Talk:Selma Blair/Archive 1

Archive 1

Zappa

Damn people how could you not mention the Zappa connection :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.97.17.149 (talk) 01:44, 2004 October 14 (UTC)

Kill Me Later

I think "Kill Me Later" was an indie film. I personally think it's one of her best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.105.56 (talk) 19:54, 2006 February 26 (UTC)

Topless appearance

There seems to be an endless array of 12-year-olds that can't get over the fact that she was topless in a movie once. Not relevant, kids. This is Wikipedia, not a catalogue of every woman that has ever taken her shirt off in a movie somewhere. --MattShepherd 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not twelve years old. Are you aware that Wikipedia is not censored? This is a rule of Wikipedia, not a guideline. So what rule can you cite that says mention of this can be removed? Your opinion of what is relevant is just that... an opinion. So unless you can cite something better than that, I'm afraid you have no rules to point to to say that its exclusion is warranted.--Hraefen 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The "12-year-old" comment was in reference to the person that said you could "see her tits," which is crass and juvenile. Was that you? If it was, do you understand how that appears juvenile and unwarranted? I am aware that Wikipedia is not censored. How is suggesting that it's immature and irrelevant to ramble around adding topless appearances in films to actresses' bios "censorship?" There's a league of difference between "censorship" and "good taste." Its exclusion is warranted on the basis of relevance and common sense: relevance, because its relevance is zero to her career as a whole, the scene wasn't particularly notable and caused no controversy; common sense, because mentioning her topless appearance in the first paragraph of the bio makes the article's focus prurient rather than informative. Dig? --66.129.135.114 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, that was me, not signed in. --MattShepherd 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, that wasn't me that added "see her tits" but I have reverted the removal of the "appeared topless" wording once or twice. Appearing topless has plenty of relevance to an actress' career as a whole: some actresses and actors do get naked in their films and some don't. I agree that the mention of it doesn't fit well in the first paragraph of the bio, but I couldn't see a better place to put it at the time so I stuck it back where it was taken from. I tend to revert censorship on sight and if you see the the edit summary from 6/23/06 (Edited out a reference a nude scene. It seemed kind of irrelevant. This isn't CNDB.com) you can probably understand why I viewed it as such. So... can we find a better place in the article for it and possibly rewrite it to give it a little context? Or are you dead set against having mention of it?--Hraefen 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Page pic

Bravo to whomever chose that pic. Billywhack 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rehab issue

The "rehab" item cites Us Weekly and (sheesh) the national enquirer. The link does not seem to be to Us Weekly, however. So if the source is a weblog somewhere, the weblog should be cited, e.g. "My cousin [http:cousin's_weblog.com] says that Us Weekly says that ..." etc. The citation should be good, and accurate, or just delete the item. Fix it or justify it, instead of edit-warring over it. Thanks Pete St.John (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's a horrible source that needs to be improved/corrected or removed. I just didn't want to go the "according to Jossip, US Weekly wrote," route and don't care enough to track down the original source. Is Jossip considered a reliable source? Is Us Weekly? I have no idea. Neither did I want to remove that section again and continue the edit war. Personally, COI or not, I think User:Wishlab made some decent policy-based edits. (Except for deleting the birth name.) The change from Teen Choice Awards to MTV Awards was dead-on. Pairadox (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to the "jossip" page (the purported source of Us Weekly reporting on the rehab thing) and it's front page criticizes Us Weekly for fabricating pregnancy rumors. My conclusion is this: first, it's dubious to claim A as a source, because we cite B citing A. But definitely, we can't claim A as a source on the ground of B citing A, when B renounces A's reliability. That is, the source that is supposed to cite Us Weekly for the rehab news, renounces Us Weekly as unreliable. So just no way we can claim we have a reliable source for the rehab thing. So I deleted it, and if somebody wants it back, they should come up with a reliable source as per policy. The citation as it stood was disinformative, but maybe it's more a matter of gullibility than deceit. Pete St.John (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

