Talk:Bijou Phillips

Calvin Klein ad controversy

Worth discussing the Calvin Klein ad controversy? Sodfijd 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

CSI

Is it worth mentioning her small guest role on "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" in the episode: "Kiss Kiss, Bye Bye"? Imidazolidinyl 20:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Socialite or not?

To the editor(s) from various anonIPs who keep adding "socialite" to her lead paragraph—did you even read the article you linked to? "A socialite is a person of social prominence who spends significant resources entertaining and being entertained but is not ... a professional entertainer." A quick check of the Google News Archive finds her mentioned with other people described as socialites, yet she is always described as something else (actress, model, etc). So unless you can find some really great references that call her a socialite (like Time magazine or the SF Chronicle or something like that) it's pretty much just WP:OR. Precious Roy 00:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Following a report of edit warring by an anon-ip on AN3, I semi-protected the article for 48 hours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay first of all what is Paris Hilton. She is a actress, model, singer(entertainer) etc... so how is she a socialite. as you said, someone of social prominence. what in the world do you think Bijou is...and who do u think u r going and changing an entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A big difference between Hilton + Phillips is that you could easily find dozens of articles in major magazines and newspapers that call Hilton a socialite. Another one is that Paris' acting, singing, etc. all came after she became "famous for being famous". Phillips was modelling in her mid-teens, and, at this point has enough acting credits for it to be considered a career, and actually toured as a performing musician (none of which could be applied to Hilton)—there are some major differences. Certainly Phillips' famous family (and their money) must've opened doors for her, but she seems to have worked for most of what she's accomplished.

Being a socialite entails more than being someone of social prominence. If that were true, you could apply the term to any celebrity, even politicians—do you think Hilary Clinton is a socialite? As for my copy editing of the article, I didn't "change an entire article". You really should read WP:OWN if you dislike someone coming in and changing "your" article. If you have specific problems with something I added (or removed) please list your grievances here and I promise to address them. Precious Roy 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you put in the name Bijou Phillips with the word socialite you'll find plenty of articles calling Bijou Phillips a socialite. And explain why they call Nicole Richie, Nicky Hilton, and Kimberly Stewart socailites then... and if u didn't change Bijou's porfile who did. because the article was very in depth on her personal life and now that's gone. because oh i guess u don't like it. and my accomplant is that you need to just put socialite(which she is) on the leading paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Three more people that are famous for being famous more than anything else, and were celebrities before they did anything, I'm a little confused how you don't see the difference. And I didn't say I didn't change anything about the article—I didn't, however, as you put it, "change an entire article". The so-called "personal life" section was a) almost entirely unreferenced and b) unencyclopedic. A list of boys she's been "linked to" and who she's "been seen partying with" belongs in a People magazine profile, not on Wikipedia. As I said before, if you can come up with one good reference that calls her a socialite, I'd be happy to add it to the article. As long as it's from reliable source. Not a blog or celeb gossip website. A Google news archive search for Bijou Phillips + socialite, as I stated above, turns up no articles where Phillips is called a socialite—it's all things like "Socialite Nicky Hilton and actress Bijou Phillips" and "Socialite Nicky Hilton and wild-child actress Bijou Phillips" (and only 38 articles, at that). Precious Roy 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

you talk about being famous for being famous...well so was Bijou and you need to use yahoo instead of google. and all of those "guys" were an important part of why she was a wildchild. u erased it and u know it. me and other fans didn't work so hard on making this the best article for u that probably know nothing about her is trying to take contol. go to yahoo and type her name with socialite and tell me what u see. oh here's a website for as well www.who2.com/bijouphillips.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for fans to create articles filled with unreferenced gossip about their favorite celebrities. Please re-read WP:RS; who2.com is not a reliable source. Precious Roy 11:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To humor you, I just went through the first 7 pages of yahoo results and didn't see anything other than a lot of celebrity-watcher/gossip sites that called her a socialite. Not a single one of the results from reliable sources (The Guardian, New York, USA Today, UPI, not even Radar) called her that. Not that they qualify as reliable sources, but not even Gawker Media's Defamer and Gawker.com call her one. And socialitelife.com (another unreliable source) has the #3 result in the search (behind the Wikipedia article and answers.com's mirror of the celebaday.com profile) which says "Bijou Phillips (never a socialite and never will be)". Precious Roy 11:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the website is because TIME has gotten many of things completely wrong. And why don't u find me an article that says Kimberly or Nicole are socialites. U trying to put blocks on things who do u think u r. And that little website u went if u would have read carefully would have said hate bijou website. u can't deny someone of what they r which Bijou is a socialie so just get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, because there's no need for personal attacks just because we disagree. It actually does matter what the website is. If the information doesn't come from a verifiable and reliable source, it can be removed without question (particularly in the case of a living person). If you think Phillips is a socialite, that's original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable source that says it, then it can be added, it's that simple. I don't care about those other two because I am not editing those articles. Also, can you please sign your comments? You just have to type 4 tildes in a row (like this: ~~~~). Precious Roy 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

