Talk:Mark Wahlberg/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Talk pages are for discussing the article's content, not posting your feelings about the subjects looks. Please use it as it was intended. Batman2005 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no mention made of his criminal history before he became famous? This piece reads more like a fan bio than an encyclopedia referenceJeffpw 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Concering the edit 08:08, 6 March 2006 Dfinch. Is there a valid reason for deleting the third nipple link from "interesting facts"? I think a well-confirmed third nipple, with reference links, is pretty much the definition of an interesting fact. I'm going to restore this unless some counter info / arguments are put forth. --Meneitherfabio 06:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed it again, and I also see no valid reason for deleting it. It is a pretty interesting fact, so I think you should add it again, if you can. Chick No.16 04:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add the bit about him dedicating a book to his penis under Trivia, but for some reason it was removed. It seemed to imply that I had vandalised the article. It had to be an automated action - it was just too quickly reverted. Can't use the word 'penis' or something? --Anon, April 06

  • I distinctly remember seeing in the press that he had done this when his book came out. I will find an adequate source and re-ad the information. Pacian 07:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


I removed Ray Gun from the filmography because I could not find anything about it from google or If anyone has a credible source for it, please readd it and maybe make a new page for it. Also, I believe that the Brazilian Job will be coming out in late 2006 instead of 2007; this is according to under the release date information. Again, if anyone has other sources saying that this movie is coming out in 2007, please move it back. If there are any fans out there for Mark, it could be a good idea to make a page for the movie The Truth About Charlie, so it doesn't stick out compared to the other movies. --Nehrams2020 08:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason his appearance in the TV movie "The Substitute" (around 1994) is omitted from imdb. And, he also considers Renaissance Man as his first movie. But, he did appear as a student in the USA Cable movie The Substitute. And, that was his first acting job.


Hello. My apologies for having to tear this article down, but it contained copy-and-paste information from the Internet Movie Database, and as such, there really wasn't much else I could do. You can help with the rewrite here. Ral315 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not rewirte it directly in Mark Wahlberg (instead of Mark Wahlberg/temp)? The copyvio has been deleted, so there's no reason to protect this page ... -- 00:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's standard practice in the case of a copyvio. I believe the point is to make sure that until a good article is written, that copyvio material isn't inserted on the main page. Ral315 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the deleted history the only thing copyrighted is the trivia section. Most of the info wasn't copyied. Jaranda wat's sup 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I restrored a bit more history as Partial Filmography sections are not copyrighted. If they are then every movie bio must be deleted. Jaranda wat's sup 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but filmography copied bit-by-bit from IMDb is borderline, at best. It wasn't partial, it was a literal copy-and-paste job from IMDb. Ral315 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I've made a protection request at WP:RfPP, since you deleted the article and undeleted it, causing the protection to be removed. -- ADNghiem501 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Guys, this was a little extreme, no? And FWIW, lists of facts are not copyvio material. Think about it; MW makes a certain number of films, in a certain order. So... the business which posts that list first "wins?" No one else may list his films in order? IronDuke 04:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This has to be the worst example I've ever seen of Wikipedia chaos in action. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face! Utterly ridiculous!">Ronstock

'... extremely positive reviews'?

I think the 'extremely positive reviews' had to be more about movies, not that Mark Wahlberg just happened to play major roles in there. I'd cut 'extremely' and leave it at just 'received positive reviews' and those reviews must also be referenced.
-Mardus 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And if there's a need to show how good an actor he is, then perhaps it would be better to note some of the awards he has won. Yes, those facts would have to be taken, reworded and reformatted from IMDb, but, AFAIK, facts are not under copyright.
-Mardus 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Made progress on the temp page

While the discussion continues, I just wanted to chime in and say I've added some more info to the temp page at Mark Wahlberg/temp. I'll keep adding there until the main page is opened back up. Doc502 17:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


I've unprotected the page considering the timeline and Doc's work on the temp page. Yanksox 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Yank, I updated the page using the content I came up with on the Temp page. Hope this helps... Doc502 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

Why is there no mention at all of his early life, dealing drugs, his drug addiction, arrests for assault and attempted murder. It seems odd that there is absolutely no mention of this. Most interviews he does contain a lot of references to this period in his life. It seems like a suspiciously obvious omission in this article.

Hate crime

I removed the following until I can find a reliable source.

As a teen, Wahlberg engaged in various acts of juvenile misconduct, which were often aimed at minorities. At age 16, he was convicted of assault after after committing a hate crime against two Vietnamese men after he had tried to rob them. As a result of his assault conviction,

I think a comment like this needs a citation.--Moonlight Mile 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a source: also source [2] already used in the main article has information on this matter. hal--unregistered 26 October 2006

His age is wrong. There is no way he could have been 39 when he was arrested for hitting a black man with a stick.

Sign your flipping comments, damn man. 01:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Ital Joe

I'm not gonna write on this issue myself, but the only context in which I ever encountered Marky Mark was at the side of Prince Ital Joe with singles like "Babylon" or "Happy people"; "United" was even number one in Germany! It would be nice if someone with some more knowledge on music in general could elaborate on this a little. G Purevdorj 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Entourage (TV series)

Any color on how much of Wahlberg's life is present in Entourage?PaulC/T+ 07:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Population control

I have heard that he is a strong proponent of population control ids [sic] this just a roomer[sic]? 09:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He missed 9/11

He decided to drive instead. Shouldn't that be reflected. Socby19 07:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

dating Reese Witherspoon

How come it doesent say that he dated Reese Witherspoon? On his E!'s True Hollywood Story they pointed out that they did date for awhile during and after their movie Fear, it also said it on an E! story on Reese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clueless91 (talkcontribs) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wahlberg and 9/11

There's conflicting information in various online sources as to whether Wahlberg was actually scheduled on a flight involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or not, and if he was what flight it was. I am beginning to think that this all might be a hoax so I've removed the paragraph completely for now. Most things I see say he was scheduled on United Airlines Flight 93, but also state he was going from Boston to Los Angeles while flight 93 took off from Newark, NJ for San Francisco. This page talks about the issue.

