Talk:Alicia Silverstone/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Potential edits

Seems to be a lot of name-dropping in her movie and theatre work. Should this be removed? Or just keep the 'significant' co-stars?Adm2012 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected the page because of the edit warring. Please try to gain consensus on the talk page or follow dispute resolution steps (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Page almost totally useless anyway

We can get a better overview of her career as it is described on the current page just by reading the "trivia" section on IMDB and the list of movies she did, which is far better and more accurate than the one here (except for the theater work)... Instead all the useful information can be found in the source articles found at the bottom but not in the article itself, it's really kind of ridiculous... Just my two cents. 70.29.172.135 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

DoB?

Is it 1975 or 1976? The introduction and infobox differ.78.86.61.94 (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

POV - Rewriting lede to follow WP:LEDE

I've taken a shot at rewriting the lede section after an ip expanded it to put mention the Aerosmith videos and Blast from the Past.

As has been pointed out on this talk page, the overwhelmingly most prominent event in her life was Clueless, getting her more awards than all other activites in here life combined, and a $10 million deal, the likes of which few have seen and which personally she has not come close to matching again.

I hope we can get beyond the discussion of the prominence of Clueless in her life, which is extremely well sourced, and get on to the tradeoffs between introducing and summarizing her life, as required in a proper lede section.

It would also be appropriate to rewrite the article based giving proper prominence to the events in her life rather than the chronological presentation of her career. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Clueless made $56,631,572 at the box office, Batman and Robbin made $238,207,122. The part about her being Batgirl should not be removed. We should mention her first movie, The Crush, the music videos that had a huge impact on her career giving her great attention and those videos why she was cast in Clueless, mention Clueless, and mention her playing Batgirl. Her other films she was in as a leading character didn't make much money at the box office, some of them not even breaking even, so no reason to mention those in the lead. Dream Focus 17:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Silverstone, not her movies. The prominence of events in her life should guide this article, not the box office of events she was part of. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to best include Batman and Robin into the lede, if it should be there at all. Yes, it got her a good deal of press pre-release for being in such a high-profile movie, but the movie did poorly, and the reactions to Silverstone's part were negative enough to get her the Worst Supporting Razzie. --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It made four times the amount of money than Clueless did, so no, it did not do poorly. She got ample coverage for it. As for the prominence of events in her life, the Aerosmith videos are of course of great importance. Any reason to object to mentioning them? Dream Focus 18:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about the box office. Besides, take a look at the expectations, budgets, and results. Clueless started an industry. Batman and Robin ended one. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Clueless started what industry? No sequels to it. They had a television show for awhile, but she wasn't in it. And the Batman film didn't end that industry, they having new Batman movies since then, and the comic books have always sold quite well. Kindly answer my question about the music videos. Dream Focus 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Clueless started a tv and book industry. Batman and Robin ended the series and a reboot was done rather than the planned sequel because of the poor results.

As far as what Clueless did for Silverstone, it won here more awards than before or since and a $10 mil deal that started her First Kiss Productions which still produces tv shows.

So what could we add to the lede? Something like "Her appearance as Batgirl in the big-budget 1998 film Batman and Robin, resulted in a Kid's Choice award, but also a Razzie"? --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't censor out the bad things, and only list the good anyway. Far more people saw her in the Batman movie than in Clueless, so it should be mentioned in the lead, along with the importance of the music videos. And where in a reliable source does it say Clueless caused her to get the 10 million dollar movie deal? She was seen as popular for that generation based on the Aerosmith videos as well. Do you have a source that says just that one movie got her that deal? Dream Focus 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more people saw her in Batman and Robin than probably anything else. I'm not sure if it matters when it comes to any relevant policies or guidelines though.

I believe we currently have a few sources in the article verifying the 10mil deal was a result of her being in Clueless. Any biography of any detail mentions it. It would be interesting to find one of the press releases announcing the deal.

