Talk:Laura Prepon

Cooking career

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)

Recently?

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)

Anthony Kiedis claims

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

Which is her natural color, blond or red? I think it's worth mentioning, whichever it was. Pimlottc 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's naturally red, I added this to the article. Thanks. --Yamla 04:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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 brunette69.225.2.238 (talk)

Gap clothing advertisement

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)

I remember seeing her in a GAP ad, of course I can't use my memory as a valid reference. 204.115.253.51 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation for claim about band membership?

"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)

Scientology?

Is she actually a member of the Scientology church? Where has she said this?

I've never read anywhere, that she practices Scientology, there for I am going to delete her from the category. If someone has an article stating so, feel free to change it and link to the article. kc12286 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)kc12286

She converted to Scientology when she began dating Christopher Masterson ("Malcom in the middle"), the brother of Danny Masterson (also starring in "That 70s show"). Articles:

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/l/laura-prepon.html

http://www.nndb.com/people/769/000022703/

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_scientologist.html

Why has this reference since been removed then? --Ghostreveries 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Because Jewish is also an ethnic group. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage a living person must have "...self-identified as a particular heritage..." to be put in that category. There's nothing in the article to indicate that ms Prepon has publically 'identified as herself jewish.-Duribald (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2009 (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)

So, your sources are:

1. a vh1.com picture titled "Sexy Scientologists"
2. a foxnews.com story from 2007
3. an E! online column by "The Answer B!tch".

Doesn't this strike you as, oh I dunno, a tad weak for the claim that Prepon is a Scientologist? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Why is vh1.com not a reliable source? Oh, I see: it includes the word "sexy". Why is foxnews.com not reliable? Oh, I see, it's too old to be reliable. Why is E! online unreliable? Oh, I see, it uses a variant of the word "bitch". Prepon is a celebrity, not a world leader. She's young and considered attractive. Yes, the topics in the sources are slanted toward the shallow end. The sources are not peer reviewed journals, but they are still reliable sources. Additionally, the most notable aspect of her career is a sitcom that ended four years ago. You likely won't be thrilled by the addition of metro "First wives spoil all the fun". Let's try a thought experiment. If we had added that Prepon was a Scientologist to the article in 2007. When would you have removed that fact? Would you now support adding a statement to the fact that Prepon was a Scientologist at some point? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prepon has confirmed herself, for example in Women's Health Magazine that she is a scientologist. There is no BLP issue here. -Duribald (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "no BLP issue here", Duribald. There certainly was a BLP issue, which does not exist with this new source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, SummerPhD, I took the vh1.com source to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and their view was pretty much the same as mine; that it was undoubtedly not a reliable source for the claim. Out of curiousity, if you were to use the E! online column, how would you cite the author in the references: "B!itch, The Answer"? Or "Answer B!tch, The"? In any event, there (and here) they produced an actually reliable source, the one listed above (womenshealthmag). Feel free to source to it the statement that in 2007 Prepon stated she was a Scientologist. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at the noticeboard "their" conclusion was regarding one of the three sources I proposed. Given that the date on the foxnews.com story is the same as the "fine source" they provided, I'm guessing it's not "too old". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is what I said, that I took the vh1.com source to the board, and their view was the same as mine. And when I said you could cite to Women's Health the statement that she said was a Scientologist in 2007, that's exactly what I meant. Cite it to Women's Health, and cite it accurately. I've fixed it for you. Stop playing games with WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

SummerPhD: BLP requires a person to self-identify with a belief in public to be categorized as such. You need a source that confirms this, which the WHM reference does. The FOX story, for example, does not. It does, however, show that her scientology beliefs are relevant to her public notability, which is also a criterion. You could add that source in addition to the WHM article, if you think that FOX is a reliable source. -Duribald (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Prepon has since confirmed being a Scientologist in an interview regarding its views on homosexuality.73.173.230.35 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Prepon has been a Scientologist since 1999. Watch https://fusion.tv/video/2977/oitnb-laura-prepon-opens-up-about-scientology/ . Fethry fan (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Donna Pinciotti.jpg

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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.

