Talk:Warren Beatty

message: Is attempting to list all of someone's sexual partners considered neutral pov?
104.220.42.199 (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: personal life

message: I removed the following:
:After having children Beatty told the Drudge Report, "Since having children, I am pro-life." 
I also removed a link that was pointing to a Hilary Clinton website for some unknown reason.  
The Drudge Report did report that Beatty is pro-life, but it seems very biased to have this be the only political view mentioned in the article.  If anything, Beatty is known for his leftest leanings.  I would have no objection to returning the comment to a paragraph that fairly talks about his political activism and ideology.  Until then, I think it should be out.  --Samuel Wantman 08:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-life stance

message: The article currently states that he was born "Henry Warren Beaty"; is this a typo, or was his last name originally spelled with only one "t"?  It has two everywhere else in the article.  --LostLeviathan 14:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter.  His birth name was in fact Beaty.  See also slightly more information at the page for his sister Shirley MacLaine, also born Beaty — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Upon research, sister Shirley's last name was spelled "Beaty" in her senior high school yearbook, while Warren's last name is spelled "Beatty" in his senior high school yearbook, before he became an actor.  Sn 09 September 2018  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.48.11 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: http://www.ugadm.northwestern.edu/alumni/facts/alumni.htm begins by saying:
:The following is a list of just some of our successful graduates, organized by their field of achievement.
The emphasis is mine. The following entry can be found about 1/4 the way down the page:
:Warren Beatty, actor, Academy Award-winning producer (Communication 59)
This looks like it means "Warren Beatty graduated from from Northwestern University in 1959 with a degree in communication studies."  Does anybody have a source saying he dropped out? Is this an merely honorary degree? Or is he listed just for NU recruitment purposes without regard for accuracy? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Northwestern University

message: This article gets very few edits; it seems like it would be a acceptable candidate for a stable version.  I recomend we use the current version as of now (revision 62845012). JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on the subject, but I don't see anything wrong with the current version. I've never edited the article myself; this presumably qualifies me as the "administrator who is largely uninvolved in the article otherwise" required by Wikipedia:Stable versions now. I support the creation of a stable version – Gurch 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm throwing in an oppose - see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Stable versions now. --SPUI (T - C) 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific issues with this actual article? JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I can easily fix the non-on-article-cited sources problem; as for the questionable fair use image, why don't we remove it from the stable version, and leave it in the development version, pending further review of it's fair use status? JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources now cited on-page, and the image removed. (For reference, it's code was:  ) JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So we're talking about freezing revision 63081592, right?  Any other objections to testing this? --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "no context to any of" the reference section?  Did you even look at the detailed references, linked right from the bottom of the section? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the issue; how good do articles have to be to "deserve" a stable version, were we to implement this? --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, they should be of the quality where major changes would not have to occur to the article to improve it.  By no means does it have to reach good or featured status, but, at the moment, you're looking at three major things that would definitely change the look and feel of this article without even getting into the style and prose.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely oppose. There's no picture on this page.  Are you saying I'd have to muster together a tribunal of judges or some such silliness if I wanted to add a fair-use pic of Mr. Beatty to the article?  Or even to avoid a comma splice?  Why aren't they looking to featured articles for this experiment, where there is already a version that was chosen as representing the best that Wikipedia has to offer? JDoorjam     Talk 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly - I only removed the image because Spangineer raised questions about it satisfying the fair use guidelines, and I didn't wish to get into an argument about them at this time.  If you wish to add an image, please do so.  In any case, after reading the talk page of the proposal, I prefer your idea of highlighting the revisions of articles that have already been featured, rather than using this proposal, so it's academic at this point. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "they should be of the quality where major changes would not have to occur to the article to improve it".  In my experience, that's FA or near FA quality.  This article could be improved by: expanding the biography section and splitting it up by periods, expanding the lead to comply with WP:LEAD, adding free images, adding critical review of his work, cutting the trivia section, further developing the politics section, combining paragraphs/improving prose, adding inline citations, etc.  Once you've done all that, you're at the level of Katie Holmes or Henry Fonda (both FAs).  All those changes could be considered "major".  And if you go to either Katie Holmes or Henry Fonda, it wouldn't be too hard to find some comma splice or other minor grammatical/spelling problem.  I guess my point is that if we're talking about avoiding "major changes", then only FAs should be considered (though there are some FAs that need serious work; i.e. Humphrey Bogart).  That might be the best way to go, at least at first. --Spangineeres (háblame) 13:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, all an FAC needs is an expansion of different ideas, change in prose tone, better referencing, etc.  Nothing like the massive overhaul this article needs to become "stable." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To fight the forest fire that's been started across nine different talk pages, I'd suggest this discussion continue back on the proposal talk page. JDoorjam     Talk 20:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable version discussion

