Talk:Claire Danes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFC - Claire Danes persona non grata resolution[edit]

Consensus among editors below supports the current version. Closure requested at WP:CR (permalink). Good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 22:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.

What should be included about the persona non grata resolution against Claire Danes in Manila? We are currently discussing WP:BLP and WP:PMC violations in this RFC, and at BLPN. Assistance and input is appreciated. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Danes was declared a persona non grata (Philippines) by the Manila city council in 1998. She had been filming Brokedown Palace and the following was published in an interview with Premiere in its October 1998 issue: "The shoot was plagued with malaria and hepatitis outbreaks, and had to be shut down for several sick days. "It was just so hard," Danes says, now comfortably ensconced at a Beverly Hills lunch joint, where she's gobbling up a plate of extra-rare ahi. "The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. We shot in a real [psychiatric] hospital, so takes would be interrupted by wailing women--like, 'Cut! Screaming person.' Rats were everywhere." - Spines, Christine (October 1, 1998). "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. p. 66.

Sources:

Primary:

  • Spines, Christine (October 1, 1998). "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. p. 66.

Secondary:

Tertiary:

Current version: In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the Filipino officials. The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines and prohibition on distribution of her films in the region. The ban came after Danes said Manila, the capital of the Philippines, "smelled of cockroaches, with rats all over, and that there is no sewage system, and the people do not have anything – no arms, no legs, no eyes". Danes later apologized for those remarks, but the Filipino authorities refused to lift the ban.

Proposed 1: In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila. The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines and prohibition on distribution of her films in the region. Danes, who was 19 at the time, had been in the city filming and made derogatory comments about Manila in interviews. Danes later apologized for those remarks.

