Talk:George Clooney/Archive 2

Wrong reference
Reference 11 link doesnt work anymore. here is the new correct link: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2006/12/03/clooney_still_recovering_from_back_injury/5638/ Can someone please update? i dont feel like signing up just for this 130.89.170.135 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it. IrishGuy talk 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference
Reference 13, the one about Clooney's back brace during the Good German, is a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.216.7 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His Joke at Charlton Heston's expense
What's the need to dedicate a full section to George Clooney's joke at Charlton Heston. It was not a politic statement nor a comment. It was only a joke. On Charlton Heston's page, there is only 2 or 3 sentences about it. Mentioning it is one thing but writting so much about such a little event seems largely disproportioned and seems to be there for the only purpose to try to credibilize him. It was nothing more than the joke he made at Jack Abramoff. So why in one case, it's only one sentence, and in the other case it's a huge and complete section? By the way the joke was: "President of NRA announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." not"Charlton Heston announced again today..."Annegc1 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They are much more relevant to Clooney than to Heston. They reflect Clooney's viewpoint, percieved or real, about the NRA and it's then president. Every source I've found says that Clooney mentioned Heston by name. The sources cited show that Clooney called it a joke - but not everybody saw it that way. We should present the facts in a NPOV manner and let readers decide for themselves. CovenantD 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clooney absolutely did not mention Heston by name. The reporting of this was widely inaccurate. All it takes is one source to get it wrong and every source picks up on that. Clooneystudio 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you are incorrect. aS a matter of fact in his original remarks he said the President of the NRA. Heston was widely known as the head of the NRA. But Clooney then went on to mention Heston by name when asked to clarify.72.75.33.54 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dedicated a whole section still suggests that it was once a huge event or even a huge polemic, when it has never been. It was nothing more than his joke about Abramoff but that section suggested it was otherwise. And I maintain that the only purpose of this whole section is to try to decridibilize George Clooney. The only reason why its gained any form of fame was because some conservatives hated him for being an opponent of Irak's war and couldn't stand opposition on that issue. Just because some websites rehashed the same wrong sentence doesn't mean it was once real. Since, his joke has never been recorded but only reported, I believe that George Clooney knew better that anyone else what he really said that day. Here were you can see an article about that whole thing: http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/lycos/1595/id278.htm  Annegc1 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is actually a false statement. He did not make a private joke to Abramoff, but as part of his public acceptance of an award, at the microphone he made the comments on Heston.72.75.33.54 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's false: he made those two jokes on totally different events.Annegc1 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not our place to determine what was "really" said; we are to only relate what reliable sources have reported. His rebuttal is in there so the readers can decide who to believe. I also remind you to assume good faith about other editors. CovenantD 08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is neither our place to try to make it a bigger event than what it really was. Annegc1 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A short yet lengthy (3 years) debate. I agree that it's nothing to make a big thing of. Every celebrity says stupid things. If it had been said on SNL's Weekend Update, nothing would have been made of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ER contract
He has never signed another contract with ER producers where they would agree on several cameos from him. The only contract he signed with them was the original one. Such a contract doesn't exist.Annegc1 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish American
Wouldn't the term Plastic Paddy be more appropriate than Irish American? As far as I can see, Clooney was born and raised in the US and neither of his parents were born in Ireland, yet he claims to be an "Irish Catholic kid". My grandmother was Irish, but there's no way I would ever claim to be Irish myself. I would definitely be laughed at for doing so here in the UK, but I'd be ridiculed completely if I said so in Ireland. Clooney is not Irish American. He's American.
 * Face it, in the UK, being Irish period is grounds for ridicule.JGC1010 (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that the term Plastic Paddy is derogatory, I think not. The definition of Irish American is clear, and since Clooney has Irish ancestry he's free to refer to himself as one. You cannot compare notions of ethnic identity in America to those in Britain. 68.99.182.80 01:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Bud...Here in America, we can call ourselves whatever we like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.228.210 (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heritage doesn't disappear because you or your parents weren't born in the country you descended from, your ignorance is amazing. "Irish Americans (Irish: Gael-Mheiriceánach) are citizens of the United States who can claim ancestry originating in the north west European island of Ireland" "An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, great-great-great-grandparent, great-great-great-great-grandparent, and so forth)." 70.126.188.107 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His mother's name is of English origin therefore perhaps he should be known as an English American with impurities?Stutley (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to throw witless insults on other sites such as Youtube, Racist remarks are not welcome here.User:Jamie Kelly —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

