Talk:The Beautiful Life

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: www.cwtv.com/shows/the-beautiful-life/about. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --momoricks 04:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging the episodes list

In light of the fact that the series has been cancelled and only seven episodes at most are expected (two aired, four unaired, and one possibly produced), I propose merging List of The Beautiful Life episodes into The Beautiful Life#Episodes. The article is not so long as to need splitting (right now it is 11 KB long) and adding the list of episodes would not make it much longer (it would be an extra 5 KB). Any thoughts?

I would like to leave the discussion open (and the merge tags on the articles) for 3–5 days in order to allow ample opportunity for any interested editor to comment. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support I see no need for a separate article for such a small episode list. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Emma white20 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing... –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done and fully documented. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Production notes" section.

While these can be useful places to add interesting snippets of information which can be hard to place elsewhere in the article, it has been my experience that they can also lead to controversy and disagreements - And it appears that we have such a disagreement here now. User Pinkadelica believes that a mention of Mischa Barton having her ears pierced especially for this show is irrelevant trivia which has no place here, while I believe it is interesting and relevant and should be included. The same user is also questioning the reliability of the source given, on the sole grounds that it is a tabloid publication, and therefore (in their opinion) unreliable. As we are currently apparently deadlocked on this issue, and need to avoid an edit war or 3RR issue, I feel the best option is to ask for other opinions on this matter, and would like to invite comments and opinions from other users. Emma white20 (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to avoid an edit war or 3RR issue, adding the content back wasn't the ideal solution. Anyhow, I didn't question the reliability of News of the World, I flat out said it is unreliable. Per your message on my talk page, I pointed you to several posting on the reliable sources noticeboard that state that NOTW is a tabloid and shouldn't be used. As I said on your talk page, if you want to debate that any further or feel I'm off the mark with that, you can ask for opinion on that elsewhere. The fact that I find the content trivial is really just icing on the cake. Even with a reliable source, I don't see how Barton getting her ears pierced is relevant to the production of the series. The show obviously still would've gone ahead had she chose not to put additional holes in her head. If she had gained 30 pounds or something for the part (à la Renée Zellweger for Bridget Jones or Jared Leto for Chapter 27), I could see mentioning it. With reliable source of course. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The tabloid format of News of the World does not disqualify it as a reliable source, but the fact that the newspaper is "focused on celebrity gossip and titillating sex scandals" does, in my opinion. A newspaper with headlines such as "F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers" does not inspire confidence.

