Jump to content

Talk:Dustin Lance Black

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

The first???

[edit]

... Is Dustin Lance Black the first openly gay actor to win an Oscar? --24.21.148.155 (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, he's not an actor... TQfan (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence doesn't make sense

[edit]

"Black grew up in a Mormon household, [1] in San Antonio, Texas and later moving to Salinas, California when his mother remarried.[2][3] His father was a Mormon missionary who had converted Black's mother,[4] but she later remarried.[2]"

It seems the idea is that she left the Mormon church after the divorce. This second sentence is just redundant and should be changed. Cculhane (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit photos

[edit]

I thought it was necessary to add that his statement emphasized the importance of responsible sexual practices. So I added it. Phildev (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-pasetsky/perez-hilton-crosses-line_b_215257.html[reply]

He is claiming invasion of privacy and copyright infringement and asking for $3 million in damages, as well as any profit the company made from the photos So what's happened since then? What was the outcome of the case? Anyone know? --24.21.105.29 (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is why wikipedia is becoming a self-censored fake encyclopedia, i can't believe that this simple TRUth can't be added on there. how can they call this site is a neutral site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:AC51:A893:D914:73E (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP policy - "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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". Semi-literate sensationalist tabloid-fodder making assertions not even backed up by the sources cited doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I smell POV. Yep... point of view editing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he filed a lawsuit, and won the money. and you think that it is not worthy to be put on here? who made you the censor of this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC6B:6B90:AC51:A893:D914:73E (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy - which is shortly to block you from editing if you carry on like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Black has been disinvited from giving a commencement speech because of the photos, there has been a lawsuit over them and the story is fairly well know, yet it doesn't appear in this "encyclopedia" and, to top it off, we have a self-appointed high censor threatening to block people from editing the "encyclopedia" for daring to ask about something that should obviously be included in this entry? Yeah, this site is "neutral" all right. The notion that these photos are not included because Wikipedia is not a "tabloid" is so outright laughable, I can't believe anyone would even make such a claim. I would also like to add that multiple reputable sources, including the LA Times(which is now evidently "semi-literate" and "sensationalist") have reported on this story, so the assertion that there will be BLP problems is almost as ridiculous an assertion as the claim that this story is too tabloid for Wikipedia.74.134.145.218 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that it took me approximately two seconds on Google to find multiple reference to the photos, all from reputable sources. These sources include NPR, The Los Angeles Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The International Business Times etc. So much for the claim that this story is too "tabloid" for Wikipedia, or that the photos are solely for titillation and have no news value. Moreover, the copious number of reputable sources serves to demolish flimsy BLP claims. The contention that these photos should not be mentioned in the entry is simply ridiculous. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support Andy, I also searched and watched, looked over the content and imo there is nothing worth storytelling on wiki, if there are multiple high quality www posts telling the story then I would change my mind, but I didn't find them Mosfetfaser (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing worth telling regarding an explicit video that was reported on by some of the largest news sources in the United States? Give me a break. If there are multiple high quality posts telling the story? Hmm, I guess NPR, the LA Times and the Christian Science Monitor no longer qualify as "high quality", at least when someone is trying to shield a particular person on Wikipedia. 74.134.145.218 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to reading the lame excuses as to why the following sources, ALL of which reference the Black sex tape, don't qualify as legitimate and "high quality": http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-pasadena-college-commencement-speaker-20140430-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-pasadena-college-unwisely-rescinds-invitation-to-dustin-lance-black-20140421-story.html#page=1 http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/social-affairs/20140418/gay-rights-activist-dustin-lance-black-claims-pasadena-city-college-dumped-him-as-commencement-speaker http://www.pcccourier.com/2014/04/30/speaker/ http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/05/commencement-speakers-changing-rutgers-and-pasadena-city-college#sthash.jTIShXH1.dpbs http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2009/08/oscar-winning-milk-screenwriter-dustin-lance-black-sues-website-for-posting-nude-pics-of-him-having-bareback-sex.html

I agree these pictures are relevant to Black's biography. In journalism, one way we measure the value of news is whether the person in question is a public figure, and whether that person's actions influences what he or she represents to the public. Ergo: Dustin Lance Black is an AIDS activist, and there are photos online depicting him having unprotected sex. It's the same way Ralph Fiennes' page should have a section about having unprotected sex, since he was on his way to discuss HIV awareness for the UN, and ultimately cut from that function because of his actions as a public figure.

