Talk:Amal Clooney

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 6 May 2014 (UTC), see discussion. overturn and relist, 28 April 2014, see deletion review. delete, 8 April 2014, see discussion.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Lebanon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: September 21 to 27, 2014 (21st) September 28 to October 4, 2014 (2nd) January 11 to 17, 2015 (15th)

Was curious as to why many of the citations on this entry are archived from the original -- even though the links are active / good, non-dead links? Is this a new citation style that is being used? Thanks in advance for any info on this. Best, Erika

It is not a requirement AFAIK, but it's always best to include the archived version, so that it doesn't matter what happens to the original - some of these news sites will have faster turnover / access restrictions than others. Archiving just means the editor has 'future-proofed' the cite. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Have been looking for the Wikipedia resource that I remember reading that says that Wikipedia is now archiving its citations automatically in cooperation with archive.org -- which would make this type of citation work unnecessary I believe -- though of course when I need it I can't find link.

Grave concerns with this style of citation:

• Impression becomes the article is much more thoroughly cited than it actually is because each citation takes up twice as much space
• Citation style is not something typically used and/or seen on Wikipedia so it seems unnecessary and more about one editor's personal preference than using the consensus style of editing that seems to be typical here
• 'Future-proofing' on the internet is already taken care of by current Wikipedia projects and resources like Wikipedia:Link_rot

talk) 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Alamuddin, a Druze - The Daily Star (Lebanon)
• Is George Clooney’s fiancée Muslim? Yes, the way Mormons are Christian The Salt Lake Tribune
• But Druze are classified from a secular/historical perspective as a branch of Islam because they are derived from a branch of Shi'ite Islam. - Adherents.com
• Lebanese-British international law attorney Amal Alamuddin — who like Jumblatt happens to be a Druze - Haaretz

Somebody please revert editor who removed my category.80.43.208.11 (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is looking better now, and continues to correctly not state that she is Muslim, I misread the final text. This is not an appropriate reading of the sources. To leap from someone have a Druze parent to saying they are of "Muslim" religion is wrong. The cited source itself prevaricates on the issue and does not say she is Muslim. Here is the full text of the relevant passage in the cited source:

  It depends on whom you ask. Probably a decent analogy would be to that of whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are Christians. Today increasingly many Christians (including some evangelicals) have moved in that direction. What remains indisputable is that the Druze had their origin among a distinct Shi’i gnostic movement, and the doctrines and practices of the Druze would be incomprehensible apart from this wider Islamic tradition. It may be even useful to compare the Druze with the Baha’i movement, another much more recent offshoot of Shi’ism.

Note in particular that the article is not even addressing the question of whether Alamuddin is Muslim at this point: the text is a general response to the question "Are the Druze Muslims?" The WP article should not state her religion, because the source does not state it. I also have a minor concern that the article states that she is Arab, but when I read the cited source it does not actually say that. It tells us who her parents are and their background, and that she has been in the UK since she was 2. It never uses the word "Arab" to describe Alamuddin. It does call her "Lebanese", which I find odd, given that it also seems to say that she has not lived in Lebanon since she was 2. Are other editors satisfied that the connecting of dots to refer to her ethnicity as Arab is OK? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• The Al Arabya cite here calls her Arab, and between her father and mother she is of Arabic origin.
• Agree it is be more accurate to _not_ categorize Alamuddin as Muslim but to instead refer to her Druze background; however, I think it would actually be more correct to use
  Druze in Lebanon
  page. Profuse apologies -- I am not very well versed in religion. I changed this in the infobox, hope that is okay/helpful
• As to the issue of Alamuddin not being Lebanese because her family emigrated when she was a small child: Lebanese people are a displaced people -- just because only her father lives in Lebanon does not mean she is not Lebanese. I think the article clearly explains that she is British-Lebanese, has lived her life in the UK (and US), but has deep ties and connections to Lebanon

Best, Erika

talk) 13:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Erika. I really appreciate the effort you've gone to here, and the improvements you've made. I'm still not sure why we are ascribing any religion to her. Maybe this is a product of my living in a country where protestant Christianity is prominent: to me, someone only has a religion if they in some way identify with it, not because of where they were born or who their parents may be. I haven't seen any article that has quoted Alamuddin about her beliefs, nor reported her engaged in any religious practice; the wedding has been reported as a civil ceremony, and the person who officiated at it was, as far as I can tell, a Catholic. So, no clues there. I'm happy to hear other editors' views, but it just seems to me we can describe her ethnicity, and her parents background, but not her religious affiliation. Other perspectives? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Hamilton! Seeing as this is a "non-Druze" intermarriage (someone of Druze background to an American of unknown religion), and her parents weren't both Druze, I am not sure how much importance the officiant or location has on Alamuddin's religion / background. Agree that there is little coverage of Alamuddin's religion cf. Romney's Mormonism. That said, personally, I am Jewish and while not a practicing, religious person, would consider my religion to be Jewish. I too would like to hear other editor opinions, as agree religion is a super complex issue and it would be great to have the entry as correct as possible. Best, Erika.

