Talk:Asia Argento

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

Official website down[edit]

www.asiargento.it is temporarily or permenantly down, needing re-registering. Will write a bracketed note next to link? or is there an other way to do this? Book M 12:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Domain had expired, although checking the whois details now, it shows its registered until "20071021". I guess it'll be back online soon, you could just add "temporarily offline" next to the link, I've seen that before on Wikipedia. —B33R Talk • Contribs 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)xxx[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I want to post the below pictures on her site, if anyone has any objections speak now or forever hold your peace

image 1 image 2

Age[edit]

I admit I am hungover and still half asleep, and thus may be being thick, but her birthdate is stated as 1975. It then states that she made Trauma in 1993 when she was 16. This clearly doesn't add up. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it makes sense. The movie was released in 1993. Films are produced ahead of time though, and 1993-1975=18 in raw numbers. So... that's just two years, and assuming late 16 and early 18, could be as little as 13 months. David Reiss (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Trauma page (and associated source), it was shot in August and September 1992. That means she turned 17 during production. Furthermore, the source for the statement "When she was 18, she starred in her father's film Trauma," doesn't say anywhere on it that she was 18. But it does have this quote: "I never acted out of ambition; I acted to gain my father’s attention. It took a long time for him to notice me – I started when I was nine, and he only cast me when I was 16."[1] I think it's clear enough, I'm changing 18 to 16. Snailwhiskers (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dangerous Beauty". Filmmaker Magazine.

Does she really speak Russian?[edit]

Name[edit]

It says the registry office refused to allow her to be named Asia and changed it to Aria, yet in the beginning it claims she has a whole lot of first names, including both Aria and Asia among them. So something is either wrong or just not explained correctly.94.22.79.214 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this talk page to mention this myself. I would also like to know how Asia is pronounced. I doubt it's pronounced like the English name for the continent. 71.183.132.240 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology in the encyclopedia article[edit]

> When Asia Argento was born in Rome, the city registry office refused to acknowledge Asia as an appropriate name, and instead officially inscribed her as Aria Argento.

I doubt that this is a fact, that they denied to register a child by the name Asia. Sounds more like something an artistic person would make up to sound interesting. Until this is verfied info I recommend remove this sentence --KpoT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

origin[edit]

Does anyone know that her mother is Jewish (see Daria Nicolodi official website)?Incredible torry (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed true (here is a serious secondary source: [1]) but who cares? Don't answer, I know who cares. --Edelseider (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Asia Argento. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Anthony Bourdain[edit]

The article says that she was in a relationship with Anthony Bourdain until his death today, June 8th, 2018. However, the footnotes to this statement are all from 2017. It's possible, given the linked articles only, that they broke up months ago...or yesterday, hypothetically. I can't find any statements (yet?) on the internet that say the two were in a relationship at the time of his death. Perhaps others can, or else maybe this statement should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Clement[edit]

She seems to have started a relationship with Hugo Clement after her speech at Cannes film festival. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6100:6B:3556:2F64:4F22:CEE5 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Rape[edit]