Recent copyvios

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)

What she drives

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)

There's a far better reason to remove it: it's trivial. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a fan page. There's plenty more trivia in the article to remove... - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short?

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)

Descent

Russian, Jewish, Irish Catholic sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Lapadite (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Netflix series

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)

I don't see anything promotional in that fact, but there's no need to state it in the bio (removed it). Lapadite (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced relationships

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)

• If you're going to cite a discussion where Jimmy Wales and the majority of nontroll commenters supported my position as some sort of evidence that consensus rejects my position on BLPs, your argument is hopeless. And sources like "Laura Prepon Dating History" and "Laura Prepon snuggles with mystery man at New York Rangers game" are worthless tabloid crap, not encyclopedic material. BLP makes no exception for celebrity gossip. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A) @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Those are the titles of the articles in the sources; the sources are reliable particularly for entertainment/celebrity news, and commonly used: Entertainment Tonight Canada, New York Daily News, Gawker, Zimbio, Harper's Bazaar. They were all cited. You (twice) removed all those cited sources and the content they cited - neutral mention of two significant relationships. As you've done/edit warred over in many other articles, and many editors have contended with you on this.

B) Noting two significant relationships, which are cited by multiple sources, does not contradict anything Wales said. Moreover, in that 2011 discussion on his talk page, Dr. Blofeld made some valid, WP consensus-supported points:

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.

C) Just 7 of the plethora of WP:Good Articles and WP:Featured Articles noting relationships in personal life sections: Mariah_Carey#Personal_life, Bradley_Cooper#Personal_life, Ben_Affleck#Personal_life, Brad_Pitt#Personal_life, Jennifer_Lawrence#Personal_life, Courtney_Love#Personal_life, Kylie_Minogue#Relationships. A neutral mention of two significant relationships is not "sensationalist", not "titillating"; 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, which the cited content does. Your dogmatic opinion that relationships can't be cited isn't supported by policy or WP custom/consensus and noting significant relationships isn't a violating of policy or WP consensus. You deciding your opinion must be abided by across WP articles is not how WP works. Lapadite (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting the side which did not prevail in a longrunning debate is hardly a convincing argument. As Jimmy Wales said, having content on the highest-profile, most widely reported celebrity relationships like "Bennifer" "[is] not the same as thinking that we should chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances". The outcome of the discussion you cite was that my position was upheld. Note also Talk:Jessica_Biel/Archive_2#RfC:_Relationships, a formal RFC supporting my position. That is consensus and practice; blathering on about possible exceptions elevates WP:OSE violations over consensus, policy and practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You keep making these unsupported claims and points that do not apply to this particular case or similar ones... A) there is no "prevailing side" or "my position was upheld" in that 2011 inquiry & discussion on his talk page. It's not an RfC, and what was discussed and agreed was (what is already known) that actual gossip, trivial dates/minor relationships, and "chronicl[ing] every single twist and turn of celebrity romances" is generally improper, and citing significant relationships noted in reliable sources is common and appropriate. None of the former applies here. B) the RfC you linked was about including a dating history list, which is not what this is (because for the dozenth this is about citing two significant relationships) - ergo the RfC has no relevance to this. But here are what editors wrote [all emphasis is mine except for in two editors' comments, as noted]:

"No, [including a list of the people she has dated] is irrelevant gossip, not relevant information" -- Irene.espinal92

"Yes, if reliable sources discuss it - It is customary for articles on celebrities to include some description of the person's personal life (marriage, divorce, children, important relationships, etc). Of course, any information must be supported by WP:Reliable sources." -- Noleander

