Talk:Richard Quest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Quest wikilink
The link of "Quest" shouldn't lead to a wiki regarding the show after Richard Quest, rather the term quest itself? -84.254.14.96
[edit] Daily Show May 8th 2007
Mr Quest was featured on the show as a counterpoint to the Daily Show's John Oliver regarding Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the US on the week of May 6th [1] Riidi 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The arrest
I seriously do not understand why you include the arrest, but do not mention the fact that the "companion" was male. This has been mentioned in the news, so what's the big deal? If you have chosen not to include the arrest all together I would disagree but at least understand the logic. But this? I don't get it.
Agree with above. And have to say this story got here FAST!
Also, this story should include a reference to the rope tied around his neck and his genitals. Also, the sex toy found in his boot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.12.252.12 (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I added this, the rope, the genitals, and most important is the 6 months sentence rehab. plus one day in jail, almost. This might end his career. So readers of this article must be guided on this, if these things are not put in here, it will appear biased, so let us put all that was done to him. It is his quest for a guy and drugs. Hypocrisy so to speak. The police also found a rope around his neck, tied to his genitals, and a sex toy in his boot, near 64th Street. Quest agreed to undergo 6 months of drug counseling, resulting to "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal" of the misdemeanor charges. He was released by the Manhattan Criminal Court relea with no bail after having been incarcerated.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] gay
Quest is openly gay. Put him into LMBT category. And seach google yourself, if you do not believe it, than asking me to do that and link the hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.37.112 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- You obviously haven't noticed that it's in the article already. Ty 09:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Guardian ref verifies it. Ty 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New York Post article
Looking at the edit history of this article, I see that the New York Post article has now been deleted as a source on at least three occasions by various editors. Has anyone provided any evidence to suggest that this article is NOT a reliable source and that a BLP issue has arisen? Spurious suggestions that it is "tabloidy" are insufficient to justify deleting cited text. DWaterson (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)