Talk:Leo Laporte

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

Sex chat material[edit]

Please see discussion at WP:BLPN#Leo_Laporte about the inclusion of the "sex chat" material. This is unencyclopedic garbage that is insufficiently relevant to Laporte, his notability, and his life to warrant inclusion. Please do not reinsert until a consensus is established, either here or at BLPN in favor of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Editors should take a look at WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Keep the gossip and the speculation out of this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sex scandals certainly are encyclopedic. Take a look at Anthony Weiner's page. 50.81.60.161 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a beta 207.35.12.10 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sex scandals are relevant. You bet Bill Clintons page has lots of details about the Lewinsky scandal. I think a controversy section is warranted with a link to the Gawker article. Let the readers decide the validity, it can be presented in a neutral and unbiased way. Same for the Erik Lanigan controversy. It doesn't need to be super lascivious or detailed, but it does need to be mentioned. The question is whether Leo's overly rabid fanbase will try to edit anything unflattering out. The chat was posted publicly, it was in the news, it should be mentioned on his encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.224.22 (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton examples are not good comparisons. Weiner resigned, Clinton was impeached, and those incidents were covered in depth by reliable sources. So, if you propose to mention this in the Laporte article, bring forth the reliable sources that describe the incident and its impact on his life, and the language you propose to add, here on the talk page. Blogs and social media aren't acceptable sources, and there must be consensus to add controversial content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo's BBS[edit]


BLP Redactions[edit]

Yesterday, I reviewed the removal of a section titled Podcasting: The Tech Guy contoversy by user Bbb23. I was vaguely aware of the situation, but this section provided a lot more info that I had previously been aware of. I also took a long look at WP:BLP. WP:BLP states articles "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". It also states "We must get the article right" and "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" which led me to WP:NEWSBLOG.

As I read the removed portion, and initially the removal seemed to make some sense. While it was labeled with inline citations, I could see why Perez Hilton might seem less than reliable (and I agree- I would not use that source!). But with two sources- Gawker in a bylined article being the second- a little more credence could be allowed. When you add in the uncut video on the Gawker site (also considered a source see WP:RELIABLE), the questionably of the charge that (Redacted) is pretty well rendered moot. Two sources and a video pretty well establish that the removed portion is "right". (I am NOT going to post or reference the uncut video on the page, but for reference, here is a link to it: (Redacted))

If I had not read the talk page here, I probably still would have sided with removal (being conservative). But now I see this is not the first time that (Redacted). (Redacted). While I would not go so far as to say (Redacted) these incidents rise to encyclopedic, and now worthy of inclusion.

Laporte is not a private citizen- he is a public figure who knowingly and consciously puts himself in the public eye. The bar for public figures is set much higher. I am NOT saying we take our responsibility to publish what is right any lighter- right is ALWAYS best. But what I am saying is that Laporte has put himself out there, and concerns for his privacy are considerably less than for an average person.

Further, he fashions himself and his company as "People You Trust." Thus, (Redacted).

We do not remove parts of articles because they might be embarrassing to their subject. We post to inform. Check out the Janet Jackson article- is the wardrobe malfunction ignored? No. Neither should this be glossed over. It is reliably sourced, there is no way to question whether it happened, and goes to the subject’s character. In this instance, it is encyclopedic.

I have rewritten the section removed. I have toned it down and made it less objectionable, with no gossip or speculation. If you want to edit it, please do. But at this point, this should remain as a portion of the Leo Laporte page.


Slo town ca (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this material, per WP:BLP - the sources referenced are not reliable for controversial material about living persons. I have also redacted the sections of the comment above which are also contrary to WP:BLP; and amended the section header. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this removal; if the sole source is Gawker, that suggests it's not significant to Laporte's life. The analogy to Janet Jackson is inapposite - the Janet Jackson incident was widely reported and resulted in record-breaking FCC monetary penalties to the broadcasting network. Neither of those two situations appear to be true in this case. In addition, I've redacted the link to the material, because it serves no encyclopedic purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leo Laporte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leo Laporte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, wikipedia is pwned[edit]

Oh well, most of laportes page was pulled because some ferocious super fan doesnt like true things. Wikipedia is dead, long live wikipedia. 72.229.22.134 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leo_Laporte&oldid=1212966003"