Talk:Stephen Collins/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bigamist?

The line "He is married to actress Faye Grant, and a practitioner of Transcendental Meditation" certainly reads as such. Essexmutant 11:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced comments

"... a role which has perhaps compromised his credibility in further roles, whether as a serious dramatist or competent comedian."
"Ms Hicks has gone on record, notably on a website which she has undertaken to support, with numerous intemperate remarks regarding religious matters; such remarks have not assisted any of the Seventh Heaven players in escaping the credibility issues engendered by their involvement with the Seventh Heaven series."
These comments were removed from the article because no reliable sources were cited.
Roaming27 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide (false)

There are rumors he committed suicide.

This was false: http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/07/stephen-collins-suicide-report-lapd-home-gunshot-false/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.151.167 (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

CNN now adddresses this. "Collins wasn't even at home when a reporter camped outside heard a loud noise and called police, believing it was a gunshot, said Los Angeles Police spokeswoman Jane Kim." Dwpaul Talk 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

When events alleged occurred

I changed reference to events of abuse from being in the 1970s to "in the past," as it is not clear yet in sourcing when they occurred. The CNN report linked above [1] includes a "40 years ago" statement in the video which is not in the updated text in the article himself. A TMZ report from a Collins' source is claiming 20-40 years.[2].--Milowent • hasspoken 14:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood. The CNN report said (in body text) "40 years ago" at the time it was linked, but has been updated in the meantime. The timeline has become fuzzy, apparently since there are really multiple events being discussed (a complaint to NYPD being one, the release of the audio recording and its circumstances being the other) and perhaps being conflated. Dwpaul Talk 14:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

Death October 7th, 2014 207.189.224.160 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You might be confused with Sarah Goldberg, who was also in 7th Heaven and whose death was announced today. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
They're not confused, it was tweeted by Donna D'Errico that he has killed himself. Obviously it can't be added to the article without better confirmation, but it's a completely separate thing from Goldberg.--Pokelova (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.151.167 (talk)
Known now to be completely untrue, see next section. Dwpaul Talk 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My bad! I declared her as deceased. Sigh. Thankfully someone caught it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Seemingly you were right (about Sarah Goldberg, but is a different person than Sarah Goldberg). Dwpaul Talk 19:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed again

Discussion on whether or not the molestation allegations should be included in the article are still ongoing (here and at the BLP Noticeboard). Because it is still ongoing, it should stay out. I removed what was there for that reason, but also because it was not NPOV as written. The SAG resignation was placed and worded in such a manner that it would lead a reader to believe the incidents were related. That's not NPOV. Wording used was "Criminal investigation", yet, the reference attached to that statement read, "due to the statute of limitations, he cannot face charges in that case". The article cited went on to say that there was no criminal complaint filed on Collins. Can't have a criminal investigation if he can't face charges and if there wasn't a criminal complaint filed. For these reasons, the content has been removed. And it should stay out while discussion is still occurring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of what you are seeing is that the text of the CNN article cited as the source for the first statement has evolved since it was used to prepare the statement here that you removed. No argument that any statement of the facts here must be maintained and updated to reflect developments that occur over time. However, the linked source (CNN) still says (at this moment) "An investigation continues to see if there might be any other women with similar allegations, the [NYPD] source said." That means there is (still) an ongoing investigation at NYPD, which was prompted by a complaint. That is, once again, all that the removed statement contained. It remains to be seen whether that investigation will result in charges; the source did not say he would remain uncharged, only that one specific complaint could not be prosecuted. The juxtaposition of the SAG resignation and the other events accurately reflects that the events have occurred and when. The removed text did not connect them; it simply stated that they occurred the same day, which is fact. If the reader connects them, then the reader has correctly understood that their proximity in time is unlikely to be coincidental. Dwpaul Talk 12:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014

Please change the Personal life section to state that on October 7th, 2014, TMZ released a tape of Collins and his wife Faye Grant, where Collins can be heard confessing to exposing himself sexually to two underage teenage girls, and making another girl touch him on his penis. Police were called to his house that night, when a neighbor reported gunfire in his residence, believing that Collins had committed suicide. Collins was not home, and was not injured. Jar9tf1184 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And see above...--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