A little bit of trivia concerning the etymology of the surname: it may have its roots in the Greek word "klonos" - spasmodic, among other meanings, from where the English words clonic, clonism, clonograph, clonicity have derived. There are Greek surnames that still exist today, i.e., Klouni/s/Clouni/s, (the pronounciation is exactly the sames as "Clooney") Kloni/s115.131.20.80 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.20.80 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus vs. Frosty
tag removed from the section commenting on Clooney's involvement in the circulation of the "Jesus vs. Frosty" tape, as the article clearly states that it is a rumor.

Prankster
Seems odd that there's no mention of Clooney's reputation as a practical joker. 209.180.36.94 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. We need to find some good sources for this because he is well known for pranks. I seem to recall something from about two years ago from an interview with Julia Roberts. I will try to find it. A subsection should be made on the main article if the sources are strong. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Does someone have a better picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teslacarmechaniclunch (talk • contribs).
 * That seems like a nice picture to me as it captures him candidly. The picture that is there right now I mean. Chicago kid 1911 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe that the previous poster talked about the second photo, not the first one Annegc1 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Motoaccident
I am still working on finding where George said no one should be punished for looking at his hospital records. This was in a newspaper article online and I should be able to find it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timepeppers (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the article and I put the quote in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timepeppers (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Early career
I was just watching a documentary on French television in which they claimed Clooney got his Hollywood start in the cult classic Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, they showed a clip and it was him alright. No reference here, so I think it should be mentioned somewhere, somehow. He was also in the sequel, "Revenge of the Killer Tomatoes" George? Will you log on and enlighten us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribbit (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * George Clooney was only in the Return of the Killer Tomatoes not in the first one. Annegc1 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Would someone update Clooney's first role in a TV series as Kinapper #2 for the Riptide series (1984) starring King Perry, Joe Penny, and Thom Bray? It's Riptide Season 2, Episode 2 entitled "Where the Girls Are". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.232.65 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure George was on Facts of Life in the early 80's. He had long hair then. No reference here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hundreddollarbaby (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle
hi. does anyone here know what kind of motorcycle he was riding when he had his accident?? Donpknight (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)?
 * A Harley-Davidson. See People Magazine article here. GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Family
Any firm references available on the family citations (the nephews and cousins and all the rest of those)? Should they even be listed at all? GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Article introduction
It seems that the introduction might be too long or it might have more information than is needed. Maybe some of those notes should be moved into the body of the article? GetYourClooneyOn (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Esquire interview critiques Wikipedia entry
Explicit references to correct/incorrect content in this article can be observed in this Esquire interview (The 9:10 To Crazyland). Suggest registered and interested editors review.--John Gibbard (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I just found that as well. This is an article, not some off-hand blog entry, so I'm going to go ahead and make the changes with a ref back to this. Joshdboz (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Mr. Clooney that ending the text with the Heston thing is not ideal. Could some of those sections perhaps be rearranged? -- Ozzel (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kevin Kelly follow up with a little more info on the spam. William Pietri (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Yes We Can

Vandalism
I seriously hope that "Clooney has balanced his glamorous performances in big-dick ballbusters with wank as a producer and director behind commercially riskier projects" isn't serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.97.187 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious about the claim in the "Early Life" section that he attended the "High School for Girls, Gloucester." Overlooked vandalism, I presume? Trowbridge (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone clearly enjoys inserting references to Gloucester - a couple have been removed. --Pergish1 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama
There is no evidence of him voting for Nader over Obama. That info seems false. If no one can provide a link to that information, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.21 jigwatts (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it so that it just says he supported Obama; that reflects what is in the ref. Thanks for pointing it out. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ex-spouse
Is it normal to add a person ex-spouse(s) in the infobox? Sounds a bit strange to me. Belasted (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is standard practise to include everyone a subject has married in his infobox, regardless of whether the marriage is current or not, along with the start and end year of a marriage in brackets. Jim Michael (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect date under the picture
The date under the picture is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.95.7 (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

