Talk:Sophie Dahl

Birth date

Article says 1979, imdb.com says 1977. Please someone fix it Pictureuploader 17:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe she was born in '79. The Guardian article (likned from her page) published in 2000 say's she's 23, too. I'll change it to '77.Crisso 18:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

There's been some odd stuff about nationality in this article. Someone (anon IP) recently changed the info box to say she was Scottish - although she has quite varied ancestry I can't see anything that indicates any Scots roots. Overall it seems more appropriate to describe her nationality as British. Given the variety of ethnic or national roots to which she can lay claim, the term British seems better because it embraces the diverse ethnic mix of the UK. Also British is a formal nationality whereas "English" isn't (eg. there's no such thing as an English passport).Circusandmagicfan (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Notability

I can't believe this page has been marked as maybe not notable- she's very famous in the UK, I would say she's a household name, and she has receieved a lot of media attention for her books, her modelling work (especially the opium campaign) as well as aspects of her personal life such as her weight loss and relationship with Jamie Callum. 79.69.97.45 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

British ethnicity?

British is a nationality, not an ethnicity - a British person could be of any ethnicity. Sophie Dahl's ethnicity would be white / caucasian or some other such descriptor. Petecollier (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the ethnicity description from the info box for the time being. When someone can cite a source that gives her ethnicity then the correct description can be put in. I also believe that British, rather than English, is a better general description for her, so I have edited that in the intro.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

Dahl's notable grandmother

It's peculiar that the article lauds Sophie Dahl's two "notable grandfathers," but nowhere does the author mention her very notable grandmother, the Oscar-winning actress Patricia Neal. This lack is especially egregious given that a good part of Sophie Dahl's fame is based on her appearance (she modeled for years), and she strikingly resembles her grandmother. According to Patricia Neal's autobiography, *As I Am*, there was some degree of estrangement between herself and her daughter Tessa, Sophie's mother. It would be sad, but interesting to know (with citations, please!), if estrangements still plague this family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Younggoldchip (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Success as a plus size model in mainstream fashion

To mention Dahl and all of the work she has done with magazines, designers, and campaigns, I was extremely appalled that nothing was mentioned that when she first started out modeling, she would have been considered plus size. She wasn't just curvy, the girl was pretty heavy and extremely so if you stood her next to a model like Shalom Harlow, or even Cindy Crawford. Her success as a girl who wasn't a size 0-2 was glaringly left out so I put that into the article. She was a plus size model that got magazine covers, campaigns, and editorial spreads normally reserved for models who are the norm. If you need proof, all one really needs to do is google her photos and you can see that before she was rail thin like she is now, the woman was heavyset. It just disrespects the work she has done as a model and for women of size to omit such obvious and important facts. I have inserted them where I hope they will remain.-CR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.85.83 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This article e. g. says: "Sophie Dahl is the most successful and well known plus-size model of the world." And this one, titled "How plus-size model Emme believes Sophie Dahl 'lost her uniqueness' by slimming down", desribes the development of her career and her changed figure pretty well. (Oh, and there are also subsequent articles where she admits her "slimming down" to have been painful and sick.) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Why no infobox? Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it adds little value and we don't need a bloated list of relatives and little else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):In this instance, an infobox adds no significant information that is not already included in the lead. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You could have a short one, just giving her life data, formerly invisible in persondata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(also ec)

Sophie Dahl
Born	Sophie Holloway (1977-09-15) 15 September 1977 London, UK
Occupations	Writer Model
Website	www.sophiedahl.com

An infobox should never "add" facts. I vote for having the life data together where readers expect them. The rendition of the date in granulary form adds, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is unnecessary in this article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating: even if you don't see it, the rendition of the date in granulary form (for example) adds value to some readers. I would prefer to serve them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I swear Gerda has an "eye" cast over all wikipedia articles like Sauron over Middle Earth in Lords of the Rings which knows every single article on wikipedia with an infobox dispute ;-) Took just three minutes!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