So the info to add on Batman and Robin is ok? --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The article referenced doesn't say she got the money because of that film. It says "Clueless (1995) made her a household name, Batman & Robin (1997) gave her comic-book cool, and Love's Labour's Lost (2000) proved there was more to her than blonde hair and girl-next-door looks. With a $US10 million ($14 million) multi-picture deal with Columbia Tristar to her credit, and her own company, First Kiss Productions, she seems an unlikely candidate for TV stardom." I Googled but don't see any reliable sources saying Clueless alone got her that deal. Dream Focus 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple references that verify it. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The AllMovie ref says, "In the wake of the film's success, the actress signed a ten-million-dollar deal with Columbia that included a three-year first-look deal for her own company, First Kiss Productions."

[1] "Excess Baggage was the first of two films produced under a $10 million deal Columbia signed with Ms. Silverstone after her previous hit, Clueless, two years ago." --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

[2] "Alicia achieved such success with the big-screen "Clueless" that, at age 18, she landed a two- picture, $8 million production deal at Columbia." --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The second one is a good fine. But was it 8 million or 10 million? Dream Focus 20:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the details of the deal weren't clear for a long time. [3] states the 8mil: "It all goes back to the deal Silverstone signed with Columbia in 1995, when Mark Canton, who then headed the studio, shocked Hollywood by signing the then-18-year-old Silverstone to a two-picture, $8-million production deal based on the actress' box office appeal in Paramount Pictures' hip teen comedy 'Clueless.' "

The subsequent sources say 10 million. Like I said, it would be nice to find some of the original press releases. From what I can find, I'm under the impression that maybe details of the deal didn't get out until later when there was talk of cancelling it after Excess Baggage did so poorly.

I actually recall removing a primary source on the subject. I'll have to see if I'm remembering correctly. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

[4] Published days after the deal was announced: "Sources knowledgeable about the deal said, however, that the deal would bring Silverstone closer to $8 million, if both pictures are made, or $4 million if only one is made." --Ronz (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• We need opinions from more people. Should her role as Batgirl be listed in the lead? Should the music videos be listed? Dream Focus 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed, but having more proposed changes would be useful. An RfC maybe? --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Alright. Doing that now. Dream Focus 17:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Producer and production company

It's a bit difficult to find information about her production company, First Kiss Productions. I've added "film and television producer" to the lede. Seems a bit awkward... --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Patrick Goldstein, Los Angeles Magazine, Feb 1996, "Empire of the Setting Sun" has Silverstone on the cover with the caption "Can Alicia Silverstone Save Sony? Can Anyone?" It only mentions Silverstone and the deal with little detail though. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• [5] mentions that she and her production company were involved in Queen B. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• [6] produces Braceface, which was nominated for an Emmy and won some Genesis Awards. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag, does that belong there?

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2013)

• Why is that there? Not liking how something is written, does not justify a neutrality tag. That's only if you think its is written in a bias manner. Dream Focus

"It would also be appropriate to rewrite the article based giving proper prominence to the events in her life rather than the chronological presentation of her career. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)" For example, we currently have no mention on how her early fame didn't pan out as many expected, as summarized in what's probably our best source to date [7]: "Despite such a promising beginning to her career, however, the vivacious, green-eyed blonde subsequently weathered a series of professional set-backs, due to poor film choices, weight issues, and an industry increasingly congested with such similarly ebullient young starlets as Sarah Michelle Gellar and Jennifer Love Hewitt." --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with any of the edits made thus far in the lead section? Dream Focus 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Not much. We're making great progress with the lede. The edits by the ip's are worrisome, but if they're not going to join the discussion, then we'll just continue best we can.

So I'm saying that the NPOV tag is there because the rest of the article needs the same treatment we're giving the lede. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Teen queen, teen idol

I introduced "teen idol" into the article, but held off on "teen queen" til we had more sources: --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• [8] [9] [10]
• Teen idol sounds better, and you can instantly tell what it is. A teenager someone idolizes. Dream Focus 02:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yep. "Teen queen" is a label and would have to be used as such. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