A more definitive approach to resolving this disagreement may be to start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking whether News of the World qualifies as a reliable source for the statement in question. If the consensus is that it does, then we can move on to discussing whether the content is trivial or non-trivial; if the consensus is that it does not, then the issue is moot until a reliable source is found. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Black Falcon is 100% correct in saying that being a tabloid does not exclude the News of the World from being a reliable source - There's nothing in WP:RS, WP:V or WP:BLP that excludes the use of tabloids in general as sources, and for anyone to state otherwise is totally incorrect. There is also nothing anywhere on Wikipedia that specifically excludes the News of the World from being used as a source - The single discussion Pinkadelica pointed me to (not "several postings", as they claim) simply has a non-UK editor with no direct knowledge of the source asking for opinions from others, and the two genuine editors who reply both making the error of stating that tabloids are not permissable sources simply because they are tabloids, or of stating that The Sun in an unreliable source, but without giving any supporting evidence. This places their opinions in doubt, as they have made a gross error in interpreting Wikipedia guidelines, which has then coloured their opinions, or have based their opinion on an unsupported statement that looks like a personal POV. I'd also like to point out that, while you are talking about the News of the World, the reference in question is actually an interview from it's companion colour suppliment magazine, "Fabulous", which has it's own website (given in the reference). And if the News of the World (or the magazine) was so unreliable, don't you think it would find itself being taken to court a lot more often than it does??! True, it does often rely on quite sensationalist headlines to try and capture sales, but how long would it last if the reporting behind the stories wasn't of an acceptable standard? And the "F1 Boss" story you give as an example was widely reported by all UK newspapers at the time, including the broadsheets, and I don't see them being questioned as sources as a result, do you? Yes, Max Mosley did sue the News of the World about the story, but only about the claims of Nazi connotations - He didn't deny the other aspects of the story. So that shows that, while the paper may sometimes go for the sensationalist angle, the reporting behind the headlines can be as reliable as other newspapers. And it's also worth pointing out that a simple search of Wikipedia turns up close on 200 articles using the News of the World as a source, and only two examples of source reliability being questioned - Here, and the example Pinkadelica has given where incorrect information concerning guidelines is used to support the opinion of unreliability. And as many of those articles are concerning personalities with much higher public profiles in the UK than Mischa Barton has (e.g. Wayne Rooney, Gordon Ramsay, McFly, Jade Goody, Heather Mills, Jodie Kidd, Amanda Holden, Kate Middleton and David Cameron, to name just a few), don't you think that source reliability would have been questioned a lot more before now? As it hasn't been questioned in relation to any of these quite high-profile articles, I'd say that the general consensus of opinion is that the News of the World is a reliable source, and has been accepted as such for quite a while - And there's about 1,000+ examples of The Sun being accepted as a source for equally high-profile articles. I'd suggest taking a look at WP:CONLIMITED for a guideline I believe could apply here to the question of if The Sun and the News of the World are considered reliable. Such a huge number of accepted and unquestioned references implies to me that the general consensus on Wikipedia is that both publications have indeed been accepted as reliable sources, regardless of any sensationalist angle in some of their headlines... (And it's also worth pointing out that the News of the World, while being published as a tabloid, is definitely not a US-style "supermarket tabloid".) Emma white20 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quite some research. I'm satisfied it is notable enough for a short mention. I don't think you should be required to justify the use of News of the World (although I'd try avoid any Rupert Murdoch owned publication if there was an alternative source). -- Horkana (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely - The NOTW has been used as an unquestioned reference for so many articles that no justification should be needed for its use here! 62.249.253.71 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Black Falcon also said, a two second post to the reliable sources noticeboard would probably be the best approach. Even if an editor who answers there is not from the UK (which is highly irrelevant), the people there are well versed in what passed for a reliable source. If that doesn't work, I'll be happy to open an RfC. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of News of the World as Source

After consulting the reliable sources noticeboard in regards to using News of the World as a source, I'd like to ask for outside opinions regarding its usage in this context in this article. The source is presently being used to cite content regarding the show's star, Misha Barton, getting her ears pierced especially for the series (see "Production notes"). I feel the content is poorly sourced (even though this isn't a sensational or wild claim) is trivial and should be removed. As another editor above suggest, I suppose to best and easiest route would be to decide if NOTW is an acceptable source in this context and go from there. Pinkadelica^♣ 07:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There are enough articles that use blogs and web sites as sources that are not of the highest provenance for lack of a better source, especially for information we can reasonably expect to be true. I see no reason to exclude the information purely because it comes from a weak source such the News of the World. It would be massively preferable (more convenient at least) if there was a web copy of the claim, or any other source weak (or not) that also mentioned the factoid but since you have provide a source I would then suggest the burden should be on the objectors/deletionists to find a counter-point or counter reference.

Having said that I think the more important question is if this is really notable? It seems like a straw man argument to complain about the source of the information, when the claim itself doesn't seem all that significant. An addition source, or article, or anything that even mentions her not having her ears pierced (perhaps a comment about not having any tatoos or piercings even) that would at least help establish some precedent and suggest this might have been something she really did consider significant would help towards notability. -- Horkana (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the content is notable which is why I opened the RfC. The fact that the content is (IMHO) poorly sourced is a secondary point, but one that should probably be addressed since some editors think that everything with a source automatically means it should be included. Anyhow, per this discussion, I think it's clear that the content needs another source anyway. Even with an additional source, I don't see why the point should be mentioned as Barton getting her ears pierced was not paramount to the production of the series. Pinkadelica^♣ 15:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you’re looking for evidence that Mischa didn’t have her ears pierced earlier, and got them done especially for the show, I think I can help with that. Up until a couple of years ago, I was a member of a well-established Mischa Barton forum that closed down at the end of 2007 when the host put up the annual charges to an unacceptable level. Before it shut, I was able to archive a lot of the threads to my PC, including one where the question of if she had pierced ears came up. As a result, I’ve got a lot of useful references from back then, which I think can help here.

