Talk:Kelsey Grammer/Archives/2021
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kelsey Grammer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Political Party
Kelsey Grammer's not a very political guy. Do we really need to include his political party? Just saying, it doesn't seem very relevant. ElectionsGuy (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- You’re wrong. He’s talked about how he wants to run for office on several occasions
Babysitter statutory rape story missing from wiki
i'm curious if the community feels this belongs in his wiki. he was found not guilty, but it is still a big part of his life and some of the facts of the case are pretty interesting. Mbsyl (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- I noticed the absence as well, when just reviewing the article for the first time. This event was rather big news, coming when it did at the height of Grammer's success, and definitely has sufficient WP:WEIGHT even in sources which discuss the man to this day: since the recent chatter of a possible Frasier reboot, I've seen a small glut of WP:RS articles based on a renewed interest in the man as a general topic; of the three I read, all of them mentioned this element of his past. All things considered, I don't see an even remotely feasible argument that it's not WP:DUE for at least a little discussion here, however brief and conservative the statement.
- In response to Mbsyl's inquiry: the subject not having been convicted is not directly relevant to the standard of whether we discuss the accusation: many articles have to discuss such matters frequently where no party was ever convicted or charged. The test applied under our policies is the same as for other topics: is there sufficient WP:WEIGHT in the sources to warrant discussing this episode of the man's life--I think the answer is very clearly an emphatic yes on this occasion. Now, by the same token, this is a WP:BLP matter, so we must be scrupulously neutral, fully attribute all accusations, and introduce no editorializing, but I think some mention that a girl (age 15 at the time of the purported event) pressed charges on a statutory rape accusation is certainly not something this article can just completely omit reference to. All of that said, everything that is known about this accusation can be easily summarized in a paragraph, or as a little as two sentences if we decide to be super reserved with how much space to devote. Snow let's rap 10:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- thanks Snow Rise good to know I'm not alone on this one. i will leave the edit to a more experienced wikipedian, as i am pretty new and this is somewhat sensitive. do you think it deserves mention that the prosecutor (who blamed the victim in the NYT article) in the case killed himself months later for corruption due to his gambling addiction? or that Kelsey's lawyer had married a juror from his first big case and then kept it secret until accidentally revealing it?? thanks again Mbsyl (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, I think those issues are far too collateral and, as none of the sources (that I have seen) links them directly to this event (and even if they did, we only have enough WP:WEIGHT in the sources here to justify a surface level discussion of this event) it just would not be an appropriate point to raise here, as it it could only serve as inuendo. This is a balancing act between WP:DUE and WP:BLP concerns and anything that would seem to go to suggest that Grammer got free of a charge because of malfeasance would need to appear in a whole lot of high quality sources saying expressly that, which we don't have. I think it suffices to discuss this episode briefly, covering the details of the accusation that have been known for decades without sinking into the morass of speculation (and sometimes innuendo) that I am sure is out there among sources that probably do not meet our RS standard (blogs and outlets without well-established editorial controls). Snow let's rap 02:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- fair enough. thanks for the explanation! Mbsyl (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Happy to help. :) If you're in no hurry to implement the change, I'll wait a while to see if there are any other perspectives before moving ahead with an edits. Snow let's rap 03:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind, I see you've already done the leg work; well that's perfectly fine: WP:BOLD and all. And insofar as you kept the content tight and reduced down to the more essential (and well sourced) points, I think that should be perfectly fine. Snow let's rap 04:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- He is a Republican, so I think it needs to be in...I mean, it needs to be in because, um, it's newsworthy.
Why are the babysitter accusations captioned “legal issues”? There’s only one issue under the heading and it’s statutory rape. This kid-gloves treatment is inappropriate and non-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.180.34 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why does this heading keep getting reverted? As long as a heading fairly describes the content, there’s no BLP issue with said heading. There might be with the content, but that’s a separate issue
- There are a few legal issues and, therefore, it's appropriate to use 'Legal Issues' as the header. I can understand your point, and if there was a larger section on the accusation of statutory rape, then it would, surely, qualify for its own heading under 'Statutory rape allegations'. If you can expand it with good, solid sources, I'd support what you're arguing for. --Abillionradios (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)