About Charlton Heston's controversy's thread
It's kind of strange to put the "Heston's controversy" after the "Leatherhead controversy", when the first occured a few years before the second one, and only the second one has some effects on Clooney's career. It's kind of strange to see some people trying to make it a bigger story than what it was and trying to make it still relevent when it is not. Annegc1 (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Other ventures" section
Is there a reason why the third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of the "Other ventures" section are there instead of in the "Movie career" section? They all seem to be about his movie career. Pokeronskis (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

George Clooney is not dead
George Clooney is not dead; someone should check this and get it changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commandlock (talk • contribs) 03:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Schapier
I have deleted the phrase concluding "Early life" which reads: "He sold shoes for a department store in Crestview Hills Kentucky called McAlpins. It was there that he worked with the lovely and talented Lisa Schaiper." This statement is (1) NPOV (2) self-promoting (3) unimportant (4) not at all substantiated by the two listed sources; one link is broken and the other makes zero mention of Lisa Schaiper. She has no google hits (outside of mirrors of this WP article). - Draeco (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Post-production
Some films that are currently in the cinema are listed here as in post-production (Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Men Who Stare at Goats). Can someone change it. I can't because the page is semi protected. Freedomrevolution (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency with birth location
The essential info box on the right side of the page lists his place of birth as Chelsea, London, United Kingdom, however in the main text it says he was born in Maysville, Kentucky. 118.16.169.158 (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Bob, 17 Nov. 2009

--- Both are wrong. It's well known he was born in Lexington, Kentucky. Have amended both. Hotflush (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Error in the sentence:

At the 2012 Academy Awards (the year is yet to come!!!!!!!!!!), Clooney was nominated for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Good Night, and Good Luck, as well as Best Supporting Actor for Syriana. He became the first person in Oscar history to be nominated for directing one movie and acting in another in the same year. He would go on to win for his role in Syriana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.151.126 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a mistake
Under the section that should be Early Life or somethinf it says WEINERSHNITZEL, what is that? Can anyone tell me what that has to do with Gearge Clooney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattseay3000 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
At the 2010 BAFTA Awards, Clooney was nominated for Best Actor for the film Up in the Air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie92 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal life / relationships
There is a problem with the relationship part of the personal life section. There is debate as to whether Elisabetta Canalis has a publicity contract rather than a personal relationship with Clooney, and the source cited supporting a relationship is of a story that has repeatedly been denied by Clooney's rep. The cited source http://www.financialexpress.com/news/george-clooney-to-marry-his-italian-girlfriend/509427 is merely a published press release, one of many press releases which Canalis's publicist repeatedly sends out to any and all publications and blogs she can. Here are two sources supporting the fact that Clooney is not seriously dating Canalis: http://www.gossipcop.com/george-clooney-getting-married-elisabetta-canalis-parents-mexico/ and http://www.popsugar.com/Video-George-Clooney-Washington-DC-Talking-About-Elisabetta-Canalis-11464962  The first link quotes Clooney's rep as denying a marriage proposal, which directly contradicts the currently cited source. The second link is actually a video in which Clooney himself states that he has no intention of proposing to Canalis. Snowkat11 (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lear Project?
3.1 References to global democratic lines.--Danaide (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anybody some information about his presense in Al Pacinos Lear Project? He is booked for Kent, I guess.

Wrong link to E/R
The first link in the Filmography goes to ER and not to E/R

Clooney's production company
Will anyone be posting information on Clooney's production company? It used to be called Section 8 and was situated out of WB. Now it's something else, and maybe out of the Sony lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.35.142 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Saturday arouned Aug 21st 9:00pm Fox news presents a story on Charles Manson, he states "I didnt have to kill anyone I just used my mind" as he points to his head.

