Jump to content

Talk:Alicia Silverstone/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Edit warring over whether she is an animal rights activist

[1] Will other people please talk to this person. I see no way to reason with them. If a well known animal rights organization like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says you are an animal rights activist, and makes you their spokesperson, and you do commercials for them, etc. etc., it should be common sense. Dream Focus 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says that she is a spokesperson for PETA. She appeared in an ad and commercial - that doesn't make her a spokesperson, but rather part of a campaign. Like the other person says, your claims are undue. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
By your logic, they have a lot of spokespeople. Nymf hideliho! 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
She has been called their spokesperson. They have more than one, which they refer to by that title. Google news archive search doesn't include all the articles from years ago when this happened. I'll looking now. Anyway, she is clearly an animal rights activist. Is there any sincere doubt about that whatsoever? Dream Focus 20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's in doubt until reliable sources independent of the subject are provided. This is a WP:BLP, not a fansite or means of promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
So her talking about animal rights in all the commercials and interviews and on her website, doesn't eliminate any doubt you have on whether or not she is an animal rights activist? Dream Focus 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC.
I'm trying to follow WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc in order to determine what information we add and what prominence with give to it. As I've pointed out multiple time now, we simply don't have the sources demonstrating that it deserves such prominence. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
[2] Google news archive search for "Alicia Silverstone" along with "Animal rights" OR "PETA" and you get 1,130 results. That's more news results than searching for her name with most of her movies or mention or the Aerosmith videos. She is known as an animal rights person. It needs to be there. Dream Focus 22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't use search results to determine weight in an article. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't about "prominence", its about the "undue weight" tags. I don't believe there is any reasonable doubt she is an animal rights activist. The tags are pointless. Dream Focus 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'll try not to use the word "prominence" if it is confusing the issue.
    I've updated the section heading accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Stop edit warring with me over the title of this section. You know better than to edit someone's post. You want to add in useless tags that have absolutely no possible reason to be there. I want them removed. More opinions please. Should the tags remain or go? Dream Focus 01:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless she's doing little more than advocating for animal rights or environmentalism, or has made some particularly noteworthy contribution (per Clooney's recent testimony & arrest), IMO, putting it in the lead is undue. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
She gets ample coverage for her nude PETA commercial[3], as well as for her protesting NASA use of monkeys for experiments which, along with a few other famous names, got them to agree to stop doing that. Ample television interviews she has done mentioning her social causes. Dream Focus 16:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was never disputed that she is an animal rights activist, so we're done here I think. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An aside on proper use of this talk page

WP:TALK states:

  • "Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic."
    I realize there was an edit-conflict. However, there are not two discussions. They should be placed under one heading. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."
  • "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant."

Can we agree to these and to following WP:TALK in general? --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion was about something else, you talking about prominence, whether it should be listed or not. My section is about the unsightly tags you put there for "undue weight" and should they be removed or not, and you edit warring with me to keep putting them back in. My section title is thus valid. Dream Focus 01:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"Can we agree?" Can we?
I'm sorry, but I clearly started my comments with, "It's undue weight in the lede." I've since made it clear what I've meant by "prominence." Why are we wasting time with this? --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Because you like to drag things out in long bits of nonsense apparently. Don't change my heading. I'm ignoring yours. Hopefully others will come and post their opinions on the subject of the tags. Dream Focus 02:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
So you're ignoring discussion? I guess then there's no reason to leave the information in the article. After all, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm ignoring your section above my section is what I meant. You don't seem to be looking at the sources and reasoning I have provided on this talk page, so reasoning with you about this obvious issue seems pointless to try. I'll post at the biography wikiproject to bring in additional opinions on this. Dream Focus 08:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Prominence of Clueless in her life

Before I add back mention of Clueless to the lede, how many sources do we need to keep it there? I've been looking for clearly reliable biographies about her, but the best I've found is AllMovie. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it to the lede. The movie is overwhelmingly associated with her and her with it. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there any references saying that's what she is best known for, or is that just your opinion? She has gotten ample coverage for The Crush and the Aerosmith videos before Clueless, and ample coverage for things after that. That isn't the thing that made her famous. Dream Focus 16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
"how many sources do we need to keep it there?" --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any source that says she is better known for that than other things? Otherwise, its original research to say this one thing is more important than other things that got ample coverage before or after then. Dream Focus 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are many sources available. I'm starting a list below. Again, how many do we need? The problem isn't finding them, it's going through all the puff-pieces on her. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Batman and Robin made $238,207,122 at the box office. Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed made $181,466,833. Clueless only made $56,631,572. So how is she best known for Clueless than other films she has played a staring role in? Far more people saw her as Batgirl than as Cher, so isn't she better known for that? Dream Focus 18:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    Box office sales have absolutely no bearing on how well-known she is for a role. Making such claims would by a BLP and SYN violation.
    However, they do have a bearing on the amount of press at the time. Hence my searching for biographies, which give historical perspective. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
UPI also has another bit about her, published more recently. [4] Silverstone is best known for her work in the films "The Crush," "Clueless," "Blast from the Past" and "Excess Baggage," as well as the music videos for Aerosmith's hits "Cryin,'" "Amazing" and "Crazy." Are we cherry picking results? Dream Focus 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's an article about how she feeds her baby! We should be choosing results that are reliable, independent, and not tabloid-trash! --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Its the same news source you link to. If they talk about something you like, then its reliable, and if not you consider it tabloid trash. Dream Focus 19:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hence my concern for finding even better sources. We don't mindlessly choose references based only upon the reputation of the publisher. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You are cherry picking things then? The article is fine if it says what you want it to, but not if you don't. And that news story of her feeding her baby was in many major sources. [5] Dream Focus 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, you should read WP:CHERRY. Dream Focus 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
A baseless accusation, and disruptive to this talk page. Please be mindful of WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You state that one article from that news source is reliable, but not the information in another. Sounds like that violates WP:CHERRY to me. You can't dismiss an article you don't like, if its in a reliable source. Quoting one thing from a reliable source and not another thing from that same news source because you don't like what it says, is clearly bias, as mentioned in WP:CHERRY. Dream Focus 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors are encouraged to evaluate references and potential references against our policies and guidelines, especially when it comes to BLPs. Poor sources should not be included in BLPs. "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." This is not cherry-picking, or any sort of bias other than a bias toward improving this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
So its your personal opinion then? Sounds like cherrypicking to me. Here is another place on that site [6] that says Silverstone is best known for her work in the films "Clueless," "Excess Baggage," "Batman and Robin" and "Blast From the Past." And then again at [7] Silverstone is best known for her work in the film "Clueless" and TV's "Miss Match." Plus she is mentioned for various things on that website, all over the place, if you want to sort through other search results. Are any of these not as legitimate as the one you wish to quote from on that site? Dream Focus 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this comment by Ronz:

"First, it's an essay. Second, it's an essay about coatracking. Can I assume there is no dispute about any major coatrack problems with Alicia Silverstone? Third, any real cherry-picking problem is an issue of WP:NPOV and related policies and guidelines. Fourth, the discussion is about including mention of Clueless into the lede of the article, nothing more, so cherry-picking of sources seems irrelevant: No one is disputing that Silverstone is very, very strongly associated with Clueless."

The problem is listing one thing from a source, but not other things. If at least two other films she was in made far more money, and multiple reliable sources mention she is best known for other things as well, then why not list these other things also? Dream Focus 21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The collider article you link to says Alicia Silverstone is best known for her roles in Hollywood films such as Clueless and her portrayal of Batgirl in Batman & Robin. Her performances have garnered Emmy and Golden Globe nominations and she also won National Board of Review. To top it all off, she is also a New York Times bestselling author! Different films of hers are listed where news sources use the phrase "best known". But as I mentioned in a section above, she gets coverage for a lot of different things she has done. Why not just say she is an actress, bestselling writer, and animal rights activists? She getting coverage for all of these things. Dream Focus 19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, the collider has additional information. Hence my request asking how many do we need to get mention of Clueless to remain in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    Since most of the material from the collider article is just a press release, we shouldn't use it to determine weight. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Clueless doesn't belong in the lede. We're done with this topic then. If you have other concerns, please clearly state them in another section. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Answer my question and stop dodging it. Why do you wish to include one thing she is known for and not others? Dream Focus 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the discussion on the topic I started is long done. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You can stop responding to it, but that doesn't end it. You still haven't answered why you believe you can list one of the things she is notable for, and not others. Dream Focus 21:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from 3O. A Google News search pops up a lot more mentions of Alicia in connection with "Clueless" than her portrayal of Batgirl. Given that mentions of her tend to be "that chick from Clueless" I think this is a sign it is her most prominent role. However, I think Darkness did a good rewrite of the lede mention. At the same time, the lede is rather thin at the moment. There is no reason why it cannot mention any other prominent roles she has had.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

4,020 results for "alicia silverstone" "clueless" and About 10,000 results "alicia silverstone" -clueless. But is she best known because people mention her in the searchable news results than any other single film? As I pointed out before, Batman and Robin made $238,207,122 at the box office. Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed made $181,466,833. Clueless only made $56,631,572. More people saw her in other movies and would know her from there perhaps. There is no absolute way to prove what she is best known for, and putting that in the lead serves no purpose that I can see. Dream Focus 00:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break

I have added some references from academic publishers which show she is notable for her environmental and animal rights work. Whilst looking for sources for that I did see one which said she first came to worldwide prominence for the film clueless. I have never seen this film myself, and yet had heard of her I doubt it belongs in the lede as it gives undue weight to but one part of her life, and not a large part at that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Not sure that's enough for the lede, but no one is arguing that the bit of work she did with PETA didn't get some attention.
Regarding Clueless: Look at the awards and what happened with here career because of Clueless. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Fuck clueless I do not give a shit about it. Why are you putting undue and or tags on the academic sources I added to the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to have offended you.
I've restored and slightly modified the tags because the dispute is not settled. Nothing changed at all for the second tag, so the question is why was it removed without any rationale whatsoever?
As I pointed out in my edit summary, the second source doesn't verify the information. Now that I've had time to look, the first doesn't either. Maybe my searches within the books just aren't finding the information? --Ronz (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any proof Clueless did anything for her career? She was already well known. Was her role in Clueless what convinced people to cast her in future films? The deal she got for her own film company wasn't notable in her career, since her first film flopped, and it was never heard from again. Dream Focus 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
What do the sources say? --Ronz (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you found any that support your claim? You said Regarding Clueless: Look at the awards and what happened with here career because of Clueless I don't see any sources that say it helped her career. Dream Focus 09:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. What content or proposed content are you referring to at this point? --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what she is best known for or whatever, it's pretty clear that she did not "first [come] to public prominence for her starring role in the 1995 film Clueless." As Dream Focus mentioned above, she had at least somewhat notable roles before this that caught the public eye. As it stands now, the sentence is not correct or acceptable, nor is it actually backed up by the sources that are there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Agree. --Ronz (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Agree as well. Verification of those sources failed to show that. I think it is very risky to state that some "came first to prominence" or "is best best known". Those things are hardly every objective facts. I suggest we take a couple of sources, see what they state (believe that's done before) and then make a less definite statement in the lead. E.g.: she is known (not best known, or perhaps best known) for xxx, xxx and xxx picking the 2-4 films from various sources. Would that be a good starting point? L.tak (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    (Edit conflict) I cant find the source mentioned by Darkness Shines, nor can I find another reference that verifies it. I've changed it to wording of 05:45, 28 March 2012 which has been relatively stable for many years. Perhaps we should just go back to this version and work on finding sources? The streamlining on 11:51, 29 March 2012 is worth considering as well. --Ronz (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    "I suggest we take a couple of sources, see what they state (believe that's done before) and then make a less definite statement in the lead." It'll be tricky to avoid WP:SYN problems. I've been trying this approach. Maybe the new editors here can get us through this.
    Well, the main problem in risiking sythesis is combining in the category A=true, B=true, so (synth) A and B are related/correlated/relevant in combination. That's not the case. I am afraid we are at a situation where there is not a single film pertaining to her. Selectively picking sources will not lead to any synthesis but is not neutral; and good neutral tertiary sources seem not available, so it's the only approach left. By stating things in general (no "records"; not the best/longest/most well known) we steer away from the differences in the sources.... L.tak (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    The more I look at the AllMovie reference, the more I appreciate the work that's gone into it. Relying upon it more might get us through these problems, though it only follows her career til '06. --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Not bad indeed. They are not fully neutral (stating some things as "unfortunately"), but this is not a bad source. And at least they don't take a single film as a starting point. And we can not use it for mentioning of her personal drivers in life though, as they are not in... L.tak (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "After a nearly two-year absence from the screen, Silverstone resurfaced in 1999 with Blast from the Past" Previous film came out August 29th 1997, and Blast from the Past came out in February 12th 1999. That's one year and 6 months from the release dates. But she wasn't absent from the screen from the release date of one film to the start of the other, it playing for a month or so, however long films normally stay on the big screen for. Anyway, not really what I'd call nearly two years. Seems like that reviewer got information from various sources without crediting them. Do they just copy and paste things about and reword it a bit? Searching for the reviewers name through Google's site search reveals 4,970 results. Maybe she wrote that many reviews on her own. Don't know. Every article has it where anyone can submit information though, so she might just be approving other people's submissions as some sites do. Anyone doing their jobs properly would've gotten a complete list of all the notable awards she had won at that time, instead of leaving things out. I wonder if any of that came from a previous version of the Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure there'll be errors and inaccuracies. I think in this field it happens a lot. The point is we shouldn't rely on a single source. I evaluated notability on the site and am not sure. IMO, it depends whether Rovi's work (shown here) is a data service (ok!), or an advertising, media recognition (brr) or recognition service (brrr2). Ronz, you were happy with the review, and I assume you think/thought it was a data service; are you aware of a (RS-board) conclusion on this matter or conclusions that they are a data service on their website (I couldn't find it) L.tak (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"After a nearly two-year absence from the screen" seems close enough. The author rounded to the nearest year, and then wrote "nearly" to indicate that it wasn't a full two years.
If we wanted to indicate the extent in the article, it would be a perfect example on the proper use of primary sources to provide additional details for something mentioned in a secondary source. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been resolved with the addition of new sources. The related discussions about the lede are being continued below. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

