Archive 1

I semi-protected the article, but I'm clueless and don't know what template I'm supposed to add or what else it is that I'm supposed to do. :(--Jimbo Wales 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to unprotect it, because I see every reason that the same troll will come back and do the same thing again.--Jimbo Wales 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like user:SlimVirgin added a banner saying this article is sprotected but it also looks like the sprotected was removed a few days ago, I was going to remove the banner but I confused about what has happened. --Chinakow 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales semi-protected it again today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place to raise a general policy question, but do we really need to have a template on every semi-protected article? This article serves as a good example -- it isn't controversial at all, it isn't likely to need a lot of attention from anons (a somewhat famous actress but not like a major major superstar level of fame), and we know that there's a vandal waiting to vandalize if we un-semi-protect it. The template makes it seem like it's more controversial than it actually is. (To my knowledge, it isn't a controversial article at all.)--Jimbo Wales 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the right place would be WT:SEMI. Basically, it seems like we have a situation here where we are already keeping this article protected against policy — semi-protection is explicitly "not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized", and articles are not supposed to be permanently semi-protected. That said, I'm in the camp that says you can do whatever seems best to you, Jimbo. I would suggest leaving some tag on it, but maybe customizing it to be more applicable to the situation here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion be continued at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy.

Here's a thought to take with you: A group of people band together and vandalise a random article. At this point, we could semi-protect it, at which point the vandals would be free to move on to another article. We could never unprotect an article, because the vandals would quickly notice and return. In the end, this would create an ever growing set of articles that are constantly semi-protected, defeating part of the purpose of Wikipedia.

In my opinion, this deserves discussion. But not here. -- Ec5618 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You raise a very good question, what is the purpose of Wikipedia? Hall Monitor 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to answer Jimbo's question. I monitor the protected pages list. Without the tags, it's almost impossible for me to keep that list current. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm working on the assumption that we're following Wikipedia policies, but I do believe Jimbo does get some sort of "veto" power. Permanent semi-protection is not an option. If it's one dedicated vandal, block his IP. If he uses multiple ips to sustain a major attack on the page, semi-protect it. But it still should be removed regularly to make sure there is a current threat level to the page. Just my two cents. --kizzle 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to actually semi-protect it? Don't we have access logs so we can contact the ISP and do other things at the vandal's end? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist and will correct any vandalism as if it comes in. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So do I. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pauley helping with a real life murder case

I could have sworn Ms. Perrette in the movie Galaxy Quest. She played one of the aliens in human form as I recall. If I'm right, I think this should be added to her credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.186.228 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope ... that was Missi Pyle as Laliari in Galaxy Quest (although do they resemble each other. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia is not a collection of lists, I have reduced the Filmography section of Pauley Perrette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to just the films that have Wikipedia articles, and renamed it to Selected filmography ... people can click the IMDb External link that follows the section to see the subject's full filmography with links to information about each of their films.

Please see the template's talk page for examples of using the {{Imdb name}}, {{Imdb title}}, {{Tv.com person}}, and {{Tv.com show}} templates.

I have also used [[19xx in film|19xx]] tags for the years of the films, since [[19xx]] has little encyclopedic value.

Anonymous edits without comments may be reverted by anyone.

I am placing this boilerplate message on this Discussion page before I actually make the changes, so that I can just put "see Discussion page" in the edit summary, and hopefully not have my edit summarily reverted as vandalism by Some Other Editor. Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) _{21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}

It's not vandalism :), but a complete filmography is better. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), "Complete lists of works are encouraged". Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole sentence is: "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." - Wikipedia:LOW#Basic list style - examples (my emphasis). -- Jeandré, 2008-11-02t08:53z

Well, I certainly wouldn't presume to prune the current version of the list ... at least it has the verasimilitude of looking encyclopedic, and not just a copy&paste from IMDb ... I mean, this version was just plain coyote ugly! :-)

