Talk:Melissa Benoist

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

RFC about including son's name[edit]

Should we include her son's name in personal life? Note, whatever decision is reached here, should also affect Chris Wood, as it's the same child and we should be consistent. A note on that talk page about this conversation will be placed. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inlcude It has been determined multiple times, including Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment, that there is simply no policy against including children's names. The name was publicly released by the parents and is easy to find on the internet. The title of the source for his birth used on the article includes his name, so even if we don't include it in the body article, his name is still revealed here. There is simply just no policy based reason to censor the names of children when they have been publicly released by the parents.JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Relevant Policy is BLP: It's crystal clear in the linked RfC. Having to point this out suggests very serious problems. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal Can you please elaborate on what you mean by that? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You linked a previous RfC which has lengthy discussion on how BLP applies. To start this similar RfC here and say there is simply no policy against including children's names is a serious problem. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal Are you reading the same discussion as me? The discussion I linked with was closed with a consensus to include the child's name in the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JDDJS: Instead of discussion, Hipal is reading policy, particularly WP:BLPPRIVACY: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." 18:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" The parents revealed it on instagram, so that's a check. So this is in accordance with the policy being cited. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the catch-22. The source that goes back to Chris Wood shares the first name only of the child and indicates an objection to the details being made public. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, that post by Chris Wood does not indicate concerns about the name being public (after all, he is publicizing it himself), but rather about media interest in the child's life details beyond that while he is a minor ("see you in 18 years"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject" in this case is an infant child that cannot possibly "consent" to the details of their lives being made public. This is why we should ignore whatever the parents do in cases like this. It should only come down to if the child themselves generates "significant" coverage on their own. And, no – "significant coverage" should be more than just the birth announcement around the time of birth: it's should be months or years of coverage, like in the case of Siri Cruise. What WP:BLPPRIVACY is referring to there is celebrities putting their own birthdays on their social media. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Has the child's name been reported widely in independent sources? That'd be a tipping point. Based on Chris Wood's social media post about his son's name, I'm leaning against including the name and full date of birth. If we do include the date of birth, I'd recommend month and year only, no day. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as per WP:BLPNAMES, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:MINORS. The Lyndsy Fonseca case was wrongly decided – we should only include the names of minors when they receive so much coverage that they themselves become notable, such as Siri Cruise or someone like North "Nori" West. We are nowhere near that level of coverage in the case. And I agree with Hipal/Ronz that saying "There is simply just no policy based reason to censor the names of children when they have been publicly released by the parents." is incredibly wrong. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain to me what we're actually accomplishing by censoring the name out of the article when the name of the child is still present in the title of the source used to confirm the child's birth. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:FOC. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does my comment not have to do with content? My point is, regardless of whether or not we include the name in the body of the article, we will still be including in the title of the source. That is all based on content. Also WP:MINORS is an essay, not a policy. The actual policies listed all say that we can include the names if they're reliably sourced (which it definitely is in this case) and offer no explicit guidelines for inclusion, as IJBall is suggesting that they do. They do not say we have to include the names, but no reason has been offered to not include it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained this before – WP:NOTNEWS: the function of Wikipedia is fundamentally different from news/media outlets and celebrities' own social media accounts – we are more of a historical overview of the truly notable aspects of our subjects. While the number of children is usually considered a "notable" aspect of a subject, the names and exact birthdates of those children generally aren't, especially when you bring in WP:BLP-specific concerns (things like identity theft). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot steal a baby's identity using just their name and date of birth. That is ridiculous. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(summoned via bot)
Include the name; a person's children are a relevant aspect of any biography. I agree that unsourced children's names are a widespread BLP issue in general (I remove them myself all the time). But in this case the referencing situation looks OK, based on the parent's own publication of the name, and includes non-English non-tabloid sources too [6]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) After reading the above discussion, it seems to me that this is an area where our guidelines should really do more to specify a default. They seem to waver between "err on the side of privacy" and "as long as it's reliably sourced." This is not a kind of dispute I'm very familiar with, so it's possible there have been broad RfCs before, but something at the village pump, apart from individual examples, might help here. This phrase in WP:BLPNAME seems to be the main source of confusion: The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. - The question I find myself asking is "well, is the name of someone's child 'relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject' by default?" If not, we should be clear about that in the guideline. Absent clarity on that matter, I tend to think that if the name of someone's immediate family member (whether or not a child) has been widely reported, then we might as well include it in a biography of that person. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been any broad RfCs on the topic because I have never once seen anyone mention them in these debates. I would definitely be in favor of one though because as you say the guidelines are extremely unclear. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include: per IJBall and namely (pun intended? hehe) WP:BLPNAME. We have a policy against including the names of non-notable people for just this reason. And I don't see a compelling reason to include the name that would override our standard practice. Marquardtika (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - per WP:BLPNAME, info is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. The subject of this BLP is Benoist, her notability derives from being an actress/singer, not her minor child. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - WP:BLPNAME exists to protect people that are not notable/public figures. This person, by all accounts, does not have the level of coverage that would designate them as a notable person in their right. Transcendence (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I agree that the guideline isn't very prescriptive here and nor does every guideline have to be, though with BLPs it probably should be. Given the number of individual discussions that have occurred (Fonseca and Brian Austin Green before that etc) it probably is worth having a centralised RFC. That said the guidelines refer to the subject of the article for the most part and not to secondary notability, such as in the case of the overwhelming majority of celebrity offspring. The information is not relevant to a complete understanding of the subject. "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources..." "the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it" The borderline notability is about the subject of the article and the very young offspring of a celebrity at this point certainly isn't notable and certainly doesn't meet the criteria for their own article. As such, err on the side of caution, noting Wood's obvious concerns in that post, and don't include them. Woody (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per discussions above. Idealigic (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude for all the reasons given above and because noone has offered a reason to include beyond the fact that it is sourcable. As User:JDDJS IJBall says "While the number of children is usually considered a "notable" aspect of a subject, the names and exact birthdates of those children generally aren't, especially when you bring in WP:BLP". The child does not belong to either its parents nor to the public and its right to privacy should be assumed by us. Pincrete (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I said that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did indeed, apologies.Pincrete (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude as per the well stated reasons above. Absolutely agree with Woody that a centralized site-wide RFC would be appropriate, rather than leaving it up to individual discussions and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguements.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per what's been said above. Not necessary to understand Benoist. Better to leave off her and Woods' pages. QueerFilmNerdtalk 21:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020[edit]

In 2014, Benoist had fallen victim to “The Fappening”. Following her alleged private pics being leaked, among multiple Hollywood actresses.

In the previous sentence, please remove the first period, change "Following to "following" and remove the comma after "leaked." Thanks! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of her name[edit]

I am going to revert this edit discussing the pronunciation of Melissa Benoist's last name. I consider the YouTube clip from The Late Late Show with James Corden to be unreliable because Corden was a motor-mouth, hyperactively talked over his guests, and barely allowed Benoist to get a word in edgewise.

The CW Network trailer blurb advertising an about-to-air episode of Supergirl had Melissa Benoist introducing herself, saying "This is Melissa Benoist", and it was very clear that she was saying "buh-NOYT", with a T (swallowed like a glottal stop, as often happens in American English) but no S. I could isolate an audio recording of one of these CW blurbs if people absolutely refuse to believe me, though I imagine some people would still refuse to believe it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a better source? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really IMO, because it doesn't indicate how her name is pronounced — only how it is not pronounced. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link to a very short YouTube video clip in which Melissa Benoist says her own name (pronouncing it "buh-NOYT", btw). Some people may object that this is a primary source, but realistically, an audio/video recording in which a person clearly says their own name is (IMO) the best possible source — and possibly the only truly reliable source — for this sort of information. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The objection isn't that it's a primary source, which is fine. The objection in this case is that the "publisher" of the clip doesn't hold the copyright and arguably it doesn't fall under fair use. DonQuixote (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the clip does in fact qualify as fair use. It is only six seconds long, it is not of high technical quality, it is solely for nonprofit educational purposes, and it has (IMO) no impact on the commercial value of the copyrighted work. Did you base your objection solely on the fact that it was posted to YouTube by someone (me) who doesn't hold a copyright to the material? If you did not actually view / listen to the clip, I would urge you to consider doing so. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use in this situation only applies to you. Other people can't claim fair use when linking to your video. For wikipedia to claim fair use, it has to be uploaded to wikipedia itself. Also, you publishing the clip makes you a secondary source, which wikipedia can't cite anyways since you haven't been shown to be reputable and/or reliable for tertiary sources to use. DonQuixote (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it's better to cite the primary source without an external link unless that link is directly from the official source (but I don't think there's precedence in citing show bumpers) or cite a secondary source that's not self-published. DonQuixote (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I mentioned it before but forgot to reiterate, or you can upload the clip (probably just the audio) to wikipedia and link to that. DonQuixote (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've uploaded the clip (audio portion only) as an OGG file, and I've reinstated the text about her name's pronunciation in the article, along with a link to the audio clip. I am asserting that this use of the audio clip qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use criteria; if you disagree, I would be grateful for a detailed explanation. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, acceptability of audio clip source aside, contrary to the comment in the article that emphatically notes that she pronounces it bə-NOYT with no 'S', I very clearly hear her pronounce it bə-NOYST in that clip... CplDHicks2 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can see the ultimate source, with a very clear "S", at the beginning. IKhitron (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone edit the pronunciation guide to show that the S is pronounced, please? Reference 1 has a clearly-enunciated S, as does the video linked in the previous comment. Thanks! 2.101.43.137 (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CplDHicks2 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the first woman to lead a prime time superhero TV series since Wonder Woman went off the air in 1979 and Lindsay Wagner’s The Bionic Woman in 1978"[edit]

Agent Carter debuted on Jan 06 2015, 9 months earlier than Supergirl. Dark Angel premiered on Oct 03, 2000. Peggy Carter is a character already established in Marvel comics, and the protagonist of Dark Angel presumably qualifies as much as Jamie Sommers of the Bionic Woman. The claim seems at least suspect. 23.93.181.71 (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also preceded by iZombie and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. 23.93.181.71 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melissa_Benoist&oldid=1206247912"