Jump to content

Talk:Claire Danes: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 622: Line 622:
:::::Selective exclusion of sources to paint a false narrative violates [[WP:NPOV]] and is not compliant with [[WP:BLP]], which trumps all other policies. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Selective exclusion of sources to paint a false narrative violates [[WP:NPOV]] and is not compliant with [[WP:BLP]], which trumps all other policies. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 14:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support current version'''. Necessary content that is written with accurate details per reliable sources about both the happening and the aftermath of the incident. [[User:Mlgc1998|Mlgc1998]] ([[User talk:Mlgc1998|talk]]) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support current version'''. Necessary content that is written with accurate details per reliable sources about both the happening and the aftermath of the incident. [[User:Mlgc1998|Mlgc1998]] ([[User talk:Mlgc1998|talk]]) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
::It is neither accurate nor properly sourced. [[User:Regulov|Regulov]] ([[User talk:Regulov|talk]]) 10:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


== New "Philippine dustup" status quo per WP:BLP ==
== New "Philippine dustup" status quo per WP:BLP ==

Revision as of 10:35, 29 June 2022

Template:BLP noticeboard

Quick fire statistics

Height: 5ft 5 1/2 in (1.66 m), Weight: 110-120 lb (50-54 kg) Hair: Dark blonde; Eyes: Grey-green

This was stuck randomly in the middle of the article. Shouldn't it be formed into a real paragraph? Does anyone agree? Fantom 21:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Likely copy and pasted from imdb.com or somewhere, a potential copyvio. zen master T 21:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph is silly, just because a (horrible) band like the ataris idolized her DOES NOT make her a "sex symbol" for punk rock youth. It gives a bit of a bad name to both sides. By that I mean Miss Danes and Punk rock.

blacklist

shouldn't there be a section about her blacklist/exile from the philippines? this was not a minor thing; i think the foreign ministry got involved (and perhaps the US embassy in response, i dunno). 66.105.218.3 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I'm not very good at formatting and whatnot, but someone should definately add a picture. she's too beautiful not to be seen! --209.222.250.105 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll see if I can find something somewhere that constitutes Fair Use.--Twintone 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, do I agree with that statement!

67.180.44.133 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography as table and paragraph = redundant

What does the 1st version have that the 2nd does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranky1000 (talk • contribs) 12:28, August 7, 2007

Could you clarify? The first and second versions don't seem to make sense in context of the recent article history. --GargoyleMT 13:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Early Life"

Has anyone read the text under "Early Life"? It varies between adolescent & just plain stupid. Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.65.119 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay apart from the "WASPy" comment which, while sourced, seems hardly notable.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

A review of the Paul Hastings website does not indicate that her brother Asa Danes works there, as indicated in the text of this article. Terminalwally (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to the last paragraph: http://www.paulhastings.com/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=732

67.180.44.133 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

Due to a number of unjustified articles, started with yellow press papers and later copied by numerous magazines and web-pages the rumor of being responsible for the end of the relationship of Billy Cruduup has never been verified. No pictures, no statements of the people involved do exits. In fact the opposite is the fact. A reference to an article containing no reference at all and do only provide a statement of an author who was not present at the time and at the place of the events may took place is no reference at all. At best it is hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.55.53 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the rumers / gossip part of who-left-whom-for-what. Gossip is gossip - not content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.240.22 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Television

"My So-Called Life" was not cancelled. Claire decided to leave, so the show could not continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.126.12 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where she lives now ?

well, i like to know, where claire lives now 81.193.225.94 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

She'd probably prefer that you didn't.

2601:9:A80:7CE:8077:38F:D41F:C836 (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should always avoid time sensitive wording

"Currently" indicates that she is being seen in performances "now" which is just not the case. As stated in my edit summary she is not "currently" appearing in Homeland. In fact she is There are no new episodes until next Sept. She is also going to be in the film As Cool as I Am at some point this year. If it is released next Sept then she will "currently" be in two things at the same time which is also confusing. The MoS covers this here Wikipedia:TIME#Current and here WP:REALTIME and here WP:DATED. Per the last one you might mention that the series will return in Feb but that should probably be mentioned in the article rather than the lede. MarnetteD | Talk 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this - {{as of}} - is the template that you should use if you want to be accurate with the info and it looks like it can be used in the lede so I have struck my sentence above. MarnetteD | Talk 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a) WP:DATED says "Avoid statements that date quickly". This is not a statement that will date quickly. Television shows are on the air for years at a time. This is not day-to-day or even week-to-week. I understand the policy but don't think it is being properly applied here.
b) Even disregarding that, I fail to see how your version is an improvement. You seem to be hung up on the word 'current' but your version still describes Danes' acting in Homeland as happening in the present tense / "now". Please explain how it is less "time sensitive". And in fact, by saying "she also plays", you are implying that her past credits Romeo and Juliet, Stardust, etc. in the previous sentence are also happening right now. Now that is confusing.
I also have issues with trying to avoid collision with a film release, which is a singular event and not at all the same thing, as well as treating a TV show differently in prose based on whether or not it is 'in-season', but let's start with points a and b. --SubSeven (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other template to use is {{When?}}. That let's other editors know that the statement needs to be more specific. --Thorwald (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reruns are not "current" performances. If they were Danes would "currently" be in My So Called Life. The use of current indicates that she is working on that show now. Yet that rarely occurs. Work on these cable series is usually completed by the time that they air. The wording can certainly be changed but per Wikipedia:TIME#Current we are to avoid using the term. Options have been given on how to make the mention of Homeland in the lede more specific. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, My So Called Life which hasn't been in production for 20 years, totally the same thing. I will make a new edit, in an attempt to compromise with your extremely literal interpretation of a guideline. --SubSeven (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new wording so congrats on that. As to the snark I am not sure how to interpret the MoS statement "Use of the term "current" should be avoided" in other ways. It certainly isn't "extreme." Thanks again for the improved wording. MarnetteD | Talk 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partner or date?

Why isn't Ben Lee listed as a partner? They 'dated' for six years. I believe she retired from films in that period.

The article states Later on, she met Australian singer Ben Lee at her birthday party and they dated for almost six years, their relationship ended in 2003.[31] Danes dated actor Billy Crudup, who she met starring in the film Stage Beauty, from 2003 to 2006.

If dating Crudup makes him a 'partner', then surely Ben Lee is one too


Montalban (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She did not "retire from films" during that period. She made plenty of films during those years.

208.57.244.9 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about Claire Danes, or her father???

"Danes' father was born in Austin, Texas, in 1944 and, after studying Biology and Civil Engineering at Brown University, received a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Photography from Rhode Island School of Design (1968), where he studied with Harry Callahan.[12] During Danes' childhood her father worked as a general contractor for 20 years, working on residential buildings in a company he ran called Overall Construction in New York.[5] He also worked as a photographer and computer consultant.[5] He is the son of Gibson Andrew Danes,[13] a former dean of the Yale School of Art and Architecture from 1958 to 1968" - I think that massive blurb speaks for itself. It's absurd. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claire Danes. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Claire Danes. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 years ago

The item about 1998 is removed per WP:UNDUE as it has had no effect on her career and does not get a mention in reports about her since then. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also has nothing to do with her personal life. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"as it has had no effect on her career and does not get a mention in reports about her since then"... The Guardian source is from 2017. Now if you want to keep deceiving and use Wikipedia for your WP:SOAPBOX then also tell that why she can't win an Oscar or any other awards that are among most prestigious awards even after being a better actress than many of her rivals who have won many of those awards? Answer: They don't want to associate themselves with her because of her racist views and ban on her from Philippines.
Like I already noted on your talk page, your unrepentant POV pushing to whitewash the subject by outright trolling is not only long term,[1][2][3][4][5][[6][7][8][9][10] but continuing to this day.[11] Given the nature of content, I urge you to stop it all together since your clear agenda pushing does not belong here. You are confusing Wikipedia for Stormfront.org. TolWol56 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only WP:POV is pushing this bit of WP:UNDUE non info. MarnetteD|Talk 20:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm looks like she has won plenty of awards since 1998. The only agenda is yours in acting like this has had any impact on her or her career. MarnetteD|Talk 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still no Oscars or even Oscar nominations let alone winning some of the "most prestigious awards" which I was talking about, not the random throw away ones. The statement is correctly backed by highly reliable sources and is WP:DUE. Repeating your boring silliness won't help you especially when you are a lone POV pusher dedicated to remove the important info for last 10 years. TolWol56 (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is pure sophistry. Emmy's are not throw away awards. She has not appeared in that many films since the bulk of her current work is in TV. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good you agree that there was no Oscar win or even a nomination. Your argument is just a self-defeating argument. TolWol56 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good you agree that she won plenty of awards in the last 22 years. BTW you have not provided a shred of proof that Academy Award nominations have anything to do with comments made in 1998. This nonsensical theory is the height of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are far from being "most prestigious awards". You started this use of wikipedia for soapboxing, and that is why I described that you are wrong to think that this incident had no effect on her career because it has. TolWol56 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on personal life item

The consensus is to retain the material about her standing in the Phillipines but reword and soften it as suggested by Hunter Kahn.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Looking for comments about the item about her standing in the Phillipines. I feel that it is WP:UNDUE as it stands. In spite of the protestations above I can't find that it has had an impact on her career. While I am for removal if others can find a way to shorten it or turn it into a footnote that might be acceptable. So these are the current option - if there are others please feel free to add them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leave as is
  • Yes. MarnetteD has provided no sources for backing his very personal and very wrong opinion. Having yourself and your all movies banned in a significant country like Philippines can easily impact your career. Marnette D makes no sense here. In last 3 years this incident has received good coverage from The Guardian,[12] Telegraph,[13] Time,[14] which confirms that this 1998 incident is a very important part of the subject's biography. Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. TolWol56 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove
  • Keep, but reword
  • I'm personally of the opinion that it should be included. It's supported by reliable sources and since it only makes up two sentences of the article, I don't think it's being undue weight; it's not as if it's in the lead or has its own subsection something. I also don't think the "this happened 22 years ago" argument holds too much water, as this article is intended to cover Claire Danes' entire life and career. I wouldn't be opposed to softening the language a bit. Perhaps instead of "Danes was declared persona non grata and her movies were banned" it could simply say "Danes' movies were banned". And I'd personally argue "for racist remarks" should be changed to "for perceived racist remarks" or something along those lines, because I think the current wording sort of makes a subjective declaration that they were racist, which could violate WP:NPOV. — Hunter Kahn 21:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally a footnote in a college thesis is what we're using to establish that the comments were racist? I don't know about that one. I would expect something stronger to ascribe such a thing to someone's comments in a WP:BLP. And even this is couched with the "reportedly" wording. Yeah, this is not enough. --SubSeven (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS does not discriminate between a paragraph or a footnote. The source is academic and thus holds great credibility. Your best bet is to find one as credible source which would refute that these comments were racist. Other than that there is no way to remove the word 'racist'. TolWol56 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "offensive" actually seems a more appropriate term than "racist" based on the sources used for citations. As SubSeven points out, they are only described as racist in one footnote, and in that case they couch it with "reportedly" so it's not a very strong assertion at that. By contrast, the other sources that more specifically cite what the Manila government has actually said do not characterize them as racist, but certainly characterizes them as offensive... — Hunter Kahn 02:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it that way. Some editor shall dispute the word 'offensive' too. Having the clear statement of what she said is a better option at this stage. My recent edit[15] solves this problem and addresses your concerns too. TolWol56 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my remove post above, I agree with Hunter Kahn's suggestion to soften it. The notion that it has had any effect on the Academy Awards is farcical on its face so it has no place in the conversation. MarnetteD|Talk 22:19, 5 February 2020 (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.

Comments about the Philippines

No source has called Danes' subsequent comments an apology. In fact, the CBS citation quotes a Manila councilor asserting that it was not an apology and she was insincere. Wikipedia has no business calling her comments an apology if no source will. Elizium23 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite I checked, the one from The Guardian: "Danes later issued an apology" --SubSeven (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Danes issued apology in order to get the ban removed. "Danes apologized for her words, and said in a statement that her views only reflect poor areas in Manila, where her film "Brokedown Palace" was shot." "Danes, presumably on the advice of her PR team, swiftly issued an apology" . Your other edits such as changing "described Manila, capital of the country to have" to "interviewing with Vogue and Premiere, said that Manila" were not good as well. See Telegraph, it also says that Danes "described the country's capital Manila". TolWol56 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One single source (which is factually incorrect, if you look at the CBS source it is based on) referring to it as an apology does not mean that we should refer to it as an apology (the CBS source clearly states it was an explanation, and that they did not consider it an apology). SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Just because apology was not accepted it doesn't mean it was not an apology. TolWol56 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about the Philippines (2)

Upon doing a fact check, this article is mainly based on the Guardian source, which incorrectly states that Danes has been banned from the Philippines, along with her films, which citizens of the country who do not live in Manila have reported that they have access to and have for the entire time. Finding the original source (the CBS article, along with the interviews in Vogue and Premiere) and another several sources discussing the matter, I rewrote the section to accurately reflect that the city counsel banned Danes from Manila, along with banning the distribution of her films. Another editor is determined to leave the paragraph intact, and not only is the claim that she is banned from the entire country wrong, but her actual statements (including the one which the principal author of the ban stated was not an apology, and did not contain an apology), are misrepresented on Wikipedia, and while none of the articles do that. When the sources are more accurate and neutral than the encyclopedia, we are doing something very wrong. Unfortunately, this same editor has now determined to engage in an edit war, rather than verify the sources and edit what they feel is not accurately describing the events. I am not white, yet this user continues to insist I am "whitewashing" the events. The events as written are incorrect, and therefore violate WP:BLP and must either be corrected or removed, so I attempted to correct it, as it is fairly widely covered.