Proposed 2: In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila. The resolution also prohibited distribution of her films in the region. Danes, who was 19 at the time, had been in the city filming Brokedown Palace and made derogatory comments about Manila in interviews. Danes later apologized for those remarks.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote for Proposed 2 because very few sources claim she was banned from the Philippines, and all are tertiary. A footnote may be appropriate to mention the conflicting information among tertiary sources, along with the explanation in persona non grata (Philippines) stating that they are locality-specific, and additionally sentimental and non-binding. I would accept adding a quote, but it needs to be accurate.
I cannot support current version as is. It misquotes Danes (see passage from magazine at the top of the RFC) and changes the meaning of what she said, violating WP:PMC. This quote from Independent properly uses ellipses to maintain what was said without including its entirety (though it bowdlerizes her cursing). It also is only using four WP:TERTIARY sources, two of which are only a passing mention in articles about Dan Brown, and one of which is only a college thesis. There are plenty of WP:SECONDARY sources available to follow WP:PSTS and WP:BLPSTYLE, which I have included in the RFC. Saying Filipino officials also misleads readers into believing she was banned by Philippines government officials, when every secondary source about the event states clearly the persona non grata was a resolution passed by the Manila city council.
Further, there is substantial evidence she is not banned (nor her films) from the region, both in the tertiary sources, and in a tweet from Kim Atienza, who originally drafted the resolution and said "We cannot stop her from coming back because that is a diplomatic decision. But we can stop theaters in Manila from showing her films." in a statement to E! Online.
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version As accurate to the sources and rid of whitewashing.
    The article currently notes both possibilities of "a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines" because in the Philippines, "if a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country [...] Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council",[1] such as the Manila City Council. This is why most mainstream reliable sources say Danes is banned from entering the Philippines.[2][3][4][5][6][7] You can fool one source but not all sources.
    There are more issues with the proposed versions. Vulture.com's 2017 article says that Filipino President Joseph Estrada called "her apology disingenuous and adding that she would not be allowed back".[8] This indicates that the President was also involved in influencing the ban process as well as its aftermath that's why "city council of Manila" shouldn't get the mention for the ban alone; "Filipino officials" is accurate wording. A sentence like "who was 19 at the time" is a desperate ageist remark and shouldn't be used in the encyclopedia. All recent sources are also avoiding the mention of her age at the time of the incident because the world has progressed a lot. "Derogatory" is also subjective, and this is why the most relevant quote that resulted in the ban should continue to be used.
    We shouldn't be omitting the fact that "Filipino authorities refused to lift the ban", because that would provide a false impression to the readers that the apology worked or otherwise it would make Filipino officials look careless and unresponsive when they responded that they won't lift the ban. Removal of the text will only misrepresent the overall incident. TolWol56 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SYNTH. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (from BLPN) Support current version - The current version is providing a succinct summary of the event as supported by the cited WP:RS without editorializing as opposed to other proposals. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any concern that the current version is misquoting Danes and only using tertiary sources only mentioning the event in passing? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotation seems valid, see highlighted text here. Since the event has no mention on lead, there could be no problem in keeping it succinct in the section. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not, that's why I added the passage from the magazine in the RFC. See highlighted text here is succinct, but properly reflects what she actually said. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SquareInARoundHole: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version I don't see a solid reason to modify it per WP:NPOV. I understand it is not possible to be satisfied over just any current version of any page but that is because of the fundamental fact that Wikipedia is a work in progress. GenuineArt (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP explicitly enjoins this reasoning. "The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Regulov (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version since it's an accurate description of what happened. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove completely I came here from an old ANI thread and since looking at the issue think the whole thing is undue for this BLP. Most of the sourcing has been dodgy (tabloids, listicles, brief mentions etc). It takes up a significant chunk of her personal life (how is it even personal life) relative to other things that have happened over the 24 years since and if needed would best fit in the movie article. Failing that I would take one of the shorter mentions above without the quotes. Aircorn (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention briefly in §Acting career. My problems with the status quo are the length, which I find undue, and the possible "inclusive or" reading which will lead to confusion in readers and negates our goal of noting the disagreement of reliable sources. My proposed summary would follow the mention of Brokedown Place and say "Danes made derogatory comments about Manila, the filming location, and she and her films were banned from the city." A footnote could follow, with "Some sources say Danes was banned from all of the Philippines." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version: Latest articles from Vulture, Guardian and The National support the wording of the current version. There is no need to mitigate the paragraph which is already brief enough. We are not a PR. I also note that the proposer is engaging in inappropriate WP:CANVASSING.[9] Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:APPNOTE. You can see I neutrally ask for input since they made edits to the content recently. Their edits in no way reflect they will agree with me.
    • An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:
      • On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
        • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
        • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SquareInARoundHole: As you were told by Redrose64 above your text when starting this rfc was far too long for Legobot to handle, meaning the rfc wasn't advertised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture as it should have been, so very few people even know this rfc exists, people who may be very interested in participating, possibly for having previously edited this article, but can't since they last edited before your cut-off date, and thus, according to you, haven't edited the article recently enough... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This was fixed right after Redrose64 pinged me and is being advertised there. I did not indicate any cut-off date, that user happened to edit the content recently, so I said they edited the content recently. I reached out to other editors who also edited the same content previously or participated in RFCs or discussions about this topic who are still active on Wikipedia. I did not notify users who haven't edited in the past several years or indicated they are retired, like MarnetteD, despite that they may have interest in the topic. I believe I stuck to WP:APPNOTE properly to notify a limited, non-partisan audience with neutral messaging. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified a handful more users who have contributed to Claire Danes in the past. If you still feel this isn't enough, please let me know. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce. I'm inclined to agree with Aircorn above that this is being given undue weight. I think it is very unlikely that any distribution ban is, or has ever been, enforced. Pause and ask yourself whether you think Terminator 3 couldn't get distribution in the Philippines in 2003 over this. Do you imagine it is any harder to stream Homeland today in Manila than it is in Taipei? I doubt it. I contend that for practical purposes, there is no ban, either on entry or on distribution. It's just a young woman saying something ill-advised and some politicians grandstanding, 25 years ago. Trivia. I think the following suffices: "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila in reaction to comments she made in interviews following the shoot of Brokedown Palace." Regulov (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'disagrees with you' comment is inappropriately making it seem as if Jhy is stating his own views when he is in fact interpreting mainstream sources. The tweet you cited from Atienza, who is not in power since 2004, only provides encouraging words to a deleted Tweet. It's useless in this regard. Read WP:VERIFY since your own inaccurate researches only solidify the opposite. GenuineArt (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interpretation, though. Some sources say she was banned from Manila. Some say she was banned from the Philippines. Some say she was never banned. You have to be taking all of that information in and determining an opinion on what they all mean. That's what we are doing here, discussing our opinions and finding consensus.
Lack of bonafide confirmation she is or was banned (phrases like "appears to be") and ("as far as we can tell"), the Entertainment Weekly source, her biography. (Manila's city-council members ... voted 23 to 3 in favor of prohibiting all Claire Danes films from ever being shown in that city and discussion of follow up apologies that were "mature"), and a tweet of a Verified Twitter account of the local government official who wrote the resolution saying it was lifted "She has apologized many times. Clare Danes was young and careless then and has matured to be more responsible and retrospect in her observations. Clare is very welcome if she wants to." in a tweet is enough to support that it should not be included based on the contention in other sources per WP:SPS and WP:NOTFALSE, even though Twitter is not itself usually a reliable source. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But your own "interpretation", which others already known to be overly faulty won't be ever considered per WP:OR. Though I can guarantee that falsification like "her biography, and a tweet of a Verified Twitter account of the local government official who wrote the resolution saying it was lifted" will only invite sanctions on your account. GenuineArt (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I need to disengage from this conversation. I will edit my statement with the tq, but this isn't original research. It's published that her movies have been played there. It's published that she apologized numerous times afterward. It's published that her later apologies were accepted. In my opinion, that's enough of a reason to not include any claim that the ban of her films the region is still in place. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are weak and credulous. Allow me to assure you that the intern who churned out that Vulture listicle didn't do any independent reporting. The persona non grata resolution cost the city council nothing and committed them to nothing. Danes was unlikely ever to return to the Philippines anyway; it didn't sound like she had an especially good time there, and the Philippines is not a top-tier tourist destination. As for banning her movies, colour me skeptical. Enforcing such a ban would cost somebody money. Terminator 3 showed in Manila, to no one's surprise. The low quality of the reporting cited here should speak for itself. Gossip. Regulov (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be asking had you read these sources. The Nation and Cracked addresses that Terminator 3 (2003), where Danes has a supporting role, was released but the bans continue to remain at its place. It makes no sense when you pretend that Terminator 3 is the only movie Danes acted since since 1999. GenuineArt (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stardust was also screened there. ...the ban appears to remain in place and ...refused to lift the ban – which as far as we can tell, remains in place are both hardly confirmations she was ever banned, let alone that she still is. (Entertainment Weekly reported a year later that it was lifted following one of her many subsequent apologies). Furthermore, there's contention about whether or not she was banned from entry from the Philippines, given if you read all of the source material, none of the primary sources say anything other than a persona non grata was resolved on by the Manila city council. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those quoted statements actually confirm that the ban is in place.I checked all sources and saw there is not a single primary source claiming that "a persona non grata was resolved". You can't be this careless. GenuineArt (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved meaning they voted in favor of a resolution that was drafted, which was a persona non grata declaration. ``She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned,″ said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila’s mayor. (AP News), Councilor Kim Atienza, principal author of the resolution and a son of Manila's mayor, said the ban will continue indefinitely until Danes makes a public apology. The council passed the resolution 23-3. (CBS) "This resolution is in fact abridging her rights," said opposing city council member Julio Logarta. "Most of what she said is true." Logarta doubted that the council has the authority to enforce a ban. (Deseret)
