Wikipedia

Talk:Jameela Jamil/Archive 1

< Talk:Jameela Jamil
Latest comment: 3 years ago by JohnFromPinckney in topic She states
Archive 1

Rewrite

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re. the rewrite today, I've put my draft/notes into Talk:Jameela Jamil/Chzz for future reference.

I've also tried to get a photo - emailed various people. C4 said go through agents, but I've tried them, and they weren't very helpful - just said there were none they could licence. Also tried to contact Jamil; no avail, unfortunately.

So if anyone can get a photo, please do.  Chzz  ►  00:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the {{reflist}} template, if you stick to using the "ref=" parameter rather than leaving it implicit then unused references are highlighted rather than ignored. This is mentioned in the template documentation but is not very clear. Fæ (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please read WP:BLP and WP:V; many of the sources used here are online gossip rags and blogs, and are not adequate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ref one is to Sky Showbiz; I'm inclined to say this is one of the more trustworthy blogs as Sky is a pretty big name in the UK. Ref 2 is obviously unreliable; their disclaimer even says that it's opinion-based. Ref 3 isn't online based on the date, but there is a lot of Look coverage on their website, so some of that may be salvageable. Ref 26 is IMDB, usually unreliable, but I don't see anything controversial with that statement and it's only cited once, so I'm inclined to just trust it for now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Sky Showbiz isn't going to say anything it can get sued over, but I have significant doubts that we have a reliable source for this lady's age - Millndoll (her agents) describe her as 22 in 2008, which makes her 24 in 2010. Ref 2 should be removed altogether.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Ref three has been scanned online at [1]; that should be fine. No title seen, but "Interview with Look magazine" ought to do fine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much fannish trivia

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've added the {{fansite}} template to this article, as it seems to be largely made up of the kind of irrelevant trivia only a fan would be interested in. Who cares that 'She admits to a love of steak, chips and chocolate', 'she prefers walking with an iPod to using the gym' or 'When younger, Jamil wore extra-large mens Gap tracksuits'? That kind of information is utterly trivial, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic biography. This reads more like an article from a celebrity magazine. Robofish (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've drastically cut down this article to more like how I think it should look: [2] Robofish (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Your edit resulted in a large number of errors displayed in references.
In addition, you removed various facts which I consider entirely appropriate biographical content - for example, her height, where she was born, that she was almost crippled in a car accident, that she worked as a teacher, that she has published a column in a magazine, that she began TV with an appearance on a certain show, and so forth. Please discuss potential edits here. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

9st

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What is 9st? Is that just another way of measuring weight? I am from the U.S. so I'm not sure if that is common usage in another area. Edward130603 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since "stone" is not a common measure of weight, I removed the measurement and substituted metric measurements. Wkharrisjr (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Stone (written as st after the number) is a comman measure of weight in England, even though we're supposed to have gone metric. In fact, when talking about people it is The Measure of weight.Dannman (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've added the weight in stones in brackets, as opposed to replacing. There's some code used for the weight that I'm not up on, so it might need tidying up. In England we work in pounds (lb) for smaller weights. As this is an English born (British) & British TV presenter, I thought having the English usage would be in line. It doesn't have to be exclusive though.
A could of years ago when I was being weighed by a nurse, I was given my weight in both Kg and stone & pounds. (eg 11st 11lb).Dannman (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jameela Jamil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actor?

Is there a reason the male substantive is used? Unless it's a recent guideline, I believe every other biographic page about acting performers of female gender is using "actress". Kumagoro-42 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jameela Jamil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jameela Jamil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jameela Jamil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As with the content dispute at Kate Smurthwaite, changes to the standard form 'radio host' should be discussed here, and not changed to 'radio hostess' without first establishing a consensus that sourcing supports this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Coming out as Queer

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this tweet enough or is it going to have the same issues as Pauley Perrette? --Madeyefire (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

She says "my being queer". That's clear enough for me. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 09:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
And yet the addition On February 2020, Jamil came out as queer via twitter amid backlash for her involvement as a judge in a ballroom tv show, was reverted (=Vandalised) by a self-appointed censor. This despite the same story having been published in numerous creditable sources, including the BBC.
Nuttyskin (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

She's "queer" but she's dating a man. Doesn't that make her bisexual? - Dutchman Schultz

More background?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

She plays a British/Pakistani woman in THE GOOD PLACE and her name sounds Arabic. Does she really have Pakistani ancestry? 2601:C2:201:2B85:FC75:8179:D775:D501 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This article states "to an Indian father and a Pakistani mother." Does not specify religious upbringing. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Her mother was Pakistani muslim. Her father was nonreligious. Discussed here Zantarctica (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil's header picture

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would it possible for a better picture of Jameela Jamil to be put on her header on her article? I think it's odd that most celebrities have color pictures but a south asian-descent person has a black and white picture. There's a long and ugly history of south-asian celebrities living in the West being photographed in black and white on magazine covers and press pictures because their skin is too ~~dark~~. It struck me as very very odd that her picture is in black and white when she has been photographed so much in the last few years in really beautiful colorful dresses that set off her skin very prettily. I think it gives the article the appearance of bias even if it's not actually meant to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.248.181 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently (Dec 2019) a color photo. David notMD (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
It's back to b&w. (12/02/2020) Zantarctica (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

PTSD

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

HI

The article states she suffered PTSD, but there is nothing there to say what the PTSD was caused by.

Anyone know? If not, her just saying "i had ptsd" is simply primary ref, and not secondary or tertiary ... Chaosdruid (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The challenging of the veracity of Jamil's claims from Feburary 2020, and how this affects the article

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, I noticed my edits on this article have been reverted. I am currently working on collating sources where the veracity of Jamil's claims are challenged. The original source for the challenging of the veracity of her claims is here: https://www.instagram.com/stories/highlights/18093883864083603/?hl=en but perhaps someone could advise me as to whether and how Instagram and other social media publications can be cited as sources.

The Instagram story has been widely reported in both British and American mainstream media publications from February 2020, which I also intend to cite. Some of the mainstream media publications also reported their own research into specific contradictory statements Jamil has made, about her health history, supposed accidents, supposed early jobs, and many other things. I intend to include a whole new paragraph in the 'Personal Life' section that explores and sources these major revelations about the veracity of Jamil's claims.

As regards including 'Burton' in her last name, the two sources cited directly contradict each other on whether this is actually part of her name, and the one source that does give 'Burton' is the only one I can find anywhere. In light of this, I would request that, for the time being, the person who reverted this edit might at least revert their reversion of my edit to remove 'Burton' from her name, until such time as another source is found that also states that it is part of her name.

I have no personal connection with Jamil and no desire to get into an edit war with any users, but the challenging of the veracity of Jamil's claims is a major event pertaining to her biography, which I feel must be included now that the article is no longer protected, with the language in other sections changed accordingly to reflect the widespread doubt about her claims.

Please feel free to add comments here and I'm sure that we can reach a good-faith resolution and plan of action concerning this article.--Uakari (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


Her name: TV Guide is about as reputable/reliable a source as you can get in the entertainment world, and it's clear to most everyone that that would be her full name and any other source listing her name as "Jameela Jamil" is simply using her stage name, not contradicting the claim that her full name is as listed. Unless another reliable source refutes specifically that her name is for some reason not Jameela Alia Burton-Jamil, then it should stand.
  1. You cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, use an unverified social media account as a source for information here at Wikipedia. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. That would include attempting to insert material where other sources are simply amplifying the unreliable source, which is a common occurrence, sadly, in the entertainment press... and increasingly in the press in general. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a gossip site. Now if there's a New York Times-calibre source out there that does research into her statements and clearly finds inaccuracies, sure, that can be included. But you certainly can't edit sourced information into reverse weasel-worded "she claimed" statements throughout—you would need reliable sources refuting each and every piece of information that is reworded to reflect questionable veracity.
Overall, given the recency of any purported veracity issues, a cautious approach where we wait until we can tell whether this is actual new information or simply a smear campaign is warranted, as per WP:NODEADLINE. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


HER NAME: As someone based in the UK, I have never heard of 'TV Guide', and their use of 'Burton' is not consistent with any other source I can find. Therefore, until such time as another source is found, or Jamil makes a statement on her name herself, I believe 'Burton' should be removed. it is not clear where this publication sourced its information from, but I suspect it may have been from an interview that Jamil personally gave them.
HER NAME: Jameela herself has stated it is not her name: https://twitter.com/jameelajamil/status/1292915398807941121 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.128.54 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
OTHER EDITS: Below, I am linking to a selection of sources reporting on the Instagram story, as well as conducting their own research into the veracity of Jamil's claims (see especially the Daily Mirror article that challenges Jamil's assertion about having 'changed laws'). I would suggest that you also read through the sources cited in the Instagram story carefully yourself, and the glaring inconsistencies in Jamil's accounts of her supposed health issues, supposed injuries, supposed early jobs, etc, will soon become apparent. The author of the Instagram story, Tracie Morrissey, is a respected US-based journalist who has worked for magazines and publications such as The Cut and Jezebel, among others.
This is clearly not a 'smear campaign', but a major event that has been widely reported across international media, and that has indeed precipitated further contradictory statements from Jamil and her partner James Blake, her writing extensive messages to the author of the Instagram story, and her setting her Twitter account to private for 48 hours. Again, all the sources cited in the article are taking her words in interviews at face value, as at those points in time there was no reason to doubt their veracity - why should those sources take precedence just because they were added to the article first, before the widespread doubting of the veracity of Jamil's claims came about? Why should one person's word (Jamil's) be taken as the gospel truth, when you are saying that another person's (Tracie Morrissey's) careful research into Jamil's multiple inconsistencies and contradictory statements over a long period of time, is not to be trusted? In my view, taking that approach risks violating WP:NPOV, and if you do take that approach, you would appear to be elevating the word of a 'celebrity' above the research of respected journalists, which may lead to your own biases and/or prejudices being called into question.
If you look at this Twitter account from someone who claims to have known Jamil growing up: https://twitter.com/obsessivelocust you will also see that the account holder has provided their own anecdotal evidence of how Jamil's upbringing influenced her present-day behaviour pattern. This account holder appears to have no connection with the author of the Instagram story, but their account seems consistent with the research in the Instagram story, as well as with Jamil's own statements in mainstream media about the abuse she apparently suffered growing up.
Even if you still consider the challenging of the veracity of Jamil's claims to be a 'smear campaign', it is clearly a major event in the life of the article subject, enough to have generated a very large number of articles in mainstream media, and for her and her partner to have both issued repeated official statements about it. Therefore this event should at the very least be mentioned in the article - I would argue that it probably warrants its own section as well.
SOME SOURCES CHALLENGING THE VERACITY OF JAMIL'S CLAIMS (FEEL FREE TO LOOK FOR MORE YOURSELF):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8005273/Jameela-Jamil-spent-TWO-DAYS-defending-unhinged-writer-said-Munchausen.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jameela-jamil-accused-fresh-law-21496189
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/jameela-jamil-munchausens-syndrome-car-accident-instagram-a9331246.html
https://slate.com/culture/2020/02/jameela-jamil-munchausen-accusations-bees-ehlers-danlos-explained.html
https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/12/jameela-jamil-addresses-viral-munchausen-claims-slams-dumb-internet-conspiracies-12224968/
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-02-14/jameela-jamil-munchausen-syndrome-james-blake-tweet
https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/jameela-jamil-internet-conspiracy-theories-munchausens-a4360176.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2020/02/24/surjury-piers-morgan-jameela-jamil-still-fighting-caroline-flacks/
https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-jameela-jamil-responds-munchausen-claims-20200213-kuraperfhreu7m7tldzxdiyrou-story.html.
Uakari (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


GENERAL POINTS: It appears that all of these sources refer back to the same highly suspect single source: An accusation made without evidence by unqualified people. (Unless "qualified" includes medical amateurs running a weird podcast and promising "our system guarantees results" on their Patreon page.) I agree with earlier critiques: There's no reason to cast aspersions on the subject's description of her own life. --tgeller (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


GENERAL POINTS: The Daily Mirror source in particular does a bit of its own research to challenge Jamil's assertion that she has 'changed laws'. If you look carefully at all the sources in the Instagram story, it really does seem to add up to a behaviour pattern of contradictory statements that can't be ignored. Even if that doesn't mean going as far as to change the language of the article, what do you think about this event having its own section or a paragraph under 'personal life'? It would appear to be a significant event in the subject's life, judging by the number of times it has been reported on in the media, her own repeated official statements about it, her partner's official statement about it, her setting her Twitter account to private for 48 hours when she has one million followers, and by her repeatedly messaging the author of the Instagram story.
If broader context is needed, also discussing how Jamil has been accused of having previously orchestrated a Twitter 'dogpile' on Caroline Flack (a British TV presenter who recently killed herself), and then after the suicide Jamil implying that Twitter 'trolls' were causing Jamil herself to be in the same vulnerable position, please see this Daily Telegraph article (unfortunately to read the whole thing you have to subscribe, so I don't know whether it could be used as a source or not): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/bekind-jameela-jamil-woke-warriors-should-try/
HER NAME: As someone based in the UK, I have never heard of 'TV Guide', and their use of 'Burton' is not consistent with any other source I can find. Everywhere else only states 'Jameela Jamil', although 'Alia' is likely to be her middle name. Therefore, until such time as another source is found, or Jamil makes a statement on her name herself, I still believe 'Burton' should be removed. It is not clear where this publication sourced its information from, but I suspect it may have been from an interview that Jamil personally gave them, and thus ties into the issue of the veracity of her statements being doubted. What do you or others think about this point specifically? --Uakari (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as minor updates on Jamil keep being added, such as the recent paragraph about her posing for Playboy, I think it is only fair to add something about the allegations that she has lied about her health and co-opted causes, as those matters have received much more coverage, even if that does not actually mean going as far as to change the language of the rest of the article. Please post any initial objections to that here, and I'll then also add here add a draft of the paragraph I intend to write so people can suggest changes before it appears in the article itself. As no one has commented further on her name, please also post here any objections you have to my removing 'Burton' from her name and just citing the source that gives her full name as 'Jameela Jamil' (I have no objection to leaving in 'Alia' as her middle name). --Uakari (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Ha - she literally said herself there is no Burton in her name - so now finally you changed it. Tell me again how much of a reliable source TV Guide is? :-)) Uakari (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting well sourced paragraphs in 'personal life'

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Challenge the sources and explain the reversions - these are WAY more notable than any of the guff on her about her posing for Playboy, etc. You clearly have a bias towards the subject, and 'she states' is entirely neutral. What do OTHERS think? Uakari (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I entirely concur that "states" is neutral. At peer reviews and FAC I often counsel against the word "claims", which perhaps implies a certain disbelief, but there is nothing tendentious about "states". Someone had either stated something or he/she hasn't. (Full disclosure, I am a RL friend of Uakari, though with different WP interests, but I give my views without favour to the best of my ability.) Tim riley talk 07:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Plus Joeyconnick deleted entire paragraphs I carefully sourced in the 'personal life' section, with no explanation for this (seemingly only because these sources do not show the subject in such a 'positive' light, despite being perfectly valid sources).Uakari (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Obsessive Hate Page

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page is a not very subtle obsessive hate page. It should be taken down. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.128.85 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

She states

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have no opinion on whether various statements about her life should be qualified as discussed above.

However, the way in which they are qualified is incorrect:

  • "At the age of nine, she states she was diagnosed....". She can't "state" something in the present tense at the age of nine.
  • " As a teenager, she states she suffered..." She is not currently a teenager, so "as a teenager, she states" is incorrect.

etc. These all need to be rephrased if they are to be kept. --Macrakis (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur that a comma or three would help. Duly added. Tim riley talk 14:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I hope to have adequately addressed the last of this, finally. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jameela_Jamil/Archive_1&oldid=1114965280"