Here we have a story on the topic with a prepared statement from Black acknowledging the photos and the quote: "I have had the privilege to speak to people across the country, both gay and straight, on a number of critical issues including safe sex." It's obvious is aware of his position as a possible role model. Again, in journalism, the right to privacy is not the same for a private person as it is a public figure. We can exercise discretion IF the information does not at all seem relevant to report, except to generate clicks / sell a newspaper. But that's not the case here. And really, some other key points -- the whole commencement speaker debacle ended with a $26,000 payout in legal fees to Black's lawyers in order to get him to not sue. http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-dustin-lance-black-responds-20141015-column.html And his lawsuit earned him $100,000 against the person who sold the sex tape. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pasadena-city-college-settlement-with-screenwriter-20141014-story.html These are all issues of public record, and Black has spoken on the record about them. There is nothing at all that's tabloid here. 620Jones (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Milk in time of AIDS?

[edit]

The sentence, "Black had first visited San Francisco in the early 1990s and was inspired by city supervisor Harvey Milk's representation of the gay community while diagnoses of AIDS among gay people were increasing," is at least ambiguous. It suggests that during Harvey Milk's time, diagnoese of AIDS in the gay community were increasing. However, according to the Wikipedia articles on Harvey Milk and on AIDS, Mr. Milk was assassinated in 1978 and the CDC made its first report of something later known as AIDS in 1981.

  • Thank you for acknowledging my comment. However, "it was the beginning of AIDS" does not ring true either. While there were a few pre-1980 cases of what was later determined to be HIV/AIDS, there is no basis to suggest that Harvey Milk was aware of such or that "diagnoses of AIDS" during Mr. Milk's lifetime were increasing. Am I misunderstanding something? My recollection of the news and little bit of research suggests that there was no recognition of what later came to be known as AIDS any time in the 1970's, certainly not by 1978, when Mr. Milk was shot. (See Wikipedia article on "Timeline of AIDS.") Dr. Ho apparently made his discoveries staring in 1981.
  • From UCLA's website: "In 1981, UCLA physicians reported the very first cases of what was described as “newly acquired immunodeficiency” — the disease entity we now know as AIDS." In the late 1970's, AIDS was at the beginning in this country. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=="Black had first visited San Francisco in the early 1990s and was inspired by city supervisor Harvey Milk's representation of the gay community while diagnoses of AIDS among gay people were increasing.[8]" This implies that Harvey Milk was alive in the early 1990s when in fact he had been dead for a generation, and that Harvey Milk had something to do with the AIDS epidemic, when in fact he did not. Why dont' you just admit it is a badly written sentence and replace it? Frankly, the fact that this sentence would still be in here a year after it was drawn to whomever had decided they are the guardian of this page is beyond belief! This is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that the sentence could use improvement, your latter comments are unwarranted and unnecessary. Please refrain from such going forward. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal section

[edit]

Could this be rewritten or merged into the rest of the article? --Tom (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category confusion: Gay directors vs LGBT directors

[edit]

This individual is in the categories LGBT screenwriters, LGBT writers from the United States, and LGBT rights activists from the United States. And yet, the category LGBT directors was changed to the category Gay Directors. What is the criteria for using gay vs. LGBT? I am puzzled.