"appears" and "as far as we can tell" do not sound like verifiable due diligence to me, so I disagree that those are confirmations, especially given the other sourcing that says otherwise. It's more likely that this is a tiny piece of trivia and the poor reporting is a reflection of how little this event has affected her career. I do think it's worth mentioning somewhere, and I appreciate a quote from her biography that discusses an opinion columnist in the Manila Bulletin's take: "The point was that while natives of Manila have serious problems to confront, Claire should not have been the one to point them out to the world." (p.60-61) SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit tendentious to say her films are banned even though her biggest film was not affected by the ban. Do you think Manila exhibitors were dying to release Richard Linklater's Me and Orson Welles? Was Stage Beauty banned? Or was it just a negligible flop? Listen, had it been a hit as big as Shakespeare in Love, you can bet an exception would have been made. Talk is cheap. I keep pointing to Terminator 3 because that is where the rubber hits the road. When it's time to get real, there is no ban. It is irresponsible to keep repeating this nonsense. Nobody has done any serious reporting on it for twenty years. The foundation for the claim that Claire Danes is unable to travel to the Philippines and her work is denied distribution in Manila is laughably flimsy. Regulov (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me and Orson Welles was released in Taiwan, while Stage Beauty was released in South Korea but both movies were not released in the Philippines. The Philipines has more number of English speakers than entire population of these countries as such we can safely say that the producers were eager to release these movies in the Philippines but they couldn't because of the ban. It is unwise to claim that the Philippines would care only about box office collection because they allowed release of unsuccessful Grace Is Gone in 2008 but they won't release much better performing Me and Orson Welles (2008) of Danes. Exceptions can be made to the ban, but to say that "there is no ban" because the exception was made is just nonsensical. GenuineArt (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points, as far as they go. But you haven't shown that the city council's non-binding resolution is the reason neither of those films was released in the Philippines, and I think that matters, particularly in a biography of a living person. I am not convinced, but I could be convinced. If there were reporting that gave some idea of the mechanism of enforcement—who does it? whose job is it to keep Claire Danes off Manila screens? who gives the releasing company the bad news? who did distributors negotiate with to get an exception made? who gave the green light for Terminator 3? Some indication that the ban has some kind of institutional reality—which it ought to have, if it's still chugging along after a quarter-century.
Or if for example Variety mentioned that producers had expressed frustration that this sticking point was denying them access to the market. Some acknowledgement from someone in the business that this was a real thing, that someone (preferably someone with a job title) had said, "Look, we'd love to be in the Me and Orson Welles business, but, you know, Claire Danes, so." Instead, all we have is lazy reporters pointing to other lazy reporters pointing to the original city council resolution—which, as has been established, is in itself non-binding. And if you want to say, "Well, things are different in the Philippines, it's all informal, it's all nods and winks," then I argue that is precisely not a ban. That is a feeling, a culture, a disposition. I feel those sources I have read provide insufficient ground to say that Claire Danes's work, or even only her feature-film work, is systematically banned in Manila. It looks to me more like the city council grandly ordered the tide to go out and then hastily left the beach, and since then everyone's just been taking their word for it. Regulov (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should note that I do not know for a fact that either Stage Beauty or Me and Orson Welles were not shown in the Philippines. I have not checked. Perhaps they were, which would of course strengthen my case. But don't take my word for it; I just pulled them out of a hat. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Regulov (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Family Stone was also screened in the region. [10] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...we can safely say that the producers were eager to release these movies in the Philippines but they couldn't because of the ban" Isn't this WP:SYNTH? So far all I can verify is that some of her movies have screened in the region, but cannot verify that any movies that were not screened, other than Brokedown Palace, were because of the persona non grata resolution. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found a source that specifically names Brokedown Palace, Mod Squad, and Polish Wedding. [11] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It names those three films in the reporter's voice, as instances of what would be banned were the city council to decide, "next week", to "ban all of the thespian's films". Regulov (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Me and Orson Welles was reviewed in the region in 2009.[12] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct interpretation: "A major Filipino outlet, with journalists outside the Philippines, had written a review of Me and Orson Welles." None of this is relevant here. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The dateline says Manila, Philippines. Stating it was reviewed in the region in 2009 is an accurate statement. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce and move to §Acting career. After consideration of other commenters and taking in previous edits of this event, I agree with some of the others that this needs to be reduced and moved to brief mention around the discussion of Brokedown Palace. It doesn't make sense that it is in her personal life, since it was related to interviews she did while filming there. I also agree that as it stands, it is WP:UNDUE. Propose reduce to a single sentence that states she was declared a Persona non grata (Philippines) by the Manila city council, which included a prohibition on her films, following her derogatory comments in interviews with Vogue and Premiere, avoiding all contentious claims, and update sources to secondary sources. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version There is no issue with sourcing and the paragraph. I agree with Jhy that if far more popular individuals can have larger paragraphs dedicated to the ban then why not this article? I note that The Beatles, the greatest music band of all time, were banished from the Philippines and that incident finds a whole paragraph at The Beatles#Controversies, Revolver and final tour. Is Danes bigger? There is no need to censor this incident. Khaleedasa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is breathtakingly poor reasoning. No one is proposing we "censor" or "whitewash" anything. Coverage on Wikipedia is not—or at any rate should not be—proportional to subjects' "popularity". The sources have been simply repeating an inaccurate version of events for more than twenty years. Danes has been declared persona non grata by the Manila city council, very well. But her films are not banned, either in the Philippines or more narrowly in Manila. The city council's resolution does not have the force of law. It constitutes censure, no more. I don't think we are safe to say she is herself unable to travel to Manila, either; that is something of a Schrödinger's cat. If she ever tries it, she, and perhaps we, will find out. It's okay for us to refer to the city council's "resolution", or, synonymously, its "declaration"; but not to a "ban", since that term implies enforcement which is not in evidence. This is the heart of the problem: irresponsible "news" outlets have been using the word "ban" for twenty years, just assuming there is a ban, when there isn't one. I encourage you to read WP:BLP, slowly and carefully. The page is currently way out of line with the policy. Regulov (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly reasonable to say that whitewashing is the case here so you can't say it is not happening. You could make sense only if you could provide sources for your misleading and made up views contradicted by all mainstream reliable sources provided here and out. Citing WP:BLP to exactly contradict what the policy says only strengthens views of Khaleedasa. What you are doing is called righting great wrongs. GenuineArt (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "whitewashing", then. I am happy for the page to reflect factual reality. It is true that I am trying to right a wrong; but I am not trying to right some perceived injustice out in the world. Rather, I am trying to correct an embarrassing inaccuracy in the text published on Wikipedia. I feel sure that is permitted. The question of whether Claire Danes's films are banned in the Philippines is contentious; you and I are contending over it right now. The claim that her films are banned in the Philippines must be removed immediately, per WP:BLP, until those who advance that claim can furnish stronger sources. The sources provided do not suffice. "All her films will be banned," Atienza announced in 1998. Well, did that turn out to be the case? Did Atienza et al. proceed to actually pass an ordinance into law? Did they even have the authority to do so? Were all her films, in fact, banned, or did they, in fact, play in theaters? AP printed Atienza's prediction. After that, all the foreign media blithely repeated it as fact. This is an elision of "All her films will be banned" into "All her films are banned". We know for a fact that several of her films escaped this imaginary ban. Look, sometimes sources are simply wrong—and WP:BLP makes clear we are to take no risks with people's reputations. Regulov (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no issue with sourcing - See WP:BLPSTYLE which states that WP:BLP's require reliable, secondary sourcing. Current sources are all WP:TERTIARY. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention Council resolution and President's statement, no forward looking statements. her projects are clearly available in Philippines, regardless of how much the sources have claimed otherwise with their failure to do any research on the matter and instead re-printing statements from older articles.Slywriter (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version per User:Khaleedasa and TW56. It is unnecessary to create a fuss about the greatly sourced content which is highlighting a significant controversy of the subject's biography. It is not even highlighted on lead but personal life section where it fits best. It is important to show apology and the refusal of apology, or else the paragraph will seem undue. Initially I thought the removal/reduction of this paragraph to be some systemic bias but a deeper observation suggested it to be nothing more than POV pushing. User:Gobautista(talk) 15:50, 8 June 2022
