Talk:Sebastian Stan

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

No sources have been found, we need to change partner for the moment as nothing has been confirmed by either team as well as the source is an unreliable source that has no official credits. The source used has been shown in the past to have false information. 2890567abkj (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Please clarify what changes you want to be made. Ideally with the {{diff|1=(previous text)|2=(new/requested text)}} template. EvenLeoEme (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Can someone explain why sebastian does not have a personal life section? Theres an abundant information to add about his personal life especially his romantic relationships and they were verified! I dont undertand why someone removed the subjects personal life section Spywalkers (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Let’s keep Wikipedia neutral and professional. If he doesn’t talk about it, there’s no need to add it. For romantic relationships there are gossip magazines. AGreenSunflower (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

He actually does, at least to an extent that confirms he's been in a relationship for several years

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/sebastian-stan-2025-interview

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/inside-sebastian-stans-winning-look-at-the-golden-globes-2025 ~2026-21894-09 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

To an extent. He doesn’t actively talk about it, he is not even active on social media. Let’s keep it professional. AGreenSunflower (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This is such nonsense reply! Keep it professional? Hes relationship hs been confirmed multiple times and he doesnt have to actively talk about it to assumed that hes dating her or that! Thats the point of personal life section and they are not just gossip. Multiple verified outlets Like PEOPLE, Variety, ENTERTAINMENT outlets are NOT gossip outlet, they are Verified sources and that has confirmed his relationships! Spywalkers (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

People's personal lives should be just that personal.. Who he is or is not sleeping with?Doesn't make him a better or worse actor...mind your own business ~2026-21996-44 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Mind you own business?? Youre so weird! isnt what wikipedia editors do? Compile as much relevant and sourced informations as we could! And youre saying this? Retarded. Theres so many celebrities who have had personal life sections in their pages and had their confirmed and sourced relationship listed! Spywalkers (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not relevant information. AGreenSunflower (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You dont know whats relevant! People magazine is verified outlet Spywalkers (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Calm down. AGreenSunflower (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Multiple sources has confirmed his relationship and he talk about Annabelle Wallis, see Talk Page at the Golden Globe awards when he said “ I Love You”- Publicly Acknowledging his relationship with her !

People magazines have confirmed their relationship and including their public appearances together! How come their relationship is still not confirmed up to this point? I just feel like this editors who keep removing it including in Annabelle page are not being professional and may contain personal bias or emotional attachment with the actor. Also suspicions on removing Sebastian personal life section despite having sourced. I need opinion or assistance for this matter to reach consensus and finally resolved this dispute. THANK YOU

He doesnt have to actively talk about his relationship to confirm it and they are not gossip. He’s very private! Many celebrities dont talk about their partners including joaquin phoenix and rooney mara but that doesnt mean theyre relationship is a gossip. here the references People Magazine is a verified material that meets Wikipedia’s standard and is considered a reputable source under the WP: BLP Policy – WP:BLPSOURCES https://people.com/sebastian-stan-rare-comment-annabelle-wallis-romance-11719585 https://people.com/sebastian-stan-annabelle-wallis-relationship-everything-to-know-11724268 https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a62765595/sebastian-stan-annabelle-wallis-relationship-timeline/

Spywalkers (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not relevant information. AGreenSunflower (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Cut It Out @Spywalkers, AGreenSunflower, and ~2026-21894-09: both of you need to quit the edit warring and personal attacks. Follow the process in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:59, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I have requested the page be locked and only edited by senior editors. AGreenSunflower (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@AGreenSunflower@Spywalkers You are both edit warring. I've protected the page so neither of you can edit it for three days. Discuss here, get a third opinion if needed, and start a request for comment if no agreement can be found. Toadspike [Talk] 11:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: AGreenSunflower, Spywalkers, I think it makes sense to add information about his relationship with Annabelle Wallis. I don't think this breaches WP:BLP. The information is sourced to a reliable outlet, other outlets have also covered it. It doesn't seem contested by them or controversial in any way. This also applies to any other romantic relationships he may have had, but I haven't looked in detail regarding the sourcing for those. A personal life section is pretty standard on Wikipedia articles, I don't really see the argument for not having one. InfernoHues (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@InfernoHues do you have a take on whether the relationship should be included in the infobox, just in a personal life section, or both? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 05:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

