Talk:Alicia Silverstone/Archive 2

Latest edits
Alright, can we stop battling over this edit? I just looked up the change of Daniel Sullivan -> Donald Margulies, and it turns out that Margulies is the correct answer. The play was written by Margulies and directed by Sullivan, and the way the sentence is written it seems to suggest writer over director. I added a source to back that up. Other than that, it's really just slight differences in semantics, no? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits about her site
Okay look, we can't keep going back and forth like this. Our anonymous editor is going to violate WP:3RR pretty soon, and that's made all the more complicated by the fact that theirs is a dynamic IP. I'm trying to decide whether or not I like the inclusion of the text about the site. On the one hand, it is related to the book so it's not just trivia. On the other hand, the text being added is pretty WP:POV. Is there anything really wrong with saying something like "She launched a website in conjunction with the book" or something like that? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK sorry new to this wiki stuff - how about just a change to say she launched The Kind Diet and associated its associated vegan website in October 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.217.154 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source first. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as the source fails WP:RS and WP:BLP. See the discussion above on this very topic and how we resolved it then by finding a good source. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think this deserves a bigger section in her page? She's written a book that's been on best seller's lists and updates a related website regularly? I don't think one line give this justice - it's been a big part of her career! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.254.207 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, one book versus her whole acting career? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it deserves more mention in the article, we need more references. I've searched, and haven't yet found anything that meets WP:RS yet. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it, and I think it would be okay to use a primary source just to state that the site exists. If nothing else, it would stop this petty revert war that doesn't have indication of stopping. I don't really think it's trivia to state that inasmuch as it's related to the book. Having said that, I don't support adding anything more than that. Thoughts? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to add that "The Kind Diet" has topped the New York Times Best Sellers List? Do you think this is significant enough for a mention? 217.42.113.163 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Elektra Luxx
She was due to be in this, but looks like her part was cut? Maybe expanded in third film? How should this be explained on her page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.159.114 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Voice of Compassion award
I've twice removed this edit for a number of reasons. For one, the award doesn't seem particularly notable. Inclusion of this doesn't seem to be much more than WP:TRIVIA, and it's pretty heavy on WP:POV. On top of all that, the source given fails WP:RS, and per the biography of living persons criteria, everything in these sort of articles needs to be well sourced. Get a better source and we can discuss its inclusion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal life and political convictions
This area needs tidied up - certain things are irrelevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.85.208 (talk • contribs) 14:42, April 13, 2010
 * I assume you've taken care of any issues you did with these edits? Or are there other things you're unhappy with? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this section reads better now, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.84.234 (talk • contribs) 18:07, April 13, 2010
 * First, sign your comments; just put four tildes ( ~ ) after whatever you write. Makes it a lot easier to follow. Second, I guess it's better, but I made some changes. IMDb can't be used as a reference as it may not be reliable. Also, I don't like having an unqualified sentence that she may want to write a book. Who cares?; it's just WP:TRIVIA. I'm not happy about the Voice of Compassion award as it's not a reliable source, but whatever. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Where was IMDb used as a reference? Don't think I used it.81.131.84.234 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Saving some speedy-reverted content
Saving some speedy-reverted content. Maybe should be reintroduced into the article. Remember, WP:NOTCENSORED In 2007, Silverstone appeared nude in a print advertisement and 30-second commercial for PETA championing vegetarianism; the TV spot was subsequently pulled from the Houston, Texas, market by Comcast Cable. --Dc987 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a significant incident, and the picture doesn't aid in understanding in any way. Indeed, lots of actresses have posed nude at one time or another. The picture seems to be in the article solely because she's nude. 75.208.150.204 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Babysitter: The Movie
Entry here states Silverstone's movie, The Babysitter, was from a novel by Dean Koontz. Wiki entry for the movie states it's from a story by Robert Coover. I read the story long ago; & the movie is close to that story, but I know nothing of Dean Koontz, so I can't etch here in Wikistone that the movie's not based on something by him. Anyone hip to this? 138.162.128.53 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained changes
The article seem really correct as it is now, the changes made really shouldn't be reversed, the article as it is now should be used as the basis for any new changes. Everything is properly sourced, I don't understand who would not consider that it had not been improved, the quality is much much better now with all the new infos added, in my opinion reversing the changes should almost be considered vandalism.... JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion.
 * You'll have to explain your preferences better.
 * I see absolutely no reason to change the image to an older, poorer quality one.
 * I see no reason to add considerable more details on her siblings and childhood, especially when sourced by a publication whose standards don't include providing publication dates.
 * I can't see justification for promoting The Crush to a higher level of prominence in the article.
 * contactmusic.com is not a source suitable for a WP:BLP.
 * I carefully want over all the edits, and folded back in ones that were an improvement to the article. Simply reverting them without comment is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ronz on this one. The quality of those edits was really not good, and sort of turned this into a fansite. We don't need to have the birthdate of her kid, for example. Text like "She claimed in a 2010 interview that she still get recognized "every single day" for that movie: "It's never been a bother", she say, "I have nothing but joy when somebody says they love that movie." is just unnecessary. Claims like "...director Marty Callner tought that Alicia Silverstone..." are unsourced.
 * As a side note, I find it curious that in this edit, JMB-HappyMonkey328 says "I usually don't bother reverting my changes when they're not accepted" - but that editor only has four edits... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For one thing I'm the user who made a lot of changes under IP adress 216.137.105.168 on April 9 2012, for some reasons I rarely contribute anything so I didn't feel the need to register before. I tried to contribute something and if someone doesn't see that for 90% of it the final version of what I wrote is overall much better than what is currently written I'm not even going to open a can of worm and lose anymore time trying to justify myself, the problem is too fundamental. At least I have the possiblity to keep a copy of the article as I left it for my own use without distributing it. It's the whole debate of "artistic sense" VS having something purely practical. I love reading Wikipedia, but doing any modifications are always a total nightmare and so much frustrations that I never do it, I prefer contributing money. JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted a revert that reintroduced false information.
 * Silverstone is the youngest of three children and also has a half-sister, London-based rock singer Kezi Silverstone, and a half-brother, David Silverstone, both from her father's previous marriage.


 * That link doesn't say she is the youngest of three with a half sister. It says has a brother and a half sister, and that's it.   D r e a m Focus  07:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * About the different versions. It should mention her life and career, how she moved in with her manager.
 * At that age she moved into her manager's Hollywood home so she could concentrate on a show business career . 


