Talk:Jacob Elordi

I think ot should be specified that the Basque Country is a region of Spain, because many people may think that its an independent country and that is not true.

Also, for those who say that this information its redundant, many celebrity pages here in wikipedia (Such as Viggo Mortensen or Scarlette Johansson) include parent’s (and even grandparent’s) hometowns and countries of origin. Why is that information not redundant on those pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.128.235.142 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

: You've already been answered in the discussion above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

::Nobody give one reason. People just say no, without a debate. I offer precedents of pages where the same information exist and where the editors allow that information. Why is that information not accepeted on this page? 98.128.235.142 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

::: No one is interested in continuing this conversation except you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

::::Again, you dont give me any reason. You act in a totalitarian way, without giving an option to debate and much less to consensus. I want to speak with someone impartial. 98.128.235.142 (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

:::::Glossary: "for no reason" -- for no reason that I agree with or think is reasonable; "option to debate" -- willingness to rehash arguments for as long as it takes until it emerges that I am right; "consensus" -- everybody finally agreeing with me. _signed, Willondon (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

::::::Let me chime in too... if people want to know about Basque Country, they can click the link. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, readers who know about the Basque Country will already be aware of its cohesion as an ethnic population without sovereign status. Readers who don't will (1) carry on, satisfied that it is something they don't need to know right now (especially while reading of Australian Elordi's parents), or (2) click on the link to inform themselves. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

::::::Yes Willondon, Take a good look at the conversations and you Will see that nobody has given any reason for not to put that information. Not one. Information that you can find in more pages, so there is a precedent. You Will tell me what option to debate exists if they dont even answer simple questions? Why is That information valid on other pages of other artists but not on this one? Nobody answers, they only give answers that the topic is closed. 98.128.235.142 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

:::::::And again, the answer is click. WHy its not the same in other pages98.128.235.142 (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

::::::::In the context of discussing Jacob Elordi's parents' origin on Wikipedia, I believe it's important to note that the Basque Country is a region within the Kingdom of Spain—one of its 17 autonomous communities. Therefore, it would be appropriate to mention Spain as the country of origin. If specifying the region is desired for additional context, including both the region and the country would ensure clarity and accuracy. MeV-AW (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::::: This is a biographical article, not a forum for arguing about the status of Basque Country. If the reader is curious about Basque Country, they can click on the wikilink to it in the article and read more. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Joeyconnick}} Just wanted to bring this to the talk page to avoid further edit warring. Until we've resolved this, I'll try to hold off on adding anything, but I just wanted to discuss the info regarding his height being notable. Removing the information about him being regarded for his height on the basis that he is notable for his acting is, like I said in my edit summary, a false dilemma—he can be, and is, notable for both. Michael Jackson is notable for his music, but that doesn't negate the fact that his appearance and health are also notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia due to the wide variety of sources that address them in depth.

Conversely, Elordi's height does not, at this point, warrant its own article, but it undeniably has gotten enough coverage to permit, at the very least, inclusion in the article. [https://www.vulture.com/article/jacob-elordi-height-essay.html This Vulture essay] from this month is entirely about his height, as is [https://www.thecut.com/2020/02/jacob-elordis-reported-height-is-64-how-tall-is-he-really.html this 2020 article from The Cut]. [https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/11/16/23963689/jacob-elordi-tall-babygirl-saltburn-priscilla This Vox article] about his career in 2023 begins with the sentence, "{{tquote|There is no man in Hollywood as tall, as popular, or as beautiful as Jacob Elordi,}}" and goes on to discuss his height further ("{{tquote|How can a man tall enough (6'5", as we are legally obligated to note)}}", "{{tquote|Even his enormous height gets a babygirl reaction}}", {{tquote|...well, if you haven't heard, he is tall.}}") Other, more routine coverage of Elordi from [https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a38536416/jacob-elordi-height/ Men's Health], [https://people.com/jacob-elordi-jokes-height-difference-priscilla-costar-cailee-spaeny-7975948 People], and [https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/01/15/jacob-elordi-believed-height-could-hinder-his-career/ PinkNews] includes articles also exclusively about the effect his height had on his acting career.

Even if it is not an integral part of his acting career on the surface, the source material makes it clear that his height is an essential part of his public image. Would like to hear what you have to say as well. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

:Pinging {{u|Joeyconnick}} benǝʇᴉɯ 02:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

::If he weren't an actor, he would not have an article for being 6'5". So QED. It's not notable. Just because people have written about it doesn't mean we need to include it, as we are not indiscriminate. The entertainment press can just "oh my gosh *{{em|swoon}}*" over his height but guess what? We're not the entertainment press.