The first mention I have of Mischa not having her ears pierced previously comes from the August 2005 issue of InStyle magazine, in a feature titled Guilty Pleasures: Mischa Barton. In this, she talked about things she likes, including Chanel jewelry. Explaining why, she said it was because “Oddly enough, they have a rather extensive collection of earrings for those of us whose ears aren't pierced.” I know it can’t be used as a source for any article due to copyright issues, but if you want to take a look at it yourself, there’s a scan of the article on one of the Mischa fan sites. So there we have Mischa saying that, in mid-2005, she didn’t have pierced ears. This was picked up on by CNN, for their Showbiz Tonight show. In the July 27, 2005 episode of the show (transcript here), they interviewed Polly Blitzer from InStyle about their feature on Mischa, and she stated “For those of us whose ears aren`t pierced, we can actually take a tip from Mischa. She doesn`t have pierced ears and loves Chanel, because they have an extensive collection of earrings for people who don`t have pierced ears.”

About a year later, Mischa was in London for Fashion Week, and was interviewed on Capital FM radio on November 28, 2006. At the end of the interview, she answered a few phone-in questions, including one where someone asked her if it was true that she didn’t have pierced ears and why. Answering the question, she confirmed that she didn’t, and said, “I don’t know if I want to get my ears pierced, cause I feel pain very easily.” So there she’s confirming that she didn’t have them done at that time.

More recently, in February 2009, Mischa posted a video on her official website, which followed her visiting the P3R jewelry showroom in Los Angeles to pick out a few pieces to wear to an event. About a third of the way through the video, Mischa spots a pair of earrings she likes the look of, and clearly states, “I wish I had pierced ears for these.” So, again, we have Mischa confirming that, as recently as the start of this year, she did not have pierced ears.

As for proof of her considering it important enough that she got them pierced especially for TBL, that comes from the Fabulous article that seems to be causing so much fuss here. This is a fairly comprehensive multi-page interview with Mischa, where she talks both about TBL and some of the problems she’s had this year. During the interview, she reveals that “I only had my ears pierced a few weeks ago and I’m still getting used to them.” When asked why she’d only just had them done, she answers “Well, I’d thought about getting them done a couple of times in the past, and my sisters, who’ve both had their’s done for years, have always been on at me to get them done, but I never actually got around to it. But, when I signed up for The Beautiful Life and we were discussing costumes for Sonja, they asked me if I’d be prepared to have my ears pierced, so that Sonja will be able to wear the same earrings as all the other models in some of the fashion show scenes. And, as I’d already been thinking again about maybe getting them done, I figured that maybe now was the time, so I said ‘OK’ and got them done a couple of days later.”

So that’s the evidence we have that Mischa didn’t have her ears pierced earlier, and that she considered it important enough to get them done especially for the show. Hopefully, that will help answer some of your questions. And as to the point of notability, I could counter the comments of it being trivial information with a quote from WP:HTRIVIA, which states that “the criteria for inclusion are complex, because the ‘importance’ of a fact is subjective. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers.” It also says that an article should “present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, and refer the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found”, which I think this does – It doesn’t dwell on it, just quickly states the fact, and points the reader to where additional info can be found if required. I also think that there’s a lot in the “Recommendations for handling trivia” section that could apply here – It doesn’t say that all trivia should be removed simply because it is trivia, but that efforts should be made to integrate it into the rest of the article. It also recommends that it should only be removed if it is especially tangential or irrelevant, cannot be integrated in any way, is clearly speculative or incorrect, or outside the Wikipedia content scope policies. So there's nothing at all that says it has to be deleted because some editors consider it to be "trivial", and it all comes down to a matter of personal opinion as to what is actually relevant to the show, which I think it is. Emma white20 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As a source, it seems to meet all of the guidelines for reliability and verifiability - It's an established major national newspaper with proper editorial review, doesn't promote extremist views, isn't allied to the subject in question, etc. So it seems to meet all of the requirements set out in WP:RS and WP:V for use as a source. But if people want additional confirmation from other sources, then IMO probably the best option is to keep it in for now, but tag it as "source required" (or "additional source required", if that is possible). That way, people can see the information, but the tag lets those who may have additional confirmatory information know that it is required.