BTW, I would appreciate any feedback or comments on the {{Selected filmography}} template, e.g., would you use it or not? — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked for quite a while on that. I'd note that one of the ongoing projects in WP:FILMBIO is to convert lists of films to tables, which allow for more detailed information on the film appearances. I'd discourage anyone from trimming a listing like that because at some unknown point, all the filmographies will hopefully be converted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about the 2008-10-30 version of the list ... if that had been a redlink farm (because either a bot or a Very Patient editor just linked all titles), and the redlinks outnumbered (correct) articles (some link to the wrong subject), then would you still want to keep it? — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A straight yes or no response would be yes. However, that isn't the whole answer. If you'll note on your example, there were 14 unlinked titles out of 36, when it was compiled. The editor was careful when he or she compiled the list. The long answer would be that I would consider each title that had no article on its own merit, and likely unlink the older, more obscure titles but still list it. Since those appearances are listed elsewhere (IMDB for example, which is considered valid for roles and appearances), I'd consider them valid, and in general, there is more available on the appearance (role played, etc.) that would be included in the tabled filmography. For recent films, I would leave the red link, with the view that new films will likely have articles created. They are a part of the actor's body of work and are valid inclusions. Omitting a role for whatever reason tends to be a bit of a POV choice. Because an article hasn't been created yet for some production doesn't mean it isn't notable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... {{Selected filmography}} is a creation of my evil twin, born of frustration over redlink farms by copy&paste newbies, and I would often just tag them as Blatant copyright infringement. ... if nothing else, (a) it can be used to start a dialog, and (b) this time it led to my creating {{TV Guide person}} and moving {{TV Guide show}} to match the pre-existing naming convention. :-) — 72.75.110.31 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have a free image? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is E! Online a reliable source? It looks like a tabloid. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t07:29z

Since the information is coming to E! by way of CBS News (a very reliable source) and since E! is an American Television network, I think it is reliable. Add away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 07:39

Age?

The source places her at 39 years old, but is Hollywood.com really a reliable source for this info? I haven't been able to find anywhere else that lists a DOB, so I wonder where they got their info. It just seems a bit shady to me. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The same information could be found at imdb.com. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 3, 2009 @ 06:31

IMDb is not a reliable source for biographies. While it's filmographies are usually not challenged, the only thing reliable on IMDb is screenwriting credits for USA productions because it comes from the Writer's Guild of America. Even then, the WGA's official credits sometimes have very little to do with reality. I'm removing the age until a non tabloidy source is provided. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t07:23z

I readded it as this has stood for some two years without problems. Please actually look for a "non tabloidy" source before removing the one we have and have had. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 07:31

"poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -- wp:blp, -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t14:45z

Excuse me, but since when are birthdates and birthplaces contentious material? You are really over-stating that. Just what sort of source would you find acceptable for a birthplace and date? The quote regarding IMDb biographies is about actual biographies written by users, not about something as simple as a birthdate. And no, you are wrong. IMDb is considered reliable for screen credits which are noted as complete, because they are verified. You are out of line in removing a birthdate and place. If that is the case, you have what? 100,000 or more birthdates to remove because the majority of birthdates for actors come from that source. Please don't take things to the extreme. If you doubt a birthdate, then put a {{verify source}} or {{cn}} tag on it. Don't completely remove it. That's excessive. Wildhartlivie Talk 15:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

" Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. [...] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. [...] Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [...] In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." -- wp:v. "IMDb [does] not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." -- Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" -- wp:blp. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-08t22:05z

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How can you say that a source that has stood for 2 years with no problem isn't realiable?

Now, I am going resource with IMDb....and that will settle things. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 8, 2009 @ 23:21

How long something stays on Wikipedia is not necessarily related to reliability - some libel on BLPs have lasted for very long periods, e.g. Seigenthaler incident. Also, as Wikipedia has matured the requirements for sourcing has changed [1]. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:55z

Please do not quote policy to me, I know the policy quite well, thank you. But since you have, let's get the entire portion from Wikipedia:Reliable source examples that you quoted: Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence. Let me repeat: Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. It does not say that everything else on IMDb is questionable and to claim so is erroneous. Again, do you consider a birthdate or place of birth contentious or a source for liable? If you are not claiming that a birthdate or place is contentious, then you have no grounds to remove it. She's 39 years old, she's worked in television and film since at least 1994, how young do you think she would be? You have never said that you challenge the birthdate on grounds other than it is not cited. Again, if that is the case, then you need to get busy removing nearly all the birthdates on actor biographies (as well as other biographies) because the majority of them are not sourced. And again, you are being unnecessarily obstinate about this particular birthdate. You have rejected outright any source for this birthdate, which is unreasonable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See the comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IMDb for BLP info?. Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Use of electronic or online sources also states "One exception being that certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits on IMDb, specifically those which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." - I've asked at the noticeboard that it be updated to correctly represent BLP.

