Talk:Sophie Turner

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

Blacklisted Links Found on Sophie Turner (actress)[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Sophie Turner (actress) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.watchersonthewall.com/press-roundup-sophie-turner-on-sansas-surprising-fifth-season-john-bradley-on-sex-scenes-and-more/
    Triggered by \bwatchersonthewall\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.(non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Turner (actress) → Sophie Turner – Sophie Turner (actress) receives far more pageviews than Sophie Turner (model). Sophie Turner (actress) has received over 11,000 pageviews per day for the last 90 days, while Sophie Turner (model) has been viewed a mere 75 times a day. Lifetime, Sophie Turner (actress) has over 1 million pageviews. Sophie Turner (model) has under 7,000. I propose we delete the disambiguation currently at Sophie Turner, move Sophie Turner (actress) to Sophie Turner, and include a hatnote to the effect of "This page is about the actress. For the Australian model, see Sophie Turner (model)." Amccann421 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur, as creator. When the article was created, it was not clear who was more notable, but by now the actress clearly is.  Sandstein  17:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. WP:TWODABS says a hatnote is sufficient in cases like this. Calidum ¤ 18:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above rationales. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - No brainer. –Davey2010Talk 01:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sophie Turner. 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:

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) 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017[edit]

112.201.192.4 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2017 (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. Cannolis (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Last Name (Turner to Jonas)[edit]


Turner has taken Jonas' last name according to Harper's Bazar although she has not changed her stage name yet (her Instagram and Twitter are still listed as Turner). Usually, the article name would be whatever she's most known as. The article lead would start with her legal name, including her maiden name (née). I was in the process of updating everything when it got reverted for a lack of consensus. So, please weigh in below on how her name change should be reflected. Here's a couple wiki references: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One source has stated her name has changed, and apparently that source is unreliable according to other editors (it keeps on getting removed). Whatever the case, article titles should be based on the common name, which in this case is "Sophie Turner", not "Sophie Jonas". With actors, "Sophie Jonas" (if proved by a reliable source) should only appear in the lede, with every other reference to her being "Sophie Turner" or "Turner". This includes the infobox. The same principle applies for Meryl Streep (real name Mary Streep) and Olivia Wilde (real name Olivia Cockburn). --TedEdwards 16:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ted. Unless there is a verifiable, reliable source naming her Sophie Jonas, she should be called by her common name. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I'm satisfied with Ted's answer. This is an old discussion. Orville1974 (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing to change it in the title or change it everywhere, but I have some sources for her changing her name if anyone wants them and I think that it should at least be mentioned?
From People.com [1] Sophie Turner is set to take new husband Joe Jonas‘ name after their surprise Las Vegas wedding on Wednesday and “We can confirm Sophie and Joe were married in Las Vegas last night,” a rep for Turner told PEOPLE.
MSN.com [2] The marriage certificate states: 'Sophie Belinda Turner of New York, New York born 02/21/1996, who wishes to use the name Sophie Belinda Jonas after marriage.'
metro.co.uk [3] And their official marriage certificate shows the Game of Thrones actress, 23, decided to take her new husband’s last name, officially becoming Sophie Belinda Jonas.
Galestar (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Name change is confirmed by the unofficial marriage certificate signed by Clark County clerk as seen in this reference (1) Suphanat Isarangkoon Na Ayutthaya (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


We should wait until we have an official source saying so. This is Wikipedia; there is no hurry. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stone magazine quote[edit]

I removed a reference to a question asked by Rolling Stone magazine which was put back in by fellow Wikipedia Jack Sebastian - my reason for removing it in the first reason is because it is actually nothing to do with her personal life and secondly it is a random question asked by a interviewer and regardless she gave a usual politically correct answer to avoid controversy and to promote herself but it is no way part of a section on her personal life.
I welcome discussion on this subject rather than an edit war,Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relevant interview on a personal topic. The original version was pretty objectionable but I think trimmed down and NPOVed it is not so bad? You don't get to interpret whether this was a politically correct answer or why she might have given it. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply but at the end of the day it was a question that does not have any impact on her personal life whatsoever.
The interviewer would have asked her plenty of other questions and none of them are mentioned - so you can't imagine that the removed statement was from simply a one question interview.
On the personal relevance - they could have asked her "did she have a pet cat or a dog?" - which for the personal section is far more relevant but there is nothing like that there.
Regards Juanpumpchump (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention the pet question, Juanpumpchump (clever handle, btw, but it probably isn't going to do you any real favors - lol); she adopted the dog her character had. I believe that is in the article.
DIYWriter is on point with his remark; you are interpreting the intent of the statements, and as editors, we don't get to do that (we caren't citable sources, and it isn't a fringe opinion). If you feel that other information from the Rolling Stone weren't included yet should be, get to adding content that enriches the article.
I am presuming you are taking issue with her statement about pansexuality due to the fact that she married one of the Jonas Brothers. Am I correct? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no I'm fine with her pansexuality etc, it's when sometimes people add niff naff and trivia to a personal section and what really is or isn't relevant to an article. Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and you think mentioning her own (cited) words on the subject is "niff-naff". Does that about sum it up? I mean, you did remove it more than once, so you soffer the appearance that you consider it trivial in some way. It is an uncommon personal belief, offered in the personal section. Perhaps you could explain your objections in light of this observation? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... Jack the only consensus is that you and you alone wants her personal believes in her personal life section. You are pushing an agenda and are not objective. If you want really that statement in so bad, make a new topic in the thread some like personal believes. But the consensus is that Personal life is about the personal life of the person, relationships, parents, family, kids, personal bankruptcy, domestic abuse etc. And thats by looking to other articles. It's tendentious editing... You are now spinning your opinion as the opinion of everybody, not only that, you hijacked the article and locked it only to bully everybody that YOUR opinion is the consensus. Now this is the second person against, so you can't say it's the consensus, we are now at a stalemate... So could you please unlock the article? You no longer have consensus. You haven't had it to start. DIYtimer asked if juan had issues with it, he didn't agree with you. That is what you wanted to read out of it. So could you please unlock the article?- Webmasterjames (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2019 (GMT+1)
Respectfully, you're dead wrong, James. To begin, it wasn't me that added the edit.
Secondly, a little WP:AGF goes a pretty long way, and failing to give it means you have to work harder to get it back. I have no agenda, apart from preserving the subject's own cited words in a BLP.
Thirdly, how dafuq did I supposedly "lock" the article?? Maybe check the actual edit history, sport. The article has never been protected. Maybe your former identity as an anon got in the way of editing; it's an unfair phenomena that new, anonymous contributors get reverted more than normal editors do. You don't know how to check the edit history of an article, so some of that gimlet eye is deserving. Anyway, I'll expect your apology afterwards.
Fourth, you might want to read WP:CONCENSUS again; to quote Inigo, 'I don't think it means what you think it means.' As per WP:BLP, a bold edit removing the material was reverted, so now we're discussing it. Why are you so terrified of discussion?
Fifthly (and lastly), other ways of structuring articles exists. There is nothing wrong with adding her personal views in the section about her personal life; she's quite young and doesn't have a large enough body of work to draw upon her other personal views enough to warrant a separate section. As for the "consensus" that this is how we structure these sections, please feel entirely free to cite that, James. Go ahead...I'll wait.
To sum up, you attacked me for doing shit you didn't bother to verify and for defending a post I didn't write and you are deeply misunderstanding our policies and guidelines. Usually, I'd be happy to help you sort yourself out and offer to mentor you and get you whole, but that ship has sailed. Next time, try honey instead of vinegar. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

It would appear that a contributor is rather dead set about the following being in the article:

"In March 2019, Turner was asked in a Rolling Stone interview about her sexuality after mentioning boys as well as girls, stating that she finds herself loving 'a soul, not a gender'."1

I suspect - while still assuming AGF - that the repeated remover is objecting to the implication of the statement. Thus the edit summary,

"Not relevant as it would have been one of many questions asked in an interview, reinserted by someone possibly pushing their own agenda and all Wiki pages should be factual and neutral"

That the contributor doesn't think the referenced quote is neutral speaks volumes. Ms. Turner-Jonas is entitled to her personal opinion - which is free from our own neutrality and factual restrictions as editors. And moreso, the litmus for inclusion in Wikipedia is mainstream verifiability, not fact. Add to that the observed pattern that most Personal sections in biographies address their personal relationships and marriages as well as children and other personal details. Her quote is placed where it should be.

So we have a verified quote from a mainstream source in the appropriate section. I am not sure why we are even still talking about this. I understand that there might be conservative elements out there eager to extirpate any possible acceptance of non-hetero relationships, but they will not gain a foothold in Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And whilst we're on the subject, tell us all how including the information about Turner's opinions regarding love and relationships is part of an "agenda". As well, perhaps you can point out where the original contributor (as I am not the op) was pushing an agenda - but you should probably look at the linked Rolling Stone article again. It is pretty much rife with that sort of detail, as Rolling Stone is wont to do. No agenda was being pushed. In all, it is a pretty good article. Maybe you should, you know, read it or something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constant revisions and `personal agenda?[edit]

