Talk:George Clooney/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: Is the "Controversy" section warranted?

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.

---

Should there by a "Controversy" section, per discussion above? --Light show (talk) 21:41, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• No. Undue weight to trivia, despite being published. Numerous other reasons stated earlier. --Light show (talk) 21:41, October 2, 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Covered in multiple RSs. Over an extended period of time. See also above conversation. However, I would be open - if there is a consensus for it - to the third para being excised. Inasmuch as that second incident does not rise to the same level of coverage as the first incident. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

That 3rd paragraph was already excised by me earlier based on your previous comments. --Light show (talk) 00:37, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

• Question – Did coverage of this controversy last beyond the initial period? Is it something that is mentioned in profiles of Clooney? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

• @Neil – Yes; including as reflected above (though not in the article – we could always add more refs) as recently as this past year. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

• There's a section on Political views which seems to include views on a variety of topics. Perhaps we could add a Gun control subsection and incorporate the controversy in that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
• Hopefully sourced with something more profound than an undated bloggish RS. --Light show (talk) 00:33, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
• Rather than having a "Controversy" section per say, I agree with NeilN – we could include his well sourced controversies throughout the article. Gun control controversy in the "Political views" section etc. Meatsgains (talk) 16:25, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

Agree but as long as the attention devoted to it is trimmed up: two paras is way too much, maybe a few sentences. It's about details of a specific joke he made about Heston. Does everyone feel this is indeed warranted in the article? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:42, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

We should first get a clear yes/no consensus about the original RfC question. --Light show (talk) 16:55, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

@Light show: Are you talking about the content of the Controversy section or having a section called "Controversy"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:49, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Both. Having 216 words about a joke comment is ridiculous, nor does it warrant a sub-section. If there were some real details with substance about his gun control opinions, kept in balance with the relatively brief career material, the joke might fit within that. But a joke without context fits nowhere. As it is, the Personal life and Political views sections, (his political views are part of his "Personal life,") have over 40% more words than the Career sections, which creates a tabloid impression. Another section about his motorcycle accident is loaded with trivia and should also be trimmed without a section for the same reasons. --Light show (talk) 04:15, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

• No, not as such. The subtopic "Controversy on the subject of X" should be covered under the section heading "X". Multiple controversies should not be collected in a controversy section, as it provides a coatrack for undue coverage of any controversy. Whatever the title for the section on the Heston/Alzheimer's/NRA comment, it should not be "controversy". I suggest broadening the section to "Stance on gun control", and including this comment/joke within that. GC seems to have a well known view on gun control that is as yet uncovered by this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

• The content is also a fork of the same content Charlton_Heston#Later_life_and_death. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

• No. I came here from the RfC notice. If I understand correctly (the RfC is a little unclear), we are talking about the page section that is currently called "Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control". In that form, it is WP:UNDUE, and we have to be very careful about controversy sections on pages where WP:BLP applies. I agree with SmokeyJoe that a section about Clooney's views on gun control would be much more appropriate, and the joke could be succinctly covered within that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I changed the section title from "Controversy" to "Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control".[1] I had thought it obviously preferable to immediately remove the clearly inappropriate "Controversy" section title in favour of the subject associated with the controversy. Unfortunately, it seems that this controversy is extremely isolated. I do not find further evidence from other places or times that Clooney is engaged in the topic of gun control, or Heston, or Alzheimer's. Neither can I find sources commenting of this controversy much after the comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. In that case, I tend to think that it should just be deleted as undue weight. Celebrities say stuff about other celebrities all the time, and very little of it is encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

It's more than undue. It's totally irrelevant, to both the section, Political views, or the subsection, Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control. There's no text about his views on gun control, which implies the material doesn't fit anywhere, besides some other reasons noted above. --Light show (talk) 00:26, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

• No - Agree with Light show . I get a strong sense of WP:UNDUE looking at the section. It should probably be re-titled to just "Gun Control" and the Heston comment should be mentioned as an aside. NickCT (talk) 00:04, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

• Beyond this Heston comment, there is nothing else to to fill a "Gun control" section. It appears that he may subscribe to tighter gun control, but beyond this one comment he has made no contribution or impact to the debate, that I could find. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I understand the questions as to where to put it, and what title is best for wherever it goes, but I do think there should be mention of it. This was unusual in the amount of RS coverage, and the time span that it has attracted RS coverage. Not at all run-of-the-mill by those measures. Defer to others as to where and how it is covered, though. Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Except you cited this undated blog post as a RS. Without some actual RSs covering his opinions about gun control, an isolated off-color joke is not encyclopedic, only tabloid fodder. --Light show (talk) 01:05, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to Fox News? Dated November 11, 2013? Anyway, there are a number of RS refs covering this, over the past decade, as can be plainly seen --Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal. Tending to agree with Epeefleshe, I propose cutting the section, to replace with a third paragraph under George_Clooney#After_ER.3B_2000.E2.80.9310 to read, along the lines of:

  In January 2003, Clooney sparked controvery with a comment connecting Charlton Heston with Alzheimer's disease with gun control, for which he later claimed was a misquoted joke.

  Include a selection of references, but leave the bulk of the detail at Charlton_Heston#Later_life_and_death, where the subject of gun control controversy is more relevant. I read in the existing article text content that I think is reasonably summarised as "he later claimed was a misquoted joke". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

It would still need some context, otherwise it would still just be trivia, but now a sentence instead of a whole section. --Light show (talk) 00:57, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Either expand to two sentences, or reduce to zero? It actually does seem to be have been a provocative controversial clumsy joke without recorded context in the first place. Much like a bad joke. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Context can easily be distilled I would think from the initial two paragraphs, which I've set forth below. The refs/content can be enhanced with more recent coverage, such as that 11 months ago ... over a decade after the incident ... in Fox News. It is of course unusual for decade-long coverage by the WSJ, Fox, Esquire, Newsday, Salon, etc. ... which is why I think it makes sense to have some coverage here. This is how it originally read. If you want to try your favorite distillation, feel free to take first crack. If you prefer that I do so, let me know and I will oblige:

Please distill for the hidden context. As it is, this 200-plus word commentary devoted to this shiny little nugget gives the impression of something of value. But all I could find was pyrite. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In January 2003, Clooney made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, and Clooney initially refused to apologize. While speaking at a National Board of Review event as he accepted an award on television, Clooney said: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's." When syndicated columnist Liz Smith asked Clooney whether he wasn't "going too far" with his remark, he responded: "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association; he deserves whatever anyone says about him."

Heston himself commented, "It just goes to show that sometimes class does skip a generation," referring to Clooney's aunt, Rosemary Clooney. Clooney later said, "It was a joke... They got the quote wrong. What I said was 'The head of the NRA announced today ...' (Filmmaker) Michael Moore had just gotten an award. Anyway, Charlton Heston shows up with guns over his head after a school shooting and then says in the documentary it's because of ethnic diversity that we have problems with violence in America. I think he's going to have to take whatever hits he gets. It was just a joke." Clooney said in 2008 he subsequently apologized to Heston in a letter, and that he received a nice response from Heston's wife.

Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As requested, I offer the below 3 sentences. With RS refs spanning a decade. It could be added in whatever section editors think thought best.

In January 2003, Clooney made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, and initially refused to apologize, saying "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association; he deserves whatever anyone says about him." Clooney later said he was misquoted, and five years later said he apologized to Heston by letter.

