Jump to content

Talk:Karen Gillan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New Picture

Someone find a new picture of Karen, The one thats on there now is so lame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.188.90 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The only ones I have are tasteful nudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.114 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability discussion

She has apeared in doctor who with the tenth doctor episode the fire of pompai as the shoeshacker . Perhaps wait until its been aired. Under WP:ENT she isn't notable enough. I suggest this page is deleted until she is notable enough. JokerWylde (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the episode that she has been in anyway. Plus she has had roles in other shows, remember that this page is still a work in progress...so maybe give it a chance to develop before questioning notability? magnius (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm undecided on this -- the following is just to support the discussion. WP:ENT says that an actor is notable if s/he "1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. 2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." It seems to me debatable whether Gillan meets those criteria at present. She probably will once she's actually been in Who, but Wikipedia practice generally errs on waiting until an event has happened before someone counts as notable. The general notability guidelines say "if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Clearly there have been multiple articles about Gillan's forthcoming Who role, but these mainly are just repeating a BBC press release so far. So, again, it seems to me somewhat debatable. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Good discussion, but there are some good refs on her and her background that one wouldn't normally find with many other "unknown/just got a big role" actors. I am also of the opinion that in cases where an actor lands a particularly high-profile role, much as though their profile may not initially comply with the required guidelines in WP:ENT, to remove the article is simply fighting the tide of when it is created over if. Might as well create it, get it to a good standard, and let the anon's and experts fight over trivia; as constantly be having internal discussions over create/delete. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just silly. She's gotten a highly notable role, and will be the subject of a hell of a lot of searches, particularly right about now. What the hell is the point of deleting a good article, only to recreate in a month's time when most interested readers will have had to go elsewhere? Rebecca (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, is Wikipedia competing for hits, or trying to produce reliable, high-quality encyclopaedia articles? If people see the BBC News online article instead of this one, is that a bad thing? Wikinews also exists if one is concerned with satisfying a current surge of interest. I remain undecided myself, just offering an alternate point of view. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL have some thoughts relevant to this matter too.Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed trying to produce reliable, high-quality encyclopedia articles for our readers. So, since as a star in one of the most notable television series of all time, our readers are very likely to want a reliable, high-quality encyclopedia article about this person, we should actually provide them with such an article, instead of sitting around playing nomic. Rebecca (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The news of her casting made the BBC1 TV lunchtime news and is getting a lot of press coverage. I'd say that the announcement of her casting has made her notable. Maccy69 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC News discussing the casting of an actor in a BBC series is "independent coverage" to ITV News's "EXCLUSIVE!!!!" story about Susan Boyle last night, and many of those news organisations are just regurgitating the press release. However, given that she has been cast in the second most important role in one of the country's biggest TV series, I think we can put the strict entertainment notability guidelines to one side for now, as it's clear that she'll get more coverage as filming approaches. Good sources to look out for would be local newspapers ("Inverness girl cast in Doctor Who!") for biographical detail. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That is simply opinion. The article does not show why she is of note. She has done nothing noteable so fails the notability test. Saying Doctor Who is the 'country's biggest TV series' is opinion also. Her biography should wait. I have replaced the Notability tag. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a huge level of pedantics going on here. OK, so her main claim to fame is a show that she hasn't started filming yet, But she starts filming it soon and if being a companion in Doctor Who (be it past, present or future) isn't enough to make you notable then nothing is. She already has "The Kevin Bishop Show" under her belt (in which she featured in most, if not all episodes) and has an upcoming film project with James Nesbitt, as well as a few other smaller roles. Basically, I don't see the need to delete a page when it is clear that she has future notability, doing so just means that we all have to start again in less than a year just to please the pedants. I say that we should just keep it and let it grow magnius (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the notability tag. I think her notability is pretty clear - the next series of Doctor Who hasn't been shown yet, but playing a major role in it is automatic grounds for notability. Her position now is similar to that of Daniel Radcliffe after being cast as Harry Potter, or Jake Lloyd after being cast as Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars Episode I, but before those movies had been released: they were notable simply by virtue of being cast in major roles in important films. If Wikipedia had been around then, we wouldn't have deleted their articles, and we shouldn't delete hers now. Robofish (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
She wasn't notable two days ago, but she is now. If Matt Smith is notable due to playing the Doctor (and filming doesn't start for a few weeks yet) then Karen is notable for being the new companion. Think about it. Doctor Who gets so many viewers, this time next year, the whole country will know the name of Karen Gillan! How many people had heard of Freema Agyeman before she played Martha? Not many, despite the fact she was in Crossroads. Her profile boosted greatly, so will Karen's. I fully agree with you Robofish - nobody can dispute her notability. End of story. (I suppose Americans would say "period" there) Digifiend (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
A thought experiment: if, for some reason, Gillan got sacked tomorrow and never appeared in Dr Who or did any other acting work, would she be notable? I'd think not. Generally, as I said above, Wikipedia policy is to wait until something has happened before letting it demonstrate notability, and filming hasn't even started yet! That said, it is clear that the strong majority want this article kept, so I go with Bradley0110's position. Bondegezou (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In that case, she'd certainly be notable for being sacked from a high-profile role. 86.139.140.247 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are far to many 'Who' fans shouting about this and saying she is noteable because of a BBC press release that has been reproduced on may other news sites. I feel she fails the noteability guidelines as recording has not even started yet. This should be taken to a larger discussion. Trevor Marron (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article about Gillan which is not a rehash of the BBC press release. Rob T Firefly (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... television". Note the repetition of the plural here. That would seem to imply that even an actor who had actually played the Doctor himself, not just been announced for the future, for some time would not qualify under this clause if he hadn't had any other significant role in another notable presentation. He might of course qualify otherwise. Interesting. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

Yesterday, somebody added a basic reference to Scotlands People to justify her birth year of 1987. However, without volume numbers or pages, the reference was useless. If anyone has access to SP, could they please look her up? Bradley0110 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that ref in the article history, but it looks like a primary source (birth certificate). Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebus

French Wikipedia suggests an early (presumably juvenile) role in Rebus. That may be significant enough to mention if it can be properly sourced. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail source here - [1] Also mentions a role in Harley Street. Not sure what parts she played though. I'll add them to the article. Raywil (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelavent to Personal Life

She was cast for the role of the Eleventh Doctor's first companion, Amy Pond, on the British sci-fi series Doctor Who in early 2009. She had previously appeared in the episode "The Fires of Pompeii" in a minor role as a soothsayer.[3]

Totally irrelavent. This part of her CV and not her personal life. Personal life to me is family, school, notable things away from acting, first play first TV programe etc. KnowIG (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd reverted changes...

The reverted entry remarking that there had been criticism of her being "slutty" can probably be cited against a dailymail article, though I'm unsure as to where they got it.

Relationship between Karen and Caitlin Blackwood...
It's well known that they're cousins (see http://news.scotsman.com/inverness/Scottish-schoolgirl-lands-dream-role.5854140.jp for example) but finding a reference to how well it was known before is tricky.
The best reference would be the Doctor Who Confidential for that episode, which apparently states they hadn't met before.

For now, I'd suggest this as a cite for the matter: http://entertainment.stv.tv/tv/166996-karen-gillan-bags-relative-role/
They were aware of the relationship but hadn't met until the read through.

Judging by the SNR on this page's history, it may be worth protecting it until the current series has finished.

89.238.157.212 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Whofan's picture

