Talk:Amal Clooney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived contested deletion discussion[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing and collapsing deletion discussions, take it to the AfD page please. Safiel (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because there does not appear to be a suitable reason for deletion.

Contested deletion[edit]

Overturn. This page should not be speedily deleted because Amal Alamuddin meets the standards for being included, based on her resume and body of accomplishments, and many public reports about her, which need not be repeated here, without regard for her engagement to George Clooney, the article could be expanded, however, because the more one researches her the more notable she appears. Bracton (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is outright censorship and it should have no place at wikipedia; as a donor to your site I am offended by this. I have no doubt that there are very objectionable descriptions in this site and there is no censorship of those, why should there be one of this article, this clearly makes me pause as to my financial commitment to wikipedia. --75.93.91.234 (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because i find all of the material taken from valid references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.190.73 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... How on earth am I supposed to read the facts about George Clooney's extremely intelligent fiancé when you delete her page ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.186.44 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because there are 1000s of pages on persons bio - actor, celeb, politicians then why not for Amal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.38.225 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I do not know your criteria for speedy deletion; but assuming accuracy in the article, she seems more accomplished than George Clooney, who she is said to be marrying and whose fame may have gotten her here. Why delete the more accomplished partner in a public relationship. I'm sure you still have his page displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.195.4 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Michael B. Miller, PhD 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You guys think every episode of The Simpsons should have it's own wiki page, but an international UN lawyer should have her page deleted? Is that because she is female? Is it because she is Middle Eastern? Is it because she is engaged to George Clooney?

Please explain. Thanks.

By the way, I am only here right now because I had heard that Clooney was engaged to a very interesting and well-educated (Oxford?) woman and I wanted to read about her. The potential of that couple to have an important impact in international politics is huge. I can't believe you let someone delete her entry!!

Mike Miller

Michael B. Miller, Ph.D.
Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research
Department of Psychology
University of Minnesota
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EV_phq4AAAAJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmiller (talkcontribs) 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --66.192.70.42 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This person is newsworthy in her own right. Even prior to the news explosion of the last few days, there was a lot written about her in conventional news sources and she is famous in a field that is of great public interest.

Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper[edit]

This page should be deleted. While Ms Alamuddin has generated some news, she is not notable for an entry in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not just a respository of facts culed from a newspaper. I specifically address this page and this problem in this article: http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedia-is-not-a-newspaper/ -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sparkzilla, please can you explain your argument here, rather than on an external blog? Thanks. 192.76.7.196 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) + Hi everyone else I don't think it's smart to follow the link to newslines.org because Sparkzilla owns the site (per whois), so if people follow the link he gets to see their IP addresses and maybe set cookies, leave beacons and so on. It's not like it is anything official this is just Mark blogging his opinion! I'm not saying he's deliberately trying to promote his site or not, but shouldn't he put his opinion here if he wants people to read it? 192.76.7.205 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Archived from original?[edit]

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 BrillLyle (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
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
BrillLyle (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you revert[edit]

There are many sources describing her as Shiite or Muslim.

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

  • 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)

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 Shia Islam as the branch of religion, as that is what is cited on the 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 BrillLyle (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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. BrillLyle (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


My note is on the Ethnicity that was referred to be Arab. My preference is Arab is not a ethnic group. Arabs could be a cultural reference based on the language, but it is not a ethnic group since Arabs have different ethnicity among them. Gulf countries are totally different to North Africans, yet they all are considered Arabs. ~ Ayman Zaki

born in lebabnon so isnt she a lebanese-briton[edit]

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014[edit]

"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)

Yes check.svg Done and thank you for catching that Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Marriage and wedding[edit]

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)

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 BrillLyle (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 BrillLyle (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi BrillLyle, in no way did I mean to make it sound like a decision. It was an edit, which to seemed to me to make the article obviously better, and I explained why on the talk page in case someone wondered why I was removing sourced material, it turned out someone disagreed, in which case it's very easy to revert said edit, so that we can have a discussion and have the benefit of being able to compare our preferred versions. 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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)

Excising and reasons[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014[edit]

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

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Clooney’s wife Amal Alamuddin to advise Greece on Elgin marbles bid[edit]

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

Move page to "Amal Clooney"?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

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. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter Veltroni[edit]

Mr Veltroni is an Atheist.

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)


edit request: change british-lebanese to lebanese-briton[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Apparent discrepancy in first sentence of article[edit]

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)

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 BrillLyle (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
Sounds good to me! - Erika BrillLyle (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
+1 c1cada (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Made edit. Hope this is okay.... Thanks so much! - Erika BrillLyle (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks (wouldn't have gotten around to doing the edit myself until today)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links[edit]

BrillLyle (talk · contribs) I don't understand what you mean by "Keeping external links clean". And why in the world would a YouTube video be used as a source? It's clearly something that belongs in the external link section. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

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? BrillLyle (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: Then go ahead and make such a section. The source for the "Clooney took on "the case against Doğu Perinçek..." sentence can be easily replaced with a decent non-YouTube source that can be easily verifiable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
EtienneDolet I don't really see the need for the separate section -- that was an alternative I suggested if it was a concern to you. If it bothers you that much then how about YOU do it, not quite sure why the onus is on me here. Quite frankly I think the page is fine as is. Adding a section with only one bulleted callout seems a bit overkill. Any other editors have an issue with keeping the External links section clean, and having the speech video as a source in the body of the article that references that work Clooney has done? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. BrillLyle (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Civility. BrillLyle (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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 own it too. I happen to think that the external links section can still be 'clean' with a link to a speech of one of her most important cases. I don't understand why your understanding of functionality has more weight than mine. So I don't mind that you beg to differ on that aspect, but if our understanding of the definition to functionality and cleanliness are different, I suggest to invite a third-party mediator to help establish a consensus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree with the removal of the link. Interviews make for poor external links in general. Video interviews worse unless there's something conveyed in the richer media format relevant to the subject's notability. If we are lacking her perspective in the article, it should be addressed in the article content rather than External links section. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs) It's not an interview. It's a speech, and it is considered one of the most important in her career. There's no harm in adding it to the External links section. It's much more suitable in that section than in any other. How can you then justify this "Interview" to be used as a source then? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A speech is worse. At least an interview might have some outside direction. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
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 Ronz that it needs to have some context and an interview about the event would be more constructive than the actual raw speech. But the speech is ALREADY cited in the body of the article. So not sure why this is such a long what seems to be unproductive discussion.... Back to the main point, put it in, contribute something to the page beyond the bullet, it can only add to the page. Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)