private), her husband's name (again, it is common knowledge and not private at all), and of course, her age (the one thing that has been consistently lied about over the years). Your argument that it does not "respect her privacy" is rubbish and has no merit. PlaceboComp8705 ( talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
First, full disclosure. I am entering this discussion because Erikeltic suggested I take a look. Ze and I have had a prolonged back and forth on Michelle Thomas that ze feels is similar. I disagree. In the case of Thomas, there were attempts to take an age as of a certain date to definitively establish a year of birth, when such actually supports it being one of two years. In this case, the sources I'm seeing are stating that Locke turned a certain age on a given date. The simple calculation gives the birth date. To clarify: Someone who is 10 years old on July 1, 2011 was born in 2001 or in 2000. Someone who turned 10 on July 1, 2011 was born on July 1 2001. Slight caution: there are not as many sources as are being presented here: "according to ABC News [39], Yahoo! News [40], the Associated Press [41] [42], Leigh Valley News [43], and The Boston Globe [44]" The first four sources are clearly the same AP report (they label it as such). The Lehigh Valley source carries some of the birth dates (same order, same language) as the AP and uses portions of the language (compare [45] "In 1959, the U.S. Army launched Able, a rhesus monkey, and Baker, a squirrel monkey, aboard a Jupiter missile for a suborbital flight which both primates survived.") but does not label it as such. The Boston Globe (copyright NY Times) report has the same language, again not attributed to the AP. Whether one of the papers is the AP's source or all are merely running it is immaterial. It is one rock solid reliable source, not six. Public records are a moot point. That, FWIW, is my opinion. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Again - Who gives a shit about Locke's 'privacy'? She put herself out into the public eye. And it's simple addition/subtraction which allows one to calculate her birth year. It seems like Erikeltic is simply pushing his POV. But, really, who cares? ( Personal attack removed) GeneralZukov 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Placebo and a couple of others have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Excuseme99 who is blocked indefinitely. If he returns to this discussion, it will be through yet another of his dozens/ hundreds of sockpuppets. Erikeltic ( Talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Should Sondra Locke's birth be listed as 1944, 1947, or something else? Please see discussion above. Gerardw ( talk) 10:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Date: 9-25-67; Name of Female Applicant: Sondra Louise Locke; Born: 5-28-44; Age:23(subscription required) GcSwRhIc ( talk) 13:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been more than two weeks since this RFC was started and the consensus appears to be to include both dates. We have sources for each. How many more days should we wait until the dates are included? Erikeltic ( Talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Until we find out which sources are accurate or reach consensus on which year she was born in there should be no year on a BLP. One year could be caused by a typo that some sources are using. To leave both years implies that she may have falsified her birth year. This implication without proof is libelous. Please reach consensus and add only one year. Thank you in advance.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Those are statements, not facts. Did anyone think of emailing them in the last 3 years that this crap has been going on and simply asking where they think they got their facts from?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
What does original research have to do with it? I don't really care which year she was born in. All I have done is ask wikipedia sources to check their sources to see which is fact and which is not. Listing both as facts is not only impossible but shows that we either can't do correct research as they have done or reach consensus on which research is factual.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in some cases, one source may be found to be more reliable than another--for example, we often find academic sources to be more reliable than mass media sources like newspapers and the like. Also, if there is a majority of sources that support one thing while a minority support another, the article will generally stand with the majority (I'm thinking here of things like our coverage of climate change and the Shakespeare authorship question) What we do not do is say, "X's argument is more convincing than Y's, so we'll highlight X's." As far as I know, no one has ever provided any policy compliant argument for one set of sources being more authoritative than another. This is the point that Eriktlc is making above: we are not arbiters of facts. We do not look at debates and pick a side. We only pick a side when there already is a clearly demonstrable "dominant" side in the sources, or when the quality of one set of sources is demonstrably better than another. Until such time as someone does that in this article, both positions must stay, and both must stay equally. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that 1944 is the best sourced year. 1947 should be a footnote or worded in such a way that it is the less likely year?