• What details of the actress's life should be in the lead? Since her appearance in Aerosmith's music videos got her ample attention and are what got her to be cast in Clueless, should they be listed? Should her playing Batgirl in a Batman film that grossed four times as much money at the box office as Clueless, thus was seen by four times more people there, be mentioned also in the lead? Dream Focus 17:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• WP:LEADLENGTH suggests an article that is more than 30,000 characters have a lead of "three or four paragraphs". My rough measure of this article is just over 40,000 characters. The current lead is one short paragraph. That strongly implies we should expand, quite a bit, so mentioning all of the above seems like a fine start. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree the lead should be expanded. For now, it makes sense to include the items listed in the RfC if they explain her rise to fame, i.e., if they are included as stated above. As they are now mentioned in the article, the connection between her Aerosmith music videos and Clueless is not clear, ie, that one led to the other. And the box office success of Batgirl and the exposure it brought are not mentioned. IMO if re-written, they are relevant to her path to success and could be in the lead.Coaster92 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree as well. The certainly Clueless and Batman roles should be mentioned. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree to expanding per Leadlength. A quick search of reasonably notable sources (Rolling Stone, Vogue, Vanity Fair, Huffington Post, newspapers) seem to lead with Clueless, Aerosmith videos, Batman, vegan activities, attachment parenting, early emancipation from her parents in order to accept The Crush role, TV: Wonder Years & Suburgatory. EBY (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Agree that lead should be expanded. Aerosmith's music videos and the Crush are a must, as they were her springboard to fame and came to define her as a star in the 1990s. Jaytwist (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed RfC tag - 5 editors in consensus, no editors opposing. EBY (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Picture of Actress: Alicia Silverstone, Festival of Books.jpg English Writer Maybe?

This is the wrong picture of the actress: Alicia Silverstone. I believe this is the picture from the Festival of Books.jpg an English writer perhaps--67.86.120.201 (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)?

Edits reverted - premastication and milk share

Hi! I made some changes to Silverstone's page today and noticed the edits were reverted to the original page. I'm wondering if I can get some clarification. I added some information about premastication and milk-sharing. Is it everything I wrote about these topics? Parts of it? I'm open to suggestions. Thanks for any help you may be able to provide. SojoQ (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You might want to ask the editor who reverted it on his/her talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In reading the reference to Coatracking, I believe Ronz may have had issues with the information I inserted from the CDC. I can understand the point and am proposing the following changes to my original edit.

• In January 2011, it was announced that Silverstone and Jarecki were expecting their first child together. In May 2011, Silverstone gave birth to a boy, whom they named Bear Blu Jarecki. In March 2012 she uploaded video of herself feeding pre-chewed food to her son from her own mouth, a process called premastication. In response to criticism, she made a statement that it's been going on for thousands of years, and is perfectly natural. Critics in the medical community, such as Wendy Sue Swanson of Seattle Children's Hospital discourage the practice. "Premastication is a cultural practice ultimately designed for communities and cultures that didn't have knives, forks and machines to soften food," she told a Los Angeles Times reporter. "It doesn't make sense why anyone would want to do it just because Alicia Silverstone does it."

• In 2013, Silverstone began promoting an idea on her blog for mothers to share breast milk. Her intent with this donor milk program, dubbed the "Kind Mama Milk Share," was to connect people in need of breast milk for their babies with those who were able to provide some of their own. Safety measures and screening process for Silverstone's plan were not outlined in the blog post.

• SojoQ (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner. A very quick response until I have more time:

My concerns are that topics themselves are gossip and trivia. The bit on premastication seems barely worth any mention, and the breast milk program doesn't appear worth mentioning. Expanding upon them is undue and ventures into coatracking.

Are you proposing the material that you didn't change be reintroduced? Note that I trimmed back the section, including information that you didn't change or augment in any manner. [11]

As for the milk share program, did anything come of it beyond the criticism? It appears to just be a bit of promotion for her book, that went nowhere. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. I'm not necessarily proposing that unchanged material be reintroduced. I thought, initially, your objection was to the information I added about the CDC and not to the milk sharing program or premastication itself.

I haven't found any additional citations that discuss what became of the milk share program, so, perhaps as you say in terms of Wiki, that's not worth mentioning unless other articles surface.

Since premastication is already mentioned on the page, I know of two additional references: one from the New York Daily News and one from The Los Angeles Times. If these are appropriate to add as references without adding content to the page, they're available. If not, that's fine, too. Best Regards SojoQ (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I was in a rush, and am embarrassed by how terse I was, but I'm glad they helped.