talk) 14:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Amal was born in Lebanon and lived there until 2. Why is she listed as a British Lebanese and not as a Lebanese Briton ?108.51.113.3 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - she is listed as British-Lebanese?? She was born in Lebanon and at age 2 moved to UK. She is Lebanese-Briton. This should be corrected and also in the media this should be corrected. That is all, good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmdesigns7 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Amal Alamuddin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Alamuddin has three younger siblings - one sister, Tala, and two half-brothers, Samer and Ziad,[1] from her father's first marriage." How does that even make sense? Hannahbonanza (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thank you for catching that Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is incredibly detailed with exact information on what and when Alamuddin and her husband obtained marriage licenses, their wedding and so on. This might have made sense in a book or something of similar length, but we are writing a biographic entry in an encyclopedia, and half the challenge is what to leave out and how to shorten the text so we don't let the readers drown in irrelevant detail. Compare for example this to the incredibly long and ambitious article about Barack Obama, which simply states that he and his wife "became engaged in 1991, and were married on October 3, 1992". That's the level of information we're usually looking for in an entry. /Julle (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit -- if this is a point of discussion I say let's discuss. I am mystified that instead of discussion there was a deletion. Also, how does one editor get the right to make this judgment. Again, it's worth of a discussion.

That said: I have spent a lot of time over the last few days trying to make this entry be balanced, to not have it only be about Alamuddin's relationship to Clooney. It is now an adequate length and is somewhat representative of the work she has done. To have the personal life section reduced to a couple of sentences is (a) an unbalance of the information, because let's face it, she married one of the most public bachelors in the world and (b) does not reflect the amount of news and information and world focus that reflects this event.

I am not going to whip out the Wikipedia tenet that this edit violates because I would like to take a step back here and converse about this. If there is a clear consensus of registered editor opinions I will agree, but I would like to have a discussion and hear these opinions, versus taking the action without this. Best, Erika

talk) 11:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I just saw a Facebook discussion praising Wikipedia for not being "celebrity obsessed". So let's keep it that way. We should mention who she married, when she married and where she married, just as we would for any other noteworthy person. The marriage celebrant is not important (unless it is the Pope or the Archbishop of Cantebury etc). What she wore, or who the guests were is for the celebrity mags, not Wikipedia. Michelle Obama is a good reference point, she is a very famous person married to an extraordinarily famous person. However we have minimal details about their marriage. Manning (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of celebrity obsession and how it impacts content on Wikipedia is a fair discussion; however, to apply it here seems unfair as the editors who have edited this page have worked hard to reflect accurate information that is properly sourced. The use of the Obamas in this example is not a great example, I believe, as neither of them were marrying someone super famous when they married, like Alamuddin is doing.... And is a Facebook discussion really the arbiter/decider of Wikipedia content? Using Facebook as an argument isn't really adding weight or value to the argument. The facts are that this information is properly sourced from legitimate news sources, and if Wikipedia feels this strongly about gossip sources then they can restrict the websites of sources like People, TMZ, etc. Again, I see this as reflecting our current culture, versus Wikipedia being weakened. Best, Erika

talk) 13:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think I ever "used Facebook" as an argument. Here is how I see it. Alamuddin is noteworthy entirely on her own merit. Were she not married to an actor, she would still be noteworthy. Thus to give any more attention to her marriage would be against the

WP:UNDUE principle (particularly the "balancing" aspect). Manning (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

WP:BOLD

, if we're talking about tenets.

But let's discuss the article instead. I maintain that phrases like "following a star-studded wedding ceremony two days earlier" would better be excluded altogether. I'd argue it's a kind of recentism. We never write things in bios of people who have been dead for a long time. The main reason for that is that when we have the ability to look back, we realise that, well, no, that's not that important. The fact that she married, whom she married and when she married is relevant. The rest is of great interest to certain parts of the press, but our mission is to explain who Alamuddin is and what she does and the finer details of her wedding simply isn't central to that. It's an encyclopedic entry, it's supposed to be succinct.