message: The section for Bonnie & Clyde is in dire need of revising and rewriting. The film was disaster when it opened and would have gone into the dustbin of history if Beatty had not fought for a re-release after getting some better reviews (in fact, I seem to recall that a well known critic actually changed their mind and gave it a rave after first panning it). Beatty had fights with Jack Warner over it and is one of the few filmmakers to ever get him to change his famously stubborn mind. All of this is recounted in Peter Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls among others. RoyBatty42 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonnie & Clyde

message: Bee-ty, Bee-atty, or Bay-atty? Thanks. -86.164.11.233 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... thanks 86.164.11.233 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Re: using images sparingly, I question how important the photo of Beatty's handprints is to this article. It seems like unnecessary window-dressing to me. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it serves to let people know his handprints are somewhere in concrete.  I've never paid much attnetion to the walks of fame or whatever they are called but that might be interesting to some people....just not me :-) -OberRanks (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It rather comes down to relevance and specificity. The image is of Beatty's handprints rather than a generic set of prints. I would be more enamored of them were the image from Graumann's, or whatever it is called these days, but it is only a little different than the images of the Hollywood Walk of Fame stars or the Graumann's location. I might like it even better if the image showed Beatty sticking his hands in the muck. However, it is a continuation of the Graumann's tradition in a way, and it is part of a public collection. If the article were overburdened with images, I might feel differently, perhaps. However, and despite invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this sort of image is widely used in our actor biographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that they serve little to no purpose.  If there was a strong field of free images of Beatty to use for this article, and they were listed in order of importance, this would probably be near the bottom of my list, but there's not.    The only difference I see between the handprints image and the insignia image is that the insignia image is generic and applies to anyone of that rank, while the handprints are directly related to Beatty as his.   It's specific, but not particularly relevant, and to me its use is window-dressing.  Its presence does not bother me and I don't think it's necessary to remove it, but I would not miss it if it was removed.   Rossrs (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Handprints

message: I'm going to preface this by saying that I absolutely will not edit this article concerning this information...I've heard that there's been a recent biography (possibly autobiography) recently written about Warren Beatty...that makes the highly dubious claim that he has slept with over 24,000 women...now, if there was a category for people who have slept with over 20,000 women it would include 3 people... Warren Beatty, Wilt Chamberlain, and myself.  In any case, I noticed that this information was not included in the article.  IMHO, it should never be, regardless of whether it is true or not.  Partly because wikipedia is not a place where people "rack up tallies", partly because I think that information is not notable, and partly because it almost certainly isn't true.  I just wanted to say this so that I can revert instances of such claims in the future.  However, I would not be averse discussing this matter if there were more reliable sources for this information.  Antimatter--talk-- 08:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only was that reported, it was disputed by Beatty's reps. It was added and removed a couple times. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt that any speculative numbers should be included in the article, but it's a little strange that there's nothing whatever in the article about his prominently publicly-discussed reputation as a multiple philanderer... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors?

