Talk:Lily Cole/Archive 1

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

External links

I am uncertain if this is the correct place for this or not. I have owned the fashion related site http://www.porcelain-beauty.com (also: http://www.porcelainbeauty.com) for almost two years. I have three subdomains for it, each dedicated to neatly organized photo archives and additional information on three different established models. Lily Cole, Heather Marks, and Tiiu Kuik. I also own the domains Lily-Cole.com, Heather-Marks.com, and Tiiu-Kuik.com which seamlessly forward to the subdomains of the main site. My Lily Cole subdomain was listed as a an external link for her page on here, but has since been removed. I assure you that my site is not a links page, does not contain advertisments, I never have and never will attempt to profit off of it, nor do I spam people or have pop-ups. I have one page (out of many) of links located at the bottom of my navigation. These are links to fashion sites that I enjoy, that I thought other people might like to. I never add links to that page that aren't sites I actually visit, nor do I push people to visit them.

Basically I wanted to know if my site: http://www.lily-cole.com (Also found at: http://www.porcelain-beauty.com/lilycole) could be added as an external link to the Lily Cole page on this site?

Thank you. Amara

There isn't a picture of this Lily Cole person, and the picture at http://www.lily-cole.com is good enough for description purposes. In my opinion, I don't see why it shouldn't be added. (I do wish that more people would drop by to give their opinions though; I came to this page through a link in one of Marilyn Manson's wiki articles.) --That Jason 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The picture on that site may very well have come from the inside of a magazine. If so, we cannot use it here. If not, we need to identify the copyright holder, provide an accurate license and a detailed hand-written fair-use rationale, and we should be fine. --Yamla 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

Sorry, my last edit was not intended to be marked as minor - I meant to hit "watch" but hit "minor edit" by mistake. That's what I get for editing Wikipedia before I have my morning coffee.

I have requested citations because the information here conflicts with the information about Lily Cole in the size zero article. Neitherday (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uniformity in footnotes

Should there be some sort of uniformity in the footnote system in this article. I used this but that's clearly not what everyone has done. What action should be taken?--Cardinal Allen (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Western Shoshone?

Curious about the blurb saying she supports "Western Shoshone an environmental organization." I realize it's just taken straight from the Thefrisky.com article; the article is wrong though, at least on the org's name. There is no organization called Western Shoshone. There is a nation of indigenous people who are known as the Western Shoshone [Newe]; and there is a group called the Western Shoshone Defense Project [www.wsdp.org], which I'm assuming is the title intended. That being said, I worked for them this past summer and never heard of Lily Cole or her supposed support or involvement with them. It'd be interesting to find out how exactly she has been supportive of the Western Shoshone people through the Western Shoshone Defense Project. 110.34.0.242 (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interesting comment. It remains to be seen whether the claim of her involvement with the Western Shshone Defense Project is supported by other sources than Thefrisky.com. Maybe it is true, maybe it is slightly exaggerated, maybe it is a misunderstanding or a simple error on part of the journalist. Some research is definitely needed. --Catgut (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It is looking like totally invented publicity. You can imagine an 'image consultant' advising her to 'get some charity associations' then choosing a relatively unknown (certainly in her own country) cause, arranging one or two invented web articles, then cross-referencing them. Oh, and of course, sending her financial 'helper' a big bill for the essentially amateur, as well as deceitful, effort. I await correction by well-founded facts, but doubt there are any such.

Bust

33.5B? You must be joking. 30 or 32 AA, I'd say. 80.41.6.203 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The same about her height. And yes, it's 33.5B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonynonymous (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

She has really large breasts for a model - I would have said a C cup actually - watch the river boat scene in the Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, or her Pirelli calendar shoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.23 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Pictorial

Concerning the Pictorial for the French Playboy, I think there is something that might be wroth clarifying. There is no topless or frontal nude of Lily Cole in this particular pictorial. The theme ressembles the early Playboy issues of 50s and 60s, where breasts and genetalia or pubes were unlikely to be seen. As you can see by the pictures in this site, they look no more provocative than an essay for FHM or similar publications --Pinnecco (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've seen the pictures and, as you say, there's no full frontal nudity/ genitalia on display but there is no doubting she was naked. Do you have a suggestion for improving the wording to reflect this while keeping a neutral tone? Thanks, HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Yes I do have a suggestion. People made a lot of fuzz about her posing for Playboy so I think it should be clarified that there is no frontal nudity, or topless (or perhaps there is one topless picture, can't remember) in the Playboy pictorial. Of course for those who are aware of her previous nude appearance in that Paradis French magazine this might be irrelevant since in that pictorial she was indeed fully naked, but that publication is far less known to the public and certainly created much less of a fuzz. --Pinnecco (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lily Cole/Archive 1/GA1

