Jump to content

Talk:Zooey Deschanel/Archive 1

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

Quotes

is there a citation for those quotes? Streamless 13:40, 1 February 2006

Ethnic Background

I know that her family name is definitely of French origin but she is in the category for Irish Americans; is there any proof that her family (at least on her father's side) has Irish blood? Any information would be most appreciated.

Yes, I think her father is of French descent and her mother of Irish descent. At LA Times, "She has pinkish-fair skin and naturally dark hair, a combination of her black Irish and French ancestry -- "a natural goth," as she puts it." MadJack 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since her mother's maiden name, Weir, is a Scots name, I fail to see how she can be 1/4 French and 3/4 Irish! Acorn897 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Having fair skin and dark hair does not prove that she has Irish ancestry any more than it would prove that it meant that she had Welsh, Italian, French or English ancestry. --86.150.130.179 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone can speculate. If there's no source it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Z. Deschanel link as it goes to a "suspended account".Estreya 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an active link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 March 2007

Pronounciation

Does anyone know how her name is actually pronounced? It keeps getting changed on the page. Qutezuce 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced De-sha-nel. It was in a trailer for "Elf" on scifi a few weeks back.

Vala M (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with the above explanation. First, "De-sha-nel" tells us almost nothing. How are the vowels pronounced? Which syllables have emphasis? Secondly, did she pronounce it that way or did someone else? The correct way is her way. Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, the commercial was a few weeks ago and I don't remember it too clearly but what I wrote is how I remember it anyway. I haven't heard her pronouce is but going from the other section on this below on this page, it is what is generally agreed upon in the TV/movie industry, how she pronounces it, I don't know.

Vala M (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't answer the question about pronunciation of "De-sha-nel". "De-sha-nel" doesn't provide any more information than "Deschanel". There probably are 10 to 15 different ways to say it: DEE-shah-nell, DAY-shah-nell, DEH-shah-nell, dee-shah-NELL, day-shah-NELL, etc. Ward3001 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's 'Day-shun-nell' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.112.103 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's incredible to me that people have so much trouble understanding this: the edit above does not answer the question. Is it DAY-shun-nell, day-shun-NELL, or possibly even day-SHUN-nell? It's called "emphasis on a syllable". Ward3001 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, both those options sound virtually identical when actually said out loud, but if it means that much to you perhaps you'd like to look just two sections down where it's already answered. Now take a deep breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.112.103 (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't sound alike. Do you grasp the concept of emphasis on a syllable? Apparently not, and that's why you thought "Day-shun-nell" would be said by everyone exactly the same way you say it. Words that otherwise would sound alike can sound differently depending on how you emphasize the syllables. Let me try to give you a very simple example. CON-duct as a noun (e.g., "The child's conduct in school was horrible") and con-DUCT as a verb (e.g., "He will conduct the orchestra") are spelled the same but emphasize different syllables and have different meanings. Almost any multisyllable word can be pronounced differently depending on which syllable is emphasized. So DAY-shun-nell and day-shun-NELL are not pronounced the same, and your useless statement that the name is pronounced "Day-shun-nell" tells us nothing. I took a deep breath, and it didn't make your edit any clearer. Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Does it help to say that French words (including nouns) do not emphasize syllables? Therefore, it should come across as "day-shan-el" (the "n" sound isn't twinned), no particular syllabic emphasis.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a little, if she in fact uses French pronunciation. But she may not. And it still doesn't clarify how each syllable is pronounced (e.g., day or deh). Someone needs to hear her say her name and translate it into writing so that we know how each syllable is pronounced and which syllable (if any) has emphasis. Ward3001 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

She pronounces it at the beginning of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtVh8kVZ_XM . Narr (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd...in this interview, at around 4:54, she pronounces her name as ZOO-ee. Maybe that should be added in as an alternative pronunciation? SkpVwls (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No, too much margin of error in how it's heard. I heard it as ZOH-ee (also how Letterman said it and how I've heard other stars say it, unfortunately not her). The distinction between those two sounds is very narrow if it is not spoke very clearly and distinctly. Probably if you had ten sets of ears hear the same video, you'd get mixed opinions. There was too much extraneous noise (she claps her hands almost simultaneously with saying "Zooey") and she speaks rapidly. I've also noticed that people tend to hear things a little differently even if there is no distracting noise. I would want to hear her say it specifically in the context of how to pronounce her name, such as "It's pronounced Zooey". Cresix (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All the Real Girls -- NPOV?

