Talk:Christie Brinkley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives

Christie Brinkley's fame[edit]

First week of discussion[edit]

I have been attempting to communicate via edit summaries, but my point is being repeatedly ignored, so I'll go into some more detail here. It is my contention that Christie Brinkley's fame is far less tied to her contract with Cover Girl than it is to either her appearances in Sports Illustrated or her marriages. Now I am quite aware that Google's search results are not the definitive way to decide such issues, but nothing is being offered by anyone else, so let me start with what results show at this hour:

  • Christie Brinkley Jean-François Allaux marriage
8,750 results
  • Christie Brinkley Richard Taubman marriage
106,000
  • Christie Brinkley Cover Girl contract
302,000 results
  • Christie Brinkley Peter Cook marriage
448,000 results
  • Christie Brinkley Billy Joel marriage
617,000 results
  • Christie Brinkley Sports Illustrated appearances
1,230,000 results
  • Christie Brinkley four marriages
1,300,000 results

Again, I know this doesn't "prove" anything, but it's at least some evidence. It's evidence for what I asserted over a week ago (before ever doing a single Google search--I was going on instinct), in this edit (and later amended, per the suggestion of User: Meters), that today she is most famous for her marriages, and that her Cover Girl contract is far less significant. I mean, look at the results above. Her marriage to Billy Joel has twice the hits of her Cover Girl Contract, but even more importantly, when I googled CB "four marriages", that blew away even the combined Billy Joes and Peter Cook results (even with the ongoing ugliness of the latter's divorce with her).

Look, it just appears to me that one of the most beautiful women in the world is more known for her quantity of marriages than she is for her actual body of work. And that fact is inherently notable. Furthermore, as best as I can see, zero evidence has been offered for the other editor's insistence upon claiming that her second most notable claim to fame is her Cover Girl contract. In a gesture of extreme good faith, at this time I'm not going to implement the changes I believe are justified; I will first await discussion on the subject. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Using "best-known" is a problem. It's subjective. That's why I used "known" and listed both the S.I appearances and the marriages in my compromise edit. I don't see any problem with including note of her long contract; it's notable and referenced (although some of the current refs have to go, as has been pointed out in the recent edit history). Similarly, her several high-profile marriages are worth noting, but I don't see any point in trying to determine what she's best known for.
As for the Google hits, try searching for +"Christie Brinkley" +model if you want to look at her "body of work", as you put it. Nearly 5 million hits. +"Christie Brinkley" +"four OR 4 marriages" (which is what you should have searched on) gets just over 7,000 hits. Not even close.
I appreciate that you are willing to dicuss and compromise while the other editor has not reponded to you requests. I suggested that he self revert and take it to the Talk page when he reverted again after his warning for edit warring on this article.
I'd be willing to try another compromise edit if you want. Meters (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course, you're right, it is quite subjective; I was trying to use the only tool I could think of, and while I have zero doubt that "model" would render the biggest result, I was using the other editor's verbiage; it was he who chose to separate her work for Cover Girl and her work for SI, and I was trying to show the results per his wording.
This is not the biggest deal in the world to me, the problem is, it is the biggest deal in the world to someone else. When one person has contributed more edits to an article on a world-renown celebrity than the next 14 editors combined, there's always the risk of a loss of perspective. Feel free to try another compromise edit, if you want. I was planning on waiting for him to respond--he hasn't edited for two or three days--before I did the same thing, but yes, by all means, feel free. This is Wikipedia, eh? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping he'd hash it out with you, but it does not seem probable. I'll revisit the page tomorrow, Meters (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry. I understand that the world may be more concerned with certain economic, environmental, and enmity issues than they are with this article, so if the world can wait, so can I. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Google hits are no source for Wikipedia articles. Try for instance "Christie Brinkley + sex" and you will then assume she is best know for sex, which is ridiculous. The long running Cover Girl contract or the link between the model and the company is present in every biography we find about her. The marriages are a personal issue not a part of her carrer as a model and we must not forget that this is an biography article about a model. Vanthorn msg ← 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of us claimed that Google hits are a valid source for Wikipedia. Yes this articke is a "biography article about a model", but it's more than just that. It a biography of someone who is known for more than just her modelling career. Your refusal to copmpromise on or even discuss (up to now) your version of the article is disruptive. I put in a compromise edit once that included both views and removed the use of unprovable POV terms such as "best-known" but you removed it. I'm willing to do another such edit, but I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this. Meters (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not willing to edit war either. I am, on the other hand, more than willing to take this through proper channels, which--if you don't alter your attitude (or at least your editing pattern)--will almost certainly result in you being blocked.
Your statement about her marriages being a "personal issue" indicates a nearly literally unbelievable lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is or does. I'm going to again demonstrate Gandhian good faith and wait for you to respond to Meters and I. I'm looking for a) an understanding of the legitimacy of our concerns, and b) a willingness to work together with us on crafting an appropriate article. Failing to do that, I will work with Meters to craft the article without your cooperation, and if your response is to edit war the matter, you will be blocked. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Second week of discussion[edit]

