Jump to content

Talk:Danielle Fishel

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

Death?

[edit]

[removal of crass comments]

I could of sworn to god she died in a car accident back in '02. Can any one confirm? Dude, please listen if you're talking about a crash you're either talking about another star whom or who died from a car crash that was a girl - cod101wiiowenjaquith.

Considering she starred in a film released in 2003, went on a promotional tour in August and September 2003 for that film, has filmed three others since then, and co-hosted a sports radio talk show in the fall of 2004, I'd say she's still alive and kicking. But that's just me... :)

Unless she's a zombie.--KrossTalk 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case Dorm Daze 2 is the strangest zombie movie I've ever seen! ;) 23skidoo 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, if she's a Zombie, is she still a hottie?71.244.168.172 23:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

The page for Danielle Fishel has been vandalized, maily the picture.

We need to post a new picture. Any good ones?

Drunk Driving Arrest

[edit]

I posted information about her recent drunk driving arrest, which was properly attributed. Another editor said that it was significant and deleted the edit. What do others think? --Jmbranum (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_17#Celebrities_and_negative_events; that discussion concerned a different biography but I think the same point applies here. This incident had short-term tabloid interest, but was insignificant. Gimmetrow 20:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

71.31.90.49 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Honestly, I believe her drunk-driving arrest should be mentioned. If these little blurbs are going to be mentioned for other celebrities (such as Mischa Barton) then why not for Danielle Fishel? Why should her indiscretion be excluded from her article. It makes it seem like certain people are concerned with protecting Fishel's image on Wikipedia...which I thought was about reporting facts in a fair and neutral manner. Not reporting facts as it's convenient to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.90.49 (talk • contribs) [reply]

See the link above. I'm the one objecting to this, and I would object to it on other articles if I could keep track of thousands of articles. Per WP:BLP#Writing style, biographies should be written "conservatively", and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I don't see this event as particularly significant, compared to, say, similar incidents with Mel Gibson or Halle Berry. For one, this is only an arrest, not even a conviction. Gimmetrow 20:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her recent DUI arrest is relevant and significant. Her prior statements of purity and this incident clash. It, this should be included. It matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.42 (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some reliable source discusses her prior statements in the context of the dui incident, it's your original research and inappropriate for a biography of a living person on Wikipedia. See WP:SYNTH. Gimmetrow 06:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her interview on the Tyra Banks Show (episode aired March 13, 2008) where she talked about her DUI should be considered a reliable source. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate points. The bare fact of a DUI can be reliably sourced. Editor 216.9 wanted to combine it with another fact to present an opinion or interpretation that was negative to Fishel - that's synthesis. It would be surprising if the subject herself gave this particular synthesis in this way. Gimmetrow 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if the incident were part of a larger pattern of irresponsible behavior and if it was reported as such by a truly reliable source, then it would be appropriate for inclusion in WP. You'd better be ready to provide acceptable references, though. Seriously, all signs are that she is a responsible adult. David Spector (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disgraceful manipulation of the facts. Wikipedia is not a parole board. It is an encyclopedia. The DUI happened and is sourced so it should be included in this entry. The fact that this person is a responsible adult now is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4D80:1A00:8891:942B:1E01:1DE1 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resident of Anaheim Hills.

[edit]

Someone care to add that into the Personal Life Section? I think its worth noting. I have the link here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/fishel-says-don-2423189-school-think


Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.84.113 (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This seems rather trivial. What if she moves? The whole article sounds like a publicity release rather than an informational piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.167.53 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Danielle1981, 28 June 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} On the Wikipedia page for Danielle Fishel, under the personal life file, it says Danielle Fishel briefly dated Michael Barber. This is ABSOLUTELY not true and was a rumor started by people who work for Michael Barber in an attempt to help him sell records. I know this because I am Danielle Fishel and had my lawyer send Michael Barber's people a cease and desist letter when the rumors started. I have never even met Michael Barber and want this sentence removed from my Wiki page immediately, please.

Thank you,

Danielle Fishel

Danielle1981 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence. The source, along with any sources I managed to find were all very poor. There were no pictures of the two together, or anything more then gossip articles. If you are in fact who you say you are, or represent said actress, please be aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons. These policies are set to be sure that all living persons are accurately represented on Wikipedia, and to protect Wikipedia from any legal issues. SpigotMap 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Ok, somebody needs to know that Danielle Fishel is in a new show on Disney Channel starting Friday June, 27, 2014. Here's the link to the Wikipedia page of Girl meets World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Meets_World

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danielle Fishel. 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}}).

