Talk:Hilary Duff/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Narrow down the Genres

this page should narrow down her musical genres to atleast 2 or 3, right now its quite a lot.. at best her stuff should just be "Pop, Pop Rock" or even including Teen Pop.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.104.53 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

religion

what do you think about this source rearding duff's religion? http://www.forum.juicyduff.com/archive/index.php/t-968.html

i want to add her to category american christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just dont understand why a person's religion or race shd be indicated in an encyclopedic article....unless she's in news for something related to religion (like if she converted or if she behaved overtly religious in public), i dont see any reason to include it in the article. Also how can it be of notable value if her religion plays no role in her career/popularity???

I dont think it needs to be mentioned here.Gprince007 (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Little more dubious here (versus, for instance, here) because I am unaware for anything remotely referencing any profession of faith on Hilary's part. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response in here —Preceding unsigned comment added by O1001010 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both Hilary Duff and Miley Cyrus are Christian 130.220.153.164 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle Name

First of all, Hilary's middle name is not Enhard. It's Ann. Unless anyone proves to me that she changed her middle name or something, her birthname in the article is Hilary Ann Duff. 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Duff's middle name is Erhard. This issue has been discussed before...see the talk page archives. Gprince007 (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On Walmart Music Downloads, they give a biography of Hilary Duff, and there and everywhere else I look, her middle name is Ann, not Ernhard. Look there yourself if you don't believe me, and I know almost everything about Hilary Duff. 24.151.137.19 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hilary's middle name is Erhard! The issue has been discussed many times! A few years ago i entered a fan club contest. The question was "What is Hilary's Middle Name?" I thought it was the easiest question ever...i said Ann. I was surprised when the answer was Erhard. The fan club even mentioned something like (not sure of exact wording): Many seem to believe Hilary's middle name is Ann, but we can assure you it is Erhard. Her fan club officials can't be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.174.169 (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Her middle name is Erhard and that is it. All the books and websites say it. I even have seen a paper that say "Hillary E. Duff" meaning her middle name is Erhard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bff101 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a hilary Duff bio book ,and it clearkly states her middle name is Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.181.216 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Its Hilary Erhard Ann Duff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.203.235 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oy Vay! Stop arguing about her name. Go find her and ask her your own self! Trying to argue over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, if you win, your still retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.19.181 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fan sites?

I think we should include a few fan sites. A good one is http://www.hilaryduffrocks.com/ and http://www.hilaryduffland.com/ 130.220.153.164 (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fan sites are not needed in encyclopaedic article. Gprince007 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Playing By Heart?

Anyone have proof that Hilary was in Playing By Heart? Screencaps/Pictures/Etc? I viewed the movie and never saw her. Just unsure about it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.174.169 (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unconfirmed content

I removed the following from the article:

"On July 6, 2008, it was announced that Hilary will be leaving her record label, Hollywood Records as they wouldnot let her have the control that she wanted, therefore now, Hilarys next album will become a 'Best Of' album featuring all hilarys hits and 2 new songs 'Reach Out' and 'Holiday'. It is Rumoured that Hilary will be signing with RCA a label under Sony."

The information has not been confirmed by Hilary Duff or her reps. A Forum isn't a very reliable source.

Lmnop888 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime  ^{15:02, 7 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

This is also a unconfirmed content. It's about her next album.. I found this on Wikipedia a few day ago..Luckily, I copy them. It said that her next album would be "Holiday" which would release on August of 2009. The song "Holiday" would be the lead single of that album instead of "Best Of". It also said that "Holiday", "High Road", "Heartless", "Let It Rock" and "Underground(feat. Lil' Wayne)" would be the song of that album. The album would released by RCA Records. It's unconfirmed!!

Sschrei (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Santa claus lane- studio album or compilation album

Santa claus lane is a compilation album and not a studio album. Duff's first studio album is Metamorphosis and not Santa claus lane. This fact is reiterated on her Official website too. Pls discuss this issue here instead of indulging in an edit war. Gprince007 (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Records artists