"She won high praise for her sensitive, naturalistic portrayal of an innocent, self-assured, sexually curious 18-year-old virgin who has a life-changing romance with an aimless 22-year-old man (Paul Schneider) in David Gordon Green’s acclaimed cult film All the Real Girls (2003)"

I love All the Real Girls, but this seems just a little over-the-top to me. Anyone up for revising it to tone down the praise while preserving the reference? 68.100.203.44 07:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.178.170.41 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 September 2006.

Pronunciation

Her first name is pronounced the same as Zoe is normally pronounced, but how is her surname pronounced? If it's French, I would guess it's something like day-sha-nelle. Does anyone know?

Edit on Career section

I edited this today, 09/24/06 while not logged in. I tried to make it less like an advertisement, edited certain things like "critically acclaimed" for Almost Famous, since that's subjective and debatable. I also took out the part about her appearing on the "talk show circuit" and listing the Letterman show. I think that her agency or agent must have just pasted her agency bio or a press announcement.

I'd also call into question the whole "private life" section because dating the bassist from AFI and the kid from American Pie seems like a pretty ridiculous thing to have in an encyclopedia. But I'll leave that to someone else. Fermentor 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Blur music video?

Does Zooey play the daughter in the Blur music video of Coffee & TV?

Skittlesjc 17:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No it's not her, but I can definitely see a resemblance! The video is on youtube if anyone else wants to look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWUil383us4 TheExtruder 20:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrek the Third?

I see we have Zooey named as in the cast for this movie.. IMDB has no record of it. http://imdb.com/title/tt0413267/fullcredits Can we cite a source for this, other than the WP page for Shrek the Third? -- Alucard (Dr.) 03:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone today removed the {{fact}} from the article saying she is in Shrek the Third. Since the WP page on Shrek the Third does not list her as part of the cast, nor does IMDB, I am removing it. If someone can find a citation that she is in the cast, then that needs to be provided if the entry is re-established. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply Halston

I can find no mention on IMDB of her participation in this film, in fact there is no listing for the movie at all in IMDB, we will need to quote some reliable source on this one. -- Alucard (Dr.) 14:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/id/3507039 has Jane Krakowski playing the lead role, although there was a rumour that that had changed. Killer Films, the company that is supposed to be making it has no record of it on their website. -- Alucard (Dr.) 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Songs she sings in Terabithia?

Sorry, this is not a Wikipedia issue, but what are the names of the songs that Mrs. Edmunds (Zooey's character in Terabithia) sings with her class in the film? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 09:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable roles

Right now, Zooey has seven roles in her "notable roles" infobox, which seems like too many. Can someone who has seen more of the films narrow it down? --GargoyleMT 14:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized biography

I have reorganized Deschanel's biography, integrating her film and television roles with her singing career. I feel that this makes for a more linear, readable article, and also makes sense in light of the fact that her film and singing careers have overlapped (she has sung in several films and performed in the musical "Once Upon a Mattress"), and have the potential to overlap even more (e.g., the Janis Joplin biopic--how could that be placed in either "film" or "singing"?). Hobbesy3 02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Career section

I did an edit on the career section, filling it in a little more and reconstructing some of the sentences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc12286 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 September 2006.