I reverted whofan then reverted myself back as i think he is right to change the picture Karen Gillian should have a picture of herself not her character Amy, however the picture does not have a proper fair use rational, this needs to be done or the picture will get removed--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't have a fair use claim on a picture of a living person.--Scott Mac 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright but the Amy picture isn't relevant to this article, ony the Amy one, you wouldn't have the Joker as a main picture on Heath Ledger's article and you wouldn't have Luke Skywalker on Mark Hamill's page, also see David Tennant's page there is a hidden comment telling people not to change the picture to the Doctor, I think we should use Whofan's picture of Karen as herself not as a fictional character she played--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If we have a free image of Karen as herself, then (depending on its quality) it would be preferable. However, we can't use a fair use image.--Scott Mac 12:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright we'll have to keep the currant picture till we get a free one of Karen--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's my lack of understanding on some of Wikipedia's more asinine policies, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but when most people or companies or whoever compile a dossier on someone, they typically use any readily available photograph that shows the subject in question. I wholeheartedly agree the picture should show Karen and not Amy, but surely there must be a plethora of picture of her from press releases or other sources, correct? Come to think of it, has anyone looked to see if she's got a website up? I know the woman who played Peri in Doctor Who (sorry can't recall her name) has a website up about herself. In fact, I think a large number of them do.--Dakmordian (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I've already resolved the picture by finding a better free one but to answer your question, we could use a photo like this if the subject is deceased and there's no realistic prospect of finding a free picture. Since Gillan is very much alive (and I hope she stays that way!) as a public living figure it's generally expected that it it's within the realms of reasonable possibility to find or take a freely licensed photo of her. Somebody like Bill Watterson is a borderline case perhaps but living people cannot have fair use publicity photos used in their articles - we need a freely licensed image. Exxolon (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Her last name

does it have a hard or soft "g"? Serendipodous 09:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard Chaosandwalls (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

G as in girl, not G as in ginger.

Arthurvasey (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does it refer to her as 'Gillyweed'? Page says 'Gillyweed', code says 'Gillan', most confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.157.171 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was vandalised by another editor. The vandalism was reverted quickly, which is probably why it wasn't there when you went to correct it. I've protected the page for a day to stop it happeneing again, since it's happened a few times tonight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I have sourced, uploaded and added to the article a much better picture. I trust this resolves the issues above. Exxolon (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Jarkeld (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No Mention of the "Lady Godiva" Incident?

How come this incident isn't mentioned in the article? Seems like it should be, considering it's really the only time I've ever heard anyone talk about Gillan outside of Doctor Who. --TwilightDuality (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been added and removed several times ( Gillan was involved in an incident at The Ace hotel in New York, after she was found wandering naked around a hotel corridor in a distressed state.[1] ) There is some question in that some of the sites say "allegedly" or some other word adding some doubt. TacfuJecan (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
With respect, that's quibbling - something we as editors do NOT get to do. We have reliable, verifiable sources that say it happened, it goes in the article, simple as that. It isn't hard to understand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder: let's be mindful of WP:BLP when adding possibly detracting material. DP76764 (Talk) 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Haven't forgotten that. We report what other, reliable sources have already said. We do not ignore material that might portray the subject in a negative light. To clarify: we do not make the person look like a dumbass, any more than we hide that fact if it happens to be documentably accurate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