Please note that I fully protected the article for three days due to heavy edit-warring. Please try to come to consensus at the talk page, and, if it does not work, follow usual avenues of the dispute resolution.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we can all agree its not appropriate the article not address the event at all, as is currently the case.[3]. I think we can come up with suitable consensus content before the full protection expires.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can all agree on that at all. That (no mention at all) seems to be exactly what Tutelary is advocating. However, I agree that consensus is possible, with guidance (as has been sought at WP:BLP/N) from editors who (I think) are better versed in the details and intent of our BLP policy. I should point out that full protection does somewhat override the principle that There is no deadline. When an article is fully protected, it should be for as short a time as possible. This makes it doubly critical that we work promptly to achieve consensus, lest we appear to be arbitrarily preventing editing that fully meets policy or suppressing information. Dwpaul Talk 15:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There was no "heavy edit warring" meriting full protection. In fact, the last edit prior to the full protection was 6 hours earlier. Please remove full protection, so editors can hash out how this article should address this current situation. LHMask me a question 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Probably necessary to present this argument at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Dwpaul Talk 15:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to give the protecting admin a chance to reconsider his/her initial action. I really don't much care for the bureaucratic side of the project. LHMask me a question 16:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing extended commentary. LHMask me a question 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's being hashed out quite well at the BLP Noticeboard right now. And those who agree with full protection and exclusion are giving very rational thoughts and arguments in regard to it. What in heaven's name is the hurry and almost compulsive need to include this content? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you again: stop with the bad faith assumptions inherent in the phrasing, "almost compulsive need to include this content." Try to remember, you were in favor of including the current succinct, neutrally-worded passage mere hours ago. Just because you have changed your mind on the issue does not give you the right to insult those of us who have not. LHMask me a question 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Not trying to insult anyone. my comments are based on my observations. And I have observed that there seems to be a rush along with an almost compulsive need to include the content in question. Three days protection is nothing, really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
When you characterize an editor whose view you now disagree with as a "compulsive need", that is assuming bad faith about our views, and is not acceptable. LHMask me a question 18:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Youre taking what I said personally. Did I name a specific editor like you did at the BLP-N? No, I did not. Someone's projecting here. And it's not me. Give it a rest, please. My comments were general in nature, and not meant for anyone in particular. Please stop veering off into the weeds and stick to the topic at hand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You were replying directly to me when you wrote that. It beggars belief that you were referring to anyone else, so no need to be coy about it. No one is "projecting" at all--you wrote what you wrote, and it was assuming bad faith on the part of those who disagree with your revised opinion regarding the succinct, neutrally-worded passage of which you initially approved, and now disapprove. LHMask me a question 20:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think also your statement that "those who agree with full protection and exclusion are giving very rational thoughts and arguments" is more than a little snarky. IMHO, those on all sides of this question are giving rational thoughts and arguments, and so far no one other than you has accused anyone of being irrational in thought or argument. I think you need to scale it back, and we need to get back on track. Dwpaul Talk 20:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And the hurry (now) is that we have a fully protected article receiving 120,000 page views per day but preventing anyone from making even unrelated and constructive edits (see my comments above) and no clear understanding of how this article and issue should or will be managed when the full protection is lifted (and do not seem to be approaching any consensus). Dwpaul Talk 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I never said anyone was being irrational in any way. Stop taking my words and meanings and twisting them into nothing resembling the original context, both of you. And while you're at it, stop taking about editors and start talking about edits. Christ Almighty, what stupid, childish cluster-eff this has become. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
A hypothetical for you to consider: is it possible your word choices (stupid, childish, compulsive, cluster-eff) and phrasing invite interpretations that are "nothing resembling" what you intended to say? We can't "twist" or even know your meanings, we must use your words to try to interpret them, and you seem to consistently be finding yourself misunderstood by what I believe are reasonable people, albeit ones that disagree with you. But we digress. Dwpaul Talk 21:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't named a single editor in my generalized comments, I'm not saying the things being assumed about my meanings, nor have I pointed fingers at any specific person. But if you and LHM will feel better vilifying me, knock yourselves out. The actual truth of the matter is easy to ascertain. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please collapse this ridiculous veer from the topic(s) we should be discussing? Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I collapsed the discussion above regarding assumptions of bad-faith. LHMask me a question 03:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's clear from the signature, no need to another off topic comment, and then edit war over it. NE Ent 22:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    What "edit war"? WV tried to edit my close description and I reverted it per WP:TPO. That's not an "edit war." LHMask me a question 00:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

just an observation

Wikipedia is not an old style book like Funk & Wagnalls. We are supposed to be more extensive and more inclusive. Paul Austin (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably true; however, very much unlike Funk & Wagnalls, articles here that deal with criminal issues and crime are not exclusively written by professional editors with a thorough grasp of legal (end ethical) concepts (and who must take personal responsibility for their editing). Hence more caution (and discussion) is needed, since the project must take on that responsibility. Dwpaul Talk 01:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Molestation allegations