I decided that, since the editor in question has edited elsewhere since the above was posted, but had not responded here, that I would go ahead and give it a go. I think the evidence thus far supports my version, but as always, I remain open to discussion (but not to being bludgeoned by someone wielding WP:OWN). 76.106.149.108 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
And we're back within a few words of where we were almost two weeks ago... I'll check the current refs in this section to ensure they support the current version of the text. I have no vested interest in any particular verion of the article, as long as it is balanced and supported by reliable sources. Meters (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If no one minds me chiming in here, I can't say I'm a fan of the current lead sentence. My understanding has always been that the lead sentence should point out what defines the subject, not what got a lot of Google hits or tabloid headlines. If all Brinkley had were these marriages, she likely wouldn't have an article, as notability isn't inherited. It's her modeling work that defines her. If her marriages got publicity, so be it, but any mention of them in the lead should be mentioned briefly at its end, the way it's usually done on Wikipedia (at least that I've seen).  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The lead does need to be reworked, and I tend to agree with you about the relative notability of her modelling career vs of everything else. Everything in the lead should be a summary of material that is discussed, and referenced, elsewhere in the article. We need to do some rewriting. Feel free to take a stab at it yourself, of course. Meters (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The anonymous user believes that the marriages are more a source of fame than the CG contract. Without presenting reliable sources for that claim, the editor clearly violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability as I stated earlier. I don´t agree with the current lead sentence either, as also appointed and reverted by another user. It violates also WP:WEIGHT, as her career main info is getting overshadowed by arguably trivial information and gossip. Again, I recall WP:BLP, in particular: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Vanthorn msg ← 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC) P.S: The covers on Sports Illustrated are a major achievement on the model carreer. That information was removed without any explanation. I find this version of the article disruptive as the editors envolved in it. Vanthorn msg ← 19:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What the IP editor believes is not of interest or concern, only what the article states. There is no proof of what she is "best" known for, on either side. It's subjective. She's known for many things. You know her best for her modelling career, the IP editor for her several marriages. The IP's version is no more a NPOV violation than your position is. The original "plethora of marriages" was an NPOV issue, and it was immediately renoved. I put in a neutral compromise edit listing both of your views and removing the "best". The IP editor accepts that approach. Do you?
The lead is a mess right now and needs to be changed. User:Mbinebri suggests a more typical Wikipedian approach, with the marriage material at the end of the lead and I agree, since I share your concern about WP:weight. Possibly in this case the marriages deserve more than just a mere mention, since there is a significant amount of material in the article on her personal life. Arnold Schwarzenegger does a good job of dealing with a celebrity with multiple claims to fame and a high profile marriage (albeit only one). It shouldn't be a big deal to fix this if both of you are willing to cooperate.
You seem to be claiming that {WP:BLP] supports your removal of the marriage material without need for discussion. Please explain how. The fact that she has had several marriages, at least some fairly high profile, is sourced and does not appear contentious to me. The IP editor asked you (via edit summary) nearly two weeks ago to explain why you reverted him on NPOV and BLP grounds but you never replied. You instead reverted his next change as vandalism.
I find it interesting that you listed the diff you did to support your version of the article, since the same editor later got in an edit war with you over your additions to the lead. Meters (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, and I find your editions quite interestings, as you listed no diffs, no sources and no claims regarding Wikipedia policies between your edits. That´s the main difference. Vanthorn msg ← 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in playing that game. I'm sure anyone who is interested can make up his or her own mind just by looking at the edit history. I've made exactly two edits to the file. My summaries were (rmv judgemental "plethora of marriages") and (best known → known to remove issue of subjective POV). Those seem pretty clear to me. As for sources, I didn't add any material so why would I need sources? I meant that the IP editor sourced his material. If you want to contribute to improving the article, then please present your ideas. If not, we'll do it without you. You've had more than sufficient requests for your input and wxplanations oif your position. If you have anything to say to me that does not directly concern improvements to the article please take it to my Talk page. Meters (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
To late for sorrys... "I meant that the IP editor sourced his material", quoted by you. Where are they in the first place? This is your own edition, and we must presume you then agree with all the IPs claims and edits before. Vanthorn msg ← 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought about inserting my responses above right after the posts to which I am responding, but I'm instead going to simply try to bullet my points in the hope that nothing will be overlooked. If this is too confusing, please tell me and I'll change how I posted it all.