 * Any reason to try to remove that bit? And what's wrong with the quote of her showing just how notable the movie Clueless was to her life, she still recognized every day for it.
 * She claimed in a 2010 interview that she still get recognized "every single day" for that movie: "It's never been a bother", she say, "I have nothing but joy when somebody says they love that movie."   D r e a m Focus  07:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see more things in the old version than the new one version that should be removed.
 * She suffered further bad press for allegedly striking a pedestrian with her vehicle in a crosswalk. 


 * How is this relevant in any possible way? Something minor happens to a famous person, it gets some passive coverage.  I don't see how that's important enough to get mention.   D r e a m Focus  07:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The original version had a claim about her using a ghost writer for her book. A much reduced version of the slanderous claim was in the edit JMB-HappyMonkey328 made, but still unsourced to any reliable sources.  Only one site, which seems to be a blog, is referenced.  I searched Google news archive search for "Alicia Silverstone" AND "ghost writer" and don't see any reliable sources appearing at all, just that one blog.  So I just removed it entirely.   D r e a m Focus  08:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it again, as none of my nor HelloAnnyong's concerns have been addressed so far. Once again, I'll try to fold in any improvements. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

--Ronz (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to her as "Silverstone" rather than "Alicia Silverstone": I've left it as "Silverstone" Can someone check the relevant guidelines?
 * Birthday of her child: I've left it per HelloAnnyong's concerns.
 * "animal rights and environmental activist" in lede: I don't believe we have a source demonstrating it deserves such prominence.
 * The_Crush_(1993_film) in lede: Left out per my concern that has yet to be addressed.
 * Birthplace of her father: Seems to be undue weight, even if it wasn't sourced only by his website.
 * I've removed the details about her siblings. I cannot find sources that verify either version. She definitely has a half-sister, Kezi. David appears to be her full brother. I can't verify any other siblings. Anyone have time to investigate further?
 * I've removed the mention of having a ghostwriter for the book. Good catch.
 * The mention of Wonder Years in Early Life is redundant and doesn't segue well. The 1990s section needs more sources. The summary paragraph before the 1990s section is awkward at that location, is unsourced, and includes trivia.
 * The InterfaithFamily.com source is poor - it doesn't include a publication date that I could find. Without better sources, I think we should be extremely careful when using it, if at all. Hence, I don't think we should mention moving into her manager's Hollywood home, nor additional details about her early childhood.
 * I agree with HelloAnnyong that we shouldn't mention her claim of being recognized every day for Clueless.
 * I removed the info about the crosswalk accident per the comments above.


 * Most of what you just mentioned removing was stuff that you personally added back in with a revert. What BLP issues are there exactly?  Do you honestly believe her father is lying about being born in London?  Primary sources are fine if there is absolutely no possible reason to doubt them.  The animal rights thing is obvious, since she is the spokesperson for PETA.  In the film Love Labor's Lost she made them use fake furs and fake feathers.  She had done interviews about animal rights.  Google news archive news search for her name and "animal rights activists" and you get reliable sources straight away saying that.  That's why if you doubt something, just tag it for "citation needed" if you don't believe its so obvious that it doesn't need one.  Take a few seconds to find and place one.  And there is ample coverage out there about David and Kezi being her half brother and half sister.  A quick Google news archive search for her and their names will show that.  Toronto Star is a reliable source.  Mentioned elsewhere at times separately of course.   D r e a m Focus  17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please address the concerns, propose new sources, or ask for elaboration.
 * "Do you honestly believe her father is lying..." I don't believe anyone mentioned he was lying. Why bring up such an assumption? As I indicated, I think it's undue weight. This article is about Alicia, not her father.
 * I don't have the time currently to dig for more sources, hence my questions. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't have time to look for sources, then you shouldn't have time to edit the article. I restored the part about her siblings and the animal rights thing.   I also believe in listing the dates of the films she was in, not saying "mid 90's" since there is no reason to be so vague.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you don't have time to look for sources..." Funny, I don't recall that being in any policy or guideline. I do recall a few saying just the opposite.
 * Please address the concerns, provide more references, or ask for clarification. Thanks!
 * To the lede I've folded in the dates of the movies as suggested, trimmed the info under dispute, improved the grammar, and removed the mention of being Batgirl in the movie. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed information which is true and replaced it with nonsense.  She was famous for the Crush, getting a lot of attention on MTV movie awards and whatnot, before she got famous for the Aerosmith videos.  And you already stated criticism of interfaithfamily as a source, so why did you add it back in?  Kindly stop edit warring nonsense.   D r e a m Focus  10:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. What is "true" that was removed and what sources are you providing to verify the information? What is "nonsense" and why do you feel it is so?
 * "She was famous for the Crush" I take it that saying "She was" is a mistake on your part? Please provide sources that clearly demonstrate The Crush deserves such weight.
 * interfaithfamily is questionable - I'd rather not rely on it, and certainly be extremely careful with how we use it. In contrast, as I stated earlier, contactmusic.com should not be used at all.
 * No sources have been offered to support the prominence of her activism in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't bother looking for them. Very easy to find.  I just added some.  Thanks for putting citation needed tags this time around instead of mindlessly deleting information.  If you don't like any of the refs I found, just check Google news archive and you can easily find a lot more.   D r e a m Focus  17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is Stale. There may be open issues here, but probably best to start new discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

pictures used
Pictures of her from her first movie, the Crush, and what made her most famous, Clueless, would make sense. Or from the music videos. Also the picture of her on the cover of her book perhaps, or one from her official website. The image there now from 2005 I see no reason for. Don't think the other two in the article look that great either.  D r e a m Focus  13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All such images would be non-free and thus would need to pass all ten criteria of that policy; the images in the article now are free images. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This has gone Stale. Would someone like to find new images for discussion? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential refs

