Jump to content

Talk:Brittny Gastineau

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


Sources

[edit]

name

[edit]

her name is Brittny Gastineau

source: http://www.celebopedia.com/brittny-gastineau/

- Stoph 03:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I changed the redirect back from the improper (Brittany Gastineau) to this. I'm sorry, I had incorrectly sourced info. jglc | t | c 03:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is her age again?

[edit]

The article comes up under 1982 births yet the body states, 'Brittny Gastineau is an American born socialite, model and actress. Born on November 11, 1983...'

Which is it? Shaybear 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the ratings information, because it was all wrong. The show actually averaged a .2 (roughly 200,000 viewers), and opened the season with a .4 (roughly 400,000 viewers). source: http://www.mediavillage.com/jmr/2005/07/25/jmr-07-25-05/


Why its origin has been removed. Her italian, Russian and French descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.179.84.129 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brüno

[edit]

People keep deleting the information about her in Brüno. It is true and it is sourced. All removals of this information are vandalism. Spidey104 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true -- she's listed as cast on imdb. Please include this appearance in the article, and DO NOT delete it!! 24.143.45.232 (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S trivia and unsourced and should not be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.229 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT trivia. It is a legitimate movie. Just because you don't like that she showed a negative side to herself does not mean you should remove it from her article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.238.139 (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I don't like it. Not because it's a unsourced quote from a living person about another living person in a on-off apperance in a movie. No, it's not that at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.191.243 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Oh and the content about her apperance is already mentioned sans the unsourced quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.191.243 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edit summary for the last few removals. Focusing on this single quote seems to be giving undue weight to the comment...a comment which she later claimed (truthfully or not) was a joke. What's special about this quote that it requires inclusion? --Onorem♠Dil 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as above. While the appearance may be notable, the insistance on going into detail about what she said, especially without context, is giving undue weight. In response to what Spidey104 said at the start of this section, removal of this material (or addition, for that matter) is not vandalism in any way, shape, or sort. Due to the IP's persistence in adding this material without discussion, the page is now semi-protected so we can all discuss the matter here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not giving undue weight. It is illuminating her character and showing what she is really like. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Others apparently disagree. Please gain consensus instead of edit-warring over the issue. --Onorem♠Dil 17:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, welcome to wikipedia, 128.104.truth, I'm glad you've registered an ID here, and hope you stay on the wiki. Good to have you!
As for the information on the subject, what's missing are sources showing the notability (and seriousness) of her comments. You say that it's showing "what she is really like," but that's not what wikipedia is here for. An encyclopedia doesn't (and shouldn't) take sides. If her comments had caused a major stir in reliable secondary sources that we could quote, maybe then it would be notable enough for a mention. It's not up to us to judge what's noteworthy, or to show people what the subject of an article is "really like." Dayewalker (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Onorem say I should get consensus? There was consensus to include this information and then other users started the edit war to have it removed. I'm the hero here for trying to maintain what consensus had already established, so stop making me out to be the bad guy. Look at the guy with the rotating IP addresses to find the real bad guy. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Consensus can change over time. Now that we've got more eyes on the page, consensus clearly seems to be against inserting that information. I'm not interested in making anyone the "bad guy" here, so we're just talking about the validity of the information as presented. As I stated above, even leaving aside the issue of whether the statement was a joke, this doesn't seem to be notable. Just because she said it (in some context) doesn't mean it belongs in her wikipedia article. Dayewalker (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize consensus can change, but I would argue that this new "consensus" was artificially created by one person using multiple IP addresses. Also, you present no reasoning for why it is not notable. I argue that it is notable because there were a lot of people in that film and not all of them behaved in the same way, so to differentiate between them it is important to state what she did/said. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus exists this is not notable. Just because a case was filed on the BLP board and went nowhere does not invalidate the opinions of other editors. As for notability, please read wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Simply because something exists doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Dozens of people were in Bruno, and Borat, and the Jackass movies, etc. We don't need to fully explain what everyone does in every movie. She was in the movie, that's enough. Dayewalker (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus exists? What, between you and the guy with a rotating IP address? 128.104.truth (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus exists on this talk page, if you'll read the above section. Further, an admin looked at the situation, and locked the page to keep you from edit warring your changes onto the page without consensus (or even trying to gain such). In any case, you still haven't shown how this is notable to a biography of a living person. BLP's are especially well-protected on Wikipedia to prevent people from using them for personal comments and interpretations. If you feel it's notable, please feel free to take this up on a relevant noticeboard, such as WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not exist on this talk page! Besides you there is only one person who has argued against this, the guy with the rotating IP address. That guy has also mysteriously disappeared, so how do I know you're not actually one guy instead of two? There is already a discussion on the WP:BLPN started by that guy with the rotating IP address, and he's the one that started the edit war. I'm just trying to maintain the consensus that existed before that ONE person tried to make the consensus go away. So stop making claims with no actual backing. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 128.104.truth about what should be included in this article, but it's not worth my valuable time to try to fight with you zealots. --Spidey104 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know, I've asked for more opinions at the BLP board here [1]. Dayewalker (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresented the situation. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misrepresent the situation, you're more than welcome to comment on anything you disagree with. Dayewalker (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restate my opinion from the BLP noticeboard. You cannot take a comment made in a movie as being representative of Gastineau's opinion without some secondary source to back it up, as we have no idea of the context of the comments. Without any media discussion of the comments they carry undue weight, in that they do not fairly represent a viewpoint published in a reliable source. Finally, as this material is clearly being added to show Gastineau in a negative light, it must be impeccably sourced, which it is not. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The context is evident in the movie, so we can understand her comments as true. 128.104.truth (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the very definition of original research. This needs a reliable source for context, otherwise it's all speculation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus that this material does not belong, and if I see it added again prior to an alternate consensus being formed you're going to be blocked. Kevin (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newcomer to this discussion and article, and I'd like to think I'm a fairly experienced editor. I have inserted a brief mention of her appearance in the article. Regarding the claim to consensus, I disagree that there is "clear consensus" that the material doesn't belong. The existence of this discussion is pretty strong evidence of that. That the event was notable is a non-issue. The fact that the San Francisco Chronicle and numerous tabloids is certainly evidence of that. I think it is fair to avoid the conclusion that her statement equates to her opinion, but the fact that she made the statement is pretty irrevocable and undeniable and is fair game for inclusion. Reswobslc (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to the article, Reswobslc. Glad to have you here. On the subject of this quote, however, I still completelely disagree with using it. There is a clear consensus here (and at the previous BLP thread) that the material does not belong. Only two editors have pushed for inclusion, everyone else has had a problem with using a quote from a comedy as her personal opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dayewalker, I will disregard your conclusion that there is "clear consensus here", as the dialogue here already speaks for itself. But I wasn't around for the "BLP thread" - if you could do me a favor of linking to it, I'd be happy to review it. I actually agree with you that it's crossing a line to represent the statement as her "personal opinion". But it is factual to say that she said it. It's also factual that her rebuttal was that she was "joking". Both are notable and appropriate for the article. There has got to be a better reason for omitting it beyond the illusory idea that there is a "consensus" not to do so. Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to the BLPN threads are easily found through the BLPN archive - Post #1 and Post #2. As for a "better reason" not to include the content, it's called WP:UNDUE which has been cited above numerous times. There's no reason why this one-off comment in one comedy film is notable except for the fact that it is disparaging to another living person (Jamie Lynn Spears). I suspect that's the only reason it was added to begin with and that's not what Wikipedia articles are for. Further, just because something has a source does not mean it should be included in an encyclopedic article and evidently, the community also believes this to be true. You're free to "disregard" another editor's assessment that a clear consensus already exists, but it clearly does. It appears that only one editor was gunning for this material to be added and other came out to discuss why the content was not appropriate in the given context. At least three other editors disagreed - that's a pretty clear consensus that the content should remain out of the article. If you want to challenge that, I suggest opening an WP:RfC to seek more community input because rehashing the same arguments and attempting to push the content into the article will not work. Pinkadelica♣ 01:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pink, so what you are saying, is that it was three to two before I got here (and now it's "three to three")? Please see WP:VOTE. Consensus is not a !vote where the biggest number wins. Consensus means agreement, not disagreement. Your description lends understanding to why the event is not notable to you - it appears that you completely did not get the joke (or, perhaps you simply have not seen the film). The butt of the joke is not Jamie Lynn Spears (and mind you, the description of the event will be just as complete without any mention Ms. Spears name). Let me explain this one a little. The butt of the joke is Brittny Gastineau, in that she was fooled into saying something objectionable and distasteful simply by being persuaded that it was the punch line she was supposed to follow. In other words, she was baited into selling herself out and she bit cheerfully. It is no less notable than Tiger Woods and his infidelity that have nothing to do with golf, or mentioning in an article about how someone got Punk'd (example). I am sure you aren't over removing mention of Woods' infidelity from his article to "protect his wife", who is also a living person. In the absence of a real consensus to completely omit this event, when I reinsert it I will ensure to leave Ms. Spears' name out, which should completely satisfy your concern about it being disparaging to her. Are there any other issues with merit to consider? Reswobslc (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, of course my statement describes why the event is not notable to me - it's my opinion. That's what a consensus is. A group of editors' opinions that are ideally backed up by Wikipedia policy. In my very humble opinion (and in the opinion of several other editors), the