Is it possiblle to review these documents from Men Staring at goats the CIA reports and compare Mansons interviews over the years and see if we can come to a conclusion that this is witch craft by summoning spirits and "controling spiorits to kil".

I need all the info i can get because many people could be selected for a group that summons spirits and screws with peopls minds. I know a few that target Military people, would make a great movie as well.

From exposure of this what would be the next step? develop educational material for churches, legislate on how to punish someon if they are identified and have admitted to doing these types of activities? and establishing a way that lone practionares that do harm to victims that these vicitims would have a way to undo what was done?

Ancestry
I have removed the references to his ancestry until the anonymous authors of those pages can be clarified so we can review their credentials and publication history to ensure that they are actual experts in their field.Wjhonson (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.18.162.129, 8 October 2010
G Clooney's role in ER was Dr Doug Ross, not as listed in the table at bottom of article

82.18.162.129 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done It's in the row labelled 1994. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  13:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmography
His nomination for the Academy Award Best Director in 2005 for Good Night, Good Luck isn't listed in his filmography, only the nomination for Best Original screenplay.99.245.159.14 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Connections to Nestle
Not to take from his good work in darfur but is his endorsement of nespresso and thus nestle a contradiction in terms?!? should the ethics of this not be questioned in the article - I'm not 100% qualified to support this but I know they, as a company have issues and should answer to them. If I'm wrong in my assumptions I'm happy for you to prove me so but had to throw it out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.117.109 (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Political affiliation
Here is a citation (requested between footnotes 35 and 36) for Clooney's self-identified political affiliation: http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/ESQ0105-JAN_CLOONEY  --Krayler (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

merge Max (pig)
This article is at AFD right now, but it seems pretty clear there is not a consensus to delete it. Max is only relevant or known because of his association with Clooney, so it seems like it would be both appropriate and simple to merge his article into the "personal life" section of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:George Clooney 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 3Alt1.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:George Clooney 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 3Alt1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 31, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 22:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Olsenodd, 9 September 2011
George Clooney has recently appeared in a Norwegian commerical for DNB NORWe should add DNB NORunder "In the Media" togheter with Fiat, Nespresso and Martini vermouth.

Sources: Dagbladet: http://www.kjendis.no/2011/09/09/kjendis/george_clooney/tv_og_medier/skuespillere/17992129/

Olsenodd (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that this is a substantive part of his career. If you disagree, please discuss it right here and form a consensus, then re-request the edit. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Awards
The complete, full list of Clooney's award and nominations clooney was the best actor in this year i ok with him rock in tub appear in their own separate article. As discussed on other actors' talk pages, it's undue weight to include every tiny regional award and some film group's award on the main article page, giving the Phoenix, Arizona, film-critics award the same weight as the Academy Award. The major awards appear here, the comprehensive list appears there (and even there, not every tiny film group's award is notable). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * looks like the section's summary (ie, list of major awards) has been removed from this main article? It's odd to see a section empty except for a single link to the full list. 98.92.188.180 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if there are other relevant pages we could make a "See Also" section and include that with a few other things in a bulleted list. That way it isn't a section for one item. HotshotCleaner (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Spinal condition
Why is there no information about the spinal condition he had? Apparently there is a new news article stating he thought about suicide because of it. I imagine that's major enough to include. I do not know enough yet to append the article, but it should already be here. - Cyborg Ninja  06:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Prophecy (better yet, promise) in interview when he was younger
I saw in a TV show (I don't remember if it was Oprah or 60 Minutes or other) that he gave an interview when he was younger (teenager, I think), where he said something like:

Today, I am famous for being the son of Manpon Clooney, but, one day, I will be famous for being Manpon the 2nd. (ie, the father of George Clooney).

The TV show broadcast this bit. I tried to search for it (the video of this bit) on Google and Youtube, but I have not found it yet. If someone finds it, I think it would be nice for the exact quote to be in the article (personally, i'm amazed when people make some "big prophecies" (more like promises) that actually happen years after), maybe, in the "Early life" section.