animal rights activist

(discussion topics on this are runnign side by side with comments on personal business (comments on blocks/previous behaviour et al), so maybe a new heading of this subject can provide a clear break in level of civility) Let me give my opinion here, as solicited by Ronz. I feel there is a difference between Silverstone's dayjob, and her motivation/spare time activities. I can tehrefore imagine people having problems with her being an actor, ..., ... activist. So if we decide to put the activism in, I suggest to separate both categories (is an actor, who is also an xxx)... The second point (should it be in) can in my view be answered definately. I agree that if someone does i) commercials (we have primary source refs for that), and speak on it in interviews (we have sources for taht), for years (sources have established that), than it pertains so much to her, that it should be put in. L.tak (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the environmentalist claim? And everyone please state your opinions. Should animal rights activists be in the lead, should environmental activists be in the lead, and should we have any undue weight or other tags on that information? I say both bits are fine, and no need for any tags on it. Dream Focus 10:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what I said above, I think the lede should see some expansion. That would allow for most of these disputes to be resolved. Her activism could be covered in a little more detail and more notable roles could be mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I would think just saying she is an actress, and people able to look at her career farther down to see what things she is in, would work fine. Otherwise you can't really determine what she is best known for. Searching for sources with her name saying "best known for" doesn't work that great. What if she became better known for something that happened after those few articles were published? Dream Focus 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To make things specific to avoid any problems with edit warring, does everyone agree the "undue weight" tag should be removed? Dream Focus 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'm going to be restoring tags on concerns that are not resolved. Please don't add to the list. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    If consensus is that the tags aren't needed, then that would be disruptive editing, and not allowed under Wikipedia rules. This is why you are currently at administrator's noticeboard again.[8] Dream Focus 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Honestly, I think expanding the lede to allow for discussion of all the relevant issues mentioned in the article body would go a long way towards resolving the concerns. I would do it myself, but would prefer to see the two of you come to an amicable solution with each other.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, but tags are here for a purpose - to identify and draw attention to problems so they can be more quickly resolved and the article improved. We are all here to improve the article, correct? Removing tags without resolving the corresponding disputes is vandalism with it's own set of warnings: {{uw-tdel1}}, {{uw-tdel2}}, {{uw-tdel3}}, {{uw-tdel4}}. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Let's just start with the first tag in the article, which claims undue weight on calling her an environmental activist. Why is that undue weight, given how many reliable sources say exactly that? "longtime environmental activist", "Alicia Silverstone helps environment". Additionally, she self-describes as an environmentalist. She says of her official website that it is a "fantastic resource for those who want to delve deeper into the world of healthy, green, eco friendly living". So why is mentioning this fact WP:UNDUE? In what sense?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I tried to remove it, but was reverted. I've removed it once again. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit, you added it. Twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed it here and here. Should it be restored? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
And I call bullshit again, your first removal was when you rewrote the lede without discussion, the second removal was done only after Jimbo above asked why it was there, so nope as you did in fact add them twice. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm just glad he finally listened to someone and stopped arguing to have those in there. Dream Focus 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad we have some new sources to support the changes. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede

As I've pointed out, the lede of this article had, until April 9, been stable for a very long time. I propose just reverting to a version prior to April 9, and go from there. There had been some nice cleanup in March, but prior to that the biggest change in years was just to note her authorship of the single book.