i think its should be both. I have added his partner on his infobox since he doesnt have personal life section because someone has removed it without any good reasons but particular editor keep reverting it because he said he “doesnt have personal life section”which doesnt make sense and keeps arguing that the sources provided was “not relevant” and sebastian “doesnt actively talk about it” so lets respect him and keeps it private per se- Also dont make sense. Adding prtner in infobox are also pretty standard to some other wiki articles like robert pattinson or henry cavill who had their partners listed without any contest, i dont see any reason why sebastian should have any contest either since it has verified sources Spywalkers (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be in both; that makes sense and aligns with other articles. But it's not that big of a deal if it's only in the personal life section. It shouldn't be only in the infobox per MOS:IBP. InfernoHues (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That's got me convinced, I'll put together a Personal Life section a bit later if no one beats me to it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a personal section is not relevant. Doesn't matter if they say it's true or they have proofs, it's something about him that he doesn't want to share and not only the partner part, but he's personal life at all, and I think you should respect that morally. So I think there shouldn't be a personal life section out of respect of the person.

This is added (his personal life) just because a very small group of people, are sore that his "partner" is not included in Wikipedia. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I mean, come on, be serious, this is not relevant. As one of the users said before, it is no relevant information. ~2026-22563-44 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There are no quotes from the subject himself on this in the articles provided. @Spywalkers themselves say he is very private.

In the two Variety articles linked, it is the authors that mention his private life. His actual quote in one of them is: “"I feel like it's really difficult nowadays to be able to have any privacy whatsoever. It's the one part of my life that I try to keep somewhat for myself, even though it sort of ends up being out there."”

It's not a matter of the relationship being proven or not, it is a matter of respecting the subject when he says he wants to keep that part of his life to himself.

The argument that many pages about famous people include a Personal Life section or a mention on the Infobox is not enough, because many also don’t include it. His article hasn’t had a Personal Life section in over a year as per the edit history. Not until recently the mention of a partner started to pop up on his Infobox. None of his pages in other languages include the information. It is not relevant to his public persona or his work, and considering that his direct quote is that he wants to keep that part of his life to himself, I don’t see why it has to be included in his Wikipedia page. As per its definition, this is an encyclopaedia, not a magazine. It boggles my mind to read that because other personalities have their personal lives on their articles without their consent, it’s ok to do it everywhere. He has specifically said he wants to keep his personal life private, but that doesn’t seem to carry any weight here. The discussion should be on how to properly include his latest professional news (movie in Cannes, role as a producer, quotes about finally working in Romanian projects which is a very poignant thing in his career, new DC role), and not wether or not his name needs to be attached to someone else's, specially when he doesn't talk about it. AGreenSunflower (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think "that doesn’t seem to carry any weight here" is pretty much the crux of the issue. Wikipedia doesn't typically allow public figures to pick and choose the contents of articles about them, you haven't pointed to a single policy or guideline suggesting that we might. To do so would be serious diversion from established practice across the entire project. Wikipedia includes information that has been reported by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is only minimally concerned with what subjects say about themselves. And it doesn't matter if that information is what you might consider vapid such as which celebreties are dating or what you might consider to be a serious and weighty matter such as (checks notes) comic book movies. Since you haven't made an attempt to establish consenus on what is and what isn't included in this article (as demonstrated by a Dispute Resolution request where instead of asking for any guidance or insight you essentially stated do what I want), you're not going to get your way by stomping your feet or ragequitting. Simply saying "I don't think it should be this way" doesn't carry any weight, that's right, give that some consideration. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You are being extremely rude and disparaging. I won’t get into personal attacks, ego battles and high horses because this whole thing has reached a ridiculous level.

I followed the guidance of a moderator before you and the moderator that blocked me decided everything I was saying is wrong. I reverted an edit four times, edits made by an editor that edited that page 14 times in 24h. Somehow that got overlooked.

I have pointed out on my talk page to the moderator that blocked me to a information included in the BLP page, such as (verbatim):

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid.