Unless we can come up with a better collection of reliable sources to confirm or deny this as fact, I think we should leave it out for now. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The connection to 9/11 is true; he talked about it with Tavis Smiley in 2004; see transcript at —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgicmodernist (talkcontribs) 12:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's worth mentioning. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember Wahlberg mentioning this story on his "İnside The Actors Studio" interview. (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Filmography Again

In this list of films it has "The Brazilian Job" as coming out in 2009, the date on this page keeps on getting pushed further and further back, it was supposedly originally ear marked for late 2006! As per here it's not slated for further development, never mind release any time soon. I'll remove it from his page in a week only for it to return if there is any more news about the sequel, unless anyone of course disagrees..--Uksam88 (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. I see no reason to wait for discussion since the film itself would not meet notability without being in production and now being suspended for the at least near future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


I notice that, by mentioning the existence of support for MW among people who had trouble in the past, my sentence inadvertently imply that anyone who advocate "past criminal conviction doesn't matter" position might have had a trouble in the past. My position is that these opposing opinions about MW's past crime is irrelevant to wikipedia Neutral Point of Veiw and that we should focus merely on adding verifiable contents from reliable sources. My reference to a controversy is purely for that effect. Vapour (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed, but I disagree with the way the information is used in this article. I don't really understand what you mean with this message, but I'm not attaching any motives to you. I agree that the source is reliable. I agree that the information is verifiable. I disagree that the context is correct. ie the meaning being given in the Wikipedia article is not the same as the meaning given in the source article, therefore our article is misleading and conveys a meaning that may be incorrect. This is the issue that still requires discussion, and it has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting people who have been involved in violent crime. Rossrs (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Interesting message. If I actually had a criminal past, I would probably spend my time arguing about actual issues but since I've never been arrested a day in my life, I'm here arguing about Marky Mark and a crime he committed years ago. That said, after having worked in the field of corrections and law enforcement for the majority of my adult life, I can safely say that I don't feel sorry for people who commit crimes and I don't make excuses for any of them. Ever. The issue here isn't about trying to whitewash Wahlberg's past because we feel bad for him, it's actually about what's good for the project. I've seen zero reasons to keep this content except for some links to NPOV (which has no bearing in this case) and that the source is reliable. I'm sure I could also find a reliable source that states what Wahlberg's favorite food, color, animal, etc is. Does that kind of content belong in the article as well? I'm not sure what's going around on the net, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, especially information that is taken out of content. Echoing Rossrs' above comment, I'm not sure what the motives for this "apology" is, but frankly, I think any assumptions about editor's personal lives are best left to one's self unless there is a clear COI. Pinkadelica Say it... 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have important exams this week and next so I can't waste time on wikipedia at the moment. Feel free to revert my edit. Wish me luck. :) Vapour (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck!. Rossrs (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good luck from me as well. momoricks make my day 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


This article is full of immaturity not at all for wikipedia. It needs locking until that crap stops.