As suggested, I think it would be helpful to have a larger lede where we can be a bit less concerned about over-emphasizing aspects of her life. I prefer writing a lede from the article, but in this case, to get beyond some of the current disputes, it might be best to get a longer lede first that better follows WP:LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You wish to eliminate the fact she is a well known animal rights activists from the lead. Not going to happen. And what do you mean by over-emphasizing aspects of her life? Isn't being an actress and writer aspects of her life, just as much as being an activist? Dream Focus 15:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry that you're not amenable to finding common ground and working from prior long-term consensus.
Is the animal rights and environmental advocacy your only problem with the previous consensus? --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you think anyone is fooled by how you keep rewording things to attempt make it seem like something else is going on? There is no such thing is long term consensus. People just changed the article as they thought best to have there. There was no previous discussion on what should be there. What you link says "her highest-profile roles" without any sources to back that up, so its just conjecture. Dream Focus 16:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, I've folded back in the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I object, obviously, and reverted it. Do you honestly edit your mind so you forget discussions we've had these past days? Scroll up and read them. Dream Focus 17:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Ronz just posted on my talk page a ridiculous edit warring warning [9] for me reverting[10] something he had no consensus to change. Does the article need references for her activists activities, and if so why remove them after arguing so long to get them there? Dream Focus 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
What objections do you have so they can be addressed? --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
When you created a new section on this talk page to start the same discussion over again, did you erase your memories of the previous discussions in sections above it? Stop acting so clueless. Dream Focus 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Guys, why don't we work on expanding the lead in general. She is absolutely best known as an actress above all else (and it is as an actress that she receives the overwhelming amount of her coverage and notability). Therefore this aspect certainly warrants the most prominent coverage in the lead. That being said, her work as an activist is notable and I see no reason why it couldn't be mentioned in the lead, even if it doesn't get top billing. But if the lead is expanded then more can be covered as a whole. Take Martin Sheen, for example (although Sheen's activism is probably more well known than Silverstone). His activism is addressed in the lead but the bulk of it focuses on what he is better known for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Search for her in Google news archive search for her animal rights thing and there are 1,250 results. [11] Search for her name and "Clueless" and you get 1,990 results.[12] Every interview she's done for years now she mentions being a vegan because eating animals is wrong, etc. She is on television and in the news far more these days for her naked PETA commercial and for talking about her bestselling novel about being a healthy vegan. Many people will know her more for that than a movie from 17 years ago that only grossed $56 million. Dream Focus 16:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of lede

For reference, here was what I attempted to add, retaining the disputed information without tags of any sort, and folding back in some of the information from the long-standing versions that had been removed without explanation: --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone' (/əˈliːsiə ˈsɪlvərstoʊn/; born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, animal rights and environmental activist. She first came to widespread attention in music videos for Aerosmith, and her highest-profile roles to date have been in two mid-90s films, Clueless and Batman & Robin, as Batgirl.


You first insist that there must be references there, and now you remove those references. What's going on? Dream Focus 17:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel some of the references should be folded back in? Do we need references for the other material that is referenced elsewhere in the article? --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why the sudden change of heart after you argued constantly for days now. I didn't think the lead needed any references at all to begin with. Dream Focus 17:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm focusing on de-escalating the disruption here per WP:COOL, WP:DGAF, and WP:KEEPCOOL. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine. As long as you don't try to remove anything or add in pointless tags again. Dream Focus 18:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll continue to follow the relevant policies and guidelines. Some of them specifically state the information should be removed in certain circumstances - I will most certainly remove such information. I will also tag disputed information that gets restored while still under dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So, what should be done next with this proposal? Fold in the current references from the current lede? --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential references removed from article

Removed here. As I pointed out above (04:34, 15 April 2012), neither appears to verify the information. All I can find is a single mention of Silverstone in each. Perhaps I'm just not finding the verifying information? --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Vaughn, Jacqueline (2003). Environmental Activism: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. p. 167. ISBN 978-1576079010.
  • Morgan, Adam (2009). Eating the Big Fish: How Challenger Brands Can Compete Against Brand Leaders. Wiley. p. 144. ISBN 978-0470238271.
What do you mean they do not verifiy the information? How do they not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that as far as I can tell neither says much of anything about her, let alone that she's an activist. Perhaps you could quote the verifying information? --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
So you did in fact not verify them, just removed them because? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I did my best to verify them and made it clear that I may have overlooked something. I've now asked for the verifying information. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • [13] The second book says on page 144 calls her one of PETA's spokeswomen. Dream Focus 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly. A single mention of Silverstone, saying that at some time she was a spokesman for PETA. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    Can you be a spokesperson for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and not be an animal rights activist? And her recent nude commercial for them was all over the news, so its not like she changed her opinions on things. Dream Focus 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    I don't believe anyone is disputing her animal rights and environmental advocacy. It would improve the article to place some historical perspective on her work in these areas. It would be great to find a biography on her that mentions these activities. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    You originally doubted it and argued about it and placed tags on that statement, and tried to remove it. See various sections above. And the article already has a section talking about that. Alicia_Silverstone#Political_beliefs Dream Focus 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    No, I did not doubt it. I did try to get the article more in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. Eventually we got some new editors here who were able to help me do so. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and the first on p167 speaks directly of her support for PETA. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Great. You appear to have better access that we do. Could you please quote it? --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Click [14] Dream Focus 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

There's entirely too much back and forth going on here. I've protected the page for one week. Discuss changes on this and come to a consensus. Post your requests here for changes. Ping me if you feel you've all reached a mutual understanding, and I'll lift the protection. I've likely protected the WP:WRONGVERSION by someone's standards - but you folks need to find a way to resolve this "failure to communicate". Best of luck — Ched :  ?  18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd only held off requesting it because of all the improvements that have been made elsewhere in the article recently. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Just remember that the first key to communication is this: You must first learn to "understand", before you can be "understood". I AGF that everyone means well - but you folks need to listen as well as talk. Best of luck. (and if everyone agrees on a change, feel free to ping my talk or see the WP:FULL section for how to request changes. — Ched :  ?  18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Simply asking for elaboration may not be enough. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid the strange tagging on this talk page