She's on my watchlist since the last removal in 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you've not got a wiki eye like Sauron then. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I wish we could reach an understanding on this. Infoboxes are for a different purpose than a lead. Some material is repeated, some isn't. I really wish that they would be considered the default unless there was a reason not to have one. (I've been trying to find an infobox that fits hindgut fermentation but to no avail, open to ideas). I suppose the issue will never be resolved because we can't decide if WP is Britannica or theWorld Book. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

An infobox tends to look worse I think if it only contains duplicated info and doesn't have a photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the ones with very little info seem a little odd-looking, though proper design helps that. The main thing I think is that not everyone is good at putting them in due to the syntax skills needed, so it's handy to pop in a bunch to multiple articles at once because it's safest to cut and paste the template, but one doesn't necessarily have all the info. It's a balancing act, definitely Montanabw^(talk) 09:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It will be of no surprise to most here that I oppose an infobox in this article. Although I'm generally a fan of them, infoboxes do not benefit all articles all of the time. As is the case here I'm afraid. Maybe we could spend our efforts in trying to find a free image of Dahl; now that would benefit the article IMO. Cassianto^Talk 16:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Finding an image would be great. Perhaps a discussion of content that is useful to add, also... Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Alas, Dahl has been widely pictured for years, so most of the images of her will be non-free. I recieved an email about six months ago from somebody purporting to be a representative from Dahl's agency. They threatened me with all sorts of legal action if I dared to extend her biography further, which I found quite odd. They then offered me a meeting in London where I was to sit down with them and her and discuss what could and couldn't go in the article. I declined their request, which is a shame as I would quite liked to have met her. Let's be honest, if it wasn't for her grandfather, I wouldn't have bothered looking after this article in the first place and it would've certainly been in a worse state than it currently is. Cassianto^Talk 21:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

PR people are sometimes completely clueless about wikipedia. Did you let the WMF know you'd received a legal threat? They probably should have a sit-down with people to do that sort of thing. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I saw little point. I didn't take it seriously and some jumped up old brass from Storm's PR department isn't going to frighten me with their baseless and airhead-like legal threats. When I have the time, I shall try and find a biographical book on Dahl and use that as a primary source for this article. That way, when they do issue a writ, I can re-address it to the publishers or Dahl herself. I'm fairly confident that no such book exists though. Cassianto^Talk 09:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to open up this conversation again. It's been a few years since this was discussed, but think an infobox would be appropriate. I have an image with image rights to use and there's plenty of useful information that could sit within an info box and be useful to people looking for information about Sophie, such as family, nationality, profession, birthdate, spouse and bibliography. There are several instances of other authors with significantly less info to share that have infoboxes I could cite. It would be great to pick this talk back up and agree consensus for an infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plestan (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is no need for an IB to have an image (BTW, have you uploaded it onto Commons yet?)

There is no need for an IB to have important information in the lead, or the article. Looking at the list of things you've mentioned, they are all in the lead already, I think, so there is no need to have them repeated again.

I see the Teahouse gave you good advice on this. Perhaps you didn't read to the end of the comment made there: "perhaps you'll be able to present some new arguments in favor of adding an infobox that will convince others that it should be done". Do you have any new arguments to convince people about the possible addition? - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for reply and the feedback above. Based on the infobox help page, there are a few new arguments that I’d present in regards to why there should be an infobox for Sophie Dahl.

Some of the arguments against before where due to lack of information and no image, which is a fair argument against. I believe that there is now more information we can add to that, and I also have an image we can use to further expand, which is again something mentioned in previous arguments against. I will upload to the commons shortly.

We could add an author infobox, with the below sections:

Image, name, birth date, occupation, residence, nationality, citizenship education, genre, notable awards, spouse, children, relatives, website.