"No [to including a list of the people she has dated]. Just because something may be verifiable does not mean it is noteworthy enough to include in an article. I think an overemphasis on subjects' personal relationships constitutes fancruft and degrades the seriousness of Wikipedia, as I have never seen a traditional encyclopedia with dating lists." ... "I didn't say that it should be prohibited to mention (!) dating or relationships, but that an overemphasis on subjects' personal relationships and especially things like "dating lists" seem unprofessional and are not befitting of a serious encyclopedia." -- Ibanez100

"(No) [to including a list of the people she has dated]. I am suggesting there be a WP-wide policy against mention of day-to-day personal details about the subject that aren't relevant to their enduring notability. -- GRuban

"It should be included per WP:UNDUE. We don't get to decide that we don't like a certain kind of coverage. Reliable sources rule." -- Peregrine Fisher

"Then anyone can add material to the Wiki article about all the people she dated supported by these press reports. And while well referenced, the fact that she dated "Mr. X" for 2 months is not relevant to the Wiki article". -- BweeB

"Compromise suggestion - What about one small paragraph, that mentions only the three that are discussed by lots of RSs". ... "I see a few !votes above which say "exclude dating information". But the rationales are lacking. To simply say that "it is gossipy and not notable" is not good enough: the consensus of the WP community, established in hundreds of celebrity articles, is that certain dating information can be included in articles [emphasis from editor]. The work we have to do here is draw the line: which relationships are too trivial, and which are significant enough to be mentioned? ... But to just mandate "no dating information for Biel" is not consistent with the broader consensus established in other celebrity articles." [emphasis mine] -- Noleander

[emphasis from editor] "How did this undecided discussion turn into Hullaballoo Wolfowitz preemptively deleting the Personal life section again before the discussion is concluded? Relationships are tricky, I'm not impressed by the question being negatively phrased as should we "include a list" when the relationships are written out as prose with some context given and references provided to both verify them and show some level of notability. I'm amused by assertions that marriage somehow makes a relationship more significant. A high-profile relationship such as Biel and Timberlake can last as long or longer than a Hollywood marriage. How many times did Liz Taylor marry? ... Some editors think relationships are trivial, and others think claims of someone being a sex symbol are trivial, and others think actors in minor roles are trivial." -- 93.107.76.37

I am going to agree that his removal without clear consensus to do so was not appropriate. If anything, I see a lot of comments about irrelevance and gossip without actually referring to basic policies. --Morbidthoughts

C) No, this and more is evidence of wide consensus and practice: Mariah_Carey#Personal_life, Bradley_Cooper#Personal_life, Ben_Affleck#Personal_life, Brad_Pitt#Personal_life, Jennifer_Lawrence#Personal_life, Courtney_Love#Personal_life, Kylie_Minogue#Relationships. There is clearly no policy or wide WP consensus violation. Lapadite (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

BLPN discussion here. Lapadite (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: citing significant relationships in BLPs

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)

