Talk:Kim Delaney

message: Thanks to whomever changed the picture in this article from that awful mugshot. Yes, I am a fan, and I like to look at beautiful pictures of Miss Delaney. Jeffpw 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: While IMDb gives her birthdate as 29 November 1958,  the NYTimes says 29/11/1961. I'd go with the Times, as that seems the most reliable. This article, also from the Times (September 2002) lists her as 40, which is further verification of the November 1961 birthdate. Please don't change the dates again unless you can show more reliable sources than these Jeffpw (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jeff. Reliable sourcing is how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the editor who included an Intellius search in his/her edit summary, they only Kim Delaney I saw when performing the search, (whch I think is WP:OR, was one who is 48 and listed as living in Pennsylvania. That doesn't seem a match, or a reliable source.  Jeffpw (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Look up Kim Delaney in CA. The Kim Delaney with addressed in Brentwood, Woodland Hills, etc is listed as being 49 years old. If you're willing to pay the fee to see her actual birthdate (which I did), you'll see it listed as 11/29/1958.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She is still listed as having been born in 1961 by more reliable sources. The more reliable the source, the more trusted it is, especially by Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: What could be more reliable than her actual birth certificate? The only source that you seem to think is so reliable is the NY Times, when in fact official records from intelius are much more reliable. If Wikipedia is really dedicated to the truth, than her true 1958 birthdate should remain. If Wikipedia is a fanpage, then by all means, keep it at 1961. And for the record, IMDB's much more accurate for birthdates than Wikipedia in general, specifically because they don't allow obsessed fans to change birthdates without proof like that found on intelius, from OFFICIAL records. If you don't believe that, try to change her birthdate on IMDB. They won't allow you to do it. Jessejames412 (User talk:Jessejames412\talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not allow obsessed fans to edit in important text without reliable sources, and is therefore reliable in many instances. The New York Times is not the only source that I would consider reliable on Wikipedia; any source that is reliable per Wikipedia policy is permitted. If intelius is more reliable than The New York Times for birth dates, then prove it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, please see Wikipedia: Citing IMDB for why this is not considered reliable for biographical information. Jeffpw (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the Chicago Tribune is a more recent article than any of those you cited, indicating that more reliable information has come to light in the ensuing years. jessejames412 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yet another source saying she is 49: The Pulitzer Prize winning Copley News Service: http://halife.com/entertainment/tv_closeup_kim_delaney0616.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And here she is in a 1998 article claiming she was 33, meaning she would have been born in 1965...lending credence to the fact she doesn't like to give her true age, lol: http://www.usaweekend.com/98_issues/980222/980222talk_delaney.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yet another article suggesting she plays fast and loose with her age, this one from a People magazine article that says she was 21 in 1984, making her birth year 1962 or 1963: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20102401,00.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I've cleaned the article up a bit and scrubbed some of the more offending POV about the year of birth. Many, many entertainers regularly misrepresent this kind of information for various reasons. Often times the simplest explanations are typos that didn't get corrected quickly and someone who to lied to get work when very young. We should try to source why more than one year was presented and present that neutrally. And also I agree that NYTimes is generally considered one of the best sources known for its fact checking and correcting statements. Banjeboi 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The People article says she claims to be 31 in 1995, making her even younger than she would've been if her true birth year were 1961.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yet another search page of official documents that shows Delaney is indeed 49, born in 1958. It even includes her married names: http://www.peoplefinders.com/summary.asp?ln=delaney&fn=kim&mn=a&city=beverly+hills&state=CA&age=&Month=11&Day=29&Year=1958&x=10&y=12&vw=people&input=  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The People article does not says she claims yo be 31 in 1995. It states that with no attribution to her. You're distorting the ref to substantiate your claim, which does not look good for you. People is also not one the most reliable sources. Your Peoplefinder source is--once again--WP:OR|original research, which is NOT ALLOWED HERE> I suggest you read policies here before you start editing. Your edits suggest you could be in for a mass of trouble if you continue in this fashion. Not all editors are as tolerant of this sort of behavior as we have been here. Jeffpw (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: How is thesmokinggun not a reliable source? It posts the actual arrest records in the original officer's handwriting. What could be more accurate than a primary source like that?Jessejames412 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe The Smoking Gun is considered a reliable source but you could post to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get clarification. Banjeboi 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: I've removed the above as there doesn't seem to be any purposeful misrepresentation, at least on Delaney's part as is alleged; also there seems to be no evidence of a controversy. The NYTimes ref is fine and supports what's in the article, The Trib source looks like a mistake on a very short mention of an article and The People article doesn't seem to show anything besides what we already have regarding this. Banjeboi 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The People article says she claims to be 31 in 1995, making her even younger than she would've been if her true birth year were 1961.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another search page of official documents that shows Delaney is indeed 49, born in 1958. It even includes her married names: http://www.peoplefinders.com/summary.asp?ln=delaney&fn=kim&mn=a&city=beverly+hills&state=CA&age=&Month=11&Day=29&Year=1958&x=10&y=12&vw=people&input=  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejames412 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The People article does not says she claims yo be 31 in 1995. It states that with no attribution to her. You're distorting the ref to substantiate your claim, which does not look good for you. People is also not one the most reliable sources. Your Peoplefinder source is--once again--WP:OR|original research, which is NOT ALLOWED HERE> I suggest you read policies here before you start editing. Your edits suggest you could be in for a mass of trouble if you continue in this fashion. Not all editors are as tolerant of this sort of behavior as we have been here. Jeffpw (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: How is thesmokinggun not a reliable source? It posts the actual arrest records in the original officer's handwriting. What could be more accurate than a primary source like that?Jessejames412 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe The Smoking Gun is considered a reliable source but you could post to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get clarification. Banjeboi 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: removed