I took the Hollywood Records artists category off, because Hilary is no longer signed with Hollywood Records, so who ever keeps putting that category back on her page needs to stop because it's false information. --J-love-lee (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pls provide sources before reverting any existing info. There is no info of her breaking up with Hollywood Records on her website or the label's website. So pls provide sources before stating that she's no longer associated with the label. Gprince007 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gprince007. It hasn't been confirmed that Hilary is leaving Hollywood. Lmnop888 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I heard that Hilary Duff has signed to RCA Records but I don't know whether it's real or not!I saw the page that her next album is "Holiday" but it's deleted by someone.. Sschrei (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need reliable sources to add that info in the article...Gprince007 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed this now since she is no longer on their website. Anyone who wants to dispute can do so on here, on my talkpage or on [1]. Haseo9999 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whetehr she's now on their label, it doesn't matter. If she did work under that label, it is still a valid category based on all of her career, not just now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity

If Haylie is Irish and Scottish, isn't Hilary as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxcloud (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a Reliable source to prove her ancestry. If u have a source then pls state that. Details such as a person's ancestry need to be verifiable. thanx..Gprince007 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Leavin Hollywood records

The source given in the article abt her leaving Hollywood records is fashionrules.com. However it doesnt seem to be a Reliable source becos it is mentioned as a "fashion blog" on the cover page of the website. As we all know, blogs cannot be cited as a reliable source....Pls someone find a alternative source so that we can change it....thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Now she is in the Label Universal Music and works now on the new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.6.232 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Duff's Awards

I made a list of Hilary's Awards Can't Add it=( to the page!! List of Hilary Duff's awards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhnc1994 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Gprince007 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Barely Legal

The page says "Barely Legal" is on CBS, but the citation says it's on NBC. Can someone change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.160.2 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lizzie mcGuire

the years for lizzie McGuire are wrong, the last episode premiered in 2003, not 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.181.216 (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Hilary Duffs

The name "Hilary Duff" may sound familiar to British readers.

The reason: a character from the 1990s TV series "The High Life", described in that Wikipedia article as "... deranged pilot, Captain Hilary Duff, played by Patrick Ryecart, would need to be frequently reminded who he was, where the cockpit was and where he was flying to ....".

Anyone reckon disambiguation needed? I tend to "no", as its fairly obscure (I've only now noted it as in 2009 BBC TV did reruns). Bill Martin (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This info is too vague, obscure and non-notable....so just let the status-quo prevail...Gprince007 (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New movie

Duff will be starring in Provinces of the Night [2]

Well this needs to be validated by multiple sources to be included in the article. The above source seems to be user-generated content (just like wikipedia)....if the above info is covered in mainstream media then we may add it....i prefer waiting for a while....Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add that Duff is going to star in this movie "Provinces of Night".....here is an official reliable source confirming that Duff has been cast in the movie.....[3] 86.96.227.87 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the cite lists out the details in a sketchy and vague manner....Also the cite states that the plot details are yet unknown....I am all for adding it but only after a while when the news is picked up and official details are released...Since wikipedia is not a crystalball i suggest we wait for a while and scout for more info and later add some detail as when it gets available.... Gprince007 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The movie already started filming [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.87 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hilary Duff is rumored to be in A Great Education (film) with Ben Kingsley, this needs to be added to her filmography. Her character is rumored to be Liza.

Rumors are not added in wikipedia. If u have a reliable confirmed source, then it may be added. Otherwise pls refrain from adding the info. Gprince007 (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add...

can someone add in the filmography section that the Law and Order episode is Episode 19, Season 10 :

Ghost Whisperer Morgan Jeffries "Thrilled to Death" (episode 19, season 4)
Law & Order: SVU Ashlee Walker "Selfish" (episode 19, season 10)
Rebelde (2006) Herself Mexican Soap Opera (Season 3)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifs27 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle Name?????

I've heard of both middle names (Ann and Erhard), but both of them seem to be used. I think that this should really be settled. If someone has a good source, please post it on this section.

This issue has been discussed many times and consensus has been reached on using "Erhard" as her middle name....Pls see talk page "Archive 1". Gprince007 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

religion.

I am unsure what religion she is either.She doesnt seem to talk about it much.--Sweetheart2009 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)sweetheart2009 nk about

Musical comeback?