 * http://www.biography.com/people/alicia-silverstone-240974 --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if some of this was copied from an earlier version of this article. I'd rather we had better sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great find. Notice the part where it says OCCUPATION: Animal Rights Activist, Film Actress.  Kindly stop removing that from the article.   D r e a m Focus  10:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a respectable channel like that would copy from the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article was perhaps copied from it.  Did that version of the article appear in one large chunk as though it was copied over, or was it written and added to over time?   D r e a m Focus  15:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that it's not in the lede. However, I think it's just a copy of an old version of this article, not inappropriate.
 * I've removed per WP:BLP. It contains the very information that everyone here disputes: "Alicia Silverstone is the youngest of three children and also has a half-brother and half-sister from her father??s previous marriage." --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.allmovie.com/artist/alicia-silverstone-p65707
 * Used by MTV and NYTimes --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Resolved then? AllMovie is now a ref, the Biography article is not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight of animal rights and environmental activist in lede
It's undue weight in the lede. The article doesn't demonstrate such prominence, nor the sources. Of the three provided to the lede, two are primary and not independent. The third is a puff-piece. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears no one wants to bother addressing the BLP and NPOV problems of not having reliable independent source that demonstrate such weight is warrented. Time to take them out then? --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. We've overwhelming consensus here and BLP places the burden on editors wishing to restore material. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "overwhelming consensus here"? You have no one agreeing with you, and one person disagreeing with you on that.  One other person reverted my revert of your edits with "Shouldn't readd that until it is resolved at talk".  So there is certainly no "overwhelming consensus".  We need more opinions on this.   D r e a m Focus  19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "BLP places the burden on editors wishing to restore material." See WP:DEADHORSE. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what I was talking about. I was commenting on your misleading claim there was "overwhelming consensus".   D r e a m Focus  21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you seem to like focusing on editors, WikiLawyer, and use this article as a battleground. It looks very bad given your recent block. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on your misleading comment. Stop twisting things around.  You appear to have a regular pattern of accusing people of attacking you.  Even Jimbo Wales, founder of the Wikipedia, criticized your behavior last month, you then removing his message with the edit summary "harassment".   Kindly stop accusing other people of being against you and focus on the actual issue here.   D r e a m Focus  21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel the need to disrupt this article so. Continue, and we can work on getting you blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I suppose to feel threatened by that? You were warned of your behaviour by many people including the founder of Wikipedia himself.  Now kindly stop your pointless threats and focus on the issues at hand.   D r e a m Focus  22:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think animals rights is covered widely enough and is long term enough to be put in the lead. Environmental I'm undecided on.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about all the coverage of her book, it even on the NYT bestsellers list. Any objection towards saying Alicia Silverstone is an American actress, author, and animal rights activists.   D r e a m Focus  21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources have already been found and hordes more are easy to find. If everyone but you says its fine, then its fine, follow consensus.  If the information in the article has sources already good enough to keep it there, then no reason to have to find different sources for the lead.   D r e a m Focus  21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No sources identified, no changes. "BLP places the burden on editors wishing to restore material." Consensus is not a vote. We don't overrule policies and guidelines on the whims of editors. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources have been identified and were even in the article, such as her interview in that woman's magazine. There is no policy or guideline being overwhelmed here.   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The three mentioned at the very beginning of this discussion are: Those are two primary sources and a puff-piece, as mentioned at the start of this discussion. The first two don't verify the information. The third gives more weight to recipes than information about Silverstone. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * her official website has a section about the environment she talking about helping it
 * her official website has a section about the environment she talking about helping it
 * So you didn't consider this "puff piece" to be a legitimate source, but then added an even shorter article as a reference for the information you wanted there instead.  Looks like a brief announcement and nothing else.  I see nothing wrong with the article in Women's Health Magazine, they interviewing her and all.  And PETA is a fine source to prove someone is an animal rights activist, since that is their thing, that's what they do.   D r e a m Focus  17:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You also added in one article from UPI while dismissing or ignoring what the other articles found on that same reliable source said, as discussed thoroughly in the section below Prominence of Clueless in her life. I'm hoping more people show up to state their opinions on this.   D r e a m Focus  17:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's a brief announcement, it demonstrates the importance of Clueless to her life.
 * PETA doesn't verify the information, and doesn't establish it as something important to Silverstone. It's important to PETA.
 * We're not going to add every piece of information ever printed in a short interview to the lede of this article. What information we do choose to add should be indisputably important to her life in a broad context. Hence my repeated searches for detailed biographies and sources not biased with recentism or hype.
 * "You also added in one article from UPI while dismissing or ignoring..." We don't simply say a source is reliable based upon the publisher. Take this to WP:RSN, it's talk page, or the talk page for WP:RS if you don't believe me. Notice at RSN that they request a great deal more from editors about a source rather than just the publisher when it comes to determining if it reliable or not. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)So do you dispute that her animal rights activity is important to her life? She talks about being a vegan and animal rights for years now. So its not recentism. And doing a commercial for PETA about animal rights, does establish she is an animal rights activist. Most of her life isn't based around Clueless, as debated in another section in detail already.   D r e a m Focus  17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You can not accept one thing from a source, while dismissing other things from that same source. Either its a reliable source or it isn't.   D r e a m Focus  17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * At the ANI I started because of your behavior I brought this issue up. Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia and thus a guy who knows more about the rules than anyone else, says to me: Having read over that discussion, you are clearly in the right. He's engaging in an inappropriate synthesis by systematically excluding sources that don't support his views. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)   Please read WP:Synthesis.  I'm putting the information back as it was.   D r e a m Focus  21:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI is not a venue for content disputes. Is that all this is about? You can't make a case for changing the article the way you personally want, so you go to ANI?
 * Consensus is not achieved by finding someone who agrees with you, then stating that that opinion overrules everything else.
 * It is also quite ironic given the PETA reference is being used to cite something it doesn't say, and that this was already brought up as a problem. I've tagged it as original research.
 * Also, please don't removed sourced information from an article, especially when there are multiple sources and the information is not in doubt in any way. Some might consider that vandalism or a npov violation. Regardless, it in no way improves this article. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Others have had problems with you in the past. Your behavior is simply not acceptable.  And you violated WP:SYNTHESIS.  You can't just selectively quote what you want, and ignore other things you don't want to hear.   D r e a m Focus  23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ad-hominems don't make a case for changing content here, nor for changing consensus, nor for meeting the burden of a BLP.
 * The only way any content disputes are going to be resolved is by focusing on content, our policies and guidelines, and on the sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the complaints that others had made before and decided this was a long term pattern of abuse, so I then filed a complaint. That has nothing to do with the discussion about this particular issue thought.  You are violating WP:SYNTHESIS.  Please respond to that claim and don't change the subject.   D r e a m Focus  23:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "You are violating WP:SYNTHESIS" You'll have to elaborate how that might be.
 * Will you be explaining how the use of the PETA reference is not given it doesn't verify the information and is a primary, self-published source? Perhaps comparing that whatever you think I did wrong, when you're finally able to do so, is clearly a violation, while the other is not? --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The PETA reference is gone now, something else up there. There are ample mentions of her animal rights activities.  I assumed it was common sense that if you freely did commercials for the largest best known animal rights organization in the world, that you had to be into animal rights.  But whatever.  Two people already said you were violating synthesis in picking just one article that said what you wanted, and ignoring everything else.  I see no reason for the mention of Clueless to be in the lead at all.  Hopefully more editors will arrive and share their opinions.   D r e a m Focus  23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been Resolved with new references. There is related discussion on the lede in general below. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy of old lede 05:47, 12 April 2012
The tagged version, prior to removal was: --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone (born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, animal rights and environmental activist.