The fact that IMDb has been incorrectly used on other articles doesn't mean it should be kept when challenged. The Variety article is a fine source - hopefully Baseline didn't get the info from IMDb or WP tho.

I haven't "rejected outright any source for this birthdate", I sourced the day and month to the CBS bio.

Jimbo asked the OTRS team to clean up and keep an eye on this article because of gross BLP violations - the best way to do that is to require reliable sources for anything we generally have to fix via OTRS complaints. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t09:55z

And again, I ask, who challenged the birthdate? Someone who said it seemed "a bit shady"? The woman graduated from college and obtained a Master's degree before she went to New York and worked as a bartender and did a lot of advertisement work. Then she had her first noted film/tv role in 1994. I had no reason to doubt the 1969 year based solely on that - 5 or 6 years post-secondary school and a somewhat vaguely defined time in minor work would have made her 24 or 25 by the time she did her first tv work.

I am the one who sourced the birthplace to the CBS biography and NeutralHomer is the one who used the CBS ref for the birth month and day here. I am aware of the issues Perrette has had and what that entails. I've watched this article for a very long time now, and there have been no gross BLP violations in all the time that I've watched it, and I have difficulty believing that there was an OTRS complaint about her birthdate. And to clear the record, the source for the birthdate that was there when you removed the information, was not IMDb. It was an entirely different site altogether. But the only thing you chose to talk about was IMDb, despite the fact that the source you originally questioned was not IMDb. I asked you specifically "Just what sort of source would you find acceptable for a birthplace and date?" - which you did not chose to answer specifically. We all know there was no scholarly produced source for her birthdate, nor university produced materials. Nor did you ever describe what would encompass a non-"tabloidy" source. Finally, and what I didn't catch until just a moment ago, was that you were the one who first placed the references to hollywood.com for the birthdate, place of birth and the alias name, here. It would have been a lot easier for all concerned if perhaps you had looked for a new source instead of just removing vital statistic information if you had an issue with the source that you yourself had added. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"who challenged the birthdate"

Interrupt feed correctly challenged my 2007-10-10 hollywood.com source at the top of this thread on 2009-02-03; which lead to it also being challenged in the article itself on 2009-02-08t07:26:27z, 2009-02-08t14:45:52z, ...

See wp:v re material challenged requiring citings to a reliable, published source; and the burden of evidence.

"I am the one who sourced the birthplace to the CBS biography and NeutralHomer is the one who used the CBS ref for the birth month and day here"

The CBS ref for her birthplace is a good source. Did you do this before 2007-10-10? NeutralHomer's using the CBS ref for day and month was at 2009-02-08t23:18:03z in the infobox (which he reverted because you can't do it with that template), after I did it at 2009-02-08t22:09:10z an hour before (scroll down to the lead, not the infobox).

"the source for the birthdate that was there when you removed the information, was not IMDb"

Was it a reliable source? If so, sorry. What was it?

"I asked you specifically "Just what sort of source would you find acceptable for a birthplace and date?" - which you did not chose to answer specifically."

I quoted from and linked to wp:v, Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, and wp:blp.

"It would have been a lot easier for all concerned if perhaps you had looked for a new source instead of just removing vital statistic information if you had an issue with the source that you yourself had added."

The burden of proof for reliable sources lie with adding and reinstating info - wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t12:22z, -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t12:23z

I give up. As I said, if you had seen a problem with the source that you yourself provided in October 2007, it would have been much easier for you to say "Oh, I'm not comfortable with the source I provided. So sorry, I'll find a replacement." Everything else is skirting around the fact that it was easier for you to just remove it and move on. No, I didn't give the CBS source before October 2007, you said above (with the link) "I sourced the day and month to the CBS bio." I was pointing out that you did not source it according to the link you provided. The link you provided showed you removing even a place of birth. Again, I suggest you became over-enthusiastic in this. I asked for you to give some names of sources (that would be what is meant by "specifically") and you wouldn't even offer specific suggestions. There was no cooperative effort here, and I would suggest that being a volunteer with OTRS gives you no less burden to help in finding sources that you think are acceptable since you were so vague in assisting us in finding one. This was a lesson in futility. I'm thinking Jimbo would like his OTRS volunteers to be at least as helpful in fixing things as in flatly removing them and saying "Jimbo told us to, you fix it, I don't like it" especially when you put in the source to start. Thanks for all your valuable policy quoting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

2009-07.

Re [2]. If there are reliable sources indicating that the blogspot and paulyp pages were written by her, then those sites can be used, tho that the personal site was removed and an archive link had to be used argues against its use.

The 2 tv show refs are not "published", and the "Transcript" link points to a video on YouTube, which is not a reliable source.

The Metallica material is still unsourced. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-06t09:30z

There's something decidedly strange that in regard to this particular article, standards are being created that in no way exist elsewhere. Television show content is its own reference, and in fact, to my knowledge has never been challenged when the complete production information is included in the reference and is used to cite content from films and broadcasts, including interviews, on even good and featured articles. WP:RS#Overview specifically says "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." Every episode of The Late Show with Craig Ferguson is in fact "archived", in this case meaning it is taped and frequently rebroadcast and additionally is available online for viewing, making it not only reliable, but verifiable. The episodes meet both WP:RS and WP:V. I did not add the link to a video, which was added on May 25, 2005, but the same standards would apply for the episode to be cited to the IMDB listing for that specific program episode. As for archived web pages that no longer exist in a posted form, see WP:CITE#Repairing dead links. That leaves the question of the Metallica material. Put a fact tag on it and give editors an opportunity to find the source. It is not contentious, it is not harmful, it is entirely consistent with her history as a musician and her early career experiences, which are sourced, that she appeared in music videos. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Standards are not being created here, they already exist, but are being applied because of the trouble caused here with unsourced or poorly sourced edits.

Where is the reputable third-party making the video verifiable by readers?

Site content that's been removed and don't have sources indicating who edit them become questionable especially when you read the scary things described in the OTRS emails.

V and Jimbo: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information"

-- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-07t14:23z

I've read that email from Jimbo Wales and it is trotted out every time someone doesn't choose to discuss sources. This has nothing to do with OTRS issues and Perrette. Standards are being created as they go because of this odd suggestion that broadcast television episodes from one of the primary television networks in the United States, containing direct interviews with an article subject, essentially can't be used as a source. I clearly explained this above. WP:RS#Overview specifically says "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party [CBS Television Network Corporation] and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." An interview between Craig Ferguson, a notable television talk show host, and Perrette, was recorded. It was broadcast by CBS Television on January 6, 2009. It has since been rebroadcast during a week when the show broadcast reruns. It is available for viewing at the CBS website for that television program. Episodes are packaged for purchase by the public. Anyone can go to the CBS Library in person and view episodes of current and some now cancelled series and programs. What part of a reliable source or the content being available for verification isn't clear? Let me ask you specifically - are you claiming that the actual CBS broadcast interview available in those ways are not reliable sources for a taped and broadcast interview? If that is the case, then it can be taken to whatever higher WP authority necessary to settle the question, but in this case regarding this source, you are wrong. CBS is a reliable source. In fact, you had no problem with the biography content from her NCIS bio page also from CBS, and the statement just elaborates a little bit on the bio page content by naming some of the states and cities where she lived. The content is verifiable and from a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is an OTRS issue because the unsourced and poorly sourced edits made Jimbo ask the OTRS volunteers to keep the article watchlisted.

I didn't know that there are reliable archived copies of the 2 CBS episodes, making them verifiable, because the inline citations didn't make this clear. I thought they were just ephemeral shows. As for them being on the CBS website, I couldn't find it - can you please provide full citations to them? I also didn't know about the CBS library, can you please provide more info on it?

I didn't have a problem with the CBS bio page because that page can be read by users. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-08t11:54z

You are basically asserting that if you personally cannot click a weblink then you consider any information unverifiable because you can't do it from your computer and that is not in line with any Wikipedia policies regarding WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:V. Verifiability is not about necessarily using only the most conveniently accessed sources. If that were the case, this project would not permit sourcing to published books that aren't readable online, or journals or magazines or any number of absolutely reliable sources. Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson isn't an ephemeral show. It has been broadcast each and every night on CBS, one of the four major United States broadcast television networks, after Late Night with David Letterman since 1999. I'm certain you've heard of him? Ferguson has has hosted the show since January 3, 2005, prior to that it was hosted by Craig Kilborn. Letterman owns the show through his production company and it was developed as a follow up show in the same way Letterman's original show was developed to follow The Tonight Show. When Letterman did not get the Tonight Show hosting position and Jay Leno took over after Johnny Carson retired, Letterman moved to CBS as The Late Show with David Letterman and ultimately, Late Late Show was the following show. CBS sometimes alternates which episodes or clips are available on its site due to size restraints and because of that have also outsourced clips. However, it's much simpler to verify the quote than have to download or stream a complete one hour show to verify a quote from the Ferguson show because CBS makes clips from shows available through YouTube [3], so in this particular situation it's quickly available and doesn't constitute a copyright violation. She's actually made the same basic statement about the places she's lived on the show more than once. The first time was here. Searching further, a great many of the CBS library collection has been turned over to the William S. Paley Media Center for preservation and viewing and the original copy of the broadcast linked to the YouTube clip above is available for viewing there [4]. Her next appearance on the Ferguson show is also available for viewing there as well [5]. It does not indicate that 2009 episodes of the show are yet available to the general public at the center. If this isn't good enough to convince you of the reliability of the source, then I suggest we take it to WP:RSN for opinion, because regarding the reliability of this source, you are incorrect. Just because this article is watched by oversight does mean that perfectly reliable sourcing is available for picking and choosing as to what some one person will accept as reliable and verifiability does not mean it has to be immediately accessible to be verifiable. Not when the policies are crystal clear about this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"personally": no I asked for the 2 links because you wrote "It is available for viewing at the CBS website for that television program". I also asked for more info on the physical CBS library from which there wouldn't be any links.

[6] is not a reliable source because it was put on YouTube by "nono1992", not by CBS.

I can't see any video at [7] or [8] but that may be because it doesn't work for people using Firefox on Linux. If these are reliable sources please use them as inline citations in the article.

I've left a message at WP:RSN asking for other's opinions per your suggestion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-09t17:56z

(outdent) Regardless, it is my view that you are setting your own level of standards that attempt to supersede Wikipedia policies. When you asked for a direct link and I searched for them, I discovered that CBS rotates its clips for Ferguson's show from time to time. When I looked for the information on the CBS library, I discovered they have turned the bulk of their library over to the Paley Media Center] for archival and user viewing. I did not say that you could view it online at the Paley Center, I said it is available for viewing there. You wanted to know where it is archived. I did not propose that the actual short clip posted on YouTube was the reliable source to be used in the article. You were demanding immediate access so that you personally could view and verify the statement. I gave you opportunity to do so. The fact remains, per WP:V, that the episode and/or a reliable transcript of it be available for verification, but it does not mean that any source must be available on demand at a moment's notice online to be verifiable. WP:BURDEN says clearly "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The burden of proof is met with the source given, which is the exact episode specifications I gave. Here is the episode number and date, here is the show, here is where one can go to view the episode in order to verify it. Just as if it was written in a book that was published and available at some given book store, although the book itself is not available right now for you to click a link and read it. I've given more than is required to allow for verification, including an opportunity for you to click a link and listen to the same words. It meets the requirements for WP:V. You've also challenged the reliability of the taped and broadcast interview, and I've demonstrated that the episode was not an "ephemeral show" and is considered a reliable source, well beyond the need for me to have done so. Just for clarity, I'll repeat that guideline. WP:RS#Overview specifically says "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party [CBS Television Network Corporation in this case] and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet."