::If he were in a profession where height could make or break your career, then it would likely be relevant. That's why we generally remove height info from actors' pages... unless they modelled, where being tall can be considered in most cases a requirement to progress. Even then... likely not required for a general audience to understand the article's subject. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Joeyconnick}} I am still unclear as to how the sources I referenced fail to establish the notability of his height. You have yet to say anything about them and that was mainly what I was hoping to hear about.

:::I'm also not sure I agree with you here. Your determination that he is not {{tquote|in a profession where height could make or break [his] career}} is subjective, especially since the aforementioned sources are exclusively about how Elordi's height is unique in Hollywood, like the [https://www.vulture.com/article/jacob-elordi-height-essay.html Vulture article], which contains the quote, "Still, some of those same insiders told me that in certain cases an actor's height can remain a deal-breaker." {{tquote|Generally remov[ing] height info from actors' pages}} is not an enshrined policy nor is it all-encompassing since plenty of articles about actors do include their heights when they are described by RSs as notable (i.e., Kristin Chenoweth, James Cromwell, Richard Moll) as is the case here. Saying that height is not notable for actors {{tquote|unless they modelled}} is not only untrue as per the previously linked actor BLPs and the fact that it is not policy but also a moot point anyway, since Elordi did attempt modeling, as is mentioned in his "Early life" section (Dolph Lundgren's exact height is not mentioned in his article, but his being tall is many times, specifically in relation to his attempts at modeling).

:::Moreover, if all we were looking for in a BLP was what was {{tquote|required for a general audience to understand the subject}}, then the article would stop at the lede. The vast majority of articles about his height do not {{tquote|"oh my gosh *{{em|swoon}}*"}} (as you put it) {{tquote|over his height}} and are relatively objective in their coverage of it, and arguing that {{tquote|we're not the entertainment press}} negates the fact that the sources relied on throughout the entire article to determine that he is notable are from the entertainment press. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

{{Talk:Jacob Elordi/GA1}}

1. "Gabriella Ferlita of PinkNews stated that Elordi "achieved countless words of praise for his rendition of The King" from critics." Pink News isn't a reputable source. There are many established critics that provided critical acclaim for his performance, like Vanity Fair, Indiewire and the Hollywood Reporter.

2. "The episode received mostly negative critical reception for what critics found to be a heavy reliance on jokes about Elordi's attractiveness." The sources for this aren't critics. these are opinion pieces. The Daily Beast aren't critics or a reputable source.

Unnecessary information:

1. "Critics noted the lack of resemblance between Elordi and Gere, particularly due to Elordi being about half a foot taller than Gere." Not relevant to the film or the performance. How many points do there need to be about his height?

2. Elordi's relationships, including with Euphoria co-star Zendaya, model Kaia Gerber, The Kissing Booth co-star Joey King, and YouTuber Olivia Jade, also received widespread coverage in tabloids and on social media. Librasunco (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

: Pink News is listed as "generally reliable" on WP:RSP]. The Daily Beast is a notable publication, and while WP:RSP cautions against using it to source biographical information, there's nothing about it's use for entertainment criticism. I don't see a strong need to mention Elordi's height in the article. It is factual to say that his relationships have received extensive coverage in tabloid media; I so no issue with one line about that so long as we're not repeatedly specific tabloid claims. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to bring this topic to the talk page to avoid anymore back and forth with @Ohnoitsjamie as I've already been subject to inappropriate behavior on their part. All of this information is on my talk page, for anyone wanting all the details, but I initially and naively made some edits without including an edit summary and accidentally deleting information. I was made aware of this by @Ohnoitsjamie and @Justiyaya. I acknowledged my mistakes, but I did raise my issues and concerns with using sources like PinkNews and The Daily Beast as sources for critics' opinions. As you may be aware, The Daily Beast is not considered a reliable source, according to Wikipedia. In my most recent edits, following my discussions with @Ohnoitsjamie, I kept all the content the same. However, instead of using The Daily Beast as a source, I used an article from The Guardian, which Wikipedia does consider a reliable source. Additionally, I kept all the information sourced from the PinkNews, but I added more reputable sources to support the information. In my opinion, PinkNews should not be used as a reliable source to support claims of critics' reviews as its not considered a critic's review by organizations like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, which Wikipedia views as reliable sources for film reviews. Wikipedia does not view PinkNews as a reliable source for film reviews, stating the following: "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used."

My last point of contention is with a section in the public life section that uses a source from The Washington Post. As I'm sure we are all aware, TWP is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia and I agree. My issue is not with the TWP, but rather the statement that is used to cite information on this Wikipedia article. The statement is reliant solely on tabloid gossip. The Washington's Post source for the statement is explicitly labeled as tabloid gossip. Additionally, their only source for that statement is tabloid gossip and the article itself is irrelevant to the topic. As you all know, Wikipedia explicitly states that we cannot add content sourced only to tabloid gossip. The point I am trying to make is that if a statement or piece of information cannot be supported by a valid or reputable source, then I do not think it should be included on the page. Librasunco (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Librasunco}}, I've restored the section above and made this thread into a subsection. You cannot remove another user's comment. There are guidelines against this. You can strike your own out if you've changed your mind.