Survey

• Support As long as they are reliable sources, (not just popular) and it is verifiable through many of them, I see no reason why not. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• It Depends No, not in every case. Having a source doesn't mean it might not be WP:BLPGOSSIP, it is the specific content and relevance that counts. The sources mentioned (Gawker, ET, Zimbio...) = are = kind of known for gossip. I think the guidelines that particularly apply would be WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and looking for the individuals own statements and actions about the relationship. The first relationship is himself an actor, seems readily seen as made public by both parties, and that they jointly owned a home argues for significance. The second relationship is also an actor, but beyond shared photos I didn't see much. (AMaybe you can turn up interviews or something more.) Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. Well People and a number of other major entertainment/celebrity news sites have also been known for reporting on gossip/speculation too, but it's still a notable entertainment news source that is often cited, and to which celebrities often give exclusives. The content itself (these two major relationships) isn't gossip, clearly. One of the cited sources was a Harper's Bazaar interview with the actor Scott Michael Foster, who was the actress' costar in a project: [6]; the relationship was also mentioned in a Vulture interview with the actress. The 7-year relationship with the actor Chris Masterson is also mentioned in a number of reliable sources (e.g., L.A Times, Las Vegas Review Journal, Women's Health magazine, NJ.com, NBC Chicago, apart from the People and EOnline entertainment news sources), but only a few sites state the years the relationship occurred and ended, so two sources that did were cited (Entertainment Tonight and Zimbio/Living Media). Lapadite (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as being the bane of any biography, and indicative of a tabloid attitude towards living people. See User:Collect/BLP for examples of where this sort of editing philosophy leads. The idea that an encyclopedia biography should include every parking ticket, ever rumoured "affair", and the like is abhorrent. Collect (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Please comment on this particular case, the details and reasoning presented here. "The idea that an encyclopedia biography should include every parking ticket, ever rumoured "affair", and the like is abhorrent"" - does not remotely apply here; including "every rumoured affair" is not what is being proposed or discussed, only including two significant relationships reported in a number of realiable sources (and which where mentioned in interviews with the actors). Please note or remember that per WP:CON, WP:POLL, consensus is built on the "quality of the arguments" [e.g, as pertaining to the particular case discussed here] not merely on yes/no votes. Lapadite (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Wow! I fear such snark directed at a long-established editor falls far short of its intended target. My positions regarding WP:BLP have generally been recognized as being sound arguments in the past, by the way. Perhaps you failed to look at "number of edits" before engaging in such a lecture-mode claim which fails to be valid? Collect (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support I think if the info is reliably sourced it is worth adding to the section, but my justification is that the section is simply too short as it stands now. The personal life section is two sentences - significantly less than any other section in the article. I do not think it would hurt to add relationship information to this section, assuming it's well sourced. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC) PS Summoned by a bot. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Comatmebro: Yeah but then I'd be concerned about adding trivial details. There isn't really more to write about them besides the length of the relationships, Prepon meeting one on the set of her web series, and Prepon living with the other and later selling their home (as the L.A Times reported). Would this be sufficient info for the section? There may also be more to add in the future about the current relationship, if/when there's a marriage, more kids, etc. Lapadite (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • An example of what could be written based only on the facts available in reliable sources: 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"].
• It Depends on two things: that the relationship be of reasonable length as determined by talk-page discussion — Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, to give an extreme example, haver been together for decades without being married, and certainly a five- or seven-year relationship is notable — and that the relationship is confirmed by the sources themselves, by their representative, or by incontrovertible evidence, such as a child together, legal documentation via lawsuit, etc. We cannot cite a BLP to any outlet relying solely on anonymous, shadowy "sources" or "insiders" of uncertain credibility, because unconfirmed claims are simply rumors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Right. Yes, that applies here. The two relationships are confirmed by the individuals and in reliable sources. Lapadite (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Question too vague. Summoned by bot. This question is not properly phrased. I can't really respond to it, as it is too vague. I would need to know more specifics about the text, their sourcing, etc. Coretheapple (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I see this diff has the summary of "against consensus" (amongst other things). Where is this consensus? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Summary and conclusion

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)

Bueno L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose until more RS citing found. I went back to the version before removal and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct to remove those two sentences. Masterson was cited to a couple of "who dated who" pages [7] [8], and without confirmation by the parties themselves or their representatives, that's just gossip. Of the sources for the Foster claim, the only thing that one RS said was that Prepon is his ex-girlfriend, which is highly unspecific [9], while another was gossip referring to a "mystery man" [10] — it even says "gossip" in the URL — and the third was just a small item about Neighbors that didn't mention any relationships at all [11]. I agree in principle that long, stable, live-in partnerships are notable. But none of the citations here support the claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Ok let's try to clear that up. As noted in the RfC survey, the relationships are confirmed by the parties themselves, and the other sources listed are to support the dates given.

Sources in which the actors themselves confirm the relationships:

Harper's Bazaar interview with Scott Michael Foster [12] – "Neighbros, directed by Foster's ex-girlfriend, Laura Prepon ... [Q: When was the last time you filmed an episode of your webseries, Neighbros?] Wow, I think it's been a year and a half. Laura and I were together at the time".