y don't u try infoplease.com and answers.com those r reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're not. Both of those sites take their content from other sites, many of which (like Wikipedia) rely on their users for information, which does not guarantee the fact-checking that established magazines and newspapers have to go through before publishing. Seriously, read WP:RS to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Precious Roy 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

even though I haven't been able to find some strong documents proving that she is a socialites. She has many qualities like her fellow socialites. Family fortune, party girl, and media spotlight. I just have a really strong feeling sbout this judgement. And if you could just please let socialite be apart of the leading paragraph I know not only I, but many other people will appreciate it much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal but I'm sorry, without a reference it's just original research. Precious Roy 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

well where do you suggest i look. what sites... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The easiest is Google's news archive but I've already looked there. Another good place to check: your local library may have free access to a periodicals database that you can search (on my library's website and there's a link to the database, when you click it, they ask for your library card number and then you can access the database). Precious Roy 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

will the New York Post (Page Six) work as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about her being called a socialite; all you have to do is plug in the information about the reference (issue date, page, etc) with <ref> tags. Precious Roy 20:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed the sentence because a reference was never added. Please do not replace it unless you include the necessary reference. Precious Roy (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the necessary reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoucrazy (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You implied that Page Six said she's a socialite. Well, which issue of the Post was it in? The reference has to be verifiable. Precious Roy (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits of 19 Aug 2008

G.-M. Cupertino—I'm sorry you took issue with some of my edits. Since you reverted them whole hog, I'm afraid you threw out some that were not only valid but correct Wikipedia format. I'm going to go back and re-add those changes, leaving any valid new edits of yours intact.

The unsourced information I removed had been tagged as unsourced for 9 or 10 months. Since reliable sources were not found, removal was absolutely valid. IMDb is not a reliable source, as you've been told on your talk page in the past. If you can find verifiable references in a reliable source, the information may certainly be replaced. Additionally, your edits to the Filmography are off-format. Also, regarding a comment in your edit summary—Door on the Floor was was removed from an over-long list of "recent" works, it was still in the Filmography.

Please address any issues you have with my edits here on the talk page rather than simply reverting them. Precious Roy (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits of 9 Sep 2008

Since there's not enough room in the edit summary to explain, here's what I've changed:

• The header in the filmography should be "Title" not "Film" as a number of items are not films (e.g. a video game, a music video, TV shows)
• The Sublime music video she appears in may have be later compiled on a collection of their videos but that was not its original format
• There should only be one "year" entry per year not a separate one for TV. If you have to have a link to "2006 in tv", separate all the TV shows, etc. into a separate list. I would oppose that but would not revert.
• Chelsea on the Rocks has been released (shown at festivals) and her role is not "?"—it's a documentary, she appears as herself.

Hope this all makes sense. If you disagree, please discuss here. Precious Roy (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, God, I've only noticed now because I can't see through all those boxing characters, I've repeated one show that was already there, stupid error of mine! I'm really sorry for that, I've only seen like there was one or two shows missing!... G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the "film" heading altogether as the Note column should reflect as to whether it's a film, tv episode, video game, etc. Sometimes I separate the films from the TV work, but I also don't think it's necessary here. And all links lead to the proper media should anyone need further information. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of deletion of a section

"My grandparents didn't take any pills, and they were fine," Phillips said in the February issue of   
Paper. "Just buck up and get over it. Stop being such a f---king pansy."

