Jump to content

Talk:Rebel Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change photograph

[edit]

Just see Rebel herself asking how to change this. Can it be done??x 2A00:23C7:3D88:B001:B859:22B:555C:85A7 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a photograph that is in the public domain or licensed under CC BY-SA, then yes, go ahead and upload it.Iseult Δx parlez moi 02:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um at least remove the repeat of the picture taken at the same event? That has to be trolling... on no other pages have I seen similar pictures used from the same event for a person's biography... 72.136.95.67 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
72.136.95.67: I did consider that when I found this thing last night, though I decided against it because I expect that we'll find a suitable picture for the header soon, and then the other picture can stay. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2022

[edit]

Could you change the picture to something more recent. As she has changed a lot lately it would be better to have an image that reflects the real her. (And she requested it on social) Smaanx (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medhi A Smaanx (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide an image with an acceptable license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo definitely needs updating, don’t get too technical. 193.3.34.10 (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the photograph

[edit]

I understand that Rebel Wilson, who now looks completely different to the current photo in this article, would like a better photograph to replace the existing one, and that this is getting some press attention.

If she, or her representatives, or someone else who has personally taken a recent photograph of her, would like to upload a new photo to Wikimedia Commons, granting the right for the picture to be licensed under Wikimedia Commons' licensing rules, it can be used in this article immediately.

Without the proper copyright license, however, newer images cannot be used as we already have a license-compliant image, and only an entity with the legal capacity to sub-license it, such as the copyright owner, can grant that license. — The Anome (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

[edit]

Image update if rebel wilson 81.229.48.128 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: See above ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022 (2)

[edit]

Update the picture 2600:1700:903A:1190:3C8B:450C:A948:6841 (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Do you have one we can use? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC) - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go out with your camera, take a new picture of her, upload it here. Do not try to upload other people's pictures of her, they will be deleted because copyright. If someone who has contact with Rebel Wilson happens to read this, she can take a previously-unpublished-anywhere selfie and upload it herself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or she could just take a selfie and post it to her social media saying "this is a public domain image of me". But there is no need for her to be personally involved: like most celebrities, she probably gets vast numbers of nutters trying to contact her, and celebrities put up walls against such things. But maybe you could contact her Australian agent (https://creativerep.com.au/artists/rebel-wilson/) or these people (https://www.tavistockwood.com/clients/rebel-wilson/) and make them aware of how this situation could be resolved. Both have public email addresses and phone numbers. Then their people can talk to her people, etc. She also probably has PR people to handle this sort of thing, who are probably empowered to do the same this directly; same deal applies with this, but I don't have contact details for them. There's no shortage of good photos of her already; it just needs approval from someone with the authority to do so, probably via WP:OTRS. — The Anome (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Commons would accept "her social media saying "this is a public domain image of me"" but they might, I don't know the specific rules on that. I think it would be easier if the selfie/social media clearly stated "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license", but I'm not sure which if any social media you can do that on. Apparently nobody at the Daily Mail mentioned Commons to her, but otoh that's not their job. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would see "this is a public domain image of me" from a person who just took that image themselves as a pretty clear dedication to the public domain. Perhaps "this is a public domain image of me, taken by me" might be even better. But as I said above, the most practical way to do this, without having to bother her personally, is to contact her agents via either of the public contact points I gave above. — The Anome (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but IMO the most practical way to do this from the WP/Commons POV, is article-subject-uploads-previously-unpublished-selfie-on-Commons-themselves. Minimum bureaucracy for everybody. Photographer-uploads-previously-unpublished-photo-on-Commons-themselves works just as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update photo please

[edit]

Her photo needs updating as it is not a representation of her 2A02:C7E:365A:DB00:F820:2441:68DC:77CD (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but see Talk:Rebel_Wilson#Replacing_the_photograph. Then, go out with your camera and get us a photo we can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you could contact her Australian agent (https://creativerep.com.au/artists/rebel-wilson/) or these people (https://www.tavistockwood.com/clients/rebel-wilson/) and make them aware of how this situation could be resolved. Both have public email addresses and phone numbers. Then their people can talk to her people, etc. She also likely has PR people to handle this sort of thing, who would be able to do it directly; same deal applies with this, but I don't have contact details for them. There's no shortage of good photos of her already; it just needs approval from someone with the authority to do so, probably via WP:OTRS. — The Anome (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

[edit]

Change Rebel wilsons image (see looks nothing like her current picture on wikipedia)

File:Rebel 2022.webp

Smileyuser (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smileyuser Hello, new editor. You stated on Commons that this is your "own work". Is that correct, or did you just find it online somewhere, like [1]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you’d know the answer wouldn’t ya? 69.174.148.222 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LGBT categories

[edit]

From the WP:CATDEF-pov, the basis for adding these are kind of weak. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She has publicly come out, which implies that she sees this as part of her identity. — The Anome (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's not at "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places)," is it? But at least there are sources. Fwiw, my understanding of WP:CATDEF is that it too early to have those cats here. They aren't meant for LGBT-tagging. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then how long does she have to be gay before she can be called gay? WWGB (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article says she is gay now, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not too surprisingly, there's a guideline: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is her sexuality a defining characteristic? If not, then remove the category.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sexuality in the context of LGBT is nearly always a defining characteristic, that's the nature of LGBT. Masem (t) 13:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be the spirit of the WP:CATLGBT guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

[edit]

change "I thought I was searching for a Disney Prince, but what I really needed all this time was a Disney Princess." to “I thought I was searching for a Disney Prince… but maybe what I really needed all this time was a Disney Princess” as per the linked source

change “they were about to publish details of the relationship.” to “they planned to publish details of the relationship” Ad0502 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the first, changed the second to "She chose to out herself after The Sydney Morning Herald asked her about the relationship." per source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outting by the Sydney Morning Herald

[edit]

"She chose to out herself after The Sydney Morning Herald asked her about the relationship"

This phrasing is inaccurate. They didn't ask her about the relationship, they told her they were publicizing her relationship in two days. This is generally considered unethical. There is an established journalistic ethics tradition of only outing celebrities under certain circumstances: If they publicly advocate violence or homophobic policy against gay people, or if they are deceased.

The SMH further doubled down and published an op-ed taking issue with Wilson 'scooping' the story of her own sexuality, and using as 'justification' the fact that Rebel Wilson had publicized her heterosexual relationship with an attractive and wealthy man. It seems quite clear there was never any doubt the outing story would be published.

So, it was an abundance of caution and respect that this media outlet emailed Rebel Wilson’s representatives on Thursday morning, giving her two days to comment on her new relationship with another woman, LA leisure wear designer Ramona Agruma, before publishing a single word.

Big mistake. Wilson opted to gazump the story, posting about her new “Disney Princess” on Instagram early Friday morning, the same platform she had previously used to brag about her handsome ex-boyfriend, wealthy American beer baron Jacob Busch.

... Of course who anyone dates is their business, but Wilson happily fed such prurient interest when she had a hunky boyfriend on her arm.

— Andrew Hornery, Rebel starts spreading the news of relationship

Sources on the Ethics of Outing

Contemporary Reactions

--Tccam (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to reflect this. Given Hornery seems to have a track record of outing people for his gossip column, I'll also double check elsewhere on the encyclopedia where his articles are used, because I can't for the life of me think why anyone would think Private Sydney is a reliable source, even if the rest of the SMH is. Sceptre (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks! Tccam (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to hope it was a language barrier issue on the part of the editor who changed it to "asked" because that's pretty egregious. Anyway here are some other reaction articles:
--Pokelova (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelova That was me, see [2]. IMO, it was a reasonable reading of the source that was there, prompted by Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022 above. It's still the only source there, and it does not clearly support the current text "She chose to announce her relationship with Arguma to pre-empt an article by The Sydney Morning Herald which would have outed her." The SMH does not say that they would have published something, that is an assumption based "of course they would have since they asked", but that is not WP-good reasoning. It can probably be fixed by adding some WP:BLP-good not-SMH source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sydney_Morning_Herald_and_outing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hornery’s self-aggrandising article complaining about being “gazumped” really cannot be read any other way than the paper preparing to out Wilson before she did it herself.

The “we’re just reporting the news, what are you implying about our intentions?” excuse didn’t work when the SMH infamously outed the 78ers, and based on the reaction to Hornery’s column, it isn’t working now either. Sceptre (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For American readers who might be unfamiliar with the term:
gazump: 4. (Britain, Australia) To trump or preempt; to reap the benefit underhandedly from a situation that someone else has worked to create. Tccam (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hornery (himself a gay man) has said "It is not the Herald’s business to “out” people and that is not what we set out to do." [3] WWGB (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it was the Herald's business back in 1978... Sceptre (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogist "Dale Sheridan"

[edit]

The article says Wilson's claim about being related to Lillian Disney is "disputed by genealogist Dale Sheridan," and the Yahoo! source it links to also calls him "Dale Sheridan," but his name as per the blog Yahoo! cites is actually "Dale Sheldon." Sadiemonster (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rebel_Wilson&oldid=1218189968"