  • First of all, I want to thank User:Vanthorn for finding the time to join the discussion. He's obviously put in a lot of work in this article (more than the next ten or twelve highest contributors combined), so obviously, this subject means a lot to him, and it would be best to have him participate in any discussions about its text. Additionally I'd like to thank him for showing good faith by participating in these discussions without first attempting to edit the article.
  • Secondly, I have to admit that User:Mbinebri makes an extremely persuasive point about the lead sentence being about the reason for one's notability. I am prepared immediately to withdraw my suggestion that the marriages be included in the first sentence. And, for the same reason, I think the Cover Girl contract probably also slips out of the opening sentence.
  • Thirdly, I am confused by the assertion that I have included "gossip" or "contentious material" and that I have therefore been in violation of WP:BLP. I need further explanation, as I don't understand what Vanthorn means by this. I have not said anything nor included anything about any adultery, any rumours, or anything even remotely salacious. Furthermore, what I have included is all a matter of public record. Could the kind editor please specify what he would strike from the article and why?
  • Finally, while I recognize that it is risky trying to discern a person's "attitude" from their written posts, let me simply say, while assuming good faith, that I am concerned with Vanthorn's tone. When he writes,
I find this version of the article disruptive as the editors envolved [sic] in it,
he seems to me to be calling myself and (presumably) User: Meters "disruptive". I rather resent this, as I believe I have been a model of civility in this entire matter. Furthermore, when Vanthorn writes,
To [sic] late for sorrys,
it strikes me as the kind of comment one makes when they are cutting off further discussion (though perhaps I misread it). Anyway, when is it ever "too late" to say "sorry"? Never, in my book. But more importantly, though I'm quite sure some think I would be justified to do so, I don't even need a "sorry" from Vanthorn for all that has transpired thus far. I just want to get on with editing the article. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You don´t understand or you don´t want to understand? WP:BLP is very clear regarding Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR). Your point of view claiming the model is known by her "high-profile marriages" is unsourced and nonconsensual between several editors, therefore is not neutral. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article" - WP:Weight. The current lead sentence violates several Wikipedia policies and should be rewritten at once, so if you don´t do so I will do it myself. Vanthorn msg ← 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear that you agree that the lead has to be rewritten. There's no point in making it sound like we're not aware of that as we clearly say so above. Ws were merely giving you yet another opportunity to provide soeme input on how you think hte article could be improved. Meters (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don´t know what "high-profile marriages" means in this case. She is not Elisabeth Taylor or Zsa Zsa Gabor. The only famous marriage she had was with Billy Joel and that was included in the lead sentence before was rewritten. Even so, that marriage only occurred in 1985 and by that time she already was a worlwide successful model. Vanthorn msg ← 20:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP editor and I have agreed on an approach to addressing the issue. As I said to you several days ago "If you want to contribute to improving the article, then please present your ideas." If you don't present any alternatives I'll assume you're OK with what we have proposed and I'll go ahead and make the changes. Meters (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Improving the article? Why should I present any alternatives if I don´t have any sources to sustain your claims? Vanthorn msg ← 21:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So, You're not happy with the way the article currently reads, but you're not willing to provide any alternatives. Thanks for finally clarifying your position. We'll take it from here. Meters (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not the one who don´t agree (happy..??) with the current status of the article. What do you mean by clarifying my position? My position is based on Wikipedia rules and politics that must be respected. You must provide alternatives based on Wikipedia rules, not me. Vanthorn msg ← 23:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Third week of discussion[edit]

I'm getting very tired of what I perceive to be an almost bellicose attitude by Vanthorn. I think I have bent over backwards to not only be civil, but accommodating (and complimentary, where warranted). Vanthorn, nothing in your response indicates to me that you recognize the extraordinary good faith that both Meters and myself have exercised in this matter. Additionally, your insistence you do not have to present any alternatives indicates that you believe that your own position is perfect already. More than a few persons would regard that as arrogant. Anyway, I'll try to summerize where I stand, and if you would please reply to my specific comments, instead of issuing ultimata, I think Meters and I would both appreciate it. My thoughts:

  1. Per User:Mbinebri's comment, CB is defined by her work as a model, and thus, that belongs in the lead sentence.
  2. For the reason given in #1, the marriages should probably be left out of the opening sentence.
  3. This could leave us with an opening sentence as simple as "Christie Brinkley is a model." But that would suck as a lead sentence. Per WP:LEAD, "The opening sentence should provide links to the broader or more elementary topics that define the article's topic or place it into the context where it is notable." In other words, given that we would have literally thousands of articles that start with "X is a model.", we need to give some more context here.
  4. This brings up the question of what that context should be. My personal belief is that the most valuable context to provide is her appearances is the SI swimsuit issue. I don't myself believe the issue of her long-running Cover Girl contract rises to the level of the lead sentence. I'm open (as always) to discussion.
  5. So if her marriages don't belong in the opening sentence, do they belong in the lead section? I have trouble understanding your claim that the marriages constitute a "contentious" topic, but even so, please note what WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." How can you have an overview of the topic without including the marriages? Indeed, my count is that the article has roughly 460 words relating to her work as a model, and 600 words relating to her romantic relationships with men. How one writes a lead that doesn't touch upon that is unknown to me.
  6. Also important to note, on this issue of "contentious" material, is another statement from WP:LEAD, which is that the lead section should ". . . summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Yes, I added the emphasis. Well, until recently I was assuming that her marriage to Billy Joel was the most prominent, but in talking to others I have learned that her most recent marriage was the real headliner--at least the divorce was. And now I come here and I see that the words in the article touching upon her marriage to Peter Cook take up more of the article than all the other marriages combined. This could be simply a sign of WP:RECENTISM, but it does at least bring to the table one more subject: Should the lead section contain specific reference to the Peter Cook marriage/divorce? I'm not sure of the final answer to that, but I am sure that it merits discussion.
  7. Vanthorn cites issues with WP:OR and WP:V. I'm still at a loss to see what he thinks is non-verifiable in here. Does he want a link to a PDF of each of her marriage certificates?
  8. Is the use of "high profile" marriage a violation of WP:NPOV? I suppose honest people could disagree on that one. So here's how that works, Vanthorn. We talk about it. We don't issue ultimata saying that it has to be the way we want it, we communicate with our fellow editors. Something like this: Create a section of the talk page called "High Profile Marriage", then make your case for why that is POV, and then engage in a back and forth on the topic until a consensus is achieved. You need to learn how to do this, or you're not going to last long around here, friend.
  9. I think your use of WP:WEIGHT, as you are stating it above, will almost certainly backfire on you. If you think that the opinion that her marriages are only important to "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority", you're coming from a very different place that most people here and in the real world.
  10. Last point: Meters asked you to present an alternative version. You say you don't have to, that we have to. If you do not, in good faith, provide us -- on this talk page -- some alternative version or versions, you will not help your position here, or elsewhere.