Vulture interview with Laura Prepon [13] – "The lead guy with the shaggy hair [Scott Michael Foster], that’s my ex-boyfriend. [Q: The “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” ex-boyfriend?] Yeah. We’re still really good friends! We’re business partners; we have Neighbros together. When we were dating, we created it together."

Women's Health (magazine) interview with Laura Prepon [14] – "I brought my boyfriend [actor Christopher Masterson]..."

Other sources confirming relationships:

Los Angeles Times article on Laura Prepon and Chris Masterson selling their home after separation [15] – "He separated from his live-in girlfriend, Prepon..."

Las Vegas Review-Journal [16] – "Laura Prepon (with boyfriend, Chris Masterson)"

Entertainment Tonight Canada [17] – "Throughout the run of ‘That ‘70s Show’, Laura Prepon was in a long-term relationship with ‘Malcolm in the Middle’ star Chris Masterson"

NJ.com [18] – "Prepon was previously in a relationship with actor Scott Michael Foster ("Greek"), until 2013. For seven years before that, Prepon dated actor Christopher Masterson..."

NBC Chicago [19] – "Prepon was last romantically linked to Christopher Masterson, whom she split with in 2007."

These sources state the years the relationships started-ended thus they were cited:

Zimbio [20] – "Laura Prepon dated Christopher Masterson 2000 - 2007 ... Actor Christopher Masterson had a long-standing relationship with actress Laura Prepon. The two dated for 7 years, but eventually broke up in 2007."

New York Daily News [21] – "The 35-year-old "That 70's Show" alum dated Christopher Masterson before splitting with him in 2007, and "Blood & Oil" star Scott Michael Foster from 2008 to 2013."

Gawker [22] – "The show stars Prepon's real-life boyfriend (since 2008!) Scott Michael Foster"

Most of the above sources are not WP:RS in terms of confirming the relationship because it is in fact not the parties themselves saying anything but rather than periodical itself. An encyclopedia needs to, and has, higher standards than the popular press — which is called "the first of history" for a reason. Also, WP:BLP has higher standards than RS normally. Therefore, we cannot use as reference cites:

Los Angeles Times article on Laura Prepon and Chris Masterson selling their home after separation [23] – "He separated from his live-in girlfriend, Prepon..." — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

Las Vegas Review-Journal [24] – "Laura Prepon (with boyfriend, Chris Masterson)" — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

Entertainment Tonight Canada [25] – "Throughout the run of ‘That ‘70s Show’, Laura Prepon was in a long-term relationship with ‘Malcolm in the Middle’ star Chris Masterson" — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

NJ.com [26] – "Prepon was previously in a relationship with actor Scott Michael Foster ("Greek"), until 2013. For seven years before that, Prepon dated actor Christopher Masterson..." — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

NBC Chicago [27] – "Prepon was last romantically linked to Christopher Masterson, whom she split with in 2007." — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

Zimbio [28] – "Laura Prepon dated Christopher Masterson 2000 - 2007 ... Actor Christopher Masterson had a long-standing relationship with actress Laura Prepon. The two dated for 7 years, but eventually broke up in 2007." — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

New York Daily News [29] – "The 35-year-old "That 70's Show" alum dated Christopher Masterson before splitting with him in 2007, and "Blood & Oil" star Scott Michael Foster from 2008 to 2013." — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

Gawker [30] – "The show stars Prepon's real-life boyfriend (since 2008!) Scott Michael Foster" — not the parties themselves or their representatives saying this