At least, here in Portugal, the majority of people does not know who Nick Clooney is :) Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Portugal? Where is portugal? :) Moriori (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Portugal is that place excluded from the history of the human race (regarding Earth (The Book)) :) But, I bought the book... here in Portugal! :) Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so much a 'prophecy' as a bold hope by aspiring entertainer to be famous. 98.92.188.180 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my title is not the best... It is not meant as a religious meaning, except for the fact that he said it, and it happened. It is more like a promise, or something like that (visionnaire... or bold hope, yes...). Feel free to change the title. I have now added the word "promise" to the title and to my original post. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012
George Clooney has been nominated for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a leading role for his 2011 film The Descendants i would like this to be added to his list of pending awards for the film - here is the code BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role

86.29.28.91 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has been ✅, but thanks for pointing it out-- Jac 16888  Talk 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture (NOMINATION) for 'The Descendants
George Clooney has been nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture for 'The Descendants'. I would like this to be added to his list of nominations for the film - here is the code Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture.

Thanks 59.184.175.30 (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Update to pets section - Einstein
Can someone please update the pets section with details of his black cocker spaniel, Einstein? Plenty of links, pics & videos on the WWW: http://www.peoplepets.com/people/pets/article/0,,20560891,00.html http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/meaning-of-life-2012/george-clooney-quotes-0112 http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-505383_162-10011187-21.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57373141-10391698/george-clooney-invites-viewers-into-his-home-on-person-to-person/ http://campcockerrescue.squarespace.com/einstein-july-2009/

Letmeinrightnow (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
Please change Charlon to Charlton in the Controversy section.
 * ✅, thanks for pointing it out-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this film belong in the article?
The film Convincing Clooney has a paragraph in the article, but based on its limited coverage it is not clear to me that it is notable to have a para in this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gay
He is often rumured to be gay but Clooney recently replies to this: "I think it's funny, but the last thing you'll ever see me do is jump up and down, saying, 'These lies!' That would be unfair and unkind to my good friends in the gay community... I'm not going to let anyone make it seem like being gay is a bad thing. My private life is private, and I'm very happy in it. Who does it hurt if someone thinks I'm gay? I'll be long dead and there will still be people who say I was gay. I don't give a sh**." Is this addressed in the article? He refused to say if whether he is or not and is defending gays--TAzimi (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Where he was born.
George Clooney was born in Skelmersdale, Lancashire at the Tawd. He moved with his family to Spain at a very early age. Rachel Steed 3/7/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.171.97 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that? StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sudan embassy amendment
would like to add info on Clooney's arrest on 16/03/2012 outside the Sudan Embassy in Washington DC.

On 16/03/2012 actor George Clooney was arrested outside the Embassy for civil disobedience.

Adam.holcombe (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012
Nestlé/Criticism The article talks Clooney up a lot with regards to humanitarian work, but it has little mention of Clooney doing adverts for nestlé (which is only mentioned in the references, instead the adverts are spoken about via the product and not the company), who have a lot of controversy surrounding them. From the aggressive advertising of baby powder milk in third world countries to the attempted suing of Ethiopia in the middle of a national crisis (a very extreme drought and famine). And of course their cocoa for years has been sourced from the Ivory Coast, with the incredibly likely use of child slave labor, which took nestlé a very long time to address.

This is all outlined in Wikipedia's article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9#Controversy_and_criticism

Is it possible to include that, perhaps under criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.33.45 (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Error on page
The Not On Our Watch link made in this article refers to the book, Not On Our Watch. The correct reference is the Not On Our Watch Project, founded by George, et al.