Drive by tagging

Just dropping vague critical tags on the article [1] without following up with either discussion or editing, is not helpful towards improving the article. Especially in the case of such ill-defined tags such as these. So I am removing them. For example, just what material is allegedly 'not appropriate for an encyclopedia'? Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The tag was as self-explanatory as it gets. The article is way too wordy and detailed for this subject, see WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTWHOSWHO, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. On a different note, see WP:EDITORIAL and WP:COI. Less formally, it's a perversion of WP to include mile-long recentist articles on young models. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Classic! I don't like it therefore it must not be important. It's been a while since that fallacy reared its ugly head. Btw, accusing someone of having a conflict of interest is dangerously close to a personal attack, so I would suggest you strike it or get some evidence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please quit your fanboyish patronizing of those who oppose a pet fluff article. Personal attack?... Don't know about that. But note that I did not revert. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. Apologies to Dlabtot and HJ Mitchell. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 20:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I will admit that I like pretty redheads, and they're not difficult to write about, because I'm far from the only man who like pretty redheads! However, this particular article I wrote quite early in my tenure and it's probably not up to the same standards I hold my writing to these days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Gregorik, if you are interested in improving this article, you have the opportunity. Either edit it, or discuss how it could be improved. Insults and disruption don't fit into either category. Dlabtot (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: what was Lily Cole's birthdate?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to use "c. 27 December 1987" and relegate discussion of the discrepancy to a footnote. I will set up a footnote now, feel free to edit the text of the note as this discussion has not determined the text in the footnote, only the presence of it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What was Lily Cole's birth date?

According to New York Magazine, Lily Cole was born on May 19, 1988. http://nymag.com/fashion/models/lcole/lilycole/

According to Fashion Model Directory, Lily Cole was born on May 19, 1988. http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/Lily_Cole/

According to IMDB, Lily Cole was born on May 19, 1988. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2178959/

