Talk:George Clooney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee George Clooney was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 17, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

merge Max (pig)[edit]

This article is at AFD right now, but it seems pretty clear there is not a consensus to delete it. Max is only relevant or known because of his association with Clooney, so it seems like it would be both appropriate and simple to merge his article into the "personal life" section of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


The complete, full list of Clooney's award and nominations clooney was the best actor in this year i ok with him rock in tub appear in their own separate article. As discussed on other actors' talk pages, it's undue weight to include every tiny regional award and some film group's award on the main article page, giving the Phoenix, Arizona, film-critics award the same weight as the Academy Award. The major awards appear here, the comprehensive list appears there (and even there, not every tiny film group's award is notable). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

looks like the section's summary (ie, list of major awards) has been removed from this main article? It's odd to see a section empty except for a single link to the full list. (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if there are other relevant pages we could make a "See Also" section and include that with a few other things in a bulleted list. That way it isn't a section for one item. HotshotCleaner (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:George Clooney 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 3Alt1.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:George Clooney 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra) 3Alt1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 31, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day
George Clooney

American actor, film director, producer and screenwriter George Clooney at the 66th Venice International Film Festival in 2009. Clooney made his acting debut on American television in 1978, but gained fame and recognition on the long-running medical drama ER from 1994 to 1999. During that time, he started attracting a variety of leading roles in films, with the 2001 film Ocean's Eleven being his biggest commercial success. He made his directorial debut a year later with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Clooney is also noted for his social activism and has served as one of the United Nations Messengers of Peace since January 2008.

Photo: Nicolas Genin
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Prophecy (better yet, promise) in interview when he was younger[edit]

I saw in a TV show (I don't remember if it was Oprah or 60 Minutes or other) that he gave an interview when he was younger (teenager, I think), where he said something like:

Today, I am famous for being the son of Manpon Clooney, but, one day, I will be famous for being Manpon the 2nd. (ie, the father of George Clooney).

The TV show broadcast this bit. I tried to search for it (the video of this bit) on Google and Youtube, but I have not found it yet. If someone finds it, I think it would be nice for the exact quote to be in the article (personally, i'm amazed when people make some "big prophecies" (more like promises) that actually happen years after), maybe, in the "Early life" section.

At least, here in Portugal, the majority of people does not know who Nick Clooney is :) Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Portugal? Where is portugal? :) Moriori (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Portugal is that place excluded from the history of the human race (regarding Earth (The Book)) Earth the book, the complete history of the human race, except for Portugal on YouTube :) But, I bought the book... here in Portugal! :) Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not so much a 'prophecy' as a bold hope by aspiring entertainer to be famous. (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my title is not the best... It is not meant as a religious meaning, except for the fact that he said it, and it happened. It is more like a promise, or something like that (visionnaire... or bold hope, yes...). Feel free to change the title. I have now added the word "promise" to the title and to my original post. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Olsenodd, 9 September 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} George Clooney has recently appeared in a Norwegian commerical for DNB NORWe should add DNB NORunder "In the Media" togheter with Fiat, Nespresso and Martini vermouth.

Sources: Dagbladet:

Olsenodd (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that this is a substantive part of his career. If you disagree, please discuss it right here and form a consensus, then re-request the edit. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done

Spinal condition[edit]

Why is there no information about the spinal condition he had? Apparently there is a new news article stating he thought about suicide because of it. I imagine that's major enough to include. I do not know enough yet to append the article, but it should already be here. - Cyborg Ninja 06:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2012[edit]

George Clooney has been nominated for the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a leading role for his 2011 film The Descendants i would like this to be added to his list of pending awards for the film - here is the code BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Has been  Done, but thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 Talk 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture (NOMINATION) for 'The Descendants[edit]

George Clooney has been nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture for 'The Descendants'. I would like this to be added to his list of nominations for the film - here is the code Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture.

Thanks (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Please change Charlon to Charlton in the Controversy section.

