Jump to content

Talk:Emilia Clarke

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.10.55.11 (talk) at 04:07, 14 October 2019 (→‎Survey: RFC response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New info box image

Is it me or is it hard to see her face on this new image? I personally preferred the older image with less makeup. Comments? Govvy (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - I came here to post the exact same issue as Govvy, I guess the current one could be cropped but imho (if we haven't already had one) an rfc should be started on the image given it's a widely watched/edited article. –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emilia Clarke Vogue

Going slightly astray from the discussion is but how about ... if it is actually allowable on wikipedia. It is dark, but more easier to see her face than the current pic. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or does she look rather raunchy in that pic?? Govvy (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Er Yep, sorry not the normal clean wikipedia infobox image, i was just looking on the Commons for a better image than the current one. The previous infobox picture some how looks clearer to me on the Commons than it did here. I have no idea why. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the image on the page isn't good, for the reasons Govvy outlined (having thought of them before I saw their comment). I prefer the old image, and think we shouldn't be finding new images for the sake of it. If a new image comes along that is good, then we can use the new image, but a terrible but new image is much worse than a good but old on, especially as Clarke hasn't changed that much in six years. --TedEdwards 22:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted The Optimistic One's image choice. It's a poor lead image because it's not how she normally looks and one has to click on the image just to better see her face. Agree with TedEdwards; that is pretty much what I state any time a lead image is changed on a biography article. For those unaware of our previous image discussion, see Talk:Emilia Clarke/Archive 1#Lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Emilia clarke by sachyn mital (cropped)
Why can't we use the photo of her at the Game of Thrones season 8 World Premiere? It has better lighting than the current image, Clarke is not making a weird face in it, it isn't "raunchy", and as a bonus it is newer than the almost 6-year old photo currently being used. mypurplelightsaber (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly better cropped, but the make-up is a little vampyric for my taste. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
mypurplelightsaber, because, to repeat, it's not how she normally looks. That's my main reason. Newer is not always better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That new image is not my cup of tea, not so natural, she has a Goth look there, I also agree with Flyer22 Reborn, new isn't always better. Govvy (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About her aneurysms & surgery

Someone should add details about her brain aneurysms and surgery she underwent whose pics were shared by her recently. AbdulKareem92 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "Personal life" and "Charitable work" sections. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

strange inconsistent formatting.

I really don't understand the bad formatting, you should either have one or the other. In the info box there is UK and US, you either have U.K. with U.S. or UK with US. It's pretty poor construct to have UK above U.S. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted info box image

I am a bit confused on what copyright if any is on the latest image. The new image has been a screen capture from a video on vimeo, however Dior upload their videos to YouTube, and I am really not sure if the video should be on Vimeo, at the same time I can't see what copyright if any are on https://www.youtube.com/user/Dior ?? Govvy (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder claim

Gaolinual and others, regarding this, it needs stronger sourcing if it's to stay. This is per WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the source being used is fine. I've never heard of La Parisienne being an unreliable magazine, if anything it's probably one the most reliable French magazines. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Govvy in that it is a reliable source. I'll wait to see if there are other arguments before restoring it, but so far the arguments given are not sufficient to remove this fact from the article. Gaolinual (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REDFLAG, what other sources state that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? If it's true, other reliable sources should confirm it. That is what WP:REDFLAG, a policy, is about in cases such as these. I just Googled the matter and I am not seeing anything. Is the French magazine an exclusive interview? I will alert the WP:BLP noticeboard to this matter for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, nope, it's not an exclusive interview. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translated from French the June 2018 article says:

"The 1.57-meter mini-model has had an exceptional ride that now leads her to the Hollywood throne. Enough to give strength to all children, suffering like her from the syndrome of attention deficit with hyperactivity (TDHA) and for which the actress takes a treatment." [1]

It is strange that there is only one source reporting on her having ADHD and that the source itself doesn't seem to have actually interviewed her-- it seems to be based on Emilia's instagram posts. I don't think it's impossible that she really does have ADHD, it's just strange there aren't better/more sources reporting it. The top hit on google [2] appears to be an August 2017 reddit post that mentions its source for the claim as wikipedia... but that's before the article was published... Was this claim previously on wikipedia? 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it appears this claim has previously surfaced on this wikipedia article in July 2015 [3] and that it was removed because it was sourced to a publisher that directly copies information from wikipedia and pushes them as handbooks. [4] 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your concern and I suggest we keep this out until we find a better source. I'm positive better sources exist though, because I clearly remember her mentioning her ADHD herself in an interview. It was in a morning show called "This Morning!" in the UK. She mentioned this quickly when talking about an anecdote (that she lost a data collector job due to her hyperactivity). Unfortunately, I can't find it online at the moment, but there are some links on google from conversations referring to it (i.e a reddit conversation, and a lipstickalley conversation, an IMDB list, etc etc.) Also, when googling about this in French, there are much more credible sources that mention her diagnosis and use of medication (Ritalin), notably Le Figaro on this page, as well as other french magazines. This suggests that she probably also mentioned having ADHD in an interview that took place in French. Leave it out for now, but I will look for the This Morning! interview when I have more time, and if I can't find it (or if copyright issues arise) I will look at interviews in France. Gaolinual (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I agree. Also, I clicked through some of those links and found it was mostly users commenting on articles that Emilia had ADHD, not the actual article saying it herself. Again, I don't doubt that she might have ADHD (as it is common), but having more than one WP:RS verifying it would be good. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seth MacFarlane