69.0.19.107 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012
George also dated Kimberly Russell for three years. She is the only African-American woman he has dated, publicly anyway. Why isn't she mentioned? Unless it's at her request, it seems racist to leave her out. Sources: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/george-clooneys-girls-2009211/4870 http://www.clooneysopenhouse.com/t857-kimberly-russell-girlfriend-1994-1997-1999

66.74.214.88 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌; the sourcing you have provided is inadequate. One source provided is a fan site (not considered a reliable source); the other is a photograph, without any information about their relatonship. -- Dianna (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013
George Clooney is not the only person to be nominated in 6 different catagories. He ties Walter Disney with 6. The article that the original author cites was mistaken (and is admitted as such in the comments section by the author himself). The original article overlooked several other people who have beeen nominated 5 times, and Walt Disney who has been nominated 6 (Best Picture, Best Documentary - Feature, Best Documentary - Short, Live Action Short, Cartoon Short, and Short Film Two Reel). It was even announced live on the Oscar telecast that he had tied Walter Disney.George clooney is one of the finest and well known actor.

74.130.90.56 (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please give a reliable source to confirm your claims. - Camyoung54   talk  18:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013
Change that Clooney was in Killer Tomatoes. That is an error. Georgia Coones was in it.

108.45.59.200 (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IMDB and AllMovie list George Clooney as an actor and do not list any Georgia Coones in Return of the Killer Tomatoes! nor Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! Jim1138 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

George Clooney appearance in manga?
I just finished Gantz, and during the last story arc, a character that had a striking resemblance to George Clooney appeared relatively often. Should this be included in this article or elsewhere? Or is it too trivial and needs confirmation by the author of the manga? There are also other celebrity look-a-likes in the manga as well, which can be found in a crude list here. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013
Link corr:

Please change one link from http://www.mtv.de/news/2010-01-22/21054242-george-clooney-hope-for-haiti-wird-gross.html to http://www.mtv.de/news

Reason: Error 404 page invalid

Thanks!

Gregor.Walter (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Broken links should be fixed, rather than just changed to somewhere totally irrelevant. I have fixed the link in question. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Is "Pets" necessary?
Does anybody else think that the section on Clooney's pets doesn't belong on wikipedia? This is is, after all, an encylcopedia. A separate section on Clooney's homes also seems excessive.

I propose that these sections, if they are to exist, be reduced and integrated into a main "Personal Life" section.

Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and tabloid/magazine material. I also have renamed "Homes" to "Real estate" for more formality and I think it, too, is just tabloid fluff and reserved for trivia sections of other websites but definitely not substantive enough for Wikipedia.Chocolate Charlie (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Engagement
Nothing about the subject's recent engagement to Amal? Headline news everywhere. I heard on the radio that Clooney had advised her to delete her Wiki page. Can this be done???  Smokey TheCat  05:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I nominated the article for deletion and it was deleted because she is not notable enough to have her own page. This was long before their "engagement". LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I have no interest in this matter but I thought that a lot of casual Wiki readers might be interested.  Smokey TheCat  08:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I added this sentence. Probably not the best source, and the article probably needs a tidy up to reflect that he is no longer single, but it should do for now until somebody more eager than me gets the time. DanEdmonds (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All attempts at adding his "engagement" have been removed and a hidden message added to editors trying to add this. Until he or she confirms this themselves, it is just gossip. Even with reliable sources adding it, nobody close to them or even they have confirmed it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Engagement II
George Clooney says he will marry Amal Alamuddin in Venice in September this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietadè (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014
George Clooney is also a well-known political activist: http://mic.com/articles/77853/george-clooney-s-incredible-activism-in-one-timeline

It might be a good idea to add "activist" to his occupations. "George Timothy Clooney (born May 6, 1961) is an American actor, activist and filmmaker."

Volisodelfes (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 06:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of RS-supported material
I already left essentially the same message on the tp of the deleting editor in question, as what follows. Editors should not delete material that is RS-supported, just because it is in a section with the title controversy. Especially - based merely on an essay -- which is the view of (perhaps) one or few editors. Especially when that essay, weak as it is (it is not a guideline, for example), does not state that the RS-supported material should be deleted. Deleting such RS-supported material flies in the face of core wp principles. And essays of that sort should not be used to censor articles by deleting RS-supported material one may dislike. See, for example, the wikipedia policy (as opposed to essay) WP:CENSOR. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As a drive-by, I couldn't help noticing a main section, on the same level of Career, called Controversy. But reading the section, I was amazed by how a personal comment, which was essentially a joke, and unrelated to his notability, could be magnified with it's own section, and therefore boldly removed it. I try to go by common sense, as explained in the essay about avoiding such sections, even if they were not relying on what seems like a trivial part of his career. So I see a number of obvious general and guideline issues:


 * Tivia cited in RSs is obviously still trivia. The fact that the trivial 1st sentence, of the so-called "controversy" comment is also over-cited with 4 citations, makes it look ridiculous, to boot, besides being much ado about almost nothing.
 * WP is not a newspaper, and per guidelines, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.
 * WP should not engage in scandal mongering, or edited in a way purely to attack the reputation of another person.
 * The section, on the level of his career, is clearly intended by whoever wrote it to give undue weight to a few of his personal comments, embellishing them with 6 different sources, and apparently relying on that fact to give it such prominence in the article.
 * Making such an effort to support such "undue weight" material for that kind of trivia would require cherrypicking after careful searching. This is obvious from the sources, such as the Esquire article, which contained 4,200 words, but only a few sentences about the Heston quote, and relying on that source multiple times. Another source, the Wall Street Journal, contained 1,500 words, and the only comment about it said he "joked at the news that Mr. Heston had Alzheimer's." And that source was double-cited in the same sentence, which makes the trivia even more significant, maybe. The Newsday abstract was redundant and again intended to give the joke more attention, when such over-citing is not needed.
 * It's also undue in relation to the article itself. For example, a section covering 5 of his prime years, 1994-1999, contains only 213 words, where the Heston joke "controversy" is 216 words. Apparently, to whoever added this tabloid-quality material, this single comment/joke was more significant to his bio than 5 years of film acting. Unfortunately, this kind of excess attention has also turned the bio into more of a tabloid: His entire 36-year Career is covered in 1,263 words, whereas his Personal life and Political views (which are also part of his personal life, btw,) take up over 40% more words, 1,791! I think even People magazine bios give more weight to actor's careers, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
 * The structure of the article, however, is better now than it was years ago. But changing an added main section called Comments on Alzheimers of Charlton Heston, and reaction, to Controversy, isn't much of an improvement.


 * It would seem that by giving such undue weight to a few newsy comment-jokes, giving them their own section, by labeling it as a Controversy, that the requirement of neutral commentary has been violated in the extreme. --Light show (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all heavily reported by a number of RSs. The essay you pointed to is just that -- an essay; the view of one or more editors.  Nothing more.  And even the essay itself doesn't suggest that material such as this shoudl be deleted.  You can have your own POV that makes you want to delete what the RSs report on, but it is the view of the RSs that it is newsworthy that we follow. Otherwise, we have all manner of articles where editors use their own POV to make drive-by deletes. Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you have no issue with asking for a 3rd opinion, which I've requested. --Light show (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a regular volunteer at 3O but don't mind getting my feet wet in this discussion. I respectfully disagree with Erpert's 3O and assume Light show is of the same position. I'll have to agree to what Ls has said, this does look like UNDUE weight. I was first of the opinion that since sources exist for it, some of the content could be merged with his "Personal life" or whatever section was relevant since just writing "Controversies" is poor editing. After looking at it, I changed my mind.

The content "made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, " and "during his acceptance speech for the Golden Globe Award for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role for Syriana, Clooney paused to sarcastically thank disgraced lobbyist" is really just trivia. Whatever celebs say or do is bound to cause really temporary media attention and it is beyond doubt sources exist. What we have to ask ourselves here is whether this is actually relevant long-term in his biography? did this really cause any coverage beyond just temporary, like say weeks later was this being referred to in sources? Only then I would feel that this is relevant but still merged to some relevant section rather than just "Controversies". This doesn't seem to be a major one. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Erpert's response the third opinion request. And differ w/Ugog's subsequent comment, directly above.  See my comments below. Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight tag
Per the above discussion, I've tagged the section and will remove it within a week or so if no one objects. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I object -- both to the application of the tag (when the majority of the other editors on this talk page already indicated their view is that the language is appropriate, and that the deletion on the basis of the "essay" by one or more editors was not appropriate -- and that essay didn't even call for deletion), and (for the same reasons) to your threatened deletion (the threat of which is peculiar in light of the above).