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 Talk 16:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Update to pets section - Einstein[edit]

Can someone please update the pets section with details of his black cocker spaniel, Einstein? Plenty of links, pics & videos on the WWW:,,20560891,00.html

Letmeinrightnow (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this film belong in the article?[edit]

The film Convincing Clooney has a paragraph in the article, but based on its limited coverage it is not clear to me that it is notable to have a para in this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


He is often rumured to be gay but Clooney recently replies to this: "I think it's funny, but the last thing you'll ever see me do is jump up and down, saying, 'These lies!' That would be unfair and unkind to my good friends in the gay community... I'm not going to let anyone make it seem like being gay is a bad thing. My private life is private, and I'm very happy in it. Who does it hurt if someone thinks I'm gay? I'll be long dead and there will still be people who say I was gay. I don't give a sh**." [1] [2] Is this addressed in the article? He refused to say if whether he is or not and is defending gays--TAzimi (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Where he was born.[edit]

George Clooney was born in Skelmersdale, Lancashire at the Tawd. He moved with his family to Spain at a very early age. Rachel Steed 3/7/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? StAnselm (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sudan embassy amendment[edit]

would like to add info on Clooney's arrest on 16/03/2012 outside the Sudan Embassy in Washington DC.

On 16/03/2012 actor George Clooney was arrested outside the Embassy for civil disobedience.[1]

Adam.holcombe (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012[edit]

Nestlé/Criticism The article talks Clooney up a lot with regards to humanitarian work, but it has little mention of Clooney doing adverts for nestlé (which is only mentioned in the references, instead the adverts are spoken about via the product and not the company), who have a lot of controversy surrounding them. From the aggressive advertising of baby powder milk in third world countries to the attempted suing of Ethiopia in the middle of a national crisis (a very extreme drought and famine). And of course their cocoa for years has been sourced from the Ivory Coast, with the incredibly likely use of child slave labor, which took nestlé a very long time to address.

This is all outlined in Wikipedia's article here:

Is it possible to include that, perhaps under criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Irish American[edit]

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

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

Error on page[edit]

The Not On Our Watch link made in this article refers to the book, Not On Our Watch. The correct reference is the Not On Our Watch Project, founded by George, et al. (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2012[edit]

George also dated Kimberly Russell for three years. She is the only African-American woman he has dated, publicly anyway. Why isn't she mentioned? Unless it's at her request, it seems racist to leave her out. Sources: (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done; the sourcing you have provided is inadequate. One source provided is a fan site (not considered a reliable source); the other is a photograph, without any information about their relatonship. -- Dianna (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013[edit]

George Clooney is not the only person to be nominated in 6 different catagories. He ties Walter Disney with 6. The article that the original author cites was mistaken (and is admitted as such in the comments section by the author himself). The original article overlooked several other people who have beeen nominated 5 times, and Walt Disney who has been nominated 6 (Best Picture, Best Documentary - Feature, Best Documentary - Short, Live Action Short, Cartoon Short, and Short Film Two Reel). It was even announced live on the Oscar telecast that he had tied Walter Disney.George clooney is one of the finest and well known actor. (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please give a reliable source to confirm your claims. - Camyoung54 talk 18:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013[edit]

Change that Clooney was in Killer Tomatoes. That is an error. Georgia Coones was in it. (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined IMDB and AllMovie list George Clooney as an actor and do not list any Georgia Coones in Return of the Killer Tomatoes! nor Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! Jim1138 (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

George Clooney appearance in manga?[edit]

I just finished Gantz, and during the last story arc, a character that had a striking resemblance to George Clooney appeared relatively often. Should this be included in this article or elsewhere? Or is it too trivial and needs confirmation by the author of the manga? There are also other celebrity look-a-likes in the manga as well, which can be found in a crude list here. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013[edit]

Link corr:

Please change one link from to

Reason: Error 404 page invalid


Gregor.Walter (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken links should be fixed, rather than just changed to somewhere totally irrelevant. I have fixed the link in question. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Is "Pets" necessary?[edit]

Does anybody else think that the section on Clooney's pets doesn't belong on wikipedia? This is is, after all, an encylcopedia. A separate section on Clooney's homes also seems excessive.