--Illidan92 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee. Thanks for your constructive input. Maybe you could point out specifics? Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Eh it's been removed now. Was some crap about him and a porn tape and a bunch of other stuff. --Illidan92 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please see discussion above in section Talk:Mark Wahlberg#Tracking down victim and add your viewpoint on this addition and its implications. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry, I placed my comments in the wrong section, so am moving it here, along with the reply as this is where it should have been placed. Rossrs (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) It may be "factual" (so far as it is literally taken from a credible site) and it may be sourced, but it is also slanting the viewpoint negatively. The viewpoint is actually that of the ABC contributor whose name I can't find on the ABC link. It's not necessarily Wahlberg's (especially as his quoted comment places it within a different and more sympathetic context) and it's certainly not Wikipedia's. The way it's written, it reads as Wikipedia's opinion based on Wahlberg's words, and that is not so. You could - just as wrongly - take this section from his quoted comment : "I did a lot of things that I regretted and I certainly paid for my mistakes. ..... You have to go and ask for forgiveness and it wasn't until I really started doing good and doing right, by other people as well as myself, that I really started to feel that guilt go away" - and make him look "good". Who did he ask forgiveness of? It makes him look like someone who has repented and taken responsibility. The other bit, taken equally out of context conveys the opposite message of someone who has not made amends or repented. To take only the part of the text that supports a particular viewpoint, whether it's positive or negative, goes against WP:NPOV and the fact that it's cited to a credible source means nothing. Like I said, I can selectively choose from the larger part of that article, quote it out of context and completely reverse the negative spin. I don't see that it's necessary to discuss his attitude unless it can be both neutral and factual. I see that as a difficult balance to achieve, but it's not achieved with the way it's written now. Also, as a secondary issue, the manner of citing is incorrect. Rossrs (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ABC being "Fair and Balanced" is not us to judge. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) It is up to the reader of wikipedia to verifiy the source (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Personal interpretation of ABC interview (Wikipedia:No original research is not a basis to conduct editorial policy. It doesn't matter what ABC interview suppose to mean. It matter that it is there, verifiably. It is up to the readers to interpret what is there. Vapour (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not comment on whether ABC is being "fair and balanced". Reading between the lines, I actually questioned whether you as a Wikipedia editor were being "fair and balanced", and I attempted to explain why I thought the result did not achieve this aim. For me to say that you have selected one piece of information from a larger text and used it out of context, is not original research. The context being conveyed here does not equal the context being conveyed in the source article. Verifiability is about more than merely copying words, it is about definition, meaning and context. I'm not disputing that the words came from the article, but I completely disagree that they have been used in a way that complies with our policies. As I said, if you'd picked a different sentence to copy, the meaning could have been the opposite. Readers should be able to trust what's written here, and if they choose to, they should not have to look any further. Ideally they should only need to refer to the source if they want confirmation or expansion. Rossrs (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
What I am seeing is this is a matter of interpretation of an interview. It is very tricky to do interviews under many policies of WP:Undo weight, WP:NPOV, WP:Trivia and WP:Notability. I personally don't like to add interviews for the very reason that things can be cherry picked to lead to a POV problem. What is important is his music and his acting. Mentioning his legal troubles within what the law did or did not do is ok with Reliable sources. On the other hand I have to agree with the others who are stating that this comment about apologizing to the victim sounds more like a moral issue by the editor requesting it to be inserted and not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. The reference can be added and if the reader is interested in the interview they can read the whole thing in content, not just what one feels is important about it. Just my opinion, I hope this helps, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Just one more point that I didn't think of before. I agree with Crohnie regarding the interpretation of an interview. I think interviews are fine to use as reference for your general garden variety factoids. If Wahlberg was making some point about his acting technique or what he looks for in a script, that's pretty innocuous. This is completely different because the subject matter is so contentious that it must be done exactly right, or not done at all. In accordance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons we absolutely must avoid something like this, when there is a clear disagreement about how this information is conveyed. Verifiability does not make it OK, if the context is wrong. Rossrs (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to go on record in this section as saying this content is presented inappropriately and in my view, a biased way that is entirely out of context from the original interview, does not properly represent what was being discussed, and finally, any attempt to "balance" the bias would only lend additional undue weight to the answer he gave to a question about his distant past legal issues. It doesn't belong in this article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That also sums up my thoughts on the matter. Rossrs (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Just so I am clear, I also don't think the interview should be used do to the policies I mentioned above. My suggestion of a footnote or EL on it was an attempt at a compromise if it were to be decided that the interview be used at all. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll just reiterate what I said above and what everyone else is basically saying. It seems the quote is taken out of context and should be removed. At best, the point is trivial and doesn't serve to support why Wahlberg is notable to begin with. Pinkadelica Say it... 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing lazy, I want to say that I agree with everything said above by Rossrs, CrohnieGal, Pinkadelica and Wildhartlivie. The main problem with the inclusion of the quote is the claim that it meets verifiability requirements. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that the verifiability policy should be jointly used with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The inclusion of the quote does not meet the OR and NPOV requirements. Rossrs pointed out the reasons why in his first two posts. A compromise can be met by removing the quote from the article and adding the ABC interview link to the External Links section. momoricks make my day 03:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be doing a disservice to Wahlberg's BLP to include the accounts of the incidents and omit his contrition, his obvious remorse for what he did.
Revise current version:
Wahlberg has not tracked down any of the men he hurt and made amends but states that he's no longer burdened by guilt. <ref>"And though the right thing to do would be to try to find the man and make amends, Wahlberg says, he admits he hasn't done so -- but says he's no longer burdened by guilt."[]</ref>
An ABC News interview paraphrased Wahlberg's recollections of the incidents, saying "Though the right thing to do would be to try to find the man and make amends, Wahlberg says, he admits he hasn't done so -- but says he's no longer burdened by guilt."[]</ref>
In fact, I suggest the best thing is to put the whole thing, the account of the incidents, and his comments on them, in blockquotes, with "An ABC News interview paraphrased Wahlberg's recollections of his violent past" at the beginning. 'Paraphrased', because in a highly unusual and I have to say, imo surprisingly unprofessional way, they haven't given him a single quote through that whole section.
Remove all of it, accounts of the incidents, and his comments on them.
I have no opinion at this time on which.
Nothing inside of quotes can be OR. Period. It can be a misquote, it can be improperly attributed to a source, any number of things. But it can't be OR because it isn't the editor's own words. It can be PoV to include it, and of course there are the BLP considerations. I don't want to get into that part. My point is, the account of the incident without his side of the story is in danger of being PoV; it evokes a reaction from the reader, without their reaction to the best evidence in his favor: his apology.
Anarchangel (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the consensus on this was to omit trying to address the ABC interview comment, which has been removed due to the POV intent of the original contributor. It actually isn't clear from the source that he can be described as contrite or feeling guilty any more than he can be said not to. The main point in the dispute was the assertion of the original poster that since Wahlberg didn't track down the victim that he wasn't showing what the poster considered to be enough contrition or guilt. If the events are completely removed, then we can be accused of whitewashing, since it is a documented event that was significant at the time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wahlberg Vs. Tintin

Doesn't anyone think this guy bears an uncanny resemblance to the comic book character Tintin? I mean, sure the hair color is wrong, but it's like his face has been copy/pasted directly from Herge's drawings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Underwear comment