This has previously been discussed [5], but it seems like there should be 1 sentence on her personal life indicating she dated Seth MacFarlane in 2012-2013 on her wikipedia article given its coverage in WP:RS and that they both confirmed it and it's mentioned on his wikipedia page. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a similar statement to what's on Seth's page:

"From 2012 until 2013, MacFarlane was in a relationship with Emilia Clarke.[191] They have remained on good terms.[192]"

24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk archive history, it was classed as WP:TABLOID and Trivial. Govvy (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did check the archive history. I linked it. It doesn't make any sense to classify who she dated as WP:TABLOID (which says nothing about listing romantic partners on wiki), especially when it's listed on Seth MacFarlane's page and it's typically included on the personal life section of celebrities (see Selena Gomez#Relationships where it includes her brief dalliance with the Weeknd. It needs to be re-discussed. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you seem to be against including any type of relationship history in wikipedia articles, but the policy you cited for exclusion (WP:TABLOID, WP:NOTADIARY) does not apply. To say that Emilia Clarke dated Seth MacFarlane is accurate, can be reliably sourced (to herself!), is not libelous, does not implicate privacy concerns as they have attended highly public events together, the relationship is notable as it was covered in the press (she discussed negative "fan" interactions due to her dating), and one or two sentences in an article as developed and detailed as this one is not undue weight. I can certainly think of instances where waiting to add a relationship would make sense in terms of complying with WP policy, but I don't see that being the case here, seeing as its 5+ years old. If you want "no dating" to be the rule for personal life sections on WP, start a RFC or something. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of Previous Discussions in the Archives: | Nov 2015 | Oct 2018 | April 2019 (Maybe stop archiving these so quickly?) 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be included. One short sentence like "Clarke dated actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013" is sufficient. Provided it is sourced from somewhere that isn't too gossipy, and doesn't go into too much detail for a disinterested tone, it doesn't violate WP:BLP. Shuipzv3 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I really don't think it's important to her article at all, @Ponyo: removed it last time and I thought removed the content on Seth's article before also. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anything has changed since the many previous discussions. The fact that some sources, mainly gossip-based websites, mention that Clarke dated MacFarlane for an undetermined period of time, doesn't mean it needs to be included here. This is an encyclopedia, not Who's dated who. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ponyo, Gossip websites did not mention it, Clarke herself mentioned it in an interview. Again, Ponyo and Govvy, you seem to think no details about a celebrity's relationship history should be on wikipedia's "personal life" section, but that just doesn't comport with the rest of wikipedia. Perhaps we should start an RFC regarding relationship history for wikipedia articles. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Including Clarke Dating MacFarlane

Currently, Emilia Clarke's wikipedia page does not include the fact that she dated Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013, despite the fact that it is currently included on his wikipedia page, multiple RS have reported on the relationship [6][7][8], and Clarke did an interview with Glamour Magazine in which she directly confirmed the relationship and commented on being disappointed in negative fan reactions to her dating him. Should Emilia Clarke's article include at least 1 sentence, similar to that of Seth MacFarlane's stating that they briefly dated from 2012-2013?

  • Yes, include one sentence stating that " "Clarke dated actor and comedian Seth MacFarlane from 2012 to 2013" [9]
  • No, do not include any mention of her dating Seth MacFarlane.

24.217.247.41 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • No. I see this as a form of connective trivia that is not particularly notable for either party. Simply being mentioned in passing in news media does not make something notable. Did their brief period of dating have a notable impact on either of their lives? Did their dating have a notable impact on anyone else, cause any notable events or controversy, or result in any notable lasting outcome? If the answer to these both questions is no, then I see no need to include it in an encyclopedia. Including it may even give undue weight to this relationship compared with other relationships they may have had, simply because other dating partners did not have a Wikipedia entry.

Discussion

Here is the quote from Glamour Magazine:

GLAMOUR: You also dated Seth MacFarlane. Any pros and cons of dating someone who's in the public eye versus someone who's not? EC: "Well, a con is you have strangers giving you love-life advice like, 'I'm a big fan of the show, and I'm not sure what you're doing with that guy,' which I didn't react well to," she explained. "That happened in New York when Seth and I were together. This guy started to give me advice: 'Can I get a selfie? And by the way…' Unh-unh, bro."

List of Previous Discussions in the Archives: | Nov 2015 | Oct 2018 | April 2019 | Current discussion (Oct 2019) is above in talk page

Summary of previous discussions: Two editors (Ponyo and Govvy) have consistently argued against the inclusion on various grounds claiming that it is WP:Gossip, WP:Tabloid, WP:NOTDIARY WP:Trivial, while several editors (UditaCh, The Optimistic One, Shuipzv3, and myself) have pointed out that including a brief mention that she dated someone in the 'personal life' section is not gossip, is not against WP:BLP, and is well-supported by the RS and is common practice across Wikipedia. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@24.217.247.41: You have failed to inform these uses you are talk about, this is bad-faith, @UditaCh: @The Optimistic One: @Shuipzv3: @Ponyo:. Govvy (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy I don’t know how “this is bad-faith.” I’m sorry if I did something wrong. I didn’t know you had to @users. Several editors have disagreed with you and Ponyo over the years, but have gotten nowhere. I read the guidelines for RFC and this seemed to qualify. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emilia_Clarke&oldid=921142930"