message: I understand that IMDB is not a reliable source as is information in wikipedia that is not properly cited.  If there is conflicting information putting a citation need tag is a core pillar of wikipedia.  I am not saying that is not her DOB, I'm just saying there should be a citation to confirm it.Racingstripes (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the section above? And the list of sources provided? The section above provides a good background regarding the DOB problem. It's not a lack of sources that the issue here, it's the discrepancy in the age reported by sources. Since they differ so greatly, and not one seems to trump the other, I've removed the contentious date entirely per WP:BLP. Consensus needs to be reached here as to which date to use, or, preferably, the discrepancy over the reported DOB needs to be addressed within the article prior to any date being added to the article. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read it, sorry my mistake.Racingstripes (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Update for anyone wanting to know how the 1961 birth date was added back to the article as the only birth date:. Considering the discrepancy in the age reported by sources, I agree that something acknowledging that should be in this article. Whether that's mentioning the birth dates in the lead and/or in the infobox, mentioning the discrepancy in a section, or whatever addition, as long as it's reliably sourced and complies with WP:BLP. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And if WP:CONSENSUS is to only mention the 1961 birth date, hidden notes about that should be added to the lead, the infobox and to the categories area of the article to help keep the re-additions from happening. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Please become familiar with Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources. You shouldn't be making these changes without adding attribution to a reliable source. At the very least, you should stop changing the New York Times quote since you are doing so dishonestly--it really says 1961, whether you agree or not. And given your claim in an edit summary to know the subject of the article, you should also become familiar with Wikipedia's rules on conflicts of interest. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

text: BTW you don't say that the year book gives her birth date. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: DOB

message: Could someone help out with the unsourced/unsupported birth date changes by 73.197.253.149 (talk)?    -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, I reverted the IP. But this type of dispute at this article is why, in the #DOB section above, Ponyo (Jezebel'sPonyo) suggested we forgo mentioning a birthdate in this article, and I stated, "Considering the discrepancy in the age reported by sources, I agree that something acknowledging that should be in this article. Whether that's mentioning the birth dates in the lead and/or in the infobox, mentioning the discrepancy in a section, or whatever addition, as long as it's reliably sourced and complies with WP:BLP." See the Mariah Carey and Emilia Clarke articles as examples.  And this link shows the most recent discussion about including birthdates at the Emilia Clarke article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date, again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kim Delaney. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725162611/http://www.askmen.com/women/actress_150/181_kim_delaney.html to http://www.askmen.com/women/actress_150/181_kim_delaney.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A recent sock tried to remove the "Personal life" section from this article. The sock has been blocked, but:
* The first paragraph is unsourced, and contains trivia (the names and breeds of her dogs? srsly?)
* The third paragraph contains allegations and speculation without any verifiable conclusions
Comments? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: NewEnglandYankee, cut any BLP issues and remove the trivia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored marital history with citation. Added child custody with citation. No dogs. ;-)  -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pemilligan, many Wikipedia editors do not take well to the Daily Mail. It was essentially banned for use on BLPs. You should look for a different source to support that material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP trimming 

message: You've referred in edit summaries to a Los Angeles Times article. What article? Do you have an URL for it? --Pemilligan (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits