Talk:Selma Blair

Her 50th birthday was yesterday, yet the entry hasn’t updated?

Just an observation. The title says it all. Jason.cinema (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

In light of a book regarding being a baby...

Full title: In light of a book regarding being a baby, and rehab in life, babies are "good," only to honorably relate by her, Selma Bliar's own reflections, like in "Mean Baby" or "Introducing Selma Bliar."

It's easy in the sense of need of impartiality, in common English phrases,

to relate, ie, -(  for goodness sake, by God! for the love of God ),
thankfully, to my reactions,-
to Selma Blair quotes such as follows.

“Every person on this earth needs just one person who sees them and roots for them. Deeply, truly. One person. It's what we all need to get through. The more the merrier but let's start with one.” - Selma Blair, link, [1]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/93653566 - Just striving to discuss, Talk:Selma Blair, thereby;- The need of her, Selma Blair's own words in comments publically, personal in my, Joschtony's perspective, in that I'm me, Joseph Cimino, curator of "Joschtony" a pen name;- that the chance of someone's personal, such is Selma Blair, having public readily, online published conversational points, included, thus contextual conversational points of need of proper dignified respect for each of us, being human, a person, thus each being higher reasoning sentient, - in the image and likeness of God. Good today of days, in need of just peace beyond the human condition. Joschtony (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

In truth, posted by my dignity being a human being person in the image and likeness of God, because in reflection of her, Selma Blair's own words, that is, her understanding having knowledge of *critical thinking, by the gift of grace beyond the human condtion,

commonly referred to by the gift of God's grace, or termed oils of gladness favor in blessings of gratitude, -

it had been refreshing to hear her words at, noted as follows,

~

"Seek out the other stories. Hire other disabled people in front of and behind the camera — because you and whatever project you are working on will be better for having done so,” said Blair, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2018, while accepting an award at The Hollywood Reporter's event on Wednesday." - "“My Story Is but One of Many”: Selma Blair Advocates for Actors With Disabilities at Women in Entertainment Event" BY ALEX CRAMER

DECEMBER 8, 2021 1:44PM"

~

Good today of days, just peace, in gratitude of this wiki in hopes of contributions by the wiki rules of conduct observed, of course, thankfully each desired the dignity of being respected in the rights not legally alienated from, by given by the Creator.

==sources==

Selma Blair Advocates for Actors With Disabilities at WIE 2021 – The Hollywood Reporter Joschtony (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• note, source link from previous "reply" please note it had been unintended to omit the link.

[2]https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/selma-blahttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/selma-blair-women-in-entertainment-event-1235059497/ir-women-in-entertainment-event-1235059497/ Joschtony (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Islamophobic Statements

The paragraph on her Islamophobic statements should be in a new section entitled "Controversy." This is what I've seen done with other celebrities. Instead, it has been tucked away at the end of her section on "Advocacy." Not only is this an inappropriate place to put it, it obscures the paragraph when it should be highlighted. I suspect this was done deliberately to protect her reputation. I'm entirely against that kind of favoritism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.197.9 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The current positioning is fine. It can be seen as a badly failed attempt at advocacy. This is not a great big controversy. It was one very stupid Instagram post which she (rightly) deleted and (rightly) apologised for. It does not merit it's own section. (Not even close.) If it did merit it's own section, WP:CRITS makes it clear that that section should avoid being called "Criticism" or "Controversy". This edit warring has to stop! --DanielRigal (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"It can be seen as a badly failed attempt at advocacy" LMAO! She made explicitly hateful and bigoted remarks. It IS a great a big controversy. I highly doubt you would hold this position if such bigoted comments were directed at Jews, especially in the midst of a massacre against them. It absolutely should be highlighted in it's own section.

As for the WP:CRITS it ALSO says there shouldn't be any section on "accolades or praises" and yet we see an "Awards and Nominations" section on practically every celebrity page.

If it's against the rules to have a controversy section on a Wikipedia page, then I assume you will also advocate for the removal of such a section from Mel Gibson's page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson#Controversies

Otherwise, spare me your limited and selective interpretation and application of the rules. 99.245.197.9 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the statement, entirely preserved, from its own section. You mention Gibson, but the cases are entirely different: Gibson has a decades-long history of well-documented problematic statements and actions, so it's not WP:UNDUE for his article to highlight that in some kind of specific section (whether it should be called "Controversies" is potentially debatable, but its placement in a separate section is not).

As far as we know, this is Blair's first recorded instance of being accused of bigotry, so while given the coverage it warrants mention (although partially the amount of coverage is a result of the extremely charged nature of the Israel–Palestine conflict), it certainly does not warrant its own section as if she is considered a particularly controversial figure overall (as in, over the course of her entire career). —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Your contention is that Mel Gibson made enough bigoted statements to warrant his own section, but Selma Blair did not. However, I see only three incidents listed under Mel Gibson's separate section on controversy. So one isn't enough, but three is the magic number? I'm curious if you also use this standard when mentioning awards and nominations, if someone has only ever won a single Emmy, does that not go in it's own section on awards and achievements?

The statements are egregious enough to warrant a controversy section in the same vein an Emmy win is prestigious enough to warrant an awards section. If not, then Mel Gibson's statements should also be tucked away somewhere in his 'personal life' section.

In public interest and fairness, I have restored it under it's own section again. 99.245.197.9 (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of comments on Israel-Hamas war

Why have Blair's comments on Israel and Hamas been removed? They are noteworthy regarding Blair's perception in current news. JPHC2003 (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)