Removal of movies and Aerosmith from lede 16:50, 11 April 2012
The movies and mention of Aerosmith was removed here. The prior version was: --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone (born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, animal rights and environmental activist and former fashion model. She first came to widespread attention in music videos for Aerosmith, and her highest-profile roles to date have been in the films The Crush (1993), Clueless (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997).

Introduction of animal rights activist to lede 06:08, 9 April 2012
"Animal rights activist" was added to the lede here. The prior version had been very few changes for many years:

Alicia Silverstone (born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, and former fashion model. She first came to widespread attention in music videos for Aerosmith, and her highest-profile roles to date have been in three 90s films, 1993 The Crush, 1995 Clueless and 1997 Batman & Robin, as Batgirl.


 * Do you have a point to all of this?   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over whether she is an animal rights activist
Will other people please talk to this person. I see no way to reason with them. If a well known animal rights organization like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says you are an animal rights activist, and makes you their spokesperson, and you do commercials for them, etc. etc., it should be common sense.  D r e a m Focus  19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that says that she is a spokesperson for PETA. She appeared in an ad and commercial - that doesn't make her a spokesperson, but rather part of a campaign. Like the other person says, your claims are undue. Nymf hideliho! 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By your logic, they have a lot of spokespeople. Nymf hideliho! 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She has been called their spokesperson. They have more than one, which they refer to by that title.  Google news archive search doesn't include all the articles from years ago when this happened.  I'll looking now.  Anyway, she is clearly an animal rights activist.  Is there any sincere doubt about that whatsoever?   D r e a m Focus  20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in doubt until reliable sources independent of the subject are provided. This is a WP:BLP, not a fansite or means of promotion. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So her talking about animal rights in all the commercials and interviews and on her website, doesn't eliminate any doubt you have on whether or not she is an animal rights activist?  D r e a m Focus  20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * I'm trying to follow WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, etc in order to determine what information we add and what prominence with give to it. As I've pointed out multiple time now, we simply don't have the sources demonstrating that it deserves such prominence. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Google news archive search for "Alicia Silverstone" along with "Animal rights" OR "PETA" and you get 1,130 results. That's more news results than searching for her name with most of her movies or mention or the Aerosmith videos.  She is known as an animal rights person.  It needs to be there.   D r e a m Focus  22:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't use search results to determine weight in an article. --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't about "prominence", its about the "undue weight" tags. I don't believe there is any reasonable doubt she is an animal rights activist.  The tags are pointless.   D r e a m Focus  00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try not to use the word "prominence" if it is confusing the issue.
 * I've updated the section heading accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring with me over the title of this section. You know better than to edit someone's post.  You want to add in useless tags that have absolutely no possible reason to be there.  I want them removed.  More opinions please.  Should the tags remain or go?   D r e a m Focus  01:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless she's doing little more than advocating for animal rights or environmentalism, or has made some particularly noteworthy contribution (per Clooney's recent testimony & arrest), IMO, putting it in the lead is undue.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She gets ample coverage for her nude PETA commercial, as well as for her protesting NASA use of monkeys for experiments which, along with a few other famous names, got them to agree to stop doing that. Ample television interviews she has done mentioning her social causes.   D r e a m Focus  16:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was never disputed that she is an animal rights activist, so we're done here I think. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An aside on proper use of this talk page
WP:TALK states:
 * "Before starting a new discussion, ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic. Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic."
 * I realize there was an edit-conflict. However, there are not two discussions. They should be placed under one heading. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page."
 * "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant."

