Talk:Priscilla Barnes

Someone should mention her topless cameo in the movie Mallrats, but I'm far too busy right now. Maybe you can do it instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.59.161 (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're too busy to do it yourself but you're able to suggest it here on the Talk Page? :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved the following unsourced information here from the article pending sourcing for it:

• birthdate = December 7, 1955.
• birthplace = Fort Dix, New Jersey.
• Barnes was asked to be a guest on Somers' short-lived talk show, but she turned down the offer.
• She has been married to actor Ted Monte since 2003.

Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The 'Internel Movie Database' is a pretty good source. Other 'actor/actress' bios, use that website as a source. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've always thought the IMDB was a reliable source, oh well. Could we have somekinda 'tag' at the article's entry, to show 'why' there's no birthdate/birthplace? That way, editors won't make the mistake I did. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I didn't even remember that I already moved the information here back in August.

As for the sources, yeah, I once assumed that imdb was reliable, until I was told otherwise. Although the reliability of imdb is an ongoing source of controversy (one that I wish Jimmy Wales or someone else would settle with some type of written policy, guideline or consensus discussion), if you do a search at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, you'll find literally dozens of discussions in which the vast majority of participants agree that it's not reliable, especially for biographical information, because the content is user-generated and lacks editorial controls. The same goes for other sites that operate in that manner, such AllMovie, which is referenced in two discussions on the RSN that you can find with a search, one of which is a discussion about AllMovie itself, and one of which is an IMDB discussion in which someone brings up AllMovie. In both cases, AllMovie is said to be unreliable, or the point is made that their editorial policy is unknown.

I don't think there's any particular tag that would fit this point, nor do I think it's a good idea, since by the same rationale, you could put tags on articles that lack lots of information. The only thing I can think of is to add a "commented out" disclaimer in the edit field that's rendered invisible in the Saved article. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was also told IMDB is unreliable, especially on age-of-actors issues. There are several sources for her having been born on December 7 in Fort Dix. The sources vary, however, on the year: 1955 or 1952. What the deuce do we do with that? -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Howabout a 'note' where her birthdate/birthplace would've been? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Nightscream (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

If we've got other sources on the date with disputed years. We could have 7 December 1952/55. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that's very good form for an encyclopedia, particularly for a BLP. Why not have a look at these sources, and see which, if any is reliable, or the more reliable of the two? Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what those other sources are (that Rrius mentions). The tag will do. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just googled her name and "December 7", and it came up with different sources saying different years. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have deleted that Priscilla Barnes is still insisting the Penthouse photos are not her because she is no longer denying it. Regardless of any public statements, she admitted it in a California district court during the legal action she undertook to prevent Penthouse from using the photos with her real name. The result was Penthouse has full use of the photos but must use them under Priscilla's pseudonym Joanna Witty. Here's the web site for the legal action: http://www.precydent.com/citation/792/F.2d/943 TL36 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I modified the paragraph about her Penthouse case as the way it was written did not agree with the what was in the cited source. I personally remember when the controversy occurred, and it was a bit of a soap opera, but I cannot remember if they ever republished her photos using her original pseudonym or another one.

The issue about her age was rather strange. I assume since whenever this was originally done the original source changed its info, as both AllMovie and IMDb give the same birth year of 1955. I don't know why anybody would believe she was born in 1958 - that just made no sense. It's kind of strange that up above back in 2009 there was a debate on whether she was born in 1952, which makes more sense to me.

I hope nobody reverts it back to old way where it has both years of birth. But then, this is Wikipedia...__209.179.36.56 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, guess what - somebody did. Rms125a@hotmail.com would you please explain why you reverted my edit, especially since you didn't bother to explain your actions. Thanks in advance. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. AllMovie and IMDb are not reliable sources, nor are NNDb, Fandango, Filmreference.com, etc, regarding biodata such as contested dates, years and places of birth. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ohhhh-kaaaay, now can you please explain how your "explanation" above agrees with your revert of my edit? Thanks. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Quis separabit? 19:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, I hope you will forgive me in advance if I am blunt and break this down to the point that even a child may understand this, as you seem to not have a clue. (And if there is something I am missing here I hope you will clue me in).

There are two main problems to your reverting of my correction to the old incorrect info. First, let me point out the apparent contraction in your actions and your justification of it. You say that birth dates from IMDb are not reliable (not entirely true but I won't argue the point) and then you revert my correction to the old version that uses IMDb and AllMovie to verify her DoB. Which means... you reverted to the old version that uses them to verify her DoB... and then you say that shouldn't be done.... Hmmmmm... I'm not sure I understand that - could you explain it? It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

But here's the kicker: by "correcting" my correction and restoring the old incorrect information (why, I don't know) you have actually violated Wikipedia's rules. Since you probably have no idea what I'm talking about I'll explain. The 1958 DoB is referenced to AllMovie, and had you actually read that source, you would have realized that it has the 1955 date, and not 1958. So I ask you: why do you insist on putting factually incorrect info in the article that isn't even verified by the cited source?

