Talk:George Clooney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Clooney article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

Contents

[edit] Wrong name

Is his middle name really James? IMDB says it is Timothy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.2.192 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wrong reference

Reference 11 link doesnt work anymore. here is the new correct link: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2006/12/03/clooney_still_recovering_from_back_injury/5638/ Can someone please update? i dont feel like signing up just for this 130.89.170.135 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. IrishGuy talk 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing reference

Reference 13, the one about Clooney's back brace during the Good German, is a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.216.7 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Joke at Charlton Heston's expense

What's the need to dedicate a full section to George Clooney's joke at Charlton Heston. It was not a politic statement nor a comment. It was only a joke. On Charlton Heston's page, there is only 2 or 3 sentences about it. Mentioning it is one thing but writting so much about such a little event seems largely disproportioned and seems to be there for the only purpose to try to credibilize him. It was nothing more than the joke he made at Jack Abramoff. So why in one case, it's only one sentence, and in the other case it's a huge and complete section? By the way the joke was: "President of NRA announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." not"Charlton Heston announced again today..."Annegc1 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They are much more relevant to Clooney than to Heston. They reflect Clooney's viewpoint, percieved or real, about the NRA and it's then president. Every source I've found says that Clooney mentioned Heston by name. The sources cited show that Clooney called it a joke - but not everybody saw it that way. We should present the facts in a NPOV manner and let readers decide for themselves. CovenantD 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Clooney absolutely did not mention Heston by name. The reporting of this was widely inaccurate. All it takes is one source to get it wrong and every source picks up on that. Clooneystudio 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dedicated a whole section still suggests that it was once a huge event or even a huge polemic, when it has never been. It was nothing more than his joke about Abramoff but that section suggested it was otherwise. And I maintain that the only purpose of this whole section is to try to decridibilize George Clooney. The only reason why its gained any form of fame was because some conservatives hated him for being an opponent of Irak's war and couldn't stand opposition on that issue. Just because some websites rehashed the same wrong sentence doesn't mean it was once real. Since, his joke has never been recorded but only reported, I believe that George Clooney knew better that anyone else what he really said that day. Here were you can see an article about that whole thing: http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/lycos/1595/id278.htm Annegc1 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not our place to determine what was "really" said; we are to only relate what reliable sources have reported. His rebuttal is in there so the readers can decide who to believe. I also remind you to assume good faith about other editors. CovenantD 08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ER contract

He has never signed another contract with ER producers where they would agree on several cameos from him. The only contract he signed with them was the original one. Such a contract doesn't exist.Annegc1 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish American

Wouldn't the term Plastic Paddy be more appropriate than Irish American? As far as I can see, Clooney was born and raised in the US and neither of his parents were born in Ireland, yet he claims to be an "Irish Catholic kid". My grandmother was Irish, but there's no way I would ever claim to be Irish myself. I would definitely be laughed at for doing so here in the UK, but I'd be ridiculed completely if I said so in Ireland. Clooney is not Irish American. He's American.

Face it, in the UK, being Irish period is grounds for ridicule.JGC1010 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the term Plastic Paddy is derogatory, I think not. The definition of Irish American is clear, and since Clooney has Irish ancestry he's free to refer to himself as one. You cannot compare notions of ethnic identity in America to those in Britain. 68.99.182.80 01:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bud...Here in America, we can call ourselves whatever we like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Heritage doesn't disappear because you or your parents weren't born in the country you descended from, your ignorance is amazing. "Irish Americans (Irish: Gael-Mheiriceánach) are citizens of the United States who can claim ancestry originating in the north west European island of Ireland" "An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, great-great-great-grandparent, great-great-great-great-grandparent, and so forth)." 70.126.188.107 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
His mother's name is of English origin therefore perhaps he should be known as an English American with impurities?Stutley (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus vs. Frosty

[citation needed] tag removed from the section commenting on Clooney's involvement in the circulation of the "Jesus vs. Frosty" tape, as the article clearly states that it is a rumor.

[edit] Prankster

Seems odd that there's no mention of Clooney's reputation as a practical joker. 209.180.36.94 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. We need to find some good sources for this because he is well known for pranks. I seem to recall something from about two years ago from an interview with Julia Roberts. I will try to find it. A subsection should be made on the main article if the sources are strong. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Though it has reappeared since I first deleted it, Clooney Studio should be thrown out of the external links section. Though it may be affiliated with Warner Bros., this holds no bearing for a fansite that displays copyrighted images and videos which do not belong to the webmaster. It's violation of Wikipedia policy. 68.45.69.184 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the owner of Clooney Studio and your comment borders on defamation.
Every unofficial site contains some copyrighted material but in most cases, as mine, we are non-profit, have a clear disclaimer, and accede to any requests by the rightful copyright owner. I pay license fees for the use of some pictures and credit the copyright owner where possible. The latter isn't done at all by most other Clooney sites.
Wrong. See Wikipedia's clear policy on linking to fansites that violate copyrights. There has already been a lengthy discussion on this topic. Yes, lots of fansites contain copyrighted material, but Wikipedia's policy forbids linking to ANY that violate that copyright. You may use certain content with permission, but you don't for all. And that's the point. It does not fit the Wikipedia guideline when copyright violations are involved. Therefore, it cannot be linked on Wikipedia. (68.45.69.184 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Okay, I see your point now about not having permission for all content. You should have said that in your first post because from that post I could see no difference between Clooney Studio and People or Moviefone, who also don't own copyright.Clooneystudio 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do. See my first post: "fansite that displays copyrighted images and videos which do not belong to the webmaster. It's violation of Wikipedia policy."
No. Your first post didn't acknowledge the fact that some content is used with permission and was therefore defamatory.Clooneystudio 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if "some" of your content is used with permission. Plenty more of the images you display are not your's; the same with the many video clips your site contains. They are being used "without permission" of the photo agencies, et. al. Again, see Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations if you have not already done so. 68.45.69.184 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read and understand Wikipedia's policies now, so the re-inclusion request is over as far as I'm concerned. However, my last comment was purely pointing out YOUR error. It's defamation, pure and simple. Furthermore, you've listed on the edit history page "The webmaster keeps trying to readd it when it's against Wikipedia policy." I didn't re-add it! I brought it here to the talk and the person who posted agreeing with me re-added it. Please check your facts before making false accusations. Clooneystudio 22:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
False accusations? Please do not get off-topic. Again, your site contains "copyrighted images and videos which do not belong to the webmaster". That's not defamation--that's stating a fact. A fact that was further emphasized by yourself above when you said, "Every unofficial site contains some copyrighted material." 68.45.69.184 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement

I would like to request that Clooney Studio be reinstated. It is an unofficial site, but I am affiliated with Warner Bros and am working on an affiliation with Universal. I also have contact with George Clooney's publicist and agent where necessary.

Just because you're affiliated with movie companies doesn't change the fact that your site contains images and videos that don't belong to you. Plenty of fansites out there are also affiliated with Warner Bros., Universal, et. al. Your disclaimer states that you're an unofficial site and is similar to the universal "fansite disclaimer". Again, read Wikipedia's policy on linking to websites that violate copyrights. They are simply not allowed here. (68.45.69.184 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
Clooney Studio receives the most unique visitors per day of any George Clooney site except IMDB (check online facts/figs). It is the only George Clooney site updated mostly daily and includes exclusive material. Wikipedia references it in their building of their page/facts. If it's good enough for that, it's good enough to be given an external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clooneystudio (talk • contribs) 12:00:00, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. Link should be returned. It's an excellent site with information not available otherwise. I'm putting it back. 69.105.171.191 18:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That's beside the point. There are plenty of great fansites out there for different actors. But the site still contains copyrights images AND videos which do not belong to the webmaster. Therefore, it's against Wikipedia policy to link to such a site. (68.45.69.184 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC))
For some reason, I can't log in on this computer. I will return and sign comments when I'm back to my own computer. 69.105.171.191 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What does "subsidized by Warner Brothers" mean? I see and understand the other comments made about it being an official website, with news/info being updated daily from an official source, but I am still confused about how your description relates to its authority per external links, as perhaps other ordinary Wikipedia readers might be. Please note I have no professional interests in this article/subject, but I am interested in discussions related to verifying websites. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't add that comment about WB. I've already explained my site's position and can't be held responsible for other people adding their own descriptions.Clooneystudio 22:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
External links need to be justified by Wikipedia:External links to be added to the article. Before readding the Clooney Studio external link, please post the Wikipedia:External links reason here for discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Via the Wikipedia:External links page, it states:
"For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception.
1. Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." 68.45.69.184 22:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. It also fails other aspects of WP:EL:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
Links mainly intended to promote a website.
This link as well as clooneynetwork have been removed numerous times and the website owner(s) continue adding them in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:COI. IrishGuy talk 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Does someone have a better picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teslacarmechaniclunch (talk • contribs) 01:07:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

That seems like a nice picture to me as it captures him candidly. The picture that is there right now I mean. Chicago kid 1911 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that the previous poster talked about the second photo, not the first one Annegc1 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motoaccident

I am still working on finding where George said no one should be punished for looking at his hospital records. This was in a newspaper article online and I should be able to find it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timepeppers (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Found it

I found the article and I put the quote in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timepeppers (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early career

I was just watching a documentary on French television in which they claimed Clooney got his Hollywood start in the cult classic Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, they showed a clip and it was him alright. No reference here, so I think it should be mentioned somewhere, somehow. He was also in the sequel, "Revenge of the Killer Tomatoes" George? Will you log on and enlighten us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribbit (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

George Clooney was only in the Return of the Killer Tomatoes not in the first one. Annegc1 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Clooney a Jew?

Does anybody here think that George Clooney looks like a Jew? I was wondering if there was some info on this. 24.174.48.155 (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

He is not jew but catholic Annegc1 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
I am not sure that was a serious question but he looks more Italian to me. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle

hi. does anyone here know what kind of motorcycle he was riding when he had his accident?? Donpknight (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)?

A Harley-Davidson. See People Magazine article here. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family

Any firm references available on the family citations (the nephews and cousins and all the rest of those)? Should they even be listed at all? GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article introduction

It seems that the introduction might be too long or it might have more information than is needed. Maybe some of those notes should be moved into the body of the article? GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Esquire Interview Critiques Wikipedia Entry

Explicit references to correct/incorrect content in this article can be observed in this Esquire interview (The 9:10 To Crazyland). Suggest registered and interested editors review.--John Gibbard (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I just found that as well. This is an article, not some off-hand blog entry, so I'm going to go ahead and make the changes with a ref back to this. Joshdboz (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mr. Clooney that ending the text with the Heston thing is not ideal. Could some of those sections perhaps be rearranged? -- Ozzel (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kevin Kelly follow up with a little more info on the spam. William Pietri (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Yes We Can

[edit] Thanks for the needless vandalism

For my job in closed captioning, I usually come to Wikipedia as a fairly reliable source where I can verify name spellings or look up related terms to resolve an audio question. However, when people come in and unnecessarily edit names to blatantly incorrect spellings, alter dates of birth, etc., it pisses me off. I don't rely on this as my only source of verification, but sometimes it's really handy to have a biography or a comprehensive article right there at your fingertips. So thanks a lot to all the internet children who vandalize for fun. I hope someday you are forced to spend time with people who are as annoying as you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.5.97.94 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)