Talk:Ashley Johnson

Picture

This is a comment for Ashley Johnson's current picture. She has received significantly more exposure as Patterson in the T.V series Blindspot and I feel her current picture is not up to standards. I would make a suggestion myself, however I don't know what pictures of her would be legal to use on Wikipedia so I'm just commenting here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.203.24 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's five years later now and the current picture definitely seems too old. But I'm not sure what the best alternate would be either. TimSmit (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Separation

@Rhain: Just want to flag that Comicbook.com is a reliable source in the TTRPG space & that reporter specifically has interviewed the cast of Critical Role a bunch. The reporter (in both the article & on Twitter) has stated that he reviewed the legal documents so it's not just regurgitating tabloid coverage. I also requested page protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo: I'm aware that the source is somewhat reliable in some contexts ("inconclusive" for video games, so neither here nor there) but with content like this, I think it's preferable to wait for more reliable, mainstream coverage. I'm less concerned about the legitimacy of the information—I've seen the legal documents, unfortunately—and more about the privacy of such a personal event. I'm sure there'll be more reliable coverage before long, so I would recommend waiting until then. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've reviewed BLP but I couldn't find any exact guidance on this type of issue (WP:VICTIM doesn't really account for notable persons who are then a victim of a crime; WP:BLPCRIME is also about notable persons being accused & not the other way around). Just updated the page protection request as this is no longer a pre-emptive request. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good call. It also may be important to note that WP:BLPCRIME likely applies to Foster in this case, so still better to err on the side of caution and omit the information for now. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rhain: With PCGamesN now reporting on this, I think we have enough to say that Johnson and Foster are no longer together (maybe: In 2023, Johnson separated from Foster or In 2023, it was reported that Johnson separated from Foster). I don't think we need to include any of the specifics at this point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Really good call on that phrasing. I saw PCGamesN's coverage but was hesitant to use it for this topic (same with Insider) but I think your phrasing (especially "it was reported") is a perfect compromise for now. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Restraining Order against Brian Foster

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2023/05/23/ashley-johnson-restraining-order-brian-wayne-foster-the-last-of-us-critical-role/70250246007/

To the editor who reverted my talk page addition:

1. it's a talk page. Why did you need to revert it? That's the whole point, it's "talk". It's not the article.

2. even though the source is already used in the article, the body of the article does not mention the restraining order at all.

70.29.86.90 (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hope no one minds me making this a subsection because this seems to just be a continuation of the conversation above about sourcing on this issue. Right now, we're not mentioning the restraining order because of BLP concerns. We basically just have USA Today as the most reliable source and Insider/PCGamesN as less reliable sources for BLP concerns. At the momement, I think it is also WP:UNDUE to include it; if more is released by reliable sources (for BLP concerns) or if anyone makes a formal statement, then we should update it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it really a "continuation of the conversation above"? The conversation above neither mentions USA Today, nor does it mention the restraining order. 70.29.86.155 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's about the same topic. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I felt it was a continuation because when I added the 3 sources (first PCGamesN & Insider & then USA Today) for the separation, my edit summaries referenced this discussion (ie. how much detail to include & what reliable sources do we have). So "do we include the restraining order" seems very much part of the "how much detail to include" discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Updates to restraining order case

Understand @Rhain's removal of the most recent case update due to BLP concern's with Radar as a source. However, that decision does seem to bring into question the inclusion of prior sites of similar reputation as sources, namely Insider and Hollywood Reporter. I understand the surface acceptance of USA Today as a source, but the source is specifically their celebrity gossip blog, which produces content essentially the same as the Radar article. Both quote primary sources of the publicly available (but not linkable) court documents with minimal editorializing. So, is the decision in this instance of what is considered a viable source based more on opinion about the reputation of celebrity gossip sites? Or about the factual contents of the source articles themselves?

Based off of the overall guidelines for WP:BLP, I question whether the sections regarding Johnson's legal action should be included in the article at all? LostWithoutABeat (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources currently used are considered at least marginally reliable per WP:RSP. More important, though, is that there are several references cited for each statement, whereas the information removed here was supported by only one (a seemingly unreliable one, at that). For privacy's sake, I'd be content with removing all of the information, personally speaking—but I don't think I have guidelines on my side there, so we opt for multiple reliable references instead. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Ashley Johnson (actress) → Ashley Johnson – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC —theMainLogan (t•c) 17:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: {{RM notice}} left on Talk:Ashley Johnson (rugby union) at Special:Diff/1219760741 and on Talk:Ashley Johnson (footballer) at Special:Diff/1219760777. — microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the primary topic. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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.