  • Breaking in the news today, I listened to the audio released by TMZ, it is quite disturbing, so watch for vandalism.[4]--Milowent • hasspoken 15:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have watched for it and the article is now semi-protected for a week whichs helps very well. Iselilja (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Great. I have added a section, I see the Daily News (New York) has already reported that they NYPD has an active investigation under way.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Careful: The NYPD has not announced anything as yet, and the Daily News did not say it did; it quoted an unnamed police source. That could be someone's uncle. I would back off of that statement ASAP, as currently it is false. Dwpaul Talk 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed the allegation section for now. I don't think police has "announced" that they are investigation (to another source the declined to comment). Also, I don't think we should state in Wikipedia's voice that he has admitted abuse; the sources are using a bit of qualification ("seems to admit" or similar). Iselilja (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I also requested oversight review of the edits that have occurred since this article was semi-protected, as if they are improperly sourced they could be both a violation of WP:BLP and defamatory, and if so should be suppressed from the article history. We should get this right, if at all. Dwpaul Talk 15:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no reason at this time to hold back the text I created subject to normal editing, frankly I think doing so helps bury a very disturbing but important story.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There may be very good reasons to do so, but I will not explain them here. That determination is the purpose of and will made by the Oversight team. Dwpaul Talk 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This individual exposed himself to children, and put a young girl's hand on his genitals; he admits this on plain audio. The news reports are sufficient to report the allegations.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the relevant policy here is WP:WELLKNOWN which says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". It may be the "well-documented" which is a bit short still, it's not ideal to use tabloids etc. for criminal accusations. We are not the news, so it's not a problem for us to wait a day or a week for more and better sources. And there is the basic policy that a living person is persumed innocent until there is a verdict, the wording must reflect that. Iselilja (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone is heard speaking on a recording, and someone else (who is known to have enmity for and to be engaged in litigation with the subject of this article) allegedly claims the subject of this article is the speaker. Unless and until the subject is quoted in a reliable source acknowledging that it is his voice, or until it is reported that a competent court has made that determination (which may never happen because the recording could be inadmissible due to its claimed circumstances), it is not correct to state as a fact that the subject of this article ever made such statements. Moreover, all reports thus far identify a non-reliable source (under Wikipedia consensus) as the publisher of the allegations. We do not have enough to work with at this point. Dwpaul Talk 16:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. Something put out by tabloid sources like TMZ doesn't make an event, a rumor, a source of gossip "notable" or worthy to become article content. We are not reporters. BLPs must always be treated more carefully than other articles. We don't add crap just because it's published somewhere. Further, There is no deadline in WIkipedia. If the story is true, there will be plenty of time to write something on it. And even then, caution and editorial discretion need to be kept strongly in mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It seemed to be enough for most of the citations in the Ray Rice article. 134.134.139.74 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
(Seeing this belatedly -- if your comment is important, please place at the end of this section.) This is not the Ray Rice article. Talk with the editors there if you have a beef with them. Dwpaul Talk 19:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
TMZ tends to be right about this kind of thing. Also, this is not limited to TMZ, but is instead pretty much everywhere. It is definitely appropriate for inclusion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"Tends to be" is not good enough in cases of libel or defamation. Dwpaul Talk 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't think of what additional reporting would be necessary to include the allegations at this point. We cannot be sued for defamation for including what has been reported "alleged".--Milowent • hasspoken 17:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What about WP:NOTNEWS and taking care in BLPs are you having a hard time understanding, Oiyarbepsy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Milowent, you reported here, for example, that NYPD had announced an investigation, when in fact NYPD has not made any announcements and the Daily News never said they did. For that kind of error, the project can be sued. There is no deadline; give it time. Dwpaul Talk 17:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We cannot and will not be sued, an inartful statement cannot be grounds for defamation. Otherwise every user on twitter would be sued daily. I realize that its not the end of the world if Wikipedia doesn't immediately cover this event, but I see no legitimate basis for excluding all mention. But we're going in circles now, I'll let other editors get the job done.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • TMZ is now reporting that Collins has resigned today from the board of the Screen Actors Guild. This may be a way to introduce the controversy to the article without a lot of prurient details that have yet to be substantiated. We should probably watch the SAG news release page for a formal statement and mirror its wording carefully. Dwpaul Talk 19:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
... Though I don't see Collins listed among members of the national or local SAG boards. Dwpaul Talk 19:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The story is getting worse by the hour, though I would agree this new stuff is not vetted yet.[5]--Milowent • hasspoken 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Winkel, northing in WP:NOTNEWS indicates we should exclude this. Notnews says no in-person reporting, no routine coverage, no list of people who once made the headlines, and none to those things apply here. This is not mere news and rumor, and whether true or false, this will haunt him for the rest of his life and change how everyone views him. Being careful about biographies of living persons doesn't mean whitewashing and it doesn't mean that we omit information that every media source in the country has reported. There is no good reason not the include this. Whether the story is vetted is irrelevant - even if it turns out to be mistaken, it would still be worth mentioning in this article that he faced false allegations. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
We can't "work with" this if you remove attempts to do so. There was a factual reference to a reliable source indicating that he's being investigated. Why did you remove it? Knee-jerk reverts telling people to read Talk as your edit summary doesn't do a bit of good when the Talk page shows that it's reasonably sourced. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