In light of recent news, in the first paragraph describing the person, the term "child rapist" shall be added unless Wikipedia wants to become a haven of censorship, fake news and disrespect of objective truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.187.14 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit inflammatory, but it does seem like a phrase like "alleged statutory rape" would be appropriate. Less good, but still an improvement would be "alleged child sexual abuse". Mkcmkc (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not "statutory" or any other qualifier. "sexual assault" is the term used by sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.188.170.173 (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We stick to what reliable sources say. Certainly to describe her, in the lede as a, "child rapist" there would have to bee a preponderance of reliable sources that called her that, especially considering the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL Simonm223 (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To state that, she would have to be convicted of a rape charge, regardless of what any source said. Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has plenty of allegations without convictions on articles. What we have here is a good example of differential treatment of Ms. Argento for political rather than editorial reasons. When mainstream media like the New York Times and NBC News include mention of photographs and text messages that indicate Ms. Argento may be lying, or that there’s a criminal investigation under consideration, Wikipedia can too. BLP doesn’t mean we act as her PR team. And the. There’s the details of how some #metoo advocates suddenly want a proper investigation where they formerly were unyielding in condemnation when the accused was male. 204.48.94.197 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First off, WO:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a justification for handling things in a certain way. Secondly, WP:LIBEL is very explicit about what we can or cannot say about a person in cases like this. Third, WP:DUE covers the photographs and text messages, specifically that it's lending undue weight to a WP:RECENTISM that would be inappropriate within the scope of this individual's career at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on the exclusion of major media coverage of text messages and photo. If we can include her denials, then we can and should include the well covered texts and photograph that indicate that the story is true. Argento is notable in part because of her #metoo activities and this story is part of it. Libel is not relevant here, by the way. If the texts and photos present a libel risk, so does any mention of the allegations.Mattnad (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my statement. I referred to WP:LIBEL about claims we call her a "child rapist" or a "statutory rapist" in the article. I referred to WP:DUE for the issue of whether to include details like the photos. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this individual's career at this time -- there are now reliable sources suggesting that no such thing exists. MPS1992 (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that your assertion Argento's career is over (WP:CRYSTAL) precludes my concern that we avoid WP:RECENTISM in providing undue detail about a salacious current controversy. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not undue detail and therefore it's not recentism. It has already had a major impact on her career -- as reliably sourced. You can, if you wish, speculate that her career will recover and then perhaps carry on much as before, but it's that sort of speculation that would be WP:CRYSTAL at this point. MPS1992 (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have one source specifying that she was dropped from one engagement. To go from there to, "and therefore her career is over and we must include tabloid-like details about the scandal," is a bizarre jump to say the least. Look, let me lay it out for you one last time. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, particularly not a tabloid newspaper. There is notable relevance to the revelation of the accusation and to the fact that she lost a gig over it. That doesn't lend notable relevance to every single detail. There is no encyclopedic significance to whether there are selfies. It's immaterial to the end-state. There is even less significance to how the New York Times got the material, unless the factual validity of the material is questioned, which I don't see anybody actually doing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear who is being quoted there -- could you clarify, please? MPS1992 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE and the recent scandal[edit]

Nothing useful here, and the OP is blocked indef anyway.

I don't think there's a solid consensus on how much detail should be provided on the recent scandal. Questions I think we need to resolve:

1) Should the article mention the settlement amount? 2) Should it make mention of Anthony Bourdain at all? 3) Should the article mention other details related to the case, such as the "selfie in bed"? 4) Should it include details about the method in which the NYT got the photos.