See this diff: Diff 1089040444 for an accurate telling of the events.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from the editor who believes that only "white" person can engage in whitewashing.[16]
Anyway, we have got Guardian,[17] Fraser University thesis,[18] and Times News,[19] that say Claire Danes remains banned from the Philippines. Most of the news outlets happen to report only initial happening and fail to follow up on the event. But Guardian, Times News, etc. are not like that. That's why you would need a really credible source to actually refute this information.
Rest of your edit was clearly crafted to justify the remarks made by her against the Philippines and you even cited a minority city councilor who defended remarks of Danes.
We need to focus only on the ban, why it happened, and what was the result, instead of offering too many details. This is why the current version is better than your WP:BLOATED version. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding context is not justification. It is an important part of encyclopedic writing. Furthermore, I have a copy of the magazine, and using multiple sources to add in all of her quotes (which were improperly combined into one statement), is proper. You have pointed to the previous RFC as a basis for what you've written, but the question was about whether or not mentioning the event at all was WP:UNDUE, and the consensus was that it should be reworded based on the existing source material. There were no questions about whether or not it passed a fact check. It did not. It is not our job to assign Danes's intentions. It is our job to accurately describe persons and events surrounding them in an encyclopedic manner. And yes, asserting that someone who is not white correcting misinformation and improving WP:NPOV issues in a WP:BLP is offensive. There was no removal of her guilt in the matter. She said the things, she was banned from Manila until she issues a genuine public apology that the city council deems is sincere. She offered explanation for her comments, which I included, but she did not apologize for them, which the city council agreed did not constitute as an apology, nor did the CBS source refer to it as such.
Furthermore, as stated, the source the Guardian piece is based on is the CBS source. I question whether or not you followed through any of the external links in that article, which clearly state the president said she should be banned from the country, but it was the Manila city council which banned her and her films from the city of Manila. The Fester University thesis cites the same CBS article which the Guardian piece is based on to say she was banned from the country. Times News is about a different actor, and the article itself is from Associated Press, so I'm not sure why a poor aggregate source would be used (which also incorrectly states the ban was at the hands of the President and occurred in 1999), let alone as a basis of fact. The Associated Press reported that she was banned from Manila. There are dozens of articles about this incident itself, which clearly state that it was the city council which banned her from Manila.
- ‘Homeland’ star Claire Danes was banned from Manila in the Philippines
- CLAIRE DANES IS persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films
- MANILA OFFICIALS BAN FILMS THAT FEATURE CLAIRE DANES
- The Manila city council is to discuss a resolution next Tuesday to ban her movies there, following comments by the actress in two American magazines.
- The proud members of the Manila city council could take no more. In a 23-to-3 vote, they agreed to ban all movies in which Danes appears.
- Manila is considering a ban on all movies featuring Hollywood actress Claire Danes because of remarks she made about the city to U.S. magazines.
- 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, "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Rainmaker" among them.
Additionally, it is the Bureau of Immigration (Philippines) which issues country-wide bans in the Philippines, not the city council of Manila. Example: Alec Baldwin is banned from the Philippines.
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not getting what you meant from "And yes, asserting that someone who is not white correcting misinformation and improving WP:NPOV issues in a WP:BLP is offensive".
"If a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council."[20]
That said, your ramblings are not going to change these facts.
Your best bet is to show that if this subject or any other foreigner who has been decalred "persona non grata" in the Philippines could still enter the country even after being subjected to "persona non grata". TolWol56 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to be respectful. Persona non grata is not necessarily "unwelcome in the entire country". The source does not clarify if the city can issue country-wide bans, and from research, it seems that multiple LGUs in the Philippines have issued declarations of persona non grata against the same party, and it is city-specific, which the vast majority of reliable sources about Danes also refer to the ban as being in Manila (as listed above).
Manila City Council passes resolution declaring militant group ‘Panday Sining’ as persona non grata in the nation’s capital. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Panday Sining" is a Filipino group. The subject here is Claire Danes, and you are asked to prove if any foreigner who has been declared "persona non grata" still happened to enter the Philippines. Mind the word "entering the country" in the quotation I noted. TolWol56 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself states: "Persona non grata, in the context of Philippine local governance, refers individuals or groups declared as unwelcome in a particular locality... In the context of local governance in the Philippines, local government units (LGUs, including municipalities, cities, and provinces) could declare a person persona non grata... The declaration would imply that a person is barred from entering the jurisdiction of a particular locality."
I do not need to "prove" that a foreigner could enter the country if a city has issued a persona non grata declaration. The Filipino government has made it clear that the declarations are largely unenforceable and more for sentiment.[21]
The entry as written is factually incorrect, and poorly sourced. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See what is WP:OR. Your own synthesis and conclusions are irrelevant. What matters is the quote from Esquire Mag Philippines article[22] and it refutes your faulty research. But if you still insist then first prove if any foreigner who has been declared "persona non grata" still happened to enter the Philippines. If you dont want then just stick to sources. It is not possible that several mainstream reliable sources falsely reported about the ban from the Philippines and got away with it.TolWol56 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you know what original research is. You are cherry-picking to try to prove your understanding, and as I pointed out. The Guardian piece and the thesis are both based on the CBS piece from 1998, which refutes what you’ve written. Your other source is low quality, has two obvious errors, and is about another actor. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else - it should say what is factual. The city council of Manila voted 23-3 on a resolution naming Claire Danes a persona non grata. The sources need to be updated, though, as the ones you have are not nearly as credible and reliable as the ones listed above. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting what sources say, unlike you who is engaging in faulty research.
"The Guardian piece and the these" are not "based on the CBS piece from 1998". Those sources don't cite CBS.
This source by Kingsport Times-News is not "about another actor" only, but clearly notes that "In 1999, then-President Joseph Estrada banned Hollywood actress Claire Danes, who shot the movie “Brokedown Palace” in Manila, from entering the country". TolWol56 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source is again the exact same source as Times News, which again, is about Dan Brown, the author (I mistakenly said actor previously), both are an Associated Press aggregate that has since been removed from AP (unsure why), but also it appears it was removed from most of their aggregators. It incorrectly cites 1999 (the event was in 1998), and that she was banned by the president.
And yes, the Guardian piece is based on the CBS piece. "Then-president Joseph Estrada, himself a former movie star, called for Danes to be banned from the country," links to the CBS piece.
I am going to rewrite this again with proper sourcing. Please utilize the talk page, and stop referring to the RFC about whether or not it should be mentioned. I am not questioning its inclusion. What is written is poorly sourced and does not pass a fact check. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the paragraph again. I have replaced all of the sources with high quality sources, and more accurately reflected what the sources say. Instead of stating she has been banned from the city or the country, I've added a footnote which mentions that while the vast majority of sources say she was banned in Manila, that a few sources claim it's a country-wide ban, along with some helpful context about personal non gratas in the Philippines. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AP is not obliged to upload every article. Do you have the link to the AP article that existed before on their website but was later removed like you claim?
You are allowed to rewrite the article, but don't touch this particular paragraph in question unless you have any good consensus (which you don't). This is why I mentioned RfC because the wording was decided after the RfC and it cannot be unilaterally changed. TolWol56 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that RFC does not unilaterally stop other editors from improving the description of the event. It stops other editors from removing the event (consensus was that it is WP:DUE) and describing Danes's comments as "racist" (consensus was that characterizing the comments as racist violated WP:NPOV because it is subjective). You are edit warring to maintain your own understanding of what occurred, with your preferred wording and your preferred, cherrypicked sources. I am questioning both the sourcing and accuracy of what is written. Please stop referring to my attempts to fix this paragraph to meet Wikipedia's standards as "ramblings".
This is accurate, and uses MUCH better sources, including the source which two of your sources are based. The note adds information that addresses your concern that you believe the declaration is country-wide, despite the majority of sources saying she is a persona non grata in Manila. There is no reason for you to revert this back to the one that is incorrect.
On September 29, 1998,[1] Danes was declared a persona non grata by the city council of Manila, the capital of the Philippines.[a] Danes, who was 19 at the time,[2] had been in the city filming Brokedown Palace, much of which was filmed in impoverished areas of the city, such as a dilapidated psychiatric hospital, and made derogatory comments about Manila in interviews with Vogue and Premiere magazines. She referred to the city as "ghastly and weird",[1] and said "[Manila] just f***ing smelled like cockroaches", "There’s no sewage system and the people do not have anything", "[We saw] people with like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth", and "Rats were everywhere."[3][1] The council members voted 23-3 in favor of the resolution, which also prohibits distribution of her films and continues indefinitely until Danes issues a public apology.[1] Danes offered a statement following wide-spread public scrutiny of her comments, saying that her comments were only meant to reflect the "darker" areas visited during filming, not her attitudes toward the people, which she said were "nothing but warm, friendly and supportive." The resolution's principal author, Councilor Kim Atienza, said that it was an "excuse made by Hollywood press officers and not a genuine apology". Filipino President Joseph Estrada supported the city council's adoption of the resolution, saying "She should not be allowed to come here. She should not even be allowed to set foot here."[4][1]
[a]: Most sources report that Danes is unwelcome only in the city of Manila, but some state that she has been banned from the entire country of the Philippines. In the Philippines, persona non grata declarations generally ban foreign citizens from entering the country. In the context of local governance, local government units (LGUs, including municipalities, cities, and provinces) may draft persona non grata resolutions, barring the person or group from entering the jurisdiction of a particular locality. [43][44] According to a Department of the Interior and Local Government legal opinion, persona non grata declarations are effectively non-binding and more about expressing a sentiment.[45]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "Manila Bans Claire Danes' Movies". Associated Press. 29 September 1998. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  2. ^ Snow, Shauna (1998-10-02). "Arts and entertainment reports from The Times, national and international news services and the nation's press". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  3. ^ "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. 1 October 1998. p. 62.
  4. ^ "Manila Is Mad At Claire Danes". CBS. 1 October 1998. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aggregated sources through the AP network use the original publisher in the byline. This byline belongs to AP, meaning it was originally published by AP before aggregation. It no longer appears in AP, and is missing from the vast majority of its network. I have not suggested a reason as to why, but none of the remaining sources are better than the ones listed above, and given the article contains two other pieces of misinformation about this event and is actually an article about Dan Brown, its inclusion appears to serve the purpose of making what you've written appear to be accurate, despite the fact that it is not. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only because two sources share a same sentence, it doesn't mean that either is copying another. As for AP, if you can't backup your claims then you should avoid throwing them around.
You must read WP:BLOATED and WP:UNDUE and avoid this WP:QUOTEFARM. TolWol56 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to Entertainment Weekly, she sent a letter of apology to the city council in 1999 and they lifted the resolution. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting it. It only talks about movies, not the entry ban. It provides single sentence and fails to provide necessary details. This hasn't been reported elsewhere. We can't hope since Entertainment Weekly is defunct. TolWol56 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up - EW is not defunct. The physical magazine is no longer in production, but the website still publishes news centered around the entertainment industry. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now per consensus at BLPN I have added the both possibilities with note. Dont modify it.

