From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Channing Tatum article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Channing Tatum was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 11, 2006

Contents 1 Good Article nomination has failed 2 Protected? 3 MODEL 4 Sexuality 5 Dancing 6 Awards 7 Fansites 7.1 Fansite

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Channing Tatum has failed, for the following reason:

Lead section is too short. See Madonna Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected?

Is it time to have this article protected from new and unregistered users? It's constantly being vandalized...-Bri 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC) He went to Tampa Catholic. He's in the graduating class of 1998.

I think this article should be protected from all editing since the discussion over his sexuality is more from registered users than unregistered users. Someone add my time stamp for me and get an admin person over here....

someone protect this article. it is constantly being vandalized.

I agree. I know Channing and his parents... He has one sister and a beautiful girlfriend named paige an that is it. Who writes this stuff?

Not for nuthin, but you really need to protect this page. Look at the bottom under external links. Someone is declaring their undying love for Channing. Hah!

[edit] MODEL

Does he still model?? Because I checked the FORD site and he is still signed with them in the Men's division. Lil Flip246 18:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Channing still models. I really think that he is more focused on the acting side. To model again professionally may be considered a step back in the industry at this point in his career. 70.240.200.252 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Sexuality

I have been friends with the guy for almost ten years. He is straight.

I don't know who wrote the bit about Tatum's sexuality, but I tried to find the article this claims to source and could not. It doesn't bode well that this was an anon user with just this one edit. I tend to believe it's fabricated until I can see the original with my own eyes. Plus, the quote is poorly written, and if it were taken directly from a magazine article, it should be flawless. And there's the claim of Tatum living with Dewan, and I haven't seen proof of that either. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 11:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt give you the right to erase peoples comments just because you haven't seen it with your own eyes.i highly doubt that hes gay seeing that he goes out with amanda bynes.I wish he was though.lOl

Actually, if I do a search and can't find it, I have every right to delete it. Especially after explaining my reasons and justifying it as I did above. We have a responsibility to living people that their info on Wikipedia is correct to the best of our collective ability.-FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 11:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think something should be added addressing his sexuality, even if it states that its just a rumour. It has spread all over the internet. When doing a search on Yahoo the first thing to come up on "Also Try" is "Channing Tatum Gay". --Geoffrey Gibson 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We can only comment - in any way - on his sexuality if a reputable source explicitly commented on it - i.e. regardless of what the specific comment was. Anything else is our own original research and should be avoided. Mad Jack 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found a reputable source and will add it to the article--Geoffrey Gibson 02:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I gotta say, that's not all that good a source, but I guess it may have to do for now Mad Jack 17:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone read this?? As of 2005, Tatum is dating his Step Up co-star Jenna Dewan. Hollywood columnist Janet Charlton says Dewan admitted they were a couple. They have been dating since they finished filming Step Up. [1] Lil Flip246 14:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the "Allstarz" article cited and now removed was an exact copy of this very article from back before 2006[1] (at that point Wikipedia said he was bisexual, but again, no source). I am beginning to think that we may well have been the soure of this whole thing... someone added it here as a joke in 2005 and it went on and on from there. For the record, though, when looking for sources, anything that looks like Tatum was not personally involved in is not reliable. Frankly the large majority of websites out there copy our content, which is good for us if we're right, not so much if we're wrong. Mad Jack 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Lil Flip, I agree with you that the source currently used for the "bisexual rumors" is fairly dubious and more or less consists of the original research of the writer for that website, which may not pass WP:RS. Mad Jack 02:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I recentlu heard that he wasn't dating Jenna anymore on an entertainment show and on a few reputable websites......... Jas B 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well those sites were incorrect. He is still dating and living with Jenna. ----WCFIRM (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)]

What about him wrestling on a bed in short-shorts on the cover of "out" magazine? Isn't that kinda evidence?

Nope, that's called modelling. There've been straight people on the cover before. Still just wishful thinking... -Ebyabe 22:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing

He has been dancing for quite a while. He has danced in many music videos. All the dancing you saw in STEP UP was his own! <we think>

Was he a dancer before Step up, or did he just learn some for the role?