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) 11:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Danielle Fishel. 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) 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

[edit]

@IJBall: You don't need a primary source if you have a secondary source. Where are you getting this idea? WP:SOURCE prefers secondary sources and we are supposed to avoid primary, self-published sources. Why do you think that this bare URI to a walled garden social network is needed? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Primary sources are allowed, under WP:ABOUTSELF. 2) The secondary source added specifically refers to the Instagram post in question, so including the Instagram source along with The Hollywood Reporter source makes perfect sense. Finally, "reference isn't formatted correctly" is not a valid reason to remove a source – instead, it's a reason to format it correctly, as per WP:SOFIXIT. Bottom line: There is no need, nor any real justification, for removing the Instagram source, now that THR source was added to supplement it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. WP:SOURCE doesn't really say what you're claiming it says. What it actually says is: "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." (epmphasis mine) We are not "relying" on a primary source in this case – we're using a primary source and a secondary source, in concert – that's an appropriate use. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, Your claim was that we needed the primary source because we have the secondary one while the exact opposite is true: since we have a secondary source, it is not needed and was never appropriate anyway, since self-published sources are only acceptable in a narrow domain about a person making claims about himself (and even then, not all of those claims). Please show me anything that supports "It is needed - the secondary source specifically refers to it." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained this – the THR source actually refers to the Instagram post. So we should include both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, And I explained how we do not need both precisely because we have the THR source. Where are you getting the idea that if we have a secondary source, we need to also cite the primary source? This is the question I have repeatedly asked you and you are not answering it or providing any kind of guideline or policy that says we should include both secondary and primary source citations. So I'll ask again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's already explained it to you. We're not going to keep going around in circles just because you refuse to get it. Amaury • 18:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amaury, And I have already explained how that's not true. Again: show me any guideline or policy that says when using a secondary source you should or must include a primary source as well. In fact, IJBall, show me any instance where we do that on Wikipedia: where have you ever seen someone citing a secondary source and then consequently citing the primary source for the same claim. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Amaury that the latest attempt to remove the primary source was disruptive. Consensus is not on your side on this one. Time to move on... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, Still awaiting any example of when we include a primary source once we have a secondary one. Do you have an example of that? See also Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Including_primary_and_self-published_sources_once_we_have_a_secondary_one. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not going to keep playing this game. I outlined the policy above. I can do nothing about your choosing to ignore it, apparently because you feel primary sources should never be used (which, again, is not what the policy says). And now you look to be going WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you didn't get your way here.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, You said nothing about any policy that encourages the use of primary sources alongside secondary ones. It's not "forum shopping" to go to precisely the appropriate place to discuss the use of primary and secondary sources. You wrote that we "need" the primary source. I am asking for anything that says that and you have yet to provide it. Since you can't (it doesn't exist), I have now asked for any other examples of doing this in the encyclopedia: Where do you see someone else adding in primary sources because we have a secondary one? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"One user's opinion" Amaury, as you failed to understand or refused to acknowledged, I cited several users from the conversation at WT:SOURCE, none of which said that the primary source was required and several of which pointed out that secondary sources are preferable. Why are you reverting? Why do you want to include social media posts as sources in spite of WP:SELFPUBLISHED? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked at WT:V and were shot down there. Enough. There is no support for your opinion that primary sources can't be used, esp. in concert with secondary sources. You are more than an experienced editor to know all this. Just WP:DROPTHESTICK, or you may very well get reported for it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Stop edit warring to remove the primary source, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including it. Consensus is not in your favour here. You are quoting WP:SELFPUBLISH when WP:ABOUTSELF applies in this case. Are you not able to drop this and move on?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, What do you make of the discussion at WT:SOURCE? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus for removal of primary source there at all. I think you want others to agree with you so much that you believe there is some sort of consensus for removal of the source that does not actually exist. Again, is there a reason you can't just leave it be? Perhaps unwatching the article may help.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, I didn't argue that "primary sources can't be used". Please show me where anyone or anything supported your claim that we need to have the primary source because it's cited by the secondary source. I am still awaiting that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that. What we said here was that there was no justification to remove it. The argument here was that it's a good idea to include it. The consensus at WT:V was the same – that's it's likely a good idea to include it. Further, there has been no support for your desire to remove it, and there is no policy based reason to do so... Again, at this point you need to just drop this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For one thing, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. For another, please point to where exactly it was stated in that discussion that primary sources are prohibited. I see one user who stated their opinion in that secondary sources are generally preferred. Notice the word "generally." Another user who stated their opinion said they're not required, but it doesn't mean they are prohibited. That same user is the only one I see who outright thought it wasn't necessary. Everyone else either didn't care either way and said it depends or actually saw no harm in including both. So just drop it already. If you include comments from both discussions—the one here and the one you started at the verifiability talk page, in hopes that you would get your way—there's actually more support for including both. Amaury • 00:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amaury, "For another, please point to where exactly it was stated in that discussion that primary sources are prohibited." There isn't and I didn't claim there was. As I quoted, they are not preferred, not required, and only valuable when they add new information. "the one here and the one you started at the verifiability talk page, in hopes that you would get your way": Way to argue in bad faith. I thought that going to a third party is exactly what you're supposed to do when there's a dispute. Also, it seems like you may be misunderstanding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, because that is exactly what I would appeal to to say that it doesn't matter if two guys on a talk page argue for keeping Instagram posts (including one repeatedly saying that they are required and refusing to give any justification for that false claim) because we generally shouldn't use them as sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with including a verified social media account as a source in an article if it is being used to support content about the subject themselves. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danielle_Fishel&oldid=1207237361"