Moreover, Category:Gay directors has been proposed for deletion and the page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 3 proposes "merging Category:Gay directors to Category:LGBT directors". I agree with both of these suggestions. Thus, the change to this page should probably be reverted.--Foobarnix (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on a relationship

[edit]

Wikipedia does not need to be first with the news. PLease see WP:NOTNEWS. If the gentleman is in a relationship no-one will die if they are not the first to name the other party. Once it is referenced in WP:RS it may, if deemed suitable for inclusion, be added to the article. Not until then. There is no rush. YOu get no glory for being the first. Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fancy how you think you are the owners of wikipedia. I cited the same source that was used a few lines above, i.e.: The Advocate. Mine was not WP:RS. Thanks guys, you're awesome. --Martin A. Rivas 10:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRivasPhD (talk • contribs)
Please do not snark. All The Advocate is doing is regurgitating a gossip column elsewhere. If you research the link you added you discover that it is entirely unreliable as a source. Please remember that the truth is irrelevant to WIkipedia. We must have our facts sourced in WP:RS, even if that differs from the truth. It is a Wikiparadox. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way MartinRivasPhD. The Advocate, in this instance, is not an RS for the claim simply because it is not confirmed by the subjects themselves. It isn't. These people have a right to privacy and if you do not understand that please see WP:BLP1E which states:"Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information.". When the subjects have made a clear and concise declaration of their involvement with each other than it is encyclopedic to mention with proper sourcing with adequate information. Thank you and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to you both. I'm the new here and far from thinking that I will get "glory" from being the first, I was enthusiastic of doing a contrinution. Happy editing, so. Martin A. Rivas 10:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRivasPhD (talk • contribs)

I was the first to add this information. Upset it got deleted, I think at this point it is confirmed. If it's not news, then why not delete the "personal life" section in the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.241.196 (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid there is no glory in being the first to add improperly referenced gossip. We have rules here and they must be obeyed. When the rules allow the material can go back in cited with a reliable source. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship is not speculation or gossip and it has nothing to do with wikipedia as a journalistic functionary reporting on it is first it is a fact confirmed by the people in the relationship read the news, there are about a hundred sources. It is fact and even an encyclopedic one this is just editorial hubris. Things change situations develop Masterknighted (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not engaging in 'journalism', and we see no need to document every relationship every individual engages in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For heavens sake it is their current relationship and they are two internationally notable individuals, it is absolutely notable and encyclopedicMasterknighted (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram photos and birthday cakes are not robust enough evidence for a BLP. The papers are making speculations about "rumours" and what "appears" to be the case. WP is attempting to be an encyclopaedia. The article is fine without gossip. A consensus would have to be reached on reliable sourcing of the story before it would be added. Span (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The others sources have both parties confirm it and their moving in together , it is a confirmed relationship not gossipMasterknighted (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any source where either party has stated it. Span (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption

[edit]

Black speaking at a rally? Really, exactly how do we know this? I can't even locate the original source. For all we know he is singing karaoke.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Do we not have rather more pictures than is usual, all showing pretty much the same thing? Might they be reduced to the usual infobox one, and others only be added if they illustrate a real encyclopaedic point? Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I think we have at least one issue I cannot locate adequate information on.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should keep the 2009 Gay pride image as it does have significance to the section.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree provided it can be directly associated with the event. The issue with such pictures is that they can be anywhere at any time. Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. I support the removal as I am sure there are far better images to illustrate that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we had a better info box image. The current one is rather blurry and the 2009 one is rather dark...but I may be able to improve that with photoshop. I'll see what I can do and post it here when I finish it to get a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit requests

[edit]

41.21.173.198 (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on 04 December 2013, it was reported that he is dating, (Redacted)

Declined. This is currently not sourced in reliable sources. I have redacted your request because this talk page must also not violate WP:BLP Fiddle Faddle 12:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my rationale, and after a search of media, we have media reporting that an unreliable source and that other unnamed sources have allegedly confirmed something. This is dangerous BLP territory, and we may not record this relationship as a fact until it is reported as more than gossip and tittle-tattle in WP:RS. If we were to run with it at present then Wikipedia would just become another venue for gossip. There is nothing urgent here. It can wait until any relationship is confirmed correctly. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It shouldn't matter who they are dating until such time as they disclose such personal information to a reliable source and not just a normally reliable publication reporting on the same gossip. It is just not encyclopedic information at the moment.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