Can we agree to these and to following WP:TALK in general? --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your discussion was about something else, you talking about prominence, whether it should be listed or not. My section is about the unsightly tags you put there for "undue weight" and should they be removed or not, and you edit warring with me to keep putting them back in.  My section title is thus valid.   D r e a m Focus  01:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Can we agree?" Can we?
 * I'm sorry, but I clearly started my comments with, "It's undue weight in the lede." I've since made it clear what I've meant by "prominence." Why are we wasting time with this? --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you like to drag things out in long bits of nonsense apparently. Don't change my heading.  I'm ignoring yours.  Hopefully others will come and post their opinions on the subject of the tags.   D r e a m Focus  02:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're ignoring discussion? I guess then there's no reason to leave the information in the article. After all, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring your section above my section is what I meant. You don't seem to be looking at the sources and reasoning I have provided on this talk page, so reasoning with you about this obvious issue seems pointless to try.  I'll post at the biography wikiproject to bring in additional opinions on this.   D r e a m Focus  08:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Prominence of Clueless in her life
Before I add back mention of Clueless to the lede, how many sources do we need to keep it there? I've been looking for clearly reliable biographies about her, but the best I've found is AllMovie. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it to the lede. The movie is overwhelmingly associated with her and her with it. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any references saying that's what she is best known for, or is that just your opinion? She has gotten ample coverage for The Crush and the Aerosmith videos before Clueless, and ample coverage for things after that.  That isn't the thing that made her famous.   D r e a m Focus  16:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "how many sources do we need to keep it there?" --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source that says she is better known for that than other things? Otherwise, its original research to say this one thing is more important than other things that got ample coverage before or after then.   D r e a m Focus  18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many sources available. I'm starting a list below. Again, how many do we need? The problem isn't finding them, it's going through all the puff-pieces on her. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Batman and Robin made $238,207,122 at the box office. Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed made 	$181,466,833.  Clueless only made $56,631,572.  So how is she best known for Clueless than other films she has played a staring role in?  Far more people saw her as Batgirl than as Cher, so isn't she better known for that?   D r e a m Focus  18:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Box office sales have absolutely no bearing on how well-known she is for a role. Making such claims would by a BLP and SYN violation.
 * However, they do have a bearing on the amount of press at the time. Hence my searching for biographies, which give historical perspective. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/21/television-silverstone-dc-idUSN2139214420080421 --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2009/07/21/Silverstone-returning-to-Broadway/UPI-71381248208005/ --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://collider.com/hugh-jackman-joins-the-cast-of-butter/22038/ --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't use this, as it's mostly just a press release. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BxFHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z_MMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1394,3927673&dq=alicia+silverstone+best-known&hl=en --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * UPI also has another bit about her, published more recently. Silverstone is best known for her work in the films "The Crush," "Clueless," "Blast from the Past" and "Excess Baggage," as well as the music videos for Aerosmith's hits "Cryin,'" "Amazing" and "Crazy."   Are we cherry picking results?   D r e a m Focus  19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an article about how she feeds her baby! We should be choosing results that are reliable, independent, and not tabloid-trash! --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its the same news source you link to. If they talk about something you like, then its reliable, and if not you consider it tabloid trash.    D r e a m Focus  19:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence my concern for finding even better sources. We don't mindlessly choose references based only upon the reputation of the publisher. --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are cherry picking things then? The article is fine if it says what you want it to, but not if you don't.  And that news story of her feeding her baby was in many major sources.    D r e a m Focus  19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you should read WP:CHERRY.  D r e a m Focus  20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A baseless accusation, and disruptive to this talk page. Please be mindful of WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You state that one article from that news source is reliable, but not the information in another. Sounds like that violates WP:CHERRY to me.  You can't dismiss an article you don't like, if its in a reliable source.  Quoting one thing from a reliable source and not another thing from that same news source because you don't like what it says, is clearly bias, as mentioned in WP:CHERRY.   D r e a m Focus  20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors are encouraged to evaluate references and potential references against our policies and guidelines, especially when it comes to BLPs. Poor sources should not be included in BLPs. "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." This is not cherry-picking, or any sort of bias other than a bias toward improving this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So its your personal opinion then? Sounds like cherrypicking to me.  Here is another place on that site  that says Silverstone is best known for her work in the films "Clueless," "Excess Baggage," "Batman and Robin" and "Blast From the Past." And then again at  Silverstone is best known for her work in the film "Clueless" and TV's "Miss Match." Plus she is mentioned for various things on that website, all over the place, if you want to sort through other search results.  Are any of these not as legitimate as the one you wish to quote from on that site?   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this comment by Ronz:

"First, it's an essay. Second, it's an essay about coatracking. Can I assume there is no dispute about any major coatrack problems with Alicia Silverstone? Third, any real cherry-picking problem is an issue of WP:NPOV and related policies and guidelines. Fourth, the discussion is about including mention of Clueless into the lede of the article, nothing more, so cherry-picking of sources seems irrelevant: No one is disputing that Silverstone is very, very strongly associated with Clueless."
 * The problem is listing one thing from a source, but not other things. If at least two other films she was in made far more money, and multiple reliable sources mention she is best known for other things as well, then why not list these other things also?   D r e a m Focus  21:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The collider article you link to says Alicia Silverstone is best known for her roles in Hollywood films such as Clueless and her portrayal of Batgirl in Batman & Robin. Her performances have garnered Emmy and Golden Globe nominations and she also won National Board of Review. To top it all off, she is also a New York Times bestselling author! Different films of hers are listed where news sources use the phrase "best known". But as I mentioned in a section above, she gets coverage for a lot of different things she has done. Why not just say she is an actress, bestselling writer, and animal rights activists? She getting coverage for all of these things.  D r e a m Focus  19:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the collider has additional information. Hence my request asking how many do we need to get mention of Clueless to remain in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since most of the material from the collider article is just a press release, we shouldn't use it to determine weight. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Clueless doesn't belong in the lede. We're done with this topic then. If you have other concerns, please clearly state them in another section. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer my question and stop dodging it. Why do you wish to include one thing she is known for and not others?   D r e a m Focus  21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the discussion on the topic I started is long done. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can stop responding to it, but that doesn't end it. You still haven't answered why you believe you can list one of the things she is notable for, and not others.   D r e a m Focus  21:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from 3O. A Google News search pops up a lot more mentions of Alicia in connection with "Clueless" than her portrayal of Batgirl. Given that mentions of her tend to be "that chick from Clueless" I think this is a sign it is her most prominent role. However, I think Darkness did a good rewrite of the lede mention. At the same time, the lede is rather thin at the moment. There is no reason why it cannot mention any other prominent roles she has had.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4,020 results for "alicia silverstone" "clueless" and About 10,000 results "alicia silverstone" -clueless.  But is she best known because people mention her in the searchable news results than any other single film?  As I pointed out before, Batman and Robin made $238,207,122 at the box office.  Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed made $181,466,833.  Clueless only made $56,631,572.  More people saw her in other movies and would know her from there perhaps.  There is no absolute way to prove what she is best known for, and putting that in the lead serves no purpose that I can see.   D r e a m Focus  00:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits
Alright, can we stop battling over this edit? I just looked up the change of Daniel Sullivan -> Donald Margulies, and it turns out that Margulies is the correct answer. The play was written by Margulies and directed by Sullivan, and the way the sentence is written it seems to suggest writer over director. I added a source to back that up. Other than that, it's really just slight differences in semantics, no? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits about her site
Okay look, we can't keep going back and forth like this. Our anonymous editor is going to violate WP:3RR pretty soon, and that's made all the more complicated by the fact that theirs is a dynamic IP. I'm trying to decide whether or not I like the inclusion of the text about the site. On the one hand, it is related to the book so it's not just trivia. On the other hand, the text being added is pretty WP:POV. Is there anything really wrong with saying something like "She launched a website in conjunction with the book" or something like that? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK sorry new to this wiki stuff - how about just a change to say she launched The Kind Diet and associated its associated vegan website in October 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.217.154 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source first. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, as the source fails WP:RS and WP:BLP. See the discussion above on this very topic and how we resolved it then by finding a good source. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think this deserves a bigger section in her page? She's written a book that's been on best seller's lists and updates a related website regularly? I don't think one line give this justice - it's been a big part of her career! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.254.207 (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, one book versus her whole acting career? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it deserves more mention in the article, we need more references. I've searched, and haven't yet found anything that meets WP:RS yet. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it, and I think it would be okay to use a primary source just to state that the site exists. If nothing else, it would stop this petty revert war that doesn't have indication of stopping. I don't really think it's trivia to state that inasmuch as it's related to the book. Having said that, I don't support adding anything more than that. Thoughts? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to add that "The Kind Diet" has topped the New York Times Best Sellers List? Do you think this is significant enough for a mention? 217.42.113.163 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Elektra Luxx
She was due to be in this, but looks like her part was cut? Maybe expanded in third film? How should this be explained on her page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.159.114 (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Voice of Compassion award
I've twice removed this edit for a number of reasons. For one, the award doesn't seem particularly notable. Inclusion of this doesn't seem to be much more than WP:TRIVIA, and it's pretty heavy on WP:POV. On top of all that, the source given fails WP:RS, and per the biography of living persons criteria, everything in these sort of articles needs to be well sourced. Get a better source and we can discuss its inclusion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal life and political convictions
This area needs tidied up - certain things are irrelevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.85.208 (talk • contribs) 14:42, April 13, 2010
 * I assume you've taken care of any issues you did with these edits? Or are there other things you're unhappy with? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this section reads better now, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.84.234 (talk • contribs) 18:07, April 13, 2010
 * First, sign your comments; just put four tildes ( ~ ) after whatever you write. Makes it a lot easier to follow. Second, I guess it's better, but I made some changes. IMDb can't be used as a reference as it may not be reliable. Also, I don't like having an unqualified sentence that she may want to write a book. Who cares?; it's just WP:TRIVIA. I'm not happy about the Voice of Compassion award as it's not a reliable source, but whatever. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Where was IMDb used as a reference? Don't think I used it.81.131.84.234 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Saving some speedy-reverted content
Saving some speedy-reverted content. Maybe should be reintroduced into the article. Remember, WP:NOTCENSORED In 2007, Silverstone appeared nude in a print advertisement and 30-second commercial for PETA championing vegetarianism; the TV spot was subsequently pulled from the Houston, Texas, market by Comcast Cable. --Dc987 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a significant incident, and the picture doesn't aid in understanding in any way. Indeed, lots of actresses have posed nude at one time or another. The picture seems to be in the article solely because she's nude. 75.208.150.204 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Babysitter: The Movie
Entry here states Silverstone's movie, The Babysitter, was from a novel by Dean Koontz. Wiki entry for the movie states it's from a story by Robert Coover. I read the story long ago; & the movie is close to that story, but I know nothing of Dean Koontz, so I can't etch here in Wikistone that the movie's not based on something by him. Anyone hip to this? 138.162.128.53 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained changes
The article seem really correct as it is now, the changes made really shouldn't be reversed, the article as it is now should be used as the basis for any new changes. Everything is properly sourced, I don't understand who would not consider that it had not been improved, the quality is much much better now with all the new infos added, in my opinion reversing the changes should almost be considered vandalism.... JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion.
 * You'll have to explain your preferences better.
 * I see absolutely no reason to change the image to an older, poorer quality one.
 * I see no reason to add considerable more details on her siblings and childhood, especially when sourced by a publication whose standards don't include providing publication dates.
 * I can't see justification for promoting The Crush to a higher level of prominence in the article.
 * contactmusic.com is not a source suitable for a WP:BLP.
 * I carefully want over all the edits, and folded back in ones that were an improvement to the article. Simply reverting them without comment is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ronz on this one. The quality of those edits was really not good, and sort of turned this into a fansite. We don't need to have the birthdate of her kid, for example. Text like "She claimed in a 2010 interview that she still get recognized "every single day" for that movie: "It's never been a bother", she say, "I have nothing but joy when somebody says they love that movie." is just unnecessary. Claims like "...director Marty Callner tought that Alicia Silverstone..." are unsourced.
 * As a side note, I find it curious that in this edit, JMB-HappyMonkey328 says "I usually don't bother reverting my changes when they're not accepted" - but that editor only has four edits... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