For my part I am Undecided about 1). I Oppose the inclusion of 2-4. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? We didn't have a problem to do this in any other case (such as the Weinstein scandal). So why should it be different here? Is it relevant to mention that the New York Times has incriminating documents or should we just be like - well, let us ignore facts here.--APStalk 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the Weinstein discussion and can't speak to decisions made there. Also WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a response to a question about WP:DUE Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you claim our guidelines and our encyclopedic consensus on how to handle this is irrelevant to you?--APStalk 15:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Albin Schmitt the onus is on the includer to demonstrate notability when reverted, not the opposite. I will ask you now to self-revert rather than entering into an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does matter how we handle things here. And you can't just remove facts from an article that have been edited and put in by several users without reaching consensus here.--APStalk 15:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: one does not need to demonstrate notability for the inclusion of material -- notability is only needed in order for there to be a separate article about a topic, which as far as I can see is not (yet) being proposed here. MPS1992 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why, as it says in the section headline, my concern is WP:DUE, not WP:N. For further details please see the statements by Sandstein and IvanScrooge98 immediately below. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: if that's your concern, it is confusing for you to state, immediately above, "the onus is on the includer to demonstrate notability". MPS1992 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems quite significant given scope of coverage, and quite relevant considering #MeToo role. Bourdain seems like a significant relationship that should've been in the article in any event.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the encyclopedia we want to be? Where we just delete relevant facts? The New York Times is a reliable source with hard working journalists. Deleting the obvious relevant facts are, in fact, the same as claiming that The New York Times is fake news. The guidelines are clear: this is relevant. The consensus is reached on so many other pages, where we had similar accusations - like Weinstein. We handled it the way I did it here. The questions are: is it relevant for the encyclopedia? Yes. And is it published in a reliable source? Yes. I mean, this removing of facts and spitting on reliable newspapers is just making Wikipedia the Trump under the encyclopedias. A shame. A shame that facts doesn't matter here anymore. Is this who we want to be? Do we really want to deny reality?--APStalk 15:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking that you follow WP:BRD that doesn't mean that the material will never be in the article. Just that there is not currently consensus on your edits and they should be removed until consensus is achieved. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged; my view is that the material at issue here is indeed excessive and trivial detail, especially in the lead. Sandstein 16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same for me, pretty much. イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話） 16:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial? Well, let us delete trivial information on the Weinstein article then. And do you say that it is only irrelevant in the lead?--APStalk 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include all 1-4 In light of metoo, this is also significant and coverage by major news outlets implies the material is worthy of inclusion here. EnPassant (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I previously said, I'm unsure about the inclusion of 1 - of all the information that the original edit which spawned this talk included it's the most defensible, but I don't know what the reported settlement amount actually adds to the article. The other details: I don't think it's necessary to mention Bourdain's involvement in the settlement. Nobody has implied he might have been a party to any harassment. And the last two seem so far over the WP:DUE rainbow that I'm not certain why they might even be considered relevant to an encyclopedia. The NYT got the documents from an anonymous source? Selfies in bed? These aren't needed for a general public understanding of the incident. And there's a WP:RECENTISM issue to consider. This is one incident within a long and notable career. We shouldn't have it overtaking all the rest of the article with extraneous and salacious detail. Simonm223 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an attempt at summarizing the discussion above, and some discussion pertaining to it, was removed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was blocked for counting the votes by this administrator. He claimed that one of the votes I counted was never given. I could prove otherwise and he agreed on it; not that it would make it more all right to block a person making an honest mistake that could be fixed in seconds - actually not a reason to block people at all. Still no administrator agreed on ublocking me. The block protocol wasn't updated: still the same claim that both the original administrator and I agreed on was untrue. I wasn't informed why administrators kept me blocked: so nothing I could learn. PS! Deleting parts of the talk page is only all right when its vandalism or crime: counting the votes given (even if you disagree with them; well, you could just update it then) is not considered any of this. So, I said what I had to say. Could an administrator please block my account permanently (untill I revoke it) on the English Wikipedia (only the English version: I am still active on the German, Danish and French). And just that you admins get the blocking reason right this time: "This user requested to be blocked permanently". Would be nice. Love and peace. #AdminAbuse--APStalk 21:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NB! As you admins agreed on: the blocking reason you gave me wasn't correct. I would like you to update the reason I was blocked. It is not fair that the reason in the blocking protocol is, as you all agreed on, untrue. And as said above. I would like to be blocked permanently (untill I request a reinstatement of my account) with the blocking reason: "This user requested to be blocked permanently". Thanks i advance. PS! It would be nice if you could undoe some of your mistakes by re-inserting the polls - and correct the votes + update it as you seem suitable. Thx.--APStalk 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not sure whether to hat that as off-topic or to ping an admin and see if you get your wish. Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may hat it if you want to, as long as you not delete it.--APStalk 22:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. We don't block editors at their request, and if you are blocked indefinitely, you don't get to decide when to "revoke" it. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to do a WP:SCANDAL compliance check here[edit]

