Talk:Suki Waterhouse

Edit-warring
A redlink editor is edit-warring to add uncited personal-life claims about a living person in clear violation of WP:BLP. I have asked this editor on his or her talk page to stop, with links to relevant policies, and to bring any issue to this talk page. That editor so far has continued to edit-war and has not engaged in discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Diffs would have been a good idea here.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Name
Suki is not a typical English name. If anyone knows how she got it, it might be worth noting.Bill (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a pet form of Susan. See also "Polly Put the Kettle On". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Her name is Japanese. Her parents gave her a Japanese name because they wanted something unique. Trillfendi (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a friend named Sukhi who is of Indian descent (Punjab, via Manchester); it's short for Sukhdeep, which is a common name in Punjab. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m just pointing she was given the name because of its Japanese meaning. She’s been saying it for years. Of course there are many variations of it (that’s why people confuse her with Sookie Stackhouse) but for her it’s the Japanese one. She’s not named after a Susan. Trillfendi (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Call for discussion
In this edit excised material about Waterhouse's relationships, with the problematic edit summary, "spiteful rejection of established BLP consensus; Undid revision 871691030 by Geo Swan"

The most obvious problematic aspect of the edit summary is the characterization of my intent as a "spiteful rejection".

Slamming another contributor's motives is a serious lapse from our policies and conventions that tell us to show respect for other contributors, to try to be civil and collegial. The 1st time you excised this passage your edit summary was "wikipedia is still not a celebrity hookup history". I honestly thought your excision was poorly explained, so that is what I said when I reverted you.

The second problematic aspect? If the edit is based on an "established BLP consensus" then the appropriate thing for HW to do would be to link to the wikidocument, or discussion, where that consensus is expressed.

HW, no offense, but do you think you are someone to whom the rest of us should defer because you think you are an infallible genius? I've explained this to you before. While there are hierarchical organizations, where junior people are expected to keep their mouths shut, and defer to more senior people, as if they were infallible geniuses the wikipedia isn't one of them. The wikipedia can't afford to have anyone act like they were an infallible genius. The wikipedia really needs everyone to do their best to politely explain themselves.

I know I have suggested to you, before, that every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I've suggested to you already, that, even if you have been correct in every edit you have made, so far, it is still important for you to explain yourself, because, if you don't explain yourself, nothing prevents the people you disagree with from making the same mistake, over and over again.

It is also important for you to make a good faith effort to explain yourself, because you are not infallible. You offering your explanation, and then actually paying attention to your respondent's counter-arguments, is an opportunity for you to see if you might actually be acting on some misunderstandings of policy, yourself. Yes, I really really think you should start doing this. No, this is not an insult. We are all fallible. I know I am fallible, which is why I make an effort to really understand the points of those who disagree with me, even when they insult my motives, as you did here. I know I am fallible, and I make an effort to always own up and acknowledge when I have been wrong.

I know you use edit summaries that imply you think your edits are backed up by policy, where I believe you have exposed you are routinely making bad edits, based on a misunderstanding of policy. When asked to discuss these edits you are silent, as if you were infallible, and weren't obliged to explain yourself. For instance, in February 2017, you excised an image with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox". You used this questionable edit summary again, barely a week ago. Geo Swan (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Personal life
Someone... anyone... explain to me why Waterhouse is not allowed to have a reliably sourced personal life section about a significant, well-known, not “gossip” 2 year relationship with Bradley Cooper yet his feautured article mentions their relationship with the same reliable source, no issue. How does it “violate” BLP for her yet not for him when they were in the relationship together? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC). Trillfendi (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think you are referring to the many excisions made by (HW), of any coverage of Waterhouse's boyfriends, explained only with brief, cryptic, and sometimes insulting edit summaries.
 * 1) ‎Personal life: gossipmongering
 * 2) Personal life: gossip, no significance indicated
 * 3) ‎Personal life: neither source supports the claim it is cited for
 * 4) ‎Personal life: gossip, no significance indicated
 * 5) ‎Personal life: Wikipedia is not a celebrity hookup history
 * 6) wikipedia is still not a celebrity hookup history
 * 7) spiteful rejection of established BLP consensus; Undid revision 871691030 by Geo Swan
 * 8) Personal life: OSE does not validate gossipmongering