For one thing I'm the user who made a lot of changes under IP adress 216.137.105.168 on April 9 2012, for some reasons I rarely contribute anything so I didn't feel the need to register before. I tried to contribute something and if someone doesn't see that for 90% of it the final version of what I wrote is overall much better than what is currently written I'm not even going to open a can of worm and lose anymore time trying to justify myself, the problem is too fundamental. At least I have the possiblity to keep a copy of the article as I left it for my own use without distributing it. It's the whole debate of "artistic sense" VS having something purely practical. I love reading Wikipedia, but doing any modifications are always a total nightmare and so much frustrations that I never do it, I prefer contributing money. JMB-HappyMonkey328 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted a revert that reintroduced false information.
 * Silverstone is the youngest of three children and also has a half-sister, London-based rock singer Kezi Silverstone, and a half-brother, David Silverstone, both from her father's previous marriage.


 * That link doesn't say she is the youngest of three with a half sister. It says has a brother and a half sister, and that's it.   D r e a m Focus  07:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * About the different versions. It should mention her life and career, how she moved in with her manager.
 * At that age she moved into her manager's Hollywood home so she could concentrate on a show business career . 


 * Any reason to try to remove that bit? And what's wrong with the quote of her showing just how notable the movie Clueless was to her life, she still recognized every day for it.
 * She claimed in a 2010 interview that she still get recognized "every single day" for that movie: "It's never been a bother", she say, "I have nothing but joy when somebody says they love that movie."   D r e a m Focus  07:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see more things in the old version than the new one version that should be removed.
 * She suffered further bad press for allegedly striking a pedestrian with her vehicle in a crosswalk. 


 * How is this relevant in any possible way? Something minor happens to a famous person, it gets some passive coverage.  I don't see how that's important enough to get mention.   D r e a m Focus  07:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The original version had a claim about her using a ghost writer for her book. A much reduced version of the slanderous claim was in the edit JMB-HappyMonkey328 made, but still unsourced to any reliable sources.  Only one site, which seems to be a blog, is referenced.  I searched Google news archive search for "Alicia Silverstone" AND "ghost writer" and don't see any reliable sources appearing at all, just that one blog.  So I just removed it entirely.   D r e a m Focus  08:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it again, as none of my nor HelloAnnyong's concerns have been addressed so far. Once again, I'll try to fold in any improvements. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