message: I have taken out the childrens names as they aren't notably in their own right and general presumption seems to be in favour of privacy in such cases.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: He has been nominated a total of 14 nominations, not 15.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar Nominations 

message: This entire very lengthy section is written by someone whose native language is not English, and is also completely unsourced.  It contains several comments about Beatty's state of mind.  2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:59D5:A809:A0A:8917 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrealized Projects

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Warren Beatty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121026032421/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090321/film_nm/us_tribune_dicktracy;_ylt=Al4G_LVoc_fVEVoQpxMqS_5xFb8C to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090321/film_nm/us_tribune_dicktracy;_ylt=Al4G_LVoc_fVEVoQpxMqS_5xFb8C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just thinking that the section is looking like a tabloid, is all that really necessary, encyclopedic or notable ?  Mlpearc (open channel) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am concerned especially by the quoting of Leslie Caron alluding to Beatty having narcissm, which can only be diagnosed by a mental health professional. I think the whole "Before Marriage" section should be striked. Kassieme (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life section 

message: Substituted at 10:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello. In the newly added lines about the 2017 Oscars, the wording states/suggests that Warren Beatty was the one to initially and erroneously announce La La Land as the winner. Actually, he can be seen trying to find more cards in the envelope and being confused at the mic. He showed the card to Faye Dunaway who then made the wrong announcement. Afterwards, Warren can be seen in the background still confused and talking to other people about the issue. I don't think it's fair to have information that essentially blames Beatty for something he didn't do. 50.185.75.78 (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. I don't think the incident is important in Beatty's long career, and as you say he didn't make the wrong announcement.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now states in part "At the 89th Academy Awards, presenters Beatty and Faye Dunaway read La La Land as the winner of Best Picture."  Beatty didn't say anything.  Dunaway saw the name 'Emma Stone' and concluded (and stated) that La La Land won. 61.68.173.4 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My removal was reverted, so I have reworded the passage to reflect what really happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was reverted again! This is ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

text: It's not only the Academy Awards. Warren Beatty is part of it. Definitely. Julie Andrews' 2015 Oscar appearance is mentioned on her page because it was one of the most memorable moments too : "In 2015 Andrews made a surprise appearance at the Oscars, greeting Lady Gaga who paid her homage by singing a medley from The Sound of Music.[81] This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world." We could write the same thing on Beatty's page : "This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world." He is associated with this event, he is the one who gave the explanation so there must be at least a mention of it.  RomanSpring (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This user appears to be related to IP 73.13.33.173 - this account above was created 5 minutes prior to this comment, and this is the only contribution. The Julie Andrews appearance in the Oscars wasn't added because it was "trending all over the world" - it was added because it was directly correlated to her and played a large part in the Oscars (it was an anniversary for the Sound of Music). Going further, however, it should be noted that just because something exists on one page is not an argument for its existence on others. Garchy (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's me. I still think there should be a mention of it (again, it's one of the most memorable moments of the Oscars ever, and Betty is part of it), but I got your point and do not intend to revert your edit on the page. Should we delete the paraph on the Faye Dunaway page too ? RomanSpring (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thank you for making an account, and welcome to Wikipedia! I personally don't think it's necessary on the page, but there could be others that feel it should exist on the page so we can wait for a discussion to see if it should be added in. For the Dunaway page you can certainly remove it if you'd like. Garchy (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: It seems relevant to the 89th Academy Awards article, but not the biographies of presenters. --Light show (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not relevant here. Essentially people are attacking Beatty for something he didn't do, perhaps because of his politics. It deserves a mention on the Awards article, but nothing else. It has no lasting significance.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to re-open this discussion. I don't think that its a negative aspect of Warren Beatty's life to be in that situation. I only know him from the Oscar Ceremony. So, how can it be irrelevant for his biography put this here? Let's talk? --Rafacasima (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