I dont think that she really did have a musical comeback she was just releasing another album is it really necessary to have that on the page, It was only a year and a half later not like a five year gap or something. Just something to think about

Personal Earnings

I watched a documentary on MTV that said Duff $17.6 million in 2006 and it is on IMDB also, I also saw that she earned $6 million in 2008, reported by forbes, I just thought you should know, I dont have the links but if you look youll see its true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.162.136 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

New album 2009-2010

Rumors and Reports have confirmed that duff is currently seaching for a new record label, and mtv have stated that duff began work on a new album in december 2008.It is currently set for a 2010-1011 release date or 2012 at the very latest.Although no offical release date has been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyChic96 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumors and reports need to be sourced. Otherwise they are just rumors and reports. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

redirect provinces of night

provinces of night has its own page with some pretty solid citing so it should probably by one of those redirect links on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italianduude33 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the page, do you have a link to it? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

the album was release on 23rd of november and is so far avalible only on itunes its just her live concert album... and guess what lable its on? (C)2009 hollywood records - Hilary Duff - Live at the Gibson Amplitheatre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.92.71 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Chase

Hilary is starring in her own YouTube mystery thriller series that began with a first look/promo that was uploaded on the 21st of august and new episodes will be online every friday at YouTube.com/hilaryduffpodcast so someone put it on the page under filmographies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.106.66 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Mass deletions in the article

Kikkokalabud has made major changes in this article recently and when I restore the contents, it was reverted back. (See [5] and [6]. The reason given is "sngles & films dnt nid 2 much details 4 dey r olredy included in thr own pages"). I went about reviewing each change and restored part contents which were well sourced such as information about her movies and how much money these have collected worldwide (See [7]). Again it was reverted by Kikkokalabud saying "box office results are located in their own wiki pages. this page is about Hilary, not about her movies, but about her involvement in the movie". I would like to state that this page is about Hilary Duff and her career. If her career work includes movies, then we have to include them and how it fared at the box office. Many featured article also have info on how their movies fared and how much they earned.(Examples:Jackie Chan, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal). So may be few lines in the article may need to be trimmed down but to remove complete info on how her movies fared and what the critics said about her acting is not fair. I want to know wat others think of this...Gprince007 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this and I tend to agree, the box office and critical reaction to films made by an actor are certainly relevant and necessary parts of the biography. Using featured and good articles as guidelines for style is the right way to formulate an article. I had considered reverting the changes and thought that, based on the time frames of the original cuts, that a lot more thought needed to go into how the article could be trimmed without cutting sourced and pertinent content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to argue for each bit. I reviewed his edits as well, and they struck me as being fairly reasonable. The article had grown excessively detailed, and pruning was required.—Kww(talk) 13:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be trimmed...i have stated this in above post also....but my point is that reverting stuff about how her movies fared at the box office is not justified. I have given examples of featured articles above to illustrate the fact that we need to include how her movies fared at box office and the critics reaction to her acting.....thats why i restored part contents (See [8]) ...but even this was reverted....i didnt want to get into mindless edit wars...dats why i initiated this discussion here....but it seems Kikkokalabud is not interested in a discussion here which is evident from his silence...Gprince007 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your restoration was of the kind of material that needed to be removed. Why include "The video was nominated in the category of [[MTV Video Music Award for Best Pop Video]] at the [[2004 MTV Video Music Awards]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.top40argentina.com.ar/2004.htm|title=Argentina Top 40|accessdate=2007-11-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://acharts.us/song/403|publisher=Musicsquare.net|title=Music Square chart positions for "Come Clean"|accessdate=2007-11-24}}</ref>"? A nomination for an individual video, sourced to a site listed on WP:BADCHARTS and an iffy archive of chart positions, neither of which seem to support the given statement anyway?—Kww(talk) 15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok,... point taken.. maybe i missed that.... but surely the following statement should've been allowed to remain:

• "The same year, Duff reprised her role as Lizzie McGuire for The Lizzie McGuire Movie, which exceeded box office expectations, earning $42.6 million at the US box office[15] and $55 million worldwide.[16] It received mixed reviews, with certain critics calling it "an unabashed promotion of Duff’s image, just as Crossroads was for Spears",[17] while other reviews were generally positive and encouraging." The above statement states a cite fact about her movie and critical reaction to her acting in the movie, which i feel shd remain in the article.
• Similarly, why were following cites removed ??? <ref>{{cite web|author=Roger Ebert|title=Roger Ebert review|url=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030502/REVIEWS/305020304/1023|publisher=Chicago Sun-Times|date=2003-05-02|accessdate=2007-11-23}}</ref> and <ref>{{cite web|author=Michael Rechtshaffen |title=Hollywood Reporter|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/imdb/reviews/article_display.jsp?rid=1001701283&vnu_special_account_code=thrsiteimdbpro|publisher=HollywoodReporter.com |date=2005-12-21|accessdate=2007-11-24}}</ref> What i mean is what's wrong with corroborating a fact with multiple sources??? Gprince007 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would say that specific box-office grosses, sorted by region, are the kind of information that belong in sub-articles. I think there's also a WP:SYNTH violation involved in using individual reviews to support your generalization about review categories.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Box-office grosses, critics review about the actor's performance are an integral part of article abt the actor....its not that its written in elaborate details.....its just that we've written a couple of lines with reliable sources citing the performance of the actor and the movie.I can show u numerous examples of Featured articles following the same structure (Examples:Jackie Chan, Jake Gyllenhaal, Maggie Gyllenhaal) and we should keep that in mind...Similarly, the last point raised in my previous post is yet unanswered ie what's wrong with corroborating a fact with multiple sources??? I feel deletion of vital information in the name of "trimming" the article is not correct...I agree with some deletions made by the editor but not on majority of them...Gprince007 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