References

• No there is undue weight do to trivia. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Re: shortened text above: It would still need some context. For instance, someone once added a quote by him to the article, The simple truth is that when it comes to the atrocities in Darfur … those people are not better off now than they were years ago.[67]. If there was no context, it wouldn't belong in the article, regardless of how often it was published. However, they added a full section, Darfur, describing his work on Darfur, which gave the quote context. There are plenty of other quotes by him. This sort of joke/quote would go fine in a similar section covering his published stand on gun control. Without that, it's trivia. --Light show (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that Light show cut the entire section and was reverted. I still support my proposal above, even if it is an unstable context poor trivia-style single sentence. It would be an improvement on the status quo. It is between nothing and way too much. On the article is the best place to proceed to find consensus through editing. I think there is a rough consensus here that the current text is too much. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This story from MSNBC or this one, might add context. --Light show (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Controversy Section Here from RfC. Controversies, as such, should be woven into a BLP's narrative in perspective. Clooney, a politically active and prolific actor, has probably a dozen or more controversies that could be dug up and unduly weighted on this article. It's trivia that did not impact the lives of either subject's life trajectory nor did it change national perception. Smokey Joe's sentence does it justice. EBY (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• No - Here's the section[2], it read like a tabloid. In the end, you would find them to be trivial. Unless there is some serious controversy, that has affected his life or career, it maybe included. So far none of these seems to be important enough for inclusion. Noteswork (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

30 days and a consensus of 7 to 1, indicates we should close this and remove the joke until there is context added. --Light show (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Smokey Joe points to as a rough consensus that the current (at the time of the RfC being initiated) text was viewed as too much. I also agree with those editors who say, above in what also appears to me to be a rough consensus, such as User:NeilN, User:Meatsgains, User:Ugog Nizdast, User:SmokeyJoe, User:NickCT , User:EBY3221, that if the section is deleted or re-named (which those editors support), a sentence or two covering this topic -- which the RSs have covered for over the past ten years -- is appropriate. Smokey Joe and I have taken stabs at crafting that sentence or two, above. Light Show has offered a couple of refs as context for that sentence or two. Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Epeefleche's assessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending any revision to the quote section, now that we all agree it doesn't belong in the article as is, being undue and without context, I've copied the section to the box below. I'll remove the section from the article unless there are major objections, such as needing another 30 days to think it over. --Light show (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control

In January 2003, Clooney made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, and Clooney initially refused to apologize.[23][72][73] While speaking at a National Board of Review event as he accepted an award on television, Clooney said: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."[74] When syndicated columnist Liz Smith asked Clooney whether he wasn't "going too far" with his remark, he responded: "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association; he deserves whatever anyone says about him."[73][75]

Heston himself commented, "It just goes to show that sometimes class does skip a generation," referring to Clooney's aunt, Rosemary Clooney.[75] Clooney later said, "It was a joke... They got the quote wrong. What I said was 'The head of the NRA announced today ...' (Filmmaker) Michael Moore had just gotten an award. Anyway, Charlton Heston shows up with guns over his head after a school shooting and then says in the documentary it's because of ethnic diversity that we have problems with violence in America. I think he's going to have to take whatever hits he gets. It was just a joke."[76] Clooney said in 2008 he subsequently apologized to Heston in a letter, and that he received a nice response from Heston's wife.[23]

Light -- I know you're eager to delete the section. As another editor pointed out, you've already done it once during this RFC that you yourself both opened and voted on. I think it would be best for another editor to close this, when appropriate. And for the close to involve the move/creation of sentence or two covering this topic -- which the RSs have covered for over the past ten years, and which Smokey Joe and I have taken stabs at crafting above ... that, not wholesale deletion of any mention, is what the rough consensus above calls for. Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Grapebanter (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) plz let me edit

Not done: @Grapebanter:-The article is protected to be edited by users with autoconfirmed flag to prevent vandalism. User-accounts that are four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered "autoconfirmed", so you may edit this article after you meet the required standard. However, in the meanwhile you may make indirect edits in form of "edit-request", please propose it in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015

its all wrong

Ajayswag (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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. NiciVampireHeart 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015

Ajayswag (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

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. You may reopen this request by changing |answered=yes to |answered=no and providing details of the specific changes you wish to see made. Please provide reliable sources as required. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 18:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Centennial mini-series

Parts of Centennial were filmed in Maysville, KY, hometown of Nick and Rosemary Clooney. There was no filming in Augusta, KY which is about 20 miles west (downriver). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B193:9280:24:FEE:D5DD:C6EF (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015