And, though we may disagree on a couple of sentences, good work on the article as such. It's not that I don't appreciate what you're doing here. /Julle (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with Manning and Julle's approach and edits. I thought there was too much detail about the wedding. The current compromise that includes the notable celebrant i think is good, except the phrase "star-studded wedding ceremony" seems to me unencyclopedic. Replace it with something like "a ceremony attended by prominent actors and public figures including x, y and z" the x,y and z list should NOT be comprehensive but only the two or three or four most famous people there. I do accept the argument that the Obama example is of only partial relevance because they were not notable at the time they married, but if you read articles about people who were, for example, already active in politics and notable when they married, there is still little detail. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manning, if Amal were noteworthy before her marriage why didn't she have a page? There are not pages for george's other exes. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I excised two sections to get the personal life back under control.

• The marriage licence is trivia, it is not a detail provided in any other notable bio, not even Prince William and Catherine.
• The degree of media coverage is certainly notable, and we provide numerous links to it. We do not need to rehash the trivial details they are so obsessed with.

Now while a marriage celebrant is generally not significant, here it was conducted by a highly notable person (a former mayor of Rome). That makes it IMO, a noteworthy detail, and thus should stay. Manning (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Amal Alamuddin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rudydudey (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please resubmit your request providing any necessary

reliable sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Someone add this. M0lkno (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think? She changed her name legally. Even the bio on her law firm's website changed her name from "Amal Alamuddin" to "Amal Clooney" - clearly, she changed her name professionally as well.--Guat6 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hasten slowly. As far as i can tell, the news stories (with one exception) are referring to the change of her name on the professional website. We don't have clear sources on the circumstances in other contexts. One story indicated the website crashed and i don't know if it's back up, or whether that suggests someone is rethinking their PR strategy... Let's wait a few days to see if she makes any comment herself. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think discussion was required, it's obvious she got married to Clooney and now changed her name.[1] [2]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the name used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but kept the maiden name in places where it makes sense to do so ("George Clooney married Amal Alamuddin"). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored "Clooney" after it was mass reverted in a series of edits that deleted content and broke references. There are some minor edits made since that should probably be folded back in. --

I believe to be fair to Amal's parents, (whose religious affiliation is noted in this article), George Clooney's BEST friend's religious leanings MUST be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.110.136 (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

amal was born in lebanon and lived there until age 2. she then moved to london.

please change british-lebanese to lebanese-briton.

65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink (Lebanese people in the United Kingdom) makes it clear that what is being talked about are persons of Lebanese origin who have migrated to the United Kingdom (and their descendants). Google has some 17,000 hits for 'amal clooney "lebanese-british"' and this is the form of words chosen by The Daily Mail. On the other hand 'amal clooney "british-lebanese" ' used by the article has some 14,000 hits and this is the form chosen by The Daily Telegraph. So it's a nice question. Does Wikipedia Manual of Style offer guidance? I'm sympathetic to IP, but shouldn't presume to change the status quo without some informed consensus. C1cada (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, specific origin is almost always put first (i.e. "

Lebanese-American"), but don't know if that always applies in the UK... AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Latin script says "Amal Ramzi Clooney", but the Arabic script in parentheses immediately following says "Amal Alamuddin"). AnonMoos (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm pretty sure that was done before she was married and took Clooney's surname. Wondering if it would be appropriate to put in where her maiden name is listed? Or not. Is there a consensus / best practice for this? Thanks for catching this! - Erika

talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't know what official policy is. As a practical matter to synchronize the existing Arabic, how about "Amal Ramzi Clooney (née Amal Alamuddin, Arabic أمل علم الدين)..."? -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! - Erika

talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

+1 c1cada (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made edit. Hope this is okay.... Thanks so much! - Erika

talk) 02:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks (wouldn't have gotten around to doing the edit myself until today)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EtienneDolet

Thanks for your edit. And thanks for bringing this discussion to the talk page.

Just like audio interviews (NPR), podcast interviews (WTF with Marc Maron), and video interviews (Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley) are recognized good citations for articles, this official testimony can be viewed as a great source as it is a verifiable record of her testimony. Thank you for contributing it -- it is a really nice addition to her Career section.

Because Clooney seems to have a prolific and varied career, it seemly that it would be over-emphasizing one video testimony above her other work by putting it in the External links section.

When I said, "keeping external links clean," to me that section serves more as the "main" larger picture resource links, with items like these extremely valuable as citations closer to the referenced work she is doing with ECHR.

