Talk:Alice Ripley

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tommy?
Accortding to ibdb, Ripley appeared in Les Mis on Broadway before appearing in The Who's Tommy. http://ibdb.com/person.php?id=57847 Corvus cornix  talk  05:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Ripley's Broadway debut was in "The Who's Tommy" (1993). Several years later in 1998, she portrayed Fantine in "Les Miserables". Nybound (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No source for education?
Since this is a BOLP (Biography of Living Persons) doesn't the 'Education' section need a source? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 15:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Alice Ripley. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030609195106/http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/dyk/index.html to http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/dyk/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alice Ripley. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415203508/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/138657-Next-to-Normal-Wins-2010-Pulitzer-Prize-for-Drama to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/138657-Next-to-Normal-Wins-2010-Pulitzer-Prize-for-Drama

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Alice controversy

 * I have added information on the controversy in an appropriate, sourced, non-vandalizing, neutral manner which should be consistent with WP:BLP. This is a real controversy which should be included. Jbbdude (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add... I'm disconcerted by how many times Wikipedians took it upon themselves to correctly remove graffiti, but didn't follow up by looking into the facts and adding the appropriate information. The article was arguably superior, more complete and up to date, with the vandalism in place than without the actual reporting cited. I wish more energy would go into making this a better, more reliable source of information rather than just rote rule-following and "clean up" from less experienced users. Clearly less experienced users were trying to add actual information to the page over and over and over, and the Wikipedia systems just kept wiping it over and over and over, with no comment on the talk page, no explanation as to how this stuff should be added properly, etc. This behavior makes Wikipedia a worse source of information and a worse place for new editors. Jbbdude (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

An IP user took it upon themselves to wipe the relevant content from the article, as well as this discussion from the talk page. At the same time, they threatened Wikipedia with legal action for hosting this content. It is presently being discussed on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, as is standard practice in situations like this. It seems that at a minimum, this talk page content should be restored, regardless of whether or not the article content is eventually restored.

This is an actual controversy which exists. It was a thing that was reported on, was widely disseminated by major, reliable news outlets, etc. This is true regardless of the truth or falsity of the actual allegations. Jbbdude (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This section needs an update with the result of the 2-week long noticeboard discussion, which was the removal of the poorly sourced, contentious allegations by a neutral editor. The material ran afoul of crucial parts of the WP:BLP guideline (and other guidelines, as well). The noticeboard discussion disputed many of the points made in the post above. I am seeking help with accessing the noticeboard. (Is it even accessible?) The post above is dated 7 July 2022. The noticeboard conclusion occurred on 19 July 2022. Please also note that previous additions of the disputed accusations were deemed to be vandalism by more than one editor. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not signing in before editing. Was in a rush based on this: "Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be " (per WP:BLP guideline) JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of section called "Controversies" (Feb 2023)
Should this discussion happen here or on a noticeboard at WP:BLPN, the way we did with a previous controversial addition to Ripley's article? The policy info box at the top of this talk page says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." (bold emphasis mine) JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Grooming accusations section NPOV issues
This section has some issues including a big NPOV issue. First, it relies on only one source so at least a second reliable source should be cited. Second, As the current source article from Rolling Stone states in the "Whether her alleged behavior qualifies as grooming is contested, even if would be clearly inappropriate behavior, if true. Thus, we should make it clear that the appropriateness of the use of the label "Grooming" in this instance is disputed. We should also describe her alleged behavior in more neutral terms such as "The alleged behavior alleged is said to involved Ripley having sexual conversations with the teens, though whether this inappropriate behavior, if true, should be labeled grooming is contested.". 2600:1700:56A0:4680:E4C7:F7BA:8AFD:A44 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)