Talk:Alicia Silverstone/Archive 1

Who is Alex Chiu?

Why is Alex Chiu not mentioned in this article?

who is he?

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Birth place?

This article says she was born in England, but the IMDb says she was born in San Francisco. Which is correct? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I see this article has been changed to say that Silverstone was born in the US, yet a couple of years ago I saw a TV interview with her half-sister who spoke of Alicia being born in London. Can anyone find a quote directly from Silverstone?

AS was a guest on Graham Norton's show on 6/28/08 (BBC America) and stated that she was born in London. Not sure how we source this though. – ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why she said that. The California Birth Index lists her as being born in San Francisco (searchable at [1]). This 1995 San Francisco Chronicle article says she was born there - [2]. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Siblings and Emancipation

I'm pretty sure that Silverstone just has two half-siblings, not two full siblings and two half-siblings as this article seems to say. I think the confusion arises because some articles online mistakenly refer to her two siblings as full instead of half. I've never seen an article which refers to her having both half AND full siblings.

Also, while empancipation allows minors to work without parental permission, all other child labor laws, including those limiting work hours, still apply to them. (http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/ChildLaborPamphlet2000.html#6) It's possible Silverstone claimed that she emancipated in order to be able to work longer hours but legally it's clearly not true.

Non-Nude? WTH?

Hunh?:

Silverstone reportedly refuses to appear non-nude in any of her movies. Because of this, she requires a body double in her place for clothed scenes.

Joke, or no? Madmaxmarchhare 03:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a vandal. Check the revision of 3:09 this morning. Cranston Lamont 04:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

British-American

Silverstone was born in the USA to two British parents and is entitled to UK citizenship and a passport (if she doesn't already hold both). This means she is British American. This resource is full of so-called "Irish-Americans" who have an Irish antecedant from centuries ago, or an Irish-sounding name, or green eyes, or like Guinness, so why can't a woman with 100% British parentage be called British-American? 86.17.247.135 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've readded "British-American". Wikipedia's own entry for the term states that "British Americans are Americans whose ancestry stems, either wholly or in part, from one [or more] of the four constituent nations of the United Kingdom". If Silverstone isn't, how can anyone be?! 86.17.247.135 12:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Of course it'sbeen reverted! It's not as if her parents were born in Ireland, is it?! That would be notable. 195.92.40.49 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam Sandler?

Where does this information come from? There isn't a citation and if it's true it needs one. If no citation or source can be found, I'd have to say that this piece of information be removed. Stylejunkiex 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Jackie

The Crush was notable

The Crush won her awards and a lot of attention, and from there she started her career. The directory of the three Aerosmith videos with her in them, cast her after seeing her in that movie. Amy Heckling, director of Clueless, saw her in those videos, and decided to put her in Clueless.

I notice not all of her films are listed, and there is a minor mistake I'm going to go correct now.

And for the guy that commented on Adam Sandler, I remember seeing David Letterman ask her about dating him on his show, but she refusing to answer. Don't really think its relevant though. Dream Focus 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tracey Bryn (from Voice of a Beehive) and Alicia Silverstone look very simular to eash other.

Watch the video for "Don't Call Me Baby" on myspace. Am i the only one who think so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.135.83 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral point in article

Unfortunately, it was not picked up for syndication.

Though many fans of Alicia would agree that with the sentiment behind this sentence, it's not a neutral point of view. The word "Unfortunately" should be dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czyzczyz (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Clueless sequel

"In an interview with Graham Norton on his UK entertainment show, Silverstone stated that she is currently in talks about reprising the role of Cher in the up coming sequel to Clueless. Clueless: High School Reunion is set to go into production in April 2009."

I watched this interview and she did not say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.116.130 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Did someone try and find the worst picture of her ever? Someone has got to have a better one. Come on, she is gorgeous! DFS (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a better photo but it was removed from the article. It was relevant to the article because there's a part in the article mentioning about Miss Silverstone's nude posing for PITA.