The premastication coverage came and went very quickly as far as I'm aware. Did you find anything beyond April of that year? I so, was it anything beyond just repetition of previous coverage? --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The New York Daily News is similar to the others on the page and was written April, 2012. The Los Angeles Times article, written in May 2012, discusses some of the pros and cons in a little more detail and also contains comment by a pediatrician directly referencing Silverstone's practice. Of the two, the second article, perhaps, provides more insight as to why Silverstone drew media attention than any of the other articles currently referenced on the page. It has a brief section that includes details of Silverstone's video, a discussion of the cultural use of premastication, a section on how the practice may transmit HIV, Hepatitis B and other viruses from adult to infant, as well as bacteria-causing dental caries. To me, it seems like a valid addition. While the coverage may have been brief, Silverstone did attract attention and did receive criticism from the medical community. It's got somewhat of an unfortunate title, but the information presented is, I believe, balanced. (Not snarky or sarcastic like some of the other articles I've read about the incident). I couldn't find an online link, but here's the citation: Sohn, Emily. Mind & Body; Star parenting; Nursing 3 1/2-year-olds? Eating placenta pills? Celebrities go to extremes. Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, CA] 12 May 2012: E.6 Best Regards SojoQ (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I'm not finding the LATimes article in their archives though. Where/how did you find it? --Ronz (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something. Is it http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/10/health/la-he-extreme-mothering-20120512 ? --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Biography.com articles

The bio is extremely brief, and the article is so poorly researched that it doesn't mention Kind Mama. Still, they could be useful: --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.biography.com/news/alicia-silverstone-animal-sanctuary-animal-rights-advocate
• http://www.biography.com/people/alicia-silverstone-240974

Kind Mama book

If it's notable enough for its own article, it would solve most of the problems I see. Otherwise the section is a coatrack for promotion and criticism of the book and Silverstone.

I was actually looking for a reference to use for The Kind Mama - something that would give us some guidance on how much coverage is due in this article compared to The Kind Diet. I didn't find one, but my impression is that The Kind Diet is more successful and has a much greater impact. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I moved the section to below, and added that the book is published.

Looking further, I'm finding the early press, which was quickly followed by the quick and often scathing criticisms highlighting her anti-vaccination statements, then nothing. The Kind Diet appears hugely more successful. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Kind Mama section moved from article

In 2014, Silverstone published her book, The Kind Mama, through Rodale Books. The book is a guide for mothers, and parents in general, and topics range from veganism, co-sleeping, going diaper-less, premastication, and staying away from vaccinations, to just name a few. She states that she is "going to set the record straight and show you that getting knocked-up, without drama, and having a super-healthy, super-satisfying, soul-quenching pregnancy, birth and mama-hood is a totally attainable reality".

In her book, she promotes a vegan lifestyle. She states that women can switch out plants for medicine and that meat and dairy during pregnancy will turn one's uterus into "toxic sludge". She goes as far as to say that a vegan diet can relieve postpartum depression. She calls the diaper industry "corporate-backed pseudoscience" and says that tampons are toxic and can make one infertile.

The book has received criticism. It has been called "sanctimonious bonk-bonk garbage" and is not considered to be evidence-based. Carolyn Robertson from BabyCenter states that "[Silverstone] shows a profound lack of understanding, and perhaps even empathy for moms who truly struggle...[she] seems to seriously underestimate the reality of these struggles." In regards to the vegan lifestyle, Melinda Johnson, a lecturer at Arizona State University for health and nutrition voices her concerns: "Much of the advice given out by Ms. Silverstone is plain untrue, and quite frankly, bizarre...This type of advice breeds a general unease and fear surrounding food in general, which is not helpful." Not only that, but replacing blood pressure medicine for plants during pregnancy could lead to pre-eclampsia. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not advise co-sleeping as a baby could be suffocated by an adult.

Silverstone gets flak for her thoughts on vaccinations as well. She calls vaccines, shots of "aluminum and formaldehyde". Although she admits that there hasn't been a "conclusive study of the negative effects of such rigorous one-size-fits-all, shoot-‘em-up schedule" in relation to vaccinations, her reasons for not giving her son medicine include anecdotal evidence from doctors and stories from friends. Ben Shapiro, a political commentator, in response to her views, says that "vaccinations absolutely work...According to Unicef, hundreds of thousands of cases of disease could be easily prevented by vaccination. Meanwhile, diseases that were once eliminated have made a comeback in the United States thanks to disinformation campaigns like Silverstone's."