More personal Earnings

forbes have reported Duff to earn 8million in 2004

http://www.forbes.com/celebrities2004/LIRW5XF.html?passListId=53&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=W5XF&datatype=Person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.247.136 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

compilations albums?

okay santa claus is a holiday album Hilary duff: live Gibson... her first live album most wanted & best of hilary duff are greatest hits but 4ever is a re-release of most wanted only for italy hilary duff has said in interviews with ryan seacrest, mtv news and others that best of hilary duff was her second greatest hits albums...

so it should be

studio albums

2003 Metamorphosis 2004 Hilary Duff 2007 Dignity

compilation albums:

2005 Most Wanted 2008 Best Of

other albums:

2002 Santa Claus Lane 2009 Hilary Duff: Live at The Gibson Amphitheater

and the numbers of records sold are more than 13 million... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiep803b (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

singles for alnums

metamorephosis had 3 singles why not (also a single from the lizzie mcguire movie) so yesterday & come clean hilary duff had 1 singls fly dignity had three sinhles play with fire, with love & stranger

most wanted had 3 singles wake up, beat of my heart & supergirl (a radio single)

best of 1 single reach out

santa claus lane 1 single tell me a story

[ someone's watching over me was release for raise your voice ( it even says in the music video promo) as why not was realse for the debut album and the lizzie mcguire movie)

how much the singles peaked are wrong billboard has some real #'s as other sites) why underestamed hilary duff?)

and santa claus should never even be in the stuio albums it should be in other albums with: Hilary Duff: Live —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiep803b (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

films

Greta has to be changed to: [According To Greta] and Stay Cool will be release 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddiep803b (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Main infobox image

I tried to change the main image in the article to a more close-up image of Duff so that it can more easily be distinguished what she looks like, and it seems that several editors have a problem with this. I do not know why, but hopefully we can gain some consensus on this? I believe the April 2008 film festival image should be used instead for reasons stated above, rather than the 2009 red dress picture. I would appreciate it if the editors in question could also provide some explanation as to why they reverted my changes in the first place. Thanks. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I objected to this change because we use the most recent image, which is the 2009 image. Toward that end, the "Red Dress" image has been cropped. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

well, frankly speaking, I feel that the old image (her wearing a black dress) looks good...and it should be used. But If everyone agrees with Red dress photo then its ok...though i feel the black dress image is better looking...My concern is regarding inclusion of tabloid content regarding her weight, her spat with Lohan , lip snycing controversy etc....These stuff dont gel with an encyclopedic article so i have reverted that stuff....Gprince007 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the cropped image looks fine. Thanks for doing that. The Heart's Truth image meets all the criteria - it is the most recent image of her available and her face is clearly visible. It isn't a matter of what image one person likes best, it's a matter of recency and visibility. LaVidaLoca (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously her face is visible in the current image, but the April 2008 image provides a better depiction for readers unacquainted with the subject. The Heart's Truth image is good but as there are pictures that show more of what Duff looks like, perhaps it can be in a section somewhere in the article? This image is fairly recent too – only about two years ago. However, I've never seen any policy that states pictures must be recent; and look at FA Michael Jackson: the infobox image is from 1984. And if I'm not mistaken, there are more recent images of him in the Commons.