File:Alicia Silverstone (nude).jpg

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Book content

An editor removed, in its entirety, content covering the book Silverstone wrote, citing "poor sources". I returned it, checked the refs, one of which is to AOL Health, another of which is USA Today in its Lifeline section which I updated because it had been moved to the archive, and the third, I replaced with a direct link to the webpage Silverstone operates because it was about the establishment of the website. The editor has once again removed the content, again citing "refs are extremely poor - none better than a press release". There is nothing "poor" about USA Today nor AOL Health and removing the content and cite about and to her own website is simply unexplainable. I'm not entirely clear on what would be considered a "good" source if a note on the Lifeline section of USA Today fails this standard of reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've moved the following about her nutrition book for discussion here:

Silverstone published the vegan nutrition book The Kind Diet: A Simple Guide to Feeling Great, Losing Weight and Saving the Planet, which includes diet and fitness guidance and advice, along with holistic living tips. It "explores the connection between what we put in our bodies and what we’re doing to the planet, and how choosing the right foods in the kitchen can help you feeling lighter, sexier, and more alive." She produced an online production called "The Kind Life", an online expansion of her book, focusing on global warming and vegetarian topics.

The aolhealth source, which was removed leaving only the author linkspam, is a blog. The actual reference is http://www.thatsfit.com/2009/10/15/alicia-silverstone-quit-counting-calories-with-her-kind-diet/ The USA Today article is puff-piece, probably from a press release. The Kind Life link is linkspam. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:BLP detail what are good sources and how they should be used in biographies. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The AOL Health link is to what is called a blog written by one of its staff writers, not a user written source. The link to the AOL Health webpage should be the one other than the one I took, but the USA Today ref was updated to the current page, which actually is sufficient, since it was clearly written by an Associated Press writer. You are wrong, the USA Today source is not for you, or anyone else here, to decide whether it is acceptable sourcing or not. It is a link from their Lifeline section, now archived, but written, as I said, by an Associated Press writer and not in anyway inappropriate. The "link spam" is to the actual website. But, you know, thanks for the instructions in determining reliable sourcing. I've written an FA, an FL, two GAs and have another submitted. I know what reliable sourcing is, and for two of these, you're totally wrong. The AOL Health link isn't even necessary, except for the quote. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is the best available press coverage for her book, then it barely deserves mention per WP:UNDUE. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not an entertainment magazine.

We agree that the previous source about The Kind Life was inappropriate. The link to the site appears to just be linkspam, unless somewhere on the site there is verification of some of the information. If so, what is the date of the entry? Even so, without an independent source, it seems overly self-serving to only use her self-published source. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The information seems to read like an advertisement. The second sentence is nothing but a quote from an article that's clearly promoting the book. If facts can be taken out of it, the source is reliable, but that sentence itself is unencyclopedic. If there's a good amount of coverage in the press, I don't see why it's not worthy of inclusion as long as it is simply facts that are presented and doesn't sound like a promotion. --Abusing (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am considering taking your Third Opinion request:

Disclaimers: I am considering responding to your third opinion request. I have made no previous edits on Alicia Silverstone/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Possible Clarifications needed: I have not yet accepted your request because either the issues or the number of editors involved in the dispute are not clear. There can only be either exactly two editors or, if more than two, exactly two positions on which all involved editors have agreed, through consensus, clearly state the dispute. The issues in the conflict must be capable of being clearly and succinctly stated. See the Third Opinion FAQ for additional help and information.

Problem(s) with your request: Both #1 and #2. Please clarify these issues immediately below this notice.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Yes, a third editor has already responded since the 3O request.

There's a disagreement on whether or not the sources meet WP:RS, and what information from those references would be suitable for inclusion in this article (per WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP, though there's also a WP:SELFPUB concern). --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another third opinion: Honestly I would say take this to WP:RSN and see what they think. I do believe that there is a problem with sourcing here. For example, http://www.aolhealth.com/bio/mary-kearl is cited to say "Silverstone published the vegan nutrition book The Kind Diet: A Simple Guide to Feeling Great, Losing Weight and Saving the Planet, which includes diet and fitness guidance and advice, along with holistic living tips." Except that none of that is on the actual page. The USA Today article is marginally more acceptable, though I don't like the idea of copying and pasting the whole text of that into this article. And linking to the Kind Diet page as a source is a little weird; I'd rather see it listed as an external link. It seems that the book should be mentioned at least in some part in the article, just better sourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll decline to opine on this one. Thanks, and best regards. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with HelloAnnyong's approach [3]. I've been looking for better references, and the Pfefferman article was one of the best that I was able to find. --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)