To be specific I am opposed to your mention of: 1) her age, 2) what she was filming and how, 3) the remarks were "derogatory", 4) quote farming, 5) misrepresentation of EW.

You are supposed to stop edit warring and gain consensus first.

Once you read WP:BLOATED and WP:UNDUE and WP:QUOTEFARM, you will understand this.

It makes no sense in providing so many details that this paragraph has become the largest paragraph of the entire article.

TolWol56 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to this page is not "edit warring". Your repeated reversions of my contributions are edit warring.
The EW piece is not being misrepresented. It clearly says the issues between Danes and Manila are cleared up, AND that her movies are permitted again, which was a part of a single Persona non grata declaration.
The quotes provided were individual sentences in the article in Premiere. Your sourcing is poor, and puts the quotes together as a single statement that not only removes words without ellipses, completely alters the meaning of what she said. The fact that she was filming is necessary context for her comments, which is in every single source about this event, including the original sources the quotes are from in Vogue and Premiere and her statement about what she said. This information gives context to assist with a neutral POV.
You need to abide by Wikipedia's rules. You are status quo stonewalling, instead of treating edits in a manner that assumes good faith and reworking as necessary instead of violating the WP:3RR and edit warring. You cannot instruct other editors not to modify articles that are free to edit. I am not vandalizing the article. My edits are constructive, and in fact, are enormous improvements to sourcing and adhere to Wikipedia's standards. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you are frequently adding your disputed edits without gaining consensus then it is fine to call it 'edit warring'. See WP:BRD.
I don't think you have read the guidelines I cited because your messages fail to address any of them.
There is no reason to make this paragraph the largest paragraph of the entire article. I don't see a reason why we need to put all possible quotations related to this event when the necessary context has been already provided. It is not a "neutral POV" but you are giving more weight to the quotations from Danes. I am opposed to any quotations but one quote is enough as agreed on the RfC.
I never accused of you vandalism. TolWol56 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you are using is not what was actually said, so it doesn't matter that you believe it's a single quote. It's not. It's several sentences smashed into one inaccurate quote. I have the magazine on my lap, and provided multiple better quality sources that accurately reflect what is actually in the article. You have repeatedly ignored my issues with what is written. I reverted one single time based on the fact that what you reverted to was inaccurate and poorly sourced. I have adjusted and tried to contribute and work with you. You have not allowed me to do so, and then tried to bar me from contributing at all. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AP News: But he said the actress went "overboard'" in a recent interview with Premiere magazine by saying Manila "smelled of cockroaches, with rats all over and that there is no sewerage system and the people do not have anything _ no arms, no legs, no eyes."
Knowing that this was the quote that really caused the ban, there is clearly no need for any other quotations because they become automatically less important in the series of this event so far. TolWol56 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the actual magazine. The article is written by Christine Spines, the article is titled "Claire and present danger", and it's in the October 1998 issue of Premiere magazine. The quote is on p. 66. This is what it says: 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."
Like I said, not every source accurately represents what she says, that AP entry included. This one is the closest to what's in the magazine. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So here are two quotations: 1) "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," 2) "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."
I don't see any contradiction between the both. AP News probably re-worded the quotation in order to avoid infringing copyrights but they are not misrepresenting Danes anywhere. TolWol56 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PMC.
While we cannot do anything about misquotes in quality sources, we are supposed to verify quotes are accurate. This particular quote has several different versions across a number of high quality sources, and many of them, AP included, change not only the wording itself, but alter the meaning.
"the people do not have anything – no arms, no legs, no eyes." says the people of Manila have nothing, not even body parts, while the actual quote, "[We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth." says that Danes and the crew saw people with missing body parts.
It may be worth it to mention that this quote has been misquoted in a number of different ways, by a number of different reliable sources, but if we are going to use the quote, it needs to be her actual words.
Also, because of the quote being used, per MOS:QUOTE, context of the quote is needed to maintain WP:NPOV, especially because both in the Premiere interview and the sources which are actually about this event clarify context about the psychiatric hospital and other impoverished areas of Manila for Brokedown Palace filming.
We are doing something wrong when sources are more neutral than the encyclopedia describing them. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"we are supposed to verify quotes are accurate", yes and AP's quotes are perfectly reworded. There is no reason to remove them and replace with quotations that are overly detailed per WP:UNDUE. TolWol56 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming from the ANI thread. You both need to slow down and let others comment. The version by SquareInARoundHole is clearly undue. The version by TolWol56 needs to be tweeked. Lets get something in the middle. My advice is to trim or even better remove the excessive quoting, move the conflicting information to a note and explain it there (already done so easy enough to add to it), remove excessive detail and most importantly stop talking to each other about anything not related to the article. Aircorn (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Ok what about this version. I would add another note at the end saying that there is conflicting information on whether she is still banned, but not mention it in text until we can reach an agreement on that. There may be scope to include a small quote, but the length of them adds majorly to the undue and even then it seems there is disagreement on the accuracy of what was said, so maybe just uyse "ghastly and weird" and/or "smelled of cockroaches".
    Justifications for the above vs SIARH - No need for the exact date as that is not overly important to the event, no need to say Manilla is the capital of Philippines as that is common knowledge, don't need to detail the film, quotes mentioned above (and don't use F***ing it is not necessary and I doubt she said it with three asterisk anyway), and finally no need to say the date and who reported something unless there is doubt about it.
    Justification sor the above vs Tol - city council is more specific, it is useful to add her age as she was young at the time, and if there is doubt about the lifitng of the ban better to detail that in a note. The quoting is covered above. Aircorn (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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, which has since been lifted. 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.
    I think it's better without the quote, too, and resolves the issue with needing to use the magazine as a source and mention misquotations across sources
    - "Manila Bans Claire Danes' Movies". Associated Press. September 29, 1998.