Silverstone has acknowledged the criticism and said "Everything that’s in the book is there to show you why you might want to consider it, always just to give you information and show you that if you don’t choose that, that’s totally fine."

My goal for adding The Kind Mama section was a quick couple of paragraphs about the book and what criticism it received. I did not mean for it to clearly promote or criticize the book, my goal was to just state the facts and be done. I have read over what I added and realized that perhaps it was not the best addition. I have made a few changes and would love a few people to look over it and see if it's improved at all and make any additional changes to make it better. I have neither the time nor the desire to write a whole new page for The Kind Mama, but if someone is up for doing that, by all means, that's awesome. I think if we could get a page on the book, then having a paragraph or two on Silverstone's page would be a good way to lead readers to the book's page. My new version is below (please note that I moved the section about her books from the Personal Life section to the Books section-this is the first paragraph below). The few sentences that are bolded are sentences that I think might be best removed but I wanted opinions on it first.

In 2009, Silverstone released The Kind Diet, a guide to vegan nutrition, and launched its associated website The Kind Life. The Kind Diet has topped the Hardcover Advice & Misc. category of The New York Times Best Seller list. In 2014 she wrote The Kind Mama and plans to write a follow up book, The Kind Diet Cookbook.

===The Kind Mama===

In 2014, Silverstone published her book, The Kind Mama, through Rodale Books. The book is a guide for mothers, and parents in general, and includes topics from veganism to co-sleeping; premastication to vaccinations. Her reason for writing the book, she had a wonderful pregnancy and wanted to share her experience with others. She states that she is "going to set the record straight and show you that getting knocked-up, without drama, and having a super-healthy, super-satisfying, soul-quenching pregnancy, birth and mama-hood is a totally attainable reality".

In her book, she promotes a vegan lifestyle. She states that women can switch out plants for medicine and that meat and dairy during pregnancy will turn one's uterus into "toxic sludge". She claims that a vegan diet can relieve postpartum depression. She calls the diaper industry "corporate-backed pseudoscience" and says that tampons are toxic and can make one infertile.

The book has received some criticism. Carolyn Robertson from BabyCenter states that "[Silverstone] shows a profound lack of understanding, and perhaps even empathy for moms who truly struggle...[she] seems to seriously underestimate the reality of these struggles." In regards to some of the vegan claims she makes, Melinda Johnson, a lecturer at Arizona State University for health and nutrition voices her concerns: "Much of the advice given out by Ms. Silverstone is plain untrue, and quite frankly, bizarre...This type of advice breeds a general unease and fear surrounding food in general, which is not helpful."

Silverstone gets some flak for her thoughts on vaccinations as well. The Daily Mail says her views on vaccines are not backed by science. She calls vaccines, shots of "aluminum and formaldehyde". Although she admits that there hasn't been a "conclusive study of the negative effects of such rigorous one-size-fits-all, shoot-‘em-up schedule" in relation to vaccinations, her reasons for not giving her son vaccines include anecdotal evidence from doctors and stories from friends.

Silverstone has acknowledged the criticism and said "Everything that's in the book is there to show you why you might want to consider it but never to say you have to choose it, always just to give you information and show you that if you don't choose that, that's totally fine."

Laurencarr24 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

To address my earlier comments about making a separate article for The Kind Mama: While I don't work on book articles much, I don't think The Kind Mama meets WP:NB, but The Kind Diet does (barely). As such, we should be extremely careful in giving The Kind Mama any more prominence than The Kind Diet in this article. Maybe the best solution would be to create a stub article for The Kind Mama. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these books appear to serve mainly to document her own crazy beliefs. She does appear to be an antivaxer and serial promoter of nonsensical ideas. That is significant. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And the problem with that is it plunges us deeply into BLP problems. I've looked for sources beyond entertainment-gossip articles and short-news-cycle public interest pieces, but found nothing. That said, it's probably due to mention the book in the context of her being an antivaxer with other fringe viewpoints. We need to keep it short and source it very well, making the significance clear. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. I think you and I probably fundamentally agree on WP:BLP (I have answered many hurt and angry emails to OTRS) but this is not a case of trying to tease a controversy out of some passing remark. Silverstone is by now prominently identified as an anti-vaxer and has been compared many times to Jenny McCarthy, the canonical clueless celebrity anti-vaccinationist bimbo.

