Talk:Traci Bingham

Race

Removed redundant "She is African-American." as that is also stated in "She is 1/4 African American." 72.191.121.65 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Extension school

Removing sentence about Harvard Extension. That info can be found at linked page for said subject. Also removing POV statement about what constitutes a "Harvard drop-out", no source to back that definition up. Sorry. --149.159.1.209 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove Harvard from article

Traci never completed the prerequisite admission requirements to apply for the degree program at HES. She just took some classes there. Attending HES does not make one a Harvard student. If she had applied to one of the formal degree programs administered by the Extension School, then she would've been considered a student. Only degree candidates who meet certain admission requirements are considered students of Harvard.

High School

I don't feel like looking for a source, so I'm not going to add this to the page, but she went to the same high school and studied with the same acting teacher as Ben and Casey Affleck, Matt Damon, and Max Casella. Her tenure there probably overlapped with Matt's and Max's, but not Ben's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.233.54 (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dating

Bingham has admitted on the Howard Stern show that she prefers dating white men.

This is not true. Dumaka (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I guess it is true. Dumaka (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult film actress

She's also a porn actress. Google her. 107.19.189.169 (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Traci Bingham. 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/20090120152225/http://www.peta.org/feat/tracibee/index-uk.html to http://www.peta.org/feat/tracibee/index-uk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Litbreeze's edits

@Litbreeze:: Welcome to Wikipedia. As a veteran editor, let me see if I can address each of the points you raised in your recent edits to Traci Bingham, including the ones in which you reverted my edits ([1], [2], [3]):

Reliable Sources and TMZ.com

Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources requires that the material in its articles, especially (thought not solely) contentious or controversial material, especially about living people, be supported by inline citations of reliable, secondary sources -- that is, sources that generally have a reputation for reliability. For material that states that an article subject signed a contract to participate in a hardcore pornographic photoshoot and that they reneged on it, thus requiring legal action, such sources would have to be excellent. TMZ.com is absolutely not considered reliable for such material, as indicated during numerous discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc.

Superior Court of California

A California court's records would be reliable, but the link you added was to the California Superior Court's main page, which is not acceptable. You responded to this by stating, "nightscream don't be lazy. Type in her name in the court link". Actually, Litbreeze, it is you who has to provide the url of the webpage that contains this information. You don't just put the main page of a website in a citation and tell others that they are the ones who have to go searching for it, since it is you who has to establish that that website has that info.

Also, you make the claim regarding Bingham's name, "It is Traci Vallier in case you don't actually read this wiki". In fact, I have read the article, and prior to your most recent edits, it did not make any mention of her name being Traci Vallier. The only place in the article where the name "Vallier" appeared was in the Infobox, where that was given as the surname of her husband. In addition to there being no citation for her marital status, even if this were true, it does not mean that it is her surname, since female entertainers often retain their maiden names for professional purposes.

As it so happens, I did enter both "Traci Bingham" and "Traci Vallier" in the Superior Court's search engine during my previous edits, and it yielded no result for either name. Why you assume I didn't, I don't know, but if you have the url of the specific webpage that contains that material, then please add it.

Along similar lines, adding arguments and notes to the article body, as you did when you added the text "The facts are established in the court's findings. Enter the name TRACI VALLIER in court search at the court's link provided above." to the article text, is inappropriate. You don't use articles to argue with other editors. If you wish to cite a rationale for edits, you use the edit summary, and if a conflict arise between you and another editor, it should be discussed on a talk page. Such material is not going to remain in the article.

"Hypocrisy"

If a reliable source criticized Bingham of hypocrisy for the reasons you state, then including such material would not necessarily be unreasonable in the article. Otherwise, this is your viewpoint, regardless of whether you think it is a "fact", and we do not include editor's viewpoint, as explained by WP:NPOV. Moreover, if a reliable source did make such a claim, it would be explicitly attributed to that source. It will not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as a fact, as you did when you added the text "The facts are established in the court's findings. Enter the name TRACI VALLIER in court search at the court's link provided above."

Other edits

• The subsections you re-added to the article are redundant, and inconsistent with how articles are written elsewhere on Wikipedia. Sections are divided into subsections when they have grown large enough to justify it, and should therefore not be arbitrary. Because the information on Bingham's career can easily be organized chronologically into a decent-sized section, creating sections as little as one sentence for things like "other television" is not justified.
• Only the first word & proper nouns are capitalized in headings, as explained at WP:SECTIONHEAD.
• A person's graduation is generally explained by simply giving the year of the event, and not with the unnecessary "class of" format. You can see this by looking at articles of other people on Wikipedia, including entertainers.
• Regarding the passage "She currently participates in a daily morning broadcast": First of all, the cited source for this is a dead link, and when I looked for replacement sources via Google, I found her described on the station's own website as a "friend of the show", which is another way of saying that she's a "frequent guest", and not a "daily participant", which implies that she is employed as one of the show's hosts. Second, even if we include this, this would be part of her professional career, so why put it back in her Personal life section?
• Restoring the word "committed" in front of the word "vegetarian" is redundant, and a violation of Wikipedia's requirement that material be worded in a formal tone.

If you want to edit Wikipedia, then please take the time to learn its policies and guidelines. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We've edited to simply note that TMZ reported on the Court's findings. How's that? Or can not TMZ report on the court's findings? Litbreeze (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The California Court's website does not allow direct link to the case. We've updated the url to do a simple name search of the case: Vallier, Traci Litbreeze (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nor does it mean it is not, simply because you can find it Nightscream. Vallier is in fact her legal surname. She retains her ex husband's last name. Your argument fails to apply the same logic to your point. The CA Court case lists her by her legal name of Vallier as Defendant. We could easily edit and note that ROBB VALLIER is her EX-Husband (spouse from 1998-2001), but apparently you'd revert the edit because we don't provide factual evidence to what is a clear known fact by anyone who knows Traci, or a simple google search, but we don't want to get into a flame war... Litbreeze (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated the CA Court url for your ease of finding the Vallier (yes her legal surname although the MA court accepted her stage name of Bingham). Litbreeze (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not mutilate my posts by inserting your responses in the middle of them. I prefer to keep my posts intact and separate from those of others.

When you say "we've edited", who's "we"? How many people am I speaking with here?

TMZ is not a reliable source for contentious material, as I explained to you above, with links to discussions with others who have concurred with this. Your response appears to be to simply ignore this. Why is this?

You've added a link to Open Access, which makes no mention of the material in question.

You've also completely ignored all the other policies and guidelines pertaining to all the other edits you made. Why is this?

I will contact other editors or administrators regarding this matter. Nightscream (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)