I propose that these sections, if they are to exist, be reduced and integrated into a main "Personal Life" section.

Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

:I was just about to create a new section for this! It's unnecessary and tabloid/magazine material. I also have renamed "Homes" to "Real estate" for more formality and I think it, too, is just tabloid fluff and reserved for trivia sections of other websites but definitely not substantive enough for Wikipedia.Chocolate Charlie (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Engagement[edit]

Nothing about the subject's recent engagement to Amal? Headline news everywhere. I heard on the radio that Clooney had advised her to delete her Wiki page. Can this be done??? SmokeyTheCat 05:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion and it was deleted because she is not notable enough to have her own page. This was long before their "engagement". LADY LOTUSTALK 11:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I have no interest in this matter but I thought that a lot of casual Wiki readers might be interested. SmokeyTheCat 08:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I added this sentence. Probably not the best source, and the article probably needs a tidy up to reflect that he is no longer single, but it should do for now until somebody more eager than me gets the time. DanEdmonds (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
All attempts at adding his "engagement" have been removed and a hidden message added to editors trying to add this. Until he or she confirms this themselves, it is just gossip. Even with reliable sources adding it, nobody close to them or even they have confirmed it. LADY LOTUSTALK 14:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Engagement II[edit]

George Clooney says he will marry Amal Alamuddin in Venice in September this year.[2]

Wedding info[edit]

Added info and picture of Amal Alamuddin with Clooney -- and conformed wedding information so both Clooney and Alamuddin pages have the same, sourced info. Best, Erika BrillLyle (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The white supremacist / Islamophobic crowd here has already succeeded in removing all the pictures of Amal Alamuddin from the article (not to mention from Amal Alamuddin her own article — go figure). Only a picture of George Clooney with his previous, "more European" fiancee remains prominently displayed. It is alarming to see with how much impunity these closet racists operate on Wikipedia. The positive news is that their attempts to have Amal Alamuddin's article deleted entirely have failed, miserably. 2A02:1810:108:3300:F549:56F3:DDE2:61D7 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014[edit]

George Clooney is also a well-known political activist:

It might be a good idea to add "activist" to his occupations. "George Timothy Clooney (born May 6, 1961) is an American actor, activist and filmmaker." Volisodelfes (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  LeoFrank  Talk 06:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of RS-supported material[edit]

I already left essentially the same message on the tp of the deleting editor in question, as what follows. Editors should not delete material that is RS-supported, just because it is in a section with the title controversy. Especially - based merely on an essay -- which is the view of (perhaps) one or few editors. Especially when that essay, weak as it is (it is not a guideline, for example), does not state that the RS-supported material should be deleted. Deleting such RS-supported material flies in the face of core wp principles. And essays of that sort should not be used to censor articles by deleting RS-supported material one may dislike. See, for example, the wikipedia policy (as opposed to essay) WP:CENSOR. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As a drive-by, I couldn't help noticing a main section, on the same level of Career, called Controversy. But reading the section, I was amazed by how a personal comment, which was essentially a joke, and unrelated to his notability, could be magnified with it's own section, and therefore boldly removed it. I try to go by common sense, as explained in the essay about avoiding such sections, even if they were not relying on what seems like a trivial part of his career. So I see a number of obvious general and guideline issues:
  • Tivia cited in RSs is obviously still trivia. The fact that the trivial 1st sentence, of the so-called "controversy" comment is also over-cited with 4 citations, makes it look ridiculous, to boot, besides being much ado about almost nothing.
  • WP is not a newspaper, and per guidelines, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.
  • WP should not engage in scandal mongering, or edited in a way purely to attack the reputation of another person.
  • The section, on the level of his career, is clearly intended by whoever wrote it to give undue weight to a few of his personal comments, embellishing them with 6 different sources, and apparently relying on that fact to give it such prominence in the article.
Making such an effort to support such "undue weight" material for that kind of trivia would require cherrypicking after careful searching. This is obvious from the sources, such as the Esquire article, which contained 4,200 words, but only a few sentences about the Heston quote, and relying on that source multiple times. Another source, the Wall Street Journal, contained 1,500 words, and the only comment about it said he "joked at the news that Mr. Heston had Alzheimer's." And that source was double-cited in the same sentence, which makes the trivia even more significant, maybe. The Newsday abstract was redundant and again intended to give the joke more attention, when such over-citing is not needed.
It's also undue in relation to the article itself. For example, a section covering 5 of his prime years, 1994-1999, contains only 213 words, where the Heston joke "controversy" is 216 words. Apparently, to whoever added this tabloid-quality material, this single comment/joke was more significant to his bio than 5 years of film acting. Unfortunately, this kind of excess attention has also turned the bio into more of a tabloid: His entire 36-year Career is covered in 1,263 words, whereas his Personal life and Political views (which are also part of his personal life, btw,) take up over 40% more words, 1,791! I think even People magazine bios give more weight to actor's careers, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
The structure of the article, however, is better now than it was years ago. But changing an added main section called Comments on Alzheimers of Charlton Heston, and reaction, to Controversy, isn't much of an improvement.
  • It would seem that by giving such undue weight to a few newsy comment-jokes, giving them their own section, by labeling it as a Controversy, that the requirement of neutral commentary has been violated in the extreme. --Light show (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's all heavily reported by a number of RSs. The essay you pointed to is just that -- an essay; the view of one or more editors. Nothing more. And even the essay itself doesn't suggest that material such as this shoudl be deleted. You can have your own POV that makes you want to delete what the RSs report on, but it is the view of the RSs that it is newsworthy that we follow. Otherwise, we have all manner of articles where editors use their own POV to make drive-by deletes. Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume you have no issue with asking for a 3rd opinion, which I've requested. --Light show (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
This seems pretty clear-cut. Everything in the controversy section is reliably sourced as far as I can tell; thus, the section should remain. (Another option would be to possibly create an article called Criticism of George Clooney, but that would be a fork at this point.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a regular volunteer at 3O but don't mind getting my feet wet in this discussion. I respectfully disagree with Erpert's 3O and assume Light show is of the same position. I'll have to agree to what Ls has said, this does look like UNDUE weight. I was first of the opinion that since sources exist for it, some of the content could be merged with his "Personal life" or whatever section was relevant since just writing "Controversies" is poor editing. After looking at it, I changed my mind.

The content "made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, " and "during his acceptance speech for the Golden Globe Award for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role for Syriana, Clooney paused to sarcastically thank disgraced lobbyist" is really just trivia. Whatever celebs say or do is bound to cause really temporary media attention and it is beyond doubt sources exist. What we have to ask ourselves here is whether this is actually relevant long-term in his biography? did this really cause any coverage beyond just temporary, like say weeks later was this being referred to in sources? Only then I would feel that this is relevant but still merged to some relevant section rather than just "Controversies". This doesn't seem to be a major one. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Erpert's response the third opinion request. And differ w/Ugog's subsequent comment, directly above. See my comments below. Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight tag[edit]

