Jump to content

Talk:Pamela Anderson/Archive 2

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

{archive}} {== Centennial baby ==

The article currently says: Anderson got some press coverage right after her birth as the country's "Centennial Baby", having been the first baby born on July 1, 1967, the 100th anniversary of Canada's official founding via the Constitution Act, 1867. Admittedly, the source cited does say that, but it seems implausible because of the time zones in Canada. Anderson was born in British Columbia, which is in the Pacific Time Zone. Even if she was born at 12 a.m. there (and I have no information about what time of day she was born), it would already have been 4:30 a.m. in Newfoundland, 4 a.m. in the other Atlantic provinces, and 3 a.m. in Ontario and Quebec which were home to the majority of the country's population. Thus, it seems implausible that Pamela Anderson -- or any other British Columbian -- could have been the first baby born in the entire country on Canada's centennial day. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is usually local, not national, see details here, she was the first baby in the Ladysmith-Chemainus area:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pamela-anderson-lee-profile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.117.174.82 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the article to say she was a Centennial baby, not the Centennial baby, per multiple sources. TwoTwoHello (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pamela Anderson. 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) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

[edit]

An editor today has restored a reverted edit, rather than following WP:BRD protocol. The reverted edit was a WP:BLP violation, making a claim that the cited source does not say. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By this point I'm just going to assume you want to go against the likes of the Los Angeles Times. Even they said, Pamela Anderson and Jon Peters are no longer married. In fact, they never were. All reputable media outlets reporting on this say the same thing! If you wanted their fairytale marriage to succeed... hate to break it to you. ⌚️ (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times is citing The Hollywood Reporter when in turn cited an anonymous source. Anonymous sources make claims all the time. They're not WP:RS for Wikipedia WP:BLP articles, since an anonymous source making a claim is simply a rumor. Wikipedia doesn't propagate rumors. Also, there's no deadline. We wait for concrete facts to emerge. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet if multiple publications are validating that story from The Hollywood Reporter, it’s a confirmation. Journalists have sources, that’s nothing new. Marriage is also a public record, there can’t be a record of something that doesn’t exist. (No one is coming here to put the “he dumped her over text!” nonsense.) Prime example: Back when Shia LaBeouf got “married” editors jumped over to Wikipedia to be first... only to be wrong. ⌚️ (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, it sounds from that last remark that we agree it's better to be careful than fast.
Multiple publications are repeating something they've heard in other publications, all cited to an anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "source." In other words, they're reporting a rumor, which makes it unusable under WP:BLP. I'm sure you've heard the statement "Journalism is the first draft of history." I would bet you and I are in agreement that an encyclopedia isn't. BLP, rightly, tells us to wait and and get something concrete before we put a personal-life claim about a living person into this encyclopedia. I hope that's something you want as well, since I genuinely believe we both want to be careful and meticulous.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just think marriage is marriage and if we present something as marriage when it demonstrably isn't (especially given something that lasted less time than a NBA Finals), we're lying. That's serious. If it was in fact a legal marriage there would have to be registration of that, which all these news sites are saying didn't actually happen, otherwise they could have requested a copy of the license. So how is it wrong to tell the audience coming here expecting biographical facts, that multiple reliable sources report that the marriage plausibly wasn't even legal. ⌚️ (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think we're more in agreement than not: Marriage, as you righty state, is one of the biggest milestones of a WP:BLP and needs to be presented accurately. What I'm seeing is that the subjects themselves announced a marriage, which numerous RS sources reported. Many of those same sources also reported that the marriage certificate was not filed — yet still said the couple was married, using that word. I don't think we can state for a fact that the mere neglect or delay in filing a marriage certificate means a marriage is invalid; the obtaining of a marriage certificate certainly is required, normally. But the filing of certificates can be delayed for any number of reasons; birth certificates and death certificate occasionally are not filed immediately, but that doesn't mean the birth or the death did not take place.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to your secondary point: Not everything in RS outlets is necessarily RS — especially reporting from anonymous "sources" for a BLP article. What's the anonymous source's agenda? What's the anonymous source's credibility? Me, I can certainly imagine Jon Peters' publicist anonymously spinning that the marriage in the community-property state of California wasn't valid if Peters neglected to get a prenup. That's one of many examples of why anonymous sources aren't trustworthy for a BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No «Marriage License», «Divorce Decree» or «Separation Agreement» is, or was at any point, registered with any State Court in Canada or the United States (or anywhere else for that matter). This can be verified by looking up civil records in both Canada and the United States and has been confirmed by Ms. Anderson herself in the NYtimes recently: nytimes.com/2020/05/28/style/pamela-anderson-webcam.html. Please provide evidence of a «Marriage License», «Divorce Decree» or «Separation Agreement» issued by a Court anywhere in the world in case you insist on listing her has having been «Married», «Divorced» or «Separated» to «Jon Peters». I am privy to this information at the highest levels to confirm that No such act has been registered between the two parties. Meungvax (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works, and that's especially not how the policy at Biographies of Living Persons works.
Firstly, anyone can claim that "I am privy to this information at the highest levels to confirm that No such act has been registered between the two parties." That's disallowed as a claim of personal original research of primary documents All Wikipedia content is to be verified by a third-party journalistic / reference or similar source.
In particular, we can make no uncited personal-life claims about living people, again as per the policy at WP:BLP. You state: "Please provide evidence of a «Marriage License», «Divorce Decree» or «Separation Agreement»" The answer is: That has been done, in the journalistic citations given in footnotes.
Please make no more unilateral edits in defiance of Wikipedia WP:BLP policy, and instead try to reach consensus with fellow editors here. I should note that admins take a dim view of BLP edit-warring, and can WP:BLOCK a person from editing in response. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I see you made these same edits on June 12, so you are, in fact, already edit-warring. An admin will take that into account if intervention must be requested. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The journalists in question do not have a «Marriage License», «Divorce Decree» or «Separation Agreement» because none exists. This is evidenced by the fact that No journalist is able to produce a Formalized Start/End Date to this presumed event, Because, No Such Event Has Taken Place. Please provide evidence to the existence of this document. Meungvax (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia does not do personal original research with primary documents. In any event, you brought this discussion to my user talk page, and I have made the requested suggestion there.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On which evidence did you base the Start and End dates for this presumed event? Meungvax (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources, which including a quote from Anderson's publicist confirming the marriage, and a quote from Anderson calling it "a union." --Tenebrae (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Peters marriage