might be enough sources to warrent inclusion in her article. agree or disagree? TacfuJecan (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, can't agree with you. You only have one real source there. The other links all are based off of or copied from the Daily Mail article either directly or through the Daily Telegraph article that references the Daily Mail's report. It comes down to whether we think the Daily Mail is a reliable source or not. That original article came out 27 June 2011. Are there not any other articles confirming or denying it? The other issue: is it really notable enough? I'm not convinced. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I would completely disagree, Joanna. Each subsequent newspaper has its own editorial review, and it weighs whether something is notable or not. The onlly part of your dissent that gives me pause is the lack of follow-up. But then, Gillan isn't, say, Tiger Wood, who crashes his car into a neighbor's tree and every outlet on the planet is on it like white on rice. Apparently, nude Brits making a scene just isn't news. I'm inclined to allow it in, barring news sources explicitly calling it a lie or fabrication. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't take it down if anyone put it in. I can't find anything denying it and ran across this article that states "She giggles when asked about this, but will not elaborate." So, I, too, am inclined to allow it. As far as journalistic review is concerned, I would agree with you about editorial decisions, but some of those links just looked like online news portals that repeats anything coming down the wire. That said, the number of articles repeating the story, I admit, does go to notability. If incident is included, though, I would only cite the Daily Mail article as the primary reliable source. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. So, you are saying that double-citing won't reinforce the material? I am guessing that bullet-proofing (my Dad's term) the statement would be served by noting two references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, double-citing would reinforce. But it needs to be a source that doesn't just cite the other source we put in. Primary sources are best. If the Daily Mail cite goes in, the next cite shouldn't be one that just references that first one as it's source. Unless it contributes something more about the incident that the first cite doesn't have. The London Evening Standard article I linked above could possibly reinforce and there may be others out there, as well. I just haven't bothered looking that hard. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Gah, no. The fact a daily mail story gets covered elsewhere doesn't make it reliable. For the nonsense of the argument see WP:OTTO.--Scott Mac 20:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I've read your created essay Scott, and must say that I don't find really on point here. Otto is essentially about a news story that ran amuck, feeding on itself in the clamor to get to deadline. In that tale, the newspaper retracted the story after it was found to be, at best, a conflation of the facts. Such is not the case here. Gillan was wandering around a hotel, stark naked and "disoriented" and it was reported by a RS. The story wasn't retracted (as well as the fact that she's been asked about it on US national TV), and the simple fact is that the drunken excesses of celebrities don't garner as much attention since Lindsay Lohan went crazy. What we have is a reliable citation saying what happened. Because I tend to think that Wikipedia should avoid the media frenzy that follows the sort of nonsense that Otto indicated, I have been waiting for contradictory citations that say it never happened, and is complete and utter bullpucky. No one is presenting them as of yet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The essay is precisely on point. The point is that trivial celebrity stories are apt to echo round multiple media sources and that this alone is not evidence of veracity. Newspapers crib from each other, and can't be taken as multiple points of verification on stories like this. Do you think any of these independently researched the facts? The fact there's been no retraction is beside the point, we have no idea how many such stories are inaccurate, and the subject simply decides not to feed the frenzy further by commenting. Lacking any confirmation by the subject, there will always been room for doubt. Combine that with the fact this this is negative, trivial, and salacious - and it doesn't belong in any encyclopedia.--Scott Mac 08:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, I believe you are misapprehending your role as an editor of Wikipedia (as well as misunderstanding the points of your own essay). It is not within your wheelhouse to determine if the reliable source has told the truth or verified its sources; that it is considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community's evaluation of it makes discussion of it as something less than that moot - or at least better suited to either RSN or the Village Pump. Your opinion that newspapers crib off each other, or that the material is either trivial or "salacious" is just that, an opinion. Too bad we cannot cite your opinion on the media or the story. All we can use is valid, verifiable, reliable references. So far, we have none that contradict the solid source that reports the incident. Your opinion of the "room for doubt" exists in some building outside the Wikipedia. Your personal essay notwithstanding, your opinion cannot be utilized, as it doesn't follow our current policies and guidelines. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Bollocks. When dealing with living people, we have a high duty of care, and a responsibility that goes beyond saying "oh, it is lots of newpapers, so that's that". My opinion that newspaper often crib from each other? No, sorry. The essay provided hard facts that demonstrate that this occurs. The principle that we have a high duty of care with living people is enshrined as hard policy. The principle that we use editorial judgement to assess the reliability of our sources is as old as Wikipedia itself. Editorial judgement isn't ever simply a matter of counting the number of sources.--Scott Mac 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