It should also be noted that the album she's putting out with M. Ward is under the name "She And Him", it's coming out in March 2008, and it will be tentatively titled "Volume One" I have no idea how to add a link, so I'll say it's via Zooey's MySpace page. schmalzbauer 03:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Thank you to the person who put up a real image. That garish gray box is gone forever now. I was going batty and was thinking of drawing an image of Deschanel in MS Paint. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

She's Got Issues - Offspring

should there be a note in here that she played the girl in the offsprings music video "Shes Got Issues"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.181.165 (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Zooey also make an appearance on Frasier (Season 10, Episode Four) as Roz's cousin, Jen?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that it's not suppose to be a links page, but the fansite that is listed there hasn't been updated since 2005. There's a couple of active ones that could be put there, like http://zooey-deschanel.us/ I'd add it, but I'm probably not authorized since it says unverified links will be deleted.

It's not strictly a links page, but there's a resourcehere that collects all of Zoeey's achievements in a musical capacity - it's a music new aggregator: http://gigulate.com/artist/Zooey-Deschanel/ , I'd add it but it's probably not my shout either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.147 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

older Sister

I think some mention to the fact that she is the the younger sister of Emily Deschanel should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herogamer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? It's there in the 'Early life' section. DP76764 (Talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this article should follow BLP convention and place siblings in "Personal Life" so people don't continually ask these types of questions. There is a reason why these conventions exist. Rapier (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Family

The information that the great grandfather of Emily and Zooey Deschanel would be Paul, president of the French Republic, is false. Paul Deschanel had two sons, one died in 1939, the other was born, lived, and died in Paris in 1963 and was a member of the Chamber of Deputies until 1940. Caleb Deschanel was born in 1944 in Philadelphia. His father could have the same name that a son of Paul Deschanel, but none of them has lived in the United States. The article in Paris-Match in reference contains an error of a journalist. Fenimore22 (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Fenimore22

Unfortunately, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Unless someone can provide a reliable source that disproves the assertion made in Paris-Match, then it will be difficult to keep out of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged it as {{dubious}} and directed discussion here. It is also tagged in the articles on Emily Deschanel and Paul Deschanel. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been removed (not by me), and rightly so. It certainly is not unheard of for a journalist to jump to an incorrect conclusion based on a name. I disagree with Elizium's interpretation of "verifiability not truth". It is true that inadequately sourced material can be removed from an article based on that policy, but that doesn't mean that everything with an indiscriminant source must remain in an article, especially when it has dubious veracity, and especially when it is in a BLP. Reasonable logic tells us that proving a negative is sometimes impossible (i.e., proving that Zooey's great-grandfather was not president of France). The better interpretation of "verifiability not truth" dicates that if there is reasonable doubt about truth (in this case, given the birthplace and date of birth of Zooey's father, it is quite reasonable), the information should have a stronger source or be removed. Cresix (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What we need is reliable sources documenting that Paris Match is wrong. We only have the unsourced information provided by an editor. Such private information isn't admissible. The information from Paris Match, even if wrong, isn't negative, so there is no serious BLP issue. Until we have a reliable source to the contrary, we have no policy-based reason to remove or tag it. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

New CD

Zooey said in a recent interview that she had a CD coming out in March called "She and Him Volume One". It's with M. Ward, and the band is called She and Him. Just thought you guys would want to add it! --Sjb121590 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Need a specific source before it can be added. Ward3001 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
She spoke about it in a conversation with KCRW Radio, an LA radio station. It occured on 1/6/08, and I have a link to download the radio if you'd like, I also have an Amazon link where you could buy the CD, but it's under the band's name "She and Him" not "Zooey Deschanel".
http://www.mediafire.com/?5mwgwv1yhbq (beware of popups)
http://www.amazon.com/One-She-Him/dp/B0012IWHQO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1200452169&sr=1-1
Hope that's good enough. :) --Sjb121590 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There's also a seven paged article about the album in "Under the Radar Magazine" coming out January 29th. And I added my signiture to the above, I always forget to sign in and do that. --Sjb121590 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually there's an article about the group and another for the record Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this page is locked I couldn't update it myself, but I was thinking that Zooey's work on the Winnie the Pooh soundtrack should be included in the Discography. Wilef81 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reads Like PR

Is it just me, or does this whole entry seem a little laudatory and over the top, reading like it was written by her PR folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.161.177 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just because everyone loves Zooey LogicalFinance33 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 35.11.10.81, 14 October 2011

The Sentence "Deschanel will also wrote and sings the theme song to her current television series New Girl." in the section "film-related music" should have the words "will also" removed for grammar/tense purposes.

