Talk:Richard Quest

message: Hi - please be aware there is a discussion at the noticeboard regarding some disputed content and join in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard - here - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find it there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP noticeboard report - 2 

message: arrest records are public record in the USA and fully reportable by any publication, (BLP violation removed) 217.16.113.220 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're saying is that there is no law in the USA saying that Wikipedia cannot mention such things. But equally, that does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily should mention such things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  public figure public domain 

message: Given the ongoing edit-warring to add material violating WP:BLP, including by editors who should know better, I have requested pending changes protection for this article at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFPP request 

message: IMO is UNDUE and I suggest we determine if there is consensus for its inclusion in the BLP.  Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is it UNDUE? If Quest was straight and the sentence read "Quest was arrested at 3:40 a.m. in New York City's Central Park while walking with another woman", would that be UNDUE? This is a double standard and proves my point. For some reason Wikipedia users who have an issue with this are oversensitive and react to even the slightest hint of anything remotely homophobic. It really isn't a big deal and people are proving my point by repeatedly removing the most basic phrase about "walking with another man". I agree the sexual details of the arrest do not need to be in the article, but there is nothing UNDUE or lurid about the phrase "walking with another man", especially now that Quest is openly gay it really shouldn't be controversial. Ifinteger (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For what purpose does "walking with another man" used?   If it is unrelated to the drug charge entirely, then it is also unrelated to the sentence in which it is placed entirely.  If we found out that he was wearing a blue shirt, would you find that to be of "encyclopedic value"?  That, after all, is the real basis for any Wikipedia edit.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed you didn't respond to my point about Quest walking with a female, would you (and the other politically correct users) make such a fuss about removing that phrase as well? Ifinteger (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said clearly - I would do the same for a claim that he was wearing a blue shirt.  Irrelevant is irrelevant is irrelevant.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Collect, again you are dodging my point by bringing up "wearing a blue shirt". My question pertained to the fact that you (along with Bbb23) wouldn't have an issue with the phrase if it mentioned a heterosexual couple (i.e. Quest was walking with a female). Please stop trying to compare that with wearing an article of clothing. Please address that issue, otherwise re-insert the text about Quest "walking with another man", esp since he is now openly gay. Ifinteger (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, if the claim was "walking with a woman" I would have precisely the same opinion -- the material is not germane to the claim which is about a drug arrest.  Period. Collect (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "walking with another man" 

message: It appears to be unrelated to any criminal charges whatsoever, and is about as relevant as saying some was arrested "while reading the Daily News" or the like,  or "wearing blue jeans."  Material which is not of actual encyclopedic value should not be in a BLP. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion

message: I don't see that he was actually convicted of any crimes? Should the Criminal Deviance section be changed to "Deviant Behavior" perhaps? It's deviant to get arrested in the park with a rope tied to your genitals and neck with drugs in your possession, but if he wasn't convicted of a crime, is it really criminal? 2600:8800:2918:A600:2DF9:4A88:948D:A686 (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Deviance