Talk:Zoe McLellan/Archive 1

Fair-use image

If the fair-use issue with the current image from JAG is not resolved, then the image I added previously (here) may be a suitable replacement.   — Lee J Haywood 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it probably won't be. I've run into this with other articles and am no longer contributing images of people as a result. Basically under the tightened rules the only images they'll except are either: 1. Images you've taken yourself, 2. Images from a public domain source, or 3. Images for which the copyright holder has explicitly granted Wikipedia permission for use. Magazine covers, DVD screen captures and publicity photos are, under the current interpretation of the rules, not allowed. And yes that is resulting in many articles becoming the poorer for it with no images whatsoever. Your image, under the current rules, could be used for the article on the movie, however. 23skidoo 13:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. It's somewhat annoying with regard to celebrities that have images everywhere but few Wikipedians are ever likely to get anywhere near in person, but it's useful to know that I've been wasting my time. (; — Lee J Haywood 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just one of the many inconsistencies around here. Eventually you get used to it. I used to have 1000 pages on my watchlist but I've cut it back to about 200 as it just gets frustrating when people decide to change the rules based on what direction the wind is blowing. A year ago I don't think anyone would have cared if a publicity image were used. And to be honest I'd rather have no image than some of the truly crappy Wikipedia Commons images I've seen floating around. (Actually, as an aside, there are occasional burps about Wikipedia banning images period; the German Wikipedia adopted a "no fair use" policy awhile back and it's one of the dullest-looking websites you'll ever see. 23skidoo 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And so the image disappears ... sometimes I wonder why they don't just ban images altogether and make this an all-text website. It might look dull but it would save major $$$ in bandwidth and would probably eliminate a lot of the hard feelings being generated on both sides of the issue. What annoys me most is the people deleting these images wholesale are making NO apparent effort to provide replacements. 23skidoo 23:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Additional: for some reason I accidentally logged myself out before I made the previous edit; the anon edit to my comment that appears in the history was made by me. 23skidoo 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you get the same sort of experience with people that insist on a fair-use rationale – you add one and they don't bother to come back and take the template off the image. It's a joke that most of the fair-use images I've added are still happily sitting on articles whereas the just odd one or two are being questioned. There should either be a way to announce such a big change in policy so that I can resolve the issues myself, or the policy should stay as it is.   — Lee J Haywood 09:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Zoe Mclellan.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zoe Mclellan.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

2 sources claim she is leaving NCIS New Orleans

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/23048811-113/black-a-natural-fit-for-acting-and-acc#

http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/23041094-113/the-natural-ncis-new-orelans-star-black-has

"Black said there’s one change in the cast. Zoe McLellan, who played Meredith Brody on the show, has left. "

Cantab1985 (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is ZM a fugitive?

Well, at least people are taking an active interest in the sourcing now. If I understand @Jaydoggmarco's suggestion, this section should say outright that, in 2019, she abducted her son and has been on the run ever since. I'm not sure that's how NCMEC posters can be interpreted, and I worry that it is WP:OR, but it's worth talking about. Whatever we do, the section should be much shorter. Thomas B (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

NEMEC is associated with law enforcement and reliable. How it works is her arrest warrant is active unless her and her child are found. The reason for the lack of updates is not because the warrant is inactive but because her and her child haven't been found yet. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It still seems like original research and I think we should run it by people on the notice board. If NCMEC is a reliable source for WP:LIVING then it seems we can say that she "abducted her son in 2019 and there's an outstanding arrest warrant on her for kidnapping". I note that the poster feels the need to add the word "allegedly," which makes the facts (like that she is the "abductor") feel less certain. At this point, I think our basis for making (or even insinuating) this very strong claim is very thin. And my view is still that we should leave it out entirely. Thomas B (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make the facts less certain. "Allegedly" is used because she hasn't been convicted or caught yet. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've suggested a simplified version. Do you really want to describe her as "on the run"? Thomas B (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes since the arrest warrant is active. Although i suggest not making any changes until a decision has been made on the noticeboard. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"In May 2021 an arrest warrant against McLellan was issued on charges of kidnapping her son." is quite adequate. It indicates "that's all we got for now". If you want to write about 2023, get a WP:RS that writes about 2023. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It lists her current age as 48 which means the warrant is still active. Arrest warrants stay active unless the person is arrested. Google how criminal law works. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, WP:BLP and WP:OR does. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it alone for about 24 hours. I hope you agree that leaving out the rape charge against her ex, and simplifying the divorce story is reasonable, at least for now. Let's see what the people at the notice board say. I'll learn a bit more about NCMEC in the meantime.--Thomas B (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The current sources for the kidnapping thing are not very BLP-good, WP:TMZ and the other strikes me as a "not for serious BLP-stuff" source.

The source may actually be better, but as Nil Einne said [1], it's not ideal in context either.

All in all, unless there are better sources, I think there's an argument for removing the thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Judging by my google news searching, TMZ is the best news source for the kidnapping thing; everything else I can find is equally or more dubious publications (Hello! magazine, The Daily Mail), mostly reporting that TMZ published the story. If the NCMEC source is reliable we could potentially use that to support that she allegedly abducted her son and a warrant was issued for her arrest, but I agree with you and Nil Einne that even that source isn't ideal. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like we're in agreement that the sourcing for this claim needs to be stronger. I've removed it for now out of caution. If stronger sources emerge, we can always put it back in. Thomas B (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As noted in another discussion I can provide you with scans of original court documents which are in the public domain. Are they sufficient? Robert Brockway (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all: WP:BLPPRIMARY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if there is a story here, no reputable journalist seems interested in following it. So we can't tell it. Thomas B (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes these are even a clearer violation of BLPPRIMARY than the database. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Zoe_McLellan has been going on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That discussion has now been archived here. Wyliepedia @ 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We know nothing about her personal life

It's all coming back to me now. Back in March, I thought I could clean the article up and state the plain facts of her marriage, motherhood, and divorce. But now that we have removed all the poorly sourced drama, we're left with two sources. Have a look at them. They're just not very good. That's why I decided there should not be a section on her "personal life" in this article. There's no reliable basis for saying anything at all about it. Thomas B (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Disappearance"

We have discussed ZM's personal life at the BLP notice board.[2] It's generally agreed that the story of her family life and legal trouble is not appropriate for her WP:BLP. It is poorly sourced WP:BLPGOSSIP. Thomas B (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)