In fact, no source gives a different birth date. Stated a different way, no source that provides a birth date for Lily Cole provides any date other than May 19, 1988. Nevertheless, one editor has insisted on removing this date from the article. What should the article state regarding Lily Cole's birth date? Dlabtot (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • May 19, 1988, subject to correction by verifiable source (but not subject to correction by original research, including synthesis). Editors can always put bonafide discrepancies into an article as a hidden comment; per WP:HIDE#Appropriate uses for hidden text, "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake. For example if there is a reference which is known to be wrong, it may be appropriate to let other editors know about the error to prevent a likely re-insertion of the error." --→gab 24dot grab← 12:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • When one editor refuses to accept something that is uncontroversial, that strays into the territory of disruptive editing. The solution to that is not to hold an RfC on the matter, but to deal with the editor. I wrote the article (although a long time ago, and I haven't been back to it in a while), so it would be grossly inappropriate for me to get involved in an admin capacity, but it might be worth raising this at the incidents noticeboard if problems persist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is incumbent upon us not to leap to that conclusion, to assume good faith, assume everyone will be able to accept a clear consensus, until shown otherwise. Dlabtot (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • May 19, 1988 used by NYT in link to AllMediaGuide LLC. [2] Reliable source AFAICT, and, absent any reason to believe this is "contentious" the removal is not understandable. Collect (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am absolutely a disruptive editor. Not only do I admit it, I am proud of it and I will continue doing this on Wikipedia as long as I am able to. Quote me on what I just said, and remember it. Nevertheless, aside from being disruptive and having mal intentions for this and many other articles, I happen to be correct (but only from a factual point of view). Lily Cole could not have been born in May 1988 (again, only factually speaking). Perhaps using birth records is "original research" (accurate as they may be), but using The Observer is not. AllMediaGuide is not a definitive source for anything and it is silly to even try to cite it here. New York Magazine is generally a reliable source (not sure about fashionmodeldirectory), but neither one is a definitive source. IMDB shouldn't even be discussed here. They follow us, we don't follow them. As for The Observer, it is of course also not a definitive source and they also make mistakes, but they happen to be correct this time when they say: "It's a grand old life for Lily Luahana Cole, who has just turned 20", printed January 6, 2008. Being an unruly, disruptive editor, I am of course going to revert this again now. If you revert me, please at least leave both dates in the article, so at least we'll have one that's correct out of two. That's better than none out of one. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, look, it's Lily Cole's verified Twitter account! And what's this? Lily, on December 27, 2011, twitted "24" (with a picture of a birthday cake [hers?]). On December 28, 2011, in the early A.M., someone named Palak Patel (hey, nothing wrong with that) twitted "@LilyCole Happy Birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear Lily, happy birthday to you!!! #SWATH #SnowWhite". Lily Cole replied with "thank you Palak!", also on December 28, also in the early A.M. No, Lily, thank you. Now, I'm going to follow WP:No personal attacks very rigidly here, but I don't know, guys, how long I can continue following it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
@All Halow, how did you obtain these birth records? Are they available so that others can see them somehow? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
One can search for Lily Luahana Cole at Ancestry.com and see that her birth was registered in February 1988 (which means she could have been born that month or a few prior, but not three months later). There are other sites that list the same British Birth Records, most of them requiring subscription. Hilariously, the source we used to list her name as "Lily Luahana Cole" is also the source that said she turned 20 around early January 2008 (this source knew what it was talking about) - funny no one questioned her middle name. Anyway, this doesn't really matter anymore, given that Cole and Palak Patel twitted all about her birthday on December 27th. That settles it and gives us an exact date, which this type of birth record unfortunately does not (although it certainly rules out May!). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia content must be verifiable not to 'a source' but to 'a reliable source'. Please note the previous discussions on the Reliable sources noticeboard concerning ancestry.com: [3]. Dlabtot (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:Truth: Wikipedia is more interested in verifiability than in any particular version of "truth". Verifiable date-of-birth goes in the article body, and sourced caveats can be parked in a footnote. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, what are we talking about here? The Observer is a reliable source and so is her verified Twitter account. You're not serious in continuing this discussion? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Put the uncorroborated date from a "verified Twitter" quote in a footnote. Forget about the date inferred from The Observer, because IRL "just turned 20" is a uselessly vague timeframe. Keep the date from the actual verifiable refs in the article body and infobox. --→gab 24dot grab← 03:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The May 1988 date is off the table in any capacity for this article. Forget about it. I was ok with listing both to amuse you guys, but that was until I found her Twitter account. I don't care if The Observer article is vague. Vague doesn't mean inaccurate and no policy page says so (p.s., the statement "just turned 20" is not actually vague). So we're going to use The Observer reference to source her middle name but not her birth date? How awfully selective of you. Oh, and her own Twitter account isn't good enough? (Her Twitter birth date is "uncorroborated"; who the hell is supposed to corroborate it? The only higher authority than Lily Cole on this matter would be birth records). Again, what are you doing? Are you trying to prove that you weren't wrong somehow about her birthdate? Well, too late. You were wrong. Move on. The Observer is verifiable (look, just as you did, I even linked to to the policy page, so it must be so) and her Twitter account is verifiable. Not only is it Verifiable, it's definitive. Again, I don't understand how anyone can continue this conversation after reading her Twitter, which is corroborated by The Observer and by birth records. You're wasting your time, and worse, mine. Enough already. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No. May 19, 1988 remains the only date published in verifiable sources. Wikipedia does not have a special exception allowing you (User:All Hallow's Wraith) to ignore verifiable references such as NYMag.com, FashionModelDirectory.com, and IMDB.com) and substitute your own remarkably dubious original research (that is, Hardy Boys-like leaps of imagination from a picture of a cake). Per WP:TWITTER, that picture source cannot be used unless "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"; there are significant doubts as to what exactly Cole was actually communicating, leaving the tweet unusable. Furthermore, per WP:SYNTHESIS, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ...This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research [emphasis from original]." The plain truth is that Cole did NOT state, "Here is a photo from my own birthday cake, commemorating my birthday last week." (for all we know the pictured cake commemorated 24 (TV series) and the followup tweets were intended jokingly). Since we don't know and we cannot synthesize, we rely on verifiable sources; such sources theoretically adhere to some publishing standard and are at risk of damaging their professional reputations. --→gab 24dot grab← 12:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"for all we know... the followup tweets were intended jokingly". Oh, ok. How about no? For all I know, fashionmodeldirectory, that bastion of accurate information, was only jokingly printing her date as May 1988. For all I know, all the other "sources" you use were only joking. Heck, that's pretty plausible, since they all got it wrong. No, we are not using IMDB as a source for her birthdate (obviously), your beloved policies even prohibit its use because it is not reliable. IMDB copies us, we don't copy them. Fashionmodeldirectory? Why would this site be reliable? Large databases of names are almost never reliable. And of course, The Observer, the only actual newspaper source in this conversation, is left out by you, as per WP:24 dot makes up nonsense to dismiss obviously reliable sources and keep accurate information out of articles for no apparent reason. Let me make this real simple. Lily Cole is the most reliable source for her own birth date. The only better source is a birth record. According to you, we can't use birth records. No problem. So we'll use Cole as a source instead. Anyone with eyes can see that she replied affirmatively to it being her birthday. If that was a "joke", you can dismiss anything anyone ever says anywhere as a joke, and who's to stop you. End of conversation. Go away. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A birth record (or "birth certificate") would certainly be acceptable as a verifiable source; to date, I haven't seen one cited.
An unambiguous tweet by Ms. Cole stating "My date of birth was yesterday" would certainly be acceptable as a verifiable source; to date, I haven't such a tweet cited. --→gab 24dot grab← 02:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
London Evening Standard, February 26, 2004, states that Lily Cole is 16 (at the time). I'm aware that this is just a newspaper, however. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The Telegraph, April 26, 2005, states that Lily Cole is 17. The Telegraph is a British newspaper. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The Age, April 27, 2006, states that Lily Cole is 18. The Age is an Australian newspaper. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are good verifiable persuasive sources; the new sources absolutely belong in the article (in a footnote?) supporting discussion of Cole's date of birth. --→gab 24dot grab← 02:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Due to the discrepancies and disputes re Cole's date of birth I added "disputed". Findmypast.co.uk does not list the date of birth only when the birth was registered. If she were born in late December 1987 then she would have been registered in the first quarter of 1988. I could not access the exact entry indicating which quarter in 1988 her birthw as registered as I am out of credits and not going to pay for 60 more credits (the minimum you can order) that I probably won't need. The quarter in which her birth was registered should decide the issue, howveer using dubious tweets to decide the date of birth is not really accurate. Quis separabit? 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
How about we put December 1987/January 1988? That's what Tenebrae suggested, and we know because of The Observer that she couldn't have been born later than January 6, 1988. Her birth wasn't registered in a quarter. It was registered in February 1988. At that point, the registers were monthly. If you go to ancestry.com and search for her full name and February 1988, you will get a match. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that we seem to have reasonable evidence to establish 1987-12-27 as her date of birth and that we have definitely enough evidence to disgard May 1988, I have to say the objections against the twitter are imho justified. So I suggest to keep the current date but delete the twitter source or replaced it by some other source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact remains that if you google "Lily Cole" + "December 27, 1987" the results will all be carbon-copies of User:All Hallow's Wraith's preferred version of the Wikipedia article 'Lily Cole'.
By contrast, if you google "Lily Cole" + "May 18, 1988" the results will be even more usable sources to support that May date. Perhaps the verifiable truth is "Cole's birth is typically celebrated in public on May 18th, but there is evidence that is not her actual date of birth".
At this point, I'd venture that TRUTH=DOB 1987-12-27 even if VERIFIABLE=DOB 1988-05-18. It's not me who loves WP:V, it's Wikipedia who loves it. Technically, according to Wikipedia's rules, the verifiable date should be in the article body, with the evidence for the truthful date perhaps in a footnote, but per WP:IAR I won't argue if the reverse is implemented (that is, the truthful date in the article but the verifiable date and explanation in a footnote). --→gab 24dot grab← 02:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
WP guidelines/policies are not always to be taking literally to the last letter independent of any given context, but they allow occasional exceptions and are subject to common sense (i.e. consider whether a literal application does harm or help the overall project goals). WP guidelines/policies exist for a purpose not for their own sake. So much for the general stuff.
In the particular case at hand however we actually don't really violate verifiability anyhow. Verifiability means all WP content needs to be verifiable: But it does not mean, all verifiable content needs to be in WP!. In particular when having to deal with "low quality"/"notoriously unreliable" sources (such IMDB for instance), some critical fact and consistency checking is required and editors can drop verifiable material if they have solid grounds to consider it being wrong. There is certain degree of editorial discretion to handle such situations, which allows us to simply drop the contradicting verifiable sources, which we "know" to be false (provided we agree that User:All Hallow's Wraith's line of arguing is correct for determining the date). Hence giving 1988-12-27 as date of birth is ok and not in (serious) violation of policy/guidelines.
However if some editors genuinely believe User:All Hallow's Wraith's argument does not determine the correct date of birth with a sufficient degree of certainty, then we would have to provide both dates and/or a detailed explanation/description of the conflicting sources in a footnote. Personally I think the degree of certainty is sufficient and hence giving only 1988-12-27 is ok from my perspective, but i can only speak for myself here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
We can only put in the article information that is supported by reliable sources. Since no source provides any date other than May 19, 1988, any 'argument' to the contrary is irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right. No sources support a date other than May, 1988. I mean, obviously. In all seriousness, if you're going to keep making these types of statements, Dlabtot, you probably should stop commenting on this talk page, period. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The 1988-05-18 date is so entrenched that the Wikipedia article really must mention it, but discuss the evidence against it. The wrong date isn't discussed because editors here think it might be correct, but because so many verifiable references perpetuate the wrong date and so the date disparity itself is notable. By the way, I'm persuaded toward 1987-12-27 (or 1987-12-28-ish) but I don't consider the new evidence to be ironclad and I certainly wouldn't stake anything substantial on the exact date. Personally, I would prefer something like "Cole has commemorated her birthday on May 18, but she was actually born in late December 1987 [footnote: (or early January 1988)—references and discussion]". --→gab 24dot grab← 14:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
