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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the
discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This is a comment for Ashley Johnson's current picture. She has received significantly more exposure as Patterson in the T.V series Blindspot and I feel her current picture is not up to standards. I would make a suggestion myself, however I don't know what pictures of her would be legal to use on Wikipedia so I'm just commenting here.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.178.203.24 (
talk)
02:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Agreed, it's five years later now and the current picture definitely seems too old. But I'm not sure what the best alternate would be either.
TimSmit (
talk)
02:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Sariel Xilo: I'm aware that the source is somewhat reliable in some contexts ("
inconclusive" for video games, so neither here nor there) but with content like this, I think it's preferable to wait for more reliable, mainstream coverage. I'm less concerned about the legitimacy of the information—I've seen the legal documents, unfortunately—and more about the
privacy of such a personal event. I'm sure there'll be more reliable coverage before long, so I would recommend
waiting until then. –
Rhain☔ (
he/him)
02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Makes sense. I've reviewed BLP but I couldn't find any exact guidance on this type of issue (
WP:VICTIM doesn't really account for notable persons who are then a victim of a crime;
WP:BLPCRIME is also about notable persons being accused & not the other way around). Just updated the page protection request as this is no longer a pre-emptive request.
Sariel Xilo (
talk)
03:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Good call. It also may be important to note that
WP:BLPCRIME likely applies to Foster in this case, so still better to err on the side of caution and omit the information for now. –
Rhain☔ (
he/him)
03:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Rhain: With
PCGamesN now
reporting on this, I think we have enough to say that Johnson and Foster are no longer together (maybe: In 2023, Johnson separated from Foster or In 2023, it was reported that Johnson separated from Foster). I don't think we need to include any of the specifics at this point.
Sariel Xilo (
talk)
15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Really good call on that phrasing. I saw PCGamesN's coverage but was hesitant to use it for
this topic (same with
Insider) but I think your phrasing (especially "it was reported") is a perfect compromise for now. –
Rhain☔ (
he/him)
23:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hope no one minds me making this a subsection because this seems to just be a continuation of the conversation above about sourcing on this issue. Right now, we're not mentioning the restraining order because of BLP concerns. We basically just have USA Today as the most reliable source and Insider/PCGamesN as less reliable sources for BLP concerns. At the momement, I think it is also
WP:UNDUE to include it; if more is released by reliable sources (for BLP concerns) or if anyone makes a formal statement, then we should update it.
Sariel Xilo (
talk)
16:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Is it really a "continuation of the conversation above"? The conversation above neither mentions USA Today, nor does it mention the restraining order.
70.29.86.155 (
talk)
15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I felt it was a continuation because when I added the 3 sources (first PCGamesN & Insider & then USA Today) for the separation, my edit summaries referenced this discussion (ie. how much detail to include & what reliable sources do we have). So "do we include the restraining order" seems very much part of the "how much detail to include" discussion.
Sariel Xilo (
talk)
22:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Updates to restraining order case
Understand @
Rhain's removal of the most recent case update due to BLP concern's with Radar as a source. However, that decision does seem to bring into question the inclusion of prior sites of similar reputation as sources, namely Insider and Hollywood Reporter. I understand the surface acceptance of USA Today as a source, but the source is specifically their celebrity gossip blog, which produces content essentially the same as the Radar article. Both quote primary sources of the publicly available (but not linkable) court documents with minimal editorializing. So, is the decision in this instance of what is considered a viable source based more on opinion about the reputation of celebrity gossip sites? Or about the factual contents of the source articles themselves?
Most of the sources currently used are considered at least marginally reliable per
WP:RSP. More important, though, is that there are several references cited for each statement, whereas the information removed here was supported by only one (a seemingly unreliable one, at that). For privacy's sake, I'd be content with removing all of the information, personally speaking—but I don't think I have guidelines on my side there, so we opt for multiple reliable references instead. –
Rhain☔ (
he/him)08:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Requested move 19 April 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.