My 2 cents... I don't see how relevant this is to the biography, much less for the the lead line. - Hawkbreeze (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly pejorative, and there's clearly no reference for it. When you see stuff like that, particularly in a BLP article, there's no need for a discussion about its appropriateness - it absolutely has to go, and can't be restored until someone cites a reliable source. So I've removed it. The article has recently come under attack by the same person (editing under another IP from the same ISP) who added "Scientologist!" and "Indoctrinated Scientologist!" in front of Phillips and a number of other people, and falsified the titles of magazine articles to that effect. I've removed that too; even if there were cited evidence that she is a Scientologist, we don't shriek everyone's religion each time we mention their name, any more than we'd write "Indoctrinated Catholic" in front of every Pope. Character Set (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also removed the category "American Scientologists", as none of the references appears to support that claim either. Character Set (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What about ? Appears to be a reasonable source and I just noticed the same interview is ref'd elsewhere in the article. States she's a scientoligist and seems to be where the line about pills came from. I've added, and ref'd, a brief sentance regarding scientology, but I don't see any real need for the quote, just the usual nonsense scientologists always come out with. Pidz (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Her opinion of John Phillipds amd Mackenzie Phillips

She has recently contacted the media with her thoughts about the allegations of incenst that Mackenzie Phillips has made against her father John Phillips. This is probably worth including. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Early life

There is an awful lot of 'career' in the 'early life' section. Both need a rewrite. Dadsnagem (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bisexuality

I see several references online to her sexual orientation, and even strain on her marriage to Danny Masterson due to her interests. It need not be titillating, but it's happened several times over the years, and probably deserves a mention. --69.124.112.126 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bijou Phillips. 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/20071028143342/http://www.timeout.com:80/film/news/1754/?DCMP=OTC-RSS-Film to http://www.timeout.com/film/news/1754/?DCMP=OTC-RSS-Film
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006002203/http://www.maxim.com:80/girls/articles/92174/2000-hot-100.html to http://www.maxim.com/girls/articles/92174/2000-hot-100.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913090752/http://www.eonline.com:80/celebrities/profile/index.jsp?uuid=82a8a1d3-3f65-40f2-9e56-3740e1828ab3 to http://www.eonline.com/celebrities/profile/index.jsp?uuid=82a8a1d3-3f65-40f2-9e56-3740e1828ab3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost Famous

Almost Famous did win 1 Academy Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

The same editor keeps historically deleting the same sections of the cited sentences about the actress' bullying behavior on the set, which the actress herself has acknowledged publicly. With no reasons given and nothing on the talk page. Jooojay (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not an editor so I’m just going to say that the way this page reads sounds like a fan page. I like her too, but it is pretty effusive etc. Anyway. Tortuga511 (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

“CLAIMED” - beginnings section

I’m new to editing but got here from the Danny Masterson page and noticed that the caps lock in the Beginnings section seems very aggressive and unlike the usual neutral Wikipedia tone. Is anyone else bothered by this? I don’t know enough about the topic to fix it. Kem823 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Davide Sorrenti

According to his page, he did not die of an overdose - he had drugs in his system but likely died of a combination of factors including complications from thassalemia. 70.15.87.108 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

OWNership behavior on this page

I want to make a note of the inappropriate OWNership behavior in the recent history of this page, before it becomes necessary to escalate and invite other, more experienced eyes here.

In my limited understanding of talk page norms, it would not be appropriate to name/ping the person whose behavior I'm concerned by, but I've already started engaging in user talk dialogue with them (with little success so far). Viewing the edit history here, you can see immediate RVs of edits to this page by a single editor- in the case of changes I made in good faith, they clearly didn't even read what they were reverting, as they had to re-RV an error they introduced.

What concerns me is the inclusion of an UNDUE statement about the actress's nudity in a role for which there seems to be no notable coverage around said nudity. Lord knows we wouldn't be struggling with these creepy little tidbits sneaking into MALE actors' pages, but en.wiki has no existing issues with fostering discomfort for female readers and editors, amirite? 😡

To be clear, I do not think this editor with the OWN problem has any creepy intentions themselves, they are just reverting any changes that they themselves didn't make. The unfortunate side effect of this, though, is ignoring the perspective that this is actually creepy and inappropriate content to include in an encyclopedia without clear context for its importance. Chiselinccc (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right it is creepy. I have also noticed this same editor has also made edits to her husband's article to remove his felon status from the first sentence. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)