text: In 2017, Beatty reunited with his Bonnie and Clyde co-star Faye Dunaway at the 89th Academy Awards, in celebration of the film's 50th anniversary. After being introduced by Jimmy Kimmel, they received a standing ovation as they walked out onto the stage to present the Best Picture Award. They had the wrong envelope, leading Dunaway to incorrectly announce La La Land as Best Picture, instead of the actual winner, Moonlight. This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world. In 2018, Beatty and Dunaway returned to present Best Picture at the 90th Academy Awards, earning a standing ovation upon their entrance, making jokes about the previous year's flub. Without incident, Beatty announced The Shape of Water as the winner.
I don't think the sources really back all this up. With regard to social media, the source says, "The mix-up was the most-social moment from ABC’s Oscars telecast, topping activity on both Facebook and Twitter worldwide". It's unclear if that means postings related to the Oscars, or activity the whole night. The source also oddly says, "Neither Facebook nor Twitter had released data at press time of overall Oscars-related activity on Sunday, as they have in past years". In any case, it's only activity that night, so I don't think that amounts to a "sensation". With regard to their appearance to 2018, the source cited does not say they made jokes, though it could be inferred that their attitude was jocular. I don't think every appearance at an Oscars ceremony is notable, and I certainly think this could be dramatically shortened.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017 

message: Various IP's (likely related) have been adding back in this information, so it's time to bring this up again. While clearly a piece of Oscar history, this has very little to do with Beatty. He did not announce the name on the envelope, and other than being present for the incident he has very little to do with this. This is an encyclopedic page, chronicling 60 years of Beatty's career, and per WP:WEIGHT - "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The subject here is the Academy Awards, not Warren Beatty. To place it here on a BLP would amount to a "pop culture" or "trivia" fact, which we do not strive for. Garchy (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only the Academy Awards. Warren Beatty is part of it. Definitely. Julie Andrews' 2015 Oscar appearance is mentioned on her page because it was one of the most memorable moments too : "In 2015 Andrews made a surprise appearance at the Oscars, greeting Lady Gaga who paid her homage by singing a medley from The Sound of Music.[81] This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world." We could write the same thing on Beatty's page : "This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world." He is associated with this event, he is the one who gave the explanation so there must be at least a mention of it.  RomanSpring (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This user appears to be related to IP 73.13.33.173 - this account above was created 5 minutes prior to this comment, and this is the only contribution. The Julie Andrews appearance in the Oscars wasn't added because it was "trending all over the world" - it was added because it was directly correlated to her and played a large part in the Oscars (it was an anniversary for the Sound of Music). Going further, however, it should be noted that just because something exists on one page is not an argument for its existence on others. Garchy (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's me. I still think there should be a mention of it (again, it's one of the most memorable moments of the Oscars ever, and Betty is part of it), but I got your point and do not intend to revert your edit on the page. Should we delete the paraph on the Faye Dunaway page too ? RomanSpring (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thank you for making an account, and welcome to Wikipedia! I personally don't think it's necessary on the page, but there could be others that feel it should exist on the page so we can wait for a discussion to see if it should be added in. For the Dunaway page you can certainly remove it if you'd like. Garchy (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

text: It seems relevant to the 89th Academy Awards article, but not the biographies of presenters. --Light show (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not relevant here. Essentially people are attacking Beatty for something he didn't do, perhaps because of his politics. It deserves a mention on the Awards article, but nothing else. It has no lasting significance.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to re-open this discussion. I don't think that its a negative aspect of Warren Beatty's life to be in that situation. I only know him from the Oscar Ceremony. So, how can it be irrelevant for his biography put this here? Let's talk? --Rafacasima (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