--Ronz (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Referring to her as "Silverstone" rather than "Alicia Silverstone": I've left it as "Silverstone" Can someone check the relevant guidelines?
 * Birthday of her child: I've left it per HelloAnnyong's concerns.
 * "animal rights and environmental activist" in lede: I don't believe we have a source demonstrating it deserves such prominence.
 * The_Crush_(1993_film) in lede: Left out per my concern that has yet to be addressed.
 * Birthplace of her father: Seems to be undue weight, even if it wasn't sourced only by his website.
 * I've removed the details about her siblings. I cannot find sources that verify either version. She definitely has a half-sister, Kezi. David appears to be her full brother. I can't verify any other siblings. Anyone have time to investigate further?
 * I've removed the mention of having a ghostwriter for the book. Good catch.
 * The mention of Wonder Years in Early Life is redundant and doesn't segue well. The 1990s section needs more sources. The summary paragraph before the 1990s section is awkward at that location, is unsourced, and includes trivia.
 * The InterfaithFamily.com source is poor - it doesn't include a publication date that I could find. Without better sources, I think we should be extremely careful when using it, if at all. Hence, I don't think we should mention moving into her manager's Hollywood home, nor additional details about her early childhood.
 * I agree with HelloAnnyong that we shouldn't mention her claim of being recognized every day for Clueless.
 * I removed the info about the crosswalk accident per the comments above.


 * Most of what you just mentioned removing was stuff that you personally added back in with a revert. What BLP issues are there exactly?  Do you honestly believe her father is lying about being born in London?  Primary sources are fine if there is absolutely no possible reason to doubt them.  The animal rights thing is obvious, since she is the spokesperson for PETA.  In the film Love Labor's Lost she made them use fake furs and fake feathers.  She had done interviews about animal rights.  Google news archive news search for her name and "animal rights activists" and you get reliable sources straight away saying that.  That's why if you doubt something, just tag it for "citation needed" if you don't believe its so obvious that it doesn't need one.  Take a few seconds to find and place one.  And there is ample coverage out there about David and Kezi being her half brother and half sister.  A quick Google news archive search for her and their names will show that.  Toronto Star is a reliable source.  Mentioned elsewhere at times separately of course.   D r e a m Focus  17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please address the concerns, propose new sources, or ask for elaboration.
 * "Do you honestly believe her father is lying..." I don't believe anyone mentioned he was lying. Why bring up such an assumption? As I indicated, I think it's undue weight. This article is about Alicia, not her father.
 * I don't have the time currently to dig for more sources, hence my questions. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't have time to look for sources, then you shouldn't have time to edit the article. I restored the part about her siblings and the animal rights thing.   I also believe in listing the dates of the films she was in, not saying "mid 90's" since there is no reason to be so vague.   D r e a m Focus  23:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you don't have time to look for sources..." Funny, I don't recall that being in any policy or guideline. I do recall a few saying just the opposite.
 * Please address the concerns, provide more references, or ask for clarification. Thanks!
 * To the lede I've folded in the dates of the movies as suggested, trimmed the info under dispute, improved the grammar, and removed the mention of being Batgirl in the movie. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed information which is true and replaced it with nonsense.  She was famous for the Crush, getting a lot of attention on MTV movie awards and whatnot, before she got famous for the Aerosmith videos.  And you already stated criticism of interfaithfamily as a source, so why did you add it back in?  Kindly stop edit warring nonsense.   D r e a m Focus  10:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. What is "true" that was removed and what sources are you providing to verify the information? What is "nonsense" and why do you feel it is so?
 * "She was famous for the Crush" I take it that saying "She was" is a mistake on your part? Please provide sources that clearly demonstrate The Crush deserves such weight.
 * interfaithfamily is questionable - I'd rather not rely on it, and certainly be extremely careful with how we use it. In contrast, as I stated earlier, contactmusic.com should not be used at all.
 * No sources have been offered to support the prominence of her activism in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't bother looking for them. Very easy to find.  I just added some.  Thanks for putting citation needed tags this time around instead of mindlessly deleting information.  If you don't like any of the refs I found, just check Google news archive and you can easily find a lot more.   D r e a m Focus  17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is Stale. There may be open issues here, but probably best to start new discussions. --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

pictures used
Pictures of her from her first movie, the Crush, and what made her most famous, Clueless, would make sense. Or from the music videos. Also the picture of her on the cover of her book perhaps, or one from her official website. The image there now from 2005 I see no reason for. Don't think the other two in the article look that great either.  D r e a m Focus  13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All such images would be non-free and thus would need to pass all ten criteria of that policy; the images in the article now are free images. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This has gone Stale. Would someone like to find new images for discussion? --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Potential refs

