Jump to content

Talk:Carly Foulkes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCarly Foulkes has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2011Articles for deletionKept
August 15, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 16, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 5, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that T-Mobile myTouch 4G spokesperson Carly Foulkes has been cast in the FX Network television series Powers?
Current status: Good article

Birthdate

[edit]

Multiple sources report August 4, 1988, but none are obvious RS. Gerardw (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Carly Foulkes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike 289 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revieved this article and it is pretty good. The only issue I have with it is that the article is at a start class. It needs to be expanded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike28968 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pic

[edit]

Sure it'd be great to have a picture. But it's too much of stretch to claim fair use for one from the commercial, especially as that is use in T-Mobile_myTouch_4G#Commercials. Gerardw (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rare instance where the physical appearance/attire of the spokesperson is well known. She is well-known enough for her physical appearance and attire that she is caricature by competing companies in a manner that the television viewing public is suppose to pick up on. This is not just a random screenshot. She is known for wearing pink dresses and caricatured for it. WP should have a picture so that the audience understands what is being caricatured, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, is "Carly Foulkes" known for her pink dresses, or is the "T-Mobile girl" known for them? Foulkes was known to remark in interviews that she does not dress in pink on a regular basis. Arguably, it is a character she plays in the commercials and that character is known for the dresses. Accordingly, it can be documented in those articles instead of her BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to debate the fineries of WP:NFCC, I am at your mercy. Personally, all I can say is that our sources refer to "Carly" and not the TMo Girl.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Disputed_fair_usage.2C_Carly_Foulkes_image. Gerardw (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone attempted to re-add the picture (or add a similar picture) yesterday, here's the link to the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/August#Disputed fair usage.2C Carly Foulkes image. I'd summarize it as "editors of this and the T-Mobile myTouch 4G article felt the image was appropriate, but others said definitely not, for both articles". The picture has not been deleted or removed from the other article, although it's only been around a couple of weeks and I'd be surprised if it survives. RossPatterson (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why someone doesn't just add some other picture of her? Potentially one like this: http://www.31night.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/blog-Carly-Foulkes-111128_200821.jpg I honestly don't understand what the rules are re: fair use for photos. But it seems crazy that someone with SO many pictures on google image search has none on her wikipdia page. Soy.lor.n (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need a picture that the photographer has explicitly stated can be used by anyone for any purpose. (Roughly paraphrasing the creative commons license). Note -- the "Gerardw" posts above are mine, I changed my wiki name since then Nobody Ent 21:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe size?

[edit]

Is that required in an article?Mike 289 16:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of models have shoe size, dress size, breast size, waist size and hip size in their infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
breast size?Greg Heffley 19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just takes a little research.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the existing ref had the info. Nobody Ent 21:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter account

[edit]

The alleged Twitter account @FoulkesCarly, cited in a reference and an external link, is not "Verified" by Twitter. I am inclined to remove the links, unless someone has some kind of proof that it is hers? Elizium23 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have proof, but I follow her and it seems to be a real account. Although she rarely responds, I think she reads when I @mention her. I will tell her she should "Verify" her account.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. based on activities and images posted, it really seems to be her. Plus she does not tweet as if she is a fan of herself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweeted her to see if she would consider verifying her account. However, one way to tell if it is really her is to see if other verified accounts tweet with her at that account (which they do). E.G., when she was in Chicago filming Powers (FX TV series), her co-stars, writers, crew and such tweeted her at this account with pictures that she forwarded. She has even tweeted about filming her holiday commercials last week. A fan posing as her would not know about this type of thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T-Mobile verified the account last spring (prior to me citing it). We'd have to dig through history to find their tweet. Gerardw (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She tweeted me at 8:53 central (13:53 UTC, I believe) the following: "@Tony_The_Tiger you don't think I've tried? Harder than you think :)"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any advice for her?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I cite a specific tweet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name="tw111003">{{cite web |last=Foulkes |first=Carly |date=October 3, 2011 |accessdate=October 3, 2011 |publisher=Twitter |title=Status update |url=http://twitter.com/#!/FoulkesCarly/status/120859009392717824}}</ref> Gerardw (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you find that number. I think this citation would require both my question and her answer to properly cite the issue. Tell me how I can find the number for citing my question tweet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Find the tweet in your timeline, and click on its timestamp for a specific link. Elizium23 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, but it messed up the references because the external links follow the {{reflist}}. How do I fix that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gerardw, what is the purpose of moving the ref for twitter verification to where you just moved it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes the error with references coming after reflist. Gerardw (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those refs are useless and irrelevant there. We should remove them and note the (sort of) verification in some other way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Gerardw (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but first I am awaiting some explanation of this edit to convert the article to list-defined references. I have never heard of this formatting. I will undo all that as well if there is no response or no good explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magenta