He didn't dance for the role! He started to get into dancing like thart when he turned 20 years old or something...and channing tatum is NOT gay! lol

I don't have the source on hand, but read in "People" that he learned it for the role, and fairly quickly. UW Jakey 09:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the DVD commentary, they were looking for a hip hop dancer that was not classically trained, so therefore he had to learn some things but incorporated alot of the hip hop. --dputig07 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

What is the protocol in the awards section for an award that has yet to be given out? Do we not add it to the table until the award ceremony?--UW Jakey 08:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well of course he was!! He was a dancer in Ricky Martins, "She Bangs!" How could Channing Tatum be so good in "Step Up" if he never danced before! Come on people its common sense!

[edit] Fansites

I think no fansites should be listed on this page. There was one fansite listed a LONG time ago, and it kept getting deleted. Now, just because a certain person probably works for Wikipedia and added theirs last, it gets to stay? It's not even the leading fansite source for Channing Tatum, it opened last month.

I just think there needs to be a better way of deciding which "one" fansite gets to be listed, if that's really the rule. It's a pretty stupid rule by the way. All or none is the way it SHOULD be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EXXC3L (talk • contribs) 17:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I appreciate your opinion, but this is a public site where people are looking for additional information on this actor. You censoring a legitimate fan site, because you do not think it should be here, is down right Un-American. To me, it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for and I think it is completely elitest and ridiculous. The top fan site is ChanningTatum.org and the person who runs the blog is a co-web and the blog is linked to from ChanningTatum.org. If the fans and readers of the fan site feel that it is not helpful, then and only then should it not be considered a viable information source for this actor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WCFIRM (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC). I love Channing...Lucy

Alright, then you'll appreciate the fact that the site listed is not the place for additional information about Channing. There is no information on the page, actually. There are 3 or 4 other sites listed that have been around for much longer and that have much more to offer. As a matter of fact, that blog gets most of its info and pictures from other sites, so why list that one? It doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, but it's going to keep getting deleted until we figure out which site should be listed. EXXC3L 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is finally clear to me who you are now. Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. At this point, I am sure you have read the blog, and you should realize that it actually makes an attempt to get information from sources that other sites don't have, like directly from Channing's agency, managment company, DVD distribution company, and movie production companys. Have you noticed that news lately has been reported on CTU and then it shows up on the other "established" sites or it doesn't show up at all, because these sites are lax at updating. CTO.com currently takes you to a dead page. Sounds like a little blog envy to me, so I guess this dispute continues. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 03:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

Envy? hahaha I'm sorry I had to laugh out loud at that one. ChanningTatum.org or Channing-Tatum.com deserves to be there. Period. It's a shame you think you're better than those two sites. EXXC3L 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that you think you are better. I have not removed your link. Just because something has been around longer, does not make it better. I think that all of the sites have value. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

lol way to just take what I said and repeat it. YOU think YOU are better, by suggesting that the hard work of CT.org for a year is 2nd to some blog that opened a week ago. When was ct.org listed? June 2006. When was that blog listed? last week. I think we all know what site should be there. EXXC3L 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

by the way, that blog is not even a fansite. It's a site set up by someone trying to make money. Wikipedia says one fansite per page. CT.org is a fansite. that blog is not. EXXC3L 04:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Channing Tatum Unwrapped was setup as a news source for the actor's fans, just like the other fan sites. Last time I checked, CT.org is trying to sell posters or has the pop-up that shows up everywhere on the site been removed? [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

