Talk:Pippa Middleton: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 521111812 by 212.250.138.33 (talk) not a forum, and unhelpful to improving the article. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
What was again the name of Pippa's dress at the wedding? I think we should put a redirect from it to here—or the other way round. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) |
What was again the name of Pippa's dress at the wedding? I think we should put a redirect from it to here—or the other way round. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] ([[User talk:Gun Powder Ma|talk]]) |
||
:First catch your hare. [[User:Moonraker|Moonraker]] ([[User talk:Moonraker|talk]]) 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) |
:First catch your hare. [[User:Moonraker|Moonraker]] ([[User talk:Moonraker|talk]]) 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
==What the???== |
|||
OK I understand that this isn't a fourum but can the person who claimed that my last comment is unhelpful to the article please understand that the article is as of now, out of date. Her book has been released now and this should probably be reflected in the article as it claims that it is due to be realsed in the fall of 2012. Maybe an excerpt or two from critics of both sides about her first foray into the world of literature? I think what I've suggested would be a valuable contribution to the article. I accept that I could have worded this request better but there was no need to revert the comment, I was just repeating what has been said about the book with quotes pulled from the book in question. Perhaps if I included some links it might help prove that I was making a serious and what I thought helpful suggestion? |
|||
* ''http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780718176785,00.html'' - The Penguin website with the book so you know I'm not yanking your chain and it is actually out now. |
|||
* ''http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9648130/Celebrate-by-Pippa-Middleton-review.html'' - Here's a book review from the Telegraph. |
|||
* ''http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/pippa-middleton-book-celebrate-interview-the-telegraph-review_n_2072286.html'' - Here's a nice little article with some quotes from critics and the author's response. |
|||
There is tons of this stuff all over the internet if you want to find more sources yourself. [[Special:Contributions/212.250.138.33|212.250.138.33]] ([[User talk:212.250.138.33|talk]]) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:18, 8 November 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pippa Middleton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Notable?
I didn't realize the sister of a prince's wife is notable. Does Barbara Bush's sister have a wikipedia entry? Do Michelle Obama's siblings? I don't even think Bill Clinton's brother has a wikipedia entry and he actually has some IMDB credits, people may actually know him from something he actually did in a professional setting. This feels like some 14 year-old girly pop culture at play here. Move for deletion?Admiral Bimbo (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. She meets notability requirements as she has received lots of coverage...the other folks you have named haven't.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC) - This has been discussed before, and the overwhelming consensus was to keep the article. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, as long as there is an awareness that because you are allowing trends to immediately influence the content on Wikipedia, you are filling it with things that will have no relevance over time, and will in fact be NON-NOTABLE in the near future. Internet "memes," viral videos, things that had a rush of popularity for a few months in time, will not be worthy of an article in the future. Nobody will now what a Dirty Sanchez is in 20 years. Nobody will know who Kate Gosling was, yet these things have articles. Wikipedia has only existed for 11 years. Recorded human history dates thousands of years, yet wiki's volume scale is tipped decidedly in favor of pop culture in it's own time. I don't need to explain what that fact does for the credibility of a reference source that touts unbiased, neutral POV..but it makes it decidedly biased. Not saying this can ever be perfect, but maybe a discussion is needed. What happens 20 years from now when wikipedia is balls deep in articles that nobody even comprehends about things like "All your base belong to us" and "pwned?" Something like "Dirty Sanchez" was not notable enough for wikipedia 5 years ago, so you could only put it on a BS joke site like urban dictionary. Now you can put dirty sanchez on wikipedia BECAUSE it was on urban dictionary. Does no one see the problem there? As long as you cite something, even if the source is total BS, it is now credible enough for wiki. Lastly, there is an abundance computer geeks and kids who contribute to wiki, because they have the time and interest in typing text on computers. It therefore creates a decidedly biased editorial force that slants in favor of these types of things (i.e. "All your base belong to us"). This is definitely NOT notable. If you surveyed the average human they would have no idea what that means. Just because gamers, programmers, and other types who generally live with their heads in a monitor are more liable to edit this site, doesn't mean the content should be biased as a result. An example of this problem is he fact that Quidditch, an article about a fictional sport that has existed for about 10 years give or take, is longer in length than the article for soccer, one of the oldest and most popular ACTUAL sports in the world. If nobody sees a problem with that, I apologize for assuming this was supposed to be an unbiased resource.