text: In 2017, Beatty reunited with his Bonnie and Clyde co-star Faye Dunaway at the 89th Academy Awards, in celebration of the film's 50th anniversary. After being introduced by Jimmy Kimmel, they received a standing ovation as they walked out onto the stage to present the Best Picture Award. They had the wrong envelope, leading Dunaway to incorrectly announce La La Land as Best Picture, instead of the actual winner, Moonlight. This became a social media sensation, trending all over the world. In 2018, Beatty and Dunaway returned to present Best Picture at the 90th Academy Awards, earning a standing ovation upon their entrance, making jokes about the previous year's flub. Without incident, Beatty announced The Shape of Water as the winner.
I don't think the sources really back all this up. With regard to social media, the source says, "The mix-up was the most-social moment from ABC’s Oscars telecast, topping activity on both Facebook and Twitter worldwide". It's unclear if that means postings related to the Oscars, or activity the whole night. The source also oddly says, "Neither Facebook nor Twitter had released data at press time of overall Oscars-related activity on Sunday, as they have in past years". In any case, it's only activity that night, so I don't think that amounts to a "sensation". With regard to their appearance to 2018, the source cited does not say they made jokes, though it could be inferred that their attitude was jocular. I don't think every appearance at an Oscars ceremony is notable, and I certainly think this could be dramatically shortened.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing Oscar Flub discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Warren Beatty. 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/20081011222307/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23953 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23953
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) 17:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why have the names of all of the women Beatty has dated been removed? I know someone got upset because it said he dated Mrs. Santa Claus but we know the rest of the page is not vandalism because it has been part of the page for a long time, why has this been removed now? DorsetTiger (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems with the section extend far beyond the listing of Mrs Claus - some of the sources used are not reliable, while others don't support the claim at all. For example, a claim of dating Hannah Montana was cited to this source - both individuals are mentioned there, but there's no suggestion that they are or ever were dating. Because the subject is a living person, our BLP policy requires stronger sourcing and less gossip, as both Jonathan A Jones and Cullen328 pointed out. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Contentious claims about a living person require references to indisputably reliable sources. This whole section was referenced mostly to unreliable gossip rags and lying exploitative tabloid papers and websites. Perhaps a handful of these relationships are well enough sourced to be worth mentioning, but 95% of this is garbage. , when you restore disputed content to a BLP, you are assuming full responsibility for the source reliability and accuracy of every single assertion in that edit. Do you fully understand the implications of that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked several entries. The sourcing for Margaret Thatcher and Ann Widdecombe was just nonsense. The source for Vanessa Redgrave starts "A short list of Beatty’s loves is said to include", which is hardly adequate. I don;t think this list belongs in the article at all, but editors who want to reintroduce parts of it should as a minimum check each reference individually themselves rather than just blanket restoring a list including obvious nonsense on the spuriuous grounds that an incorrect claim has been in the article for a long time. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources included the trash tabloid the Daily Star and other gossip sources. Reliable sources covering his relationships in depth are allowable - rumour-mongering is not. Fences&Windows 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has list of dating history been removed? 

message: See the discussion I've started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Warren_Beatty,_Shirley_MacLaine_and_A._A._MacLeod. Mcljlm (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @MurrayGreshler Perhaps you'd like to add something to the discussion. Mcljlm (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A. A. MacLeod 

message: After noticing the "citation needed" note following "Patricia J. Williams said: "[Beatty] knows power... and this movie is effective precisely because it takes on the issue of power." " I tracked down the whole quote "he knows power, if not the ghetto, and this movie is effective precisely because it takes on the issue of power." at https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bulworth+agonistes.-a020942927 which shows it was originally in The Nation July 6, 1998, and then at https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=wikipedia&id=GALE|A20942927&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco. I now find the whole paragraph containing it has been deleted by MurrayGreshler.
Since Patricia J. Williams is described as legal scholar perhaps the whole quote should be reinserted, with a citation. Mcljlm (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you delete the whole paragraph? 08:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patricia J. Williams on Bulworth  

message: The reputation is well known, and every one of these match ups was mentioned in the press at some point . I don't think it should be omitted. Lady with an attitude (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Even from a quick look it is obvious that the list cites several sources not even remotely acceptable per WP:RS policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works, and what its standards are for biographical content are, before proceeding any further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

text: At least this time Anne Widdicombe and Margaret Thatcher aren't included on the list. It is utter trash, and frankly I don't understand why anyone (even an obvious sock) would waste their time creating a new account just to be told to go away and get a clue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little black book