Talk:Clements twins

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Clements twins have an estimated revenue of almost US$6000 per Instagram post? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that the Clements twins were six months old during the first attempt to begin their modelling careers? Source: [2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lego Masters (French TV series)
  • Comment: The paragraph about criticism probably needs a neutrality check, since the info might be undue... and other stuff

Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC). Length, references and history verified. Good to go. (Nevertheless, I am bit surprised that for an article with multiple sourced descriptions of how beautiful they are and how that's been a big selling point, there isn't a picture. I shouldn't have had to see it in the SCMP. There is ample fair-use justification here per FUC 8). Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

- @Pamzeis, Daniel Case, Bruxton, FishandChipper, and Animalparty: reopening this, per issues raised at Talk:Clements twins regarding (a) the tone of the article, and (b) the possible tabloid origin of some of the sourcing. The article has been orange-tagged as needing a rewrite. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's been three weeks, so I'm pinging @Pamzeis, Daniel Case, Bruxton, FishandChipper, Animalparty, and Amakuru: to see what's needed to move this along. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Sammi Brie: nothing really from my side, I would suggest that Pamzeis may need to seek some third opinion on the issues raised by FishandChipper on the talk page. If there is a general consensus (beyond the two participants in the discussion) that the rewrite tag can be removed, then the DYK can be progressed. I'd also caution FishandChipper to keep their discourse free from personal attacks. Comments like "are you actually mentally deficient?" and "Don't play dumb" have no place on Wikipedia, and you may be blocked if you use such language again. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I had no affiliation with the article but I too feel odd about a promotional article regarding the beauty of children (now 12). They are notable, but I am not sure it is great to promote children as beauties. I also think that one's self worth should not be all tied up in their external appearance. That was my two cents. But I can take a look at the article and see what kind of awkwardness and promotion should be trimmed. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ok @Amakuru and Sammi Brie:, I rewrote much, and took out puffery, cringy, and colloquial language. I will review it if I am allowed. Oops I see that @Daniel Case: is the reviewer. Perhaps they can return and check the edits I have made. Bruxton (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Clements twins in 2018

• • There is also an image now, if reviewer and/or nominator are interested? --GRuban (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• @Daniel Case: are you able to come back and give another green tick? Bruxton (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

good again now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Strangly Written

I can't be the only person who's getting a weird feeling reading this page right? It feels really sexual in tone which is very disturbing considering these people are only 11 years old. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Whatever you feel was not my intention... I can't say I share your opinion...​ Pamzeis (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"The Clements have been dubbed "the most beautiful twins in the world" by their fans and various media outlets. Their green eyes have been described as "piercing" and "dazzling" by Inside Edition and News.com.au, respectively. The latter commented that "most are in awe of the girls' natural beauty"."

This is pretty weird stuff you have to say. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

TBH, no, I don't see how. These are descriptions of what people/media outlets think of them, according to reliable sources. It's not meant to sexualise them or anything of the sort. Saying someone is beautiful, has natural beauty or pretty eyes is not sexual. ​Pamzeis (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

FishandChipper? Pamzeis (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither of those news outlets (Inside Edition and News.com.au) are repututable sources and even if they were this is still an opinion and isn't very encyclopedic. Even going beyond the pedophilic tone of the articles they are tabloids and should be removed asap. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 19:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

News.com.au has been removed; Inside Edition is owned by CBS, one of the most reputable sources in the United States as far as I'm aware. The article needs to focus on what they are known for: their beauty; just stating people call them the "most beautiful twins in the world" is rather dry. You haven't stated how it's unencylopaedic, other than stating it's "sexual". To be honest, your argument feels like Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT at this point.​ Pamzeis (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You say this like you aren't the person who wrote the page, of course you'd be blind to your own biases. If you want a reason why its unencylopaedic how about MOS:PEACOCK which honestly should probably be added to this pages header. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 06:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Also the new.com.au article is iterally still there FishandChipper 🐟🍟 06:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The News.com.au article is not cited. You might be looking at a previous revision because it was removed a few days ago; a Control+F search shows no mention of News.com.au in the actual article or the editing window. As for MOS:PEACOCK, I can find no "subjective proclamations" within the article; none of the claims are based upon my personal opinion, but rather, what reliable sources say about them. Yes, I have biases, but I try my best to focus on what's important: improving the article. I'm only trying to express my opinions on the article's current condition, not be defensive. But this isn't about me, so I will not discuss myself further. Since we can not agree on a solution to this issue, I'm thinking we should be asking for a third opinion, which will hopefully resolve our disagreements. Thank you.

Pamzeis (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It is literally the 7th citation, are you blind? FishandChipper 🐟🍟 00:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Citation seven, as of this revision is style.nine.com.au, not News.com.au. I'm not sure how News.com.au could be there, but it's definitely not. Pamzeis (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry but are you actually mentally deficiant? style.nine.com.au is just the style section of nine.com.au. so should be swiftly removed. Dont play dumb. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. According to their About page, nine.com.au has a staff of around 70 journalists who do extensive fact-checking to ensure accuracy. Pamzeis (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

FishandChipper? Pamzeis (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the Cleanup rewrite tag still validly applied to this article, and if so, what needs to be improved? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@FishandChipper, Firefangledfeathers, and Pamzeis: I came her from the DYK nomination. I have performed a cleanup and I rewrote sections. I removed some of the puffery and cringy language about their appearance. note: We have to keep in mind these are preteens and we do not want to exploit them. I think the article is more encyclopedic now and so I have removed the template. Let me know your thoughts since the article is a candidate for DYK. Bruxton (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the article is much better now and I revoke my earlier comment about its creepyness. Idk there was just something about reading it beforehand that left a bad taste in my mouth. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 04:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Tabloid

The single most cited source in this article (currently 7 inline citations), ostensibly from News.com.au, is actually repackaged churnalism from The Sun UK tabloid, (original article), which per WP:THESUN is deprecated and regarded as generally unreliable. Gossipy, tabloidy, sensationalist, and generally unreliable sources should not be used for any living person per WP:BLP (WP:BLPGOSSIP), especially for content regarding children. The Sun source should be removed, and replaced with higher quality sources ASAP. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Saragoza overload in "Public image and personal lives"

Way too much from this academic in this section. Sounds more like a "Criticism" section. Most importantly, the text doesn't describe the twins' image and lives, it gives one person's critical opinion about their professional lives without any supplied basis and then goes on about their income. If this section were balanced by actual discussion with details of the their image and lives, it might work. As it is right now, it just sounds like Ms. Saragoza makes comments to feed off of the twins' popularity and probably edited this into the page herself. Jyg (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I believe we need to try and find more diverse sources on the topic of child models and kidfluencers while shortening Saragoza's comments. Meanwhile, would you take kindly to my suggestion that the sections be split? I think that we need to draw a clean line between their image and criticism. Right now it sounds like a mixture, maybe my English just isn't that good. HKLionel (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that'd work well. thank you! Jyg (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Clements Twins

I will make prayers 4 u guys and hope you make through with what's going on 🙏🙏🙏❤️💕 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOF Team (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@WOF Team As if they would Look through Wikipedia just to find your comment on the discussion page. This Page isn't Supposed to be a commenting page Rose7x (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk the talk

Reading articles about the Clements twins is ok but I mean look at other people's personal items is a little bit wierd don't you think? But it is still fine lol🤓👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WOF Team (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)