 * http://www.biography.com/people/alicia-silverstone-240974 --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if some of this was copied from an earlier version of this article. I'd rather we had better sources. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Great find. Notice the part where it says OCCUPATION: Animal Rights Activist, Film Actress.  Kindly stop removing that from the article.   D r e a m Focus  10:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a respectable channel like that would copy from the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article was perhaps copied from it.  Did that version of the article appear in one large chunk as though it was copied over, or was it written and added to over time?   D r e a m Focus  15:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that it's not in the lede. However, I think it's just a copy of an old version of this article, not inappropriate.
 * I've removed per WP:BLP. It contains the very information that everyone here disputes: "Alicia Silverstone is the youngest of three children and also has a half-brother and half-sister from her father??s previous marriage." --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.allmovie.com/artist/alicia-silverstone-p65707
 * Used by MTV and NYTimes --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Resolved then? AllMovie is now a ref, the Biography article is not reliable. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight of animal rights and environmental activist in lede
It's undue weight in the lede. The article doesn't demonstrate such prominence, nor the sources. Of the three provided to the lede, two are primary and not independent. The third is a puff-piece. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears no one wants to bother addressing the BLP and NPOV problems of not having reliable independent source that demonstrate such weight is warrented. Time to take them out then? --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. We've overwhelming consensus here and BLP places the burden on editors wishing to restore material. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "overwhelming consensus here"? You have no one agreeing with you, and one person disagreeing with you on that.  One other person reverted my revert of your edits with "Shouldn't readd that until it is resolved at talk".  So there is certainly no "overwhelming consensus".  We need more opinions on this.   D r e a m Focus  19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "BLP places the burden on editors wishing to restore material." See WP:DEADHORSE. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what I was talking about. I was commenting on your misleading claim there was "overwhelming consensus".   D r e a m Focus  21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you seem to like focusing on editors, WikiLawyer, and use this article as a battleground. It looks very bad given your recent block. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on your misleading comment. Stop twisting things around.  You appear to have a regular pattern of accusing people of attacking you.  Even Jimbo Wales, founder of the Wikipedia, criticized your behavior last month, you then removing his message with the edit summary "harassment".   Kindly stop accusing other people of being against you and focus on the actual issue here.   D r e a m Focus  21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel the need to disrupt this article so. Continue, and we can work on getting you blocked. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I suppose to feel threatened by that? You were warned of your behaviour by many people including the founder of Wikipedia himself.  Now kindly stop your pointless threats and focus on the issues at hand.   D r e a m Focus  22:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think animals rights is covered widely enough and is long term enough to be put in the lead. Environmental I'm undecided on.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about all the coverage of her book, it even on the NYT bestsellers list. Any objection towards saying Alicia Silverstone is an American actress, author, and animal rights activists.   D r e a m Focus  21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources have already been found and hordes more are easy to find. If everyone but you says its fine, then its fine, follow consensus.  If the information in the article has sources already good enough to keep it there, then no reason to have to find different sources for the lead.   D r e a m Focus  21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No sources identified, no changes. "BLP places the burden on editors wishing to restore material." Consensus is not a vote. We don't overrule policies and guidelines on the whims of editors. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources have been identified and were even in the article, such as her interview in that woman's magazine. There is no policy or guideline being overwhelmed here.   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The three mentioned at the very beginning of this discussion are: Those are two primary sources and a puff-piece, as mentioned at the start of this discussion. The first two don't verify the information. The third gives more weight to recipes than information about Silverstone. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * her official website has a section about the environment she talking about helping it
 * her official website has a section about the environment she talking about helping it
 * So you didn't consider this "puff piece" to be a legitimate source, but then added an even shorter article as a reference for the information you wanted there instead.  Looks like a brief announcement and nothing else.  I see nothing wrong with the article in Women's Health Magazine, they interviewing her and all.  And PETA is a fine source to prove someone is an animal rights activist, since that is their thing, that's what they do.   D r e a m Focus  17:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You also added in one article from UPI while dismissing or ignoring what the other articles found on that same reliable source said, as discussed thoroughly in the section below Prominence of Clueless in her life. I'm hoping more people show up to state their opinions on this.   D r e a m Focus  17:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's a brief announcement, it demonstrates the importance of Clueless to her life.
 * PETA doesn't verify the information, and doesn't establish it as something important to Silverstone. It's important to PETA.
 * We're not going to add every piece of information ever printed in a short interview to the lede of this article. What information we do choose to add should be indisputably important to her life in a broad context. Hence my repeated searches for detailed biographies and sources not biased with recentism or hype.
 * "You also added in one article from UPI while dismissing or ignoring..." We don't simply say a source is reliable based upon the publisher. Take this to WP:RSN, it's talk page, or the talk page for WP:RS if you don't believe me. Notice at RSN that they request a great deal more from editors about a source rather than just the publisher when it comes to determining if it reliable or not. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)So do you dispute that her animal rights activity is important to her life? She talks about being a vegan and animal rights for years now. So its not recentism. And doing a commercial for PETA about animal rights, does establish she is an animal rights activist. Most of her life isn't based around Clueless, as debated in another section in detail already.   D r e a m Focus  17:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You can not accept one thing from a source, while dismissing other things from that same source. Either its a reliable source or it isn't.   D r e a m Focus  17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * At the ANI I started because of your behavior I brought this issue up. Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia and thus a guy who knows more about the rules than anyone else, says to me: Having read over that discussion, you are clearly in the right. He's engaging in an inappropriate synthesis by systematically excluding sources that don't support his views. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)   Please read WP:Synthesis.  I'm putting the information back as it was.   D r e a m Focus  21:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI is not a venue for content disputes. Is that all this is about? You can't make a case for changing the article the way you personally want, so you go to ANI?
 * Consensus is not achieved by finding someone who agrees with you, then stating that that opinion overrules everything else.
 * It is also quite ironic given the PETA reference is being used to cite something it doesn't say, and that this was already brought up as a problem. I've tagged it as original research.
 * Also, please don't removed sourced information from an article, especially when there are multiple sources and the information is not in doubt in any way. Some might consider that vandalism or a npov violation. Regardless, it in no way improves this article. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Others have had problems with you in the past. Your behavior is simply not acceptable.  And you violated WP:SYNTHESIS.  You can't just selectively quote what you want, and ignore other things you don't want to hear.   D r e a m Focus  23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ad-hominems don't make a case for changing content here, nor for changing consensus, nor for meeting the burden of a BLP.
 * The only way any content disputes are going to be resolved is by focusing on content, our policies and guidelines, and on the sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the complaints that others had made before and decided this was a long term pattern of abuse, so I then filed a complaint. That has nothing to do with the discussion about this particular issue thought.  You are violating WP:SYNTHESIS.  Please respond to that claim and don't change the subject.   D r e a m Focus  23:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "You are violating WP:SYNTHESIS" You'll have to elaborate how that might be.
 * Will you be explaining how the use of the PETA reference is not given it doesn't verify the information and is a primary, self-published source? Perhaps comparing that whatever you think I did wrong, when you're finally able to do so, is clearly a violation, while the other is not? --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The PETA reference is gone now, something else up there. There are ample mentions of her animal rights activities.  I assumed it was common sense that if you freely did commercials for the largest best known animal rights organization in the world, that you had to be into animal rights.  But whatever.  Two people already said you were violating synthesis in picking just one article that said what you wanted, and ignoring everything else.  I see no reason for the mention of Clueless to be in the lead at all.  Hopefully more editors will arrive and share their opinions.   D r e a m Focus  23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been Resolved with new references. There is related discussion on the lede in general below. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Copy of old lede 05:47, 12 April 2012
The tagged version, prior to removal was: --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone (born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, animal rights and environmental activist.

Removal of movies and Aerosmith from lede 16:50, 11 April 2012
The movies and mention of Aerosmith was removed here. The prior version was: --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone (born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, animal rights and environmental activist and former fashion model. She first came to widespread attention in music videos for Aerosmith, and her highest-profile roles to date have been in the films The Crush (1993), Clueless (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997).

Introduction of animal rights activist to lede 06:08, 9 April 2012
"Animal rights activist" was added to the lede here. The prior version had been very few changes for many years:

Alicia Silverstone (born October 4, 1976) is an American actress, author, and former fashion model. She first came to widespread attention in music videos for Aerosmith, and her highest-profile roles to date have been in three 90s films, 1993 The Crush, 1995 Clueless and 1997 Batman & Robin, as Batgirl.


 * Do you have a point to all of this?   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)