:I've read the thread on your talk page. You're interpreting reliable sources differently than the majority of Wikipedia editors. I'd suggest finding another article to edit or another task to do to learn how Wikipedia works and its core policies. When you're starting something, like glassblowing, and someone who's been doing it for close to two decades tells you you've doing it wrong, it's better to listen. It's a bit too early in your editing journey to be engaging in debates like these, it's better to learn the rules first and how they are applied by editors. Justiyaya 12:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, I was removing my own comments, as @Ohnoitsjamie and I were already having the conversation on my talk page and I felt it unnecessary to have the conversation on multiple channels. Additionally, I feel like this response is unfair characterization and written in bad faith (which goes against Wikipedia’s rules for dispute resolution) given that I provided cited justifications for my thoughts. You cannot override that simply because someone has been on Wikipedia longer. Need I make it clear, that regardless of their role as an administration or however long they’ve been on Wikipedia, I am allowed to raise concerns about the validity of sources. The only users who have had an issue with my interpretation of sources are you and @Ohnoitsjamie. Additionally, my interpretation of sources comes directly from Wikipedia pages. Lastly, the language and tone used to interact with me is completely inappropriate, condescending, and accusatory. First, when @Ohnoitsjamie accused me of “making up information” despite clearly citing my sources, now when you are accusing me of “glassblowing.” Seniority does not give you the authority to speak or engage with me in this way. I would like to employ a third opinion, as it is clear that you both are unwilling to actually hear my concerns and have resorted to defamatory tactics. And please reinstate my topic “unreliable sources” on this talk page. You cannot remove my content. Librasunco (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::: It's not appropriate to remove conversations from article talk pages unless (1) the conversation is innappropriate or off-topic or (2) all parties agree to it per WP:MUTUAL. I'm not the only use who's had issues with your edits or your interpretation of rules, as can be seen in the history of this article and the talk page as well as your talk page. I'm not going to address all of your accusations because frankly they're silly. I didn't remove any of your content from this page, nor have I defamed you. Feel free to report me wherever you see fit. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::As I clearly stated in my above response, I said that only, @Ohnoitsjamie and @Justiyaya have had issues with my edits and have since then used their seniority to strong arm me and prevent me from getting my point across. There has been a complete lack of compromise and general civility, which is outlined on Wikipedia's page for dispute resolution. Again, I would like a third unbiased opinion and I will be reporting you because you have 1) used your seniority to speak to me in a condescending manner, as I previously stated 2) accused me on my talk page of "white washing" information, despite my admission that I accidentally removed information 3) accused me on my talk page of "making up information," despite the fact that I clearly cited Wikipedia articles 4) when @Justiyaya made claims about my character and behavior when they stated I was "glassblowing" you, despite the fact that I was very respectful in all our written interactions and again, cited and justified every opinion and action. (and might I add, is the incorrect terminology).Librasunco (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Just to provide a reality check on the sources at issue: there is no community consensus on the reliability of Daily Beast (WP:DAILYBEAST), and a rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable WP:PINKNEWS. Generally speaking, media reviews are an area that is typically less stringent about reliability than factual reporting, not moreso, and the specific concerns listed at PinkNews's RSP entry are about its labeling of people's sexuality, which don't appear to be at issue in this dispute, so the argument that PinkNews or "anything not cited by RottenTomatoes and Metacritic" are not usable seems rather weak. The disputed edit also included removal of text cited to The New York Times, GQ, and Variety, all of which are listed as generally reliable on RSP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I appreciated your feedback, but I do not feel comfortable with you interacting with me due you insinuating that my negative interactions with the above users is meritless, because it seems "highly unlikely that a new user would know about interaction blocks" as if that information is not readily available on Wikipedia. The issue with the consensus on sources does not excuse inappropriate behavior, whether it was their intent or not. Librasunco (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::I stand by Librasunco on this dispute. I am a relatively new user and I have not read extremely deeply on the validity of the sources Librasunco removed information from however reading through the whole discussion on the talk page of Librasunco and this articles talk page, Ohnoitsjamie is clearly speaking to Librasunco with a condescending tone among other rude things and then when accused of such wont respond because 'the accusations are ""silly""'.
• ::I believe even if Librasunco is wrongfully removing content, it is in good faith and the response from Ohnoitsjamie was bad and unconstructive, also I disagree with an indefinite block to editing this article for Librasunco as again, they appear to be very knowledgeable on this topic and are editing only with the idea of improving the article in mind. Bastubunny (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

… 149.167.2.195 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)