Additionally, this isn't a matter of preference; in truth, I don't think the April 2008 War, Inc. premiere picture is very flattering for Duff. However, I think it works better at visually describing her than the current image. Chase wc⁹¹ 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"personal life" section

I don't know why there's an edit war going on. Most bio articles have a personal life section, and the material is neutral and sourced. I mean, yes, it would be different if it was a BLP vio, but as it stands right now, it seems acceptable. Perhaps there are some trivial details that can be removed (like the whole car present thing), but that's all I can see.... SKS (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph on Duff's opinions on virginity is not necessary. The final three paragraphs about Duff's relationships with Aaron Carter, Joel Madden, and Mike Comrie is pure gossip trash which does not need to be in an encyclopedic article. As for "most bio articles", please see WP:WAX. Besides, even if there was actually encyclopedic information in this section, it should be incorporated into the life and career section.

Something that I have noticed in this edit war is that the main issue is the picture (see above discussion). When people revert, they are reverting other changes with the edit that actually should remain in place. Like the organization of her life and career sections and sub-sections, that got reverted. False information about Duff's label that was fixed, that got reverted. People should revert only the things they disagree with, not the whole thing. This doesn't really have much to do with this discussion, so my apologies for going off-topic. However, this is really pissing me off, especially because I can't change a lot of these things back right now because of WP:3RR. Chase wc⁹¹ 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit that it looks like I was arguing WAX, but what I intended to say was that it's notable information on a notable person that has gotten coverage by reliable sources. Would you argue, for example, that Tiger Woods sleeping around is irrelevant to his biographical article simply because it does not deal with his professional life? I agree that yes, the virginity section is a bit trivial, but it is factual and sourced, and it remained in the article without disagreement from other editors for quite a long while, indicating concensus. As for her relationships, they had high-profile coverage in reliable sources outside of tabloids, as it was public information. Why should this factual information be ignored? "Gossip trash", as you indicate, would mean, "OMG they're cheating/they have kids/it's a fake relationship/blahblahblah". I fully agree that commentary and speculation on relationships would be gossip trash, but the existence of the relationship isn't. SKS (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It started with the picture but it has spilled over to someone's viewpoint of what is appropriate content. The content is sourced, there is no valid reason to remove it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously sourced. However, there's no encyclopedic information. It's all gossip garbage about who Duff dated, who cheated on Duff, who bought Duff what for her birthday bla bla. It serves no place in an encyclopedia article. Please discuss before readding. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see SKS's comment until just now. Tiger Woods' "scandal" is very high-profile and some of the information is actually encyclopedic. Duff's relationships, if notable, can be incorporated into the main bio section. It really does not matter which articles have similar sections and similar information, most of them look tabloid-y. Yes, this information is likely factual and is sourced. However, WP:ITEXISTS could possibly apply here. Would an encyclopedia contain trivial information about Duff's views on virginity (this shouldn't be here anyway as Duff said she didn't say it)? Would it contain information about every single relationship she's been on? We need to cover the major things, the things that make her worthy of an encyclopedic article. Not just anything we can find on the internet. That's not what this project is about. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: in addition to WP:WAX and WP:ITEXISTS, WP:UNDUE definitely applies here. We should not be dedicating as much of the article to trivial things such as relationships as we do to things that have made Duff notable (ie, her career, films, music, etc). Chase wc⁹¹ 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm afraid the consensus tide is against blatantly removing any mention of a personal life here. It has been discussed and the preponderance of the opinion is against the wholesale removal of a "personal life" section. People don't "go on" relationships, they "go on" dates. I'm sure if every single date she has been on was included, that would constitute undue weight, but that isn't the case here. An administrator has been asked to look at this pointy edit war you have embarked on here, Chasewc91. Please ask yourself why you have admittedly reverted this article with full knowledge that despite it being past 24 hours, you have charged ahead to remove the section. The simple fact is that you are not doing anything constructive here. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree that the whole section was untouched for a long time ...but still i feel that now her "virginity scandal" and her "so-called lip sync controversy" ,"Gaining weight controversy " etc were important a few months/yrs ago but not now....so i felt that it shd be removed.....Info abt her relationships is needed becos thats important....however, trivial stuff abt her gifting of car etc is not notable....Gprince007 (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue is with the wholesale removal of everything in the personal life section, which Chasewc91 has simply and flatly removed at every turn. This is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is information available on who she has dated, it doesn't mean we need to include it. None of Duff's relationships (except for Madden and possibly Carter) are notable enough to include anywhere in the article, even so, they should be incorporated into the main bio sections. Otherwise, that is undue weight. Chase wc⁹¹ 20:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say her relationship with Comrie is notable. It certainly got a lot of press up here in Edmonton when he moved back to the Oilers. Regardless, as per Wildhartlivie, I think the main issue is the fact that the whole section is being deleted/readded/deleted/readded/deleted/readded, instead of being edited down to an acceptable level. SKS (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chasewc91, persons on a date don't get widespread press, persons who are "dating" do. Please make a case for why you think each person mentioned should or should not get a mention here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to people on a date, and some people in a relationship may get coverage, but that does not necessarily mean that information belongs in an encyclopedia. Here's my analysis of everything in that section:

• First paragraph on virginity: Duff allegedly did not say this, and it's really not that important anyway.