You suggested that the information that would be in an infobox is already on the page and shouldn’t be repeated again, but the purpose of an infobox is to quickly summarize the information into an easy to read sidebar in order to quickly retrieve information you’d otherwise have to search for. Additionally, the information should be also be present in the main text, so the argument that the information is already present in the lead should actually be for an infobox and not against it. See reference below:

“Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text…”

I hope this is enough to reconsider an infobox. I think the information available and the progression of Sophie Dahl’s career as an author has presented more information to make an infobox viable in this case. Thanks Plestan (talk) 08:07, 02 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am aware of what the page says, but that's a "how-to guide", not a policy or guideline (it has the same weight as WP:DISINFOBOX, which has been pointed out to you before). See MOS:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." I am not seeing any new points as to why the consensus should be overturned. Could you also answer my point about the image you have: have you uploaded this onto Commons yet? - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like you only read the one part of the above text, I said the following to address that question..."and I also have an image we can use to further expand, which is again something mentioned in previous arguments against. I will upload to the commons shortly." In your point to not have any new points I also believe I addressed a number of the previous arguments against an infobox, such as not having an image and the lack of information that would be relevant, but this is no longer the case, as I'd listed several more sections that could be added to the infobox, meaning previous arguments against have been considered and a decision could be reasonably overturned.

I did see MOS:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.", which is why I've brought this up in the talk as a discussion and I have done this with consideration of previous arguments and have worked to address these. Plestan (talk) 08:35, 02 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I read the full thing: there is nothing in what you have written that hasn't been raised before or changes the circumstances as they relate to this article. I'm not sure why the desperation to have an IB here. Is there a particular reason you want to add one?

Tell me, in relation to the image, is this one that you have taken, or one that you have found on the internet? - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not desperation, I was hoping to have a discussion and still am, but every response from you has been quite aggressive. In regards to the image, I have not taken it but it wasn't just found on the internet thank you. It was taken by Matt Easton and I've been given permission to use it. In regards to a particular reason to have one is that I believe there is more information than there previously had been about Dahl as the information was limited before and hence why it was deemed not relevant, which I do agree was the correct decision at the time. the best solution when facing a disinfobox is to try and save it by either correcting false information, removing all subjective fields, or adding useful information."...with this in mind, I'm simply suggesting to add useful information versus what was originally proposed. Plestan (talk) 09:25, 02 July 2019 (UTC)

Aggressive? No, I don't think so: disagreeing with you is not aggressive. The amount of information on an individual doesn't necessarily determine the presence of an IB - check out Mozart as a 69k byte article without one, Stanley Holloway - Dahl's grandfather is 56k bytes and again doesn't have one. (This article is just over 17k bytes, to give you a frame of reference).

As to the picture. It's not one you will be able to upload directly. You will have to ask the photographer to go through the OTRS system to prove his identity and that he either has the right to upload, or that he's given you permission. That's the reason I was asking about it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the advice, it has been helpful and thanks for the examples and appreciate your view on it, (although her grandfather Roald Dahl does seem to have one, but appreciate that's not relevant to my point). From my point of view you also see profiles such as Jessie Burton, with potentially less requirement for one and why it's often confusing when deciding when an infobox is relevant and not as there's such a mix of cases.

In regards to the image, that's good to know, I'll see what I can do, as I can see there's previous requests to try and source an image to use for this page. Is there a reason for going through that particular process? Advice on this would be welcome. thanks. 10:19, 02 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plestan (talk • contribs)

The reason is to protect the artist (Matt Easton, in this case), from someone claiming a permission they don't have (not that I'm suggesting that here, but it's not unknown). Uploading the picture means he will loose all rights to it and would not be able to claim copyright (and therefore not demand a fee for its use) from anyone else who uses it. That's potentially a big deal for a professional artist. See Commons:OTRS for more information on the process and background. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the advice. I'll get in touch with the photographer and go through this process. Plestan (talk) 12:53, 02 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Origin of Dahl as a surname

I was a little confused by the subject of this article being Sophie Dahl (née Holloway) - is there any citable explanation as to how and when she come to use Dahl - given that the connection to that is through her mother Tessa Dahl, who separated (they were not married according to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/donotmigrate/3589119/A-fairytale-life.html) from Sophie's father Julian Holloway shortly after Sophie's birth it is perhaps not so surprising but that is not explained in this article. SlySven (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I actually agree. I would want to change the lead to something like "born as Sophie Halloway" or whatever, because née gives the connotation of a premarital name, even though technically it is a "birth name". I just think we could easily make it clearer with very little, if anything, lost in the process. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)