Per the above discussion, I've tagged the section and will remove it within a week or so if no one objects. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I object -- both to the application of the tag (when the majority of the other editors on this talk page already indicated their view is that the language is appropriate, and that the deletion on the basis of the "essay" by one or more editors was not appropriate -- and that essay didn't even call for deletion), and (for the same reasons) to your threatened deletion (the threat of which is peculiar in light of the above).
The section is not only properly RS-sourced (and the first incident is still an issue discussed currently in RSs),[3] it is also balanced, showing two sides of the matter, and the title is also balanced, not taking a position in wp's editorial voice. Plus, the essay is the epitome of poor thinking ... by its way of thinking, we would have to avoid bio sections labelled "awards," because they are one-sided. Just silly, poorly thought out thinking.
The coverage, of the Alzheimer's/Heston incident in particular, was certainly wide enough to reflect its significance (I feel less strongly about the lobbyist bit, though, and could see that one being deleted if there is a consensus for that). Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That "essay" is really a summary and synthesis of numerous established guidelines, and includes dozens of links to those guidelines. The lead of the essay has 7 guideline links. If there is any part of that "essay" you disagree with, please point it out with guideline support. Otherwise, your opinion implies that while you agree with the key conclusions of the essay, you just don't like them.
In any case, you're still relying solely on the fact that it was an essay and you used reliable sources. But you've skipped over all the other guideline issues mentioned earlier: that WP is not a newspaper, should not engage in scandal mongering, and should not give undue weight to cherrypicked trivia and adding tabloid-quality facts supported by over-citing.
Therefore you're simply putting undue weight on the fact that his comment-jokes were published, and creating an entire main section for it equal in significance, per the TOC, to his entire career. If anything, it violates common sense. --Light show (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Epeefleche: Yes, that's what the tag is for: two of us here find that it gives undue weight, so it remains till this is resolved. Just to clarify in case I missed something, this discussion just involves you, Light show and me right? so what do you mean by "majority of the other editors"? A WP:3O giver is just that: his/her participation is minimal and the other party is free to reject it. Or if you're referring to the fact that no one objected to this before, then WP:CCC. No, as Light show said, whether you published both sides or not, the entire section is possibly undue weight. As to the Alzheimer's/Heston incident, if as you say, has wide coverage, then it goes to the relevant section rather than "Controversies", I've yet to look into how good its coverage is.
PS: Awards section usually have notable accolades received by the person and their just bare facts. I think it isn't poor thinking and what is opposite of controversies is maybe a section titled "Praise" which has cherrypicked content.
I see no point in repeating and bolding what you've already said before, Light show, this needs to move forward constructively. Do you (any of you both) know how to get anyone as a fresh pair of eyes here (any previous contributors can be contacted)? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Possibly a request for comment would help. Nor could I find anything resembling a consensus about keeping the section in. Quite the opposite, in fact. For instance, this earlier discussion by User:Annegc1 almost 5 years ago, who wrote, It's kind of strange to see some people trying to make it a bigger story than what it was and trying to make it still relevent when it is not. Same with comments by User:Batman2005 8 years ago, who asked, I'm just curious as to how people perceive what he said in his acceptance speech as controversial. It seems there is and has always been an implied consensus against including this kind of section or even the joke itself.--Light show (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ugog. Four editors have given opinions. There were two initial editor opinions in this string. Third opinion is a means to request an outside editor opinion in a disagreement between two editors. And you supplied a fourth opinion. This discussion involves four editors. Giving four opinions. Finally, as I said before, I'm not sure I have a problem with the fourth para going. But the first two paras are widely covered by RSs, including as reflected above (though not in the article -- we could always add more refs) this past year. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is the "Controversy" section warranted?[edit]

Consensus appears to be that there should not be a "Controversy" section, but that the incident is probably worth mentioning in passing (a couple of sentences). Also worth noting that Light show should not have removed the content before the RFC is closed - please be more patient next time. Number 57 23:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the request for a second opinion at WP:ANRFC: I endorse the conclusion above. As a response to the original RFC question, there is a consensus that the current section is WP:UNDUE. As part of this discussion, editors also discussed how much information on this content should be included, and there was general agreement that a smaller amount of content to be discussed as part of a larger subsection is appropriate. Given the range of opinions discussed, a couple of sentences seems reasonable. As usual, any part of this conclusion may be superseded by future discussion as long as editors are able to agree. Sunrise (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Survey and discussion[edit]

  • No. Undue weight to trivia, despite being published. Numerous other reasons stated earlier. --Light show (talk) 21:41, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Covered in multiple RSs. Over an extended period of time. See also above conversation. However, I would be open - if there is a consensus for it - to the third para being excised. Inasmuch as that second incident does not rise to the same level of coverage as the first incident. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
That 3rd paragraph was already excised by me earlier based on your previous comments. --Light show (talk) 00:37, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
  • Question – Did coverage of this controversy last beyond the initial period? Is it something that is mentioned in profiles of Clooney? --NeilN talk to me 00:11, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a section on Political views which seems to include views on a variety of topics. Perhaps we could add a Gun control subsection and incorporate the controversy in that? --NeilN talk to me 00:28, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully sourced with something more profound than an undated bloggish RS. --Light show (talk) 00:33, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
  • Rather than having a "Controversy" section per say, I agree with NeilN – we could include his well sourced controversies throughout the article. Gun control controversy in the "Political views" section etc. Meatsgains (talk) 16:25, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Agree but as long as the attention devoted to it is trimmed up: two paras is way too much, maybe a few sentences. It's about details of a specific joke he made about Heston. Does everyone feel this is indeed warranted in the article? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:42, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
We should first get a clear yes/no consensus about the original RfC question. --Light show (talk) 16:55, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
@Light show: Are you talking about the content of the Controversy section or having a section called "Controversy"? --NeilN talk to me 03:49, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
Both. Having 216 words about a joke comment is ridiculous, nor does it warrant a sub-section. If there were some real details with substance about his gun control opinions, kept in balance with the relatively brief career material, the joke might fit within that. But a joke without context fits nowhere. As it is, the Personal life and Political views sections, (his political views are part of his "Personal life,") have over 40% more words than the Career sections, which creates a tabloid impression. Another section about his motorcycle accident is loaded with trivia and should also be trimmed without a section for the same reasons. --Light show (talk) 04:15, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • No, not as such. The subtopic "Controversy on the subject of X" should be covered under the section heading "X". Multiple controversies should not be collected in a controversy section, as it provides a coatrack for undue coverage of any controversy. Whatever the title for the section on the Heston/Alzheimer's/NRA comment, it should not be "controversy". I suggest broadening the section to "Stance on gun control", and including this comment/joke within that. GC seems to have a well known view on gun control that is as yet uncovered by this article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • No. I came here from the RfC notice. If I understand correctly (the RfC is a little unclear), we are talking about the page section that is currently called "Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control". In that form, it is WP:UNDUE, and we have to be very careful about controversy sections on pages where WP:BLP applies. I agree with SmokeyJoe that a section about Clooney's views on gun control would be much more appropriate, and the joke could be succinctly covered within that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I changed the section title from "Controversy" to "Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control".[4] I had thought it obviously preferable to immediately remove the clearly inappropriate "Controversy" section title in favour of the subject associated with the controversy. Unfortunately, it seems that this controversy is extremely isolated. I do not find further evidence from other places or times that Clooney is engaged in the topic of gun control, or Heston, or Alzheimer's. Neither can I find sources commenting of this controversy much after the comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. In that case, I tend to think that it should just be deleted as undue weight. Celebrities say stuff about other celebrities all the time, and very little of it is encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
It's more than undue. It's totally irrelevant, to both the section, Political views, or the subsection, Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control. There's no text about his views on gun control, which implies the material doesn't fit anywhere, besides some other reasons noted above. --Light show (talk) 00:26, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Agree with Light show . I get a strong sense of WP:UNDUE looking at the section. It should probably be re-titled to just "Gun Control" and the Heston comment should be mentioned as an aside. NickCT (talk) 00:04, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Beyond this Heston comment, there is nothing else to to fill a "Gun control" section. It appears that he may subscribe to tighter gun control, but beyond this one comment he has made no contribution or impact to the debate, that I could find. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand the questions as to where to put it, and what title is best for wherever it goes, but I do think there should be mention of it. This was unusual in the amount of RS coverage, and the time span that it has attracted RS coverage. Not at all run-of-the-mill by those measures. Defer to others as to where and how it is covered, though. Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Except you cited this undated blog post as a RS. Without some actual RSs covering his opinions about gun control, an isolated off-color joke is not encyclopedic, only tabloid fodder. --Light show (talk) 01:05, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to Fox News? Dated November 11, 2013? Anyway, there are a number of RS refs covering this, over the past decade, as can be plainly seen --Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposal. Tending to agree with Epeefleshe, I propose cutting the section, to replace with a third paragraph under George_Clooney#After_ER.3B_2000.E2.80.9310 to read, along the lines of:

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

    Include a selection of references, but leave the bulk of the detail at Charlton_Heston#Later_life_and_death, where the subject of gun control controversy is more relevant. I read in the existing article text content that I think is reasonably summarised as "he later claimed was a misquoted joke". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
It would still need some context, otherwise it would still just be trivia, but now a sentence instead of a whole section. --Light show (talk) 00:57, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Either expand to two sentences, or reduce to zero? It actually does seem to be have been a provocative controversial clumsy joke without recorded context in the first place. Much like a bad joke. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
Context can easily be distilled I would think from the initial two paragraphs, which I've set forth below. The refs/content can be enhanced with more recent coverage, such as that 11 months ago ... over a decade after the incident ... in Fox News. It is of course unusual for decade-long coverage by the WSJ, Fox, Esquire, Newsday, Salon, etc. ... which is why I think it makes sense to have some coverage here. This is how it originally read. If you want to try your favorite distillation, feel free to take first crack. If you prefer that I do so, let me know and I will oblige:
Please distill for the hidden context. As it is, this 200-plus word commentary devoted to this shiny little nugget gives the impression of something of value. But all I could find was pyrite. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In January 2003, Clooney made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, and Clooney initially refused to apologize.[1][2][2][3] While speaking at a National Board of Review event as he accepted an award on television, Clooney said: "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."[4] When syndicated columnist Liz Smith asked Clooney whether he wasn't "going too far" with his remark, he responded: "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association; he deserves whatever anyone says about him."[3][5]

Heston himself commented, "It just goes to show that sometimes class does skip a generation," referring to Clooney's aunt, Rosemary Clooney.[5] Clooney later said, "It was a joke... They got the quote wrong. What I said was 'The head of the NRA announced today ...' (Filmmaker) Michael Moore had just gotten an award. Anyway, Charlton Heston shows up with guns over his head after a school shooting and then says in the documentary it's because of ethnic diversity that we have problems with violence in America. I think he's going to have to take whatever hits he gets. It was just a joke."[6] Clooney said in 2008 he subsequently apologized to Heston in a letter, and that he received a nice response from Heston's wife.[1]

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

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

In January 2003, Clooney made a controversial joke about the fact that Charlton Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's, and initially refused to apologize, saying "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association; he deserves whatever anyone says about him."[1][2][3][4][7] [5] Clooney later said he was misquoted, and five years later said he apologized to Heston by letter.[8][1][9]