• Second paragraph on Carter/Lohan: If more sources can be found about this "scandal" with more detailed information (as in, why this is notable), definitely include. However, at this point, it doesn't look like it should be included. All the crap in here right now is essentially: they dated for two years, he cheated on her with Lohan, he's sorry, bla bla. Belongs in an issue of Tiger Beat, not an encyclopedia article.

• Third paragraph on Madden and parents' separation: I'm pretty sure there's a decent amount of reliable information on this relationship, if more sources explaining why this is notable can be added (I'm sure there's a few), it can be given a brief mention in the main bio section, which shouldn't be hard to do; as I said, I've seen more sourced info and there's probably even more with the help of Google. As for the parents, definitely give it a mention in the bio sections.

• Fourth paragraph on Comrie: If anything particularly notable happens, give it a brief mention. Otherwise, leave out for now. This section is pure gossip fluff: she's dating him, she goes to his games, he bought her a car. This article is supposed to touch on the main things that make Duff notable; we should be covering very few things outside of her career here.

My point is, there obviously is information to prove that these relationships happened, but that does not necessarily mean it's worth a mention. Would Britannica or some other encyclopedia mention a relationship? No, unless it's notable. Info about Madden and Carter could possibly be mentioned briefly (if more info can be found than the stuff already here), but unless there's something notable that happened with Comrie that I didn't notice, he's not worth a mention here. We don't need a "personal life" section regardless of how notable the events are anyway, because if something in her personal life is actually notable, it's worth a mention in the main bio. Chase wc⁹¹ 22:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) If no one wishes to comment any further, perhaps an administrator should come take a look at this and decide. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no deadline on Wikipedia for a response. Don't sit there holding your breath and demanding one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't demand a response. I said if no one would respond, I'd get an admin to look at this and determine what should be done, which really should be done anyway since I feel consensus is going against Wikipedia policy. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hilary Duff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Early close due to my busy schedule and at the request of other editors, so a community reassessment may be started. Chase wc⁹¹ 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that this article is still at GA-Class. Delisting it will hopefully lead to major improvement of the article.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

As of 03:26, 11 December 2009:

• Sources 11, 32, 33, 46, 49, 68, 71, and 76 are unreliable.
• Sources 26, 47, 70, and 72 are dead links/closed sites/redirects.
• Sources 39, 40, and 41 do not back up their statements.
• At least six unsourced statements.

If these issues are not resolved by the 18th, this article will be delisted. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you cannot nominate an article for WP:GAR, set a deadline and state it will be delisted. You've nominated it for WP:GAR, now step back and give the actual GAR reviewers a chance to address the content. It is beyond your capacity to do so as the nominator and person involved in a dispute on the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This article as of now does not meet the good article criteria, and I have set a deadline for the issues to be fixed. It will only be delisted if the issues are not addressed by that date, and the issues that this article has (that fail the GAC) have nothing to do with any recent dispute on this page I have been involved in. As an editor who has not made significant contributions to the page, I have the right to determine whether or not this should be listed. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As an editor involved in a dispute over this page, you are not someone who can complete a GAR review. I challenge your ability to do so and would request you step aside to allow someone who is actively involved in conducting GAR reviews. You cannot "set a deadline" for improvements, that is beyond the scope of any GAR reviewer. You have made significant changes to this article by repeatedly removing and challenging content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing one section I feel did not belong in an encyclopedic article with that removal later being reverted is by no means a significant change. With no significant changes to this page, I am not a major contributor which grants me the right to reassess this per WP:GAR. And again, there has been no dispute involving myself that had to do with the issues brought up here.