The page is protected...but the little lock icon is not showing. Can anyone else see it?--Mark Miller (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –anemoneprojectors– 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the page protected? I'm not disagreeing, just wondering why. Thanks.Omc (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of violations of the biographies of living persons policy. –anemoneprojectors– 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction Overreaction

[edit]

DLB is an openly gay man. So to mention here on the talk page the name of a particular man when noting that there have been widely published stories in many publications aboout who he might be dating could not possibly be a BLP violation, especially if the way it is mentioned is to say, "There are unconfirmed reports that DLB is currently dating XX. Do not add it to the article until it is confirmed in reliable sources". If the name of the other person is someone who has made it public knowledge that he is gay or that he is in a relationship with a man, then it cannot possibly be a BLP violation for that other person either. You cannot out people who are already out. If either party were married, then commenting on a possible relationship could be a BLP problem because it would be to suggest that one of them was being unfaithful in his marriage, but so long as both are single, not publicly identified as being in any other relationship, and both have made public that they are or could be in a relationship with another man, there is no BLP issue resulting from mentions of names on a talk page. The redaction here is unnecessary. 173.243.45.34 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a gossip column. There is no requirement to be first with the news, nor to indulge in reporting unsubstantiated media speculation. The BLP policies are clear. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously did not read my comment very carefully as it does not respond to anything I wrote. I was quite specifically talking about mentioning names here on the talk page, not on the article page. Talk pages are often used to discuss unconfirmed information. If there are reports that a famous celebrity couple are about to get a divorce, that should not go in the article of either person until a reliable source confirms it, but it is not a BLP violation to mention on the talk pages that there have been such rumours and that people should wait for a reliable source before adding it. We would not redact such a comment from a talk page. Similarly, with celebrities who have not "come out", but have been rumoured to be gay, their talk pages have allowed it to be mentioned that there have been such rumours, even though the person's article page (rightly) contains no such mention. So if there are rumours that Dustin Lance Black is dating someone famous, it would be a BLP violation to put that on the article page, but not a BLP violation to mention the name of the rumoured person here on the talk page in the context of discussing whether or not the information can be added to the main page. The BLP policies are clear.173.243.45.34 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that discussions regarding 'unconfirmed rumours' are pointless - we won't include them in articles - there is no need to discuss them in any detail on talk pages. There is certainly no need to name names, when all that is involved is a personal relationship that wouldn't deserve coverage in the article if it were confirmed in reliable sources. 'Who is dating who' is of no encyclopaedic concern, regardless of the sexuality of the individuals concerned. And yes, WP:BLP policy applies to article talk pages too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, there is a vast gulf between "no need to discuss them in any detail" and redacting any mention of a name. The former is true and the latter is a ridiculous overreaction. If there were widespread rumours that George Clooney were dating Madonna, then there would be nothing at all wrong with commenting on either his or her talk page that this claim should not be added to the article pages without a reliable source. But to require that Madonna's name not even be mentioned on the talk page in discussing this and redacting any mention of her name would be an absurd overreaction. That's my point. (Do you think it is a BLP violation that must be redacted for me to even use those two names in the context of a hypothetical on a talk page? Absurd!) And of course BLP applies to talk pages. It's just not a BLP violation to say on Clooney's talk page "reports that he is dating Madonna are just rumours and not supported by reliable sources so don't add it to the page." Similarly, it is not a BLP violation to say the same thing here about DLB and whoever he is rumoured to be dating. 173.243.45.34 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he is openly gay doesn't mean that it's not a BLP violation to report the name of his partner.
    • The partner is also a living person, and we don't know if he's openly gay too.
    • He could be subject to some legal or other consequences that are different if he just says he's gay and if he has a partner.
    • It could be a BLP violation for reasons that have nothing to do with being gay. For instance, reporting the wrong person as his partner implies that he is cheating on his actual partner.
Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, you should read the above comments again. All of your comments were already addressed in the very first one in the section.
"The partner is also a living person, and we don't know if he's openly gay too." The third sentence of the original comment reads: "If the name of the other person is someone who has made it public knowledge that he is gay or that he is in a relationship with a man, then it cannot possibly be a BLP violation for that other person either." As I am sure you well know, the particular person whose name is being redacted has made it public knowledge that he is in a relationship with a man, so this is not a problem here.
"He could be subject to some legal or other consequences that are different if he just says he's gay and if he has a partner." Again, the person who has been rumoured to be in a relationship with DLB has already made it public knowledge that he is in a relationship with a man, so there are no legal consequences to worry about in this case.
"reporting the wrong person as his partner implies that he is cheating on his actual partner." This is also addressed in the original post. The person in question is not publicly identified as being in a relationship with anyone else, so this is not an issue here.
There are no BLP grounds for redacting from this talk page the name of the person DLB is rumoured to be dating. 99.192.93.72 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (=173.243.45.34)[reply]