As for the question of notability, my view is that if it directly relates to this show, as it appears it does, and is confirmed from reliable sources, as it appears to be, then it should be in the article. To me, something like that is just as relevant to the show as things like filming locations - It's all a part of the show's production process. So I say keep it in, but tag it as needing additional references to support the one we already have. Meeshhead (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is all of this discussion about pierced ears??? WTF does when she had her ears pierced have to do with her notability? Why is this even an issue here and why is it notable to put in the article? This is totally non-notable content. It should be removed, as it has been from other articles. Nobody wants to know when and why she pierced her ears. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much my point. I'm fairly certain the show would've gone forward had Barton not gotten her ears pierced so it was not something that was paramount to the production of the show. Was there a storyline that dealt with the ear piercing? Was the fact that character had her ears pierced ever addressed on the show? If not, this goes back to the content being trivia. Interesting trivia to someone interested in Misha Barton's ears, but trivia nonetheless. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Who knows what storylines there were, or what issues would be addressed, in the never-made episodes that had already been written? Using that as a basis for arguing for deletion amounts to pure speculation about planned events we'll probably never know anything about! And, anyway, the source given for the information says she got them done for costuming purposes, not for plot-connected reasons, and that she had them done specifically for this show. Therefore, it would appear that it is indeed notable in regards to this show, and so should be retained. Personally, I think it's an interesting little factoid, is not "trivia", and I'm glad that someone has put it in this article - I always thought she'd had them done years ago, but apparently not. So I say keep it in (but agree that it would be better if we had more sources for it). 62.249.253.71 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Factoids" qualify as useless trivia and don't belong on Wikipedia. You can also bring it down a notch or two. I can read regular text just fine thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's directly related to the show, and something that was done especially for the show, then it is not "useless trivia" and should be retained. And where in Wikipedia guidelines does it say that someone describing information as a "factoid" automatically qualifies it as inadmissible trivia? I can't find anything in any Wikipedia rule or guideline that says it does, so can you justify that comment with a supporting rule, guideline or policy? Although the correct usage of "factoid" does refer to information generally viewed as questionable (see factoid), some people do incorrectly use it more generally to mean a small snippet of interesting and true information (see Factoid#Other_meanings). To be honest, I've made that mistake myself in the past, and probably will again in the future, so let's have less focus on the language used here, and more on the actual information. As for it's value in the article, "Emma white20" is correct in what it says in WP:HTRIVIA about how "trivia" should not be removed simply because some editors view it as trivia, and inclusion or exclusion is simply a matter of personal opinion. And in that respect, and as I've already stated above, my opinion is that it has direct relevance to the show, is something that was done especially for it, and has a valid reference, so I say it should stay. Sandi saraya (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And one more time: How is this related to her notability??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to wrap this up in this lifetime, I think another source needs to be provided in order for this content to remain in the article. If one cannot be provided soon, that indicates that the ear piercing content is, again, trivia and shouldn't be here. I noticed that two very similar debates took place at Talk:Aftershock: Earthquake in New York#Jennifer Garner and Talk:Jennifer Garner#Fashion/Style and a lot of the same rationales to keep the content are popping up here. I don't know what this thing is with ear piercing but I do know that noting this kind of thing in articles in terribly trivial and very fansite-y. Pinkadelica^♣ 11:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Theleftorium 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)