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me as long as one year is dominant. I can see where the confusion may have started. This is a picture of a 7 than can look like a 4, and a 4 that can look like a 7.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Some editors should take a look at their sources closer. I have sent email to Rovi and the publisher of the biography and asked them to check and possibly correct their sources. It seems they all source each other at this point.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I am astounded by the self-imposed authenticity austerity of Wikipedia, which makes an entry like this look ridiculously "accurate", meaning to say, inaccurate by definition. My point is that every and any logical attempt of calculating Ms. Locke's BoD is refuted under such silly, I must say, excuses as this or other websites are or are deemed to be unreliable. And those sites, mind you, are such ones as IMDB or Intelius, or even, God forbid, artifacts like her own birth certificate. I tried to read and follow the arguments for the 1944 BoD and the counter-arguments, and in my opinion, the counter-arguments are edifices built on air, totally disconnected from reality. I, and many other people, consider the 1944 BoD the one and only true and authentic date. This article is simply ridiculously marched to the rule of measure defined by the rule owners, who, like in Sodom, cut the legs of the tall people to fit in the one measure bed or stretch them to fit it yet again. Astounded am I, would be an understatement, to put it politely. Wikitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitor ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Wikitor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You could open an SPI on the new editor, I may show up and laugh at that one as well. This is not a discussion about changing the year. That will happen when the sources change their years. In the mean time others may weigh in on how the existing consensus should be read. When this new editor clears your SPI, then we may open it up again without the statements of the real socks and see how it goes then.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I still think you fail to understand my original point. If the sources change, then the article changes. That never had anything to do with OR. I never started any battle, but I can finish them well. I do wish you would stop threatening to have me blocked. That seems very childish to me. -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not an editor nor do I intend to be one, this is the reason you see only 3 or so personal expressions in Wiki. It is just that Ms. Locke caught my attention and so, my curiosity, through one of her movies. Erikeltic: To utter the first off-the-sleeve blame of SP in order to explain the heresy of challenging Wiki's rules, is, excuse me of saying so, simply ridiculous. To reiterate: 1944 is the only logical authentic BoD, and as such, any other should be presented only, and only, as a footnote stating that this is just another date mentioned by so and so, and not as an equal-foot statement on the 'front-page'. That Wiki is not a court of justice in which a fact is judged but only stated as being there in the info-world, is a given, but even so it should not go to extremes, and this is what is being done here in this case. God help us of what is plausible of happening here in other entries more, far more important. And, minor remark but no less important, I asure all and sundry under word of honor that Wikitor is my one and only user handle here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitor ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the article Locke was born before her half-brother and thus before 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.60.248 ( talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating as this discussion on Ms Locked date of birth is.. In her career section it states " In 1978, the couple co-starred with an orangutan named Clyde in that year's second highest-grossing film". In fact it is an orangutan named 'Manis' who played 'Clyde'.
Can an editor agree on that and modify please? :) 92.40.248.244 ( talk) 23:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Roger Mosely's wiki page states he was married to Ms. Locke in 1960, with (2) children from the union. Why no mention of that on the page of Ms. Locke? Larry Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.118.177 ( talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
She died November 4, 2018, but it wasn't reported till December 12, 2018. Not sure the reason for the delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4001:8EB0:C07:4483:5444:4564 ( talk) 13:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Her death was publicized on December 13, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 ( talk) 05:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it me, or does anyone find it very strange that they announced her death just as Clint Eastwood's The Mule hit theaters? 75.128.82.247 ( talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
"Former colleagues at the station insinuated posthumously that Locke was promoted to the department through nepotism," footnoted to a Facebook post by some guy.
I remember from my youth a bunch of Encyclopedia Britannica articles that contained insinuations, but never posthumous insinuations, much less footnoted posthumous insinuations. This is groundbreaking journalism. You're like TMZ, nearly, and I expect your Pulitzer is in the mail.