Vanthorn, I guess my most important statement is this: Get on board the Wikipedia train. You don't get your ticket punched by telling others that you and you alone have Total Understanding of policies, you get your ticket punched by coming to the discussion table and bringing up policies as a part of the process of civil discussion. I sure hope you figure this out before you get blocked. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take acrack at rewriting this weekend. If no-one objects, once the lead is satisfactorily rewritten I'll collapse this whole thread. It's way too long. Meters (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's too long. It's my fault, really; I'd rather err on the side of being too patient than being too hasty. But you're right, the time has come for some resolution; Vanthorn has not demonstrated either an ability or a willingness to work together as is needed on Wikipedia. It's too bad--I had hoped his passion could be harnessed for effective editing. (I wonder if Vanthorn's RL name is Joey Cape)? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Pathetic.. Vanthorn msg ← 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Past time to start. I'm really trying to prevent problems here, so I'll suggest changes rather than just making them:
  • Ensure that everything in the lead is a summary of something that is dealt with in the main article. Any new material in the lead should be moved to (and expanded upon if necessary) the main body before being summarized in the lead. All of the current lead citations should probably be on the main body material.
  • We seem to be in agreement that the focus of the initial lead sentence(s) should be her modelling career. Do we agree that the coverage of her marriages in the article is sufficient that the lead needs more on this than a final one-liner? If so I suggest that any mention of her marriages in the lead be in new paragraph, between the modelling intro P and the closing financial P. Normal style seems to put the marriage info at the end of the lead, but here it would seem the marriages have more coverage than the financial aspect.
Any problems? Meters (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don´t agree with the expression "high-profile marriages". Vanthorn msg ← 16:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who inserted that term in the article, but a quick search shows that "high-profile" (or a similar term) has been used by many sources to refer to some of her marriages and/or divorces. Certainly not all of the sources would meet WP:RS, but it would be tough to argue that it is WP:POV when CBS News refers to "the high-profile Christie Brinkley divorce" (Celebrity Circuit, July 6, 2012) for one example. Do you have a term you prefer that has been used in reliable sources?
Since you don't object to my suggestions for reworking the article I'm going to start. Meters (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
But I do object your sugestions. You want to claim that the model is known or best known for her "high profile" divorces. And that´s not true, for example in Europe. Vanthorn msg ← 19:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Once again, I am not the editor who inserted the term "best-known" wrt her marriages. In fact, I took it out. I left the term "known" since it seemed fair and WP:NPOV. It's hard to see how someone can be referred to in various sources as having high-profile marriages or divorces without being known for them. Some dictionary definitions of high-profile even use "well-known". Known seems a fair term to use. As I said above, "high-profile" is used by reputable sources, so it seems fair to use it too, although I may not. I have no intention of using "best-known." As I said 3 weeks ago, it's a subjective term. Once again, and for the last time, if you have suggestions, make them. I will not respond otherwise. Meters (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fourth week of discussion—suggested leads[edit]

Sorry I've been gone so long--RL can't be denied forever. Anyway, Meters, I applaud your patience thus far. I see Vanthorn has come no closer than before to working cooperatively. I'll go ahead and make a suggestion for the lead here, and feel free to tear it apart. I will also follow your example and not respond to Vanthorn's further comments, until such time as he accepts our gracious offer to let him make suggestions of his own to replace the current lead which he disparages. Here's my first draft:

Christie Brinkley (born February 2, 1954) is an American model and actress best known for her many appearances in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. Beyond modeling, Brinkley is well-known for her work as an actress and activist, as well as for her high profile marriages. Additionally, Brinkley has worked as an illustrator, photographer, writer and designer.
Brinkley's work has included maintaining the longest-running contract with CoverGirl of any model in history. Her financial holdings were worth in 2008 an estimated USD $80 million, primarily as the owner of real estate, much of it in the Hamptons. Brinkley is ranked third in the Daily Mail list "World's 20 richest models", released on February 2012.

How's that for a start? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:POV of one editor since the beginning. Not neutral and unsourced, again violates severely WP:BLP established rules. Wikipedia doesn´t work by "gracious offers"... Vanthorn msg ← 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Nor does it work by one editor repeating the same claims, over and over, without explanation, despite the patient requests of other editors for clarification of said claims. How on earth you think this violates WP:BLP at all, let alone "severely", continues to puzzle me, and thus far, I've not been alone in being confused. And just to be clear, I wrote this without documentation because we're trying to achieve the text. But everything in there can easily be sourced. But perhaps you disagree? Do you think the article needs further documentation of her work as an activist, perhaps? Do you consider the term "activist" to be a pejorative? I know that some people do (I don't), so maybe that's what "severely violates" BLP? Why don't you frigging tell us what you object to--specifically--and then tell us--specifically--what you think would be better? Or is the only acceptable form the form in which you had it? Have you ever read WP:OWN? Because that's the only explanation I can come up with for your behaviour, thus far. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Meters, I've been thinking. Vanthorn has been completely unresponsive, yet unlike a typical owner, he has not been trying to force the article back "his way". Nothing we say moves him, yet his patience in asserting himself (without editing the article) appears nearly infinite. So you know what I think? I think he's a classic troll, trying to rile us up for his own amusement. I'm not saying he has no interest in this article; after all, his devotion to this subject is well documented. But most people in his position would have overstepped and earned a block. No, I think he's just trolling. This time, I really will ignore him (unless and until he contributes something positive to the conversation) and just work with you and any other good faith editors on improving the article. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Your despair is now obvious. Without any sources and editors to support your claims, your goal now is to harass directly and personally who disagree with you. That´s classic when the good faith is lost.
THE BERTRAND TIMES - N°48 - August 2012 states the follow about the model (among others supermodels in the same issue):
"Christie Brinkley - best known for her three consecutive appearances on the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in the late '70s and early '80s, and for her long-running contract with CoverGirl, the longest ever of any model in history." [1]
That´s how the lead sentence should be written. Sourced and with a neutral point of view. Vanthorn msg ← 23:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Vanthorn, I want very much to say this in a way that does not come across as insulting, so please understand, I am not criticizing you, I am educating you. Providing us the example of "The Bertrand Times" as the way the lead should be written indicates that you do not understand much about the relationship between Wikipedia and the internet. The wording that you provided from the Bertrand article is word for word identical to the wording of this article[2] prior to my first edit, and, interestingly enough, it is wording that you finalized in this article[3]. So it's no wonder that you like it--you wrote it! Vanthorn, all kinds of online sites lift Wikipedia text--after all, it's 100% allowed. But finding text that you wrote copied onto another website does not mean that the way you wrote it is somehow the best way to do it. All it means is that someone at another website was lazy and let you/us do their writing for them. It proves absolutely nothing about how a lead sentence should be constructed.76.106.149.108 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, what the heck is "THE BERTRAND TIMES"? I'm looking around, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't meet WP:RS. I can find no references to it that don't circle back either to itself (esp. on YouTube) or some other non-reliable source. Frankly, this further demonstrates the weakness of Vanthorn's understanding of our procedures down here. He spends all kinds of time badgering others for documentation, but then provides this? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mbinebri lead[edit]