There's pov-pushing going on, all right. Regulov (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce and move, currently there is far too much weight on this, with twice as many words in her Personal life section as discussion of her husband and children. It's specifically related to comments made in an interview about a film, so it should be explained there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]
  • Support current version - There is no doubt that the content is unanimously supported by reliable sources. The paragraph stayed since 2005, and it fits well into the personal life section because the comments that got her restricted were not a career move. Overnight original research that has been pestered around won't deflect from the incident. Knox490 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources being used are tertiary. Looking at the secondary sources (which we are supposed to be the basis of what we write BLPs) and writing what the secondary sources say is not doing original research. It's supposed to be the procedure here. See WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:PSTS. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All sources that have been used are reliable secondary sources. You must refrain from engaging in wikilawyering over words and policies that you clearly don't understand. Knox490 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are unanimous? The only agreement in sources is that Manila Council passed a resolution declaring subject persona non grata (with no indiciation whether symbolic or had legal effect) and a statement from the President that all her films will be banned (with no indication such promise was ever fulfilled). Every other alleged fact beyond those is disputed and has been shown to be farcical when claiming such a ban still exists, if it ever existed at all, formally or informally. So stop with the nonsense of people are wikilawyering when genuine concerns with sourcing have been raised and not a single editor has attempted to address the issues with those sources instead resorting to ad hominems and deflections. This is a BLP, the strictest standards of sourcing and accuracy apply. Slywriter (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is a list of summaries from other articles, the other three aren’t even about Danes or the event, and only offer a summary (and in the cases of the two about Dan Brown, a wildly incorrect one) of the secondary sources. it doesn’t have to be an encyclopedia to be tertiary. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This message only confirms that you don't know the definition of secondary or a reliable source. Evo1885 03:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about whether or not those sources were reliable. Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. The key to a source being secondary is the author's own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. A list of summaries of secondary sources (which is the primary citation of status quo) is absolutely tertiary. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter That's still a poorly constructed original research. In the Philippines, a resolution can be oveturned only after filing of a successful resolution. You shouldn't be ignoring the Flaunt magazine [13] publication already linked] below on the protection section. It has interview with Danes including about the entry and movies ban. If you lack the access to the link then read the relevant snippets:
"She's starred in a television series, reached cult status, and been banned from the Philippines."
"actress was officially decreed to be persona non grata, banning her past and future films."
""I didn't say anything that bad," she asserts ...." <-- her reply regarding the ban.
The magazine issue was published after it was approved by Danes herself, as required by the American law.
I already said it days ago and I am saying it again that it is unnecessary to make a fuss about this non-issue.Evo1885 03:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it also be a non-issue for us to say in wikivoice, based on that source, that the Philippines is a country where wives can be purchased over the Internet and religious fanatics crucify themselves for the tourists every Good Friday? Why even put it in quotes? It's simply a fact; I have it on the authority of Michael Krugman at Flaunt magazine. So can we just say it outright?
That source is extremely low quality. Try again. Regulov (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is an expert on the Philippines then there will be no problem but looking at his credentials, he seems to be an expert WP:RS on Claire Danes. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He does? He doesn't seem that way to me. I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes expertise. Regulov (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking interview of Danes and having it published on a mainstream magazine and being cited by a prominent biographer on Danes. That makes him an expert. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that does not say she was banned from entry to the Philippines. In the lede of the article, it summarizes the accomplishments it will lay out in the article. The ban being referred to from the Philippines is, as it says in the expanded content, on ...her past and future films, and in the secondary sources close to the event, it clarifies the Persona non grata (Philippines) was from the Manila City Council.
The source you are referring to, without trying to synthesize anything, only supports a version of the content myself, Aircorn, and Regulov have offered. That is, that she was declared a persona non grata by the Manila City Council for comments she made in interviews with Vogue and Premiere magazines about Manila after she finished filming Brokedown Palace. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't miss that she has "been banned from the Philippines", as the publication makes it crystal clear. It would be grossly absurd to think that the interview published false claims and Danes had no objections to it. Do you have a source that says Danes reject these claims? You can't cherrypick the words you like and accord with your own POV. That said, interviews are primary sources and when secondary sources say the same then you have no point left to make. I know that those who are too much into the subject don't believe a word anything outside their own imagination like you absurdly claiming here and in the below section that the article "misquotes Danes". Just remember that here you are first a Wikipedia editor and it is your responsibility to maintain decorum. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please spare me the lecture. False or misleading celebrity "journalism" doesn't defy the laws of thermodynamics—it happens all the time. And some people's willingness to believe anything that is printed, particularly anything that is merely repeated, makes it difficult to correct. Regulov (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again it says "Banned from the Philippines", and later clarifies "officially decreed to be persona non grata, banning her past and future films." It does not say "banned from entry to the Philippines". While it's possible the author thought a Persona non grata in the Philippines implied a ban from entry, the author did not write that. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is highly misleading. You are trying to pretend as if the author is correcting himself when in fact he is just stating the facts throughout the article also backed by other reliable outlets. I still see no answer to the multiple questions I asked. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce/remove, no objection to moving the reduced version. An event from over two decades ago that had very little impact if the dearth of recent sources is anything to go by. Definitely no reason to run a whole quote, and in a BLP at that. CMD (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me some time to decide. I support current version because it's a major incident and also a major part of this biography. I searched for the most recent biographical WP:RS on the subject and the most recent one I found that it has detailed this incident. I have found an older WP:RS telling us that "She was immediately taken to task by journalists and civil rights activists, and though she later apologized, the experience clearly stung." [14] Be it 20 years ago or today, the incident continues to have a lasting impact on the subject's biography. As already discussed below, this incident subsequently contributed to Danes' 3 or 4 years of break from the industry,[15] but the article is currently missing a description about that. It really needs to be mentioned. That said, the arguments that speak of anything like "this is beyond my imagination" or "it needs to be removed or reduced" really thrive on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Removal makes no sense and the "reduced" version has been evidently tried before and it failed.[16] There is no need to try something that has already failed. When so many reliable sources are covering the incident then it deserves a larger description than what it provides right now. Others have mentioned how we treated the similarly controversial incident in other articles such as Anastasia Lin#Rejection from Miss World 2015, Jerry Vlasak#Banned from entering the UK, Michael Savage#Permanently banned from entering the United Kingdom, Hrithik Roshan#Personal life, The Beatles#Controversies, Revolver and final tour, by providing a larger mention of the incident. There is no need to set a new precedent for this particular article. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poisoning the well a bit? This isn't a WP:1AM where the one has been blocked.
Regardless, the "latest source" still does not show that she was actually and truly banned from the country. It does not prove that her movies were banned and remain banned, a falacy already disproven multiple times. It may show the event is WP:DUE, but as it stands Wikipedia will be publishing (and is currently) false statements. The event, if covered at all, should deal with the immediate timeframe and make no statements that imply she was banned from the country and remains banned nor that her movies were banned anywhere except Manila at the time, as Terminator proves the ban was short-lived, if enforced at all. Dismissing sources that do not fit the narrative ardently desired is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
TL;DR - ban changes nothing, any mention of persona non grata should be limited to Manila and include the councilmember quote that ban was symbolic. any mention of film ban should also include that Terminator was released. Otherwise, Wikipedia is presenting a false narrative. Slywriter (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your "most recent biographical WP:RS" is exactly the problem. That is not a quality source. That is tabloid "content". It contains zero independent reporting. It merely repeats what its author found googling "Claire Danes". I don't know why some editors cannot understand that a great number of bad sources still adds up to bad sourcing, and I can't help thinking that it may be more a question of "will not understand" than of "cannot understand". Regulov (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that you don't like does not become a 'tabloid'. Static Media is a reliable publisher. If they are printing wrong information then go sue them but until then Wikipedia will stick to what these reliable sources say, including Dane's own authorized interview (as required by the law) which verifies the facts that you don't like.[17] Evo1885 04:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement under American law that publishers seek the approval of interviewees prior to publication. That is a fantasy.
It is not a matter of what I like or don't like. You do not understand how Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines work. You believe that we must simply presume, uncritically, that everything published by, for instance, Static Media, can be repeated on Wikipedia, because it is a "reliable publisher". That is wrong. Every source must be evaluated on its own merits; and there is no solid source either for the claim that Claire Danes was unable to travel to the Philippines and would have been turned away at the airport had she tried, or for the claim that movie theaters in the Philippines—or even just in the city of Manila—were forbidden by law from showing films in which she appeared.