(Redacted)

[edit]

Black's partner is (Redacted) spoke at length about this on the Jonathan Ross Show and this was quoted by The Independent: [1]. So maybe this should be added to this article? 86.167.235.204 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be bold and do so yourself? DonIago (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His personal life has no place here. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) has still not named his partner. The article quoted above clearly says "alleged". –anemoneprojectors– 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and gossip and tittle tattle is inappropriate and a BLP violation on talk pages as well as on article pages. Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a BLP violation to say that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-On-This-Talk-Page hasn't named his partner? –anemoneprojectors– 19:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FF is wrong. There is no BLP issue raised by mentioning the name here on the talk page that is continuously redacted. 99.192.93.72 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's potentially a BLP violation to say "Person A is the partner of Person B", when this has not been confirmed by either party, because it could be untrue, but if I said on here that "Newspaper C said that Person A is allegedly the partner of Person B but neither A nor B have confirmed this", then that would be a true fact. I don't see the newspapers getting sued though. –anemoneprojectors– 19:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The key word in what you wrote is "potentially". The truth is, in 98% of cases (like the one this page has had) it is not a BLP issue, even if it turns out that person A and person B are not actually dating. For example, suppose someone posts on the talk page for George Clooney: "I know he has been dating Sandra Bullock for a while, but I am not sure for how long. Does anyone know? I want to add this to his page." The correct response is to post a reply that says, "Actually, they are not dating and never have dated." The paranoid response would be to redact Bullock's name from the talk page. Just because the information is wrong does not make it a BLP issue.
So suppose that it turns out that DLB is actually not dating He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Maybe HWMNBN actually met his current boyfriend through DLB and in order to allow them to have some privacy from the media DLB has agreed to not deny that he is dating HWMNBN. In reality, maybe DLB and HWMNBN are just friends. It's not a likely scenario, but it is possible. Now if that really is the truth, it still would not be a BLP issue for someone to say on this talk page "DLB is dating HWMNBN". It would be false, but not libelous or otherwise legally problematic, it would not out anyone, nor would it expose anyone to any sort of negative consequence. It would be an error, but not a BLP issue requiring redacting.
There is an understandable sensitivity about reporting any information about any notable person that deals with same-sex relationships because of both the historic and current problems that such an identification can cause. But this is a case where both parties are open either about being gay or about being in same-sex relationships. There is no conceivable BLP issue in this case. Just a massive overreaction resulting in repeated redaction. 99.192.84.60 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.93.72 & 173.243.45.34)[reply]
Here's my opinion as someone who came here curious how Wikipedia would handle the situation. On the one hand it's absurd to redact a name while leaving intact the source. On the other it's equally absurd to argue that just because it's common knowledge it needs to be included. The "other" person prefers to be coy and says he hopes media attention won't ruin things for them. There's no harm in letting them have their fun. In fact the policy seems to be explicitly written to correctly err on the side of caution. Manbiteswiki (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does make sense if the said person wants to remain coy. But since such said person has just shared a selfie with Black, and that has been covered here[[2]], I suppose saying "the two are dating each other" would be a factual, neutral account that's relevant to the topic of this article, and should thus be included. Yes, it's gossiping. But yes, this piece of information does belong to the Personal Life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.163.132 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
98.221.163.132, a selfie that proves that the two men had supper together or traveled together does not show that they are a couple. For a more detailed reply to your comments, see my reply to you here: Talk:Tom Daley. 99.192.95.185 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]