While we do have that responsibility of demonstrating a higher level of care with BLPs, we are neither the subject's cynical character assassins nor the cheerleading publicists; we cannot save them if they do naught to save themselves.We are an encyclopedia; we draw from what material is given us to cite from. No cites to the contrary mean the matter is uncontested. And again, your essay deals with a media frenzy that resulted in unbridled reporting and eventual retraction - quite a different matter from an incident reported and uncontested by even the subject herself when asked about it on talk shows.
Clearly, we have a difference of opinion on the matter. What is the next step in the dispute resolution process, Scott? I don't see us finding common ground here, and I think we need some more eyes on the discussion. What say you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Just $0.02 here, but there was a similar issue in the Gordon_Ramsay#Accusations_of_infidelity article; particularly, the accusation by a certain woman that they'd had an affair. I tend to agree with Scott's interpretation of what sources (especially newsprint) do with recycling material, but that's a complicated subject and this isn't the place to resolve it (nor are any of us the people to do so). In terms of standing policy interpretation (and precedence), I believe Jack has the better position. But that's just my opinion as well. DP76764 (Talk) 15:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, there is no "next step in the dispute resolution process". Poorly-sourced, tabloid-ish gossip material will not appear in a BLP article. Full stop, end of story. Tarc (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lol, well, it would appear to be largely your opinion that it is "poorly-sourced, tabloidish gossip material", now isn't it, Tarc? Respectfully, your personal opinion doesn't override wiki policy, an it is complete nonsense for you to think that dispute resolution ends with you. You personally don't want it in; got it. Thank you for your opinion. Now, would you like to file the mediation, or shall I? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yup: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail. If the Daily Mail is the ultimate source for this trivia, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, regardless of other issues. They make stories up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion happens to match exactly what Wikipedia policy is on the matter, Jack, so I'm pretty comfy with my position, thanks. You can file whatever mediation you like, but the end result will be the same; this article will not be reflecting salacious shit found in gossip rags. If this is the kind of writing you're interested in, perhaps TMZ has an internship, as it has no place in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, since you are of the opinion that Wiki policy says exactly what you are saying it does, could you be troubled to cite those supporting statements? I'm not seeing the same things you are; I'm willing to learn something new if I am wrong. If you choose to do so, could you maybe be a little more civil about it? You were coming across pretty much like a tool, and I didn't want to have that impression of you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite ok with that impression, actually. I even cultivate it. Anyways, I have spent a lot of time in a lot of BLP articles over the years, this problem is older than the hills; famous people's lives are endlessly scrutinized, photographed, and dissected, but not everything that they do is relevant to their biography. We take extra care to ensure that bios do not become either puff pieces celebrating every kitten they rescued from a tree or hit lists that note every salacious thing that they have done. It is particularly the latter that is of most concern; this is an encyclopedia, not TMZ, not Perez Hilton, not Gawker. This certainly does not forbid negative press, rather it means that we take care to only include what is truly relevant to a person's life. Charlie Sheen's antics entered the national dialog, thus is a relevant part of his life and biography. A couple papers foaming at the mouth because Karen Gillan may have gone on a bit of a bender on a single night is not. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, that is your interpretation of our policies and gudielines, as well as your impression of the incident. I asked you before to provide us here with explicit policy statements that support your viewpoint. Should I ask again, or presume you don;t have it to share.
And cultivating the persona of a tool is pretty sad. Maybe Wikipedia - a collaborative environment where civility is a requirement - isn't the best fit for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not interpretation, it is policy, which can handily be found at WP:BLP. We do not put salacious gossip in articles about living people. If you add it, it will be reverted. That is where the situation is at. As for your personal assessments of me, I really don't care, so kindly keep it to yourself. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
You will note that I have not added it because I was looking for input from others. I have read BLP back to front; nowhere do I see your peculiar and novel interpretation of such. Either cite specific passages that irrefutable support your argument or kindly stop wasting my time. Your opinion is noted. Dismissed, but noted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Dismiss what you like, but when you end up on the wrong side of an edit-warring block, don't say I didn't tell ya so. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

From WP:BLP: "Avoid gossip and feedback loops: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit." Relevant part bolded for emphasis. Jarkeld (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Jarkeld; I was preparing to post to RSN about the matter, though I am not sure if it's an RSN or BLPN issue. (I found the other guy's response a little too obnoxious for my taste. Someone should tell him that editing isn't a contact sport.)
I have been following the discussion in RSN regarding the reliability of the Daily Mail - the recent Knox-Guilty reportage is, by any measure, an epic fail on their part. Part of the frustrating part of that discussion is that there are folk who think all media outlets are bad, and none are reliable. I get this point, and share it somewhat. However, following that extreme point of view would render Wikipedia irrelevant and make editing current events problematic to the point of an article never getting written. I am on the fence about the issue of reliability, myself. Major news stories have indeed been broken by tabloids as well.
My problem is this: while the initial story appears to have been covered by the Daily Mail other, far more reliable sources with their own verification and editorial boards have also written stories about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) The last citation I list refers to an interview where she giggled about the incident "but refused to elaborate". More than anything, that appears to be confirmation to be. Why not just call it "bollocks" and be done with it?
As to relevance, Gillan is on the FHM's Top 100 Lists of Sexiest Women, so the story is indeed of interest, though somewhat of a prurient one. Additionally, when one searches the subject on Google, the incident lists over 472,000 hits (other engines retrieve approximately the same results as well). I am wondering what differentiates our treatment of this BLP from that of Vanessa Hudgens, Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton). I am not suggesting it dominate the article, but I think it should be noted, much like we note the details of Stanford White's murder by a jealous husband. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
All the citations given are either to tabloids or to blurbs in "ShowBiz" type of sections. Not really relevant to the discussion, though. Perhaps you can tell us of what relevance a story about being allegedly naked in a hotel hallway is to the subject's biography? Note that "I read it in source x, y, and z" is not an acceptable answer. Show us why it needs to be here. Show us what the reader gains by reading this information in an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, you have asked for an explanation as to why this material should be excluded. A number of experienced editors have, quite patiently, explained their reasoning to you. Now, it is evident that you don't agree with their reasoning. That's fine, and I respect that. However, there is clearly a consensus here, and it runs firmly for exclusion (and, btw, with BLP issues you need a positive consensus to include disputed material). Now, you don't need to agree with that consensus, but you do need to accept it and move on. This debate is obviously not going to change anything now, and you are in danger of flogging a dead horse.--Scott Mac 16:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Scott. And to be frank, I don't give a rat's ass about the material one way or the other, but what I do care about is making sure that we follow policy and guidelines. We have several sources - personal opinions notwithstanding, they are reliable sources as per our own policies defining such - that report the matter. Tarc can pontificate all he wants about how all the media is corrupt, I have yet to see a single shred of policy or guidelines that states why we cannot include it. All I am hearing is a variation of [[WP:IDL|"i don't like it". Please, at the risk of hammering a dead equine, explain it to me, so I don't have to ask about this again. I asked the question because I wanted a touchstone by which to evaluate these sorts of matters. I am still asking. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It has been explained to you. We are not an uncritical slave to sources. You simply don't accept this - and are dismissing this as our opinions. Fair do - but keeping repeating yourself isn't convincing anyone. Now, you can either drop it or, if you think you are right and everyone else out on a limb, you can file an article RFC and seek wider input. I'm fairly confident that won't change anything either, but you are entitled to try.--Scott Mac 17:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe listen carefully, Scott, as I am not in front of you where I can speak slowly and enunciate: I don't care about the material one way or the other. I am not trying to add it - note that I came here first before even thinking of adding it. I am not failing to accept it; I am asking for what part of policy you are hanging your hat upon. I didn't interpret the "written conservatively and with regards to the subject's privacy" as you did; I think privacy ends the minute you go wandering down the hall of a public hotel nude.
As well, I am not fighting consensus here. I have been asking - repeatedly - for someone to show me what part of policy and guidelines outlined this stance, and maybe even an example or two of such. I brought examples to defend my point of view. I don't think I am right - I am asking questions and seeking clarification. If you are to the point where you cannot tell the difference between the two, maybe you need a nice cup of tea and a sit down while pondering how to assume good faith. Nothing in my edits on this topic have been in bad faith. It's a damned shame the same cannot be said for you and Tarc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
When dealing with people who cannot get what they want inserted into an article such as this, I find that the response of "show me the policy that spells out why I can't" is a pretty telling indicator of where the conversation is going to go...and so far, I haven't been disappointed. The lead of WP:BLP informs you of why this sort of thing does not go into articles, and if you cannot figure out what is wrong with the nudity-in-hotel material after reading the lead of BLP, particularly the "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" part, then I find there's really little more to say. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
For the nth time, Tarc - I am not looking to get anything inserted into the article. Maybe before you put your foot in your mouth, you should next time read the posts prior to you popping in with a knee-jerk reaction. I was asking about the matter, seeking clarification. I did not add it in even once, nor was I inclined to. Nor am I even interested in doing so. This situation pops up all the time in Wikipedia BLPs and I was looking for guidance and a touchstone by which to evaluate these sorts of situations. I was not looking for you to be a complete dick about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
That smacks of intellectual dishonesty, to be frank. "I'm just arguing for the sake of policy, I don't care about the actual content" ? Please... There is no one-size-fits-all approach to these sorts of situations, so what you're looking for simply isn't there. When this conflict arises in BLPs, use common sense, use sound editorial judgement to apply relevant policies, guidelines, and essays. I think this dscussion can be hatted now that there is no one legitimately advocating for material to be added to the article. Talk pages are for discussions of the article afterall, not for policy debates. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that is the most civil you have been with me (if I ignore the accusation of intellectual dishonesty, of course), so better late than never. I am saying that I have no horse in this race. I am not saying I am arguing for the sake of arguing; I am saying that someone is going to try and add the info, noting that there is a citation for it, so it is relevant. I know most BLP matters are on a case by case basis. I wanted to know how to approach the situation or find the best way to address the request, since most wanting to add want to have policy quoted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Potter