A) The source is a video material recorded for Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, a long running television talk and interview show broadcast by one of the four major broadcast television networks in the United States. B) The episode in question was in fact broadcast on CBS and has been rebroadcast. The date, episode number and other production specifications were cited for the episode in question. C) An archived copy of the episode exists. At one time it was posted on the actual CBS website for the show and was available for viewing at the CBS library. Now it is archived at the Paley Media Center and available for user viewing [9] along with the next appearance of the article subject [10]. D) Although that actual site does not have the episode posted for online viewing, just to allow the editor questioning the source to immediately verify the words themselves as they were spoken, I offered a link for her to hear it [[11]. And E) It meets WP:BURDEN, a section in WP:V, in that the source is cited clearly and precisely to allow a reader to find the episode in question to verify it. I've met those requirements. At this point, it just has to fall back on the other editor to validly prove the citation, and thus that content, shouldn't be included in the article.

I think rather than just make a posting inviting persons at WP:RSN to come here and comment, it needs to be presented there for discussion and I am responding to your post there with parts of this response. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So who knows if her tatoos are real or not? Also is she Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.172.23 (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think she is Jewish, but to be honest I am not sure. As for the tats, all are hers with the exception of the spiderweb on her neck. That is the work of the art department, the rest are all her. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we cover her tattoos anymore? I found an interview ms.Perrette did with TV guide that talks about the spiderweb being fake. http://www.tvguide.com/news/NCIS-pauley-perrette-36009.aspx I also found that the cross tattoo is fake, however the CBS behind the scenes special is no longer up on the CBS website. And, while I did find the CBS behind the scenes on YouTube I don't think that counts. CygnetFlying (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer is repeatedly reverting edits to reinsert references to a self-published blog which contradict/describe as inadequate the coverage in sources that are generally considered reliable. The statements attributed to the article subject are controversial/contentious, and have no other apparent source. Under WP:BLP, these statements are to be removed, but User:Neutralhomer is edit warring to reinsert them. I cannot see any good faith issue here -- statements sourced from a blog report of the wedding, not found in any of the reliable-source coverage of the event, need to be removed from the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not editing in good faith either. I post on your talk page and you remove it as a "personal attack". You are removing a reference from Entertainment Tonight, a show that has been around for 20+ years. That is not a "self published blog". Now, since you seem to be resistant to putting any effort into this page, I am reverting. Revert again and I will request page protection. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. The contentious text in question is cited to a buzznet blog -- http://www.clintcatalyst.com/blog/pauleyperrette . The quoted language from that blog, which makes claims about ETs coverage being inaccurate by omission, includes a link to the ET coverage, but the article itself does not otherwise refer to it. It is becoming very difficult, given your continued disputing this point, to continue to see your editing on this point as being erroneous but in good faith. And your comment on my talk page, alleging bad faith on my part, was certainly a groundless personasl attack. It seems to be a fashion here lately to sccuse editors disputing buzznet nonsense of bad faith, but it's not appropriate behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then if the blog is the "bad" link, why are you removing the ET link? That seems a little weird to me. If you have a problem with the section, rewrite it....find the linkage. It is easy to wipe a page clean, but it is also as easy to use "The Google" and search for references...which is what I am asking you to do FIRST before removing a section that has stood, unconstested, for 6+ months now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the only reference to ET is inside the blog-sourced quotation. Delete the uncorroborated quotation, as required by WP:BLP, and there's no reason for an ET link. The wedding itself is already sufficiently referenced to EOnline, and doesn't need to have every news report of it used as a reference. Read the article carefully. And, by the way, in your rush to fail to assume good faith, you've ignored Google yourself -- which shows that the contentious quote appears only on Wikipedia and a single Wikipedia mirror. It's apparently even been removed from the blog. End of dispute, I think. Self-revert, admit error, and we can all be done with this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I did something you obviously can not or refuse to do...I googled for references. Didn't find any, so I removed ONLY the "bad" link and not the ET link as you have done. There was no need to remove the ET link. You should take more time to read what remove, speak a little more politely with others, and learn to use "the Google" :) Oh, and I admit nothing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty skanky response, especially since I discussed those Google results in the post above yours. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think (talk) needs to read Wikipedia:Civility as a refresher. You are more likely to get your point across if you talk to people like a grown-up rather than a spoilt child having a tantrum magnius (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnius is dead on...and I am not sure what "skanky" means where you live, but it definitely doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. I do believe this little back-and-forth is over. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by - superβεεcat  05:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ignoring the uncivil exchange, I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's analysis. The nature of the reference is (was) inside a badly sourced quotation, and is otherwise unnessecary. "The Google" turns up no useful hits for the quotation.

