Jump to content

Talk:Kristin Kreuk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.94.48.142 (talk) at 01:32, 20 January 2022 (→‎NXIVM: Misrepresentation of NXVIM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article deletion

The article was tagged as additional citations for verification for the last 8 months. I have tried looking for information and none exist. It's time to delete this article altogether. If it takes this long to find references, clearly editors have given up altogether. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking such utter rubbish! Yes, a few things need citing, but the page will not be deleted. magnius (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you find sources instead of telling me this page will not be deleted? 198.38.10.1 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You honestly think a page about a famous actress will be deleted? Move along.... magnius (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We won't delete a page on those terms. She has enough notability. If anything, the content that is not backed up with references would be removed, not the entire article. Also, you giving up on the article doesn't mean every single other active editor on Wikipedia (117,251) has. ς ح д r خ є 22:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't any of you delete the ones not backed up with references? There are plenty in the article. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Wiki policy is that unsourced contentious or libelous material be removed, not an entire article. In the current article, I counted 5 "citations needed" with 3 of them attached to an air/release dates for some film she appeared in (not libelous in any way I can see, and contentious? maybe under certain circumstances). You said you looked for references and found none, yet I found this information shortly after a quick visit to IMDB. Is not IMDB a reliable source for this type of information since IMDB confirms all entries that have to do with the movies themselves (air/release dates, cast, crew, etc) with the studios/companies before the edits "go live"? (First hand experience on this one — former actor). Rather than crying out to have the entire article deleted, would it not be better to spend that energy adding citations? And no, editors haven't given up as it is more likely that the editors just haven't bothered to look for citations — one of those "oh, the next guy will do it" things. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking. IMDb is trashier than Wiki. IMDb is not a source.11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.63.223 (talk)

This article needs a photo of her.

Is anyone a close friend to the actress? Perhaps one can take a picture of her and upload it to Wikipedia. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... we know. Hence the photo request template above ς ح д r خ є 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is taking so long? I'm sure she has plenty of friends who are willing to take a picture of her. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Karateka

It's clear from DwanyeWest's own citation that Kreuk gave up Karate when she was a teenager. "So, it's well known that you're into martial arts (purple belt!), though you gave it up at a young age." "I quit karate originally because it wasn't something that I was initially passionate about ... So, I had the opportunity in school to do a social studies class that was advanced, and I knew my mom would like that, so I bartered to take the advanced socials class and drop karate!" It makes the "Canadian Karateka" category unnecessary. I'd remove it (again) but he'd just put it back up (again) even though his own citation does not support the category. You win. ;) Rob Banzai (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See "Celebrities and the martial arts" to dicuss this further if you so strongly object. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kristin Kreuk.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kristin Kreuk.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it being nominated for deletion? The person who took it uploaded it to the Wikipedia server. I don't understand. Writerchic99 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

This currently reads she was born in both Vancouver, British Columbiaand born in Indonesia. "Kreuk was born in Vancouver, British Columbia.[2] and is of Chinese descent, but was born in Indonesia" I'm pretty sure she was born in Vancouver, but I don't have a source to confirm. Either way, she couldn't have been born in both locations. 50.80.228.18 (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: her pay for Smallville

"She returned as a guest star in the show's season eight for five episodes to conclude her storyline. In the first three seasons of the show she was paid $40.000 per episode, while from season four she earned $270.000 per episode."

Shouldn't that say $40,000 and $270,000 (respectively)? Where I'm from, $40.000 would mean 40 US Dollars. (Redacted)--Iamafanofpizza (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karate - purple belt

As far as I have been able to determine, there is no standard belt system in Canada. That means that having a "purple belt" is not informative. (Actually, purple can be anywhere from next after yellow to right below brown. Its a pretty safe bet that at 13 or 14 years old, she wasn't working on her brown belt.) Since the mention of what color belt she earned at what ever studio she attended is virtually meaningless I am removing it.71.28.50.215 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kristin Kreuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristin Kreuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kristin Kreuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NXIVM

Should be returned. She now admits to being in the cult from 2005 - 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:468:CD01:AC3D:F2:B43D:BA30 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed text about NXIVM from the Personal life section as it seems against WP:NPOV.