"... in response to reported comments admitting to doing so" more than implies that it was reported that that Collins made such comments. The Fox News report you cited goes to great lengths to refer to "the man on the tape" and does not make the same mistake. Someone may very well get the wording right (by giving it some serious thought), but that wasn't it. Dwpaul Talk 21:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why isn't TMZ a reliable source and where can you read about that more specifically? DrKilleMoff (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Visit the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and search for TMZ. Dwpaul Talk 20:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You can't dismiss TMZ outright as unreliable per WP:PUS. I haven't looked at the video, but if it's Stephen Collins admitting to molestation than there is certainly no harm in citing TMZ and adding it into the article. Just add one sentence until the story develops further. An entire section can come later if warranted. Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not video, it's audio, and not authenticated as being Stephen Collins speaking. Dwpaul Talk 20:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPCRIME. And please stay away from editing biographies if those are not clear to you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Emphasis added, hope you don't mind. Dwpaul Talk 21:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • CNN now reporting that the incident(s) were alleged to have occurred 40 years ago. Not that that makes sexual imposition or molestation any less of a crime, but that does, I think, put a slightly different light on things (and certainly makes any formal prosecution problematic). Dwpaul Talk 20:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Forty years ago doesn't even make it a blip on an encyclopedic radar. Unless, of course, this turns into a huge legal battle. Putting up something with a lot of "allegedly" from forty years ago that stems from a revenging ex-wife's divorce case sounds problematic and gossipy, certainly not encyclopedic material. More like the Enquirer. I've already reverted two different editors' inclusions of the story. Using TMZ, of course. Anyone else ready to do the next one (lest I look like I am trying to edit war)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I did. However, it is probably inevitable that this should be mentioned, in some encyclopedic and BLP-compatible form, here. Unfortunately, I am otherwise committed. Hopefully another, experienced editor will do. Dwpaul Talk 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Dwpaul. It amazes me how many who see themselves as editors of an encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is supposed to be) will insert anything content-wise, and try to beat others at doing so, regardless of the juicy, tabloid-like, unvetter, rumorous nature of the content. They have come to believe that just because it is "reliably" sourced and on the interwebs and their television that it's going to be a welcomed addition to Wikipedia. That's what happens when you have a society filled with youth who've never read nor seen an actual paper and binding encyclopedia, maybe. They believe it's supposed to be more like a trivia almanac or the Ripley's Believe it or Not daily "comic strip". (I think I just dated myself). Anyway, I think that at this point, until the allegedly part of this story goes away and we get more than a recording with someone's voice on it that hasn't been positively and forensically identified as Collins giving a confession (or Collins makes a statement on his own), everything would fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't consider myself well enough versed on BLP issues to wade in here myself, but I wanted to point out that the allegations are also showing up on the Ted 2 article. If they don't belong here, they likely don't belong there either, but I'll let someone else make the actual call. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Now USA Today has an article, where they go beyond just reporting that TMZ released the recording, to quotes by Grant in E! reacting to the release of the recording and acknowledging that she did record it and hand it over to authorities, to divorce documents obtained by Entertainment Tonight that have Grant stating Collins participated in a 12 step program for sex addiction: "I believe that Stephen used his celebrity status to engender the trust of the families of the children he molested," Grant's declaration claims. "I further believe that there have been other victims, but he has thus far only confessed to those three girls." We now have NY Daily News, E!, Entertainment Tonight, USA Today, all reporting on the issue and citing sources other than TMZ, I think it is pretty clear that the "we can't include it because you can't trust TMZ" argument simply doesn't fly anymore. I think it is perfectly reasonable to state that Grant alleged sexual abuse in the court documents, and there is a recording released by TMZ that appears to be Collins admitting to what Grant alleged. I don't think it is appropriate to revert mention of this anymore. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a video or there is the audio tape? So far, all I'm seeing reported on is the video tape. And therein would lie a HUGE difference. Audio tapes are to be forensically analyzed for authenticity, and so far, Collins has not come forward to admit anything. Everything that I can see to this point is still in the allegedly phase and coming originally from the ex-wife's divorce case. And that's not enough grounds to add such gossip and rumor to a Wikipedia BLP article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, mistype. Just audio. But I would say court documents go beyond gossip and rumor. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Because everyone always tells the truth during divorce proceedings in court? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that would be why the term "alleged" would be used. Yeah, people don't always tell the truth in divorce proceedings, but when they do lie, they usually don't have a recording of the person admitting to it to back that up. Multiple sources and/or pieces of evidence lend more credence.Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Listen, I have always liked Stephen Collins, since ST-TMP. I would love it if these allegations turned out to be false. I didn't even try to add anything because I don't want to be the guy to put that on his article. But as a Wikipedia editor I have got to acknowledge to myself that this attitude toward Collins might make me lack a NPOV, and want to be aggressively exclusionist, so I'm trying to set that aside here, and just make sure others aren't aggressively reverting this info for the same reasons I might, if I weren't careful. Which is why I say I don't think people should do any more reverting if there are new edits that make it clear these are allegations, and we can always edit later if this turns out to be a fabrication, which it is looking less and less like by the hour. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Because no one has ever claimed a tape recording was of someone when it really was of someone else. No one's ever spliced an audio recording together to make it sound like someone was admitting to something they actually weren't. Nor have they ever had someone say something on tape that wasn't what it appears to be, either. Sorry for being so snarky, but audio just isn't enough in this information age. Until the tape is verified or Collins makes a statement/confession, this is an alleged confession and nothing more than what has just been put in the article about it really needs to be said right now. There is no deadline in Wikipedia. We aren't going to "scoop" anyone, and Wikipedia editors are not to act like reporters. We bring verified facts, not gossip and conjecture or unverified/unauthenticated audio tape content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you do sound really snarky, and perhaps more emotionally invested than you need to be. I don't know what assumptions you jumped to about what you thought I was thinking should be put in the article when you said "nothing more than what has just been put in the article about it really needs to be said right now", but I personally think what DWpaul put in was fine, I think that is all most people were looking for, and your comments below about keeping "the gossip-purveyors at bay" is unnecessary, unconstructive, and approaching uncivil. Just take it down a notch. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Emotionally invested? Not at all. I have no compunction one way or the other in regard to Collins, just in keeping the article (like all BLP WP articles) free of gossip and garbage. I don't need to take it down at all. If anything, your assumptive comments are bordering on uncivil. Be sure to watch out for flying Australian Aborigonal weaponry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say you were emotionally invested in Stephen Collins, but emotionally invested in prevailing in your position and getting the last word in, yah, I think so. And the "I am rubber, you are glue" defense, really? The edits as they stand now are fine, and so I am out of this conversation before it devolves any further. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I gave it my best shot at a fair and BLP-compatible treatment of this based on what we know (i.e, what is being reliably reported) at this time. I won't be at all hurt if someone does it better. Dwpaul Talk 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Looked good to me, Dwpaul. Hopefully, that will keep the gossip-purveyors at bay for a while. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me, a good and reasonable way of handling it at this time. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Grant now denies that she had anything to do with the release of the audio recording by TMZ. She claims she turned the recording over to authorities in 2012 "in connection with a criminal investigation". Dwpaul Talk 11:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If we're mentioning the subsequent effects of the allegations, shouldn't it also be stated that he's resigned his position on the National Board of the Screen Actor's Guild? It could also be mentioned that he was dropped from Ted 2, but I can see why this would not be encyclopedic. He was also removed from the website of the Committee for stress-free schools, an organization the article mentions he co-directed. I would at least include the SAG resignation, as that's a fairly significant encyclopedic detail no matter what the end result of these allegations end up being, easily more so than the cancellation of 7th heaven re-runs. http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/07/stephen-collins-booted-from-sag-aftra-screen-actors-guild/ I know it's TMZ, but they cite a SAG official and the official SAG website indeed no longer lists him on their board of directors. http://www.sagaftra.org/governance/national-board 74.103.132.58 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Do we know that the SAG Web site formerly listed him? When I looked yesterday, I couldn't find him, but I couldn't assume (and don't think we should) that meant he'd been removed. We can't cite the absence (or even the removal) of something as proof of anything. I would use one of the major news outlets who have mentioned it as the source for this rather than TMZ. Dwpaul Talk 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tutelary: WP:BLPCRIME does not say that "We should make absolutely no section until [an accused, otherwise notable person] is convicted." What it says is that editors should "seriously consider" not doing so. As should be clear by review of the above, many editors have seriously considered that option. Unfortunately, many other editors do not bother to read WP:BLPCRIME or any other guidance. What we have tried to do is create the most basic, fully and responsibly sourced and least provocative statement of information about events concerning this subject that are receiving a great deal of coverage at this point in time, rather than have to continually revert less well considered edits that potentially violate WP:BLP and other policies. Dwpaul Talk 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What you are discussing doing is adding accusations to an article that someone has molested somebody when there have only been accusations of that fact. Stuff that goes on Wikipedia can seriously harm someone's reputation, and to be publishing stuff like this guy freakin' molested somebody is totally out of line. We are innocent until proven guilty. I also invite you to read the entire text of the relevant line of WP:BLPCRIME For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. We should absolutely omit the material in favor of BLP because it's all been mere accusations. He's not been convicted of jack. Tutelary (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Collins is not "relatively unknown", and the text you reverted was very carefully constructed to only relate the facts as they have been reported extensively by reliable sources. It made no statement or inference concerning the subject's guilt or innocence. Dwpaul Talk 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me ask you one question: Has he been convicted for child molestation? If not, then we have absolutely no business of saying that he's 'accused' or that he 'allegedly' did it or anything of the sort. Imagine that if I accused you of something nasty but don't worry, because you only 'allegedly' did it'. The allegedly is just a copout so we can say 'well, we didn't -really- claim that he molested somebody,' only heavily implied it in turn. Also, public figures generally relate to highly famous celebrities or usually politicians, not general actors. Tutelary (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
As editors, we have every business in reporting reliably sourced information of potentially lasting significance related to the subjects of articles here. That is what we do. What we have no business doing is suppressing this information once it is reported by reliable sources and shown to have lasting significance. We are editors and reporters of fact, not public relations consultants. The best we can do is to make sure the information is reported responsibly and without bias. Dwpaul Talk 23:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
We are editors and reporters of fact, not public relations consultants. Then publish facts, not accusations of wrongdoing. Accusations that one person has done something when that something has not been confirmed or suggesting that someone is molesting children is wholeheartedly unacceptable. We should err on the side of caution at least until he's been charged of some type of crime by the court system. Right now, the 'investigation' is currently ongoing and until there's been lodged some sort of a charge, we should leave the material out. And absolutely not, arguing in favor of BLP is not suppressing some information, it's making that biographies of living persons are adequately relevant and arguably, not in defamation. Publishing that someone molested children should absolutely not be thrown around in a BLP just because it's getting the rounds on news networks. Should an actual charge show up, I'll defer, but until then, no dice. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The facts are he is being investigated; an audiotape was released; broadcasts have been cancelled; and he has resigned a significant position on the national board of a major actor's union. Those are the facts exactly as they were stated in the edit you reverted. If you disagree, it's time for you to bring this up at WP:BLP/N, not argue here. Dwpaul Talk 23:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that he's not been charged with any sort of crime at all. You don't even contest this that he's not been charged and/or has not been convicted of any crime. Again, we should not be making allegations or accusations of anything; especially on BLPs. What happens on Wikipedia can literally ruin one's entire reputation, their lives and all of that. The least you can do in this position of power over someone is to wait until it becomes an official criminal charge. I'll defer then, but it's seriously not in BLP policy to have any allegations or that he 'allegedly' did anything. Tutelary (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My view is that this is an important story, and that when and if it is confirmed the article will definitely need to say something about it. A brief mention may be justified even if Collins is not found guilty. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying, Tutelary, is that it sucks to be Stephen Collins, and that he is getting a really raw deal. I do not disagree. At this point, whether or not his guilt or innocence is ever proven, or whether or not he is even formally charged, he will be forever suspected of having committed the acts ascribed to him. However, you miss the point. We (Wikipedia editors) have neither accused him nor alleged anything. That has been done by others, and their having done so has been reliably reported by national media, including those whose journalistic standards are known to be high. There have been other events as a result of those acts and that reportage. We do not have the option of pretending that these events never occurred just because we think it is unfair that they were reported before charges were filed or a conviction was achieved. The facts are the facts, and as long as they are reported responsibly and accurately they should be reported. Dwpaul Talk 23:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, whether or not his guilt or innocence is ever proven, or whether or not he is even formally charged, he will be forever suspected of having committed the acts ascribed to him. What the public thinks is not what Wikipedia should expect or even be obliged to. We're not in it for the public, we're in it for Wikipedia. We do try to think of what the reader would want in terms of content, but other than that, we're writing for the most accurate and balanced article. And Wiki policy ultimately states that he is innocent until proven guilty. The public is not saying that. The law is not saying that, Wikipedia policy BLP is saying that. He is innocent (as of now, due to not being proven guilty.) We do not have the option of pretending that these events never occurred just because we think it is unfair that they were reported before charges were filed or a conviction was achieved. No, we do. You're not mandated or obliged to include material, especially if it runs afoul of BLP. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, you should have consensus to restore the material in question, though WP:BLPCRIME specifically excludes it as it's not even been confirmed and he's not been convicted. The presence of an audio tape and whatever else is irrelevant on whether we should include it at all. I'm saying is wait until a criminal charge is filed. Tutelary (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, please take this to WP:BLP/N. Unless a significant number of other editors will quickly chime in here and we can establish consensus (and assuming that you would be willing to accept the consensus of the editors here), you and I will just go 'round and 'round because it is clear we both feel strongly our respective positions are morally right and in the best interest of the project. Dwpaul Talk 00:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stephen_Collins (was already there, just added to it). Tutelary (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments on previous comments: Dwpaul wrote: "we have every business in reporting reliably sourced information of potentially lasting significance" Uh, no. Just because something is reliably sourced it belongs in Wikipedia? No, no, and no. If that were the case, we'd be recklessly putting up all kinds of crap and calling it encyclopedic. That's even less true for a BLP. Like Tutelary has already said, read up on WP:BLP for a clear picture regarding the care we are to take in BLPs more than any other type of article in Wikipedia. Why? As you said yesterday, Dwpaul, there are liability issues to be considered. And let's not forget this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of gossip, rumor, trivia, and the latest news.
Secondly, Dwpaul wrote, "of potentially lasting significance". No, again. "Potentially" is second-guessing. Please read WP:CRYSTAL.
Next, "he is being investigated". So what? People are questioned by law enforcement everyday without being charged/booked. Does that make the investigation/questioning encyclopedic? Of course not. If he was charged, we would have something to put into the article. That he's being investigated is not encyclopedic content.
"an audiotape was released" Again, so what? Who's been verified/authenticated to be the person making the alleged confession on the tape? Oh, you mean they haven't said yet? Then it's not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in and Wikipedia BLP.
"broadcasts have been cancelled" Reruns of an old program have been cancelled. Big deal. Not encyclopedic.
"he has resigned a significant position on the national board of a major actor's union" Which happens how often that we don't put anything in Wikipedia about it? We don't put it in because... (yes, you guessed it) ...it's not encyclopedic.
ImprovingWiki wrote: "My view is that this is an important story" WE DON'T REPORT STORIES. This is NOT a newspaper or magazine or online blog, it's an encyclopedia.
I'm seeing editors saying this shouldn't be discussed on the article talk page. Wrong, again. This is the place to discuss it.
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: I assume you're saying that you have changed your mind since this edit. It's OK if you have; we're all entitled. But I would like you to acknowledge that your statement now is at odds with your statement then. Dwpaul Talk 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I stated as much at the BLP Noticeboard a few minutes ago. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you don't make your views more convincing by expressing them in capital letters, and you are being silly by attaching any significance to the word "story." You should know quite well what I mean - it is important that Collins has been accused of child molestation, and the article will need eventually to say something about the matter, even if only briefly. ImprovingWiki (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I just wanted to add my input. While it's not appropriate to include everything from TMZ in a Wikipedia article, it also doesn't seem appropriate to completely omit the allegations from the article, given that they are significant and have generated a great deal of attention - regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty. The accusations themselves seem notable. I'm not saying that every person ever accused of a crime is deserving of an article about it, but when the person is well-known and the allegations are serious and garner a lot of attention, news stories, etc, then it seems appropriate to mention the accusations. 68.81.55.232 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point this out: Allegations of his abuse are listed on Faye Grant's page, but not his. On what planet is this sane or logical? If we're listing it anywhere, it should be on his. If it's not on his, we need to remove it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.253.209 (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add or remove it anywhere you see fit (though your changes could, of course, be reverted). Those of us who initiated and are involved in the discussion of this issue at WP:BLP/N#Stephen Collins are mostly constrained from making a change to this article until that discussion is closed with consensus, but you are not. Dwpaul Talk 18:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What causes you to believe that we who have participated in that discussion are constrained from acting in this article? That discussion is dormant, and there is certainly a rough consensus supporting the inclusion of something regarding the issue. LHMask me a question 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, it's bad form, if only that, to act on what you think the consensus is at WP:BLP/N before the discussion has been closed with an objective statement of consensus, especially if you advocated (as I did) that the matter be taken up there to try to arrive at a policy-based consensus. Dwpaul Talk 18:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, what Dwpaul said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