    - "Not So Great, Danes". Wired. September 30, 1998.
    - Snow, Shauna (October 2, 1998). "Arts and entertainment reports from The Times, national and international news services and the nation's press". Los Angeles Times.
    - Wolk, Josh (September 7, 1999). "Will Steven Spielberg take over Stanley Kubrick's last project?". Entertainment Weekly. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it's not necessary to put inline that she was restricted from entry to resolve the question of where she was restricted city-wide or country-wide, especially after reading that persona non grata's issued by LGUs in the Philippines are considered sentimental and non-binding. Linking to what that means seems like a safer way to be factual. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. It looks like the major disagreement here is on whether the ban is still in place. Aircorn (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is just irrelevant WP:OR unless it is being said in relation to this ban. I have described to so called 'disagreement' below. TolWol56 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"who was 19 at the time" is irrelevant, not needed.
"made derogatory comments" is subjective, not needed.
The most relevant quotation that resulted in the ban is necessary instead of those 2 above sentences.
"Danes later apologized for those remarks" should also include "Danes later apologized for those remarks but the Filipino authorities refused to lift the ban." TolWol56 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: There is no dispute about the ban being in place. See the Guardian source on main article which say ban is still in place. TolWol56 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article is not a good source, as was also mentioned by another editor in WP:BLPN.
...which as far as we can tell, remains in place. is not stating a fact.
Per Entertainment Weekly:
Claire Danes has apologized for those not-so-nice comments she made this year about Manila, and now all is swell between her and the Philippines. ... Her movies were banned, but they’ve been brought back now that she sent the city council an official letter of apology. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all sources, except a half-baked paragraph (lacking year, source of information, etc.) from defunct EW discovered from 1999 say something else then it changes nothing at all. The Guardian is an excellent source and it hadn't been discarded for BLP. Stop misrepresenting the BLPN thread. TolWol56 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the BLPN thread: The guardian is a poor source because it is not about the subject, but only mentions the subject in passing, as an example. This is not secondary but tertiary source material, because they're just quoting sources from the original reports. Sources that only mention something in passing but are not about the subject are lousy sources, and I wouldn't use them. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tol. I do think the age is relevant as she was young when making the comments. If she was in her 30s then it wouldn't matter. That is a minor issue though. I don't see summarising what was said as "derogatory" being subjective. The previous RFC recommended "offensive" which is also fine. Again I don't think this is a major issue. I prefer not to quote, but there is scope to add something if others agree. So it seems the major issue to solve is whether the ban is still in place. Aircorn (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a bit ageism type of argument that young people happen to mistake - which is not true. Yes, one RfC participant said that "offensive" can be used but later agreed when I told that it is all subjective and we should allow readers to decide. The ban is clearly in place as stated by high quality sources. I could find three in less than 1 minute:
  • "With the exception of celebrities like Claire Danes, Teri Hatcher, and Alec Baldwin whom we all know too well are banned from the Philippines"Esquire 2017
  • "In response, her 1999 legal drama "Brokedown Palace," which was filmed in the Bangok, Thailand, and the Philippines, was forever excluded by President Joseph Estrada. Estrada took his decision one step further and banned all of Danes films, and Danes herself, from the Phillippines permanently."NY Daily News, 2015
  • "But local politicians were unimpressed and refused to lift the ban refused to lift the ban – which as far as we can tell, remains in place" Guardian, 2017
I think the "disagreement" will become major only if 100 sources are contradicting the other 100 and some of them directly called the dispute. But there is only one half-baked defunct EW paragraph from 1999 with no necessary details at all and it only talks about movies. I don't see a dispute since far more reliable and recent sources maintain the ban on entry and movies exists. TolWol56 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danes later issued an apology, saying that “because of the subject matter of our film Brokedown Palace, the cast was exposed to the darker and more impoverished places of Manila”. But local politicians were unimpressed and refused to lift the ban – which as far as we can tell, remains in place. - Guardian piece is talking about her initial response, does not mention a 1999 apology to the council.
Multiple sources seem to corroborate Filipino citizens reports that they are able to buy and watch Danes's films presently in Manila.
- 1
- 2
- 3 SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the articles That was 15 years ago, and it doesn't appear they ever formally lifted the ban., possibly due to a government oversight and the ban appears to remain in place so in fact it is providing further evidence that the ban is still active Aircorn (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "doesn't appear", "appears", and "possibly due" aren't great to say that there is a ban. Only showing evidence that her films are evidently shown and distributed in the region, which is what residents report. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Same issues as proposal above. The quote is far too long. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Council never lifted the ban so the last sentence is misleading. TolWol56 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a quote farm. I actually think it's better not to include the quote at all, but if we are going to, it needs to be what she actually said, and if there are omissions, they need to be omitted with ellipses that do not change the meaning of what she said.
"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. ... Rats were everywhere."
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. ... [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. ... Rats were everywhere."
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there."
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. ... Rats were everywhere."
Her films are presently distributed in Manila, so yes, the prohibition has ended. Terminator 3 was played in Manila theaters in 2003. The source is accurate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is far too long. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Council never lifted the ban so the last sentence is misleading. Like I am saying above that you can read WP:EXCEPTIONAL since this single source is contradicting every single source which say that the council refused the lift the ban and many have said after defunct EW's 1999 half-baked paragraph (that lacks any necessary details) that the ban is still in the place.
You need to forget about anything related to the resolution being lifted unless you find good number of reliable sources.
Her films are presently distributed in Manila, so yes, the prohibition has ended. Terminator 3 was played in Manila theaters in 2003 is called WP:OR unless multiple reliable sources say "Danes' movies are distributed in Manila/Philippines now, for a name Terminator 3 was released." TolWol56 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ban in the Phillipenes still in place