35.11.10.81 (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial.  actioned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great grandpappy redux

A French genealogist has published their research on the subject [1]. While I wouldn't necessarily use it to source info added to the article, I would at this point use it as a justification to remove the Paul Deschanel info.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Divorce - needs better source

I have US Magazine, but even Natalia Buia at andPOP isn't sure if the info is reliable. It will wait for a day or two. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article for three days. Hopefully by then, plenty of good sources will have emerged if the gossip is true (or a rebuttal will have emerged if it's not). IP editors, please post here if it does emerge in the more reliable press. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's on most of the press at the moment and should be dated 2011 when they filed. Update the grey box? Benuel (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
They have filed for divorce but it is not final yet. They are still married until the divorce is final. The infobox should not be updated until after this time. Elizium23 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Zooey Deschanel's divorce is final and in fact public record. Please do update the info box to reflect this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmkbncpr (talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 April 2012‎
If it is final, then we should have no trouble finding sources that say so. Please provide a source that says so. Your last "source" (provided in this edit summary was a news story from January about the filing of the divorce; it had no updates or any mention of being final. Furthermore, you are removing facts from the article. You cannot just remove the line that says Gibbard is her spouse, because this is a fact that will always be a part of her history after the marriage ends. The correct way to modify it would be to provide an ending date. But as I have demonstrated, there is no ending date yet because there are no sources that corroborate your claim that the divorce is final. Elizium23 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Attention deficit disorder

It is original research to "translate" what the source says into a rigid medical term. We have to be very careful with this source as it is self-published. It is reliable for assertions about Deschanel herself, and what it says verbatim is 'attention deficit disorder'. If Deschanel looks it up in the DSM-IV and corrects herself in an interview, then we can use that. Until then, it has to remain as she said. Elizium23 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Attention deficit disorder is not a disorder, there's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but not ADD, which is an old way of calling it. It has to be ADHD, which exists, or it shouldn't be included. It is as simple as that. Plus, Zooey clearly cites hyperactive symptoms in her paragraph. I understand your point, but it should be corrected for a disorder that actually exists. It can be called "ADHD" simply, without mentioning any subtypes (PI, PH or combined). Tongtom (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's synthesis to make a diagnosis from symptoms. We can say "Deschanel states she has ADD", but we can't state "Deschanel has ADHD". tedder (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to make a diagnosis from symptoms, I'm just telling you that attention deficit disorder is not the name of the disorder anymore; it is ADHD-PI. But since we are not sure that she's a PI (and the odds are that she isn't to me, but that's an opinion), we should just cite ADHD. You didn't understand my point. Tongtom (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link attention deficit disorder, and it redirects to ADHD-PI page. We have actually no evidence that she's a PI, that's why we should only leave ADHD, which includes the three subtypes. ADHD does include PI if she's one, but if she's not, ADHD-PI doesn't include the rest. If she's a PI, she still has a form of ADHD, so it stays true. It's not what you call "original research". Tongtom (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

She said she has ADD. She didn't say ADHD or ADHD-PI. Both ADD and ADHD are in common usage, the former is arguably still common even if it's correct. Since we are dealing with a self-published source on a BLP, we are simply stating what was reported (whether it's correct or not). If she said she has agoraphobia but it's clearly a social phobia, it would be synthesis to correct that. tedder (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That's right, she didn't say ADHD-PI, but your link attention deficit disorder redirects to ADHD-PI, can you read above? ADHD, on the other hand, would redirect to ADHD, which includes all the subtypes, so it would be true for any of them, and it would be the best link that we can give, since we don't know which subtype she has. Understand my point? I'm not saying "she's obviously hyperactive"(even though she is IMO), I'm saying that your link redirects to something that we have no evidence nor source about, while ADHD includes attention deficit disorder, what we used to call ADD is a form of ADHD. We could simply remove the link, or change it for ADHD, but we cannot keep the link redirecting to ADHD-PI.Tongtom (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I do read what you are saying. Note the quote on the article does not link to ADD, ADHD, ADHD-PI, or anything else. Linking to Attention deficit disorder is fine (yes, it redirects to ADHD) would be fine, but anything else would not be acceptable. My links above were done in a halfass manner. tedder (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
aha. You removed it while I was typing this up. We're on the same page with the current revision. tedder (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

See ADHD, it's written : (ADHD, AD/HD or ADD), so yes, we could just call it ADHD.

Delblow (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If the reference uses a specific term, we shouldn't generalize it into a more vague term that also makes the statement incorrect. The reference says "Deschanel has also stated that she has attention deficit disorder". To change this to say "Deschanel has also stated that she has ADHD" is false, as that isn't what was said. - SudoGhost 22:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not word by word, read the reference by yourself. It's a text from Deschanel in which she says that she has attention deficit disorder. We changed the whole thing to "she has stated that she has", and the term attention deficit disorder doesn't exist anymore, that's why we change it too. Delblow (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The reference says "Attention Deficit Disorder". Not ADHD. It doesn't matter what the correct term is, if it is written "she has stated that she has", then we must use what she stated, not what we think is correct. - SudoGhost 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's like if someone said "I like Rythm & Blues" and we would be saying "she said that she likes R 'n B", it's not a big deal, but in our case, it's a better usage of a medical term. Delblow (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"R'n'B" is an abbreviation of "Rhythm and Blues" and perfectly acceptable editorially. "ADD" is the abbreviation of "attention deficit disorder", not "ADHD" - you are making a medical decision based on your own knowledge to interpret what a source says, and that is original research. Elizium23 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
False, you misinterpret what I am saying. Go read the article ADHD by yourself, it says word by word : Atttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, AD/HD or ADD). This is the acceptable term for it. This is not synthesis. Delblow (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If the article says "she has stated", then you must follow with what she stated, not with anything else, no matter how correct it might be. - SudoGhost 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Then, should I change it for "she has" ? Delblow (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, if nobody answers, I guess it will be ADHD. Delblow (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've got an idea. Let's remove the statement altogether. It is obviously contentious, and IMHO, it is poorly-sourced. HelloGiggles is a comedy website, and any blog posts should be taken with a grain of salt. It is conceivable that the ADD statement was made for comedic effect and not actually an autobiographical claim. Therefore, I suggest to remove it completely. Argument solved! Elizium23 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I pretty much thought that from the beginning. Though the site is more of a blog, she is a humorous person. And she might think that she has ADD/ADHD, but no one really knows for sure. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not the first time she claims it, though. http://www.spiritmag.com/uploads/pdf/click_this/0411_zooey.pdf Delblow (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
attention deficit disorder is not a disorder...right Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


She had trouble writing a paragraph

If you don't want to put the H because it's written ADD (which is the old name of ADHD...), then we should also write that she said that she had trouble writing a paragraph without getting up 4 times, because the meaning of attention deficit disorder has changed since the time she was told she had it. Vokkare (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
That is trivia, and I fail to see how it is relevant to her career or even her personal life to the point that it should be included in an encyclopedic biography. Elizium23 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of trivia in the article, isn't it? ADD causes some confusion IMO, so since we have to cite what she said, that would be a way to do it. And it also shows the context of the citation. Vokkare (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, the source given, HelloGiggles, is a humor website, and should be evaluated in that context, rather than a source of hard autobiographical facts. Please see WP:SPS for information on why we need to be careful with claims made in self-published sources. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As said earlier in the discussion, it's not the only time she claimed it. See http://www.spiritmag.com/uploads/pdf/click_this/0411_zooey.pdf for instance. Vokkare (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You were talking about 'she had trouble writing a paragraph without getting up 4 times' which is not in the source you just cited. I was replying to your proposed use of that phrase. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Find a quote, quote it, then cite it. Everyone wants to interpret. That isn't your place. Sigh. 72.192.120.241 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Model

Just for the record, I removed the claim the Deschanel is a model from this article. If it is true, then it would need at least a source; this article had none to support it nor a shred of elaboration on her alleged modelling. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunter Burgan fiance?