[edit]

As the magenta is more closely associated with T-Mobile than Ms. Foulkes, I've moved the color into to T-Mobile_USA#Marketing. Gerardw (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the "magenta" references say Ms. Foulke's dresses are magenta? Gerardw (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is the corporate spokesperson. She is wearing corporate colors. There is a misconception that the dresses are pink, when in fact they are magenta. We need to resolve this in the text. We need to present the reader with the proper content to draw the proper conclusions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need a WP:RS to say they are magenta -- they are routinely described as pink. See is a model who appears in their commericals, not their corporate spokesperson. Finally it's essentially trivia.Gerardw (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized. When you reverted yourself, I thought you consented to my opinion. I'll add a ref saying the dresses were magenta.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because I didn't want to be edit warring while we discussing. The additional references help alot, but you seem to be saying all the dresses in the commercial where the same color? The earlier ones were described as pink. Gerardw (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is my belief that pink has been used incorrectly to describe magenta. They are very close in the color spectrum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may very well be correct, but Wikipedia policy is to have citations for things. Are you familar with Wikipedia:Verifiability? WP:OR also applies. Gerardw (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PCMag reference does not say the dresses in the commercials are pink ... note Ms. Foulkes was interviewed at a publicity event at which she was wearing a dress different than the early commercials with the LeClair dress or the motorcyle. Gerardw (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct PCMag says "the winsome brunette in the magenta dress". My point is that some early articles noted that the dresses were magenta.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not providing references to them.Gerardw (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last I looked, the article had two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which two? Gerardw (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See these edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters

[edit]

I have yet to see any biographica details about the number of siblings that she has in any traditional WP:RS. I follow her on twitter and am of the impression that she has one sister Kimmy who lives in Toronto and another named Angie who lives elsewhere (likely in Halifax). This is what I have so far in this regard:

  1. Her declaration that she has sisters in this photo: http://twitter.com/#!/FoulkesCarly/status/100757183523848192
    1. Birthday tweet to little sister Kimmy: http://twitter.com/#!/FoulkesCarly/status/148439997706534912
    2. Attempt to drum up followers for Angie: http://twitter.com/#!/FoulkesCarly/status/144570954738176001
  2. A Tweet by Angie pining that she has far fewer followers than her sisters: http://twitter.com/#!/AngieFoulkes/status/144490899563487232
  3. A Tweet by Kimmy that the family pet misses the sisters: http://twitter.com/#!/kimmyfoulkes/status/148616345213337601