What a strange statement, "typically celebrated in public" - there is no parade through Trafalgar Square in May. No one cares how many google matches 24dot gets if you google May. If you google Lily Cole and December a year from now, you're going to get as many matches. That's how May became so popular. That's how the internet works. This is not about quantity of sources. It is about quality of sources. May doesn't belong in the article in any way, shape, or form. I don't even like it on the talk page. So you're accepting a birth certificate now? Ancestry.com has digitized the official British Birth Records, which list Lily Luahana Cole, mother's maiden name Owen, as having had her birth registered in February 1988. That's as official as it gets. Anyway, 24dot, why are we still having this conversation? Random websites and what they say about Cole's birthdate are completely irrelevant. Aside from the birth record, we have her celebrating her birthday in December, and numberous newspapers that support her being born well before May. The Observer, London Evening Standard, The Telegraph, and The Age all list her correct age (i.e. born before May). The only thing I can agree to is that her birth date could be listed as December 1987/January 1988, as Tenebrae suggested on my talk page, because I can understand how her specific date of birth (i.e. December 27 versus December 28) could be slightly ambiguous, even though the 27th seems obvious. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of the verifiable sources which perpetuate the 1988-05-18 date do so via their reporting of one of several publicized mid-May birthday celebrations for Ms. Cole (that is, more than once her birthday was "celebrated in public on May 18th", per my imperfect prototype wording). Those reports certainly don't trickle-down a date from Wikipedia, the sources report specific commemoration events intentionally planned by some marketer/agent likely for some unknown-to-us advertising/publicity purpose. Perhaps Cole commemorates this approximate half-birthday rather than the actual Xmas-approximate date because Cole and/or her handlers know that the actual date is during a near-news-blackout in Europe and North America (it seems less likely that the then-teenaged Cole was pretending to be just a few months younger than she already was). Regardless, there now seems little remaining reason for Cole's handlers to continue to perpetuate what is plainly a wrong birthdate. We can fix the article now, but we should also keep on the lookout for the ideal: the actual exact date explicitly stated in a perfectly-quotable verifiable reference. Perhaps we'll see Ms. Cole outspokenly recommend half-birthdays and become a more vocal advocate for all those similarly disadvantaged as "convenient-birthdate-challenged". --→gab 24dot grab← 14:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Where was her birthday "celebrated in public" in May? Was there some kind of fan club celebrating it? Did Lily Cole participate in the celebrations? What are these "events intentionally planned by some marketer/agent" that you are talking about? If that was true, that could be notable. I can find no evidence that anybody other than random internet web sites or tabloids (The Daily Mail, was it?) believe her birth date to be in May. P.S., I did mention the May date! I believe one of the many notes I stuck into the article mentioned that the date was incorrect. I love putting those notes. And the last point - this trickle process is certainly what happens - that is why newspapers got Cole's date right in 2004-2006, and then as Wikipedia and the IMDB became more popular, they started getting the date wrong because they copied us and the IMDB. I've got a lot of experience in this so I know exactly how it works. One actor (not going to mention the name) was incorrectly listed as being born in 1972. That was changed to 1967, the correct date, on Wikipedia, and then on the IMDB. Within weeks, newspapers and websites had all started giving his correct age (I'm talking about major newspapers, not even tabloids). You don't see 1972 much anymore. That's how fast this process is. And we are the kingmakers - what gets put up on Wikipedia determines how old Cole will be on the web. That's why it's so important that we get it right. And luckily, in this case, her accurate age is certainly verifiable - between birth records, her verified twitter, and old newspapers. Now, you mentioned that you accept a birth certificate/birth record. Well, do you or don't you? Because there is certainly access to one. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
A birth certificate or a published birth announcement is always useful. The article should absolutely include a reference to any verifiable source which provides or reports such a document with an explicit birthdate. If Joe Shmoe's blog includes a dubious 10th generation photocopy image with the birthdate in a crisp font different from the the rest of the doc, that's not useful. If the source is somewhere between, let the reader herself know the evidence and reasons for dispute (likely in a footnote). --→gab 24dot grab← 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this the birthday celebration you speak of? I probably should address it. The Daily Mail, unlike the newspapers I mentioned before, is a tabloid, not a reliable source, and is generally guilty of swiping information from Wikipedia and the IMDB, along with just making it up. They see Cole out at a party, they check one of the sites and see that they list her birthday as May 19, and they write that she "celebrated her 23rd birthday". How do they know that she did? She was just at a Vanity Fair and Gucci party at Cannes - no evidence anywhere in the pictures or elsewhere that anyone there was celebrating her birthday, least of all Cole herself. That story is about as notable and reliable as "Could this be the next Mrs Cruise? 'Devout Scientologist' Yolanda Pecoraro is said to be the 'perfect match' for Tom" and "Date night with Daddy: Suri Cruise looks shattered after reuniting with Tom and spending the entire day with him". Those are two of their stories of the moment. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It will likely change sooner or later, but for now IMHO Wikipedia's readers are better served if the article addresses rather than hides the disparity between Cole's reported and actual birthdates. If a consensus disagrees, that's fine with me. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
How would you like to address it? We seem to be getting more and more on the same page. While Ancestry.com does not offer the scan itself (I believe FindMyPast does), the transcribed text reads:
"England & Wales, Birth Index: 1916-2005
about Lily Luahana Cole
Name: Lily Luahana Cole
Mother's Maiden Surname: Owen
Date of Registration: Feb 1988
Registration district: Torbay
Inferred County: Devon/Cornwall/Seilly
Volume Number: 21
Page Number: 2330 (click to see others on page)"
All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Over the next week, I'll have very little time for Wikipedia (and not much today), but here again is a messy prototype:
  • The media have sometimes reported Cole commemorated her birthday on May 18, but she was actually born 27 December 1987 (or "in late December 1987")[footnote: (if needed, "or early January 1988")—references and discussion if needed]"
--→gab 24dot grab← 21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind a line such as this in the article text. But what about the intro? Or is this for the intro? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In an infobox or intro, I'd recommend using this:
  • "c. 27 December 1987" or "Date of birth: c. 27 December 1987"
which results from the following Wikitext:
  • "{{circa|27 December 1987}}" or "Date of birth: {{circa|27 December 1987}}"
See the article on 'Circa'. Discussion of the date disparity must be somewhere in the article or its footnotes. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. my idiocy shines through again: Palak Patel is of course a producer on the film Snow White. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA compliance comment

