(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Margot Robbie - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Margot Robbie

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


Pregnancy News

[edit]

Hello. News about Margot Robbie being pregnant was released in early July (via People Magazine). However, Wikipedia editors have reverted any edits adding info about this in the article since Robbie hasn't seemingly confirmed her pregnancy herself. This is understandable. However, in an interview, Robbie's Barbie costar Ariana Greenblatt confirmed that Robbie is pregnant. (See the article here: https://people.com/barbie-s-ariana-greenblatt-says-her-mom-guessed-margot-robbie-s-pregnancy-before-the-news-broke-8693523.) I believe this is verification enough for Robbie's pregnancy news to be included in the article. Let me know what you think so we can reach a consensus. Thanks, CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says "the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.". That article is written in a particularly tabloid style that instantly triggered my scepticism. Content such as "her mom, Soli, had a dream about Robbie's pregnancy" is a serious trigger. There MUST be a better source somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this, "Multiple sources confirm to PEOPLE that the Barbie star, 34, and husband Tom Ackerley are expecting their first baby". Alexandra Daddario backed this claim. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That second, probably independent source is good, but the word "adorably" doesn't belong in quality journalism either. I recommend citing both sources. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, sources' framing of the supposed pregnancy does not merit a neutral claim here about Robbie being pregnant. Yes, Robbie is probably pregnant. So what? Every source has attributed their reporting to anonymous sources, published that it has been reported elsewhere that Robbie is pregnant, or included a quote from somebody famous suggesting Robbie is pregnant. None has neutrally said so. The only appropriate way to write about any pregnancy is "Robbie is reportedly pregnant" or "actors Ariana Greenblatt and Alexandra Daddario have suggested that Robbie is pregnant". Which of these meets WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS? KyleJoantalk 04:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worst kept secret. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to her and the sources that have only suggested she is pregnant (and would not neutrally state as much). As an observer, I'm convinced she's pregnant. As a user, "I'm convinced she's pregnant" fails BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS. KyleJoantalk 04:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously clear that she's pregnant, and it's ridiculous to fight over sourcing when WP:COMMONSENSE should triumph. Having said that, simply being pregnant does not warrant a mention in her bio. Let her deliver her child, which should then be mentioned. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion isn't about whether she's pregnant, though. It's about whether we should include a neutral claim stating it. It sounds like you're saying pregnancies aren't appropriate to include regardless of sourcing. This point contradicts the COMMONSENSE reference because that essay suggests that we could ignore the policies referenced and include a claim, so which is it–should a claim be included as per COMMONSENSE or excluded based on something else? KyleJoantalk 09:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a binary argument. Pregnancies by themselves aren't notable for inclusion. Also, the COMMONSENSE argument doesn't ask us to disregard policies. What I'm trying to say is that, if the pregnancy claim needs to be included then the current sourcing is fine, because it's obvious that she's pregnant, per COMMONSENSE. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why reference COMMONSENSE at all if it's irrelevant to whether this material should be included? KyleJoantalk 10:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because COMMONSENSE is literally the argument! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's proving, and then there's knowing. But if the rule is not to add info on her pregnancy simply because it is unnotable/she didn't confirm it herself, I'll leave it at that. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONSENSE is about making helpful edits despite what the "rules" are. Unless the essay is used to support how it's helpful to include or exclude a claim about Robbie being pregnant, it sounds more like COMMONSENSE would be the argument in some other dispute to include some other claim. KyleJoantalk 10:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since she's so obviously pregnant, I think we should add it. It's not non-notable. CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]