I think by now it is telling that you can produce so many hearsay sources and no strong ones. Where's the beef? Regulov (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Slywriter Why you are repeating the same argument which I already refuted above?[18] Your whole message can be summed up as correctly pointed out by the IP guy; WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reliable sources agree that the ban is still in place.[19][20] A self-admission in form of an interview was already linked by me above which supports that she got banned from the Philippines.[21] The magazine issue was published after it was approved by Danes herself, as required by the American law. Aren't you supposed to answer if Danes ever disputed these claims or if the resolution was overturned per the requirement? Your own personally constructed overnight imagination cannot be used for opposing what is "unanimously supported by reliable sources" as highlighted by Knox490 above. No council member said the "ban was symbolic". You are now making up just like SquareInARoundHole was and this is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Even if you don't want to agree with any of the facts you are seriously encouraged to read WP:BLUD and stop replying to every comment you disagree with. Evo1885 04:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why repeat the falsehood that American law requires Claire Danes to sign off on publication? Why are the sources two clickbait articles who likely got their information from Wikipedia and google searches? Neither is actual journalism, certainly not for a BLP.  Why pretend that this [source] does not exist where to quote "This resolution is in fact abridging her rights," said opposing city council member Julio Logarta. "Most of what she said is true." Logarta doubted that the council has the authority to enforce a ban." is stated? Why not refute that Terminator was shown in the Phillipines? Why not provide actual evidence the Phillipines enacted a nationwide travel and movie ban? Why deny that her movies are currently available to stream in Philippines? So instead of your baseless personal attacks that you use for deflection in lieu of real argument, how about address those issues?  And if you want to pursue your baseless personal attacks then WP:ANI is that way and we can have a full discussion of your ad hominem deflections vs my "disruptive editing & bludgeoning." Slywriter (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gobautista, ping.Slywriter (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not say the ban was symbolic. Someone doubting the ban doesn't mean that the ban becomes fake. This proves that you are absolutely "making up".
Instead of playing a victim, you need to understand that GoBautista has appropriately pointed out your misrepresentation of sources and intended bludgeoning even after already getting debunked a few times. Why do you even reply to someone when you don't want to hear anybody per WP:IDHT? 99.165.88.9 (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter Johnuniq Chipmunkdavis Knox490 Khaleedasa ScottishFinnishRadish Jhy.rjwk Thomas.W Firefangledfeathers Aircorn Aman.kumar.goel
Since I'm getting stonewalled, I will try a new tack. Having spent some time browsing the Philippine press, I am now more convinced than ever: this was never anything more than a pro forma performance of outrage by the Manila city council. I am also going to come right out and say that some of the editors arguing here are well aware of that fact and are arguing in textbook bad faith. Enough.
To the extent readers have any idea what "persona non grata" means, they will take it to be a rare and weighty measure imposed on foreign diplomats and dignitaries. It's how you expel spies: pretty serious business.
In the Philippines, however, persona non grata declarations are routine and toothless. Allow me to give you the flavour:
  • Last October, the city council of Baguio declared arbitration lawyer Omar Mayo persona non grata—just another appeal to public opinion in a long-running and intractable dispute over control of an electric utility. "The council said the resolution declaring Mayo persona non grata expressed the city’s sentiment against the NEA, but this would not bar Mayo from exercising his right to travel to and from the city."[22] No word on how his films will be affected.
  • Ten South Cotabato mayors declared four cops persona non grata over the way they went about serving 18 search warrants. "Galgo said the declaration will not stop the Philippine National Police from performing its duties."[23] Just reading between the lines, but I don't think the officers' new, non grata condition has forced them to move out of their houses. But maybe that's original research; I wouldn't want to do any original research.
  • The alumni of the Philippine Military Academy slapped a persona non grata on radio host Erwin Tulfo after he offered on air to slam former Army chief Rolando Bautista's head in a toilet.[24] Tulfo has recently been appointed to the Philippine cabinet. It's almost as if being persona non grata had no effect at all on his career.
  • The executive board of the Philippine Olympic Committee declared Philip Juico, head of the Philippine Athletics Track and Field Association, persona non grata over something to do with the salary of a pole-vaulter's coach. POC president Abraham Tolentino later clarified that in doing so, the board "did not penalize the [track and field association], in fact, he was not removed, suspended or reprimanded." The reporter goes on: "Tolentino said it’s the POC's prerogative to declare anybody a persona non grata—which means an unacceptable person to the POC."[25] It later emerged that the Committee's bylaws made no provision for declaring anyone persona non grata;[26] but they did it anyway because that is how Filipino public figures perform outrage.
  • Comedian Ramon Bautista (no relation) told a crowd in Davao that Davao women had nice bodies but ugly faces. You'll never guess what happened next. Like Danes, he rolled his eyes and apologized. His apology was not accepted. It was not sincere enough. Councillor Tomas Monteverde was kind enough to explain, however, that "while Bautista is not banned from visiting the province, he is 'not welcome.'"[27]
  • Singer Leah Navarro's sarcastic one-word tweet rubbed the potentates of General Santos city the wrong way—persona non grata!
  • Rodolfo Fariñas, then the majority leader in the Philippine House of Representatives, was pronounced persona non grata by politicians in his home province. Take careful note of his response: "He said such a declaration could only apply to aliens in the context of diplomatic relations. ... Fariñas acknowledged that in non-diplomatic usage, a persona non grata would be deemed ostracized. 'Such a person is for all intents and purposes culturally shunned, so as to be figuratively non-existent. That is what those 8 have done to me!' he said."[28] (Emphasis mine. I caution against trying to argue Claire Danes is a diplomat. Let's not be stupid.)
  • As part of the Philippine government's decades-long struggle against Maoist insurgents, the Department of the Interior proudly announced in 2020 that 1,546 local government units had declared the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army persona non grata.[29] Sadly, the strict ban had absolutely no effect on the conflict.
There are plenty more. At this point, I'm a little embarrassed I haven't yet been named persona non grata.
We cannot say that Claire Danes was banned, or that her films were banned, because readers will take that to mean something that is not the case; namely, that the appropriate organ of government had taken the necessary steps to make the bans a reality. That's what "ban" means to most people, certainly to me. When we talk about assault weapons bans or burqa bans or whaling bans, we understand there to be a meaningful chain of legal procedures culminating in some kind of more or less effective enforcement. But the Manila city council's ban of Claire Danes and her films is purely rhetorical. There is nothing but the declaration. It is outright false to say that she and her films are banned, and it doesn't matter how many lazy hacks have repeated the falsehood.
If I go out in the forest and say in a loud voice that Jimmy Wales is banned, I hereby ban him—in what sense is that a ban? What if instead of just saying it, I take out a full-page ad in the New York Times declaring he must not come to my town, nor speak to anyone in my town. "Regulov Bans Jimmy Wales! Jimmy Wales, who is unable to travel to Regulov's town, and whose speaking events are banned from the town, apologized for any distress his comments might have caused." Aha! He apologized! He really is banned!
Ridiculous.
How long is this circus going to go on? I have resolutely taken the high road, because I believe my side has much the better case. But I am a little sick and tired of getting stonewalled. As far as I can tell, TolWol56, GenuineArt, Gobautista et al. have no counter-argument whatever. Their argument begins and ends with "this article says the false thing, and this article says the false thing, and this article says the false thing—so it is true"; and (forgive me, but) the unspoken lemma is: "Filipino national dignity demands redress for this grievous and everlasting insult." Let's stop pretending.
Genuinely reliable sources will never correct this. It is simply not worth the effort; does anybody think a serious news outlet is going to put their best people on this story? Let's send Lois Lane to Manila to get to the bottom of that Claire Danes thing! Not going to happen. But it is precisely the absence of the ban that makes any future corrective reporting impossible. If there had been a real ban, it could be repealed; but there never was one, so it can't. What is there to talk about? What is there to report? So the only people mentioning it are those reporters too lazy to do anything but copy/paste. The stakes are too low, for everyone but Claire Danes; and she's had to just accept there's nothing she can do about it, and move on. Of course, this situation is precisely what WP:BLP is for. But there doesn't seem to be any mechanism to enforce our policy, any more than the Manila city council's.
There has to be a way for Wikipedia to solve this problem. I don't know what it is, because I am just a gnome, and prefer to pull weeds in silence. MarnetteD held the line against this nonsense for many years, and got called a white supremacist for their trouble. So it goes? Regulov (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same "content is beyond my likeness, remove it" by spamming wall of texts against reliably sourced content will never work. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're a fast reader, but not a very careful one. Would you like help setting up an account? Regulov (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so certain of the accuracy of the text, refute the points presented countering it. WP:ONUS is clear that the burden is on those seeking to include disputed content, not those seeking it's removal. Regardless, closer can wade through this and decide the merits as there is little value of further engaging with editors who insist on cherry-picking sources to present a preferred narrative. Slywriter (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean citing reliable sources isn't enough but to convince you against your already unconvincing original research is what others need to do. Both of you are not supposed to be a "truth finder" on here. First you both must read WP:POINT. After that, you must read WP:TRUTH, especially the part that "Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." Just bludgeoning is not enough for denying sourced content backed by a plethora of reliable sources. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective exclusion of sources to paint a false narrative violates WP:NPOV and is not compliant with WP:BLP, which trumps all other policies. Slywriter (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current version. Necessary content that is written with accurate details per reliable sources about both the happening and the aftermath of the incident. Mlgc1998 (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither accurate nor properly sourced. Regulov (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try again to discuss the issues. We will begin with the use of the following source: JS Adamson (2014). "The Prison - SFU's Summit - Simon Fraser University" (PDF). Simon Fraser University. Claire Danes (Alice) reportedly made racist comments about Manila in an interview for Vogue and Premiere Magazines... She was not welcome in this country.