The article needs a few tweaks to properly comply with the GA criteria. Since it is currently listed as GA, I request someone make the fixes ASAP.

  • Lead should be all referenced or all unreferenced (i.e.e supported by references in body of text). The later is more common but either is OK. The current mixed format is not OK. (If anything is in the lead, but not the body that needs adjusted accordingly.)
  • In the "Magazines and fashion shows" section there is a "[not in citation given]" tag. That needs addressed
  • The new citations (related to birthday) are bare URLs and need fixed.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the prose is in rather suspect shape as well - the article good really use a good copy edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the prose a bit, for repetition and style mostly. Re the above point: for now I have added refs to the lead covering everything. I hope that helps. Span (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Who called for her to be dropped?

Looking under the section for the nude pictorials I noticed "with calls for Cole to be dropped from her contract with British high street chain Marks and Spencer", looking at the cites given they don't actually identify anyone who called for that except one spokesman for a marginal fundementalist group in the UK, Christian Voice. The phrasing above may give the impression of undue weight to merely a statement from such a group, and also the vagueness could be seen as weasel wording.121.73.221.187 (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Impossible.com

Why is there no mention of her latest project (Impossible.com) on her page? 95.172.231.160 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I just added a short mention of it.--Tdadamemd (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
... and gone again as insufficiently sourced. I don't want to get into a revert war, and neither of the reverters want to do the 'D' of WP:BRD. →StaniStani  14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I have nothing wrong with mentioning her founding said company. My issue was more with the way sentence is constructed about meeting jimmy wales and I don't think is relevant Jasontrost (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
One would think a millionaire getting 200k in funding for her pet project would be noteworthy in her Wikipedia bio? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/25/how_did_millionaire_supermodel_lily_cole_get_200000_of_taxpayers_cash sherpajohn (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

Why is this article using posts by Cole on Twitter (!?!?!?) as a source for her date of birth? This is not in line with WP:PSTS. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not inline with PSTS? Selective use of Twitter is fine. See WP:Twitter#Twitter. The twitter sources are not being used outright to verify a definitive date, but to show that there are various versions of Cole's birth date bandied about. See above for discussion. Span (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you read WP:PSTS? And have you looked at the lead of this article? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". We are told not to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" primary material, which the article does not. WP:Twitter#Twitter says "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source" (with the above caveats). I did not add the tweets as sources, by the way. Span (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The lead uses the data provided by a primary source. If Cole had written "I was born in 1521" in a tweet, would you support putting that date into the lead? This article's lead is misusing a primary source. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the guidelines (above) do not clearly rule against this use. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. Span (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2178959/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 says that she was born on May 19, 1988. How do you know your source is right, if there isn't an agreement as to when her bday is?Aaron Saltzer (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion above. The consensus by the closing admin clearly states "Consensus is to use "c. 27 December 1987" and relegate discussion of the discrepancy to a footnote". I have no idea what primary sources you want, since other than her twitter account and her birth record, The Guardian said she just had her birthday, writing in January 2008. If you want to re-litigate this (for what purpose, I don't know, since factually speaking, she was born in December 1987), then you should start a new discussion. But don't change it to 1988 again. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference fixes