I undid the strange talk page tagging. [15]. If people want to continue talking on those sections, no reason why they shouldn't do so. Don't try to rewrite history and claim certain things were never in dispute. Don't try to stop all future discussion in things. Dream Focus 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a helpful way of flagging discussions when talk pages get lengthy to provide new editors guidance on where to focus. {{Stale}}, {{Resolved}}, {{Unresolved}}, and {{Stuck}} are the more common ones, but there are others as well documented with them. --Ronz (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Note I have (manually) archived a bit over half the page. My choice of where to stop was purely arbitrary, and I've left the most recent threads here as they may still be relevant. Hopefully the "past" can be left in the past, and everyone can move forward productively at this point. Best of luck. And ANYone who feels anything I placed in archives is still in need of discussion is free to unarchive if they wish - or better yet; restart a thread of that topic with a view of moving forward to a resolution. It wasn't an "admin" action, but rather the fact that the talk page was getting rather lengthy, and this can cause load time issues on slower computer/Internet connections. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The past being the past few days. Great, whatever. Anyway, I reverted you since the ANI hasn't closed yet, and it links to parts of this talk page you were trying to archive. Dream Focus 01:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pfff what a waste of time =

The efforts wasted in this talking page trying to do something useful are honorable, 99% of the pages on Wikipedia are excellent, why is there problems on this one especially when I had written something who was overall correct... When something is not broken you don't fix it... My point for which everybody should agree with is that the page currently don't tell anything useful, those who want basic informations about her career which is 90% of the current page can go on IMDB (Internet Movie DataBase), and it's also easier to understand there since it's presented as a list... This is her Personal page, and there's no information about her at all... On the "LA Times Book" 2010 picture she look so ugly she's hard to recognize, the picture from 2006 is excellent... JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: add protection template

This page has been protected, but after protecting the page the appropriate protection template has not been inserted (which creates a lock icon on the top of the page and shows the type of protection, reason and expiry date. Anyone who has the ability to edit the page please add the appropriate template. See Category:Protection templates for a list of protection templates and choose the appropriate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd34 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 April 2012‎

Not done: the page was unprotected at 07:42 today, see next section. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected

per request and issues resolved. Good luck folks, and happy editing. — Ched :  ?  07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

citations template

I removed the citations template as it seems unnecessary. I've added in the lede template as the lede is too short. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

premastication

The premastication material is completely undue, wikipedia isn't a newspaper. On the re-isnert; I also note that per WP:BRD the discussion should be taking place before the content is re-added, not the other way around. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