The thing is, this is the incorrect venue to discuss it. Here we discuss the article, but folk wish to discuss a matter of policy. WP:BLPN seems like the correct place to start, with a discussion that is about the situation, not about the people alleged to be involved. All the redactions do is uphold existing policies and guidelines, even when performed apparently incongruously,. Changing those is done elsewhere. So please migrate the generic discussion there. Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"All the redactions do is uphold existing policies and guidelines" - No they don't. That is the whole point of the comments that have been made here. There is nothing in BLP that supports redacting HWMNBN's name from the talk page. There is no issue to discuss at WP:BLPN because the policy is fine as it is. You are just incorrectly applying it here on this talk page, so here is where there discussion is appropriate. Questions of how to apply BLP to any particular article or talk page are always had on the talk pages for those particular articles. It is only if someone is suggesting that BLP be changed that the discussion goes at the BLP pages, and no one here is proposing that. 99.192.66.145 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.... & 173.243.45.34)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

[edit]

at the end of 2013 Dustin Lance Black came out to be in a relationship with 19 year old Tom Daley, a diver from Britain who won the bronze medal during the 2012 summer Olympic games. Juliadw (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per our policies regarding biographies of living people we cannot add this sort of information without a reliable source. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this is described as a semi-protected edit request. What does this mean? Is this article semi-protected? I don't see a tag through maybe I've missel something. (Not disagreeing with anything, Just unfamiliar with the Wikipedia roules and trying to understand.) Omc (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was semi-protected for a month, until 5 Feb, then the protection was removed. The term refers to a constraint placed on the editing function, such that non-registered users and new users cannot edit the article while it's protected. It helps guard against a stream of heavy anonymous vandalism. Hope that helps. Span (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in a relationship

[edit]

should this detail be written here also?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daley#Personal_life Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this site is so retarded. tom daley already listed his name.

[edit]

your site has double standards? how ridicuolous this site is becoming! look at tom daley, are you going to delete his name on that article, too? your rules contradict yourself. it just shows that your rules are so random. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.182.185 (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dustin Lance Black. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

[edit]

Birth dates, like other personal-life claims, need citation, per WP:BLP. I've found no birth date at AllMovie.com, and the California Birth Index lists no Dustin Black born in 1974, as this article had claimed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you did not find him on the California Birth Index as you searched for the wrong name. his name is not Dustin Black at birth, it is Dustin Garrison... says so right here on the page. funnily enough, if you search that, you will find his entry there (https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/dustin_l_garrison_born_1974_12244926 to save you searching)... so it seems his birth date and location are correct. TQfan (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dustin Lance Black. 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) 00:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

married?

[edit]

I'm going to include that he is engaged -but not married- to swimmer Tom Daley, per this article. I'm also going to include that it was falsely reported that the couple had gotten married. If you think this is not fair for inclusion, please let me know in the next few days to avoid and edit war. Thanks, wikifolk. GreaseballNYC (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dustin Lance Black. 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) 01:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military Bases

[edit]

Did he live on military bases because his mother was in the military? This is not explicit. Gebrelu (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dustin_Lance_Black&oldid=1257268689"