Birth Place Lexington, kentucky. i am changing it to Skelmersdale 90.211.215.23 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The cited sources in the article all state that he was born in Lexington. If you still feel it should be changed, please present reliable and verifiable sources here on the talk page to support your request. ‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

date of birth

imdb.com credits George Clooney as crew: 1974 The Moneymaze (TV Series) (stage hand - 1974-1975)

1968 The Nick Clooney Show (TV Series) (stage hand) 

How could he be a stage hand at 7 years of age? Presumably imdb is wrong, but I thought I'd raise the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.54.94 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Street Hawk

I am sure a very young George Clooney appeared as a guest star in an episode of the short-lived tv show Street Hawk...

In fact, 10 seconds on IMDB and: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0711234/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

feel free to amend the article to include this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.213.79 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on George Clooney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140906201511/http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1315091.php/George_Clooneys_Sudan_help to http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1315091.php/George_Clooneys_Sudan_help
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090504110103/http://www.time.com:80/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1615754_1615880,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0,28804,1595326_1615754_1615880,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150424042000/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1894289_1894280,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1894289_1894280,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140906200844/http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1595326_1615754_1615880,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1595326_1615754_1615880,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140906201019/http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733752_1735741,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733752_1735741,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry

It is stated in the article that he is of Irish, English and German ancestry. Why then does he look like an Indian (meaning Asian Indian / Pakistan, and not Native American)? Has he other ancestry that are not stated in the article? 217.35.246.50 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on George Clooney. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/?param=%2Fyear%2F1996
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/?param=%2Fyear%2F1997
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001030525/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/70771/George-Clooney-Doesnt-Give-A-St-If-People-Think-He-Is-Gay- to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/70771/George-Clooney-Doesnt-Give-A-St-If-People-Think-He-Is-Gay-
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100/article/0%2C28804%2C1595326_1615754_1615880%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1894410_1894289_1894280%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0%2C28804%2C1595326_1615754_1615880%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0%2C28804%2C1733748_1733752_1735741%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

His highest grossing movie

For this part:

>>> As of 2011, it was Clooney's most successful film, earning more than $450 million worldwide. <<<

First of all, if we don't mention "as of 2011" it doesn't have to change every year and should be changed if a movie comes along that topples Oceans Eleven.

Additionally, it is not his highest grossing movie, as this is Gravity. It would be his highest grossing movie with him in the lead. Gravity grossed $723 Mio worldwide.

I don't know how to handle this sentence in the lead section:

>>> In 2001, Clooney's fame widened with the release of his biggest commercial success, the heist comedy remake Ocean's Eleven, the first of what became a trilogy starring Clooney. <<<

The wording states it is his highest success, as he played the lead, that seems like a true statement. Regards to Tina N..

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2017

George Clooney was in an episode of Murder She Wrote in 1987 called "No Laughing Murder" Angela Lansbury ... Jessica Fletcher George Clooney ... Kip Howard Original air date 16-May-05 ? 67.70.68.18 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Already mentioned on George Clooney filmography. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Clooney. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/candidates/22111/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140511164941/http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/257006381.html to http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/257006381.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Nespresso

I have recently been really excited by the promotional material George Clooney did for Nescafe`s Nespresso cappucino-machines https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfyeXrdZZ1o and I think wikipedia needs it. Thanks.126.209.12.35 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Award

New award: http://variety.com/2017/film/awards/george-clooney-afi-life-achievement-award-1202581846/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.203.211.251 (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The hoax of Irish, German and English ancestry

If there is any truth in these pictures https://viraliq.com/20-mind-boggling-photos-celebrities-now/19 or in these http://ew.com/gallery/george-clooney-photos/george-clooney-as-dr-doug-ross-on-er-in-1997 - and there is absolutely no reason to doubt this, than this man is simply not of - merely - Irish, German and English descent. This man is mainly of Greek or Arabic descent. Who is fabricating such stuff - and why? is Greek and/or Arabic not good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4267:9900:B522:65CD:CEB:8563 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Irish American

Why was the American person of Irish descent category removed? It's common knowledge that he is of Irish descent and isn't a secret. Also, is there a source for his alleged German/English roots. Typical bigoted nonsense..