This is not a reliable source for the claim that Claire Danes was banned from Manila, nor for the claim that Claire Danes's films were banned in Manila. It is a single reference, in a footnote, itself citing the 1998 CBS News report, to a dissertation about the portrayal of women in prison in Hollywood movies. TolWol56: you have reverted my removal of this "source". Presumably you are able to explain why you think it meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. Please provide your best argument. Regulov (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are trying to revert was written after backing from a number of participants at an earlier conclusive RfC.[30] We have already discussed this trillion times as evident from this RfC as well as sections all over. People are not going to tell you forever that you must stop rehashing these same arguments by WP:BLUDGEONING over and over. TolWol56 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you just answer the questions? "I've told you a trillion times". Tell me again. I am not bludgeoning; you are stonewalling. And I am going to win this argument, because I am making arguments, and you are not. The footnote reference to the CBS News report is not an independent reliable source for the claim. It must be removed. Are you prepared to go to the wall for this unbelievably flimsy "source"? Why? TolWol56, if you really cannot see how utterly worthless this footnote is as support for your claim, I am afraid it becomes a question of your competence to edit Wikipedia. What is your counter-argument? Regulov (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That university thesis is stating what other reliable sources say. You just don't want to listen. Read the RfC I linked and read WP:BATTLE and WP:STICK. TolWol56 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have listened to you, TolWol56, and I have read all the many irrelevant essays you have linked at me. The fact that the footnote is in a dissertation does not lend it credibility. The thesis is not about Danes's persona non grata status. The thesis mentions Danes, briefly, twice in 500 pages. Repeating a reliable source does not magically make something a reliable source. If you wish to cite the CBS News source instead, be my guest. Regulov (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me that TolWol56, GenuineArt, et al. will accept no changes of any kind to the description of the persona non grata business, for any reason. I believe this is because they are committed to presenting the facts in a particular way, for reasons of their own. I believe their adamant refusal to permit even the correction of an egregious and obvious misquotation, and their preference for linking "how to argue" essays over talking about the issues speaks to their disinterest in the core values of this project. I see Slywriter has requested a close; a moment of silence, please, for the worthy who volunteers. Regulov (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New "Philippine dustup" status quo per WP:BLP[edit]