Can this type of stuff be considered reliable evidence that she has two sisters named Kimmy and Angie?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have tweeted her at least twice in hopes that she would confirm via a single declarative tweet that these are her sisters. Although I have been honored by about 5 responsorial tweets from Miss Foulkes, she has not responded on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non twitter source [1] -- haven't researched the site to determine reliability. The tweets you have referenced meet the requirements Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources, so inclusion is appropriate. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a WP:RS without confirmation that the publisher is some sort of modelling industry authority. Furthermore since it seems to be a one-man production, the standards for authority are extremely high in this case. He could not just be someone who once worked in human resources in the talent industry. He would have to be an internationally known talent scout or something. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would describe that source as about a 3. We have to find something else or come to an agreement that we have sufficient twitter content to rely on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm fine with the twitter and Kww disagrees; so you could be bold and add the content, wait for more comments to appear and determine a stronger consensus, or open an RFC and solicit input. If you do add the sisters to the article, the twitter content does not would indicate she has at least two, not necessarily exactly two, sisters. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Using that set of tweets to synthesize a statement like "She has two sisters, Kimmy and Angie" would violate WP:SYNTH. That's the problem with Twitter: the statements are so short that you need to use context to evaluate them, and that generally violates WP:OR in some fashion.—Kww(talk) 11:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an overly strict interpretation of synth; common sense applies. Adding the existence of one sister named Kimmy to the existence of another sister named Angie to conclude two sisters is simply WP:CALC Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being overly strict at all. It's not a case of WP:CALC. Conflating different statements by different people about different topics is a classic WP:SYNTH violation.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you
  • doubt that Carly Foulkes actually has (at least) two sisters named (or nicknamed) Kimmy and Angie?
  • believe that such a statement, if it turned out be incorrect would be libelous or in anyway cause harm to Carly Foulkes reputation? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 14:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the answers to either of those questions matters. What matters is that we don't have any reliable source that directly states "Carly Foulkes has two sisters, one named Angie and the other Kimmy", or even two sources, one of which names a sister and another which names another sister. If all we have are tweets, that's a pretty good sign that the information is completely unimportant anyway: no independent source has determined the relationship to be worth commenting on. If no one else cares, why should we?—Kww(talk) 15:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because a Wikipedia editor, acting in good faith (Tony) cares. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that these facts are important enough to rely on tweets to put them in the article. I think it is best just to wait for a secondary source to document her siblings and then we can go with what is said there. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was unimportant things that we might reference by Twitter, whereas with more important facts, we require more strict evaluation of WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a universal requirement, for important and unimportant things alike. That is especially true for information in a living person's biography.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it this way: have her sisters affected her career in some way? Are they notable by themselves? Are they used or referenced in the commercials where Carly stars? The biographies on Wikipedia should cover relevant facts about a person's life. Just throwing in the kitchen sink because we managed to find out about it in some way, not really helpful to building a cohesive picture of this person's career. Let me introduce an example from the past. Melissa Joan Hart wrote in her autobiography web page that she was born on Easter Sunday. Someone introduced this to Hart's Wikipedia article, and I at first defended the addition. After all, it was verifiable. However, some other editors pointed out that there was no assertion that Easter Sunday was important to Hart or her career, and without that, it should not be included. I think it is best when we stick to what secondary sources have covered about someone's life, because that intrinsically proves notability and due coverage can be given. Elizium23 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves makes the following points, and explicitly states that they apply to tweets:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
  3. the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Tweets about Foulkes's sisters would fall under the second prohibition. RossPatterson (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undue importance of pink dresses

[edit]

To begin with, I think the section title should serve as the title for the next book bearing the late Doug Adams' name or the name of Pussy Riot's next CD. Just sayin'.
Recently I removed1 the following text from the article:

"Despite the association with pink dresses due to the T-Mobile ad campaign, she claims not to wear pink in her personal wardrobe, which as of 2011, came in part from Urban Outfitters and AllSaints.(ref)"

Shortly thereafter, that edit was removed2, offering the following compromise:

"Despite the association with pink dresses due to the T-Mobile ad campaign, she claims not to wear pink in her personal wardrobe.(ref)"

My problems with the inclusion of this information is threefold. Firstly, I think there is an inherent sexism in discussing the fashion choices of a woman who's not notable for them, and deserves the Hillary Clinton Treatment3 for its use. It seems complimentary, but is actually insulting and trivializes a female's accomplishments - something unseemly for an encyclopedia using neutrality as one of its Five Guiding Principles.
Secondly, we have no references supporting the idea that she is "associated" with pink dresses (outside the venue of a single T-Mobile ad). Unless it can be verified that this is an overwhelmingly notable feature of her popularity, we shouldn't include it.
Lastly, it isn't important. She maybe be famous for the T-Mobile ad, and was a model beforehand, but its of undue importance to focus on the fashion choices of her personal life. It borders on fanboy creepiness, and we should treat the subject of this article with the same editorially encyclopedic respect as we would the article of Teddy Roosevelt or Glenn Close.
I should point out that I don't think the edit in question was made due to any overt decision to subtly denigrate the subject. I am saying that the result is such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We include her association with pink dresses for one and only one reason. We are a tertiary resource that summarizes secondary resources. Google "Carly Foulkes" "Pink dress".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to TonyTheTiger's reply, your "a single T-Mobile ad" is inaccurate unless you add the word "campaign" to the end. The article has several cites discussing the importance of the pink/magenta color to the campaign, and how it has consistently used the color in the many, many TV commercials/print ads/billboards featuring Foulkes since the extensive multiyear campaign began.
As for the actress herself not wearing pink, it's a minor factoid that is not inappropriate given Foulkes' clear identification with the color. If Wikipedia had been mainstream during the Dell Dude's time on national television, and the press reported that the actor actually owned and used an Apple computer, surely this fact would have been appropriate to similarly (and briefly, to avoid WP:UNDUE which I acknowledge is always a risk with this sort of aside) mention? Speaking of Apple, another example: Ronald Wayne, one of Apple's three founders, never owned an Apple product himself until recently receiving an iPad as a gift. Would you say that his article mentioning this curiosity is inappropriate? Ylee (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't care whether she likes pink dresses or not, nor whether such preference is in the article or not. However, arguing on some "inherent sexism" basis is absolutely bogus; she's not Secretary of State, she's a fashion model / TV actress -- appearance (and style) are an intrinsic aspect of her profession. See extensive coverage of Justin Beiber's apperance -- there's an entire section discussing it. NE Ent 12:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Addressing the comments in the order they were made)
Tony, I am not arguing that a Google search cannot find find a relationship between Ms. Foulkes and the color pink. As a matter of fact, I googled "Tony the Tiger" and "pink" and came up with over 2 million hits. Google searches, in and of themselves, are poor persuasion tools.Additionally, I would point out that simply because a fact can be cited doesn't mean it isn't a trivial fact.
Ylee, the "single ad" reference refers to the inception of the new ad campaign, wherein T-Mobile Girl looks through a closet full of identical dresses and instead chooses racing leathers. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the use of pink in the ad campaign is a symbol of T-Mobile, not of Ms. Foulkes. Attempting to blur the edges of her gig with T-Mobile with her real self int he real world is the realm of creepy. She is identified by name, not by color.
Lastly, Ne Ent, I would submit that we have very few articles about male actors who sell products where their personal fashion choices are cited; actually, I've looked at quite a few, and I see nothing that would compare to this. Among these spokespersons were: Peter Grosz and T. J. Jagodowski (spokespersons for Sonic), Isaiah Mustafa (spokesperson for Old Spice), Dennis Haysbert (spokesperson for Allstate Insurance) and Dean Winters (also a spokesperson for Allstate). We don't even tie former T-Mobile spokesperson Catherine Zeta-Jones to her fashion choices.