Interestingly, there is a similar Greek surname, Klouni/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.56.112 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is any truth in these pictures https://viraliq.com/20-mind-boggling-photos-celebrities-now/19 or in these http://ew.com/gallery/george-clooney-photos/george-clooney-as-dr-doug-ross-on-er-in-1997- and there is absolutely no reason to doubt this, than this man is simply not of - merely - Irish, German and English descent. This man is mainly of Greek or Arabic descent. - Who is fabricating such lies - and why? Is Greek and/or Arabic not good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4267:9900:B522:65CD:CEB:8563 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning of marriage in the lead section

The last sentence of the lead section mentions his marriage to Amal. Why do we need to include this fact in the lead section? In my pov, it doesn't belong there. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Where's Max?

List_of_pigs#Max points the reader to Max (pig). The latter redirects to this article. (See what's currently the topmost section of this talk page.) This article currently doesn't mention Max. -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Mention a sexual act in an encyclopedia?

The section

Relationship to Jeffrey Epstein

mentioned a sexual act George Clooney had with a women. In my point of view, this doesn't belong to an encyclopedic article about a person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a tabloid paper.

What do the other Wikipedians say about my opinion?

Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

George Clooney Guest Appearance Murder She Wrote

George Clooney appeared as a guest on Murder She Wrote, Season 3, Episode 18, "No Laughing Murder" March 15, 1987. He was 25 years old at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.28.172 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2020

The sentence "He has been nominated for Oscars in six different categories, a record he shares with Walt Disney." should read "He has been nominated for Oscars in six different categories, a record he shares with Walt Disney and Alfonso Cuarón." The latter shares this record with George Clooney and Walt Dsney since 2019. 95.92.219.39 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

YO pls ye BOut ruinthis mans hole carrer (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)  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. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020 (2)

BOut ruinthis mans hole carrer (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

YO man really neeed your help so ye givmme a call

 Not done and please stop your baseless requests. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a Messenger of Peace

According to United Nations Messengers of Peace, Clooney isn't one any more. I don't know when he stopped being one. Please update the article. --184.144.99.72 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

In the phrase "directed, and, and produced", please remove the extra "and". 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"who had worked on the screenplay for 17 years"

The phrase "who had worked on the screenplay for 17 years" suggests that the writers worked on the screenplay without interruption. I suggest "... over a 17-year period" as a clearer and more plausible alternative. Maxischo (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023

George Clooney got his start in television playing George Burnett on the “Facts of Life.” He appeared in 17 episodes beginning in 1985. Kare hep (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 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. We mention the Facts of Life already in the #Early work (1978–1993) section. What exactly are you suggesting and where are you suggesting it? Cannolis (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Minor update needed

He also directs The Tender Bar adaptation for Amazon Studios with Ben Affleck in the lead. It will have a limited release in Los Angeles and New York theatres on December 17, 2021, followed by a nationwide premiere on December 22, 2021. The coming-of-age film will be streaming on Amazon Prime Video from January 7, 2022.

Please update verb tenses as appropriate.

- 189.60.49.251 (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sports - Dallas Mavericks

George Clooney is a known supporter of the Dallas Mavericks NBA basketball team. As the most high profile team supporter this should be mentioned.

References

George Clooney was on Roseanne BEFORE he was a hit on ER. 2600:1700:62C0:4EE0:64B3:CFC3:E90B:BB9 (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

true start for his career tv acting : george clooney -he was also on roseann

When was George Clooney on The Facts of Life?

On September 21, 1985, a little-known actor named George Clooney makes his first appearance as a handyman on the popular TV sitcom The Facts of Life. Clooney appeared in 17 episodes of the show, which aired from 1979 to 1988 and chronicled the lives of a group of young women who meet at a fictional boarding school.Nov 13, 2009 2600:1702:5700:E40:78EE:FB11:E2E7:2F27 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)