I have read and considered all the debate on this page concerning the Manila city council's 1998 non-binding resolution declaring Claire Danes persona non grata. It is clear that the paragraph as it stands is in violation of WP:BLP. It misquotes Danes quite badly. The implication that Danes was herself banned from entering the Philippines and that distribution of her films was prohibited is, at a minimum, contentious; and I think is, by the preponderance of evidence, simply untrue.

I agree that the incident itself is worth noting in this article. But it is clear that the policy requires us to say no more than is uncontroversial. The onus is on those who want stronger language with respect to the "ban" to provide better sourcing. Most of what we have is no better than tabloid journalism. The name of the publication is not enough; it is also necessary to evaluate the quality of the reporting itself.

I am changing this:

"In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the Filipino officials. The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines and prohibition on distribution of her films in the region. The ban came after Danes said Manila, the capital of the Philippines, "smelled of cockroaches, with rats all over, and that there is no sewage system, and the people do not have anything – no arms, no legs, no eyes". Danes later apologized for those remarks, but the Filipino authorities refused to lift the ban."

to this:

"In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila in reaction to comments she made in interviews following the shoot of Brokedown Palace."

This is a minimal, conservative statement of fact which I believe all parties to the dispute can accept. It contains nothing untrue, and does not unduly distort the basic reality.

I do not pretend to be making this edit with the support of explicit consensus. We cannot wait for consensus. The BLP policy is a serious matter. I am being bold. I encourage those editors who are not satisfied with this version to think carefully about the policy and to seek consensus before reverting or adding anything beyond what BLP permits. I also recommend they concentrate on issues of fact and sourcing, rather than on editors' motivations or secret allegiances.

In particular, it is important to be absolutely precise in quoting Danes; paraphrasing is unacceptable. That the best sources we have for the city council resolution themselves badly misquote her complicates matters. If we quote her, we must source the quotes directly from Vogue and Premiere, and not repeat the sloppy paraphrases.

Similarly, any reference to banned movies or banned entry needs to be accompanied by an explanation that the resolution did not have the force of law, and that Danes's films have in fact continued to be shown in the Philippines. Regulov (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I am also moving the paragraph out of Personal Life. Regulov (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding an additional source in which Kim Atienza, who authored the resolution, states that they do not have the authority to bar her from entry, to avoid future contention. Appreciate your work on this. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have warned Regulov not to misrepresent BLP policy. If either of you want to make any changes, do it but don't touch the paragraph in question which was certified by an earlier RfC. This should not be changed without a new RfC which is ongoing. TolWol56 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I invite actual engagement with the issues. I am not misrepresenting WP:BLP, and you have made no attempt to detail the reasons you think I am. Again, please read the policy carefully. Regulov (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah yeah two of you engaging in WP:RGW by rejecting mainstream reliable sources have realized that you won't succeed since RfC is clearly going against you so you have resorted to edit warring. Regulov and SIARH, see WP:DE and WP:CON. The content has stayed there for many years and there will be no issue if it stays until RfC is concluded. Modifying to your version without gaining consensus is disruptive and you must refrain from doing this again. GenuineArt (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors—in particular, SquareInARoundHole—have worked tirelessly to explain the problems to you. Nobody is trying to rescue Claire Danes; if anything, it is you who have an axe to grind. "It used to be that way" is worthless; "It was that way for a long time" likewise. There is an issue every single day unsupported claims remain on this article. According to the policy, the version you just reverted is suitable until consensus is reached; your preferred version is the one which needs additional sources before it can be published.
I think part of the problem here is that you think that anything printed in the Guardian, for example, is automatically reliable. That is not how sourcing works. It remains necessary to evaluate every source on its merits; and your sources are poor, for reasons that have been given you in exhaustive detail. Your response has been, mainly, to repeat over and over "reliable source", "reliable source", like an incantation.
With a heavy heart, I am reverting. I honestly believe Wikipedia policy demands a much more conservative statement of facts until you can find better support for your claims. Please do not revert again. Note that I am asking you, rather than commanding you. Please give your best arguments. If you have already given your best arguments, you need better ones. Please try to actually respond to the many problems that have been pointed out to you. If you cannot come up with some better arguments, or find better sources, and also cannot refrain from reverting, I expect this dispute to end up in arbitration, sadly. Regulov (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TolWol56 & @GenuineArt:
BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.
Previous status quo used only tertiary sources, three of which were passing mentions in those sources, despite an abundance of reliable secondary sources, and far superior tertiary sources which actively contradict previous status quo. (see current version sourcing)
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
Previous status quo relied on tertiary sources previously mentioned, the crux of which weasely provided false authority that a ban on Danes from entering or her films being screened in Philippines was in place. "appears to be" and "as far as we can tell" are both weasling.
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.
Because prior status quo violated those two BLP standards, Regulov was correct to remove it, as I, and others, had done before, regardless of the RFC.
The secondary sources do not state she is, or was, ever banned from entry. In fact, two of the secondary sources reveal council members stating they do not have the authority to ban her from city, let alone the country, including a statement from Kim Atienza, the principle author of the resolution. There is no actual reporting that any of her films weren't shown in Manila (or the Philippines for that matter) because of the persona non grata, but there is reporting that several of her films were screened in the region, including (but not limited to) Terminator 3, Stardust, and The Family Stone. (see RFC above)
Additionally, Regulov and I are two separate editors, please do not address us as a unit to make it appear we are one versus many. Regulov boldly enforced BLP with their edits. I constructively, but minorly, modified their edits.
Adding her quotes from the Magazine to the citations and moving the content down one paragraph to the mention of her starring in Brokedown Palace, bypassing chronology is not disruptive editing and does not require consensus. Ironically, by ignoring secondary sources (and a dozen or so better tertiary sources), previous status quo used Wikipedia to inappropriately make the outcome of her comments more punishing than it actually was.
The content has stayed there for many years - The content was altered and removed by several editors over the course of the past 3 years. One editor has repeatedly stonewalled previous status quo to ensure it stays exactly as that editor prefers, refusing to allow the content to change over time in collaboration with other editors. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40],[41], [42],[43], [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bludgeon all you want and I am not willing to entertain that. This nonsensical bludgeoning and frivolous attempts to overturn the RfC will not get you anywhere. You should really to find a topic about which you are less emotive. GenuineArt (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
frivolous attempts to overturn the RfC will not get you anywhere - Again, Regulov and I are two different editors. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and yet her projects are clearly available in the Philippines and I do believe editors are acting in poor faith here questioning the motivations of those challenging the content, rather than actually disputing it with sourcing and policy based rationale. An attitude which should stop immediately.Slywriter (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter:: See also all of these from secondary sources:
  • ``She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned,″ said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila’s mayor... Councilor Julio Logarta, one of the three who voted against the resolution, said the ban was a curtailment of freedom of expression... Logarta also questioned the council’s authority to ban movies.[53]
  • Claire Danes is persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films.[54]
  • Manila's city council on Tuesday banned all movies of Claire Danes... "She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned," said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila's mayor.[55]
  • But Danes went "overboard" in Premiere, Atienza claims, and the Manila city council will discuss next week whether to ban all of the thespian's films... "She painted a surreal picture of Manila," Atienza said. "Those are irresponsible, bigoted and sweeping statements that we cannot accept. We cannot stop her from coming back because that is a diplomatic decision. But we can stop theaters in Manila from showing her films."[56]
  • After the publication of two interviews in which 19-year-old Claire Danes said unkind things about Manila, the city council voted 23-3 this week to ban her movies... "This resolution is in fact abridging her rights," said opposing city council member Julio Logarta. "Most of what she said is true." Logarta doubted that the council has the authority to enforce a ban.[57]
  • Several of her films were screened in the region, including (but not limited to) Terminator 3, Stardust, and The Family Stone.[58][59][60][61] Me and Orson Welles was also reviewed in the region. [62]
This all makes it seem fairly obvious to me that 1) she was never banned from the region (Kim Atienza is certainly an authority on a resolution he authored!), and 2) the ban on her films was either unenforceable per Councilor Julio Logarta's opinion, was simply not ever enforced, or, as reported by Atienza in a tweet in 2020 and Entertainment Weekly in 1999, her subsequent apologies were considered genuine and accepted and the persona non grata was lifted as reported (and we'll never know if it was actually enforceable!). SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: These are quotes from the reliable, secondary sources. Current status quo is bypassing these sources in favor of 4 tertiary sources, 3 about other things with a passing mention of the event (2 about Dan Brown with false information saying the president of the Philippines banned her personally from the country in 1999, despite that there is absolutely 0 evidence that this ever occurred, but rather in 1998 he said she "Shouldn't be allowed to step foot here." in response to the Manila city council's persona non grata resolution [63]).
Plenty of editors (myself included) feel that this mention at all is WP:UNDUE here, as it currently exists in Persona non grata (Philippines), but if it stays, it should at least be accurate and properly sourced with reliable, secondary sources per WP:BLP and WP:PMC. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@TolWol56: @GenuineArt: @Jhy.rjwk: @Khaleedasa: So ... anything more to say? I know if I revert—as policy demands—it'll just get immediately flipped back, "pending developing consensus". So here I am, on the talk page. Where are you? Let's develop consensus. Where are your arguments? You've heard mine, at great length. Bear in mind, you have an audience: speaking for myself, I will not tire and leave you in possession of the field, so this dispute will eventually attract the attention of other editors, who will wade through the arguments and make up their minds who has the better case on the merits; and I am confident you need to shore up your position. Regulov (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that can't be supported by any sources has been responded many times. Rinsing and repeating same argument in every single response is not the right thing to do. You should really to find a topic about which you are less emotive. GenuineArt (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should really get comfortable, because I'm not going anywhere. I have done no original research. I've read the same sources you have. It is true the story I am telling is speculative; but I am not proposing adding my narrative to Wikipedia's biography of Claire Danes. My goal is to give an account that explains why the sources are so feeble, so repetitive, so tangential; why there are so many exceptions to the ban and no positive evidence of the ban in effect. I think I have done that.
You say you have responded many times. Okay. How? Please treat me like a child and sum it up for me simply and clearly. I'd like to see your position spelled out in one place. I have put my case, in my way. SquareInARoundHole, likewise, in their own way. Maybe it's just a sign of my stupidity that I feel I need to have your response carefully repeated for me; but I am your colleague, and I am asking you to humour me. Regulov (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to claim that this argument is not supported by any sources, when the reliable, secondary sources all support the argument. Ignoring the city councilor who authored the persona non grata resolution saying that they do not have the authority to ban Danes from entering the region in favor of subpar tertiary sources that support status quo advocates' version of events is ignoring WP:BLP and Wikipedia's standards in general. No one here wants to bludgeon the process, but you don't respond to replies with valid criticisms and challenges, so what else are we to do? What is on Danes's page is verifiably false at worst, and contentious and un-encyalyopedic at best, and policy demands it be removed immediately. We are not supposed to insert our own feelings about what Danes said or the outcome, and that is what is happening here, and that's why status quo requires WP:CHERRYPICKING and violating WP:BLPSTYLE to be maintained. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious with these claims. The article does not "misquotes Danes", when not only the attached sources but tons of sources on Google confirm the same quotation. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But a misquotation cannot be justified by repetition. Regulov (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Philippine section[edit]