well it looks like this particular piece of gossip is being pushed by Kaya80 who seems not responsive. Is this a single-purpose account? 3RR will apply (to me!) so I guess I have to ask for a block. Sheesh. Pete St.John (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The rehab information is fine to include but with better sourcing. Look here. Major media attention. Lawrence § t/e 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the real issue was pushing the gossip site (which was just comically horrible). I myself don't care about the gossip itself, if its referenced properly, agreed. Pete St.John (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "rehab gossip" item got restored, by Pairadox, with a reference to a presumably better source (news.com.au). However, I followed the link: to an article about LINDSEY LOHAN's rehab. Selma Blair is a different person, not mentioned in the article. To quote, "Lindsay admitted herself to an intensive medical rehabilitation facility on Memorial Day (Tuesday Australian time)," Lohan's publicist said in a statement today. This is just flat out disgusting; I don't care about the rehab, I don't care about Selma Blair (the rumor that she's my sister is just funny), but the references being exhumed from your posterior cavities are just plain silly. It's shameful. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you better watch the assumptions you're making there. Directly from the source in question; "The Promises facility has had some famous patients of late, with both Britney Spears and actress Selma Blair undergoing treatment at the luxurious complex." Unlike you, I'll assume good faith and that you didn't look hard enough. Pairadox (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a horrible citation. It begs the question fo treatment; maybe she was treated at the luxurious complex, for an ingrown toenail. It's a near-meaningless sentence fragment in a long article about someone else in a dubious source gossip rag. No I didn't grep for the string "Selma Blair" about Lindsey Lohan, but when I did (after you pointed it out) I found nothing that I would cite. Suit yourself, but Wiki doesn't need to compete with the National Enquirer. I'd be ashamed if that were the best I could do to push something that's not meaningful anyway. Pete St.John (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again with the assumptions of bad faith. I also would prefer a source that was a report about Blair rather than just a dishonorable mention in a story about somebody else. However, having reviewed a wide number of sources, I think there's little doubt that she did a stint at the Promises facility, and the efforts of her representative (User:Wishlab) to cover that up are unacceptable. If this truly were false info, I would expect her team to have issued denials, sued for defamation, whatever. I encountered no evidence of that, and if I had I would have either invalidated the source being used or included the denials as well. It seems we have a case of trying to hush it up rather than deal with it head-on. Now, we can either discuss the quality of the source or not, but I'd prefer it happened without the accusations of trying to "push" something. Pairadox (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairadox, please stop accusing me of accusing you of bad faith. I'm accusing the link of being uncitable. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe you are acting in bad faith, or maybe you are naive, or maybe we have different standards of evidence, or we have different standards of what material is relevant in wiki articles. It's a sucky citation over a petty matter. Enjoy it. Pete St.John (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Selma Blair is a different person, not mentioned in the article."

"This is just flat out disgusting"

"references being exhumed from your posterior cavities"

"It's shameful"

"Wiki doesn't need to compete with the National Enquirer"

"I'd be ashamed if that were the best I could do to push something that's not meaningful anyway."

It's the comments about pulling things out of my ass and pushing something that I took particular exception to, but apparently I shouldn't be offended by it. Whatever. Pairadox (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I conceded that yes, "Selma Blair" was mentioned in the article. A long article about Lindsey Lohan's rehab, mentioning in a sentence fragment that Selma Blair had (for no specified reason) also attended that facility (at no specified time, and I didn't see the range of offered services at that facilty, or if Blair availed herself of any of them). So the "not mentioned in the article" was wrong on my part, I admitted it. I stand by the rest. I'm not reverting it, but it's a bad citation to a dubious source for a vague claim. I don't particularly expect better from celebrity articles. It's the citation I abhor, I don't have a problem with you (Pairadox) other than that your standards of good citation aren't shown up well by this example. Pete St.John (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclear grammar

The sentence "In 2003 Blair found herself in trouble when she was publicly "all over" as reported a married man who was expecting a child with his new wife." is incomprehensible and needs to be clarified. Leo. July 6,08. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.19.119 (talk) 02:32, 2008 July 7 (UTC)

Early Nineties

If she moved to New York in spring/summer 1994 and began acting sometime after that, what kind of early 1990s acting parts did she have? Unless someone has an answer I'm taking out the word early. Nitpyck (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

re-write

AJAX 1995, is there any particular reason you are reverting my edits to this article? I am fixing incorrect grammar, removing POV and making this more encyclopedic in tone rather than an awkward listing of film roles. If you want to make improvements, do so, but don't simply undo edits that are significantly improving a poorly written article. DFS (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions to plot/character

There have been a number of additions to this article recently to give further depth to the characters and films and while this is often a good thing, some care has to be taken to ensure the information is helpful and easily understood. For example "the story tells of a man in arrested development who lives with his parents, he seeks out a woman (interpreted by Blair) in arrested development to try and drop the "dark horse" status in his family and finally accomplish something" Sorry, but what on earth does that actually mean? We need to go through this article and make this kind of addition relevant. At the moment it looks like several points were copied from a website without making any change to the context or the grammar to make them fit. Rossrs (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, about 10 new, similar users have popped up (looks like a sock farm to me at first glance) the last couple of weeks, completely stuffing the article with these rather irrelevant facts. I would prefer going back to before it all, but that would probably be frowned upon. Nymf _hideliho! 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Or as a matter of fact, this is before they popped up, adding every single co-actor and tiny plot details. Nymf _hideliho! 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Some may frown, but I would smile. Rossrs (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And they just keep stuffing the article with superfluous details. Ugh... When I have time some day, I'll go through it all and trim it. Feel free to help when I begin. Nymf _hideliho! 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually this article has been growing, and of course, like everything, has its obvious flaws, and response to your observations, I removed several references, which make the article a bit redundant. Greetings everyone and welcome your constructive criticism to make of this and other items the best and most complete possible. Ajax1995 (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity not mentioned

Selma Blair is Jewish. That is not her real name either.(Selma Blair Beitner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The article states that she attended "Hillel Day School, a Jewish day school". From that, most readers can glean that the subject is (or was) likely Jewish or at the very least studied Judaism. Further, she is categorized as a "Jewish actor". I see no need to add additional content to drive this point home as her religion is not what makes her notable. Regarding her name, this source states that indeed her name was Selma Blair Beitner and she legally changed it to distance herself from her father after her parents' divorce. This source coupled with the others in the article leads me to believe her name is correct. Unless a reliable source can at least be presented to contradict the other sources regarding her name, I believe the content should stay as it is. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Childbirth

In the "Personal Life" section, "Relationships and family", it says:

"In January 2011, Blair's representative announced that she was expecting her first child with him [Jason Bleick]."

This strongly implies that she had previous children with another man or men, yet that isn't addressed. I suspect you mean something like: "In January 2011, Blair's representative announced that Jason Bleick was the father of her first child." Or something a little smoother. Please clarify the statement: to how many children has Blair given birth and was the child she bore with Bleick her first one or not? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, to avoid any confusion, it was slightly modified. IPCcount (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Allegations against James Toback

This is making the news at the moment, and is covered on Toback's page: does it also warrant inclusion here on Blair's page? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Selma Blair

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Selma Blair's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "telegraph":

• From Jennifer Lawrence: Dehn, Georgia (May 23, 2011). "X-Men: Jennifer Lawrence interview". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on June 4, 2012. Retrieved November 29, 2016. she could pull off the challenging dichotomy that Raven faces as she transforms into Mystique; that vulnerability that shields a powerful inner strength. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Evan Rachel Wood: From correspondents in California (September 22, 2006). "Cate Blanchett gets Hollywood gong". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved September 21, 2006. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Christina Ricci: "The vamp is a lady". The Telegraph. April 28, 2007. Retrieved May 7, 2018.
• From Sacha Baron Cohen: Mount, Harry (15 September 2006). "Kazakhstan launches propaganda campaign against Borat". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 25 May 2018.
• From John Carpenter: Freer, Ian (January 7, 2016). "Paranoia, claustrophobia, lots of men: how The Thing inspired Tarantino's Hateful Eight". The Telegraph. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
• From Lemmy: "Lemmy, Motörhead frontman – obituary". The Daily Telegraph. 29 December 2015. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
• From Legally Blonde: "Duchess of Cambridge: radio station behind hoax call says it has not broken any laws". Daily Telegraph.
• From Bradley Cooper: Reid, Ricki (November 23, 2012). "Post-Hangover bliss: Bradley Cooper interview". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on September 26, 2015. Retrieved August 19, 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Born to a Jewish family"

"born to a Jewish family" is a racial stereotype. If the person is Jewish, just say it. ----me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.180.63 (talk • contribs) .