[edit]

An editor is claiming Pamela Anderson said her Jon Peters marriage was annulled, rather than ending in divorce. Yet no cite was provided and a quick check on the Internet turns up no such quote. We cannot make a personal-life claim of annulment without WP:RS citing. That's a WP:BLP violation.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

[edit]

Link to Rick Salomon is lined to the incorrect person. It states that he is a film producer whereas the link is to a poker player. 47.25.94.58 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Removed film producer, as it was low key vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Anderson and veganism

[edit]

There has been a discussion on the list of vegans talk-page about Pamela Anderson [1]. Basically a few sources have been dug up that mention she is not a vegan because she occasionally consumes certain animal foods. There is conflicting information about her exact diet so its best if veganism is left off her article. Another editor has removed veganism. Please discuss here if you dispute this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her relationship to veganism and vegetarianism seems to be an important part of her story so we should cover it in some detail in her bio. The sources on the page you mentioned could be used to create a section that explores her views and habits. I also notice that she is still categorised as a "vegan activist". Burrobert (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some different sources. She has been a vegetarian since childhood. The conflicting information is down to her calling herself a "cheeky vegan" and sometimes consuming products that contain dairy. It's just easier to ignore all of that and mention she is a vegetarian which we have reliable sources for. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hayhurst

[edit]

Change Dan Hayhurst back to sep. 2022 in the Infobox; there's no sources in the article that says there divorce has been finalized. 2A00:23C7:1104:F601:A1BE:310B:E1A0:5C81 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: On January 21, 2022, Anderson announced that she had split with Hayhurst.[121] [122], please read cite 121 and 122. -Lemonaka‎ 11:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Years Active and filed for divorce.

[edit]

First of all. Pamela Anderson's career started in 1989 after she was featured on the Jumbotron at a football game by chance.[2] Prior to 1989, she was not trying to peruse a career and there is no source for 1988 in the article. 2. Her divorce has not been finalized; therefore you add sep. like other Wikipedia articles like Britney Spears, who husband has filed for divorce. you only add div. when there divorce is finalized. TheMaster077 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

[edit]

Hi please add Category:Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) contestants as she appeared as a guest contestant on the reality show in 2010 please see Bigg Boss (Hindi season 4) for proof. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:C90A:866D:3514:A063 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fylindfotberserk Please review. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:65FC:E9D:6909:B6CD (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fylindfotberserk Please 2A02:6B68:10:6100:84C6:FE09:212C:E8ED (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oshwah Please see 2A02:6B68:10:6100:B0DC:E2BB:9344:FDD6 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: I checked this and apparently she appeared as a guest, but the proposed addition would be undue, since she did the same on many shows, movie, etc., that are not mentioned in the category section because they are not defining. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guest contestant not a guest infact she was in the house for one week so we should add it. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:54A0:2644:C3AA:70DE (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:M.Bitton 2A02:6B68:10:6100:E01A:6E86:D875:DB07 (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pamela_Anderson/Archive_2&oldid=1252385259"