Was that just a rumor that Zooey Deschannel dated or was engaged to the bassist of AFI, Hunter Burgan? Or was that just a media tabloid which was done by TMZ because they just wanted more attention and more money for their show? I know this information was roughly 6 years ago (back in 2008), but does anyone know if it reliable or not? Is it still enough to be mentioned in this article?.... What do you guys think? That's all I wanted to say here. panicpack121 12:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Added citations

I added four citations to this page. I am doing it for my English class. I added one for the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Early Life section & one for the last sentence, in the last paragraph of the section "Film-related music" & one for the last sentence, of the 2nd paragraph in the section "Music" & one for the 2nd half of the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph in the section "Music". Hope they help! Tiger33055 (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Conversion to Judaism

A press account from US Weekly Magazine, widely reported in other press, discussed Ms. Deschanel's having converted to Judaism and identifying her mother's religion as Roman Catholicism. The online version of the original article can be found at http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/zooey-deschanel-converts-to-judaism-for-husband-jacob-pechenik-2015911#ixzz3r1lHyU1c. An attempt to add this information to the pages for both Ms. Deschanel and her mother was reversed on a claim of unreliable source. For celebrity information, one would assume that a nationally published magazine whose content was reprinted in a number of other newspapers and news sources (including the Daily Mail, New York Daily News, Jezebel, The Telegraph, the Deseret News, the Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, and Newsday and Fox News Radio--see https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dIPWSW9WXjivpkMA-d6uDZltkP5-M&q=zooey+deschanel&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQqgIwAGoVChMIzJSOu6yLyQIVgzc-Ch2bcgLg). I propose that the source is sufficiently reliable for inclusion of this information, but invite replies arguing otherwise prior to reinclusion of this information in the two respective articles. One-Off Contributor (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, because the information came from anonymous, unattributed, unidentified, shadowy "sources" and not confirmed by the article subject, her representative or available documentation. Unconfirmed claims by anonymous sources are RUMORS. The celebrity press can make any claim it wants to based on dubious sourcing that may or may not be accurate. An encyclopedia has a higher standard for what constitutes facts. Again, WP:NOTTABLOID. Moreover, any claim about a living person's private life, which most certainly includes claims about their religion, requires an especially high level of RS citing, as per WP:BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at a couple of the outlets you mention. Their items attribute Us Weekly — it's not original reporting by the Jerusalem Post, Newsday, etc. In fact, Newsday is dubious and frames it as possibly erroneous claim: "Did Zooey Deschanel convert to Judaism for her husband, venture capitalist Jacob Pechenik?" --Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If this information is legitimate (and I have no idea if it is), it should be easily found in a more reliable source than Us Weekly or others that use Us Weekly as their source. And if Deschanel or anyone close to her confirms it, there is no doubt that it will appear in a more reliable source. This is an encyclopedia, not a newswpaper that must scoop the story. We can wait. In addition to policy issues mentioned by Tenebrae, we need to respect WP:BLPCAT, which applies to article content as well as categories. Please wait for a better source. Sundayclose (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Her husband is Jewish so I don't get why do you think Zooey's conversion to Judaism is so far fetched. [Zooey celebrated the Jewish holiday of Hannukah.] Bostonnine (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Bostonnine, there's no need to shout with bold letters. This isn't a matter of what any Wikipedia editor "thinks is far-fetched". It is a matter of reliable sourcing, a core foundation of Wikipedia. If you can produce a reliable source that does not use Us Weekly as it's source (Us Weekly uses unconfirmed sources as it's source), we may have something to discuss. So far every source provided is based solely on Us Weekly. Please read the comments above. And one more point: everyone whose spouse is Jewish doesn't automatically convert to Judasim, and celebrating Hannukah does not mean someone is converting to Judasim. Sundayclose (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
She was a universalist. --Allygggggg (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
No evidence for that so far either. I could claim that she's a Druid, but that doesn't make it true. Can we please confine our discussion to reliably sourced information? Sundayclose (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Has Us Weekly been deemed not WP:RS? Other WP:RS, such as Haaretz , are quoting it. As for the argument "the information came from anonymous, unattributed, unidentified, shadowy "sources" and not confirmed by the article subject", if the publication is WP:RS and she hasn't denied it, then IMO it can be included in the article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I also have to challenge the claim that "Unconfirmed claims by anonymous sources are RUMORS". Using anonymous sources is a fairly standard journalistic technique, and we have to rely on the reputation of the publication that they stand behind the reliability of the anonymous source.
I would have to say that unless Us Weekly can be established as not meeting WP:RS (the article Us Weekly doesn't give anything to suggest that it doesn't) the conversion can be taken as truth, and the burden would shift to Zooey Deschanel to deny this if it is not true, especially since other WP:RS are quoting Us Weekly. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has much higher standards for sourcing WP:BLP articles, especially when the issue is religious belief. The default when in doubt is to not include something with questionable sourcing. So with BLPs the burden never shifts to Deschanel to deny it. The burden is on Wikipedia to get unequivocal confirmation directly from Deschanel that confirms it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; many celebrities neither confirm nor deny rumors in the popular press. Widely respected newspapers, such as the New York Times, are an example of a source that has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Many entertainment magazines, such as Us Weekly, don't have that reputation. Some sources may be reliable in some areas, but that doesn't mean they are always reliable in every case. The tabloid-type entertainment magazines sometimes get it right, but they sometimes get it wrong. Us Weekly identifies "a source" as it's source. That is hardly an example of a reliable source. "A source" could be a random person who saw Deschanel talking to a rabbi, or the person who took the picture linked above by Bostonnine showing Deschanel celebrating Hannukah. If Us Weekly had said that Deschanel herself, or her spokesperson, stated that she converted to Judaism, that would be an entirely different matter. But an unidentified source who could be anyone on the planet fails the test of reliability. It's also noteworthy that no major newspaper such as the New York Times has reported this, and that all of the sources that report use Us Weekly as their source. As I said above, if Deschanel or her spokesperson confirms this, it undoubtedly will be reported in a reliable source that does not use Us Weekly as its source. And so far no one has produced that source. With BLPs, we wait for such confirmation. There is no rush. In any event, this matter is disputed here, so it needs a solid consensus to include it. Sundayclose (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Your statement "Many entertainment magazines, such as Us Weekly, don't have that reputation. Some sources may be reliable in some areas, but that doesn't mean they are always reliable in every case" doesn't really say anything. If you can cite one example where Us Magazine got things wrong, then the conversation is over. Until you do that, then Us Magazine can be taken to meet WP:RS and we can rely on them to verify that their source is more authoritative than "a random person who saw Deschanel talking to a rabbi". --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
My citing one example that "Us Magazine got it wrong" does not make it either a reliable or an unreliable source. Read my comments again. Wikipedia requires evidence from a source with a known reputation for fact checking and accuracy that Deschanel herself has confirmed Us Weekly's claim. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not with the editors challenging it. So far there is zero evidence that Deschanel has confirmed the claim. Again, with BLPs we wait for that. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with you that "Wikipedia requires evidence from a source with a known reputation for fact checking and accuracy". I just don't see anywhere in the argument that Us Weekly does not have that reputation. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, a critical point remains. Wikipedia requires that Deschanel herself confirm anything about religious beliefs (no evidence has been provided). There are specific events that will occur if she actually converts to Judaism. If the story is true and Deschanel confirms either her intention to convert or her actual conversion, she is enough of a celebrity that it will be in the press. So let's wait and see if that happens. As I've said numerous times, with BLPs we can wait. Sundayclose (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you please point out the Wikipedia policy that explicitly requires her to confirm her religious beliefs in order for inclusion in her article and that WP:RS is not sufficient? That would close the discussion. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP, WP:BLPCAT (which applies to the text of the article because a category requires the article to be reliably sourced for the information conveyed by the category). We have no statement from Deschanel that she identifies with Judaism or has any intention of converting to Judaism. Sundayclose (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
We were writing this at the same time! I was writing:
Yes, WP:BLP, which states that "religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question...." And I'm sorry Sometimes the sky is blue feels differently, but an encyclopedia can't just "take someone's word for it" when it comes to anonymous, unattributed "sources" who could be anyone with any agenda. Journalism is "the first draft of history." An encyclopedia should be the last. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That pretty much seals the argument against inclusion until either she or someone authorized to speak on her behalf announces her conversion. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should mention her possible conversion with a note regarding this being claimed by USMagazine. 109.66.102.193 (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. We cite a reliable source, or we leave it out. Sundayclose (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody has demonstrated that USMagazine is not a reliable source. The only issue here is the policy in WP:BLP which states that "religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question....", and WP:BLP cannot be violated. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that the primary issue is that Deschanel must publicly self-identify, but you misunderstand my comment. My point is in response to 109.66.102.193's comment that we can report that she plans to convert to Judaism as long as we report that it is claimed by Us magazine. We don't report inadequately sourced information with the rationale that it's OK as long as we identify the source. As long as Us magazine's source is only identified as "a source", not Deschanel or her spokesperson, Us magazine is not a reliable source. As I've said above, sources don't always automatically fall into black and white categories of "reliable" and "unreliable". In this particular instance with this particular article, Us magazine is unreliable for Wikipedia's standards. Sundayclose (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Zooey Deschanel. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to link instruments. It's a pretty common instrument. Other musicians' articles like Drake Bell, Taylor Swift, Elvis Presley, do not link the instruments. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finally bringing this to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war. "Common" is very subjective. So please get consensus here before removing the link. I think it's unusual enough to need a link. Sundayclose (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
But piano isn't? Either we link it all or none of them. I guess we should start linking stuff like "American" too. That aside, only notable instruments, like one's she's known for, belong there. Looking up She & Him live, I mainly see her with a tambourine. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Far more people are familiar with piano than ukulele. A good rule of thumb: if most 12 year olds are familiar with it, it's a common term. Again, this is a matter of opinion. Please wait for other opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This was a clear two-party edit war; either of you could have (and likely should have) begun this topic sooner.