Somehow that has a footnote that it will only be applied within admins’ discretion.

Based on this, and on the fact that this particular person hasn’t had any personal information in his page for a very long time and it’s bit relevant to any of his public persona, I have indeed said that I don’t think it should be this way, just as all of you are saying what you think.

Since I have stated my opinion several times, I’ve pointed out policy and I’ve followed guidance, I’m done with this debate.

Bye! AGreenSunflower (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedias BLP policy does not forbid the inclusion of personal life information, it requires that such information be verifiable, neutral, and sourced from reliable publications. The fact that Sebastian Stan is private about his life does not mean that reliably published information about it should be excluded. Many notable figures express a desire for privacy, yet their biographies still contain personal life sections when reliable sources cover those aspects

In this case Major outlets like Variety/People have discussed his private life, and those are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia standards.

The subject’s own quote acknowledges that his personal life “ends up being out there,” which confirms that it is part of the public record.

Wikipedia is not censored and does not require “consent” from the subject to include information, provided it meets sourcing and relevance criteria.

Consistency matters many actor biographies include personal life sections, and omitting it here would create an uneven standard. Spywalkers (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@AGreenSunflower

You keep insisting that you’ve read the BLP policy and that you know what Wikipedia is all about, but your interpretation is c fundamentally flawed and potentially a personal bias! BLP does not say that information must be excluded simply because a subject prefers privacy. What it requires is that information be verifiable, neutral, and reliably sourced. Reliable sources have published details about Sebastian Stan’s personal life, and that makes it eligible for inclusion.

Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it curated according to the subject’s personal wishes. If we followed your logic, any living person could dictate what appears in their article, which is not how an encyclopedia works.

The fact that Stan values his privacy is noted, but that does not override the existence of reliable coverage. The policy is about protecting subjects from unsourced or defamatory content, not about removing sourced, neutral information because the subject would prefer it absent.

What surprises me why its such big deal to you to keep excluding that information about his life even though there are verifibale sources available and you keep arguing its “not reliable”,and additionally ive noticed that you recently open your account and have only and persistently disrupting both sebastian and annabelle page over that informations. I also noticed that two or three particular editors who keep removing it only recently open their accounts this year on march, april and february, theres also some accounts last year with the intention only to disrupt or revert seb and annabelle page over the same informations, with Annabelle page– persistent vandalism has occurred with the intent to be libelous and malicious, some factual info like activism and early life info had also been persistently removed under the same claims that there are “no reliable sources” despite the contrary— that came from those particular editors that had only edited annabelles page. So i think im seeing a pattern here Spywalkers (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your insinuations, especially since you are the one editing his page 14 times in 24h and you have opened two debates about this same subject in his talk page and one in hers. I could say the same about you, but since you want policy, I am going to point out this one and be done with this whole thing.

Go on and gossip to your heart’s content, but careful don’t fall from your high horse. AGreenSunflower (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@AGreenSunflower

Instead of trying to resolve the issue constructively, you keep turning this into a banter as if it’s a personal crusade rather than a policy discussion. wiki talk pages are meant to evaluate sources and apply guidelines, not to argue feelings back and forth. The fact that you keep repeating the same points without engaging with the actual criteria — reliability, neutrality, and relevance shows that this has become more about your personal stance than about improving the article.

. Everything else is just circular banter that doesn’t move the discussion forward. Spywalkers (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

They've moved on, so let it go. You somehow dodged being blocked for edit-warring, so take care with your future endeavors.

Edit: they seemingly haven't moved on, despite twice saying they were going to. The other part still applies, however. Seasider53 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. AGreenSunflower (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Dear Spywalkers.

I've seen you mention the same links, the same "other actors have it!", and "it's confirmed" for two days. You can do it more emotionally like you did when you opened the two discussions in this page two days ago, or more poised like you're doing now. Your points are the same.

I have tried to explain my point of view as neutrally as possible, pointed out policy. In the end it is all subjected to a personal point of view of what is relevant and what's not, and we greatly differ. I'm not parroting everything again, I am done with this debate.

AGreenSunflower (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2026 (UTC)