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- For a definition of Wikipedia's concept of notability, see WP:N. Once reliable sources exist, they go on existing indefinitely. There clearly is an explosion going on in the number of notable subjects, however notability is defined, but that's in the nature of the world we live in, and too much information should always be preferred to too little. Even when a subject moves out of the limelight, however obscure it may become, someone somewhere will still be interested in it. Moonraker (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, as long as there is an awareness that because you are allowing trends to immediately influence the content on Wikipedia, you are filling it with things that will have no relevance over time, and will in fact be NON-NOTABLE in the near future. Internet "memes," viral videos, things that had a rush of popularity for a few months in time, will not be worthy of an article in the future. Nobody will now what a Dirty Sanchez is in 20 years. Nobody will know who Kate Gosling was, yet these things have articles. Wikipedia has only existed for 11 years. Recorded human history dates thousands of years, yet wiki's volume scale is tipped decidedly in favor of pop culture in it's own time. I don't need to explain what that fact does for the credibility of a reference source that touts unbiased, neutral POV..but it makes it decidedly biased. Not saying this can ever be perfect, but maybe a discussion is needed. What happens 20 years from now when wikipedia is balls deep in articles that nobody even comprehends about things like "All your base belong to us" and "pwned?" Something like "Dirty Sanchez" was not notable enough for wikipedia 5 years ago, so you could only put it on a BS joke site like urban dictionary. Now you can put dirty sanchez on wikipedia BECAUSE it was on urban dictionary. Does no one see the problem there? As long as you cite something, even if the source is total BS, it is now credible enough for wiki. Lastly, there is an abundance computer geeks and kids who contribute to wiki, because they have the time and interest in typing text on computers. It therefore creates a decidedly biased editorial force that slants in favor of these types of things (i.e. "All your base belong to us"). This is definitely NOT notable. If you surveyed the average human they would have no idea what that means. Just because gamers, programmers, and other types who generally live with their heads in a monitor are more liable to edit this site, doesn't mean the content should be biased as a result. An example of this problem is he fact that Quidditch, an article about a fictional sport that has existed for about 10 years give or take, is longer in length than the article for soccer, one of the oldest and most popular ACTUAL sports in the world. If nobody sees a problem with that, I apologize for assuming this was supposed to be an unbiased resource.Admiral Bimbo (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Coat of Arms inclusion
I previously made a change and removed the coat of arms in the article without having read the archive discussion. My apologies for that. Having now read the archive most of the arguments for keeping the image were not whether or not Pippa Middleton had any claim to the arms, but whether heraldry itself was a notable subject for inclusion. Heraldry is greatly misunderstood by the public at large. Many people still believe that a "family coat of arms" exists. A coat of arms can only be used by one person at a time (hence the practice of cadency). Despite some poor journalism from Reuters and copied by other news outlets, the Garter King of Arms is quoted as saying "Every Coat of Arms has been designed to identify a person, school or organization". This matches my understanding that a grant of arms is for an individual and their heirs, not something that "any of the children can use". Compare the entries for Prince William and Prince Harry. Their arms are individually differenced, as are their father's and uncle's. I suggest that the arms be removed from Pippa's entry. Just because you read something in the newspaper doesn't mean it's true. ~ Brother William (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is a grant of arms was made to Michael Middleton (not to Kate) and to Pippa can use the (differentiated) arms based on that. The official royal wedding website says "The Grant of Arms has been made to Mr. Michael Middleton and his descendants in accordance with the laws of Arms, so all of his three children, including Catherine, are entitled to the Arms." StAnselm (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- To find out about the Middleton armorial tree, see more on Heraldry Online Blog, 2011 April. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe the coat of arms shown on this page is incorrect. Based on what I see on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozenge_(heraldry), it doesn't appear to be a lozenge. The captions on the two pages are identical, but the images are different. Jelloice (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)jelloice
Her age
There seems to be no agreement on this among major publications.
- Us (http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/pippa-middleton-faces-arrest-for-gun-incident-in-paris-2012164)
- The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4258797/Shock-as-smirking-Pippa-Middleton-pal-points-gun-in-crazy-car-stunt.html) and
- the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130398/Pippa-Middleton-gun-drama-Kates-sister-quizzed-police-friend-seen-brandishing-pistol.html) say she's 27.
Whereas
- People (http://www.people.com/people/videos/0,,20525120,00.html) and
- the Biography Channel (http://www.biography.com/people/pippa-middleton-20668045) each give September 6, 1983, making her 28.
These all are professional, reliable-source publications, as opposed to gossip sites or wikia. It's hard to tell the best way to handle this — Us and People are fairly equivalent in terms of resources (Wenner Publications for the former, Time Inc. for the latter). And British newspapers have sources close to home.