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what this is really saying, 'Annie Leibovitz shot Wahlberg in underwear for Vanity Fair's annual Hall of Fame issue.[citation needed]" It needs a reference and clarification. It reads like Wahlberg himself was shot in his underwear, I assume you mean photographed and not with a gun. Please clarify and add the reference for it. Thanks, the smile I got with reading it this way was good though. I am not adjusting it myself since there isn't a ref. to go by. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is in reference to his "tightie-whitie" ads, of which it is famously known that Annie Leibovitz photographed and it is in the advertising section. That it was removed is, to me, unnecessary in that it is not negative, nor is it controversial content. The ads even look like Liebovitz photographs. Sara's Song (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, what you did makes it a lot clearer to just a reader who doesn't know. Now I understand what you are saying there and it looks good. Thanks again for taking the time so quickly to address my question. Very much appreciate. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

new pic

can someone put a new piuc that picture has been there for 2 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's really not any good ones. Unless you can find one that meets the requirements? Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You think that's bad, the one for Mel Gibson is from 1990. This is actually a very good image of Wahlberg and in fact, it's not been in the article for two years now, it was added to this page about a year ago. If you have a better image than this that meets the criteria for free-use images, then by all means contribute it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


that picture there looks horrible am going to give you a link and you can pick from these —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In brief, no. We can't just go to google and pick up any old image. They have to be released under a Creative Commons license or public domain. I think that picture is quite good. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Early Life Section

I wanted to respond to Taroaldo's comments on my revisions. Taroaldo cited undue weight. I've read the section on undue weight and I think my changes mostly fall within these guidelines. My changes added the following two pieces of information, both of which are verified by the Suffolk County police report.

  1. I added the names of the individuals he assaulted. I don't think this adds any additional weight to the subject of his deliquency. Rather, provides more specificity by using the actual names (four more words - first name, last name x 2). I think this specificity makes the article better as it underscores the fact that his actions during his youth affected real people.
  2. I provided further specification about his racial comments. I do think a small comment about his comments on Vietnamese people is necessary. Otherwise, it reads as though he made blanket racial statements, which, in the context of the article as currently written is most likely interpreted by most raders as statements against African-Americans. It's important to note that the racist remarks during his youth were directed towards Vietnamese people in addition to African-Americans.
  3. I provided some additional context around the nature of his attacks. While I do think information on the nature of his attacks is important, I can see why others may feel this is undue weight for this section. In particular, I think it's important to note that the man he blinded was one who (perhaps unwillingly) helped him avoid a police cruiser.

BayArea415 (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Role As A Producer?

It seems to me that Mark Wahlberg's role as a creator/producer in premium TV is threatening to become one of the most notable things about him. The show Entourage is a hit and probably qualifies as a pop culture phenomenon by now, and the new series how to make it in america is getting seriously strong reviews.

As both shows have a protagonist that could be considered loosely autobiographical (Entourage clearly so) this has to be considered core to his current bio.

I can't say I'm qualified to write that section. But perhaps by making the suggestion it's more likely to happen...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but also cannot write this section ;o) I actually came to this article today to learn more about his role as the producer of Boardwalk Empire, which gets a minor note at the top of the article but otherwise is not mentioned. Mikepelley (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone should fix Lovely Bones line

The article says that MW is scheduled to appear in Jackson's film. It came out some time ago. Jgrudin (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done (along with another past tense), but that paragraph is now no longer chronological. Sorry! ChrisJBenson (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Year of sister Debbie's death

This article notes that Mark's sister Debbie died in 2003, but the article for their mutual brother Donnie Wahlberg notes her death as 2004. Is there a definitive source to correct one of these? ChrisJBenson (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Answering my own question ... Yes. This article is correct per this 2003 web post. ChrisJBenson (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Committed Catholic?

Not being religious myself, I did notice that a supposedly "committed" Catholic had four children prior to a recent marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And person can't become committed Catholic later in his life?-- (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Filmography is all messed up, fix it.

Filmography is all messed up, fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Would love to see a section on his executive producer role

I can't imagine why he's involved in shows like Entourage and Boardwalk Empire. You can imagine him being an EP is they were shows that he was in, or which needed some high profile star to champion their cause to get them made. But Boardwalk Empire for example, which has Scorcese and Buscemi as director and star, surely they wouldn't need his patronage. I can only imagine (but haven't read anywhere) that he was instrumental in the early stages and perhaps was a driving force (when they were just scripts/treatments) in getting the big names to get involved. There's no mention here or on the Boardwalk Empire page about why he's involved. (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC) DD

Tattoos Section Needs Updating

Mark said today that he's in the process of having all his tattoos removed. Unfortunately, this article is locked and I can't update it, so can someone with power please updated that? Here is the source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaringMice (talkcontribs) 01:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

He's having his tattoos removed by laser. (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Bility (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Swedish (North Germanic)? Possibly, but more probable is the fact, that the surname WAHLBERG is German! (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mass?

Article claims he attends Mass every day. However, the source linked mentions he enters for "20 minutes of prayer". Entering a church to pray every day is different than attending daily mass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No official documents nor records for blinding someone?

I am suspicious that he actually blinded a person -- even partially, and I think that is an important fact of his criminal case. The Smoking Gun reference does not say that the victim became blind. The only one reference is some non-court document piece, which could be merely guessing comments. The Smoking Gun court document piece even lists injuries -- of which do not include eye damage. It does not make any sense to include some injuries, but not others.

