Talk:Anthony Rapp

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anthony Rapp. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy endings ≠ Winter Passing[edit]

The wrong movie was named and linked with a Wiki-Post. I deleted the link and renamed the movie with the US-title. It's a US-movie not one from UK. Virtuella (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where was he born[edit]

The infobox says Oslo but the text says Chicago. Any suggestion which is correct? Fob.schools (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore. Looks like it may have been IP vandalism. Fob.schools (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

This wiki article contains incorrect information about Rapps accusations against Kevin Spacey. 1986 was 31 years ago not 21.

In the "Personal Life" section it is written that Rapp accused Spacey of an encounter that occured in 1986. It later states that Spacey doesn't remember the encounter because it took place "21 years ago." 1986 was 31 years ago not 21. I see that someone recently edited this information. Someone who clearly doesn't know how to do math.

"In October 2017, Rapp alleged in an interview with BuzzFeed that actor Kevin Spacey made a sexual advance toward him in 1986, when Rapp was 14 years old, and Spacey was 26. Rapp added that one day he met with a lawyer to discuss possible legal action, who told him there was no case worth pursuing.[16][17] In response, Spacey said he did not remember the encounter, given the incident allegedly occurred 21 years ago."

It should read:

"given the incident allegdly occured 31 years ago."

I would like to edit this information but because the page has been locked i'm not allowed which is problematic. Someone needs to quickly edit this information so as not to spread misinformation to people coming to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.242.222 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done by AliSighed Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t it say how he escaped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"Sexual advance" reditects to "sexual harassment". Am I the only one that finds this hilarious and sad?93.136.33.61 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is sexual harassment really his "personal life"?[edit]

I've asked the same question on Kevin Spacey's talk page. If I was attacked by someone I would not consider it as being either my personal life or theirs. It's an attempt through force to intertwine person A's personal life with person B's personal life, whether person B likes it or not. By putting the attack under personal life we condone it, we say "yes, you succeeded in getting into person B's personal life." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sexual harassment fact, only some twaddle from professional hypocrite. Maybe Rapp made statements about Spacey to make a fuss. Now he will finally get some big role. If we will put every opinion in a bio it will burst. Let's stick to reliable facts, not to some memories of memories of vague impressions of child's exaggerations.66.160.188.89 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't our place to decide what happened, only to report what's being said, which we are. Personal opinions about the validity of Rapp's statements are inappropriate here. See WP:TALK -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.... Unfortunately, Spacey DID make it into Anthony Rapp's "Personal Life." Let us all be glad that Anthony Rapp can finally start the healing process. And NO... placing this content into the "Personal Life" section in no way condones the behavior. In fact, it validates the very real experience that Anthony Rapp had to endure, and has struggled with for over 3 decades. 72.28.176.67 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC) --Gay Journalist (Gay Journalist talk) 04:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment to you: This isn't an appropriate place to talk about how anyone feels about it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Spacey allegations[edit]

I made this edit to the section, noting that Spacey's statement included a coming out announcement and that this had been criticised. The responses of others to Rapp's allegations are, to me, clearly relevant to a section headed "Accusations against Kevin Spacey". FreeKnowledgeCreator reverted my edit in its entirety (though noting I made it in good faith) with the comment that "[t]hat material is much more about Spacey than it is Rapp. Please add only material that is really about Rapp; most of that does not qualify." I seek input from other editors about what, if any, of what I added is appropriate for this BLP. I added a link to the actual post from Spacey, noted that he had included coming out in the statement, and added evidence of the criticisms this had attracted for trying to distract from the seriousness of the allegations that Rapp has made. I think a blanket reversion was inappropriate and that editing my addition would have been more appropriate, so I am seeking a discussion to see if a consensus can be reached. EdChem (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Anthony Rapp article, not the Kevin Spacey article. Some information about Spacey is certainly appropriate here, but obviously it is only appropriate insofar as it helps the reader to understand Rapp. Responses to Rapp's allegations do not necessarily convey relevant information about him, as opposed to off-topic information about Spacey. Spacey coming out as gay, and the criticism that Spacey received for what he said, are very relevant for the article about him, but beside the point for this article. I stand by the removal of your addition; that content was far too much about Spacey and far too little about Rapp. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The text to which you reverted portrays Spacey's response in a way that is seriously misleading. It reads as if there were an apology and nothing more in the statement, which is demonstrably false. The link to the actual statement Spacey made (which you removed) demonstrates this. You may think that the strong responses critical of Spacey's actions are not a relevant part of the response to Rapp's allegations, but there are very many reliable sources that disagree with you (and which we, as Wikipedians, are supposed to follow). Spacey was criticised not for coming out but for doing so in an attempt to distract from Rapp's allegations, and the reactions are in part a manifestation of the support being provided to Rapp, which is directly relevant. My addition may have been flawed, it may be improved with editing or additions, but wholesale reversion was unjustified. However, I am waiting for the input of other editors as I am interested neither in an edit war nor an argument. EdChem (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are totally mistaken. The text mentions the apology, but mentioning only the apology does nothing to imply that Spacey did not say other things as well. The point is simply that those other things are of no real relevance to this article. Your comment "You may think that the strong responses critical of Spacey's actions are not a relevant part of the response to Rapp's allegations, but there are very many reliable sources that disagree with you (and which we, as Wikipedians, are supposed to follow)" is a piece of mumbo-jumbo that ignores the point that criticism of Kevin Spacey is relevant to an article about him but of no necessary relevance to an article on Rapp. Common sense should indicate to anyone that Kevin Spacey coming out as gay shows something about him but nothing about Rapp. What source says otherwise? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

387 words describe Rapp's false account of the Spacey case in detail. Only 14 words mention afterwards that it was all a lie. Should it really stay that way? --2A0A:A541:C545:0:41B:4A59:576D:7D47 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'm not aware that any source has said it was all a lie. Secondly, what else do you feel needs to be said? DonIago (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rapp's Claim Of A Bedroom Is Imaginary[edit]

Spacey only had a one-room studio apartment at the time of the alleged abuse.[1] It has also been documented that the ability to throw a party in one of those is a challenge.[2][3].Speakfor (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Rapp&oldid=1208768499"