see WP:NOTDIARY for details on why I think it has no due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be there. It got coverage around the world and appears to be something she feels strongly about.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Something she did and believes in got massive coverage around the world. That's important enough to be in the article. Have you seen her YouTube video yet? Dream Focus 02:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've removed this, it seems utterly trivial. We do not need to describe every feature of her personal life. Robofish (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We do need to include what she believes in and states, and what gets ample media coverage. Dream Focus 01:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Instead I suggest we follow WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIARY instead. The sources are extremely poor and they do not support the material that was in the article, violating WP:OR/WP:SYN and WP:V. In such cases, BLP clearly states that the material is to be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with this source? [16] It quotes her public statement about the reaction her video got. What part of this referenced one sentence violates BLP? It certainly does not violated WP:OR/WP:SYN or WP:V. Dream Focus 20:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's the Daily Mail, a publication that arguably should never be used anywhere in Wikipedia, certainly not in a BLP.
The complete rewrite isn't bad if we can find a much better source. Otherwise it's a WP:NOTDIARY violation still.--Ronz (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Every newspaper seems to have people that don't like it for whatever reason, I've seen people criticize the New York Times and the Washington Post before. There were other sources I found when looking for her name and the word "chew". Feel free to pick one of them. [17] YouTube also shows various television news programs mentioning this. And of course, she mentions this on her official website, so you can see her own words about it. And please don't start your nonsense again where you post nonsense warnings on people's talk pages when you don't get your way. [18] Dream Focus 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"It is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards" Howso? Remember, we're dealing with a BLP here. Maybe this should be brought to WP:RSN?
I agree with the other editors that it doesnt belong per BLP and NOTDIARY. If no reliable sources are actually provided, then it should be removed. BLP is very clear. Perhaps this should be brought to WP:BLPN? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead. A reliable source is in there already, whether you personally like it or not, and there is no possible BLP issue. Dream Focus 17:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved below given the BLP concerns not addressed.
BLPN discussion started here. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we worked out that no policies or guidelines were violated. Unless someone can actually quote part of one they believe fits and discuss it, instead of just randomly throwing things out and hoping something sticks, then there is no reason not to have it in there. Dream Focus 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    Please note that WP:IDHT is not a part of consensus-building, but rather the opposite, as is "please don't spew out nonsense and random accusations either. Quote what exactly you believe is a rule violation if anything" [19] --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    You seem to be distorting things yet again, and dodging the issue. Why don't you go to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#How_Alicia_Silverstone_feeds_her_baby and respond to people, and not just keep dodging their questions? Dream Focus 16:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    You appear to be unable to WP:FOC.
    I believe the questions have been addressed, rather editors seem to be overlooking them.
    I also like to use noticeboards as they are intended, to get others' perspectives. I've tried to keep my comments to emphasizing and clarifying overlooked points, and to summarizing. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    You did not address them. You just kept tossing around a group of links after another. Three different editors have called you out on this. You can't just claim its dealt with when it is clearly not. You've been called out on this before, arguing with everyone on this very talk page for something else on this article. You were even blocked for it. "11:05, 17 April 2012 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) blocked Ronz (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruptive editing including battleground attitude & ignoring feedback. )" You seem to have the same behavior pattern everywhere you go. Dream Focus 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    After reading through the content here I can't see why this would be an issue with BLP or Diary. This is purely a aspect of her political and personal belief and should be noted in this article. Given the sheer amount of media coverage of this single event, it at least deserves a mention here. Jeanpetr (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    I don't want to be accused of edit warring by reverting him again, so could you please just click undo at [20]? More people seem to be in favor of having it in there that not, and those against haven't made any decent case against it. Dream Focus 11:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    Telling someone to revert an edit to avoid edit-warring is grossly inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    No it isn't. They agree something should be changed, they can go and do so. The only thing grossly inappropriate is when you don't get your way, you forum shop around to other places, to bring more people into the discussion hoping they agree with you. Dream Focus 08:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between WP:DR (WP:SEEKHELP) from Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP#FORUMSHOP such as [21] [22]. --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of people already posted keep or delete in that AFD, so it ends in no consensus no matter what. I remember in a discussion before Jimbo commented about wanting to bring more people to Wikipedia, they looking for this sort of thing, and would go elsewhere if it wasn't here. So I posted on the talk page of the Wikipedia's founder, to ask him about it. The other one was me asking to reword on something on a guideline page to avoid confusion some might have, and I did not mention this discussion nor link to it in any way. Totally unrelated to what you did. Dream Focus 15:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, of your own personal views Ronz, it's worthy of mention in respect to WP:NOTDIARY and in line with WP:BLP:
  • NOTDIARY: This is not a matter a celebrity trivia, in fact it's a matter of political and even health activism. Her actions and subsequent defence of premastication publicized the act and brought highly visible support to the practice, which has largely been relegated in the minds of the public as a practice of poor and marginalize populations. Note this is similar to the public opinion for breast-feeding, where many considered it an unsafe and ignorant practice before the actions of feminist and health activists.
  • BLP: The facts of her actions were taken directly (WP:NOR) from reliable sources (WP:V), and the phrases presenting the facts are neutral in voice (WP:NPOV)
With more citations (provided in this talk page) and further refined wording, I don't see how you should have any problems with me putting this segment back. Jeanpetr (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not about my personal views. You've absolutely no evidence to back such an absurd claim, and the repeated inability to WP:FOC here is disruptive.
  • Since no one has yet addressed my WP:VOTE, WP:DR, and WP:CON concerns, I think it should be removed once again.
  • Regarding NOTDIARY/NOTNEWSPAPER: As pointed out in the BLPN discussion, "just because it got covered in the slow news cycle doesn't mean there is lasting notability." "Seems the best response we've got on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is that individuals feel that it will in the future be seen as such appropriate. When that time comes, we can address this again."
  • "it's a matter of political and even health activism" Sources? Any that show any lasting notability? --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
About your personal views, it does not take an expert to see that you clearly do not see the relavence or notability of this matter to the article. In fact, one might say you are fervent about it's exclusion, zealous even. So let's not whine or deny it and let's WP:FOC.
  • Where did you talk about WP:VOTE, WP:DR, and WP:CON here? And if so in what context are refering to them?
  • As for NOTDIARY/NOTNEWSPAPER, the lasting notablility is of her act is that NOW a lot more people in the wider public know about premastication rather then just the odd anthropologist or sociologist. Prior to Silverstone's action, there were almost no mention on premastication were beyond Pelto's 2010 paper, Zhang's 2007 thesis, and a scattering of medical sites talking about premastication as a disease spreader. Due to her actions parenting sites and blogs still ring with it. If that's not notability what is?
  • I too would like to quote myself passing judgement (Ronz 16:27, 8 September 2012) as lending evidence to my one views but my skin is too thin, so I will quote others. "As pointed out in the BLPN discussion": "...we think it will be of sufficient lasting value to be worth a sentence or two. We're not demanding fourteen paragraphs" (User:GRuban 19:47, 7 September 2012) "This material at least satisfies the requirement for a large volume of contextual coverage" (User:The Devil's Advocate's 04:47, 10 September 2012; along with the his full argument)
  • Is a matter of political or health activism? Yes it is, she may not champion it as she does animal rights, but to many she is considered a figurehead for a movement [23] To check extended notability of her actions, I would love to use your time machine.
I will end by saying that an editor does not make their arguments more convincing by endlessly spouting off WPs that are NOT relavent to the content. I should note I'm not the only one that has, or will be the last to call you out on this. --Jeanpetr (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "In fact, one might say you are fervent about it's exclusion, zealous even." When you write things like that as you're doing without any evidence whatsoever, it puts your perspective in doubt. How about we ignore this and follow WP:FOC instead?
  • "Where did you talk about WP:VOTE, WP:DR, and WP:CON here?" Do we need to? As you know, I brought them up on your talk page and in my edit summary.
  • The arguments are simply the original research that you added to the article itself initially. We rewrote it because it was indeed original research not verifiable by any sources. So now we're trying to use the same argument for inclusion?!
  • "I should note I'm not the only one that has, or will be the last to call you out on this" If you choose to be dismissive of relevant policies/guidelines, and treat their mention as bad faith discussion, then you're simply being disruptive. Good faith responses that demonstrate an ability to build consensus would instead ask for elaboration, perhaps after demonstrating some basic understanding of the cited policies/guidelines. For example, if anyone had bothered to ask for elaboration about WP:VOTE, I would have started by pointing out cautions #3 and #4.
  • So, instead of basing arguments on original research that was already rejected, follow WP:DR as I did when I opened the BLPN discussion. An RfC or WP:DRN might be a good next step. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You mention how he originally wrote something as though that matters. I rewrote it [24] last month, so its fine. Many additional sources have been found and mentioned already, although no need to have but one confirming the information as the current reliable source referenced clearly does. Most have already stated this should be in the article. They have given you significant reason for this. You simply ignore what everyone else is saying. And don't go forum shopping again please. And please don't spend a few months arguing nonstop with every single person as you have done in the past here and elsewhere. Consensus is clear, the information should be in the article. Dream Focus 16:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay Ronz, I think your reply has now sufficiently confirmed my (and likely our collective) view that you continuously spout off wiki policies regardless of (1) their applicability to the content or (2) the solid responses to address concerns about them. I agree with DreamFocus; a consensus (WP:CON) has been reached through the discussions that the short statement on premastication is sufficient in WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV and should be included the article. --Jeanpetr (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Premastication copy

Removed here:

In March 2012 she uploaded video of herself kiss-feeding her son, a process called premastication.[1] In response to criticism she made a statement that its been going on for thousands of years, and is perfectly natural. [2]

Previous version unsupported by sources

Restored here (19:21, 3 May 2012):

In April 2012, she brought the practice of premastication into spotlight when she posted a video of herself kiss-feeding her son, resulting in mix reactions from the public.[3]

Continued discussion on sources

No consensus after BLPN discussion?