Please remove the talk about blinding a person unless you can back it up with court documents or medical records. (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Court documents and medical records have never been the required standard for wikipedia sources. There are plenty of media statements that meet the standards of WP:RS that corroborate the statements in this article, including (for example) the ABC interview at [1]. — Myasuda (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Another grammar issue in article

The first sentence in the section "Assault and conviction" reads: "Wahlberg HAS BEEN in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department in his youth." This is the wrong tense. It should read: "Wahlberg WAS in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department in his youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Business venture with brothers - "Wahlburgers"

Mark, along with his brother Donnie, have opened a restaurant in Hingham, Mass called "Wahlburgers"... it can be viewed at and found mentioned a number of times on regional news websites. It should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fix broken link in citation 31

Please change citation 31's link from to The former address no longer links directly to the video, but instead to a generic SNL video landing page. Nomediga (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Fix broken link in citation 30

Please change citation 30's link from to The former address no longer links directly to the video, but instead to a generic SNL video landing page. Nomediga (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for keeping us up to date. Rivertorch (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Filmography - "Cubed"?

The link for "Cubed" in the filmography winds up getting redirected to the page for the algebraic concept. Nothing in the Cube disambiguation mentions any 2010 media; at best it was a working title for a single episode of Dr. Who. Yet the description in the filmography suggests this was a TV series...? Morfusmax (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Removed link for "Cubed" and added reference to the particular episode he appeared in. HelloDex (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Tracking down victim

I removed this addition previously, not because it was sourced, but because it implies a value judgment on Wahlberg and lends undue weight to the fact that he hasn't "tracked down" victims from 20 years ago. There's no mandate in law or society that this be done, and simply because an interviewer asks the question doesn't make his choice not to do so a notable event. The article covers in quite intricate detail that he has a past with legal problems, I see no benefit in the article implying a moral judgment with it. Since the editor has returned it, a consensus needs to be determined on the relevance of this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I could almost see including this text if the victims publicly expressed that they wanted some sort of an apology. Since there's no mention of this, I'm not sure why it should be included. The way the content is worded now seems a tad judgmental in nature and I'm not sure if rewording would make it any less so. I'd be interested to know why the editor who put it back in wants it included. Pinkadelica Say it... 09:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Asserting that this piece of fact is irrelevant is a value judgment as well. It is a job of ABC network and other verifiable sources to make that judgment. It is not wikipedia editor's job to say that ABC or for that matter Fox got their judgment wrong. Otherwise, we will be having endless edit war about what is "Fair and Balanced". Feel free to add other verifiable info such as charities he donate to. Vapour (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? "Feel free to add other verifiable info such as charities?" What is that supposed to mean? We don't routinely include everything any interviewer happens to ask, and the objection I raised has nothing to do with ABC's judgment, it has to do with how this article is presented. By picking out one question from an interview and highlighting that he hasn't tracked down someone from twenty years ago implies a judgment by the contributor that it is has a certain meaning and value, which is giving it undue weight. Unless you intend to go around and insert whether or not someone who had legal problems 20 years ago has "made amends" in all articles, then highlighting this in Wahlberg's article is a judgment call on his behavior. Society doesn't require that personal amends be made and if someone commits a crime and serves his or her time for it, required amends are made. What is implied by including it here is that there is something relevant about his not having done this which, is well beyond the scope of a NPOV article. The point was not that it is irrelevant anywhere, the point is whether it is relevant to Wahlberg's notability. In that, it is not relevant. His fame, his notability, is based on a music and film career, not whether he made amends to someone from when he was a kid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If Wahlberg did what was required of him by the courts for the crime (ie jail time, fines, etc), the simple fact of the matter is that he made his amends. Like it or not, no further effort on his part is required. Again, if the victims had publicly expressed that they wanted an apology and Wahlberg decided he had moved on from the incident and refused, I would support the content being included. Adding additional content about his charitable work doesn't change the fact that the content has POV slant and that's not the way to balance an article. No one here is questioning the source because it's obviously reliable, but all sourced content doesn't automatically make it encyclopedic. Interviewers ask all sorts of questions that we should not, in the content of Wikipedia, include. That said, I think an RfC is probably the best route to go. Pinkadelica Say it... 00:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand your view about mistakes one made in youth. I could also argue that philanthropic activities are irrelevant detail to acting. These are all personal opinions and should not be the basis in which we conduct editing. By deleting this information, you are depriving the readers to make their own opinion. People who have the same view as you would not consider the info relevant while people who doesn't would. It is not our job to make that judgment for the readers. However, if you can find someone in media which hold the similar view as yours in regard to MW, feel free to add that. Vapour (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Philanthropic details are irrelevant to an acting career, unless it is something that bolsters notability. The interview is available through the already established reference. This has nothing to do with anticipating what is or is not of interest to readers, it has to do with adding undue weight to whether he's done something that you believe is relevant to his notability. I could also argue that to include details to the extent to which they are included is also adding undue weight. That you believe that it is notable to include that Wahlberg didn't track down a victim of an act for which he's served jail time to apologize, when other articles don't include this, whether they've been asked or not, is a judgment call on your part as to the weight and meaning of this. It is POV and judgmental and that is not relevant to this article and his notability. And no, I won't be searching for someone in media who holds this view, that would only add more undue weight, and if other media have not asked this question could arguably say that none of them thought it a relevant question. I am going to open a request for comment on this issue and consensus will determine whether it is notable to include. Please stop suggesting other things I can feel free to add. I feel free to remove this POV slant, and so I am going through channels to determine support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please debate about the sources rather than your opinion about what is right and fair. I have notice from many user submitted comments in media article that he has some passionate support among some people who had trouble in the past. Whatever you think about the finality of criminal sentencing or relevance of crime committed in youth, mainstream media do report his past crimes repeatedly. Moreover, you can't use "undue weight" argument to overturn threshold of inclusion, which is verifiability. It is a bit of stretch to claim that one short sentence is undue weight. How do you propose to summaries it further? Vapour (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I should add that there is no multiple source requirement for threshold of inclusion. And ABC is not an obscure local newspaper from some small town. By the way, do you see the irony in that Mark Wahlberg himself state that the right thing to do is to track down the victims and make amend. Vapour (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of debating the sources, this isn't an issue of sourcing, who mentioned multiple sourcing? My point was that if someone once asked him about apologizing does not make it a significant issue in the notability of Mark Wahlberg. Nor is it an issue of what is "right and fair." It is an issue of including something which implies there is something wrong that he did not track down a victim and say I'm sorry. Please do not attempt to infer what I think about criminality sentencing or the relevance of the crime he committed. I am not disputing the inclusion of the arrest and jail sentence, I am disputing a) your continued insistence that this means something important enough to be included in the article, b) your continued suggestions that I can feel free to add something unrelated and c) the weight that is given to his not tracking someone down in order to apologize. By including it, you are implying that not doing this has a meaning. I would suggest that your insistence of inclusion of this does reflect your POV that there is something amiss with a person who has served time for an offense when he does not try to track down the victim to apologize. It is not relevant to the notability of this individual. It means nothing and is thus not appropriate for inclusion. As Pinkadelica said, had someone at some point, in the media or in court, brought up an issue with the fact that Wahlberg didn't apologize, then it might be notable for inclusion. Since there is not evidence for that, the "lack of apology" means nothing. It does not, and further discussion of this is going nowhere, which is why I am going to put in a request for comments on this and at that point, what consensus determines is what will stay in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is disappointing to know that you don't intend to talk about the sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be all about verifiability. What you or I think about what ABC put out "imply", as you put it, isn't relevant to wikipedia policy of Neutral Point of View and Verifiablity. I have added a content, which can be verified by reference to a major American news outlet. It is up to wikipedia readers to form opinion regarding this verified fact, including implication. And to be honest, MW himself state that he is at fault for not tracking down the victim and not making amend. So it is hard for me to understand what "implication" you object to. It isn't implied. It is affirmed by MW himself in ABC. You are free to form your own opinion but please don't get in the way of others forming theirs from verifiable fact. Vapour (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way, undue weight guideline state that "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". This guideline does not refer to censoring verifiable content, even including Holocaust denial. And let remember that ABC, a major news outlet, by definition of reliable sources, cannot be a minority view. So far opposing view we have is yours. MW categorically state in ABC that he is at fault for not tracking down. The correct thing to do here is to actually expand my content and state that MW agree he is at fault but does not suffer from guilt. Vapour (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, Vapour, here's the thing. I'm not the only person above whose viewpoint is that this is not relevant to Wahlberg's notability. Check again. I'm not disputing that ABC News is a major news source. They did an interview with Mark Wahlberg. At one point, they threw in a question about his apologizing to his victims. He said he hadn't, then said that maybe that would be the right thing to do. Period. It wasn't the focus of the interview and it wasn't touched on later. Actually what he said was that he (like everyone else in the world) made mistakes and he paid for his mistakes, and he went on to live and do right, and that helped alleviate his guilt. He did not say he was at fault for not hunting down a victim. You have only chosen to emphasize that he didn't do something you think he should do. The emphasis that you are putting on what that means is the problem here. It is absolutely not the bottom line on Wikipedia that an editor just puts in something with a source and it automatically makes it relevant content for the article. His mother might have given an interview that said he sucked his thumb until he was 12 - it would be published, verifiable, but it doesn't make it relevant. Life, and Wikipedia, is not a 12 step program. No one is required to make amends to those they hurt and if they don't do that, it does not make it a meaningful point in their article. It isn't censorship, and it is bad faith for you to say that it is. The only public debate there is about Wahlberg's need to apologize is yours. You've actually already included that he doesn't feel guilty. I see no reason to continue to debate this with you. It won't be solved this way, which is why the Request for Comments. You will have to comply with what that concludes. That is the correct thing to do. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to argue what ABC reported is not notable, simply because you personally judge it so. It is not you or I to make a judgment on notability. Wikipedia policy and guideline state that it is ABC and other verifiable sources to make that judgment. Plus, if you can't make an argument based on wikipedia policies, it doesn't matter if someone else support your position. Vapour (talk)

