Talk:Sophie Anderton

Contested use of the label prostitute in the introductory first sentence and elsewhere.

Do 2 WP compliant documented instances of prostitution mean the subject is a prostitute and can be labeled thus in the introductory first sentence and elsewhere ? Various editors have done so and various editors have undone or removed the edit - [1] [2]. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

She should be considered a prostitute indeed, but since it seems not to be her primary activity, I believe she should not be labelled as one in the introductory first sentence, just as Adolf Hitler isn't mentioned as a German painter in the introductory sentences of his article.Hpdl —Preceding comment was added at 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Its an understandably contentious issue, in my opinion the first sentence or paragraph should, as far as possible, be a direct reflection of the article. Mentioning the prostitution 'issue' in the article but neglecting it at the beginning when the article is essentially summarised doesn't make much sense to me. Having said that i don't think its worth getting into an edit war over one sentence. Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject has engaged in prostitution on multiple occasions, so the introductory statement is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.99.82 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian

I have just adjusted the tag which suggests from the media statement of a former boyfriend that she enjoys lesbian sex. I don't think this is strong enough to tag her as an LGBT person: (1) its a third party quote (2) she's had more well referenced relationships with men than many women (3) just because she enjoys cuddling up to and may be a little bit more with a woman, doesn't mean she identifies herself as a lesbian, and (4) there are strong references to suggest she in actual fact she hates lesbians, which tends to suggest she's not one. If people refer to the sections/refs where she undertakes acts of paid sex, then much as though that may suggest she is a prostitute (once is to err, but twice tends to suggest something deeper....), again noting appears where she directly says "I'm a lesbian" which is our normal fair test of sexuality. gds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"hating lesbians"? Reaction formation? And there some people who are bisexual MerriFunn (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wonderbra?

The 'Wonderbra Women' article lists her as one of the Wonderbra models with slogan "Who says a woman can't get pleasure from something soft?" And that actually is true, after googling found this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bra-firm-dumps-agency-over-sexist-adverts-647527.html. There couldn't be any reason to not include this, or? 82.141.125.215 (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Blog spam

User:NigelJong has added back unencyclopedic blog spam "Sophie Anderton revealed to entertainment site MarkMeets "I would consider another reality show now if the production company was one I respect" I don't think this has any place in an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Overkill

Recent edits to the Personal life section weight this BLP in a heavily negative direction. I do not dispute the sourcing, and assume good faith about the dead link and the source with no link at all. But, even sourced, do we need all of this in a BLP. WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ATTACK may all be implicated. David in DC (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for additional eyes to review these edits, on the BLP Noticeboard. David in DC (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about this article as a whole not just the personal section. It goes out of its way to slander the subject using unreliable sources such as these two English tabloids: The Sun and the Daily Mail. It violates WP:BLP and needs some significant clean up IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The fun never ends does it? In July, I removed a huge amount of tabloid crap [3][4][5] And yet even under protection it creeps back in. I find it hard to believe that Trident13 accepted this massive edit despite it being, a) tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism", and b) sourced to The Sun, The Mirror, and the Daily Mail! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No mention at all of her working as a prostitute? Seems odd, as this is definitely noteworthy for a bio, no? --82.41.251.96 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Give a dog a bone!

I only came to this article because I just read about how her PA was trying [unsuccessfully] to get her free a free (just £18) subscrition for Elle magazine. What struck me was the mention that she was an ex-whore. However there was no mention in the article.

Then I notice there was discussion on this talk page about her whoring but now there is no mention in the article.

It therefore begs the question is the elephant in the room the thing that makes this person notable no longer notable for the article? The tabloids were only interested in her because she once was a high-class whore but as that is no longer mentioned or alluded to, all she has done is appeared on a few crap z-list TV shows. Yet no mention what elevated her to appearing on these shows.

So if the very thing that made her famous is no longer mentioned, and the fact that she is no longer considered a celebrity (poor girl couldn't even wangle a free subscription to Elle), then what is left to say about her? Nothing in my view. She had her 15-minutes of fame and now it's gone.

WP:ONEEVENT seems to be clear on these matters. Unless all the stuff about how her whoring is put back in showing how that made her "celebrity" for a while. 86.182.41.156 (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid allegations

Hi, I have recently undone changes made by an IP because I thought, it should be discussed first here on article's talk page before we put it into there. Here are the texts and the source,

• In 2004, Anderton briefly worked as a prostitute, allegedly to clear a drugs debt.

References

Please voice your opinion here. Regards, -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed at BLPN last September, with the conclusion being that the sourcing wasn't up to BLP policy requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sophie Anderton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906070758/http://www.novafm.com.au/entertainer/sophie-anderton to http://www.novafm.com.au/entertainer/sophie-anderton
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601072227/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970510/ai_n14105939 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970510/ai_n14105939

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) 18:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sophie Anderton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227210646/http://www.superbrands.uk.com/programmes/issues/9/sb09_gossard.pdf to http://www.superbrands.uk.com/programmes/issues/9/sb09_gossard.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140906070744/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/24977/Sophie-Anderton-Quits-Cirque-De-Celebrite to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/24977/Sophie-Anderton-Quits-Cirque-De-Celebrite

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) 19:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sophie Anderton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829011804/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-model-Sophie-Anderton-fears-drug-relapse/story-19707176-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-model-Sophie-Anderton-fears-drug-relapse/story-19707176-detail/story.html

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) 16:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)