Talk:Emily VanCamp

Dating history

I have again removed the list of past relationships per WP:BLP as WP:UNDUE as well as the pointy links to multiple poor sources. There has been no discussion to show how these relationships are significant and notable enough for inclusion. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT Wikipedia is not meant to be used as an indiscriminate repository for all possible information; that is, just because a trivial item may be verifiable does not mean that it should be included. If dating history is added and there are concerns that the information is immaterial or undue then consensus is required for its inclusion. Please explain how each of the relationships you wish to add are historically significant (with a reliable source noting it's significant nature (as opposed to mere existence or length) and the individuals can be added on a case by case basis. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

All the four relationships listed have occured with relatively famous actors, each of which is at least as notable as Emily VanCamp. Each relationship has been long-term, thus a significant part of VanCamp's life (the relationships are mentioned in a section labeled "Personal Life"). Moreover each relationship has occured with a co-star of VanCamp's, in several cases impacting the production of the programs in question, and certainly showing a pattern of behavior on the actress' part. Moving along, your initial complaint was that the sources were "poor" and "tabloidy". This is no longer the case as the sources I've added come from respectable publications such as Variety, who don't trade in Gossip. And once again, why is her relationship with Josh Bowman relevant if no other one is? Finally, since you are so fond of quoting rules about an encyclopedia that has no rules, how about you give these a read: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars#Accusation. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Ponyo, who's said things quite well. Note all this RFC [1], on another celebrity "dating history", which comes to the same conclusions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Remove List - (summoned by the RfC bot) Ok, several points. 1) This desire to detail the minutia of VanCamp's dating life is a little weird and "stalkerish". 2) I'm not sure what parts of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE Jezebel'sPonyo feels are being violated here. Perhaps he could point to a specific passage in those policies? My sense is that one's dating history is a somewhat relevant part of one's personal life. And, for better or worse, it seems to be a particularly notable part of celebrity's dating lives. 3) It looks a tad awkward to have "Personal Life" section be only a list of boyfriends. Perhaps this goes to Ponyo's WP:UNDUE point, b/c it seems to suggest the only notable part of VanCamp's personal life is her boyfriends. Conclusion - The boyfriend info is probably OK info to have, but it shouldn't be included unless the "Personal Life" section gets expanded. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Per my earlier comment; I objected to "Personal Life" section being solely a list of boyfriends. At the time I made my earlier comment, I didn't realize the revision I was looking at had apparently been stripped of a large portion of material. That material appears to have been restored. Given that's the case, my objection is seemingly addressed, and hence my sense is that the "boyfriend" info seems legitimate and should stay. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - We include the dating and marriage history of scores of other celebrities, but let's avoid that, as someone is bound to play Devil's Advocate and cry OSE (this despite the fact that when enough articles follow the same idea, it is no longer "other stuff" but instead 'the way its done'). Focusing on the fact that the subject is in fact a celebrity who dates almost exclusively other celebrities, it seems fair game to note those relationships. Extrapolating any meaning from that is outside our purview and not in keeping with BLP. Mentioning a simple fact is part of a biography. That said, it cannot overpower the rest of the personal section; the actor is not defined solely by her social life (although an argument opposing that view could be made using Amy Winehouse, Lindsay Lohan, etc.). I completely agree that over-populating the section with prior bf's is pretty creepy. Note it and move on to other aspects of VanCamp's life off-screen that have been publicized by reliable sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. If the dating history is well-documented in reliable sources and represents serious relationships over many months, its existence is relevant to the subject's personal life. However, any gossip regarding any relationship has no place in an encyclopedic article. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

I removed the tag from this section as the majority of the section now contains sources so the tag isn't accurate. QuibbleCod (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Feminist

I see her description of feminist has been removed and replaced with she supports equal pay. It’s absurd unless you have proof she has rescinded her Feminism Nlivataye (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Regarding her ethnicity, there are some sources that say she is of Belgian and Dutch descent. Therefore, would it make sense to place her into the Category:Canadian people of Belgian descent and Category:Canadian people of Dutch descent? 2001:569:55E1:8900:844A:87BD:9E42:9FFD (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are some sources about her ethnicity. I don't know if they are completely reliable though.

https://ethnicelebs.com/emily-vancamp https://www.entertainmentwise.com/bio/emily-vancamp/ 2001:569:55E1:8900:983E:2198:F115:C184 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That being said, are these sources reliable enough to place her into these categories about her ethnicity? 2001:569:7F96:EE00:F8DB:875:56F0:D88D (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:ETHNICITY and WP:COPHERITAGE: we don't classify people by ethnicity in nearly all cases. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)