Wahlberg is quoted at length as saying that he reformed his life, "gives back" to the community and regrets his criminal actions of the past. It is not judgmental for the article to include his statement that he did not hunt up past victims to make amends. It is simply informational. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Blinded a man?

How is Wahlberg allowed to be an actor if he blinded a man? ( (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Early Life: "devided" should be spelled "divided" Tboneblue (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, LittleMountain5 19:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Racial epithets & recent edits/reverts

According to court documents/reliable sources, in 1986 Wahlberg was part of a group of three while males who yelled "Kill the (N-word)" at some African-American siblings and then the next day yelled unspecified racial epithets at a group of African-American schoolchildren who included one of the family-members from the day before. In 1988, after attacking two different Vietnamese men (during one attack the court documents have him saying "VIetnam fucking shit"), he was convicted of attempted assault and served 45 days of a two year sentence. Owing to some recent edits & reverts, should the words used during these two different incidents be retained or not retained within the article's text? Is describing the words used as "racial epithets" enough or do they have to be explicitly delineated within the text? Shearonink (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to even the reports about both related incidents, by including the term "racial epithets" in this edit instead of reporting just one term and not the other. Shearonink (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

Please change the reference to the movie "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" to "Planet of the Apes" by Tim Burton, Wahlberg had nothing to do with Rise of... (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: The information is quoted correctly from the source, but this error has been noted in the comments of that article. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"Former" child actress?