Sorry for starting a new section, but I think it will be easier to look at this if we separate it from the other issues.

From the article version saying it is still active we have:

From the article version saying it is not active we have:

There are really just two conflicting sources mentioned and neither are great, especially for a BLP. The guardian is slightly better, but even it shows no actual investigation and at best we can say according to Ben Child the ban was still in place in 2017, which is not great. Aircorn (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that movies starring her are being screened and distributed in Manila/Philippines seems relevant? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The ban could still be in place even though the movies make it in. Aircorn (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was talking about the ban on her films. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be enough:
"Danes described Manila as a "ghastly and weird city", and her time staying in a five-star hotel while shooting on a tropical island as "just so hard" in interviews with Vogue. Danes issued a half-hearted apology that was clearly drafted by 20th Century Fox's PR team, and Estrada didn't buy it. A government spokesman stated: "We know if an apology is true or not... We will lift the ban only if we are satisfied." That was in 1999, and the ban appears to remain in place, although Terminator 3 did sneak on to screens in 2003. Danes also remains banned from entering the Philippines." From Chris Newbould, The National, 2018[23]
We can trust this source given the sufficient details it offered with proper details and research. Chris Newbould is also cited by scholarly publications,[24][25] BBC,[26] and others. TolWol56 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is enough doubt that we cannot say the ban has been lifted. How about we say The restriction involved a permanent ban..., which seems to be agreed and the we don't have to worry about the "as of ..." and "as far as we can tell" concessions. Aircorn (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the "We know if an apology is true or not... We will lift the ban only if we are satisfied." was from October 1998, it is in the CBS piece. "Danes also remains banned from entering the Philippines." is contentious, and again, based off the same CBS piece we already decided did not say she was ever banned by the president, nor from the Philippines, nor did any other source specifically about the event from the time period. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source has no relation with 20 year old CBS. But yes the ban, both from movies and entry was never lifted. TolWol56 (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source you shared is literally quoting the CBS piece. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quoting CBS but the person who made the statement. If the person is being correctly quoted by multiple outlets then it means that we are not seeing any discrepancies about the quote. Your theory that "CBS said one thing, someone else also said same thing = latter was copying CBS" actually makes no sense. TolWol56 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last thing I'm saying that isn't specifically about the content: quotation attribution belongs both to the person who said or wrote it, but also to the publication in which it is published. This isn't a "theory", this is the field I work in, and this is how source attribution works. Hope that clears up how it relates to the CBS source. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it was easily possible that the source gathered the information without looking at CBS, let alone finding any comparison. You shouldn't be making comparisons between just any source based on your own unique way of comparison, especially when you are undermining the credibility. You need the actual evidence for that. We have a guideline (WP:IRS) and it needs to be done accordingly. TolWol56 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that it was from 1998, not 1999, and that his words were misconstrued to say that she was banned from the entire country. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One source can make a mistake but many others can't. Same can be said for another point of view. This is why our our article correctly states both countrywide or citywide ban as a possibility. TolWol56 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the point is that the CBS article, which is where the comments from the president came from, does not say it was a country-wide ban, and is from 1998, not 1999. I'm talking about facts, nothing more.
The point I'm trying to make is that readers should not be misled into believing they cannot consume content starring Danes in the region when they can. I think @Aircorn's solution of stating that part of the declaration was a prohibition on her films in the region does a fine job of stating what occurred, without adding the layer of confusion around why her films and tv shows can be watched and purchased there or adding a source that not all of the editors trust to be an accurate reason as to why. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Atienza, who drafted the resolution in 1998 said she is welcome in the region. [27] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that it is irrelevant to even drag CBS here. Now that it has been established that the ban is in place, then it is necessary to mention that Danes apologized for the comments but the officials refused to lift the ban. TolWol56 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not been established that there is currently a prohibition on her films or television shows. People who live there say that they have seen her movies in the theatre since at least 2003 and watch Homeland. Entertainment Weekly reported she sent an official letter of apology in 1999. According to Biographical author Jennifer Ambrose, she issued multiple additional apologies in 1999, including in an interview with In Style and another in Flaunt. Ambrose, Jennifer (2000). Claire Danes. Toronto, Ont.: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-55490-402-0. OCLC 302364960. All of these apologies come after the 1998 reference to her original statement not being accepted as an apology, which was originally quoted in CBS, proving it came before these other apologies which may have been the reason her work is allowed to air in the region.
I don't think I can devote any more mental space to this. I'm willing to exclude that she made later apologies, the Entertainment Weekly source, and that her films are presently shown in the region if the prohibition is only mentioned in past tense as a part of the declaration, like Aircorn suggested to find consensus. These are the details I would accept, or similar sentiment: 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.
I think it's better without the quote, as TolWol56 feels using both Vogue and Premiere is quotefarming, and feels the Premiere quote is too long. Sources have misquoted her repeatedly, so if we use any of the Premiere quote, it needs to abide by WP:PMC by coming from the magazine article itself, and likely a footnote should mention that it's bene misquoted in a number of sources.
I am willing to concede mentioning her age, though Aircorn and I both agree it's helpful context.
Sources:
- "Manila Bans Claire Danes' Movies". Associated Press. September 29, 1998.
- "Not So Great, Danes". Wired. September 30, 1998.
- Snow, Shauna (October 2, 1998). "Arts and entertainment reports from The Times, national and international news services and the nation's press". Los Angeles Times. (tertiary, but explicitly states her age. Alternatively, the Premiere magazine article also explicitly mentions her age.)
Notes:
- Recent tertiary sources have mixed reports whether she and her films was banned in Manila or the Philippines
- Sources report that her films have been distributed in the region since at least 2003