I keep seeing things online about something called Requiem, in which Gillian plays Harry Potter's daughter Lily. Has this ever been confirmed; if so, this ought to be mentioned here?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Where karen lives

Karen lives in los Angeles 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.227.244 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

About " the "Lady Godiva" Incident"

Simply I can't get it. What's wrong with that? U mean Karen can't get naked in a hotel? Why?! Are you jealous? I think that's not an incidence.As far as I know for Karen ,that's a prevalence. By the way, she's gettin old. Thank you for you kind attention on that "MATTER". .. kinda.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.123.206.208 (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References that need work

5, 28TacfuJecan (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Shaved head

Does anyone else think it may be useful or informative to have a list of women who have shaved their heads by choice? Its rather uncommon, always gets some press attention. I would exclude women who have gone through chemo, of course, as thats not voluntary, and is not commented on outside their cancer diagnosis. and men do it too often to be of note. I note at least 3 other actresses, and a wrestler.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

combining sections

suggest combining early life and education with personal life under one sectionTacfuJecan (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Gone and combined the single sentence with the personal life section06:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Shaved Head Pic

Shall we get a pic of her with her shaved head>?--88.111.123.67 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A Touch of Cloth III

Karen Gillan is starring in A Touch of Cloth III as Kerry Newblood alongside John Hannah and Suranne Jones

Who cares? Comment

"FHM magazine ranked Gillan number 42 on their list of the 100 Sexiest Women 2011,[24] and in 2012, they also ranked her number 36.[25]"

I can't begin to say how much I think this info is a bad thing to include in a person's bio.

Wayne 06:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2014

Add info to personal data box Height: 5'11" (180cm) 198.151.8.4 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


HAHA someone has a hardon for her, good l;luck with selfie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.131.26 (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Selfie Cancelled

Selfie was cancelled by ABC on November 7, 2014. Can somebody update the article. http://deadline.com/2014/11/selfie-cancelled-abc-1201277382/ 2601:4:1500:C90:7871:3932:EB72:1A76 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

actor or actress

The lede has actress and the infobox has actor shouldn't we pick one and stick with it throughout the article?TacfuJecan (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Karen Gillan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karen Gillan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nationality

While it's accurate to call her a "Scottish Actress" in the text, it's rather less accurate to say "Nationality: Scottish" in the info panel. Her nationality is British. A quick look around other actors' pages seems to indicate that if they come from Scotland they are given "Scottish" nationality, but if they come from England they're given "British" instead. This seems inconsistent to me. 104.129.200.110 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karen Gillan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Birth date and middle name

Earlier today, an IP removed her birthdate and middle name from the article. The removal was reverted. When I search the existing refs in the "early life" section, I'm not seeing mention of these. Without a reliable source, I agree with the IP that both middle name and birth date should be removed per WP:BLP concerns. If someone does see a reliable source, please point them out so the refs in the article can be clarified. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Really wasn’t that difficult. Here’s a source that includes her official Instagram post about celebrating her 30th. [2]. Rusted AutoParts 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New Picture

While Karen does not look radically different than in 2011, that's still a 6 year old photo. Is there any reason one of the photos from Wikimedia Commons has not been used as a substitute?--Mpen320 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This version file:Karen Gillan (34609339830) (cropped) retouched.jpg removes the microphone. Should we use it? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Karen Gillan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking for other people

Editors cannot speak for other people. You would need to cite a reliable source that says Karen considers herself to be Scottish first and for most, otherwise you're putting words into her mouth, which is dishonest. DonQuixote (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2008482/Doctor-Who-star-Karen-Gillan-naked-riotous-New-York-party.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karen_Gillan/Archive_1&oldid=1090564600"