I have never had a problem with all of the sites being listed. You were the one deleting. If they do delete, I will add all back, because I think it is fair and all of the sites add value to the fan community. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

lol there you go being a moron again. if you would have done your research, you would see that ct.org is hosted for free by a fansite hosting site. the webmaster makes no profits off of the page. the money that is made from ads goes to the hosting bill every month, because judging from the amount of hits they get, i'm sure the site is using over 100gigs of bandwidth a month. so what's that blog's excuse for the ads, other than trying to make money of of Channing? And by the way, that blog is NOT a fansite. it's a...blog. exactly what you called it. EXXC3L 04:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is realy immature to be calling people names. I think you really need to look at your behavior and see why it is that you keep making enemies in the fan community. There is no reason for your hostility. The case is the same for CTU. It is a free site and no profit has been made on it. Maybe you should go with your gut and think about stepping away from the site, because the perceived power that you have gotten from your site has made you forget how to act appropriately with people. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 04:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

I'm calling you a moron because you are one. That's fine if you don't want to admit you're making money off the page, go ahead, do your thing. But there is no "gut" feeling about stepping away from the site, it's the stress that people like you bring that puts the thought in mind. If the site hasn't been closed already from previous events, then it damn sure won't be closed because of you. Sorry to crush your dreams. and lol at you for suggesting I have power issues. There is no "power" whatsoever gained from the site. Just because someone doesn't take your bullshit, doesn't mean they are on a power trip. EXXC3L 04:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So how does Wikepedia feel about you cussing and name calling? Is that another rule that you are just ignoring? You really are making yourself look bad here. I feel really sorry for you that you need to lash out at people in this way. I hope that you are able to deal with your obvious anger issues and get to a place in your life where you can handle issues in a more adult manner. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 05:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

Oh please. That "you're so immature" thing is so tired. I'm immature, but look who's right here arguing with me. "how does Wikepedia feel about you cussing and name calling?" LOL. what is this? Kindergarten? EXXC3L 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As an adult who respects people, I can have a discussion and make my point without cussing or name calling. It is not immature to have a discussion and it is also my understanding that Wikipedia encourages users to politely discuss opinions on the Discussion pages. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

I'm pretty sure the "you're so immature" thing is STILL tired from 5 minutes ago... EXXC3L 05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved and the top three fan sites have agreed to list all three by order of creation of the site (channingtatum.org, channing-tatum.com, and channingtatumunwrapped.blogspot.com) because they all add value to the fan community. [[[User:Wcfirm|Wcfirm]] 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Fansite

Regardless of merit, there's no way a fansite, official or not, deserves its own section of the website. An external link is debatable, but a specific section devoted to an ad for the website os completely unencyclopedic. Redrocket (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate, Channing Tatum Unwrapped is the OFFICIAL SITE of this actor since August 16, 2007. Therefore I am allowed to link to and explain what this site is, especially since it provides more information than is deemed appropriate on a Wikipedia page. It is my understanding that prior to becoming his official site, Wikipedia did not allow a link or mention. Now that the site is official, that is no longer true and you and everyone else should research the topic before removing the information. Channing Tatum Unwrapped is not a fan site trying to get publicity. It is an official site that cannot be vandalized by Wikipedia members entering incorrect information and is directly associated with Channing Tatum and his management team.

This is what I don't understand about Wikipedia. Having accurate information is so important to everyone, but you allow people to vandalize pages. But you treat me like a vandal because I am explaining and linking to the ONLY reliable source for the actor, because is actually associated with the actor. Wikipedia has no association with the actor at all. Channing Tatum Unwrapped and the cooresponding MySpace page are 100% associated with the actor and his management team, therefore they have a right to be mentioned on his Wikipedia page.

I had to tolerate this type of bullying when Channing Tatum Unwrapped was not official. It has been official for months and I will not allow you or anyone else bully me now. It is unnecessary and uncalled for. I am not a vandal or a spammer and should not be treated as such regardless of your uninformed opinion about the actor's association with my site.

Wcfirm —Preceding comment was added at 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the site is hosted on blogspot, I hardly think any major actor would host their site on another, they would create their own, that's just my opinion, but, continuing, you keep stating this site is 'officia since some date. Where did you get this information? I see no citations. Don't you cite the site itself, anyone could easily add the words official to a site and try to cite it. The point being, in order for this site to be considered official, you need to cite an outside source that states it is such. Until then, this fansite is being removed. Daedalus (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)