Out of respect, i am not going to call you on your claim that there isn't an inherent sexism rife in advertising, NE Ent; there are rampant examples of such, and such was tangential to my point. Yes, Ms. Foulkes is a model and appearance and style are absolutely part of her profession - when she's on a job. Whate she wears when she isn't working isn't useful information. It's trivial and gives the impression that the way that T-Mobile dresses her in pink leather is the sum total of who the actor/model is. Note that we don't have a more substantial piece of trivia, like the fact that Ms. Foulkes isn't driving the Ducati motorcycle we see in the ads. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the public identifies neither Foulkes nor her campaign with the Ducati motorcycle brand. It has only recently appeared in the campaign, and there are no news articles discussing any such link as there exists with the pink/magenta color. Had all of Foulkes' commercials from the first featured her with the motorcycle, and the media had given them as much attention as the pink/magenta one received, I can guarantee 1) there would be articles calling her the "T-Mobile motorcycle girl", and 2) there would be at least one RS briefly mentioning that Foulkes doesn't actually know how to ride a motorcycle and that stunt drivers do all the actual riding in the ads. Ylee (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree with your first assessment, Ylee. The new campaign featuring the T-Mobile Girl on a Ducati motorcycle began in mid-April, 2012. Do you want to guess when this article was started by Tony the Tiger? So, the interest in Ms. Foulkes would appear to have been right around the time she wrapped her legs around a 1000cc Ducati superbike. Please feel free to present some reliable sources that refer to Ms. Foulkes' choices in outfits that predate the motorcycle campaign, but I am guessing there aren't going to be any of substance.
However, we are moving rather far afield. We are left with three different facets of the problem here: sexism (ie., we don't comment on the fashion choices of male spokesmodels), the lack of cited association with pink dresses and pink fashion, and of the trivial and undue weight being given to that triviality. To my mind, the combination of those three should make us reconsider just how terribly important this information is to an article about a living person. If her fashion choices are - as NE Ent suggests, of paramount importance since she is a model, there should be overwhelming citation to this effect. That there isn't says volumes to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was properly sourced and discussed the pink dresses before the ducati campaign.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't created until after the inception of the Ducati campaign, Tony. The trivial information about the dresses was indeed there at the beginning, likely because of a dearth of information about Ms. Foulkes when you started the article. That doesn't make it less sexist, doesn't cite any examples of overt press scrutiny about the pink dresses until after the skin-tight leather was introduced and it certainly doesn't render it any more important. I am saying that it is less important, and other information can replace the trivia. If she is notable enought o have an article, I am sure we can cite her professional career, not her trivial private fashion choices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was a year old when the ducati campaign began.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian's claims are incorrect; the article was created by myself, not TtT, in April 2011; at that point the T-Mobile campaign had created sufficient buzz she was at that point notable. The reference to her personal style not including pink was added by TtT on 18 July 2011. NE Ent 21:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand corrected; I misread the article history. My apologies. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not, however, invalidate my concerns over the preoccupation with her personal fashion choices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, further discussion is needed, as I pointed out two days ago. Discussion prevents edit wars. If those who deeply desire including what I think is clearly trivial information being given undue weight, then perhaps an RfC is necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - personal wardrobe relevance

[edit]
Consensus is to include that her personal preference is contrary to her popular portrayal. A legitimate concern is that such inclusions can be trivial and sexist, and this concern should be respected in the verbiage and presentation. As such - against my personal preference to exclude such things - something along the lines of "although known from T-Mobile advertisements for pink dresses, she does not prefer pink in her personal wardrobe" should be included only in the personal section, as it has no bearing on her professional work.

Include !votes: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs); Ylee (talk · contribs); MarioNovi (talk · contribs); Milowent (talk · contribs)

Neutral !votes: NE Ent (talk · contribs) - default to keep.

Exclude !votes: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs); Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs)

Closed as WP:NAC per request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This Request for Comment surrounds the following statement:

"Despite the association with pink dresses due to the T-Mobile ad campaign, she claims not to wear pink in her personal wardrobe."

The above information is parsed from a cited source, but at least one other editor is concerned that the information is not only trivial, but that the undue weight of the mentioning borders on sexism, noting that few (if any) of our other articles about spokesmodels contain personal fashion choices.
The question: is the information encyclopedic? Is it sexist trivia lent inordinate weight in the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain content I personally consider this a non-sexist topic and more like a discussion of whether WP should clarify whether Bill Cosby actually likes the Jell-O pudding that he hawked as a spokesman for many years. I think people wonder and sources exist to respond to that wonderment. WP exists to summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Content as trivial and of undue weight - True, but it is not a clearinghouse for trivial or uselessly fannish information. While you cite Cosby and Jell-O pudding, there are several spokespersons for whom we simply do not add any sort of private or trivial information. And this debate reminds me a great deal of the Hillary Clinton interview wherein she was asked what fashions she was wearing. While it is true that Foulkes is indeed a model and actor, she is not her ads, and the pretense, however veiled, seems like sexism and placing far too much attention on the contents of her closet, and not the content of her work. It is ever more prevalent as this last, since the article is still very slim as far as content goes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither inappropriate nor necessary. I don't care whether it's in the article but calling it sexist is over the top; it's analogous to folks being interested in whether James Bond actor Daniel Craig personally likes the character's signature drink, a martini, as discussed here. NE Ent 20:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, in the example you cite, that information is not within the Daniel Craig article. Indeed, this sort of info is usually deemed too trivial for inclusion. Maybe calling it sexist is over the top, but when we prioritize a woman's fashion choices - when we fail to do the same for men - we tend to come across as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain content Foulkes is clearly identified with the pink/magenta color. The brief aside under discussion does not seem inappropriate and does not violate WP:UNDUE, as per the arguments I have previously laid out. Ylee (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cite that, Ylee. Part of the problem with noting the material in the first place (y'know, apart from the host of other issues) is that there is no reliably sourced background noting her as now "clearly identified with the pink/magenta color". And even if there was, this is just a job to Ms. Foulkes; it is not who she is in her private life (and you should seek to refute that with really good sources, Ylee). As was said before to you while dismissing your arguments, it is indeed inappropriate, as we do not drop in trivial bits about other spokesmodels, male or female. Just because someone sells a thing does not make them that thing, and the fact that the edit in question seeks to do that is the UNDUE part of the problem here. The use of pink in the ad campaign is a symbol of T-Mobile, not of Ms. Foulkes. I had noted before that the attempt to blur the edges of who Foulkes is with the character she portrays in an ad for a cellular phone service was creepy. I maintain that assertion; there is no such blurring in the Catherine Zeta Jones article - and CZJ worked not only the T-Mobile account for much than Ms. Foulkes has (but paid substantially more than Foulkes as well).
Quite honestly, I want to believe that this isn't patent sexism. I want to believe that contributors are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. I want to believe it isn't just a bunch of guys being, well, guys. I am hoping that people are seeking to keep this trivial bit because the article is pretty thin on content, and they think that cited trivia is better than uncited trivia. Were that the case here, the point being missed is that trivia is still trivia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encyclopedia. It's our mission to reflect the world as it is. If there is sexism here, it's because the American advertising culture prefers to use young attractive people -- frequently women -- to hawk their products. Foulkes has chosen as a first profession (modeling) one that relies on her physical appearance and willingness to wear tight fitting or revealing clothing; her acting career is being on that and being articulate. Attacking other Wikipedia editors because of a distate for that fact isn't appropriate.
Lacking any egregious policy violation (i.e. blp violation), whether or not the inclusion of dresses is undue is a matter for consensus. As of now, I'm seeing two for and one against, so it should stay in until that changes.
The Zeta Jones example isn't applicable becuase she was already notable before being hired by T-Mobile (hence the higher salary). Foulkes is notable specifically because of the "pink" T-Mobile ad campaign. NE Ent 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, your essential argument is, 'she was asking for it, dressed like that and being new to the area'? Wrong, on so many levels. As well, you are deeply misapprehending our mission. We do not reflect the ugliness of the world as it is. Instead, we show those parts of that world which are both citable and relevant to our readership and role as a provider of useful information. Please feel free to explain how Ms. Foulkes' personal choices of her wardrobe is at all germane to an understanding of her stint as a spokesperson for a cellular service provider. Indeed, feel free to present any spokesperson's article where their personal choices were an aspect of that campaign. Your dismissal of Zeta-Jones as an example is malformed; Those fellows from the Sonic ads were relative unknowns prior to their becoming spokesmodels for a fast food chain. And yet, neither of their articles discusses their fast food choices/preferences. On the other side of the coin, Ricardo Montalbán - arguably far more famous than CZJ - was a spokesperson for Chrysler. Yet his hawking of "soft Corinthian leather" upholstery in the Chrysler Cordoba followed him all the days of his life (well, that and his line from ST2). However, his article fails to reflect whether he had a Cordoba in his garage. Why? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you...are you really comparing this debate to whether a rape victim "asked for it"?!? Good god.
I don't know why I'm bothering after that bit of unpleasantness, but as you've been repeatedly told, Wikipedia does not create information. It is an encyclopedia that collects extant information. There are reliable sources that discuss Foulkes wearing or not wearing pink as a civilian, and we do so (however briefly). If there is a RS that discusses whether Montalban owned a Chrysler, we might very well briefly mention it as well (although, again, it's not quite the same thing since Montalban had been a well-known actor for 30 years when he did those commercials). Ylee (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am illustrating how NE Ent's argument is essentially stating that since Foulkes chose to be a model, she somehow deserves to be marginalized as a person by equating her personal choices to those of a character she portrays in commercials. I saw that as a blurring of reality and an infantilization of models (and especially female models). That said, I find it odd that your mind made the connection to a rape victim "asking for it".

And your secondary statements are provably incorrect, Ylee; there is apparently only one citation - one - that discusses the lack of pink in her wardrobe (I've looked and it would appear that other Google hits are sites that parroted the initial article). It bears pointing out that the same reference also discusses how she was a big chocoholic - and somehow, it didn't make it into the article. We have a piece of information that blurs the line between fantasy and reality being included, and one that clearly identifies her as an individual.
And you completely missed the point about Montalbán: it had been argued that the lack of personal info about Zeta-Jones in relation to T-Mobile was due to her being famous before the sponsorship. In reality, prior fame or invisibility has no bearing on the matter. Sure, Cosby may love or hate Jello-O pudding. Did we include info about that in his article, even though we could likely cite it? No we do not, because it is trivial.
Indeed, I would reassert that we do not include trivial info relating any spokespersons and their product, like Peter Grosz and T. J. Jagodowski (spokespersons for Sonic), Isaiah Mustafa (spokesperson for Old Spice), Dennis Haysbert (spokesperson for Allstate Insurance) and Dean Winters (also a spokesperson for Allstate). Sure, IAR and OSE could apply, especially since the information - on its face - is so harmless. However, when we have a lot of articles that fail to include this same sort of trivial information and elevating it to over-importance, we should probably pay attention to that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She's asking for it" has a strong cultural association with rape (at least in the US) - see Google hits for "she's asking for it"NE Ent 00:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because is was unimportant. We don't include nugatory, trivial information when it does not increase our understanding of the subject. Does the fact that Ms. Foulkes doesn't utilize pink or magenta in her wardrobe help us understand who she is better? By any sane measurement, the answer would be no. What would be more of value is wht Ms. Foulkes does include in her wardrobe (and, of course, whether that info is of notable value). The absence of what she does not have is not of consequence to this article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my essential argument is Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. You want to argue that Foulke's personal dress choice is unencyclopedic fancruft? Yea, I can see that perspective. You want to imply that editors who disagree are sexist trolls who rape women wearing short skirts, that's a problem. Do you really think you're going to convince Tony the Tiger and Ylee to change their position with that line of argument? NE Ent 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I argued no such thing, NE Ent, and for the record, you might try Assuming Good Faith and take another look at what was said. Your argument was that 'she's a model, so her life of being looked at means that we get to blur the line between reality and fantasy because she shows off her body.' That (to me, at least) says, 'she gets what she deserves', which I find ugly. But that's intangible, and not really policy or guidelines; it just seems…unseemly and unbefitting what we are trying to do here. I am sorry if you are upset that I took offense at your assertion, NE Ent. I just find it a bit…unpleasantly icky. You may want to consider growing a thicker skin.

We are wandering a bit far afield here. The main points are these, and I hope that an RfC will draw more than the Usual Suspects already posting to the page:

  • The information is intrinsically trivial. It isn't necessary to understand what Ms. Foulkes doesn't wear in her private life.
  • We do not list this sort of trivial information about other spokespersons, whether famous or emerging celebrities, as indicated by a wealth of Wiki articles to that effect.
  • Focusing on a single, highly subjective facet of trivia (her personal clothing habits), we are providing undue weight as to that trivia. Does it help us understand Ms. Foulkes to know she doesn't have pink or magenta in her wardrobe?

So, lets hear from some fresh voices. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*keep* it in there, if she thought it is worth mentioning then it should be mentioned. Maybe it is she wants to distance herself from the girly image. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs), I am reverting your unsupported unilateral attempt to remove content at 13:08, 12 March 2013 based on the following input above:

  1. TonyTheTiger 15:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) - Retain content[reply]
  2. Jack Sebastian 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC) - Remove Content[reply]
  3. Ylee 04:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) - Retain Content[reply]
  4. NE Ent 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) - Abstain (but retain content in the absence of any further opinions)[reply]
  5. MarioNovi 06:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC) - Keep Content[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone far enough, Jack. No, there aren't many people who have spoken out, but among those who have the majority is against you. Ylee (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that this has gone far enough; 3 editors is not a consensus, and it is growing annoying that some would think such. I am not counting the new user with less than 30o edits and 3 months under their belt (cannot expect them to know policy). Let's escalate the matter. I am not convinced that this sexist trivia is good for either the article or the Wikipedia. I am not going to edit war (since someone else seems to have already started that crazy nonsense), but I am not going to let it stand as is without a good damn reason, and one hasn't been presented as of yet.. AN? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the content. OH MY GAWD does life any meaning that we can create a discussion on this point of such length. Since the dawn of humankind, such trivial content has been the fodder of writers, we should just as soon delete the whole project than remove a sourced statement that she doesn't wear pink in her personal life. I would rather see this fact than not see this fact.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, it is a small matter. But - and this is undisputed - a ton of other info was in that article. Info that didn't get added as well. The reason for that - after looking at several articles for other spokespersons, wherein they were not linked to their products - seems to be that it was because she was a female, and so they asked questions about her wardrobe, in some weird sort of parody of the Hillary Clinton 'what are you wearing' thing. We don't do this in 99% of similar articles. Why do it here?
And the answer as to why we add trivial information that presents undue weight on the subject of the article is that she doesn't have much else to tag in articles. And, simply put, some editors would prefer to treat her differently than we do her male counterparts.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Foulkes was male this article wouldn't exist. Welcome to the human race, you can find 100,000 examples of this on wikipedia at a minimum. Please stop screwing around with the article because the pink sentence bothers you, that's my suggestion. We should just as soon delete all references to wearing sweaters in Francine Gottfried.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, now Jack Sebastian is explicitly violating WP:POINT. He is rapidly approaching the line to qualify for WP:DISRUPTIVE status, if he has not crossed it already. Ylee (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ylee, stop being a jerk. I am well within my rights to think this is an ass-hat move. You want to take cheap shots, go find a skid row bar. You don't take them here. If I have to broach this topic again with you, it will not occur here. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JS is entitled to think anything is ass-hat; they are not entitled to dispute Wikipedia articles nor attack other editors. He's maded a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia from his point of view but failed to get consensus. I recommend moving on to other article work. NE Ent 15:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-makeover image

[edit]

She was broadly discussed as the girl in pink dresses. Now in the post April 2012 world, it would be good to find sources confirming that she has madeover her image as a badass biker girl (or whatever the PD RS world describes her as). I find one source that presents her new image (and is mirrored quite a bit). I sort of see a second source. This might be something Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs) wants to get involved in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much. My time is limited and therefore valuable. I haven't been swayed by any of the arguments presented, and so, being in the minority, I decided to find a better way to spend my time. Since consensus can and does change, I'll just wait for more readers to arrive at my point of view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fluff

[edit]

Re [2]Every tweet and appearance Foulkes makes is neither necessary nor appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It's also not obvious to me that phandroid.com is a reliable source. NE Ent 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the edit summary. Foulkes is currently a professional spokesperson. She is not a higher notability celebrity where her spokesmanship is a minor sidelight. Her spokesmanship is her notability. Thus, the status of her relationship with T-mobile is what makes her notable. Noting that she has sort of resumed active spokesmanship with press events and PSAs is the way to keep her page up to date, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Tony. Foulkes' notability stems from her work with T-Mobile, which makes it somewhat strange to me to insist on removing info related to that and then claiming "every tweet and appearance" is being referenced. As to the phandroid site, I have no comment on its reliability, but unless you want to claim the press event it covered was an elaborate hoax, it verifiably happened, which means the info in the lead about her work with T-Mobile ending in spring 2013 is no longer accurate and requires an update.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion?
[edit]

Is a third opinion required here and, if so, what exactly is the dispute? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer required. NE Ent 09:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the view of both sides of the dispute? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All opinions are welcome, but since you are conceding the argument based on the first response, I am glad someone has restored the content. Further respondents are welcome to attempt to influence the outcome of the debate with continued discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is resolved now. Good luck and goodbye. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes over?

[edit]

Now she's no longer hawking cellphones, suspect she'll never be heard from again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carly Foulkes. 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:

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) 19:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carly_Foulkes&oldid=1216586206"