Talk:Selma Blair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Selma Blair article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Untitled

Damn people how could you not mention the Zappa connection :/

I think "Kill Me Later" was an indie film. I personally think it's one of her best.

[edit] Topless appearance

There seems to be an endless array of 12-year-olds that can't get over the fact that she was topless in a movie once. Not relevant, kids. This is Wikipedia, not a catalogue of every woman that has ever taken her shirt off in a movie somewhere. --MattShepherd 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not twelve years old. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not censored? This is a rule of Wikipedia, not a guideline. So what rule can you cite that says mention of this can be removed? Your opinion of what is relevant is just that... an opinion. So unless you can cite something better than that, I'm afraid you have no rules to point to to say that its exclusion is warranted.--Hraefen 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The "12-year-old" comment was in reference to the person that said you could "see her tits," which is crass and juvenile. Was that you? If it was, do you understand how that appears juvenile and unwarranted? I am aware that Wikipedia is not censored. How is suggesting that it's immature and irrelevant to ramble around adding topless appearances in films to actresses' bios "censorship?" There's a league of difference between "censorship" and "good taste." Its exclusion is warranted on the basis of relevance and common sense: relevance, because its relevance is zero to her career as a whole, the scene wasn't particularly notable and caused no controversy; common sense, because mentioning her topless appearance in the first paragraph of the bio makes the article's focus prurient rather than informative. Dig? --66.129.135.114 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, that was me, not signed in. --MattShepherd 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No, that wasn't me that added "see her tits" but I have reverted the removal of the "appeared topless" wording once or twice. Appearing topless has plenty of relevance to an actress' career as a whole: some actresses and actors do get naked in their films and some don't. I agree that the mention of it doesn't fit well in the first paragraph of the bio, but I couldn't see a better place to put it at the time so I stuck it back where it was taken from. I tend to revert censorship on sight and if you see the the edit summary from 6/23/06 (Edited out a reference a nude scene. It seemed kind of irrelevant. This isn't CNDB.com) you can probably understand why I viewed it as such. So... can we find a better place in the article for it and possibly rewrite it to give it a little context? Or are you dead set against having mention of it?--Hraefen 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Born to a Jewish family"

"born to a Jewish family" is a racial stereotype. If the person is Jewish, just say it. ----me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.180.63 (talk • contribs) .

Providing factual information in an encylcopedia is far from perpetuating a racial stereotype. Also, what racial stereotype is being perpetuated? By saying "racial stereotype" do you mean Anti-Semetism? Take a look a some other Wikipedia articles: List of Jewish Americans, List of Jewish American actors, and List of British Jews. Do you think these promote "racial stereotypes" as well? This article is already tagged with the category, Category:Jewish American actors. Finally, let me address your point about not having "born to a Christian family" on other articles. The subjects of biographies on the English Wikipedia are overwhelming from the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Australia. The majority of individuals from these countries are Christian. In the minority are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. Pointing this out is simply providing factual information to the reader and cannot be at all compared to attaching a Star of David or a Red Crescent to these articles. -- Dcflyer 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed racial stereotypes about Jewish families, just as there are stereotypes about Asian families and black families. Why don't you start adding "born to an Asian family" and "born to a black family" to articles, Dcflyer? Why is there an obsession with promoting a stereotype about Jewish families? There's nothing wrong with saying someone is Jewish, if they are Jewish. Just say it directly, don't promote the "Jewish family" stereotype. ----Signed, me.

Actually, the stereotypes only exist if one is willing to entertain them. If you read, "born to a Jewish family", you'll only assume stereotypes if these already exist in your mind as a form of racism; in that case, the user is the one with the "racist" thoughts, not the contributor. Because someone might equate something with someone does not demerit its inclusion. Michael 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noting, plenty of articles say "born to a Christian family", "born to a Catholic family", "born to an Italian-American family", etc. Mad Jack 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...And if we say such, that doesn't imply we are being stereotypical-we're stating a fact. If some choose to pervert that or twist the meaning, that is not our concern; they could do that with anything they say. Nothing is wrong with stating what is fact, though. Michael 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Note:It is said about many people of various ethnicities and backgrounds. Michael 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Pic

Bravo to whomever chose that pic. Billywhack 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rehab issue

The "rehab" item cites Us Weekly and (sheesh) the national enquirer. The link does not seem to be to Us Weekly, however. So if the source is a weblog somewhere, the weblog should be cited, e.g. "My cousin [http:cousin's_weblog.com] says that Us Weekly says that ..." etc. The citation should be good, and accurate, or just delete the item. Fix it or justify it, instead of edit-warring over it. Thanks Pete St.John (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a horrible source that needs to be improved/corrected or removed. I just didn't want to go the "according to Jossip, US Weekly wrote," route and don't care enough to track down the original source. Is Jossip considered a reliable source? Is Us Weekly? I have no idea. Neither did I want to remove that section again and continue the edit war. Personally, COI or not, I think User:Wishlab made some decent policy-based edits. (Except for deleting the birth name.) The change from Teen Choice Awards to MTV Awards was dead-on. Pairadox (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I went to the "jossip" page (the purported source of Us Weekly reporting on the rehab thing) and it's front page criticizes Us Weekly for fabricating pregnancy rumors. My conclusion is this: first, it's dubious to claim A as a source, because we cite B citing A. But definitely, we can't claim A as a source on the ground of B citing A, when B renounces A's reliability. That is, the source that is supposed to cite Us Weekly for the rehab news, renounces Us Weekly as unreliable. So just no way we can claim we have a reliable source for the rehab thing. So I deleted it, and if somebody wants it back, they should come up with a reliable source as per policy. The citation as it stood was disinformative, but maybe it's more a matter of gullibility than deceit. Pete St.John (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
well it looks like this particular piece of gossip is being pushed by Kaya80 who seems not responsive. Is this a single-purpose account? 3RR will apply (to me!) so I guess I have to ask for a block. Sheesh. Pete St.John (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The rehab information is fine to include but with better sourcing. Look here. Major media attention. Lawrence § t/e 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the real issue was pushing the gossip site (which was just comically horrible). I myself don't care about the gossip itself, if its referenced properly, agreed. Pete St.John (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The "rehab gossip" item got restored, by Pairadox, with a reference to a presumably better source (news.com.au). However, I followed the link: to an article about LINDSEY LOHAN's rehab. Selma Blair is a different person, not mentioned in the article. To quote, "Lindsay admitted herself to an intensive medical rehabilitation facility on Memorial Day (Tuesday Australian time)," Lohan's publicist said in a statement today. This is just flat out disgusting; I don't care about the rehab, I don't care about Selma Blair (the rumor that she's my sister is just funny), but the references being exhumed from your posterior cavities are just plain silly. It's shameful. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you better watch the assumptions you're making there. Directly from the source in question; "The Promises facility has had some famous patients of late, with both Britney Spears and actress Selma Blair undergoing treatment at the luxurious complex." Unlike you, I'll assume good faith and that you didn't look hard enough. Pairadox (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a horrible citation. It begs the question fo treatment; maybe she was treated at the luxurious complex, for an ingrown toenail. It's a near-meaningless sentence fragment in a long article about someone else in a dubious source gossip rag. No I didn't grep for the string "Selma Blair" about Lindsey Lohan, but when I did (after you pointed it out) I found nothing that I would cite. Suit yourself, but Wiki doesn't need to compete with the National Enquirer. I'd be ashamed if that were the best I could do to push something that's not meaningful anyway. Pete St.John (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Again with the assumptions of bad faith. I also would prefer a source that was a report about Blair rather than just a dishonorable mention in a story about somebody else. However, having reviewed a wide number of sources, I think there's little doubt that she did a stint at the Promises facility, and the efforts of her representative (User:Wishlab) to cover that up are unacceptable. If this truly were false info, I would expect her team to have issued denials, sued for defamation, whatever. I encountered no evidence of that, and if I had I would have either invalidated the source being used or included the denials as well. It seems we have a case of trying to hush it up rather than deal with it head-on. Now, we can either discuss the quality of the source or not, but I'd prefer it happened without the accusations of trying to "push" something. Pairadox (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Pairadox, please stop accusing me of accusing you of bad faith. I'm accusing the link of being uncitable. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you are acting in bad faith, or maybe you are naive, or maybe we have different standards of evidence, or we have different standards of what material is relevant in wiki articles. It's a sucky citation over a petty matter. Enjoy it. Pete St.John (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"Selma Blair is a different person, not mentioned in the article."
"This is just flat out disgusting"
"references being exhumed from your posterior cavities"
"It's shameful"
"Wiki doesn't need to compete with the National Enquirer"
"I'd be ashamed if that were the best I could do to push something that's not meaningful anyway."
It's the comments about pulling things out of my ass and pushing something that I took particular exception to, but apparently I shouldn't be offended by it. Whatever. Pairadox (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I conceded that yes, "Selma Blair" was mentioned in the article. A long article about Lindsey Lohan's rehab, mentioning in a sentence fragment that Selma Blair had (for no specified reason) also attended that facility (at no specified time, and I didn't see the range of offered services at that facilty, or if Blair availed herself of any of them). So the "not mentioned in the article" was wrong on my part, I admitted it. I stand by the rest. I'm not reverting it, but it's a bad citation to a dubious source for a vague claim. I don't particularly expect better from celebrity articles. It's the citation I abhor, I don't have a problem with you (Pairadox) other than that your standards of good citation aren't shown up well by this example. Pete St.John (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)