 * Edit summaries are not the place to explain complicated or controversial edits. Mis-use of edit summaries is probably the most common trigger for edit wars.  What frequently happens is that the inappropriately brief edit summary, or sometimes both brief and insulting edit summary, present a temptation to the offended party to immediately respond in kind, with their own edit summary.  Of course, that immediate response in kind comes with the second edit in the edit war.
 * The generally acrimonious "discussions" that are hidden in edit summaries are opaque. They can't be understood by uninvolved third parties.  They can't be understood, at all, without stepping through the edits in question, to provide context.  Even then sometimes it isn't possible to understand what the fight was about.  Frankly, after a delay, I doubt if even the original disputants could explain what the fight was about.  Worse previously uninvolved neutral third parties have no reason to look at an article's revision history for an explanation of the article's mysteries.  Why doesn't the article cover XYZ?  They should be able to look to the article's talk page.
 * When HW excised essentially the same passages a month ago, I urged them to explain their concerns more fully, here on the article's talk page. I was frankly disappointed that they would repeat the same basic excision without making a meaningful attempt to explain themselves.  As I wrote, in December, our policies are complicated, and in a constant state of flux.  No one can confidently claim they had mastered every wrinkle.  So we have to explain ourselves to others, when they make a reasonable request.
 * In my opinion, Trillfendi, the personal relationships of notable individuals, whether they are simple friendships, or acrimonious conflicts, sexual affairs, or actual marraige or divorce, becomes something worth considering covering, when reliable sources cover them. USA Today covered Cooper and Waterhouse, so you were correct to revert HW's inadequately explained excision.
 * FWIW, when HW's edit summary refers to OSE, I think he or she was refering to the essay WP:Other Stuff Exists. FWIW, some contributors forget their favourite essays are only essays, and expect other contributors to follow them as if they were actual policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Trillfendi, the personal relationships of notable individuals, whether they are simple friendships, or acrimonious conflicts, sexual affairs, or actual marraige or divorce, becomes something worth considering covering, when reliable sources cover them. USA Today covered Cooper and Waterhouse, so you were correct to revert HW's inadequately explained excision.
 * FWIW, when HW's edit summary refers to OSE, I think he or she was refering to the essay WP:Other Stuff Exists. FWIW, some contributors forget their favourite essays are only essays, and expect other contributors to follow them as if they were actual policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, when HW's edit summary refers to OSE, I think he or she was refering to the essay WP:Other Stuff Exists. FWIW, some contributors forget their favourite essays are only essays, and expect other contributors to follow them as if they were actual policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, when HW's edit summary refers to OSE, I think he or she was refering to the essay WP:Other Stuff Exists. FWIW, some contributors forget their favourite essays are only essays, and expect other contributors to follow them as if they were actual policies.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude her dating history because it's gossip and non-encyclopaedic. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. That these relationships might be reported in the press does not automatically mean that Wikipedia must also include them, particularly when the majority of sources doing the reporting are tabloids. The fact that Other Stuff Exists, or that dating history is included in other articles, is in no way a justification for including the information here (in fact it should be removed from those other articles). Ca2james (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * my question remains... why is it gossip for her yet not for Cooper... the man she was in said relationship with, verifiably by reliable sources not tabloids, for 2 years? Trillfendi (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I already answered that: "The fact that Other Stuff Exists, or that dating history is included in other articles, is in no way a justification for including the information here (in fact it should be removed from those other articles)." In other words, it shouldn't be in the other article, either. And its existence in that other article does not justify its inclusion here - essay aside, that's basic logic. Ca2james (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t seem to be common sense around here but relationships aren’t gossip. The fact that the existence of a relationship between a famous actor and a younger model is “fodder” for tabloids doesn’t make it gossip either. There’s really nothing titilliating about the biographical fact that Waterhouse and Cooper were in a relationship from 2013-2015, left at that. No one even cited gossip sites. Trillfendi (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Include (invited by the bot).  Well, that's my short answer but please read on. In cases like this I go by (in addition to policies) directness of relevance and significance in relation to the topic.    