--Tenebrae (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: That is an awfully restrictive and skewed interpretation of WP:GUIDELINE, WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP, WP:RELIABLE. Not to mention that we (WP:BURO) "do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." WP:VERIFY states, "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". [emphasis mine] WP:BLP must adhere to "Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)"; WP:BLP is concerned with the issue of unsourced, poorly sourced, and contentious or controversial material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, not of which an issue here as the content isn't gossip, reliable sources verify the content, including the parties themselves confirming it in interviews (this alone is more than enough for verifiability), and the content would be neutrally written. If we're now arguing that reliable secondary or third party sources can not be cited for BLP information then you might want to petition to change the policies and guidelines themselves, and remove such content and citations from thousands of articles, including FAs and GAs. This WP:PAG argument is beyond the scope of this article's specific content discussion. If you believe BLP content can only be cited to sources where the subject himself/herself states the info being cited then I suggest debating that on the BLP talk page or the Village Pump. Your claim that, for example, the Los Angeles Times reporting that two celebrities sold their house is not reliable is completely baffling. That is not gossip, controversial, nor a gossip source; the content is reported by a reputable, reliable source; they're a reputable, reliable source as they are trusted to confirm the veracity of their reports and report factual information. "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Lapadite (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: When it comes to celebrities, "confirmed" by anonymous sources doesn't mean anything. I've see the Los Angeles Times cite TMZ.com as the source of some of its celebrity coverage.And, yes, People, Us Weekly, etc. are generally reliable, but I've seen them make whopper mistakes. And once an unconfirmed claim by an anonymous source — i.e., a rumor — gets published, then Web journalists in particular repeat it as if it were gospel.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but we're also WP:NOTTABLOID, we don't publish rumor or gossip, and we're WP:NOTNEWS. There's WP:NODEADLINE, and I would hope that an encyclopedia has higher standards than celebrity-oriented popular press. We can afford to wait and not use rumors ... especially about who's-dating-who, for goodness' sakes. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and please do not misrepresent me. I never said anything about whether the Los Angeles Times real-estate coverage, which involves publicly available real-estate listings and public property records, is not reliable. I was referring solely to the quote you yourself pulled: "He separated from his live-in girlfriend, Prepon." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And finally, don't personalize this. You have no right to say, "If you believe BLP content can only be cited to sources where the subject himself/herself states the info being cited then I suggest debating that on the BLP talk page or the Village Pump." I could just as well say, "If you believe BLP articles can include highly intimate personal-life details based on anonymous, unconfirmed sources, i.e., rumors, then I suggest debating that on the BLP talk page or the Village Pump." There are plenty of editors, some of them here in this very debate, who vociferously disagree with your position and do not believe Wikipedia policy supports it in any way. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just an inference from your comments above, such as "Most of the above sources are not WP:RS in terms of confirming the relationship because it is in fact not the parties themselves saying anything but rather than periodical itself"[emphasis mine] and "we cannot use as reference cites: Los Angeles Times article on Laura Prepon and Chris Masterson selling their home after separation...". So you're referring to the "separated from his live-in girlfriend" info in the article. The LA Times source is meant to cite what it reported in the article. I stand by my post above and what I wrote and quoted from the policies and guidelines. Los Angeles Times is an established reliable source, the content is not sensationalism, the relationships are confirmed by the parties themselves, other secondary sources verify the years, and policies and guidelines support citing reliable, secondary sources. Lapadite (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, there's no consensus for including intimate, personal-life claims about a living person based on anonymous, unconfirmed reports, i.e., rumors. I don't believe anyone's arguing not to use facts confirmed by the parties themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Only some - as said before, 'it depends'. I think Masterson is shown as public, longterm and significant, and I think directing Neighbros is public and significant. But Foster - I think needs a bit more content in cites or self-declarations to give it a mention. What's here on Foster just is not on the same level of jointly sharing a house for many years with Mastersson. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: More self-declarations in what respect? About the project they worked on together, or details of the relationship? If it's the latter, I don't believe that serves WP as it is trivial or superfluous detail about celebrity love life. Would you agree that the sources in which the actors confirm it plus the source(s) in which the years of the relationship are confirmed and the LA Times' separation report, is sufficient? Lapadite (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged prohibition of independent sources