I guess also, too, I am hoping for a clean-ish External links section as I think the page is more legible without a sea of various links at the bottom of the pages -- especially when they refer to just one of the activities she works in. As more information like this accumulates it seems like the External links section, if it was used as a catch-all for these links, would become unweildy.

If you think it is worthy, maybe this could be a separate section, perhaps something like "Notable testimonies" or something similar? Thoughts?

talk) 08:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 04:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I assumed that you had the idea all planned out and you were ready to implement it. So yes, it is a concern and I think there's more of a reason to keep it as an external link than a citation. But I don't mind a separate section either. But, above all, I don't find that this article should be a aesthetically accurate, nor should we be forging an attempt at making it look nifty. There's no real policy in Wikipedia guidelines that says you need to keep the External links "clean". In fact, the definition of clean is different between any editor in the project; and evidently so...

Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I can only talk as an end-user as to having to wade through loads of External links that are not representative of the overall subject of the article, but are specific to only sections of the article, like this one.

While readability and usability of the article could be categorized as being an aesthetic issue, I think it is a functional one, and it's something that I try to do as a value-add to the articles I edit. If it is cleaner and more organized it will be an easier to read article. While not a specific Wikipedia guideline, the apparent benefit of having a clean page with full citations, etc. seems obvious.

I am sensing a creeping lack of civility in this discussion and I think I have been pretty open and patient in discussing this. I have spent enough time on this issue and would like to move on.

So bottom line: Yes I will attempt to clean up the external links section so it is easy to read and usable. No, I do not want to make this edit which I think is unnecessary.

talk) 04:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Final thoughts: I have spent a large amount of time cleaning up this page -- it was maybe not a stub when I first started editing it but it was close, was full of deadlinks and was not super representative of Clooney's work. I took the time to make sure it had legitimate / full citations, that it included Clooney's published work, etc. I am obviously watching the edits on this page in my Watchlist. You could say I am invested in making sure if someone puts a bare URL as a citation or doesn't use a ref name I will clean that up. Or if an editor dumps a link to YouTube in the external links section because it's a quick edit for them versus putting it into a more relevant section of the article. I don't see you contributing a lot of edits to the page beyond this bullet you've added. To hassle me about enhancing the page and giving it a clean usability is actually quite insulting. You may want to examine this approach going forward and refer to

talk) 04:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your good faith efforts in bringing this article into better shape. But apparently, you're not the only one making an investment in this article, and just because you claim to have taken the time and energy in editing this article shouldn't mean you can

Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A speech is worse. At least an interview might have some outside direction. --

talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

EtienneDolet

If it is "considered one of the most important in her career" then cite that. Add this information and cite cite cite the heck out of this information -- whatever you think is important and that fits within the Wikipedia guidelines. But YOU are going to have to do that yourself.

My thought is that if this is important enough to cite, put it in the body of the Career section and give it the attention it deserves, maybe even as a separate paragraph, although I think for a person whose career is as diverse and interesting as Clooney it might be accurate to say that many of the issues she works on are just as important. But no one is disputing that here. At all. Just make sure you have great citations, etc. If you put bare URL cites I would be happy to help out and clean up the citations -- and make them nice and fully formatted for you.

That said, I agree with

talk) 14:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Mdg1981: doesn't seem to like the latest available image of Amal Clooney and keeps changing it to:

• image that was copyright and was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amal_Clooney&oldid=842587689
• second attempt at using copyright image: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amal_Clooney&oldid=842653391
• third attempt with same copyright issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amal_Clooney&oldid=842654127
• 2014 UN photo with other people in the background: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amal_Clooney&oldid=843993033
• and again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amal_Clooney&oldid=844055330

I've reverted these changes twice and don't want to hit the

• Amal Clooney.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't say. --Viennese Waltz 13:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Amal Clooney wiki page it is stated that: "Tripoli in Northern Lebanon".

Sinxe there is a muvh more famous Tripoli in Lybia, my suggestion is to use the name Ṭarābulus.

Thank you Aghib (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli is a city in Lebanon. Tripoli is also the name of a city in Libya. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that Ms Clooney has been named Time magazine's "Woman of the Year" for 2022.
https://time.com/collection/women-of-the-year/6150539/amal-clooney/?utm_source=roundup&utm_campaign=20220216
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. My issue of Time arrived today. Ms Clooney is not "The Woman of the Year", but one of several "2022 Women of the Year" honorees. She was interviewed by Maria Ressa, Time's "2018 Person of the Year", 2021 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and one of Ms Clooney's legal clients. I apologize for my error above. Time, March 14 / March 21, 2022 (a double issue), pages 8 and 66-69. Thank you again, Wordreader (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]