comment is trivial and adding it would result in undue weight on an event that is insignificant in the grand scheme of the subject's career. Further, the comment did impact the subject's notability in any way, shape or form which would again indicate that it is trivial. As for attempting to compare the comment to other events such as Tiger Woods infidelity - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Using other articles and/or events throughout the project as examples to include or remove content is a very weak argument at best and I won't indulge in such discussions. Those sort of points inevitably go nowhere as the arguments are circular and can be proved both ways. As for pointing me to WP:VOTE - I really don't need to read a guideline I read three years ago as I'm fully aware of !votes and the like, but thanks for the link. For the record, I didn't count any votes nor did I say a word about votes or numbers or anything of that nature. I actually read through the previous discussion and determined the consensus that way which is how it should be determined. One person saying the content should be included simply because it's the truth! isn't convincing. Another person saying the content should be included just because it was here to being with and no one challenged it - and then leaving a parting personal attack to fellow editors - isn't convincing either. None of those reason for inclusion is based in any kind of policy or even back up by a valid reason. If you want to consider that vote counting, so be it. As I stated previously, if you don't want to believe that a consensus exists because it doesn't jive with what you want the article to say, open an RfC on the matter to establish a shiny new and crystal clear consensus that everyone can see and believe in. I can guarantee that if you attempt to add the content simply because you want believe there is no current consensus (despite being told by two separate editors that one does exist), the outcome will not be in your favor. I highly suggest you instead pursue the correct avenue of dispute resolution instead of disregarding other editors' opinions. Pinkadelica♣ 03:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you have any suggestions to offer on how it should read? Enough editors have indicated it is notable and should be included, even if just a brief mention. It appeared in the mainstream print media (not to mention the trash tabloids too) - notability simply isn't at issue here. A brief mention is not undue weight; your opinion that it's insignificant to her career equates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keep in mind, I just showed up here today and have never previously interacted with anybody previously involved in this dispute, so my opinion is as "shiny new" as most anyone else's. Reswobslc (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the final time, if you want to reopen the discussion regarding the matter or establish a new consensus, open an RfC. To be frank, I'm not terribly interested in repeating myself numerous times or defending my opinion on this matter. I have stated why I don't feel the content should be included as have others. Linking to various guidelines isn't going to change my mind or prove me wrong. It's my opinion - can't prove it wrong no matter how hard you try. At this point you're the only one attempting to challenge the established consensus, so either seek a new one via RfC or drop the issue. This is the final time I will be commenting on this unless a proper RfC is opened on the matter. Happy editing. Pinkadelica♣ 04:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have frustrated you, I think I understand. Your words weren't wasted. Consensus is as clear as the emperor has no clothes. You WP:DONTLIKEIT, and it's disparaging to Jamie Lynn Spears if her name is included. Very well then, I will edit accordingly. Thanks for your input. Reswobslc (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep throwing out WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you want...even though I don't believe that's what anyone has argued. Do you have anything other than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:INTERESTING to counter with? I still have no idea why people think that this is notable. OK, so the gossip page of the chronicle, tabloids, and blogs covered it...who cares? Your version is definitely an improvement, but I still don't think it belongs in the article. I still think it is trivial and adding it would result in undue weight on an event that is insignificant in the grand scheme of the subject's career (to steal Pinkadelica's wording from above). I really have no interest in edit-warring over this. Please consider RFC as suggested above, or bring it back to the BLP noticeboard. --Onorem♠Dil 14:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get bogged down with claims there was no prior consensus, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree with Pinkadelica's summary above, and Onorem. It still seems undue weight to include something that all parties involved admit was a joke. It's extremely trivial. I would suggest, as above, that you take this to an RfC. Dayewalker (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of the returning editors above has reverted without returning to the talk page, I've asked for opinions on the BLP page here [2] in hopes of keeping this from turning into a battleground. Dayewalker (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed it as it is a contentious disputed desired addition about a living person, please do not reinsert it without support or consensus here or on the WP:BLPN imo I appears to be excessive and its insertion would give the off the cuff comment undue weight and would assert a general personal opinion on to the subject that could not be individualy cited in clear violation of WP:BLP policy and WP:WEIGHT . Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gastineau Girls

[edit]
  • Gastineau has also begun doing promotional assignments for a third season of Gastineau Girls, which has switched from the E! Network to MTV. The shows' first MTV run is slated to premiere in early 2010, and production will end in 2009.

There's no inline source for this so I can't check it easily. But I don't understand how production ends before the premiere. Are they shooting the entire season before they air any of it? If so it would help to put those into chronological order.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is wishful thinking more that verifiable fact. I didn't find anything other than forum posts expressing hope for season 3. Kevin (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'll just delete it. Once sources are found it can be re-added.   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brittny Gastineau. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brittny Gastineau. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brittny_Gastineau&oldid=1202223250"