Kreuk was "reported" to have been recruited, "detractors" accused the founder of running a cult. There is no proven involvement by Kruek into the "alleged sex trafficking cult". She has publicly denied it. I don't think NXIVM should be added to the Personal life section.

From WP:UNDUE, "the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." // sikander { talk } 19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added it, slightly edited. The section only contains relevant and factual information with references. It has been widely reported and she wasn't being accused of those things in the wiki article. Would to me at least seem easily relevant enough to warrant a place on her wiki page.
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." ShadessKB (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Multi level marketing". Is that what it's called now? it was a blackmailing sex slavery/abuse/grooming cult. Whatever its cover msy have been, other than for sake of exhaustiveness, is irrelevant.

Boyfriend

I don't think her current boyfriend should be mentioned. The source being used (http://brieftake.com/interview-burden-truths-kristin-kreuk-peter-mooney-star-slade/) does not even name him, so I have continuously been removing edits that do because it is unsourced and due to the WP:BLPNAME policy. I believe he shouldn't be mentioned at all because there is no source for it being a significant relationship (claiming they are long-term in your edit summary is not enough, you need a source). —–Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@108.56.255.219: These sources aren't enough. The 'Inside of You' source just has her confirming Rosenbaum's statements that she's dating someone/has a boyfriend (at 10:38, 45:15) and Kreuk/Rosenbaum mentioning his forename (at 31:48, 45:15, 59:35), the 'Brief Take' source just has her saying that her boyfriend's a writer on her show, and the 'Beyond Fashion' source just says she revealed that she's in a relationship. See WP:V, WP:OR, WP:BLP (and specifically WP:BLPNAME), and WP:RS. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@108.56.255.219: Adding a fourth source doesn't suddenly make the previous three okay. The new 'Anchor.fm' source you've added (thanks for giving the time as 42:24) just has Kreuk mentioning that she has a boyfriend and she says his forename. So you're still violating the same policies that I listed above. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbyjjjj96: Please state and show the exact verbiage of where said policies are 'violated'. It's not a matter of whether previously referenced articles are made "OK" by later ones, whatever that even means. It's a matter of whether adding more sources increases the legitimacy of the claim. She's a public figure who has either explicitly mentioned the said name, has not denied the naming of him by others in the referenced sources, or the sources themselves provide information that can be inferred that further solidifies said claim, e.g., "my boyfriend is a writer on the show" with the name Erik (and only one exists). Whether you subjectively consider it "significant" is irrelevant since no explicit definition for the term has been given. Therefore, a person who commits to infrequent long-term relationships over a period of many years can have any one of them be validly deemed as "significant", especially if the significant other is explicitly named and referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.255.219 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@108.56.255.219: I linked numerous policies above which you obviously haven't bothered to read. You're combining multiple sources together to reach a conclusion. None of the sources even give the surname of her supposed boyfriend; you've determined who he is by looking up the writers on her show and discovering only one has the forename that she stated. This is original research and Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbyjjjj96: I'm not going to sift through hundreds of words of mentioned references to attempt to find the ones you supposedly used to support your claim that I violated certain rules. That is not my job. So what if a combination of sources were used to verify such information? Are you really complaining about using legitimate sources to come to a conclusive truth? Where is that against the rules? The NOR says this explicitly: "...serves to reach or imply a conclusion NOT STATED BY THE SOURCES", meaning that such sources are used to reach or imply a conclusion that is in CONTRADICTION to them, not in actual concordance with them. If the sources actually EXPLICITLY STATED the full name then there would be no need for "reaching" or "implying" a conclusion in the first place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.255.219 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot combine the sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated in any one of them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts: Then take out the surname instead of the entirety of it and blocking the IP address of a user just because all of you apparently can't handle TRUTHFUL information related in a Wiki. As far as all of the sources are concerned all of the rest of the data besides the surname IS EXPLICITLY stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.255.219 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have me confused with the person that blocked you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kristin_Kreuk&oldid=1066768629"