(BLPN discussion archived here)

Seems editors have declared consensus by ignoring most if not all relevant policies and guidelines, and are most interested in discussing other editors.

If a good case cannot be made for inclusion, it should be left out. If new sources someday appear, we can revisit the issue. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is clear, the discussion has been done to death now. Ignoring what everyone says, and arguing nonstop doesn't alter reality. All relevant policies and guidelines have been addressed. You try to remove the content against consensus, it'll be brought up at ANI. Starting a new section and pretending the previous sections don't exist isn't going to help your case. Dream Focus 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense on all accounts. Consensus is not clear, but is being asserted with disregard for the relevant policies/guidelines, especially WP:FOC.
Let's list them all:
WP:VOTE Editors saying there is consensus for inclusion have repeatedly stated that the number of editors involved is somehow relevant.
WP:DR Editors saying there is consensus for inclusion have repeatedly failed to recognize proper dispute resolution attempts, and are now threatening to go to ANI because other editors are following WP:DR.
WP:DR's WP:FOC is being completely ignored by editors saying there is consensus for inclusion.
Likewise, WP:CON is being ignored. Rather it is being asserted with threats by editors saying there is consensus for inclusion.
WP:EW and WP:MTPPT. Editors saying there is consensus for inclusion have repeatedly asked for others to revert to avoid the appearance of editwarring. This was done even during the WP:BLPN discussion.
WP:BATTLE Like WP:FOC, editors saying there is consensus consistently treat this discussion as a battleground, in violation of almost everything said in WP:BATTLE.
WP:NOTE Editors saying there is consensus for inclusion believe that the notability guideline somehow applies here, and appear to be confused between overall notability of the subject of an article and what is and is not actually included in the article.
WP:V and WP:OR The initial attempt to add the information to the article had to be rewritten because the information was not verified by the sources. There still appears to be confusion on this matter, and more importantly the arguments being made for inclusion are the same original research that was removed from the article itself.
WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE) WP:NOTNEWSPAPER/WP:NOTDIARY Editors arguing there is consensus for inclusion say they have enough sources. It's been pointed out that these sources are from an extremely limited time period and appear to be trivia and slow-news-cycle reporting. None of the sources demonstrate any broad impact to either Silverstone or anyone else.
I can't see how anyone could see consensus for inclusion in this. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ronz, Silverstone uploaded a video of herself feeding her child using this method and proudly defended this practice when it became subject to media coverage. This involves exactly two sentences of material and I think if this article were considerably expanded we could maybe justify a full paragraph, but that is the extent of it. At this point it easily satisfies what is acceptable under WP:NOTDIARY and WP:UNDUE. Consider what people put in a diary or newspaper and what people in a biography. Do you really think a serious biographer would have no interest in the controversial parenting practices of the subject? The Featured article on Michael Jackson mentions the Blanket incident where he dangled his baby boy over a balcony because it was an incident where his parenting practices were subject to a great deal of attention that would be of interest to anyone looking into his life.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This was discussed at BLPN. Editors disagree with your exception to NOTDIARY and UNDUE, and offered more detailed analysis explaining exactly why. As for this new, specific example you give of Michael Jackson, there's no comparison - Jackson received exponentially more media coverage and it still receives coverage on this topic to this day. Those extreme differences are what makes mention in Jackson's article acceptable, and Silverstone's unacceptable. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There are only two editors who agreed with your position. One of those editors essentially said "I agree" without providing any valid reasoning. Another gave some reasoning, but it was no more or less detailed than my own. I am not saying this is an exception to WP:NOTDIARY or WP:UNDUE either, I am saying those policies just plain don't apply to this material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
So you want to vote on it now rather than discuss the details of your own example? Are you saying your own example doesn't actually apply anymore and instead you're saying NOTDIARY and UNDUE simply don't apply? --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I am saying that the example I gave is an instance where the parenting practices of a public figure are appropriately covered in an article. Just as in that case, the policies you are citing are not applicable. Honestly, I don't see any need for a "vote" on the matter because it is pretty clear that this is not trivia or something one would liken to a diary entry. How someone chooses to raise a child has relevance to a biographical work on that person, especially when those child-rearing methods are unusual and subject to considerable attention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Give it a rest Ronz, concensus in this matter has been reached. And stop trying to drag this debate into the premastication article as well. It's time for all of us to go do other work instead of debating this point to death. Jeanpetr (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think we need to have the same material in that article. The sources discussing this do go into some detail on the subject so we could use those sources and perhaps briefly mention Silverstone in connection with it, but that article should focus on the general practice rather than individuals who practice premastication.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. Editors seem unwilling to follow WP:DR and WP:CON, especially in that they want to just outright exclude relevant policies. This includes attempts to forum shop at WP:NOT during the BLPN discussion then change WP:NOTDIARY after the discussion was over.

Editors have tried to address how NOTDIARY might be met, but failed to do so. That's the end of it I think unless someone wants to come up with new sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I reverted your edit warring Ronz. You mention unrelated things, out of context. Consensus is quite clear, that all guidelines and policies have been met, and you are just dragging things out trying to repeat the same arguments we've already been through, and no one wants to have to repeat themselves yet again. Dream Focus 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    So you settle on edit-warring rather than following up on your threats or following WP:DR and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    You seem to keep trying to distort reality. You are the one that started edit warring again. There is no consensus to remove that information. Dream Focus 20:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm glad you've not followed through with your threats. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    My "threat" to take this to the proper area to settle disputes like this if it becomes necessary? I'm still hoping someone will find a way to reason with you. Dream Focus 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I have explained to you how WP:NOTDIARY is not an issue here. Look at what that part of the policy states: "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person." We are talking about a controversial parenting practice of the subject that received significant media attention. It is not "trivia" or anything even close to a random routine event for a public figure. This is not an issue of WP:NOTDIARY.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for following WP:DR. I appreciate it.
No you haven't explained. You gave the example from Michael Jackson's life that is included in his article. I pointed out that if we actually look at the sources, they are extremely different in both number and timeframe. Other examples pointing out the same concerns were brought up at BLPN. Note that those examples demonstrated both when NOTDIARY applies and when it does not. I agree with the comments at BLPN by Niteshift36, especially "Your reasoning seems to consist of "it got covered" and "lots of people covered it". Again, just because it got covered in the slow news cycle doesn't mean there is lasting notability."
So, if we ignore the difference between amount of coverage (not that we should), there's the issue of lasting notability. Are you saying that lasting notability is irrelevant, that there is lasting notability, or something else? --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I already addressed that in my comment about what one would expect in a biography as opposed to what one would expect in a diary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking for a clear answer in order to understand your position that the policy doesn't apply: "Are you saying that lasting notability is irrelevant, that there is lasting notability, or something else?" Once that's clear, we can again look at the sources in that light. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