The article states, "Wahlberg dated former child actress Soleil Moon Frye". (emphasis mine) She is an actress now (according to her Wikipedia article). Is it really proper to refer to anyone who was an actress as a child as a "former" child actress? Because all child actresses who don't die too young become adults eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

There are incorrect facts about this person....I would like to edit (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Issue in Article

In the FILM section of the article,this sentence should read "Recently, Wahlberg was cast as the lead in the fourth installment of the Transformers film franchise." Removing the second "in" before the word fourth.Misjon322 (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

Under the "Film" section, in the last full paragraph, it reads "Rupert Wyatt, who worked with Wahlberg on 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes', is set to direct." However, the film Wahlberg starred in was the remake, 'Planet of the Apes', from 2001, not the 2011 reboot. (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll take the 2011 film out, as the IP is quite correct. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The text in question was a direct quote from a source, albeit a mistaken one. I trimmed a couple more sentences from the quote so as not to misquote the original. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
As this text is only giving information on a new film, the source should be summarized, not quoted. This WP:QUOTE has the benefit of not excluding accurate information because of issues like the one raised here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources should not be used to support claims about living people

Assuming there is a reliable secondary source, there is no need in this case to use a primary source hosted by a tabloid/scandal site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammar issue in article

"Wahlberg was also considered for a role in the film Brokeback Mountain. It was originally intended to star him and Joaquin Phoenix, but Wahlberg was uncomfortable with the film's sex scenes as was Phoenix (who's role went to Heath Ledger) and Mark's role ultimately went to Jake Gyllenhaal.[22]"

This is from the film career section. It should say "whose" instead of "who's."

Spelling 'devided'

Spelling error in personal history section.

Application for pardon

So Wahlberg has applied for a pardon and there are two very opposing views on this matter[2][3][4]. I was not sure how to talk about the views while maintaining WP:NPOV, so I thought it best to seek consensus on this matter. -Myopia123 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I adjusted some things and fixed the refs. This issue is one reason why the article has recently attracted more vandalism than usual so at least those sentences are a NPOV start dealing with the news. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail references in this article

In my experience, Wikipedia does not consider the daily mail to be a reliable source. Should info from that source be removed from this article? -Myopia123 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Blinded a man?

How was he allowed to become famous after he blinded a man? Surely he wouldn't be allowed to become an actor after that, so can we make sure the allegation is true before it's included in the article. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC))

Apparently it did happen according to this from the Washington Post. This is Paul (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"allowed to become famous"? He paid his debt to society according to his sentence and so far as I know there is no authority in charge of people somehow being allowed to become actors. Shearonink (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree. We can mention the incident in the article if it's not there already, but we're not here to speculate on whether or not it should have had an impact on his acting career. This is Paul (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
How can you "pay your debt" after permanently blinding a man? I'm amazed Wahlberg was allowed to have a career in Hollywood if this allegation is true. (RobMcAndrew (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC))
Ours is not to reason why, just to report the facts. This is Paul (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, as stated below, now he wants a full and unconditional pardon from Massachusetts, which would result in this conviction being removed from his records. I could use some help in NPOV wording of the situation. -Myopia123 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
See below. Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm a Wikipedia newbie so sorry if this isn't the correct protocol somehow, but it seems like the victim he apparently blinded gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which he said Mark did not blind him: Maybe the article should mention this? giantangryrobot (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi giantangryrobot. Wikipedia very, very rarely considers The Daily Mail a reliable source for biographies due to its poor reputation. --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense! giantangryrobot (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's all over the internet now, probally should be updated.College Watch (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, the articles that Wikipedia is using to substantiate the blinded man story, appear to be drivel, based on a fictional satire "An “Interview” With The Asian Man Whom Mark Wahlberg Horribly Disfigured". The idiot who wrote it says at the end, that it was a fictional interview. However, it's based on his idea that the assault was actually true. The mailOnline has produced the original police accusations, and none include blinding a person. The quote that's in Wikipedia that says he was considering apologising to the "blinded man", is a fiction that is derived from the ABC article "A Candid Chat With Mark Wahlberg", which is drivel as well, because it's not a candid chat with anybody. The "blinded man" was inserted into the statement and put onto Wikipedia, where it served as the basis for various slander throughout the blogging world. However it does create the problem of how the rumour started, if Trinh and the police didn't know about it. Bipedia (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

edit request: footer

Please add {{Wahlberg family}} to the footers -- (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Supports GAY Marriage Reference