I just removed several Dailymail references and one IMDb reference as those are both not reliable sources. There are also several sources that are not formatted properly. I would suggest fixing these, otherwise I will take it to get reviewed as it doesn't meet GA status. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate

It needs a source. Dlabtot (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed the date again. Was tempted not to. But I had to. There is no doubt that the birth of Lily Luahana Cole, mother's maiden name Owen, was registered in February 1988. So she could not have possibly been born any later than that. You can check ancestry.com. Sure, this may be original research, but it is factual, and, of course, we have that Guardian article from January 2008 that says that she just turned 20. This obviously suggests a January 1988 birthdate, perhaps December 1987. These are just facts. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Due to the discrepancies and disputes re Cole's date of birth I added "disputed". Findmypast.co.uk does not list the date of birth only when the birth was registered. If she were born in late December 1987 then she would have been registered in the first quarter of 1988. I could not access the exact entry indicating which quarter in 1988 her birthw as registered as I am out of credits and not going to pay for 60 more credits (the minimum you can order) that I probably won't need. The quarter in which her birth was registered should decide the issue, howveer using dubious tweets to decide the date of birth is not really accurate. Quis separabit? 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

According to www.imdb.com, she was born on May 19, 1988. How do you know your source is reliable? Aaron Saltzer (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested updates

Hi, I'm Elvie Maxwell and I work with Lily Cole. I've been through the page and found some things that are out of date or inaccurate. I'm not sure of all the rules of Wikipedia but I know that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety I should not edit the page myself.

Regarding the page, there are a couple of factual inaccuracies but the main issue is that its out of date - references tend to be to projects several years ago with little information on her work in between (social business, wild rubber, impossible, recent films/plays). Photos also quite old (and weird!)

Out of date on modeling:

"She has a cosmetics contract with beauty brand Rimmel London <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimmel> and can be seen in TV and print advertising as part of her work with them.” and later "Cole has been modelling for cosmetics company Rimmel London <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rimmel> since October 2009"

But this contract finished several years ago. The easy fix is to change it to say 'had' and 'could',

Factual inaccuracies about acting:


"After several minor acting roles, starting with /St Trinian’s <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Trinian%27s_(film)> /in 2007,”

(actually she only did one minor role in a feature length film - St Trinians - prior to Dr Parnassus)

"Released in 2012, Cole will have a part in Mary Harron <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Harron>'s /The Moth Diaries/.^[49] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-LA_Times-49>”

This should be past tense, the film has been released.

Since then Lily has shot:

  1. Snow White and the huntsman
  2. Confession of a Child of this Century
  3. several other films not yet released

(more info on: imdb)


"It was reported in October 2009 that Cole would make her stage debut at the Old Vic Theatre <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Vic> in London's West End <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_End_of_London> at the theatre's annual "24 Hour Plays" held in November, but "scheduling commitments" forced her to pull out.^[57] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-on_with_the_show-57> Cole ultimately made her stage début at the ADC Theatre in Cambridge <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge>, as Nina in a student production of /The Seagull <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seagull>/.^[58] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-58>"


This is out of date as Lily performed in the Old Vic Theatre 24 hour plays twice, in 2011 and 2013.

She also did a play [The Last Days of Troy by Simon Armitage] at the Royal Exchange theatre and Shakespeare’s Globe theatre May-June 2014 [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/10833731/The-Last-Days-of-Troy-Manchester-Royal-Exchange-review-Lily-Cole-keeps-you-fascinated.html Telegraph review] [http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/may/08/simon-armitage-the-last-days-of-troy-lily-cole-homer Guardian review]

CHARITY WORK "Cole supports a variety of humanitarian and environmental causes..."

To this section there are several notes to be made:

  1. She is not an ambassador for Global Angels.
  2. She is only a patron for the Environmental Justice Foundation. *
  3. The plaster cast bust was probably recent when someone wrote it here,

but it isn't recent now.