After quite a bit of slacking on my part, I've given the lead a rewrite to see if I can make everyone happy. A point of contention here seems to be what Brinkley is "best known" for, but we don't really have to use that wording. Let's just say she's a model/actress. On that point, I went into more detail. There are guidelines for how long a lead should be compared to the rest of the article, and while I'm too lazy to look it up, I feel confident in saying the previous lead was a bit brief per those guidelines. Hence the expansion, which only includes info pulled from the article body. Feel free to discuss it or revert it, if need be.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That´s ok for me. Thank you. Vanthorn msg ← 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Mbinebri, first of all, I have to say that the overall effect of your edit is positive, including the length. I'll hold off on making any edits for now, and instead make a few comments here.
  • The statement in the lead that CB is considered to have "all-American" looks. I actually think that's true, and furthermore, I think it's probably fairly easy to source. But it should be sourced, because it's a fairly subjective sounding statement.
  • Mbinebri, the grammatical structure of the following is awkward in a subtle way that would escape the notice of many native-English speakers at first glance, but since you are a native speaker, I think you'll understand it when I point it out with boldface. Look carefully at the following:
Brinkley gained worldwide fame beginning in the late 1970s with three consecutive Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covers and twenty five years as the face of CoverGirl.
You see? While perhaps in geologic terms, 25 five years can be the beginning of something, :-), in human terms, it's an entire career. It would read better if a period followed "SI Swimsuit covers", and then the Covergirl info is placed in its own sentence. What about this:
Brinkley gained worldwide fame beginning in the late 1970s with three consecutive Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covers. She spent twenty five years as the face of CoverGirl ( the longest running cosmetics contract of any model in history) , has appeared on over 500 magazine covers, and has signed contracts with major brands—both fashion and non-fashion.
What do you think?
  • Another minor grammar note. The sentence beginning "Brinkley went on to work as an . . . " follows the reference to the 1997 Vacation sequel. This is not, strictly speaking, an error, but it introduces ambiguity to the timeline, and one unfamiliar with her history could easily come to the (wrong) conclusion that she only did these other things after making Vegas Vacation.
  • The addition of the reference to her appearance in Billy Joel's video was an excellent addition, by the way.
All in all, Mbinebri, an excellent edit. I hope that others learn from your example of cooperative editing. Cheers. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me second that. Your well-written lead is appreciated. Looking at the lead as it now stands, I suggest that we add a bit about her 4th marriage/divorce with Cook since there's more on that then any of her others in the main section. Also the references in the lead should be removed (or moved to the main section) since they are not controversial. I know that at least one of the refs is a repeat of one in the main section. Meters (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The mention of her part in National Lampoon's Vacation doesn't nneed to be in the lead either. A bit part as an unnamed character hardly seems worthy of the lead. Leave it in the main section. Meters (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Her financial holdings are not mentioned in the main section. I will move the material and refs out of the lead and just leave a summary in the lead. Meters (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
All my above suggestions done. Meters (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My (admittedly minor) concerns remain. I will wait a bit longer for comments before I act upon them. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with your suggested change. Meters (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, just to be sure, I've waited nearly two weeks, but the suggestions I made above which you approved of and others ignored, have now been implemented. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The All American looks line was removed after 2 weeks with no change, but was immediately restored, this time with a ref. Unfortunately the ref does not say that she is considered to have All-American looks. It says that she had them in 1991 and that that tastes have since changed. Not the same thing. I'm removing it again. Please don't restore it without a ref that supports the statement as written. Meters (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The main body of the article uses the same ref and correctly points out that it refs to 1991. Meters (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And, given that it is in the main body of the text, it is redundant and in violation of WP:WEIGHT to include it in the lead. I'm going to re-remove it, and I expect that Vanthorn will demonstrate normal civil procedures by engaging in discussion here on the talk page instead of unilaterally reverting me. The consensus appears to be against you, Vanthorn. We have been patient with you for many, many weeks on this subject, but I am ready to go to find a mop, if you persist in this uncivil behaviour. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bastille Day 2012 Editing[edit]

Hey, Meters, I'm perfectly in step with you on the removal of "best" in "best known", but do you have a reason for separating this material into two paragraphs? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No. In fact, I think I also combined those paragraphs in my earlier compromise edit. Meters (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hamptons Magazine[edit]

This article from Hamptons magazine would be a useful source. There was some media coverage, since Sailor and Jack were on the cover along with Christie, but I'm not sure if that needs to be in the article. http://hamptons-magazine.com/personalities/articles/christie-brinkley-speaks-out-on-elephant-and-rhino-poaching Amethyst1234 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)