Talk:Richard Quest

BLP noticeboard report - 2

Hi - please be aware there is a discussion at the noticeboard regarding some disputed content and join in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard - here - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't find it there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is this not in the article??

(BLP violation removed) Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding another comment by 108. from my Talk page:

Is Reuters considered a reliable source? http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/19/us-quest-idUSN1832900220080419 I note that in Don King's article, a reference is made to the fact that he killed two people. Why can this exist and not the informetion on Richard Quest? Again, thank you in advance.

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these incidents occurred in 2008. The Reuters article states that after Quest's arrest Quest appeared in court. The Reuters article is a mite confusing about what he was arrested for (in one place it says violating the park curfew and in another it says for possession of a controlled substance). According to Quest's attorney, the judge said he would dismiss the case if Quest attended counseling. The judge ordered 6 months of counseling (one presumes for drug issues, but the article doesn't say), and one also has to presume that the case was dismissed, although again the article doesn't explicitly say that.

WP:BLPCRIME states that we should not include material in a BLP article about a crime the person may have committed unless the person has been convicted. Here, there is no indication that Quest was convicted of anything. In addition, the details reported by The Post and Huffington are more properly confined to tabloids, and not to Wikipedia (Huffington happily alludes to this stuff as "lurid details"). He was not arrested for any sexual offense or charged with any sexual offense. Thus, to insert those details is WP:COATRACK and a further BLP violation.

Put more simply, this is crap about a minor contretemps that occurred four years ago that is more noteworthy for the "lurid details" than for anything else. It negatively impacts a BLP, it has little or no relevance to his Wikipedia article, and it cannot be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, esp the part about actual conviction being the threshold for inclusion. I did not know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.30.185 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, it's tough learning all the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP/N discussion results in the current edit. When a judge orders drug counseling - it meets the WP threshhold. Collect (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP abuse to censor

Most of the time, you have people adding defamatory info. This time, we have the opposite case: people being a bit overzealous with BLP. The issue at hand is Quest's arrest and what he had then in addition to drugs. Here are a few sources:

• The Sydney Morning Herald, one of the oldest and most respected in AU.
• HuffPo from NyPost.
• Daily Record, incidentally already cited in the article, but we seem to be selective in what parts we choose to include.

All seem to mention a few additional facts about the arrest that should be included in the article. I can also get the public arrest records to verify the information.

Either way, let's have a discussion here.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I support Bbb23's position above. There is no need to include these "lurid details" in the article, and good reasons to omit them. Elizium23 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A factual one-liner about the topic is vastly different from actually going into the details of the matter (including the nature of the toy, ropes, companion, etc.). As it stands right now, the incident is being misrepresented as a simple drug possession arrest, when in fact it has a completely different aspect. No need to be slanderous, but the sexual nature must be mentioned, albeit very briefly. As it stands right now, Wikipedia is one of the only top results not to mention this. I am interested in other viewpoints though.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Λuα. If I compare this article with the way the Paul Reubens article is handled, there seems to be undue weight given to the hands-off attitude in this article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And why do you think that is, hmmm? 209.117.8.178 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)HelenChicago

public figure public domain

arrest records are public record in the USA and fully reportable by any publication, (BLP violation removed) 217.16.113.220 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What you're saying is that there is no law in the USA saying that Wikipedia cannot mention such things. But equally, that does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily should mention such things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The job of editors is to determine what is, and what is not, of encyclopedic value to readers. WP:BLP effectively tells us all to use the "blue pencil" rather than damage any person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

RFPP request

Given the ongoing edit-warring to add material violating WP:BLP, including by editors who should know better, I have requested pending changes protection for this article at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"walking with another man"

IMO is UNDUE and I suggest we determine if there is consensus for its inclusion in the BLP. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How exactly is it UNDUE? If Quest was straight and the sentence read "Quest was arrested at 3:40 a.m. in New York City's Central Park while walking with another woman", would that be UNDUE? This is a double standard and proves my point. For some reason Wikipedia users who have an issue with this are oversensitive and react to even the slightest hint of anything remotely homophobic. It really isn't a big deal and people are proving my point by repeatedly removing the most basic phrase about "walking with another man". I agree the sexual details of the arrest do not need to be in the article, but there is nothing UNDUE or lurid about the phrase "walking with another man", especially now that Quest is openly gay it really shouldn't be controversial. Ifinteger (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For what purpose does "walking with another man" used? If it is unrelated to the drug charge entirely, then it is also unrelated to the sentence in which it is placed entirely. If we found out that he was wearing a blue shirt, would you find that to be of "encyclopedic value"? That, after all, is the real basis for any Wikipedia edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Quest walking with a female, would you (and the other politically correct users) make such a fuss about removing that phrase as well? Ifinteger (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said clearly - I would do the same for a claim that he was wearing a blue shirt. Irrelevant is irrelevant is irrelevant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Collect, again you are dodging my point by bringing up "wearing a blue shirt". My question pertained to the fact that you (along with Bbb23) wouldn't have an issue with the phrase if it mentioned a heterosexual couple (i.e. Quest was walking with a female). Please stop trying to compare that with wearing an article of clothing. Please address that issue, otherwise re-insert the text about Quest "walking with another man", esp since he is now openly gay. Ifinteger (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, if the claim was "walking with a woman" I would have precisely the same opinion -- the material is not germane to the claim which is about a drug arrest. Period. Collect (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

discussion

It appears to be unrelated to any criminal charges whatsoever, and is about as relevant as saying some was arrested "while reading the Daily News" or the like, or "wearing blue jeans." Material which is not of actual encyclopedic value should not be in a BLP. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the covid and long covid do not belong under criminal deviance section. It is definitely not a crime to become infected with covid or have long covid. Perhaps that could be added it onto the career section of his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.137.204 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Criminal Deviance

I don't see that he was actually convicted of any crimes? Should the Criminal Deviance section be changed to "Deviant Behavior" perhaps? It's deviant to get arrested in the park with a rope tied to your genitals and neck with drugs in your possession, but if he wasn't convicted of a crime, is it really criminal? 2600:8800:2918:A600:2DF9:4A88:948D:A686 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)