The citation for 1983, no date, is the website ThePeerage.com, run by a Wharton MBA in New Zealand, Daryl Lundy (http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/darryl-lundy/). It appears to be a well-regarded and longstanding amateur site. His "1983" is given as coming from one Michael Rhodes, "re: updates," e-mail message to www.thepeerage.com, 8 July 2004." Does anyone know who Michael Rhodes is and whether he is in a position to know? (Also, why would anyone be talking about Pippa Middleton in 2004, over a half-dozen years before her sister married a royal?)
Suggestions? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Just for info primary sources indicate a Philippa Charlotte Middleton was born in the last quarter of 1983, but it cant be used as a source! MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Gungate
Still waiting for better sources. Vanity Fair, Daily Mail, and *sorry The Sun mentioning this. [1] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like tabloid stuff not really encyclopedic unless she is charged with something. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The incident made headlines over the world and contributed to her fame/notority. It should definitely be included here. 174.91.159.131 (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- in the big picture this is not something she has done or anyone will remember as her being notorious for. Nasnema Chat 06:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources
This article cited thepeerage.com and wargs as sources several times. These are self-published sources WP:SPS that have been specifically discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN here [2][3][4] and determined not to be reliable sources. Moreover, Self-published sources cannot be used in a WP:BLP per WP:BLPSPS. The citations have been removed, but not the associated text, and tags added requesting that better sources be found where the improper sources were formerly placed. Information that is not sourced to a Reliable Source may be removed. Fladrif (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Reverted
This is an article about a human being. Details about a dress she wore once are unimportant. Arcandam (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens wrote (in an editsummary): "the dress (and her figure inside it) generated significant media coverage seperate from the wedding itself."
If you think the dress is notable feel free to write an article about it. This is an encyclopaedia, it doesn't really matter if fashionreporters worldwide report on something and think it is notable. Arcandam (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Why do you think Daniela Elser's and Anita Singh's opinions about a dress she wore once are important enough to be mentioned in the article about the person? Those two 'journalists' are not even notable enough to have their own article... Their job includes critiquing outfits worn by celebrities, they praise some, they attack others, but it is all unimportant and nonnotable. Arcandam (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:FART. Arcandam (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- What that human being wore to an event which catapulted her to the public awareness is relevant. At least one other editor agrees with me - so find another that agrees with you, because you're at 3RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- And this editor agrees with Chaheel Riens (talk)
- -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- @ Arcandam (talk) Really! You should check your hyperlinks before including them here! The first is "dead" – and the second, not applicable in this context. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- The links about Daniela and Anita? That is strange! Which browser are you using? They work here. Arcandam (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- The dress is notable. Our founder, Jimbo Wales, has repeatedly expressed support for such content. For example, "I hope someone will create lots of articles about lots of famous dresses. I believe that our systemic bias caused by being a predominantly male geek community is worth some reflection in this context. Consider Category:Linux distribution stubs - we have nearly 90 articles about Linux distrubtions, counting only the stubs. With the major distros included, we're well over a hundred. One hundred different Linux distributions. One hundred. I think we can have an article about this dress. We should have articles about one hundred famous dresses.". Warden (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, in my POV it is not notable but I am willing to accept the fact it is notable in other people's POVs. Arcandam (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
What was again the name of Pippa's dress at the wedding? I think we should put a redirect from it to here—or the other way round. Gun Powder Ma (talk)
- First catch your hare. Moonraker (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What the???
OK I understand that this isn't a fourum but can the person who claimed that my last comment is unhelpful to the article please understand that the article is as of now, out of date. Her book has been released now and this should probably be reflected in the article as it claims that it is due to be realsed in the fall of 2012. Maybe an excerpt or two from critics of both sides about her first foray into the world of literature? I think what I've suggested would be a valuable contribution to the article. I accept that I could have worded this request better but there was no need to revert the comment, I was just repeating what has been said about the book with quotes pulled from the book in question. Perhaps if I included some links it might help prove that I was making a serious and what I thought helpful suggestion?
- http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780718176785,00.html - The Penguin website with the book so you know I'm not yanking your chain and it is actually out now.
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9648130/Celebrate-by-Pippa-Middleton-review.html - Here's a book review from the Telegraph.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/pippa-middleton-book-celebrate-interview-the-telegraph-review_n_2072286.html - Here's a nice little article with some quotes from critics and the author's response.
There is tons of this stuff all over the internet if you want to find more sources yourself. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- Start-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- Start-Class Berkshire articles
- Low-importance Berkshire articles
- WikiProject Berkshire articles and lists
- Start-Class British royalty articles
- Low-importance British royalty articles
- WikiProject British Royalty articles
- Start-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- Start-Class England-related articles
- Low-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- Start-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles