Talk:Austin Nichols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
More information about this article...
 This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.
Featured article star Austin Nichols is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

[edit] User constantly editing this page

I sent an abuse mail to Wikipedia, complaining about two users. Both users should be blocked from Wikipedia since they are constantly editing actual facts from different articles including Austin Nichols, Sophia Bush and Jake Gyllenhaal. I'm a bit fed up with these childish fan war games since this is an encyclopedia and not your private Jake Gyllenhaal fan site message board. Please, take your relationship rumors and fanatic link removal there and leave those people alone who want to add CONFIRMED facts. Don't forget this is not a playground. People use these sites for their research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.123.67.32 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Unless there is clear reference to the fact that these rumours originated within TABLOIDS, I see no reason why they should even be addressed as speculation. 24.224.143.211 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the provided reference, the disputed info is sourced from blogs: "Blogosphere gossips have been claiming that..." As such, the info does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and should be removed, unless there's a reason to ignore the guidelines in this case. --Muchness 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
If you read the talkpage for Jake Gyllenhaal there was extensive discussion on whether the link should be included, what the wording of the sentence should be etc. I think it was decided that, because there IS speculation, and quite widespread speculation at that (Jake/Austin rumours can be found on virtually every corner of the net, along with pictures of the two, discussion to the point of obsession over proving Jake is Toothy Tile and so on.) it really did need to be mentioned, and the link is from a reasonably reputable paper with a writers' byline, so, until a better link was found, that one would be best. I think WP:RS doesn't count here because the source is secondary, not primary, reasonably reputable, and if it does count, WP:IGNORE should be in effect. But check the Jake page for the actual debate. Dev920 22:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Google searches using "jake gyllenhaal" "austin nichols" and various combinations of relevant keywords return less than 1000 hits, so I'm unconvinced that this speculation is widespread or notable. For better or for worse, this is fairly controversial (and potentially defamatory) information, and it originates solely from some speculation on internet blogs. To establish grounds for inclusion, we need something more substantial than some blog posts and a gossip column that cites those blog posts as its source. --Muchness 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you searched for but when I put in "jake gyllenhaal austin nichols" I got 89,000 hits, and ""Jake gyllenhaal" "Austin Nichols"" returned 35,000. As I mentioned before, we felt that the gossip column link was inadequate, but given it was explaining a widespread phenomenon and has known authors in its byline, it was though to be alright.

However, you are right, the paragraph as it stands at the moment makes their relationship seem like fact whereas to be neutral it has to be noted that it is only assumed to be fact by many people. I'll try to create a more neutral line. Dev920 12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A google search for "jake gyllenhaal" "austin nichols" and various combinations of relevant keywords that address this speculation returns less than 1000 hits. Your proposed wording is weaselly in that it use the passive voice to avoid attributing the speculation to a source ("There has been speculation..."), and attributing the speculation to its sources (e.g., "Several internet bloggers have speculated that...") makes it clear that the info is currently non-notable. --Muchness 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really don't know what you mean by that. What are you searching for?
Sorry for not being clear, I was trying to avoid repeating the speculation on the talk page. What I mean is a search for
  • "jake gyllenhaal" "austin nichols" gay
  • "jake gyllenhaal" "austin nichols" homosexual
and so on. --15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I find that strange. Go look at his IMDB profile - there's no end of threads about them there. It really is quite big. Dev920 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Austin's personal relationship with friend Jake Gyllenhaal has recently come under speculation"? Dev920 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This wording is still using the passive voice to avoid attributing speculation to a source.--Muchness 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
"Austin recently experienced speculation regarding his personal relationship with his friend Jake Gyllenhaal."?
Speculation based on unsourced hearsay and internet forum posts does not belong in an encyclopedic article. As you yourself have said upthread, the current source is inadequate per WP:RS. Find a reliable published source that demonstrates notability and the info can stay. --Muchness 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

Does anyoen know where we can get some good, meaty info on Austin? Dev920 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustin_Nichols_8e8e.html"