Talk:Sondra Locke

message: Placebo and a couple of others have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Excuseme99 who is blocked indefinitely.  If he returns to this discussion, it will be through yet another of his dozens/ hundreds of sockpuppets.  Erikeltic (Talk) 16:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fyi 

message: I would agree that 1944 is the best sourced year. 1947 should be a footnote or worded in such a way that it is the less likely year?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I of course agree, although I would simply go with the footnote. If we are going to have 1947 explicitly in text, it should be in the Early life or Personal life section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to review WP:NOR.  Erikeltic (Talk) 00:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but NOR has everything to do with you inventing some reason why two years got confused in that little diagram. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Erik's ass has nothing to do with it. We can, and we do, have more than one year, because that's what the sources say. Nobody Ent 14:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By comparing the marriage license with material found in a secondary source we need to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source", in direct violation of policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not so; any editing you do is interpreting to an extent, and it is not synthesis because you are not combining information from two different sources to draw a conclusion. You have a primary source that gives a date of birth, and in such cases it is reasonable to use a secondary source to establish the application of the primary source. If you dispute that interpretation of sourcing policy take it to WP:RS/N. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue.  Summer's assessment is 100% on target.  Erikeltic (Talk) 03:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, the marriage licence is consistent with the secondary sources. If you dispute the marriage licence as an eligible source then get a ruling at WP:RS/N and then this discussion is over either way. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 

message: According to the article Locke was born before her half-brother and thus before 1946.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.60.248 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if that is the reliable source you choose. Other sources differ, as the article explains. We have numerous examples of this on Wikipedia. We cite what reliable sources say. When reliable sources don't agree, we cite the varied reporting. (See also: Audrey Tautou, Michelle Thomas, Sharon Leal, etc.) - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page is bananas 

message: Fascinating as this discussion on Ms Locked date of birth is.. In her career section it states " In 1978, the couple co-starred with an orangutan named Clyde in that year's second highest-grossing film". In fact it is an orangutan named 'Manis' who played 'Clyde'.
Can an editor agree on that and modify please? :) 92.40.248.244 (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct name 

message: Roger Mosely's wiki page states he was married to Ms. Locke in 1960, with (2) children from the union. Why no mention of that on the page of Ms. Locke?
Larry Chase  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.118.177 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's bullshit. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Roger Mosely? 

message: She died November 4, 2018, but it wasn't reported till December 12, 2018.  Not sure the reason for the delay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4001:8EB0:C07:4483:5444:4564 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox News said she'd fallen off the radar.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Date 

message: "Former colleagues at the station insinuated posthumously that Locke was promoted to the department through nepotism," footnoted to a Facebook post by some guy.
I remember from my youth a bunch of Encyclopedia Britannica articles that contained insinuations, but never posthumous insinuations, much less footnoted posthumous insinuations. This is groundbreaking journalism. You're like TMZ, nearly, and I expect your Pulitzer is in the mail.
2603:7081:4F06:2869:B868:32C6:A69E:84B4 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, you're right. The WP wording makes the insinuation sound much more reliable/honest/real than it really was in the actual FACEBOOK(!!!) post. Thanks for pointing that out. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous Insinuation 

message: An anonymous edit from 50.244.131.50 on 11 July 2023 adds a paragraph to the foot of this section; it's unreferenced, and doesn't come across as at all neutral in tone:
In absence of any explanation, many surmised that Locke must have requested the blackout in her final wishes, perhaps to keep her true age under wraps. It's deducible, given Locke's vanity and history of deceiving the public, that she coordinated with end-of-life caregivers, mortuary staff, et cetera, to ensure news of her own death would be suppressed as much as possible. The delay itself was and is unprecedented.
The same edit adds the factoid that she lied about dyeing her hair, and updates some references.
50.244.131.50 is a comcastbusiness.net IP address, and the few other edits from this address all relate to Clint Eastwood films, so it looks like the editor may be promoting their personal views or biases. 203.16.208.50 (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of who added that or their motivations, it is uncited analysis and WEASEL. I removed it. DMacks (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death - Media Blackout