Just a note, sigs are normally put at the end of posts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree or disagree, the content was removed last night by oversight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK- Im just someone who came on to read, not seeking to do an edit. Just saying to those who care that the entry for Pauley Perrette seems contradictory, saying she's married, she's not married, pending passage of equal marriage legislation, and she's broken up, all referring to the same couple. !!

76.26.97.48 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} She has a Twitter account http://twitter.com/pauleyp and here is the link that she herself says she has a Twitter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nad1SHl3Qk Fuze83 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done as there have been multiple issues with listing social sites that list her. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted myself. Using Wildhartlivie's discretion. SpigotMap 17:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Folks, there is a YouTube video that shows Pauley saying the Twitter address and then there is this photo from the official Twitter account. Also, there is this tweet from the Official CBS/NCIS account as well. So that pretty much shows she is online. Hence, I am reverting to previous. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but watch and see if she doesn't complain to OTRS about it like she has the other social network site mentions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that will be a problem with the new video that was just released talking about the Twitter account. If she does, then we remove it. Until then, we have sources (video and image) that say she is on Twitter, so it should remain on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added it to the page with sources. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The bit that talks about the video lists her friend as "Dan" when the blurb about the video confirms her very clear spoken indication that the friend is "Chad" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyocum (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Under personal life, her character's last name is misspelled and inconsistent with the rest of the article..."The character Abby Sciutto" it should only have one "T" in it. Cheers!68.230.116.65 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In the article it is stated that she split from Michael Bosman in 2008. How is that possible when they were married on Valentine's day of 2009? http://www.celebritybrideguide.com/pauley-perrette-wedding/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.20.139 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The section in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=h1BGebtVHzM#t=110s

It certainly looks almost exactly like her at first, but then less like her when she lays down in the next scene. This would be her first noteworthy acting gig if so, would it not? 12.50.120.194 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the lead paragraph, we have a link to a note that gives a pronunciation for "Sciuto". While this might be worth including in the article Abby Sciuto, here it is off topic, providing a trivial detail about a fictional character portrayed by the subject of this article. The pronunciation of "Sciuto" is not a fact about Pauley Perrette. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We'd (SummerPhD and I) would like to get everyone's consensus on this to see if it is notable for inclusion in this article or jus the article about Abby Sciuto. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Summer; unless we can document with reliable secondary sources that there is some kind of controversy or widespread uncertainty about the pronunciation of "Sciuto" I see no need to include a guide anywhere but the character article itself. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but my point is that the information is not a significant detail about Perrette. It is a detail (significant or not) about the fictional character. Thus, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article about the character, not here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote remove. Doesn't seem relevant to this particular Wiki. Sector001 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know why this was reverted to begin with. With no discussion in favor of keeping, I've removed it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The section states she lived multiple locations as a child, Why? Was her father in the military? Absolutely NO details on her parents in the section, that is the norm to be there if known on the Wikipedia pages. Wfoj2 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't seem to have reliable sources discussing her parents. If you can find some, let us know. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The documentary she's been working on about Mark Lane is apparently finally in the can. I was going to add a ref in the article, but the web story is on Examiner.com which triggers a "spam" or "blacklist" filter for reasons I'm ignorant of. Do a google news search for "Pauley Perrette" "Citizen Lane" and you'll find it. (One hopes the story will be picked up on some site not on the Wikipedia naughty list...) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com is pretty much a blog that looks like a newspaper website. Anyone can write a story for examiner.com regardless if it is correct, hence why it is blacklisted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Perrette mentioned it on her Twitter feed, and linked to the Examiner article, which is why I thought it credible in this case. I also found a reference to the film's completion on Mark Lane's facebook. But nothing yet that works as a reference for the article. -- Infrogmation (talk)

I think the Facebook and Twitter posts will work for the moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of the other side of this story? Is the Perrette article being maintained by her publicist, that would be a conflict of interest.