Providing factual information in an encylcopedia is far from perpetuating a racial stereotype. Also, what racial stereotype is being perpetuated? By saying "racial stereotype" do you mean Anti-Semetism? Take a look a some other Wikipedia articles: List of Jewish Americans, List of Jewish American actors, and List of British Jews. Do you think these promote "racial stereotypes" as well? This article is already tagged with the category, Category:Jewish American actors. Finally, let me address your point about not having "born to a Christian family" on other articles. The subjects of biographies on the English Wikipedia are overwhelming from the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Australia. The majority of individuals from these countries are Christian. In the minority are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. Pointing this out is simply providing factual information to the reader and cannot be at all compared to attaching a Star of David or a Red Crescent to these articles. -- Dcflyer 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed racial stereotypes about Jewish families, just as there are stereotypes about Asian families and black families. Why don't you start adding "born to an Asian family" and "born to a black family" to articles, Dcflyer? Why is there an obsession with promoting a stereotype about Jewish families? There's nothing wrong with saying someone is Jewish, if they are Jewish. Just say it directly, don't promote the "Jewish family" stereotype. ----Signed, me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.180.63 (talk) 02:53, 2006 July 14 (UTC)

Actually, the stereotypes only exist if one is willing to entertain them. If you read, "born to a Jewish family", you'll only assume stereotypes if these already exist in your mind as a form of racism; in that case, the user is the one with the "racist" thoughts, not the contributor. Because someone might equate something with someone does not demerit its inclusion. Michael 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just noting, plenty of articles say "born to a Christian family", "born to a Catholic family", "born to an Italian-American family", etc. Mad Jack 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...And if we say such, that doesn't imply we are being stereotypical-we're stating a fact. If some choose to pervert that or twist the meaning, that is not our concern; they could do that with anything they say. Nothing is wrong with stating what is fact, though. Michael 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Note:It is said about many people of various ethnicities and backgrounds. Michael 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for baseball... Why is it when I check Sandy Koufax or Shawn Green, it says Jewish baseball player... how come it doesnt say African American baseball player for Rickey Henderson or Hispanic Baseball player for Adrian GOnzalez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.119.218 (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a fundamental fault with the OP's objection: Judaism isn't a "race"; it's a religion. The way I see it [turning head sideways], a person can be "born to a Jewish family", but if they themselves don't practice Judaism, they can't be considered "Jewish". The hangup here, I believe, is that unlike some (less colourful?) religions, Judaism is often reflected in people's day-to-day culture (in a good way, IMHO). So there's a stigma about portraying people as "Jewish" or "non-Jewish" because it can appear to single them out not just according to their religious practice, but somehow, as people. For what it's worth, my father's half of our family tree is entirely Jewish—and I don't think any of them would find "born to a Jewish family" the least bit offensive. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

I made an edit either 1/16 or 1/17 and I now see that it has been reverted back to the original sentence.

It now again reads: After transferring from New York University, she graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan in 1994 with a BFA degree in Photography, BA in Psychology as well as Double major in Fine Arts and English.[20][21] [7][11][12]

It makes it look like she has a degree in Photogrpahy, Psychology, Fine Arts and in English. I sincerely doubt she got four degrees in a 4 year time span. As far as I am aware one does get a major in fine arts with the designation of BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts). So a BFA in Photography is now listed as two different degees. I read all of the references in their entirity and they all conflict. To me it makes more sense that she got one BFA in Photography and minors in English and Psychology.Mylittlezach (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

She is, however, really really smart, so anything's possible. Also, magna cum laude can be italicized, and linked to WP's article re same... I've suggested those things in a recent edit. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent health developments

Blair is undergoing serious treatment for MS and cancer. Her journey is portrayed in a new documentary, Introducing Selma Blair, released Oct. 15 (see trailer here). It's sad, as she's a marvelous person (well, it'd be sad for anyone)—but this should probably be mentioned in the article, which currently only hints at her health challenges. I'd do it myself, but I don't feel qualified. Okay, it'd just make me too sad. Someone else please do it. – AndyFielding (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)