“Lily Cole is the founder of socially networked <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking> gift economy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy> website, impossible.com <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible.com>; a website that promotes requests for and offering of gifts and assistance.^[69] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-69>

Great this addition has been made, but “charity work” is probably not the right place for it. I would suggest creation a section titled either 'social business' or 'entrepreneurship' to include Lily's much more important activities in that space, including co-founding thenorthcircular.com <http://thenorthcircular.com/> in 2009, wildrubber.com <http://wildrubber.com/> in 2014 as a development of Sky Rainforest Rescue campaign and co-bought ClaireDeRouenbooks.com <http://clairederouenbooks.com/> in 2012

And Impossible itself is of course a social business, not a charity.

ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNING

"Cole is an ally for Western Shoshone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Shoshone>, an environmental group which specializes in work to halt gold and diamond mining, which is alleged to displace indigenous peoples worldwide and alleged to create excessive amounts of mining waste and toxins.^[70] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-70> ^[71] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-Crousillat-71> “

Lily has never even heard of Western Shoshone.

“...introduced the range to various prestigious retailers including Dover Street Market <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_Street_Market>, London, where it is still being sold.^[72] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-72> “

The jewelry is no longer being sold there.

" from which 5% of all profits, and all of Cole's, are donated to the Environmental Justice Foundation.^[77] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Cole#cite_note-north_circular-77> “

As they haven’t made any profit yet so this isn’t exactly true. Probably best to change this to 'will be donated'.

The photos very out of date too. We will upload some newer ones under a creative commons license and notify you here when they are available for review.

Elviemaxwell (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elvie. I see some other editors have made some of the changes you suggested, and I am working to finish the rest. With regard to Lily's association with the Western Shoshone, there are many reliable sources reporting that association. I'm afraid that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for biographical facts. If Lily were to make some kind of public statement saying that she was not associated with the Western Shoshone, that would be sufficient to change the article, or at least clarify her position. Thanks! Partial To Possums (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you ! I agree there are many sources saying that Lily is associated with Western Shoshone, however I have struggled to find out exactly who/what they are. I also question how credible 'Frisky' and 'Glam' are. The two sources you quote are in fact using an identical story published in two different places! With regards to Lily making a public statement, would it be acceptable for her to do this via twitter or another social media? Also we would like to give the link to Lily's personal website (lilycole.com). Can this be added to external links? And where should I upload alternative pictures? Thank you for your help. Elviemaxwell (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how credible "Glam" or "Frisky" are either, but just doing a search on Google shows that Elle (magazine), TreeHugger, Contact Music, and even the National Portrait Gallery say the same thing. By the way, I'm just one of many thousands of Wikipedia editors and I don't know who chose to use "Frisky" and "Glam" as sources instead of more well-known ones. For the public statement, I personally think Twitter would be fine, but many editors seem to have a problem with it for sourcing, perhaps because the statements are necessarily so short. Given Lily's support for similar causes such as the Yawanawá people, I expect that this might keep getting added to her bio. If she does post something on Twitter, please post a link to it here. I have added Lily's site link. Please upload any images to commons.wikimedia.org. Thanks! Partial To Possums (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wiki people, this is Elvie Maxwell again. Lily has now tweeted that she has no relationship to the western shoshone organisation: https://twitter.com/lilycole/status/628604475083780096

Regarding her measurements, she no longer works as a model so is this really appropriate content? Additionally they are wildly and quite unhealthily inaccurate.

I have images to upload which have a creative commons licence, what do i do in detail? thanks, Elvie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.89.34.148 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming of children

Please read up on WP:BLPNAME before contantly adding the name of the child. It adds nothing to the article - wikipedia is not an offshoot of Heat or Hello - and as stated in BLPNAME - "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." My emphasis. Please comment here before re-adding. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources for the name of the child. Lily COle's website currently has the full name included in a blog post on her website and annouced the birth on social media, so there's no reason to believe that she wants it kept secret. I have added a better source to what was already in the article. I hope this satisfies everyone's concerns. Partial To Possums (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lily Cole. 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: 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) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Lily Cole. 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: 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) 12:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lily Cole. 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: 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) 08:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lily Cole. 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: 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) 22:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to add theatre references

Hello, I work for Lily Cole and would like to suggest that we include her stage acting on her wikipedia page. I have been told in the past not to make edits myself as it could be seen as a conflict of interest. She was in The Old Vic’s 24 Hour Plays in November 2011 and again in November 2013. She also starred in The Philanthropist at the Trafalgar Studios last year. There are many articles online that can be used to support these - would you like me to provide some links?

It also inaccurately says that Lily is still an ambassador for Global Angels. We would like to correct this as it is being repeated in articles about Lily. She is no longer an ambassador and they have changed their website to show this for us - https://globalangels.org/angels/coutts/

Please let me know if there is anything else I should do - I am not very familiar with wikipedia! Thanks

ElvieMaxwell (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lily_Cole/Archive_1&oldid=1164983217"