- according to a Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) legal opinion, persona non grata declarations are often made through resolutions by the local legislature rather than ordinances and is merely made to express a sentiment; which effectively meant that such declarations are non-binding. (sources in persona non grata (Philippines))
TolWol56, are you willing to come to a consensus? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying that UK does not have closed borders because thousands of people have illegally made it to London every year.
Keep this kind of irrelevant WP:OR argument out.
Nobody is going to consider a lone 23 years old poorly written paragraph from defunct EW that only includes ban on movies, not entry ban and offers no necessary details. The Guardian, The National (it noted Terminator 3 was released but ban stays), and other recent sources written by better experts are the ones who pass WP:RS and also WP:RSAGE. TolWol56 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is doing WP:OR. ...ban appears to remain in place... does not indicate that the "ban stays". It indicates, like with all of the other sources, that they could not definitively say whether there was an existing prohibition on her films, but that Terminator 3 was screened in the region, which is what I think we should mention in a footnote. It's very clear by the list I made that I was only talking about the films prohibition. I understand you don't care for the Entertainment Weekly source, which is why I said above I've agreed that it doesn't need to be included. That doesn't address the fact that we cannot definitively say there is a prohibition on her films, per WP:NOTFALSE. The sources have MOS:WTW we would never utilize to indicate that something is verified, regardless of whether or not it is a WP:RS. "Far as we can tell" and "appears to" indicate that the sources were not able to determine whether or not there was a ban in place, they merely think so.
Secondly, we've already reached a consensus that the sources closest to the subject do not indicate that there was anything more than a persona non grata (Philippines) declaration as a resolution voted on by the Manila city council, which included a prohibition on her films until she publicly apologized in a manner that the city council felt was satisfactory. More sources that mention an entry ban say it was Manila than the country of the Philippines that she was banned from. The sources you are mentioning are not better because they are recent, see WP:RECENT, especially since they are WP:TERTIARY.
Please work with Aircorn and I on a consensus, instead of just arguing.
Points that need consensus:
  • Whether her age should be included.
Aircorn and I agree this is useful context. That being said, it can be gleaned from her birthday and the year of the event, so I'd concede on it.
  • Whether or not a quote should be included
Aircorn suggested we do not need a quote. I initially felt like the quote was necessary, but actually found I preferred it without. Because the Premiere magazine quote has been misquoted, I don't think we should include it. If we do, as I said above, we need to use the actual quote from the magazine, and include a footnote that it's been misquoted elsewhere.
According to her biography, the comments about the people with missing limbs were specifically about the people they saw imprisoned in the psychiatric hospital, and that line in particular has been the subject of having the meaning altered.
Aircorn suggested we use the Vogue quote instead. I think it would be better to use the Premiere magazine one or not to use one at all.
  • Whether or not the entry ban and the contention over it should go inline or in a footnote.
I think it should go in a footnote, not inline. The reason for this is because the sources closest to the subject only mention the persona non grata and hyperbole from the president. The vast majority of sources, including all of the WP:SECONDARY and most of the tertiary sources, recent and from the late 90's which discuss an entry ban say it was of the city. Her biography states that the only ban that was ever in place was of her films, and the only film that the ban ever affected was the screening of Brokedown Palace.
  • Whether or not we should notate some sources claim the ban "appears" to still be in place.
I do not think it should be included for the reasons above. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I have read the above. I think we all need to stop for a while. This has been posted on one of the most watched noticeboards in Wikipedia (ANI has over 5000), it has gone from 8 pageviews on the 21st to an average of 74 in the last five days[28] and so far the conversation is dominated by you two with over 50 edits to this page each.[29] The position of each of you is clear and unlikely to change. It is time to see if anyone else wants to comment, and they won't if it just continues to be an argument between two editors. If no one else does in the next few days I would suggest we just do an RFC with the two versions and let the community decide. Aircorn (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a lot, and I'm not sure I've taken it all in. I will add as general points though that, firstly, looking at the filmography section, many of the films since Terminator 3 might not make it to the Philippines without a ban (I haven't looked into whether they have or haven't). Secondly, there is (understandable) confusion/conflation in the Guardian source and perhaps elsewhere between Manila and the wider Metro Manila, which may impact on how sources should be interpreted. CMD (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: I've opened an RFC below this section if you're interested in providing input. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had commented on ANI and will also comment here since I got pinged yesterday by SquareInARoundHole there. I agree that this conversation needs to be stopped now and I don't recommend another RfC because RfCs are good for modifying a single sentence or usage of terms, that are going through an actual dispute. They are not for discussing a whole paragraph where one user is not understanding that they are in fact treating the one side to be largely innocent and defensible and treat another side to be oversensitive and arrogant and clearly removing a good degree of culpability from the subject as visible from SIARH's preferred version. I can recommend taking this to WP:DRN only if the dispute is serious which I don't think it is, however, I maintain that RfC will waste everyone's time. GenuineArt (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a perfect example for a when a RFC can work. If two editors can't agree and are being inflexible then it actually saves time given that it provides an easier forum for others to comments without being drowned out. Just present the two version and see which one gets consensus. Aircorn (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If only 2 users are disagreeing then there is WP:3O. But that option is no longer useful since more than 3 users have commented here. If anyone assumes that it has failed, then WP:DRN would be better because RfCs are better used for asking simple questions or resolving dispute over particular terms. An RfC happened here as well,[30] and I don't think that this time it will go that well because the recent text walls are so aggressive that I think many of the messages above are in fact larger than the entire RfC that happened earlier. Such conduct will only drive participants away from the RfC than encourage them to contribute. In general, DRN is more recommended for this situation because DRN volunteers are allowed to demand brief responses to the questions they will ask in relation to the dispute and they are better at examining the dispute. GenuineArt (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of people with opinions in the BLPN thread, I think an RFC will work fine. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn & @GenuineArt I've opened an RFC below this section and notified participants in the BLPN discussion of it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Claire Danes persona non grata resolution

