Talk:Faye Grant

Untitled
Is the "and is now 17" at the end going to be updated every year, e.g. "and is now 18", "and is now 19", etc.? It is not the usual practice to give people's current ages, though it's a nice idea for all biography articles if it can be updated automatically to save people working it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.150.149 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20128032,00.html This April 26, 1999 People article describes Grant as being 41 years old. --108.176.24.195 (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My last edit
The Huffington Post blog post is based on an Us Weekly article and an E! News report. 108.176.24.195 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your proof of this claim is what? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Read the Huffington Post link- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/stephen-collins-divorce-faye-grant-27-years_n_1497988.html - which literally reads "After 27 years together, actor Stephen Collins has filed for divorce from his wife, Faye Grant, he confirmed in a statement to Us Weekly." and "Grant, who appeared on "V" and "State of Grace," seems blindsided by Collins' divorce filing, telling E! News, "Stephen's filing for divorce is a surprise. I am devastated."" 108.176.24.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I read it. It's just quoting something from Us Weekly and E Online.. The rest of the story is theirs. Huff Post wouldn't plagiarize and then advertise it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

...but why would you revert my edit that uses one of the original sources (E! Online/E! News) for the Huffington Post post? I'm not claiming anything is plagiarized. 108.176.24.195 (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Many see a publication like Huff Post to be a better source than a completely celeb-focused website like E Online. Plus, there's nothing wrong with the Huff Post reference.  Additionally, it's not a bad thing to have references in an article to be from several publications.  There's already content referenced with E Online.  It's personal opinion on my part that it's good to use another reference rather than E Online again, and there's nothing policy-wise that I'm aware of that would keep you from putting in another E Online reference (other than it looking like edit warring, which is against policy).  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)