Talk:Ashton Kutcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ashton Kutcher on Twitter)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ashton Kutcher was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 8, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ashton Kutcher. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.  Paine  u/c 04:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016[edit]

Kutcher and Kunis welcomed a son on November 30, 2016. Rostogol (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016[edit]

Ashton Kutcher's son's name is Dimitri Portwood Kutcher and was born at 1:21 a.m. on November 30, weighing 8 pounds and 15 ounces Gareauk (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Name added with a link to his website. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Social Media Presence[edit]

Last paragraph that addresses the Village Voice article could be worded in a less misleading way. VV article wasn't criticizing the academic rigor of the study, but Kutcher, Moore, and several media outlet's misquotation of the study. The study claimed there were 100,000-300,000 youths at risk for sex trafficking, while Kutcher and others stated that the number referred to the actual estimated number of child prostitutes in the U.S. which is demonstrably false. In addition, the authors of the study were cited in the VV article as stating that Kutcher and others had misinterpreted or misconstrued the context of the statistic. Furthermore, the numbers cited by the VV merely consisted of the raw data collected by local/state/federal law enforcement officials regarding the actual amount of arrests related to underage sex trafficking. Characterizing those numbers as "unreviewed research" is extremely misleading as it implies that the number of arrests related to child trafficking are a disputable argument, rather than a demonstrable fact. This confusing phrasing also seems to suggest a lack of understanding about what circumstances necessitate "peer-review." For example, had the VV used these statistics to make their own assumptions about what constitutes a child "at risk for sexual trafficking" without submitting their theories/findings to other experts to examine the rigor with which they made those assumptions, they would be subject to criticism for not properly testing their hypothesis. However, the number of charges/arrests made in the U.S. annually, regarding child sex trafficking, is not a hypothesis in need of verifying by other experts; each one is a well documented event. Lastly, the use of the word "unreviewed" makes it sound as though the VV doesn't have an editor or something. Which like, pretty sure they do.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)