That said, my US$0.02: link it in the article, not the infobox. (Edit: that said, I just checked every multi-instrumentalist listed in Category:American ukulele players and, of those listing the ukulele in the infobox, all of them are WLed, so what do I know? ) Template:Infobox musical artist#instrument might be a good read as well. 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 02:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should link terms with which the average English-speaking reader (not necessarily an American or British person) is likely to be unfamiliar. In my opinion, ukulele (itself a Hawaiian word) is such a term, while piano is not. General Ization Talk 02:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Zooey Deschanel. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zooey Deschanel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zooey Deschanel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Describing TV series 'Bones' as 'comedy-drama'

At 23:01 11/4/2017, IP 98.168.27.150 "removed bogus claim that Bones was comedy", changing the term "comedy-drama" to "drama". Note: that show's Conception section mentions that "series creator Hart Hanson... decided to infuse the show with as much dark humor and character development as possible." The article's third footnote links to Fox Network's own "About" page for the show, describing it as "a darkly amusing procedural with humor, heart and character". Accordingly, review sites typically refer to it as a "comedy-drama", e.g. IMDB ("Comedy, Crime, Drama"), Variety ("comedy-drama"), Metacritic ("Comedy, Drama, Suspense"), Ranker ("comedy-drama or dramedy"; Bones is ranked #24 best in the category), here's a Google search listing more.... Under the circumstances, I am restoring the description "comedy-drama". – •Raven  .talk 05:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zooey Deschanel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zooey_Deschanel/Archive_1&oldid=1231848081"