• Alicia Silverstone’s clueless vaccine advice, What Jenny McCarthy hath wrought: Alicia Silverstone is the latest celebrity to beat the anti-vaccine drum (Salon) Apr 23, 2014
• 10 anti-vaccine celebs who should come with a surgeon general’s warning (NY Post) February 9, 2015
• From ‘Clueless’ to Clueless: Alicia Silverstone’s ‘The Kind Mama’ (Daily Beast) 04.22.14
• Clueless celebrities make us sick (The Economist) Jun 28th 2014
• Will the pro-vaccine celebs please speak up? (LA Times) April 25, 2014
• The anti-vaccination farce is dangerous for humanity (Commonwealth Times) October 5, 2014
• Anti-Vaccine Movement (CBC) February 5, 2015
• Vaccines save lives (Miami Herald, mirrored) July 2014
• Measles and an outbreak of celebrity stupidity (Toronto Star) Feb 04 2015

BLP does not stop us including material critical of the subject when it has been covered in reliable independent sources. In this case, we would be allowing our concern for the subject to override our concern for public health: anti-vax celebrities are a pressing public health danger and by trying to monetise this dangerous delusional bullshit Alicia Silverstone has essentially waived any right to escape critical commentary.

The question is not whether to include her antivax and crank diet activism, but how to cover it: to mention her ill-informed beliefs in a section on the book, or to mention the book in a section on her ill-informed beliefs. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We agree, I'm just saying we need to be careful with the sources and give it proper weight, in contrast to the disputed content that started this discussion.

Thanks for all the sources. Any that stick out as especially good? --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to read them again and think of them in the context of a proposed edit - it would probably be quicker and simpler if @Laurencarr24: were to propose a revised section here and the we can wordsmith it. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone over them all and am unimpressed. The one I added and is currently used, http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/04/24/alicia_silverstone_writes_a_parenting_book_enough_with_the_celebrity_mom.html , provides a great deal of context at least. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Attachment parenting should be in as prominently or more so that antivax. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

She believes all manner of bollocks, by the looks of it. But there are many thousands of Google hits for her and vaccines. It is definietly significant. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

We both know that Google searches aren't very helpful.

From what I've read going through all the sources offered and more, her beliefs appear to all be rooted in attachment parenting, which had been brought up 23:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC) above. No sources were offered at the time, and it doesn't look like anyone followed up further. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing (although somewhat reluctantly) to look over my addition again and revise it some more. Before I even attempt to do that, however, what constitutes as a reliable source? I do not want to put work into this only to have it shot down again. Is it the phrasing that I have that is the bigger issue or is it the sources? I am not positive how many of the sources Guy posted I would be able to include, at least not in a paragraph about The Kind Mama. If we decided it was better to just have a paragraph about her anti-vaccination position, I might be willing to do that as well/instead. Laurencarr24 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My concerns are about giving this proper weight and context. As such, it's not the phrasing or the sources as the amount of material in comparison to the what's in the article as a whole. Will these beliefs of hers have much impact on the rest of her life? We cannot know at this point. Will The Kind Mama? Doubtful. The book seems to already be greatly overshadowed by The Kind Diet.

You've obviously put significant amount of time and effort into the writeup for The Kind Mama. I'll continue to suggest that you start an article specifically for it.

For this article, a couple sentences about her beliefs as expressed in the book and its related publicity are all that appears due at this point. --Ronz (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alicia Silverstone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521102646/http://breakingnews.iol.ie:80/entertainment/silverstone-struggled-with-childhood-vegetarianism-410571.html to http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/silverstone-struggled-with-childhood-vegetarianism-410571.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of lede

The lede should summarize and introduce the topic, highlighting the subject's notability and other important aspects of the article. Adding a large list of films is not summarizing. Highlighting details unrelated to the Silverstone's notability on par and even over those of her notability is the very opposite of what should be there. --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)