It does have the highest degree of relevance.....it is directly about her. Significance in relation to the topic, I'd call this a borderline yes. Especially for something that she did for a few years. On the same basis, I'd lean towards leaving out dating or such relationships if they are short term or only very recent. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, items that lasted at least a few years yes, short term and recent items no. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include (summoned by bot) - Standard for inclusion is verifiability. It would seem WP:due to give the relationship a brief (i.e. single sentence) mention. To User:Ca2james's "tabloid" concern; I agree Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and there are a lot of tabloids that give mention to the relationship. That said, there are also a few mid-quality RS that mention it, so it seems like the factoid doesn't fall completely in the realm of "tabloid". NickCT (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * actually, the standard is a consensus of Wikipedia users. Verifiability alone doesn't guarantee inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - Actually....... if the information is verifiable, the onus is on you to explain why it shouldn't be included. The argument, "It's tabloid", is not enough. NickCT (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect; per policy, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Verifiability is questionable anyway, seemingly based on the fact that the two have been photographed together, plus anonymous sources and vague allusions by Waterhouse. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * - Wrong. According to the policy you cited; Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. So demonstrate this information doesn't improve the article. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given my reasoning below. The closing editor will determine where any consensus lies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Much like ca2james, I'd remove the sentence from Bradley Cooper as well. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment : It's not clear what if anything is being suggested for inclusion. The RfC seems to jump right in to the middle of an argument, which is confusing for uninvolved editors and probably explains the low participation here. That said, I would be inclined to exclude material such as this and this; the sourcing is weak and the information doesn't meaningfully add to an understanding of the subject. At the moment the article cites People magazine for Waterhouse and Cooper's "relationship" (whatever that means). People only gives an anonymous source for the date of the breakup, which is definitely a red flag per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Waterhouse earlier told Elle, "I don’t talk about my boyfriend". Does she mean Cooper? Who knows? Who cares? Celebrity hookups are basically trivia. (I'd also remove this from Bradley Cooper's bio for the same reasons.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem has been festering for years, I couldn’t care less about the participation numbers of the RfC. People was used simply because it’s an accepted reliable source, especially moreso than tabloids such as the banned Daily Mail who practically documented everytime these individuals saw the light of day. The Miles Kane dalliance or Robert Pattinson rumors lately, are irrelevant. I still find it perplexing why this former relationship is even still questioned, so vehemently at that. If whomever reported the breakup first is really that important, outlets such as TIME and USA Today circle back to People. I mean, Jesus, even 2 months ago magazines were still doing stories on it. No one is saying, "include Bradley Cooper talking about getting laid on New Year’s Day." (That’d be a copyright violation anyway.) A two year relationship is not a hook up. No one takes hookups a White House State Dinner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillfendi (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be true, but inferring anything about Waterhouse and Cooper's relationship from this source would be original research; it doesn't say anything more than that they were there together (in 2014). If there actually were mainstream magazines talking about it until two months ago, that would certainly help settle the issue; which are they? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * if you're concerned about sexism on Wikipedia, consider that, unlike men, women are routinely defined in relation to others instead of through their own accomplishments. Doesn't it seem more sexist to present Waterhouse's boyfriends as an important part of her bio than vice versa? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What part of "this is simply a biographical facet, not delineated as 'important', just stated" don't you people get? It's 1 goddamn sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it's just one sentence. The question is, why should anyone care? The RfC proposed a personal life section about a significant, well-known relationship. A separate section implies that it's important. but I don't think the significance has been shown. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson
, why are you removing the fact that she is in a relationship to Robert Pattinson? It is cited in The Times and Vulture (a subsidiary of New York), both of which are considered reliable sources according to WP:RSPS.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it may have only been a rumor two years ago, but since then there is overwhelming evidence to support the statement, including photographs of the two kissing and holding hands in public. Not one source available of either denying the relationship. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)