Another point I'd appreciate you addressing is that if you insist that the the 1958 YoB be included aren't you in potential violation of WP:BLP rules, as it is potentially libelous to assert that? Don't you think this shouldn't be done? Sincerely, __209.179.36.56 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong on all points and your contemptuous and dismissive tone preclude me from addressing you further, although I will keep the page watchlisted and will make whatever corrections are needed. Quis separabit? 01:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way and that you refuse to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I of course cannot force you to do the right thing, but until you provide some kind of actual reason for your actions, I will continue to try to improve the article, despite your obstructive behavior. Yours sincerely, __209.179.36.56 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your decidedly unhelpful and pointless edits have been reverted. Why Barnes' year of birth is of such import to you I don't know or care, but this is a tempest in a teapot. If it's so important then find out the right year from a reliable source and that will be that. Quis separabit? 19:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, the fate of life on Earth does not rest on getting the correct info in an article here on Wikipedia. But you know what? There are actually people on Wikipedia who care about it, who think that it should have correct info in its articles, and are willing to try to overcome the self declared I-don't-care obstructionists. Here's hoping you someday see the light. Yours sincerely, __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I saw the light long before you. Barnes is not the only individual whose year of birth is disputed and whose article lede reflects that in varying ways -- Lillian Russell, Joan Crawford, Michelle Thomas, Eve Arden, Lee Grant, Lynne Moody, etc. Quis separabit? 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what light you're looking at and it doesn't matter how many other articles there are with disputed DoB (I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds), but it wouldn't make a bit of a difference, as here the only "dispute" is in your head. And I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lie about me when writing your edit summaries. Your last one went like this: "rv unilateral editing, violative of NEGOTIATION; discuss should be added or extended on talk page." Anyone reading this talk page will know it was I who tried to discuss this issue and not you.

Quite frankly I'm very tired by your behavior. I don't know whether you are playing some kind of game or if you simply can't understand rather simple things. Neither one of those looks good on you. This is like having an argument with someone who insists that 2 + 2 = 8, and will not relent no matter what.

But I'll tell you what: this weekend I'll try to write an analysis of this issue so idiot-proof I'm sure even you will finally get it. I hope that after you read it you'll have the decency to provide an intelligent response, along with an apology. Yours sincerely, __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the previous version that Rms125 seeks to keep, the first line in the lede reads, "Priscilla Barnes (born December 7, 1955 or 1958; sources differ)[1][5] is an American actress,...". There are two issue here, whether she was born in '55 or '58, and the verification of it. Rms125 insists upon leaving both years there (as well as in the Infobox) because he claims the year of birth is disputed. The "dispute" apparently exists, so far as I can see and for which he has heretofore refused to discuss, only in his mind. If one hovers the cursor over the footnote "1" & "5", it will show they point to AllMovie.com and Internet Movie Database, respectively. BOTH sources, I repeat BOTH sources give the YoB as 1955, a fact that Rms125 would have known if, oh i don't know, actually checked them for himself, you know the way responsible and competent Wikieditors do before they make any editing decision. So, as far as I can see, there is no dispute on the year of her birth, unless Rms125 has access to some information that he has for some reason kept to himself.

The second point here is that even if there were a source to show the 1958 YoB we wouldn't be able to use it. I don't know what Rms125's background in research is, but back in covered wagon days I can remember my historiography prof saying that a researcher is like a detective looking for clues. Just because you find something it doesn't mean it's right, and you shouldn't use it if the other information doesn't support it. (He also used a jigsaw puzzle analogy, in that just because you have an empty space you shouldn't force a loose piece into that space just because you want it to go there.) Now if you had actually read and understood the article, you would have realized the following: if in fact she had been born in 1958, this would mean she was underage when she worked at a Hollywood nightclub and when she posed for Penthouse. So Rms125, are you willing to make the potentially libelous claim that she lied about her age and provided false documents, which I'm sure is against the law? As i understand it, libelous claims are against WP:BLP and is therefore not allowed.

I also tried to change the beginning of the Early Life section where it reads, "Barnes was born December 7 (some sources indicate 1955 and others 1958) in Fort Dix, ..." to my edit, "Barnes was born in Fort Dix,...". Since the Dob is already established in the lede and info box I believe it's unnecessary to restate it again in the article. But for for some reason Rms125 insists upon it remaining there - perhaps he will be good enough to provide an explanation on why he thinks it absolutely necessary for it to remain there. Yours sincerely, __209.179.36.56 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

IN RE: "The "dispute" apparently exists, so far as I can see and for which he has heretofore refused to discuss, only in his mind. If one hovers the cursor over the footnote "1" & "5", it will show they point to AllMovie.com and Internet Movie Database, respectively. BOTH sources, I repeat BOTH sources give the YoB as 1955, a fact that Rms125 would have known if, oh i don't know, actually checked them for himself," -- as I mentioned (if you scroll above to a prior thread of this unending colloquy), IMDb and AllMovie.com are NOT reliable sources for personal info (see RS) and certainly cannot be deciding factors in resolving contested claims, which is why any article with only IMDb as a source is flagged as needing additional references (see here). Perhaps YOU could do some re-reading, @209.179.36.56, and more importantly, digesting. Quis separabit? 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Her high school yearbook is on classmates.com and she's listed as a senior of Antelope Valley High School in 1972. This adds up to around a 1954/1955 birth year.

https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/4182716232?page=115

I know it can't be used as a source to confirm her exact age. I just wanted to point this out.Kcj5062 (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply