Jump to content

Talk:Justin Baldoni

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

POV

[edit]

Marked with POV tag. Article has a partiality towards subject instead of a neutral fact-based write-up about a living person. POV found throughout the article. Xadnder (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to version that had sourcing. Removed most of the unsourced POV stuff. --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 07:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Youtube video

[edit]

The elaborately staged proposal video of Baldoni proposing to his wife has racked up over 11 million video hits. For a proposal video, its pretty impressive (if a little long, at 25 minutes). Its been written up on Eonline and the NYPost, as well as a slew of others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Justin Baldoni. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birthmark in his left eye

[edit]

As seen here and here, Cookyboard has insisted that we should mention that Baldoni has a birthmark in his left eye because it's "notable and unusual personal information," while I have insisted that we should not include it because it's trivia/WP:DIARY material. Thoughts? I'll alert WP:BIOGRAPHY to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by the WP:BIOGRAPHY alert) Twitter is not a reliable source. If the birthmark was discussed in a reliable source then there might be an argument for mentioning it. Otherwise not. --Deskford (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deskford, I didn't bring up the sourcing because official Twitter accounts have been used as acceptable WP:Primary sources on Wikipedia before. It's a WP:About self matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My next question then would be: is this birthmark an important defining influence on his work, or on the way others perceive his work? I know nothing about the subject, but from the Twitter interaction it looks to me like something that was brought up in a casual remark, and he brushed it off as insignificant. So still I say it is not worthy of mention. --Deskford (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Lively did not “sue”

[edit]

Many journalists incorrectly jumped on this language. Ms. Lively filed a “complaint” with the California Civil Rights Department, which is a different legal action from a suit. Can an editor fix this language? (I’ve never edited - thanks!!)

see: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna185113

see full complaint: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/12/21/us/complaint-of-blake-lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc-et-al.html TexasAnna (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counter claims

[edit]

Regarding this revert, with the comment Adding counter-allegations is false balance that only serves to continue the alleged harassment of Blake Lively. I don't see it as a false balance to include Baldoni's lawyer's response to the allegations, just as the sources covering the topic do. If the denial is only given "Baldoni has denied the accusations", then the complaint should be given as, "Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment". Instead we have a detailed description of Lively's complaint and just the barest mention of a denial.

For example, I was surprised to read that the CEO shared a video of his wife giving birth, and that was included in the complaint as "videos of nude women". Most people would not interpret it that way. I suggest either including details of the response, or removing the details of the allegation. This is generally how the sources cover the topic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. It's right and proper to simply state that he denied the claims, and if people want to read more then they can go to the sources. When WP:NPOV and WP:BLP apply, it is absolutely not neutral to platform Baldoni's biased and unverified counter-claims, especially when immediately before that the article says "Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath hired crisis management experts who allegedly coordinated efforts to damage Lively's reputation through social media campaigns and strategic media placement." Why aid and abet this damaging to Lively's reputation? 2A02:C7C:CC80:8200:D0A5:C7F1:FA61:31A7 (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, it is not appropriate to detail the allegations and not provide the response. As you said, if people want to read more then they can go to the sources. You're not applying it to the allegations, and one resolution I mentioned was to remove the detailed list of complaints. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "it is not appropriate to detail the allegations and not provide the response". I say, simply, you are wrong. This isn't a court of law, Baldoni isn't automatically deserving of a right of reply. Lively filed a complaint which has been reported on extensively, we can detail these allegations in appropriately neutral Wikivoice. We can also say Baldoni denies the allegations, this is appropriately netural Wikivoice as well. But especially when one of the allegations is "Baldoni operated a smear campaign", then including his response of "Continuing to smear Lively by making outrageous claims" is not a balanced response and is no longer neutral in Wikivoice.
Another 'solution' would be to simply list the allegations and not even mention that he has denied them - because he would deny them, wouldn't he? I suggest you read the paired essays, WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY if you haven't already.
I close by again stressing that an encyclopedia is not the same as a newspaper, or a court of law. There is no obligation to give right of reply, or a false balance. WP:BLP applies, as does WP:NPOV. Those two policies make it clear we should not be repeating smears uncontested in Wikivoice. 2A02:C7C:CC80:8200:D0A5:C7F1:FA61:31A7 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, if people want to read more then they can go to the sources. You are clearly biased, and if you want to be taken seriously, make an account. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to semi-protected status

[edit]

Henrik.petaisto (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning unclear, what is the requested edit? The page is not protected, so you can edit it. If you are looking to add protection, you should go to WP:RPP. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

[edit]

Justin Baldonis faith along with the source was removed a few days ago. He is a member of the Baha’i faith and is very vocal about this. It should be reincluded. Justactinglazy (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Create separate page for It Ends With Us lawsuits

[edit]

Currently the 'It Ends with Us controversy' section of the page, takes up a large portion of Baldoni's page. Should a individual page about the controversy and lawsuits be created? I think the situation meets Wikipedia's notability rules for a new page to be created. The page could be called something along the lines of "It Ends With Us production controversy" or "Baldoni v. Lively lawsuits".

What do you think? a wiki editor 01:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoryGilmoreSeasonTwo I'm not opposed to it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability page you want is Wikipedia:Notability (events), which says: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
Given that the Justin Baldoni page is not very long at all, I don't see a need for a new page. The story does appear to be widely covered, from BBC to NYT, but it's still firmly in the "celebrity news" category. Take a look at Wikipedia:Recentism and ask how this controversy should be written about in 10 years as a historical event? I think it would be tucked into 3 paragraphs on the biographies of Baldoni and Lively. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how short his wikipedia page otherwise is, then it makes only even more sense to put the bulk of this lawsuit discussion into it's own article (either of the proposed "It Ends With Us production controversy" or "Baldoni v. Lively lawsuits" could work) as otherwise as the page currently stands it goes against WP:BLPBALANCE. So there are two options here: trim it down drastically and massively (as would be appropriate/relevant for Wikipedia:Recentism, as you mentioned yourself) or put it in its own dedicated wikipedia page that it belongs in (which is my preferred option, rather than deleting large chunks, because META:NOTPAPER). ~ Mathmo Talk 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support breaking the controversy and lawsuits portion into its own page. Looks like this section is going to grow over the next year. The main page should focus on his notability without being overwhelmed by constant updates from an ongoing conflict re: Wikipedia:Recentism Iamnotanorange (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how the conflict just grew again over the last few days, and this is shaping up to be one of the big news-followed lawsuits of the year, I support making a dedicated page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support forking this kerfuffle.
I would support making it more concise as regards the he said she said sniping.
the amounts being bandied about for torte legal action will create a sufficiently notable event for a fork, if it does go forward. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth considering creating a separate page. It is a high-profile case also being covered by international media, not just entertainment tabloids. The case has cultural and legal importance. Henrik.petaisto (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason we have to choose. It's reasonable to keep a short, concise section on this page, but link to a more in depth page that covers all the details. DuckOfOrange (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I created a draft page with the beginnings of a dedicated Lawsuits page -- Ends With Us Lawsuits. @RoryGilmoreSeasonTwo @User:Cuñado @Henrik.petaisto DuckOfOrange (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox mage?

[edit]

I uploaded a cropped version of the image. Should I replace the original with it? Lililolol (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - and already  Done Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Lively’s Publicist

[edit]

Is the remark in parentheses about Blake Lively’s publicist Leslie Sloan’s being affiliated with a company that was at one point funded by Harvey Weinstein necessary? I don’t see what Weinstein has to do with the subject and wouldn’t bringing him up here in relation to Lively’s team be infringing on Wikipedia’s neutrality due to the negative feelings associated with him? Clgr97-1 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Baldoni&oldid=1289327020"