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",[31] such as the Manila City Council. This is why most mainstream reliable sources say Danes is banned from entering the Philippines.[32][33][34][35][36][37] 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".[38] 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.[39] 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:
    @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. [40] 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. [41] 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.[42] 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]
  • 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 [43] 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." [44] 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,[45] 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.[46] 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.[47] 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?[48] 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.[49][50] A self-admission in form of an interview was already linked by me above which supports that she got banned from the Philippines.[51] 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."[52] 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."[53] 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.[54] 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."[55] It later emerged that the Committee's bylaws made no provision for declaring anyone persona non grata;[56] 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.'"[57]
  • 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."[58] (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.[59] 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]

New "Philippine dustup" status quo per WP:BLP

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. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69],[70], [71],[72], [73],[74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81] 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.[82]
  • Claire Danes is persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films.[83]
  • 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.[84]
  • 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."[85]
  • 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.[86]
  • Several of her films were screened in the region, including (but not limited to) Terminator 3, Stardust, and The Family Stone.[87][88][89][90] Me and Orson Welles was also reviewed in the region. [91]
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 [92]).
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]

Dispute and full protection

I have fully protected the article for two weeks. That can be lifted by any administrator without consulting me if the disagreements appear to have been resolved. I have not yet had time to examine the underlying issue but offer these initial thoughts. This is an article about an American actress. The fact that she might have commented negatively about Manila or that Filipino authorities might have issued a ban is something that belongs in the article on the Filipino authorities. It only belongs in an article on the person if independent reliable sources have commented on the significance of the issue to Claire Danes. Of course there will be lots of commentary about the incident, but WP:DUE and WP:BLP mean that not every incident is worth recording in an article about the life of the person. This is my generic message that I deliver on occasions like these—I have not yet read the arguments or the sources. Please discuss the issue focusing on the points mentioned and let me, or any admin, know if further input is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to remove the contentious content during the dispute? It is currently still there, under personal life. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is backed by 2020 RfC [93] and lacks any "contentious content". Stop trying to mislead every single person who edits this talk page. TolWol56 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous editors are arguing about whether or not Danes was banned from entry, or if her films were ever actually banned, on top of her being misquoted. The reasoning is WP:BLP and WP:PMC, namely that primary and secondary sourcing are being ignored in favor of your selected 4 tertiary sources (thus poorly referenced). That makes that content contentious content. "One definition is an unreferenced or poorly referenced claim that any editor objects to, if that editor is acting in good faith." - Wikipedia:Contentious SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change and the RfC you keep waving has zero to do with sourcing, which has now been challenged or BLP concerns, which have now been raised given the inaccuracy of the statement in wikivoice.Slywriter (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about sourcing within the RfC and the wording remained the same since 9 February 2020[94] about 1 month before RfC was closed.[95] Nothing has been correctly shown to have been "challenged or BLP concerns". TolWol56 (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, any chance of a substantive response to my opening comment? Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look more later and will be hoping to see answers to points raised in my original post above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An interview of Claire Danes with Michael Krugman called "Perfectly Claire", also cited by the above book, was published by reliable source Flaunt in 1998 and is found in some archives[96] where Krugman discussed the ban from the Philippines with Danes. It noted "The incident has left a very bad taste in Danes' mouth about the interview process and journalists in general," as Danes said "The writer had done another article about me and she was very kind, so I thought, 'She likes me, she's going to be supportive and cool and I can loosen up and sound interesting.' I was so dumb. So dumb. Again, I apologize to everybody that was offended, I was wrong, but Jesus, enough already."
This book cited the interview and dedicated multiple pages to the controversy. It describes its significance and adds that "It hurt her that her apology wasn't accepted."
The controversy happened just before she took a "long break" as written by The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) while reporting on Danes' return from break: "Before her long break, Danes had already created plenty of controversy over what she had said and done. It even earned her a ban from the Philippines, imposed by the government." SMH then tells about the controversy. TolWol56 (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the incident appears to have contributed to Danes's decision to withdraw from Hollywood and go to college; though I think it is common for child actors to experience anxiety over their education and return to school (see James Franco and Natalie Portman, for instance). I do not support removing all mention of this event from the article.
Honestly, I think the total disinterest the English-language press shows in talking directly and seriously with Filipino officials is a more suitable source of outrage than Danes's comments. I am not at all surprised by her comments; poverty and misery are indeed shocking to people who have grown up insulated from them, and young people can be pretty cavalier about other people's loss of face. But I feel if the government of Stockholm had objected to something she said or did, and declared her persona non grata, there would be an embarrassment of detailed sources leaving no doubt whatever what was banned, and how, and for how long, and under what law, and what distributors and exhibitors and fans thought of it, and what it was expected to cost the industry, and on and on. The complacency says loud and clear that the Philippines are a sideshow, a backwater, not to be taken seriously. But that complacency can also be exploited to make a non-binding resolution look like a ban. Regulov (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've established that tertiary sources created a feedback loop that she was banned from the Philippines. Finding more of those tertiary sources doesn't change what Kim Atienza, the councilor who authored the resolution,[97] said in a statement in a secondary source: We cannot stop her from coming back because that is a diplomatic decision.[98] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Johnuniq: So background is that there was a RFC in Feb 2020 about whether the Philippines paragraph was undue. Four editors opined (Tol being the only one in the current dispute) and it was closed as consensus to keep but reword and soften. Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. SIARH disputes the paragraph, mainly on accuracy, Tol defends the RFC and we get a classic edit war escalating to ANI (with the required walls of text by the two main participants). I saw it at ANI, decided it was primarily a content dispute and naively though I could help resolve it. In the end I suggested a RFC which is still running above. Over my analysis of the dispute (in particular the quality of the sourcing used) I decided personally that the whole thing was Undue and made a comment to that effect at the RFC. Now other editors have been drawn in, which is one of the goals of any RFC, but have unfortunately started edit warring again on the paragraph, claiming BLP applies. Now that was wrong, it is not such a BLP issue that we can't let the RFC run its course. I can add some links later if you like but have to run now. Anyway the full protection is good at the moment, the RFC can be closed in 2-3 weeks and ideally we can all live with whatever the outcome is and move on. Aircorn (talk)
    • Thanks but it's pretty clear that this a bog-standard dispute and I was hoping to focus minds on the issue rather than who is more righteous. For everyone's information, any time there is a dispute about the DUEness of material on a BLP article, it is a BLP issue and people restoring such content need to take great care rather than rely on the time-worn but-we-were-first strategy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, although not sure what the "but" indicates as that was basically what I said, just in more detail. I disagree about the BLP issue. I mean it is a BLP issue technically, but it is not such a BLP issue that it justifies changing the wording during an active RFC, especially as many participants see no issues with the current wording. That way lies chaos. Aircorn (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between a "BLP issue technically" and a BLP issue we need to take seriously. Observing the letter of the policy only leads to chaos if "many participants" refuse to acknowledge the policy. Regulov (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Philippine section

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claire_Danes&oldid=1095612604"