Maybe I shouldn't start a new section; but User:SquareInARoundHole, who did most of the legwork for my side of this dispute, has been banned for reasons immaterial to this dispute, and I'm here holding the bag, and I want to get out in front of any attempt to make the ban grounds to dismiss what I continue to believe are good reasons to be more conservative in our treatment of the Manila city council's "ban" of Claire Danes in 1998.

The core of the case is this: there is good reason to suspect that Filipino lawmakers did not in fact ever do the less attention-grabbing and more (politically and economically) costly work of enacting a real-world ban of Danes's movies. The appearance of "will" and "should" in the earliest sources is something of an acknowledgement that this work remained at that time incomplete. There have been many exceptions to the claimed ban, and I don't see anywhere a positive statement that any film has not been shown in the Philippines because Claire Danes is in it and her films are forbidden. More hole than cheese?

The great majority of sources cited do say that Claire Danes and her films are banned in the Philippines, but without attribution, as though it were simply common knowledge. After, say, 1999, there isn't any serious writing here; it's all hastily written celebrity news. I think it is safe to say none of the writers called anyone in the Philippines, and if pressed for how they know Claire Danes and her films are banned in the Philippines would themselves offer a subset—likely only a few of the most recent—of the list of sources on this page. They googled it, and repeated what Google turned up, and now we are repeating them. I just think we should be careful. It looks to me like we are getting it wrong, and I feel the sourcing should be stronger. I agree there is plenty of it, but it's all such thin gruel. Am I crazy? Am I the only one who thinks chatty star gossip and listicles aren't reliable for claims about what is and is not legal in the Philippines?

As for the quotes that outraged the Manila city council, I maintain we absolutely cannot justify any synthetic quote combining words from the Vogue interview with words from the Premiere interview, even if we're repeating AP's synthesis. No room for argument, here.

I think the desire for this episode to be longer than one or two sentences lies for some editors in a feeling that Danes deserves a bit of the pillory. I think we should be wary of this feeling. I think the whole thing should be summed up briefly and drily. I don't think SquareInARoundHole's ban weakens the case for being more circumspect in wikivoice; I also don't think it is fair to accuse SquareInARoundHole of bludgeoning. I will admit that seeing SquareInARoundHole's handle in red did give me pause; I recalled the invocation of stormfront.org, way up above, in kneejerk response to an editor raising good faith UNDUE worries; I recalled the unpleasant appearance of a discretionary sanctions alert on my own talk page over this dispute; and I will say I feel a little chilled. I am in no way "emotive" about this issue—but maybe I really should find a topic I won't get blocked for talking about.

Sorry for going on and on again; I admit I have a hard time controlling it. Regulov (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polish not WASP[edit]

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/174019714/frederick_m_tomowske 24.7.63.27 (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

claire natalie tomowske @ geneanet[edit]

https://gw.geneanet.org/jybcelebs?lang=en&n=tomowske&p=claire+natalie 24.7.63.27 (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claire_Danes&oldid=1217727725"