The following is the proposed text I came up with at the Faye Grant srticle several days ago. The discussion at BLP/N was closed without allowing for the text I proposed to be considered:

"In October 2014, it was revealed that a tape recording secretly made years ago by Grant and allegedly containing the voice of Collins was under investigation. In it, the male speaker on the recording allegedly confesses to sexual abuse against minors." Reference is as follows: [26]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, nearly 75 hours elapsed between the proposed text by KeithBob and the closure of the discussion. There was nothing preventing you from submitting your alternate text during that period of time. The discussion is closed and should stay that way, and we should use the text that was approved by consensus. Dwpaul Talk 00:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This new text is a solution looking for a problem. As you say, Dwp, there's consensus for a text already. LHMask me a question 00:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Who gives a shit how much time elapsed? There's no time limit on when one may present an idea that occurred to them in the final moments. In fact, I've been told consensus can change. Christ, I've seen it change minutes after the previous consensus was reached. The text I propose allows us to dodge a bullet BLP-wise. We're addressing the situation without addressing it in a fashion that can be seen as contentious, controversial. Or do you all just see editors rather than edits that make good sense? It certainly would seem that way. Indeed, let's only accept ideas and compromise regarding content that fall within a particular, unspoken time-frame and fit unexpressed expectations. Because that's all part of the spirit of community and good faith in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If there are specific changes (other than the ones you have already made to the text approved at WP:BLP/N) that you think are needed "to dodge a bullet BLP-wise", please propose them here for discussion, explaining why you think failing to make them represents a potential BLPvio. Dwpaul Talk 16:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing extended commentary. Dwpaul Talk 18:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I already did it above and you dismissed it. The proposed text from the discussion at BLP{/N was badly written and contained factual errors. But who cares? It was "accepted", so it must have been terrific and perfect and no criticism of it or suggestions to improve it should be considered, especially if those suggestions were given too late in the game, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You have been warned repeatedly about the need to assume good faith on the part of other editors. I suggest that you take the opportunity presented to propose constructive changes in the article, rather than using it to make sarcastic comments that clearly are intended to insult other editors. Dwpaul Talk 16:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't preach to me about "good faith". Or do you think this statement: "nearly 75 hours elapsed between the proposed text by KeithBob and the closure of the discussion. There was nothing preventing you from submitting your alternate text during that period of time" is an example of "good faith"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The quoted text was the exposition of two facts. I did not make any inference as to why you did not submit your alternate text earlier, which would be an example of an assumption of bad faith and potentially an ad hominem attack, a strategy you seem to prefer. Dwpaul Talk 16:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"I did not make any inference as to why you did not submit your alternate text earlier" The hell you didn't. You were not assuming good faith and that much is obvious by the use of bold text and the tone used with your chosen wording. And, this: "a strategy you seem to prefer" isn't a good faith comment. But, fuck it. No matter what, it's obvious you are going to try and spin and justify what you said in a different direction regardless. I'm not here for socialization or wasting my time trying to please those bent on seeming squeaky clean on the good faith monitor. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Good. So we are back to the end of the first block above. If there are specific changes (other than the ones you have already made to the text approved at WP:BLP/N) that you think are needed "to dodge a bullet BLP-wise", please propose them here for discussion, explaining why you think failing to make them represents a potential BLPvio. Dwpaul Talk 16:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Winkelvi: May I suggest that when multiple editors have cautioned you about assuming the good faith of editors who disagree with you, perhaps some introspection on that issue might be in order? LHMask me a question 17:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegation

There are citable sources with the story that it has been alleged he is a pedophile... ALLEGED.... why can't we just report it that way on his main page? Are we trying to protect Mr. Collins from stupid people who don't know the difference between being accused of a crime and being found guilty of it?--74.116.173.14 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There has been and is still extensive discussion of this issue both here on this page and at the Biography of living persons/Noticeboard. We should not start a new discussion of the issue in this section. Please read above and at WP:BLP/N if you would like to understand the issue. Dwpaul Talk 14:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, in the US pedophilia is the name of a psychiatric disorder, not the name of a crime. There has thus far been no evidence that Collins has received such a diagnosis, so the term should not be used to describe him, even in the context of allegations. Dwpaul Talk
See above discussion. Allegations can be disputed. They are not enough. VandVictory (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We should be very careful here. An audio tape has surfaced that ALLEDGEDLY has someone saying that he has ALLEGEDLY committed crimes against ALLEGED victims. He has not been charged, let alone tried, let alone convicted. IF he is actually brought to trial and convicted, it MIGHT be necessary to include a sentence or two on this. But as of now, it is irrelevant. If we wrote information up on every person allegedly accused of committing some act based upon grocery store gossip rags, we'd never do anything else. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Allegations, when reported widely by reliable sources, are often included in BLPs. When they are, the inclusion is always to be neutrally-worded, and reliably-sourced. There is no blanket proscription from Wikipedia including such things until "he is actually brought to trial and convicted." Otherwise, there would be no coverage on Wikipedia of the killing of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman by OJ Simpson, for example. LHMask me a question 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Afraid I'm going to have to point out the obvious regarding your example, LHM: There was no Wikipedia, therefore no Wikipedia article, on the Simpson murders at the time of the criminal trial or the civil trial where Simpson was found guilty. Your example makes no logical sense nor does it apply to the situation here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
OJ Simpson is still a living person, acquitted of the crime, yet it's mentioned prominently on his bio. LHMask me a question 00:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Allegations are notable if they are nearing the conviction border. Right now do they? VandVictory (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not in anything I've read. But, even so, "conviction" is not on the radar. He hasn't even been charged with anything. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My point precisely Winkelvi. Let's allow this to cool down and play out if it is going to. If it is notable today, it will be notable tomorrow. We can not rush to judgment. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not charged with anything yet. VandVictory (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Using TMZ source for "statute of limitations"

The police departments told TMZ that statute of limitations prevents them from prosecuting or charging the actor for such accusations. What are other sources verifying this if TMZ is unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture?

While the actor in the picture bears some resemblance to Collins, is there any verification as to whether or not he was actually in the commercial from which the picture was taken?

Specifics on victims

I may be opening a quagmire here, but, does anyone have thoughts on whether or not more specifics regarding the victims of Collins' sexual abuse is needed in this article? I've deleted specifics (relative, neighbor, babysitter) twice because I just didn't see it adding to the article. None of the sources attached to the section on the allegations and confession state one was a babysitter and the other was a neighbor, so that's a no-brainer for non-inclusion, but people are getting this from somewhere. With the caveat that Wikipedia is not a news-source and verifiability doesn't always guarantee inclusion, is that type of detail necessary in the article? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that type of detail is necessary to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Collins. 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: 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) 22:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Collins/Archive_1&oldid=1136382471"