I would like a third party to evaluate why the user above seems to feel very strongly to keep adding the same one single answer / response to an article from Rolling Stone magazine regarding the actress Sophie Turner being asked about her possible sexuality when it is not relevant to a section about her personal life.
For that article she would have been asked a number of questions but Wiki user Jack Sebastian seems to think that it is so relevant to her that it must be included but the facts that she is married to one of the Jonas Brothers and no mention of any former romantic relationships with her own gender and clearly for the interview she gave a specific gender neutral answer.
I am also aware that he does come across aggressive when asked about his changes / revisions on his talk page so as mentioned before - I would like a third party to look objectively at our disagreement. Regards Juanpumpchump (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum. Take your personal problems elsewhere, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have two editors who want different things, but haven't shed much light on why. So I'm going to just go on how it looks to me. Jack, why do you want this? I mean, personally I'm happy to identify as cis het male in solidarity with anyone who identifies in any other way, so if Sophie explicitly identifies herself in a particular way I'd be glad to see it in the article. But she didn't. And there is a lot else in that Rolling Stone piece which hasn't appeared here, why pick out this? "This" being that: when probed over an off the cuff remark, she vaguely alluded that she might have "kissed a girl" and might or just as feasibly might not have liked it. For accuracy, she said a lot less than that and nothing about kissing, that was just me. At this point my So What alert is flashing. In the absence of evidence otherwise I’m going to make the good faith assumption that this is Juan's concern, not that this is shockingly scandalous but merely trivial.
But, after all, she said what she said, and it does shed a little light on her character. As does much else in that Rolling Stone piece. So the best way to include the content while satisfying WP:BALASP would be for it not to be standing alone as though it defines her (it clearly doesn't). I suggest the weight of the content in question be included only if (and when) it is balanced by a more thorough filling out of the section. The Rolling Stone piece is an obvious starting point. (i.e., take it out until, ok?)
You both clearly want to improve the article, I hope you can collaborate on this proposal. Good wishes,
Captainllama (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have also read the article several times and you have verified what the issue is - There was a whole glut of information in her interview. So, in that case why continually single one particular comment out? Regards Juanpumpchump (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It appears that Wikiuser Antoine735 has removed the item in question! Regards Juanpumpchump (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Juan was personally (and parochially) offended by the pro-LGTBQ comments from the article, I went back over the interview to see if there was more about Turner that might be useful to the article. There was. Rolling Stone's articles are different from interviews on the Charlie Rose (talk show) or Larry King Live; using a more relaxed interview setting pulls a better overall picture of the interviewed subject.
Anyhoo, I've added additional content to the Personal section, which notes more personal details about Turner herself. So, we won't be purging info that Juan finds distasteful, but we've added more to the plate so Juan can manage to swallow it. Problem solved. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I am not offended by LBGTQ comments or information but clearly with you putting accusations of me being "parochial" over the matter are clearly quite bitter over the issue of having to add to the revision show shows a high level of immaturity - and that is quite disappointing.
You totally missed the point about relevance to an article or as mentioned in this section title you were trying to push your own agenda. Juanpumpchump (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; why are you still bitching about this? The problem is fixed and you can go on to be offended by something else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, any chance that you could behave like an adult on here? Regards Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you learn how to indent? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019[edit]

Please change " The same year, she was the face of the Autumn/Winter 2014 campaign of Karen Millen.[citation needed]" to " The same year, she was the face of The Journey campaign of Karen Millen." [1] Rocksiann (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! NiciVampireHeart 21:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/sophie-turner-new-face-of-karen-millen

The confirmed birth of Sophies' daughter[edit]

The birth of Sophies' daughter was confirmed by her agent to People Magazine,an official source, so i added it to her 'Personal Life' section. [1] Y'all haters corny with that Illuminati mess. (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Bluefleet[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://people.com/parents/sophie-turner-joe-jonas-welcome-first-child/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=5f1f227531fdfb0001451ba0

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021[edit]

change her age from 24 to 25 as she was born February 21, 1996 2600:1700:99A0:87F0:7955:177E:7422:268A (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template will update the age automatically, but there is often lag. I purged the page, and now it is updated. See WP:PURGE RudolfRed (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2021[edit]

Change "In July 2020, Turner gave birth to their daughter." to "In July 2020, Turner gave birth to their daughter, Willa Jonas.", to include the given name of their child. This information is included in the Dutch version of the page, but not in the English version. 3drenders (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We typically don't add the names of minors/children who aren't notable themselves outside being the child of famous people. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@QueerFilmNerd: You forgot to close the edit request, please remember to in future. Thanks :) --Ferien (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ferien, Whoops, my bad! Apologies! Used to just using the automated selections and not putting in a response aha. QueerFilmNerdtalk 23:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent editing with regard to Sophie Turner / Taylor Swift[edit]

I would like to note anything I have added is factual and not attempting to insinuate anything, user claiming insinuation is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laracroft1! (talk • contribs) 12:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laracroft1!: As I noted on your user talk page, Wikipedia is not a gossip column. The fact that your addition may be true does not mean it is in any way significant or meriting inclusion in this article. Doubtless Turner dines often with other celebrities; shall we list each occurrence as it happens? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sophie_Turner&oldid=1208705909"