Again, this is me banging the drum over mention of topless photos in the article. This is definitely into WP:SCANDAL territory. Read it guys, BLP is held to a higher standard with regard to scandalous details. The inclusion of discussion of topless photographs might drive clicks on notable news sources but wikipedia isn't a newspaper - we don't need the mention of the photographs to contextualize this controversy and the inclusion of mention of them is, at best, at the border of violating WP:SCANDAL Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about context, it's about evidence. Without the photographs, it's a case of "he said, she said". With the photographs (and alleged text messages), it's rather different. I believe we can consider NBC News a reliable source, and I believe we can assume their sincerity in reporting that the significance of the photos is that they "appear to contradict Asia Argento's denial" (their words, in their headline), not that the existence of topless photos is salacious. These photos are not background context, they are not salacious detail, they are key evidence that is central to the story. And let's remember these are (apparently) topless photos of the two in bed together, not just topless photos. MPS1992 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except nobody is suggesting that the accusation and subsequent settlement be extracted, just mention of the photos. He made an accusation. She paid a cash settlement. There will not be a court case. She lost a job. These are all notable. There are photos of the two in bed together is getting out of that territory. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point being, for clarity, that it is not for Wikipedia to act as a secondary court and litigate her case. We need to present a neutral view of what happened, but I am not of the opinion that the photos help us to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources believe that the photos are relevant -- central, in fact -- in presenting a neutral view of what happened. That is sufficient. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CNN as well. MPS1992 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear we're not going to agree so, rather than either of us beating a dead horse how about we wait and see what other editors have to say on the matter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the Telegraph. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not news, but sources. Reliable ones at that, I would argue. MPS1992 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Times too. MPS1992 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, one last time, because you're refusing to hear what I was saying, my argument was not WP:RS derived. It was derived from WP:SCANDAL, WP:NOTCOURT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE - and having made that argument I'd suggest you're not doing much by continuing to bang on about WP:RS is irrelevant. You can go ahead and find more newspaper clippings if you like. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth are you linking to a section entitled "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"? And why on earth do you believe that the existence of a key piece of evidence, covered in detail by multiple reliable sources, concerning a career-impacting scandal, is not WP:DUE? And, come to think of it, why are you so obsessed with WP:CENSORing any mention of the photos at all? MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck through the Wp:NOTCOURT item because it was silly and a mistaken inclusion. As for why I'm obsessed with keeping out the photos? I think inclusion of tabloid details like this in articles reduces the tone and quality of Wikipedia and I don't believe it's inclusion adds anything relevant to the article. I'm certainly not suggesting removing mention of the allegations or that they were settled out of court. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Simonm223 and MPS1992: This section of the BLP policy may be relevant to this dispute: Public figures. I have no comment on which side is right or wrong. It's just that you two are going back and forth without looking at any other policies. Furthermore, I think that we may need to file an RfC. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes I think that is indeed relevant. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. The "messy divorce" example is also of interest, but seems not to apply directly here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the recipient of the text messages[edit]

We obviously need to mention the text messages with the "alleged admission of sex with him", but do we need to specify who they were sent to? I'm thinking possibly not, would be interested in opinions. (I'd never heard of the person concerned.) MPS1992 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018[edit]

Good day. The website prescribed in this page directs to elsewhere rather to Asia Argento. My humble request is to restore the actual site or nullify the existing link instead. Regards. 27.147.246.20 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the IP is talking about the official website link in the infobox which indeed does not seem to be her website; I've removed the link. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit needed[edit]

I think something needs to be edited. Under the part about the allegations against Argento by Bennett, it claims they first met when he was 17 and working on a movie in 2004. He was 7 at the time, not 17. He was 17 when she had sex with him (allegedly). SabreToothCat (talk) --SabreToothCat4 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I have fixed this -- again -- now. It seems to keep getting changed back, perhaps it's an easy misunderstanding to make. MPS1992 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Family[edit]

Alfredo Casella was not Asia's great-grandfather. He was her half sister's great grandfather and is not related to her at all. 67.210.51.134 (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asia_Argento&oldid=1205141753"