2603:7081:4F06:2869:B868:32C6:A69E:84B4 ( talk) 13:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) some guy on Facebook
An anonymous edit from 50.244.131.50 on 11 July 2023 adds a paragraph to the foot of this section; it's unreferenced, and doesn't come across as at all neutral in tone:
In absence of any explanation, many surmised that Locke must have requested the blackout in her final wishes, perhaps to keep her true age under wraps. It's deducible, given Locke's vanity and history of deceiving the public, that she coordinated with end-of-life caregivers, mortuary staff, et cetera, to ensure news of her own death would be suppressed as much as possible. The delay itself was and is unprecedented. [a]
The same edit adds the factoid that she lied about dyeing her hair, and updates some references.
50.244.131.50 is a comcastbusiness.net IP address, and the few other edits from this address all relate to Clint Eastwood films, so it looks like the editor may be promoting their personal views or biases. 203.16.208.50 ( talk) 01:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sondra Locke 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 |
![]() | A news item involving Sondra Locke was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 December 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I graduated from Shelbyville Central HS in 1965 at age 18. My birthdate is Jan 15, 1947, three months BEFORE the listed birthdate for Ms. Locke. Sondra did graduate in 1962, but to have been born in 1947, she would have been 15 years old. I'm pretty sure she was 18, making her birth year 1944. 67.72.98.115 ( talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Erikeltic is absolutely correct that neither public records, nor your own analysis, nor IMDB are allowed, per WP:RS and WP:OR. However, Eikeltic is wrong in one point: simple subtraction does not constitute original research--it is, in fact, very common to determine birth years by matching up printed ages with the date of publication of a reliable source. As such, we should be including both birthdates; one based on the book, and one based on the 3 different reliable news sources that all confirm an older age. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to Yahoo! News [16], ABC News [17], the Associated Press [18] [19], Leigh Valley News [20], and The Boston Globe [21]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies [22], the Internet Movie Database [23], and the Notable Names Database [24]. Many printed publications erroneously list her birth year as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [25] appearing in a production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Locke's age is stated as 45 in this 1989 People magazine article [26], correlating to a 1944 birth year. As of August 2011, Locke is 67 years old according to public records [27] [28], correlating to her being born in 1944.
I don't understand how this could be disputed. It is quite obvious that Ms. Locke lied about her age when she began her Hollywood career in order to get roles. PlaceboComp8705 ( talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you understand that you cannot use public records searches as "proof" and that none of what you've written respects Ms. Locke's privacy, as required per WP:BLP? Erikeltic ( Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am using the public records merely to increase the benefit of the doubt of those who have power on wikipedia. The only things that the Intelius page lists are her name (that is not private, as she is a famous actress), her residential city (Los Angeles - duh, that is not private), her husband's name (again, it is common knowledge and not private at all), and of course, her age (the one thing that has been consistently lied about over the years). Your argument that it does not "respect her privacy" is rubbish and has no merit. PlaceboComp8705 ( talk) 03:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
First, full disclosure. I am entering this discussion because Erikeltic suggested I take a look. Ze and I have had a prolonged back and forth on Michelle Thomas that ze feels is similar. I disagree. In the case of Thomas, there were attempts to take an age as of a certain date to definitively establish a year of birth, when such actually supports it being one of two years. In this case, the sources I'm seeing are stating that Locke turned a certain age on a given date. The simple calculation gives the birth date. To clarify: Someone who is 10 years old on July 1, 2011 was born in 2001 or in 2000. Someone who turned 10 on July 1, 2011 was born on July 1 2001. Slight caution: there are not as many sources as are being presented here: "according to ABC News [39], Yahoo! News [40], the Associated Press [41] [42], Leigh Valley News [43], and The Boston Globe [44]" The first four sources are clearly the same AP report (they label it as such). The Lehigh Valley source carries some of the birth dates (same order, same language) as the AP and uses portions of the language (compare [45] "In 1959, the U.S. Army launched Able, a rhesus monkey, and Baker, a squirrel monkey, aboard a Jupiter missile for a suborbital flight which both primates survived.") but does not label it as such. The Boston Globe (copyright NY Times) report has the same language, again not attributed to the AP. Whether one of the papers is the AP's source or all are merely running it is immaterial. It is one rock solid reliable source, not six. Public records are a moot point. That, FWIW, is my opinion. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Again - Who gives a shit about Locke's 'privacy'? She put herself out into the public eye. And it's simple addition/subtraction which allows one to calculate her birth year. It seems like Erikeltic is simply pushing his POV. But, really, who cares? ( Personal attack removed) GeneralZukov 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Placebo and a couple of others have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Excuseme99 who is blocked indefinitely. If he returns to this discussion, it will be through yet another of his dozens/ hundreds of sockpuppets. Erikeltic ( Talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Should Sondra Locke's birth be listed as 1944, 1947, or something else? Please see discussion above. Gerardw ( talk) 10:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Date: 9-25-67; Name of Female Applicant: Sondra Louise Locke; Born: 5-28-44; Age:23(subscription required) GcSwRhIc ( talk) 13:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been more than two weeks since this RFC was started and the consensus appears to be to include both dates. We have sources for each. How many more days should we wait until the dates are included? Erikeltic ( Talk) 12:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Until we find out which sources are accurate or reach consensus on which year she was born in there should be no year on a BLP. One year could be caused by a typo that some sources are using. To leave both years implies that she may have falsified her birth year. This implication without proof is libelous. Please reach consensus and add only one year. Thank you in advance.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Those are statements, not facts. Did anyone think of emailing them in the last 3 years that this crap has been going on and simply asking where they think they got their facts from?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
What does original research have to do with it? I don't really care which year she was born in. All I have done is ask wikipedia sources to check their sources to see which is fact and which is not. Listing both as facts is not only impossible but shows that we either can't do correct research as they have done or reach consensus on which research is factual.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in some cases, one source may be found to be more reliable than another--for example, we often find academic sources to be more reliable than mass media sources like newspapers and the like. Also, if there is a majority of sources that support one thing while a minority support another, the article will generally stand with the majority (I'm thinking here of things like our coverage of climate change and the Shakespeare authorship question) What we do not do is say, "X's argument is more convincing than Y's, so we'll highlight X's." As far as I know, no one has ever provided any policy compliant argument for one set of sources being more authoritative than another. This is the point that Eriktlc is making above: we are not arbiters of facts. We do not look at debates and pick a side. We only pick a side when there already is a clearly demonstrable "dominant" side in the sources, or when the quality of one set of sources is demonstrably better than another. Until such time as someone does that in this article, both positions must stay, and both must stay equally. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that 1944 is the best sourced year. 1947 should be a footnote or worded in such a way that it is the less likely year?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me as long as one year is dominant. I can see where the confusion may have started. This is a picture of a 7 than can look like a 4, and a 4 that can look like a 7.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 23:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Some editors should take a look at their sources closer. I have sent email to Rovi and the publisher of the biography and asked them to check and possibly correct their sources. It seems they all source each other at this point.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I am astounded by the self-imposed authenticity austerity of Wikipedia, which makes an entry like this look ridiculously "accurate", meaning to say, inaccurate by definition. My point is that every and any logical attempt of calculating Ms. Locke's BoD is refuted under such silly, I must say, excuses as this or other websites are or are deemed to be unreliable. And those sites, mind you, are such ones as IMDB or Intelius, or even, God forbid, artifacts like her own birth certificate. I tried to read and follow the arguments for the 1944 BoD and the counter-arguments, and in my opinion, the counter-arguments are edifices built on air, totally disconnected from reality. I, and many other people, consider the 1944 BoD the one and only true and authentic date. This article is simply ridiculously marched to the rule of measure defined by the rule owners, who, like in Sodom, cut the legs of the tall people to fit in the one measure bed or stretch them to fit it yet again. Astounded am I, would be an understatement, to put it politely. Wikitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitor ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Wikitor ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You could open an SPI on the new editor, I may show up and laugh at that one as well. This is not a discussion about changing the year. That will happen when the sources change their years. In the mean time others may weigh in on how the existing consensus should be read. When this new editor clears your SPI, then we may open it up again without the statements of the real socks and see how it goes then.