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)

Concur with your assertion that we are not concerned here with how celebrities and other notable people view themselves or wish to be viewed, but how published, reliable sources view them. Their statements about themselves may be included, but only to the extent that are not undue and they are reported in reliable sources (including verified social media outlets of the subjects and/or interviews). The editor reverting you seems to have grossly misunderstood the policies set forth at WP:BLP. General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think perhaps Lapadite77 is confusing or overextending the WP:BLPCAT portion of BLP policy which does require self-identification for inclusion of categories regarding certain aspects of an individual's personal life (generally religion, ethnicity, gender and sexuality). This is further covered in WP:EGRS.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Deceptive section heading and straw man arguments. Please see the arguments put forth in the RfC above on this general topic (personal lives). And the note is explicitly about claims on subjects' personal lives - "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)

The first thing I'd suggest is that you take a deep breath.

Next, I'd propose that you reread this discussion. It pertains to the instruction you added to this article, which is a blatant misrepresentation (even if well-intended) of the policy at BLP. It does not pertain to the exact content that someone tried to add to this article that prompted you to add that instruction, which may well have violated BLP. General Ization ^Talk 19:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you (and OP, who wrote in section heading a blatant misrepresentation of my edit) solely focus on whatever content in question and not an editor, and assume good faith. Thanks. I already explained everything pertaining to the note, which is not remotely a "blatant misrepresentation" of BLP policy, but could definitely be more specific to the matter at hand, and possibly address the repetitive, BLP-violating edits. A note should be present however, as these kinds of edits have become common on this article. Lapadite (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration with the introduction of unsourced or poorly sourced content here that violates BLP. That's no reason to accuse others of failing to assume good faith. But OK, we'll focus specifically on the content that you added. Please point out and/or quote the exact sentence or sentences at WP:BLP which establish/es that editors should "NOT MAKE CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY CONTENTIOUS, OF SUBJECTS' PERSONAL LIVES (including relationships, identification, and beliefs) THAT SUBJECTS DID NOT STATE THEMSELVES" (emphasis added). General Ization ^Talk 19:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy reply as I quite dislike talking in circles. I just implied that the note is not remotely perfect, too vague, not accurate or specific enough to what it's meant to address. It is for those who keep making these BLP-violating edits, and was generally referring to conservative editing on matters of personal lives; relying on subjects' confirmation of their own beliefs, identification, relationships, not source speculations or presumptions, to state them on WP; per WP:BLP policy principles. Again, the note should be rewritten to address the specific issue(s), and quote relevant BLP statements. If you or anyone else wants to rewrite it, do so, If not, I'll do it. Maybe you want to agree here on what to state in the note. I'm all for moving it forward and less talking in circles about it. Lapadite (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How about: <!--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)

Since a day or so has elapsed, pinging @Lapadite77, BarrelProof, and Ponyo to discuss. General Ization ^Talk 19:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that wording. There is already a big pink box that pops up when you edit the article warning that reliable sourcing is required and BLP applies. If an editor chooses to overlook the edit box and the succinct hidden note you propose, piling on more verbiage won't help.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the WP:BLP policy (which includes WP:BLPPRIVACY), I notice that WP:NOTATABLOID is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. However, I think I agree with what it says, so I have no objection to that language. I also agree with Ponyo's further comments. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to the addition or removal of (a reasonable number of) links to related policies addressing the specific kinds of prohibited and/or objectionable edits that have occurred or will occur at this article. My main objective was to keep it succinct, as Ponyo recognized, and to point to the actual policies (and other sources of editorial guidance) rather than try to summarize or interpret them here in a single hidden comment. General Ization ^Talk 22:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't check this page before the notification. I agree with your suggestion, General Ization and the suggestion to keep it succinct. WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSPECULATION, and WP:NOTNEWS from the WP:NOT policy are relevant alternatives. Lapadite (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-RS

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)

Voice acting

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)