Talk:Abigail Spencer/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Mad Men (2007) - Suzanne Farrell (2009)"

This makes no sense, as far as I can tell. --31.45.79.44 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hacking of iCloud Account

Is there any reason why the section about the hacking of celebrity accounts is being deleted. I understand it may be a delicate subject, however I have included it with referenced material as sympathetically as possible. I certainly don't condone what has happened to her or any of those who have had their personal files stolen, but unfortunately it did happen and it is a matter of public record. If this is a wikipedia decision, I would at least appreciate something in the talk page as to the reasoning of removing it. If it is being removed by a fan, friend or someone who thinks it may offend, then I'm sorry, I know it may be a little upsetting but it is now a fact of her life. I have not however vandalised her page, or made any reference on the who, where, why or hows of it only that it happened. These pages are biographies of a persons life, not a C.V of their careers, and sadly sometimes unpleasant things happen, however it does not mean they should not be documented.CmdrX3 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

After further deletion, I have been accused of including it for "cruel" and "tactical" reasons. Let me be clear that I have no interest in any of the stuff that has been leaked. All I know is that it happened and regardless of what your emotions on the subject are, it's now a fact of her life and I include it for that reason (see expansion on this above) and that reason alone whether someone remains silent on the matter is neither here nor there, there are many thing in celebrities lives they would probably prefer were not available to the public but it does not mean they did not happen. The leaks were a major news event during September and October 2014 and all I have done is include the fact that she was caught up in the event and provided the relevant referenced citation for such, I have not expanded on anything or provided any further information. While people keep removing the information for no other reason than "to save her embarrassment", then I will change it back, as I do not believe that is either the purpose or in the spirit of Wikipedia. Like I said these pages are not a celebrity C.V. they are a factual biography, so if someone wants sterilised censored information then they need to look elsewhere. CmdrX3 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There are countless other 'facts of her life' which aren't mentioned in the article either, because they are not relevant to that which makes her notable: her acting career. All you do is give incredibly undue weight to what must be very unpleasant to her. And yes, I think we can and must take that in consideration. Zaspino (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could not agree more, this hasn't got anything to do with her public persona or the efforts that have made her a public figure. It's clearly a matter that shouldn't be on this page. And I think it's difficult to attribute it to any specific wiki rule, these should be considered individually in every case. In some cases it might be worth mentioning, in other cases it's natural not to mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.15.67 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This content has been reinserted again today and I reverted, so just wanted to add my opinion that this should not be on the page. If an editor who wants it reinserted can give reasons why, I'm open to discussion, but I think it is WP:UNDUE. Melcous (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The information is well referenced. No need to discuss everything to death.--Decartesian (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but two comments in 8 months is not "discussing everything to death." There was no need to discuss it as the information has been left out for a long time. Now you want to include it, you should discuss it here and gain consensus for the addition. Melcous (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It clearly does have something to do with "to do with her public persona" - even if it shouldn't have - that's what made the whole sorry scandal so notable in the first place. I'm afraid that until watching Timeless recently, it's the only context in which I'd seen her name mentioned. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've done exactly that in the comment directly above yours. I'm confident that a great many more people are aware of her name because of the hacking scandal than watching her filmography. I'm unable to provide references for that assertion because to my knowledge no studies on such an extremely niche topic have been carried out, nor are they likely to be. The information itself is easily referenced with internationally respected sources. It certainly doesn't fall afoul of WP:ICW. You cite WP:UNDUE which is to do with referencing facts or established theories; it's not relevant here. WP:CENSOR also maintains that it should remain, and [[1]] states that "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus" - Wikipedia is not the place for moral judgement on events so I really see no valid argument for its removal. Because of all of this I'm sorely tempted to reinstate it, but will restrain myself because of the risk of inciting an edit war. I'll do in due course if no better counter argument is put. Ride the Hurricane (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so bent on putting this on there? Seems suspicious. AntonFMD (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious how? Do you think I'm a vengeful ex of Spencer's or something? Come on, flesh out your accusations! :-D The only reason I'm pursuing this is because any precedent setting Wikipedia as moral arbiter is to be resisted tooth and nail. My own inclination is that the whole episode was abhorrent, distasteful, and a shocking invasion of privacy. It did however happen, and it was/is notable. Anyhow, as I said on 10th December - which lays my reasoning out, unless someone could counteract those points I would reinstate, so I now will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ride the Hurricane (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Was Spencer's attendance at 2018 royal wedding notable?

http://people.com/royals/royal-wedding-2018-deja-vu-fashion/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/05/19/meghans-alternative-family-suits-co-stars-brought-hollywood/ Phil Wolff (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)