 * The section is not only properly RS-sourced (and the first incident is still an issue discussed currently in RSs), it is also balanced, showing two sides of the matter, and the title is also balanced, not taking a position in wp's editorial voice. Plus, the essay is the epitome of poor thinking ... by its way of thinking, we would have to avoid bio sections labelled "awards," because they are one-sided. Just silly, poorly thought out thinking.


 * The coverage, of the Alzheimer's/Heston incident in particular, was certainly wide enough to reflect its significance (I feel less strongly about the lobbyist bit, though, and could see that one being deleted if there is a consensus for that). Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That "essay" is really a summary and synthesis of numerous established guidelines, and includes dozens of links to those guidelines. The lead of the essay has 7 guideline links. If there is any part of that "essay" you disagree with, please point it out with guideline support. Otherwise, your opinion implies that while you agree with the key conclusions of the essay, you just don't like them.


 * In any case, you're still relying solely on the fact that it was an essay and you used reliable sources. But you've skipped over all the other guideline issues mentioned earlier: that WP is not a newspaper, should not engage in scandal mongering, and should not give undue weight to  cherrypicked trivia and adding tabloid-quality facts supported by  over-citing.


 * Therefore you're simply putting undue weight on the fact that his comment-jokes were published, and creating an entire main section for it equal in significance, per the TOC, to his entire career. If anything, it violates common sense. --Light show (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Epeefleche: Yes, that's what the tag is for: two of us here find that it gives undue weight, so it remains till this is resolved. Just to clarify in case I missed something, this discussion just involves you, Light show and me right? so what do you mean by "majority of the other editors"? A WP:3O giver is just that: his/her participation is minimal and the other party is free to reject it. Or if you're referring to the fact that no one objected to this before, then WP:CCC. No, as Light show said, whether you published both sides or not, the entire section is possibly undue weight. As to the Alzheimer's/Heston incident, if as you say, has wide coverage, then it goes to the relevant section rather than "Controversies", I've yet to look into how good its coverage is.
 * PS: Awards section usually have notable accolades received by the person and their just bare facts. I think it isn't poor thinking and what is opposite of controversies is maybe a section titled "Praise" which has cherrypicked content.
 * I see no point in repeating and bolding what you've already said before, Light show, this needs to move forward constructively. Do you (any of you both) know how to get anyone as a fresh pair of eyes here (any previous contributors can be contacted)? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly a request for comment would help. Nor could I find anything resembling a consensus about keeping the section in. Quite the opposite, in fact. For instance, this earlier discussion by User:Annegc1 almost 5 years ago, who wrote, It's kind of strange to see some people trying to make it a bigger story than what it was and trying to make it still relevent when it is not. Same with comments by User:Batman2005 8 years ago, who asked, I'm just curious as to how people perceive what he said in his acceptance speech as controversial. It seems there is and has always been an implied consensus against including this kind of section or even the joke itself.--Light show (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ugog. Four editors have given opinions. There were two initial editor opinions in this string.  Third opinion is a means to request an outside editor opinion in a disagreement between two editors. And you supplied a fourth opinion. This discussion involves four editors.  Giving four opinions. Finally, as I said before, I'm not sure I have a problem with the fourth para going.  But the first two paras are widely covered by RSs, including as reflected above (though not in the article -- we could always add more refs) this past year. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wedding info
Added info and picture of Amal Alamuddin with Clooney -- and conformed wedding information so both Clooney and Alamuddin pages have the same, sourced info. Best, Erika BrillLyle (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The white supremacist / Islamophobic crowd here has already succeeded in removing all the pictures of Amal Alamuddin from the article (not to mention from Amal Alamuddin her own article — go figure). Only a picture of George Clooney with his previous, "more European" fiancee remains prominently displayed. It is alarming to see with how much impunity these closet racists operate on Wikipedia. The positive news is that their attempts to have Amal Alamuddin's article deleted entirely have failed, miserably. 2A02:1810:108:3300:F549:56F3:DDE2:61D7 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)