As for me not being able to set a deadline for improvements, please see WP:GAR: step four of the individual reassessment process states to "[a]llow time for other editors to respond." Editors have clearly responded, and a week is more than enough time for these improvements to be made. And if they are not, this article will lose its GA status. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the diff for the page that declares Razzies.com an unreliable source for its own awards, as you declare Amazon.com, Digital Spy, Star Pulse and Contact Music to be. I would also request you re-check the links you declare to be deadlinks, closed sites and redirects. Source 26 has a new archived link, as do sources 47, 70 and 72. Please tag the statements you believe require a citation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When I nominated this page, Razzie.com forums were being used. If you can find an official page on the website or a reliable outside party source, add it, but forums cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia. Amazon.com occasionally has incorrect information which makes it unreliable as a source; and I'm sure more reliable sources could be found in replacement of the other three sites, as they are (generally) not very reliable.

I will take a look at the fixed references and tag unsourced statements. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, please show the diff that determines these sites to be unreliable. Razzies.com lists their nominations and awards in that section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across any, but I have determined them on my own accord to be unreliable. If there are diffs that show these are indeed reliable, please show me and I will take back that statement. Amazon.com, however, occasionally has user-submitted content that can be wrong. And if that indeed is the case with the Razzies, then please find a reliable outside source, because forums cannot be used as sources here. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged 7 statements that need citation, there's still an unsourced statement that was tagged by another editor prior to this GAR, and I found another sourced statement where the reference does not back up its claim. I will take a look at the fixed references later. Chase wc⁹¹ 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted an administrator who is active in reassessing good articles. You've said nothing here to inspire confidence in your ability to assess this article in an unbiased manner nor do you demonstrate familiarity with principles regarding WP:RS and WP:GA assessment. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline and it is beyond your scope to set one. Please step aside for someone with greater familiarity with both. This is at least the third time you've threatened to delist this article since you started the GAR. That is unacceptable commentary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand what an individual reassessment is? It is a threat to delist an article from GA status if it doesn't meet the GA criteria. And deadlines are allowed to be set: I've given editors time to respond which is one of the steps of an individual reassessment. As I said, a week is more than enough time to fix the issues. It does not matter if I am active in this field or not, those who are had to start somewhere, no? I do not feel this meets GA criteria which is why I will delist this Friday if the issues are not resolved.

No administrator has taken action, because I am not doing anything wrong here. Perhaps you should stop being incivil and telling me what I can and cannot do, when Wikipedia policy states I can as I am not an active contributor to this article. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with Wildhartlivie here.... Chasewc91's opinions seem bit harsh and biased regarding this article...anyways Let me respond to each one of Chasewc91's queries listed above.

• Sources 32 and 33 are official Razzie Award website sources. They have been added as a source to the statement of her movies getting Razzie Award and what better source can we have than the Official Razzie Award website.
• Source 46 is Amazon.com. Are you sayin that Amazon.com is a unreliable source???
• Source 49 is abt an interview given by Duff to a website....How is that unreliable?? Similary source 68 is Digital Spy website which as per its website is the UK's largest independent entertainment website, having grown over nine years to over 90 million monthly page impressions (August 2008) and a unique audience reach of over 5 million unique users (Google Analytics) Source 71 (starpulse.com) is also Consistently ranked by comScore as a top entertainment/news site and averages approximately 40 million page views per month" according to its webpage...I dont feel there is any reason to believe that this is unreliable source !!! Source 76 is Contactmusic.com which is also reliable.....
• All dead links stated by you have been fixed....
• All tags have been fixed except 2-3 tags which i feel is acceptable....Anyways i am looking into prev versions of the article to get the cites back if someone accidentally deleted it. If no reliable source is found, we can remove those statements.

Anyways I feel that the article is not so bad that it be delisted from GA status. So lets not rush into delisting the article. Gprince007 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be the Razzie website, but it is their forums being used. Those cannot be used as sources here on Wikipedia, if there is not a page on the main website for nominations and winners, then please find an outside, reliable source. Amazon.com is unreliable. As I said previously (or at least I think I did), some of their content (not just their reviews) is user-submitted which makes it unreliable. That reference is just confirming the album exists, so it can just be removed and not replaced, no?

Claims made by the websites are not proof of validity. I have assessed these sites on my own accord to be unreliable websites, especially Starpulse and Contact Music. If they have indeed been confirmed by consensus to be reliable, please show me a diff. Otherwise, they are unreliable. Digital Spy I guess can stay since it's not a totally unreliable site, but a better source would be preferable.