This is a serious issue.

Here is the NY Post article http://nypost.com/2013/03/24/ncis-star-accused-of-waging-vindictive-campaign-against-ex-husband/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.0 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What you are giving as a source which is not a reliable source. The NY Post is unreliable as they have gotten things wrong in the past and have been known to use rumors as "news". You need to back your post up with a more reliable source, like the New York Times or the Washington Post, or a television network like CNN or MSNBC. Hell, I'll even take Fox News. But right now you have hearsay from a publication that is not known for honest, unbiased or even correct reporting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The reporter Roger Friedman, who wrote the pro-Perrette piece that aired on Fox was fired, for lax fact checking. Though that piece is quoted in the article, not just the talk page,

Perhaps links to the actual court documents might tell a different story. That the restraining orders against Bebe Buelle contained supporting affidavits by Perrette changes the tone of things. That the other 'girlfriend' of Coyote Shivers who filed supporting affidavits to Perrette's restraining order is now employed by Perrette as an assistant.

The article as it stands is a publicity piece for Perrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.0 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia isn't a sounding board for someone you may or may not like. We source everything and we follow rules so things don't have undue weight, things are sourced with reliable sources, things are verified and so on. I hate to tell you, but all celeb articles read like a publicity piece, this one isn't that bad. But trying to make an article soapbox to voice your dislike for someone isn't going to work. Even with sources, it will be cropped, trimmed or outright reverted per our BLP rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a place to make accusations on articles or article talk pages. Biographies of living persons or BLPs, must meet a "high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – will be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

This part is relivent to this discussion: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Remember, 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. As with all parts of Wikipedia, the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material.

Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

This is all taken directly from the BLP rules. This applies to all users and all BLP articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That said, it also not the place to sanitize celebs and provide a sounding board for them and their publicists to suppress any and all viewpoints contrary to the one being put forward by that 'celebrity' and or their publicist. There are a number of serious doubts to Parrette's narrative on the events of her 3 year marriage and divorce. State of California Court Documents are a valid source. If she is the Victim in this case, why is she still pursuing legal action? Why does the chain of events in her real life story follow that of a Screen Play she co-authored? 66.233.13.0 (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you missed this part: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Remember, 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.

IT is Wikipedia's job to be accurate, not to take one side of a story and go with that. Wiki should be impartial, but by quoting a Fox News reporter who was fired for poor fact checking you have made Wikipedia a biased forum.. 66.233.13.0 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have seen nothing to show that reporter was fired for poor fact checking. The main point is, you have yet to show a reliable third-party source for your information. You also aren't showing that you understand of the BLP rules.- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That said if you were to operate by your own rules all references to the non-corroberated Fox piece should be removed. You are showing that you do not want to apply the rules in an even manner. Selective enforcement is a means of censorship. Makes it appear you are part of Parrette's media team and therefore should not be editing this article. 66.233.13.0 (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Roger Friedman, was fired by Fox News for a shill review of Wolverine, he is also a friend of Bebe Buell and obviously these factors are serious credibility issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.0 (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, first off, Roger Friedman being fired for a bad review (actually he said he liked the film) is in no way the same as "poor fact checking". Sorry, your argument there is invalid.

Second, your continued insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you is "part of Parrette's (sic) media team" shows that you are not here to edit collabratively, but to be sensationalist and spread of titillating claims, which would be against the BLP rules.

Until you decide whether or not Mr. Friedman was fired for "poor fact checking" or a "shill review" and you calm down on accusing everyone of being a member of Ms. Perrette's "media team", I can't see you editing this article or being taken seriously.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a member of Ms. Perrette's "media team" nor do I work for or know Ms. Perrette. I also do not live in Los Angeles, I live in Virginia. I do, however, watch NCIS and NCIS: LA...but so do 20 million other people according to the Nielsen ratings. My real life job is helping families who have kids with Autism and Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)