  1. ^ a b c d Jacobs, A. J. (March 17, 2008). "The 9:10 to Crazyland". Esquire. Retrieved March 21, 2008. 
  2. ^ a b c Strassel, Kimberley A. (September 2, 2006). "Modern-Day Moses, on a Mission". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 31, 2012. 
  3. ^ a b c "George Takes a Stand". Newsday. January 19, 2003. Retrieved January 31, 2012. 
  4. ^ a b Schaller, Thomas. "George Clooney (and his dad) vs. George W. Bush–2004 Elections". Retrieved January 31, 2012. 
  5. ^ a b c "Heston Slams Clooney For Alzheimer's Joke" at the Wayback Machine (archived January 26, 2003)[dead link] The Boston Channel. January 24, 2003.
  6. ^ "Daily Dose of George Clooney! Clooney News 8". Fortune City. Archived from the original on 2002-10-26. Retrieved September 19, 2009. 
  7. ^ "Gorgeous George". Sydney Morning Herald. October 25, 2003. Retrieved January 31, 2012. 
  8. ^ "Daily Dose of George Clooney! Clooney News 8". Fortune City. Archived from the original on 2002-10-26. Retrieved September 19, 2009. 
  9. ^ "George Clooney Slams Climate Change Skeptics, Their ‘Stupid Argument’", Christian Toto, Fox News, November 11, 2013
  • No there is undue weight do to trivia. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: shortened text above: It would still need some context. For instance, someone once added a quote by him to the article, The simple truth is that when it comes to the atrocities in Darfur … those people are not better off now than they were years ago.[67]. If there was no context, it wouldn't belong in the article, regardless of how often it was published. However, they added a full section, Darfur, describing his work on Darfur, which gave the quote context. There are plenty of other quotes by him. This sort of joke/quote would go fine in a similar section covering his published stand on gun control. Without that, it's trivia. --Light show (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I see that Light show cut the entire section and was reverted. I still support my proposal above, even if it is an unstable context poor trivia-style single sentence. It would be an improvement on the status quo. It is between nothing and way too much. On the article is the best place to proceed to find consensus through editing. I think there is a rough consensus here that the current text is too much. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This story from MSNBC or this one, might add context. --Light show (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No Controversy Section Here from RfC. Controversies, as such, should be woven into a BLP's narrative in perspective. Clooney, a politically active and prolific actor, has probably a dozen or more controversies that could be dug up and unduly weighted on this article. It's trivia that did not impact the lives of either subject's life trajectory nor did it change national perception. Smokey Joe's sentence does it justice. EBY (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No - Here's the section[5], it read like a tabloid. In the end, you would find them to be trivial. Unless there is some serious controversy, that has affected his life or career, it maybe included. So far none of these seems to be important enough for inclusion. Noteswork (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with what Smokey Joe points to as a rough consensus that the current (at the time of the RfC being initiated) text was viewed as too much. I also agree with those editors who say, above in what also appears to me to be a rough consensus, such as User:NeilN, User:Meatsgains, User:Ugog Nizdast, User:SmokeyJoe, User:NickCT , User:EBY3221, that if the section is deleted or re-named (which those editors support), a sentence or two covering this topic -- which the RSs have covered for over the past ten years -- is appropriate. Smokey Joe and I have taken stabs at crafting that sentence or two, above. Light Show has offered a couple of refs as context for that sentence or two. Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Epeefleche's assessment. --NeilN talk to me 19:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Pending any revision to the quote section, now that we all agree it doesn't belong in the article as is, being undue and without context, I've copied the section to the box below. I'll remove the section from the article unless there are major objections, such as needing another 30 days to think it over. --Light show (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments in 2003 on Heston and gun control

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015[edit]

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015[edit]

its all wrong

Ajayswag (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2015 (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. NiciVampireHeart 18:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015[edit]

Ajayswag (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2015 (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. You may reopen this request by changing |answered=yes to |answered=no and providing details of the specific changes you wish to see made. Please provide reliable sources as required. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 18:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Centennial mini-series[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015[edit]

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

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

date of birth[edit] credits George Clooney as crew: 1974 The Moneymaze (TV Series) (stage hand - 1974-1975)

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

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

Street Hawk[edit]

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

In fact, 10 seconds on IMDB and:

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

SAG Award description: Confirmed by SAG[edit]

Hi I work in entertainment marketing and we're about to launch a marketing campaign for Money Monster. While doing some research. I noticed one small discrepancy. On the "Awards and nominations" section it states: "and was nominated for an Academy Award, BAFTA Award, Satellite Award, and two Screen Actors Guild Awards: Best Lead Actor and Best Cast".

This statement is misleading. Evidently, the cast of ER has won Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series on multiple occasions. Whereas, he's only been nominated for "Male in a Drama series" and never won.

Please differentiate between his wins and his losses.

Thank you and Mahalo TS


Ensemble award:

Solo award:


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