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 21:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I still think you fail to understand my original point. If the sources change, then the article changes. That never had anything to do with OR. I never started any battle, but I can finish them well. I do wish you would stop threatening to have me blocked. That seems very childish to me. -- Canoe1967 ( talk) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not an editor nor do I intend to be one, this is the reason you see only 3 or so personal expressions in Wiki. It is just that Ms. Locke caught my attention and so, my curiosity, through one of her movies. Erikeltic: To utter the first off-the-sleeve blame of SP in order to explain the heresy of challenging Wiki's rules, is, excuse me of saying so, simply ridiculous. To reiterate: 1944 is the only logical authentic BoD, and as such, any other should be presented only, and only, as a footnote stating that this is just another date mentioned by so and so, and not as an equal-foot statement on the 'front-page'. That Wiki is not a court of justice in which a fact is judged but only stated as being there in the info-world, is a given, but even so it should not go to extremes, and this is what is being done here in this case. God help us of what is plausible of happening here in other entries more, far more important. And, minor remark but no less important, I asure all and sundry under word of honor that Wikitor is my one and only user handle here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitor ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the article Locke was born before her half-brother and thus before 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.60.248 ( talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating as this discussion on Ms Locked date of birth is.. In her career section it states " In 1978, the couple co-starred with an orangutan named Clyde in that year's second highest-grossing film". In fact it is an orangutan named 'Manis' who played 'Clyde'.
Can an editor agree on that and modify please? :) 92.40.248.244 ( talk) 23:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Roger Mosely's wiki page states he was married to Ms. Locke in 1960, with (2) children from the union. Why no mention of that on the page of Ms. Locke? Larry Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.118.177 ( talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
She died November 4, 2018, but it wasn't reported till December 12, 2018. Not sure the reason for the delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4001:8EB0:C07:4483:5444:4564 ( talk) 13:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Her death was publicized on December 13, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 ( talk) 05:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Is it me, or does anyone find it very strange that they announced her death just as Clint Eastwood's The Mule hit theaters? 75.128.82.247 ( talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
"Former colleagues at the station insinuated posthumously that Locke was promoted to the department through nepotism," footnoted to a Facebook post by some guy.
I remember from my youth a bunch of Encyclopedia Britannica articles that contained insinuations, but never posthumous insinuations, much less footnoted posthumous insinuations. This is groundbreaking journalism. You're like TMZ, nearly, and I expect your Pulitzer is in the mail.
2603:7081:4F06:2869:B868:32C6:A69E:84B4 ( talk) 13:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) some guy on Facebook
An anonymous edit from 50.244.131.50 on 11 July 2023 adds a paragraph to the foot of this section; it's unreferenced, and doesn't come across as at all neutral in tone:
In absence of any explanation, many surmised that Locke must have requested the blackout in her final wishes, perhaps to keep her true age under wraps. It's deducible, given Locke's vanity and history of deceiving the public, that she coordinated with end-of-life caregivers, mortuary staff, et cetera, to ensure news of her own death would be suppressed as much as possible. The delay itself was and is unprecedented. [a]
The same edit adds the factoid that she lied about dyeing her hair, and updates some references.
50.244.131.50 is a comcastbusiness.net IP address, and the few other edits from this address all relate to Clint Eastwood films, so it looks like the editor may be promoting their personal views or biases. 203.16.208.50 ( talk) 01:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).