Very busy right now, but I'll take a look at the fixed references later. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been in discussion with the administrator who works on GA articles. I am formally requesting you recuse yourself from this GAR in favor of a community GAR review. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Using a threatening tone with me and being incivil is not going to make me any more likely to change this. I have been in a dispute on this page, but again, the dispute has nothing to do with why I feel this doesn't meet the GA criteria, so I am not biased. It's best that you and other editors just fix this so it can meet GA criteria once more, because arguing with me is going nowhere obviously. Please see WP:GAR; AGAIN, I am not a major contributor to this article which gives me the right to individually reassess this page. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What threatening tone and incivility? You can hear me as I type now? Bolding your comment implies a level of emotion inappropriate for an article reviewer. I formally request that you recuse yourself from furthering the GAR you have initiated on this article in favor of a community GAR review. Please drop your review so a community GAR can be intiated. Your bias is showing each and every time you post the deadline and state the article will be delisted. You've threatened to delist it what? four times now? You have been involved in a dispute on this page immediately preceeding this GAR you instituted. I feel your goal is to delist the article and that, therefore, disqualifies you as an impartial reviewer on this article. Please step down from reviewing in order to allow the community review to occur. You haven't even bothered to notify the major contributors to the article, which is #4 on the list of instructions, nor have you read and apparently paid attention to the rest of the content on that page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for Digital Spy and Starpulse, i don't see any overtly unreliable source being used. However, the whole structure of the article, considering that its a biography, is indeed a little tabloidy. I propose that similar articles like Madonna, Janet Jackson or even Rihanna be consulted regarding how to structure a biography and eradicate personal life sections. Then the article would be more than GA, and can likely be considered for FA submission. I don't understand why Chasewc decided for a GAR when he cannot even point out what needs to be changed exactly and what are the lagging points. As I can clearly see, probably he/she has made up the mind to delist the article and that is the approach being taken here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issues raised by Chasewc have been addressed....(See my point-by-point clarification above). Chasewc says..." I have assessed these sites on my own accord to be unreliable websites, especially Starpulse and Contact Music..." Pls note that wikipedia doesnt go by what an individual editor considers "Reliable" or Unreliable" .... and moreover what do you mean by "...I have assessed these sites on my own accord..."....May I know what is the basis of your judgement and on "What Accord" are these sites unreliable.....Pls understand that whatever valid points you raised have been addressed and other than those valid points, whatever other objections u raised seem a bit biased. Gprince007 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems people will not stop until I step down (and I myself am busy with midterms at the moment), perhaps this should be taken to community reassessment. Chase wc⁹¹ 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It falls upon you to close your personal GAR so a community one can be opened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (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.

GA Reassessment still ongoing.

I wish to inform anyone interested that this GA Reassessment is still active and that there has been virtually no participation from those who might want to keep the article's GA status. Lambanog (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please advise where and how a GA assessment that was closed on December 16, 2009 and is listed above as "kept" can still be active. Where is there an open GA reassessment that has not been noted on this page anywhere? I was active in the discussion of the GA reassessment opened and closed in December. Nothing has been published on this page that indicates there is anything currently active. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing a link earlier the reassessment can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment specifically Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Hilary Duff. Lambanog (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Lambanog (I often wonder about the genesis of usernames and yours would be one of those). So the same editor who opened and closed the first reassessment in December, which was challenged for cause and demands of a deadline can come back in, improperly open yet another GA reassessment, fail to properly notify editors on this talk page and fail to post the GA reassessment content on this page and it still be valid? What a questionable practice, I'd say. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, the instructions to individual reassessments per WP:GAR are to give editors enough time to respond. Thus, deadlines can be set for that. Also, this reassessment is a community reassessment so the decision to keep this at GA status lies with the community, not me. I closed the individual GAR after much criticism on the grounds that a community reassessment would be opened. No such thing occurred, so I decided to begin one myself. Furthermore, I don't feel a notification here is necessary as there is a message making note of a reassessment at the top of the page. As far as I know, I am not in breach of any policy. –Chase (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience here, notification of a GAR is posted both as a message, and not just a template at both the article's talk page and at the main project or projects which oversee the article (WP:ACTOR, WP:BIOG, etc.). That's how a reviewer ensures that the GAR is publicized, since the goal is to preserve the GA, not lose it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Chase, it may not be policy, but it is good practice, as, like WHL pointed out, the goal is to improve the article. Besides, you never updated the date. How would we know that you've started a new one? Nymf _talk/contr. 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)