I saw in the article that he "supports" GAY marriage, so I clicked the reference link and then went to the article that information supposedly came from. Nothing in that article says anything about him supporting GAY marriage. Can someone find a credible link to this information, otherwise DELETE it from his page. -thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{failed verification}} so that, if this is true, someone can find a source for this information. Thanks for pointing this out. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think the new references can validate the claim the article has now that his "views on GAYs" have changed. The article just has him saying that "not everybody is being treated equally and that's not right". How does that imply that his views on GAYs have changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you capping "gays"? lol. He doesn't support homophobia outright anymore. He's a businessman.--A21sauce (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OK darling, but being a "businessman" and the link provided as a reference doesn't say anything about his views on GAYs 'evolving' (which is what the article on Wikipedia says). That whole paragraph with him being a Roman Catholic and then going to his views on GAYs is just weird. It's as if the paragraph is trying to create this link between Mark's Roman Catholic beliefs and his alleged views on GAYs. I think someone needs to clean that up and get a better reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, sweetie, your TONE is just weird.
That said, the sources do not support the statements. He was "known for his homophobia"? No, that states A) he was homophobic and B) this homophobia was part of his fame. That's a controversial claim about a living person. Per WP:BLP, we'll need solid sourcing. Instead, we have one source that says he did not call out another artist's homophobic remarks and another source that says "possibly racist and homophobic tendencies....he was accused of condoning blatantly homophobic remarks". That's "possible...tendencies" and "accused of condoning". There is a wide gap between that and saying he was homophobic and was famous, in part, as a result. As for the "evolving", the source given does not support the claim. It takes a whole lot of bending to get the source to make the claim that he is now supportive where once he was homophobic and that his views slowly changed over time.
Some or all of this may be true. Or not. At the moment, though, is is not verifiable. I've yanked it for now. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
As this involves a contentious claim about a living person, WP:BLP applies. Please establish a consensus before restoring the contentious claim. Thank you. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to echo Summer's comments. From what I can see from the sources, it looks like the allegations of homophobia stemmed from Wahlberg appearing to condone someone's homophobic remarks by saying that he liked the speaker's candor. He didn't make the remarks himself and from what I can see, he didn't say anything like "X was right" or so on. Wikipedia has to be very, very careful about how things are phrased when it comes to allegations and claims like this because this is the sort of thing that can lead to lawsuits and the like. If it is going to be added, it will have to be phrased very, very carefully and sourced extremely well, preferably with sources strong enough to show that it warrants being added. Possible BLP violations are taken pretty seriously on here because they have to be taken seriously. If anyone wants this added I'd suggest that they work on the phrasing on this page and back it up with sourcing that can support the claims. Offhand I don't see anything that would explicitly show that he was homophobic. Did he do things that could make someone personally view him as homophobic? Sure- but therein lies the problems of original research and speculation, neither of which should be on this website. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue was discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


So, I want to point out, in the "Assaults, conviction and pardon filing" section, Mark Wahlberg is quoted as saying "VIETNAM FUCKING SHIT" (sic). Regardless of the exact accuracy (or relevance) of this phrase, it has been in all caps since April 10th. Is there any reason for this? And while on the topic, the citation doesn't ever mention him saying anything.

I would edit it, but frankly, I want no part in personally fixing this article. If anything, I'm just surprised it's been there for so long. Considering the recent media popularity of Mark Wahlberg's assaults as a teenager, this probably isn't the only graffiti in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:40, 14 April 2015(UTC)

The phrase is in the court records, but not in caps. I have adjusted it to not being ALL IN CAPS and added the specific ref for the phrase. Shearonink (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

stop being kids its to get the point across that he was mad and yelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:845:C100:DDF2:5567:208F:F605:ADDA (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Who's being kids? And was it Wahlberg's point that he couldn't tell the difference between Asians so he beat them up? --A21sauce (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The source does not say he as "mad and yelling". It says that he called the victim "a 'Vietnam fucking shit'." I have corrected it to match the source. If you have a source that says he was mad and yelling, we can certainly state that he was mad and yelling. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

He also played the pipes with John Hodgman in a woodwind quintet. Hodgman played clarinet. (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Orduin Discuss 21:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Wahlberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wahlberg's Supernumery Nipple

We (my girlfriend and i) were trying to edit Mark Wahlberg's page to include reference to his supernumery extra nipple, referenced on a number of verified Wikipedia pages, but were unable to do so due to the 'Semi-protected Status' of this page. Whilst we do not dispute this, of course, we would like an Authority or perhaps merely an Officer of Wikipedia to please include this in his article, because this knd of distinct mutation would clearly have been an issue vital to his sense of belonging and Humanity in the crucial ages of his childhood when nothing but mockery might have befallen him from such a thing - this being, to be clear, a third nipple. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter and for your prompt action in this regard. Michael and Christelle, Bangkok, February 4, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You'll face two issues:
1) You will need to find a reliable source for this claim. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, though I would hope the articles you say you've found it in cite such sources.
2) You will need to demonstrate that this is a significant aspect of his life and/or career. Various notable people have various facts about them that we can confirm as true, but disregard as trivial. Richard Nixon, Mel Gibson and Andy García, for example, do not mention their congenital peculiarities. If you find reliable sources that discuss the claim and how it may have affect him, you might have something. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Wahlberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reinsertion of promotional content, advertisings in the lead, relatives in the infobox with no Wikipedia article and more fan trivia by a new user

I´m not gonna to revert the Walhberg article anymore, not for the reason of yield to the continuous foolish reinsertion of promotional stuff and trivial facts and addition of a family tree in the infobox with no article by one new user called jibix, but not to follow that never-ending silly game (which I'm already bored and tired) of non-sense revertions by such user, who in his last revertion on Wahlberg, he has no more excuses for his silly endless revertions, simply he reverted this again without any explanation after explaining to him this reasons according to the Wikipedia´s policy "OBVIOUS PROMOTIONAL stuff in the lede, ADVERTISINGS in the lede (own hamburgers business with no Wiki article) and FAN TRIVIA. no article, no mention in the infofox (never-ending family tree), as simple as that!". I can´t help anymore, besides I run the risk of being blocked (3RR), some may frown with this removals of useless content; so, you can keep stuffing the article with superfluous details, while many other important articles need for help. greetings, bye. Ajax1995 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Apologies for my recent reversion of a correct edit, the vandalism was happening so quickly. Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)