  • Its already been explained to you, this isn't just routine coverage for a slow news day, reliable sources actually talking about the practice and giving information about it because of the attention she brought to it. Dream Focus 20:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Remove per NOTDIARY and RECENTISM?

I overlooked one essay that elaborates on the problems discussed here and at BLPN, WP:RECENTISM. Given editors' inability to clearly address the problem of whether or not there are sources demonstrating any lasting notability of the topic, I think it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should be removed. Don't cite an essay in a lame try at removing something you do not like. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Darkness Shines here. Ronz, this is just pathetic. Give it up already. Your regular pattern of arguing nonstop with everyone to try to get what you want, is rather tiresome. Dream Focus 20:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. Multiple editors have brought up concerns and given detailed examples of what is and is not a policy violation. Since no one is responding in kind to those concerns, the policy-backed discussion drives what we do here, rather than than the repeated WP:CON and WP:DR violations [35]. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Every issue has been addressed already. Consensus is that no policy or guideline was violated, regardless of how many times you say otherwise. Dream Focus 17:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're not mistaken saying every issue is addressed, and that you mean in a manner that actually follows WP:CON and WP:DR, then please indicate where this has been answered: "I'm asking for a clear answer in order to understand your position that the policy doesn't apply: "Are you saying that lasting notability is irrelevant, that there is lasting notability, or something else?" --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Clueless

Given [36] in contrast with WP:CON, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTDIARY, and WP:RECENTISM: I ask the question again, how many sources do we need to make it clear that her role in Clueless is an extremely important role in her life, if not the single most important and notable activity of her entire life? I'm sure we can come up with hundreds. Perhaps we should just make a list, then take the issue to WP:NPOVN? Seems like a huge waste of time for something so very clearly obvious. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was against that. I noticed you tried to add it back in using an IP address instead of logging in. Stop being sneaky. The discussion above shows there was no consensus to have that in there. The founder of Wikipedia himself said you were using WP:SYNTHESIS. Administrators told you to behave. Don't go starting this up again. No need for everyone to repeat the same arguments they already wrote not that long ago. Dream Focus 19:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus can change.
If you're not interested in addressing any of the issues I've raised, that's your choice.
If you want to continue with your accusations against me, do so in the proper forum. --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Your issue was addressed by me and others already in a previous section on this talk page. Dream Focus 19:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It's up for discussion again. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this is an issue of weight and notability, and something entirely obvious, perhaps this would be easier if we just focus on sources that would meet WP:BIO criteria? --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't obvious to anyone but you. See previously discussion I and others had with you at Talk:Alicia_Silverstone#Prominence_of_Clueless_in_her_life and elsewhere on this very talk page. The few sources found mentioned other films she was known for as well. She was famous BEFORE Clueless, her first movie was The Crush where she won awards and got some notice. A guy who saw her in that film put her in some Aerosmith videos, which got her ample coverage in the media. Those videos got her noticed by Amy Heckling who then put her in Clueless. Other films she has been in have made far more money than Clueless, thus more people have seen her in those, thus she is obviously better known for being in those far more popular films. This was mentioned before already. Nothing has changed. Actual numbers were found and posted previously. Dream Focus 19:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the sources and a simple application of NPOV will show otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources showing notability and prominence of Clueless to her

Hailed as the teen queen of the mid-'90s, Alicia Silverstone rapidly ascended the summit of idolism with the help of an infamous Aerosmith video and starring roles in the cult trash favorite The Crush, and Amy Heckerling's sleeper hit Clueless. So, they mention three major things she was known for in the mid-90s. Do we mention all of those, or just the one thing you are obsessed with adding? Was she not known for things that happened afterwards? It doesn't say she was known more for one thing than another. Dream Focus 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe this would go best if the discussion remained on topic and focused on content and relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You started a section called "Sources showing notability and prominence of Clueless to her", and that source does not show prominence of Clueless at all. This is on topic. Dream Focus 19:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a very simple and straightforward application of WP:WEIGHT. As I already wrote, let's get a list together then take it to NPOVN. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You said yourself in previous sections that "The InterfaithFamily.com source is poor" and "interfaithfamily is questionable". I don't see anything that makes me believe that is a reliable source. Dream Focus 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
An article from 1995 when she had just done Clueless. She got similar coverage for other films she had done also. Dream Focus 09:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL if peoples here were spending as much time doing research on the internet about her than obviously losing time talking here... You smartass never encountered smart womens before, it's not that complicated, not that I know 100% what I'm talking about... I'm not sure I would fly in rockets designed by the geniuses here, it wouldn't go far since it would probably be made of concrete and wood... 70.29.172.135 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC) And I might specify that I had spent hours doing rewrites on the current page adding informations and all the changes ahave been discarded rudely... 70.29.172.135 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? What IP address or user name did you use? Dream Focus 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

convenience refs

  1. ^ Silverstone, Alicia. "home video: breakfast with baby bear". The Kind Life. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  2. ^ T.h. Leader (2012-04-09). "Alicia Silverstone defends controversial practice of pre-chewing baby son's food | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-03.
  3. ^ RYAN, DENISE (2012-4-4), "Pre-chewing baby's food is not that unusual", The Montreal Gazette {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alicia_Silverstone/Archive_3&oldid=1140570513"