Talk:Sarah Paulson

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

Comment[edit]

This page needs more bulk, but is also in need of a picture of Sarah. There are plenty on the web, but I don't know how to go about legally adding a picture or linking to a seperate site. 69.34.85.237 17:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awful-looking photograph. 208.46.38.66 21:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.imdb.com, her middle name is Catharine. If this is true, I think it should be added. IMDB is fairly reliable.

Somebody needs to please add November Christmas (2010) to her list of credits as a television movie. She plays the role of Beth Marks, but double-check that before editing. Also, the film premieres on CBS on November 28, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.106.172 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Spirit[edit]

I haven't a clue how to use this site, so will someone please include that she is playing Dr. Ellen Dolan in Will Eisner's "The Spirit". It's due for release in 2008 & starts production later this month in New Mexico.

I think there's free images on Flickr.

89.100.214.24 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

The article currently uses this website to reference a date of birth of 17 December 1975, but IMDB says it was 17 December 1974. Any ideas which is right? GiantSnowman 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the filmreference.com source when I noticed IMDb had a different date because I figured it would be an issue at some point. Since IMDb is considered unreliable, I went with filmref's info. TV Guide's bio link of Paulson's also has her DOB as 1975. I haven't looked extensively, but I don't think any reliable source supports the 1974 DOB. Pinkadelica♣ 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public records search gives her DOB as 12/17/1974. [1] --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

Please remove the unreferenced trivia "She has a tattoo on her left wrist – an 'A' and an 'M' in reference to two deceased pet dogs. She also has tattoos of stars on the back of her neck, a star tattoo on the top of her right foot, and a Chinese character tattooed on her left ankle." --76.14.45.22 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Could we remove the mention of the ages of her female partners? It's not relevant to the section, is only mentioned for her same-sex partners, and comes across as a subtle form of judgment. Please change the following:

She dated actress Cherry Jones, who is 18 years her senior, from 2004 to 2009.[71] She had dated only men before this relationship, including her former fiancé, playwright Tracy Letts.[7] Since early 2015, she has been in a relationship with actress Holland Taylor, who is 32 years her senior.[72]

to:

She dated actress Cherry Jones from 2004 to 2009.[71] She had dated only men before this relationship, including her former fiancé, playwright Tracy Letts.[7] Since early 2015, she has been in a relationship with actress Holland Taylor.[72]

 Done. In the future, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ --SamX 05:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak needed[edit]

In the final sentence before the Early Life section, there's an unnecessary "of": "In 2016, Paulson portrayed of prosecutor Marcia Clark in The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story." For some reason, I'm unable to make edits in this section myself.

It is indeed unnecessary. Removed as requested (and the latest post moved to the bottom as per). Britmax (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image RfC[edit]

No consensus, resulting in Choice #2 the status quo. Choosing the Infobox image is generally an inherently subjective issue, and the strength of the arguments for each, based on the quality and on the microphone, are thus equal. So per the numbers no consensus, and since there is no overriding BLP issue, goes to status quo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Which image should be in the infobox? Choice #2 was the current photo and had been present in the infobox for several months without challenge (until recently). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choices[edit]

#1
#2
Infobox images to choose from

Choice #1[edit]

  • Support - IMHO with #1 she has less of a weird smile and IMHO the composure, lighting and brightness is a lot lot better, Clearly the best choice here. –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks nicer, in my view, and the image is higher quality. SarahSV (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: higher quality; looks less fuzzy. In general, appears to be more "infobox-ready". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I know the composition is worse with the mic but the muddiness of the other image bothers me; this is much more cleanly lit. (It’s also more flattering IMO but I don’t think that should be our goal.) All said, she’s identifiable in both, so either seems ok if maybe neither ideal. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Support ~ i don't find the mic at all distracting, it's low, almost away from her face, and the face is what i look at naturally. Disregarding the mic, this is clearly the better image. Happy days, LindsayHello 19:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Choice #2[edit]

  • Support Infobox appropriate. Choice #1 is badly composed because of the microphone smack-dab in the middle of her face, this disqualifies it for the infobox as this will be the image readers will first see. The smile is slightly better in image #1, however, it's horribly unflattering to the article subject to highlight a photo that has such a large foreign object in the foreground and covering a portion of her face/features. Choice #2 has a portrait look to it and is a good first look at Paulson for readers. Clearly the better choice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently inclined to like #2 more, as it does nto have the mic in her face, but something does strike me as off about it. Are there any alternative photos we might be able to use? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)[reply]
L3X1, I have looked high and low for a free image without restrictions that would be better, and have yet to find one. Choice #2 is the best I've seen whether on Flickr or in Wikimedia Commons. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ideally we would have a variant of that one with her mouth closed (some people smile with their mouths open, though), and it cropped a little so people aren't left wondering if she is wearing body armor. If we could convince whoever owns this one to license it correctly… L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Granitz of WireImage owns the copyright to the pic, I am trying to find out if there is any office to contact regarding. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a better one, great. But these photos of article subjects with water bottles and microphones obtrusively in their faces are just not acceptable for the infobox. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - Think both images are fine, but the obstructing mic in image 1 seems detrimental. NickCT (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support better without the obstruction of the microphone in image 1 Atlantic306 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The smile in image 1 is more flattering however, the microphone is too distracting. Support image 2 because as its more appropriate for an infobox. Meatsgains(talk) 16:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Both are okay (but not optimal) and quite recent but the microphone in image #1 is a bit distracting. Politrukki (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though close to neutral - Honestly, the quality and appropriateness for a lead image of these two photos is really a hairsbreadth apart. This option just barely wins out by virtue of its more formal/professional-in-image tone (even if it is arguably not the best photo in the world as others have suggested), but really either of these options would be satisfactory. Snow let's rap 07:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 13 February 2019[edit]

Siblings are missing from this article. She has two younger sisters, Rachel Paulson (actress) and Liz Paulson (SVP of Casting at Fox). 2600:1700:D280:9230:5DF:1CC6:948B:7B6D (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to Source Change?[edit]

Hey there! I've never edited Wikipedia before, but I want to change "Paulson had a small role in ... Serenity" to "supporting role" or "guest starred in two episodes of." Her character only appeared twice, but was in most scenes of and critical to the plot of both episodes. However, I don't know how to source this change--this is just something I know off the top of my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.209.241 (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022[edit]

Partners - Peter Griffin Source: Family Guy S17 E16 Tcdragon94 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Her appearance in that episode is already mentioned in her filmography table separately. --SamX 06:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024[edit]

In the personal life part, change “Addressing her sexuality, Paulson called it "a fluid situation"[76] and later said, "If my life choices had to be predicated based on what was expected of me from a community on either side, that's going to make me feel really straitjacketed, and I don't want to feel that."” to “Addressing her sexuality, Paulson publicly identifies as a lesbian since 2023.”

The actress currently identifies as a lesbian, as stated on an episode of the podcast ‘Dear Chelsea’ released in August 31st, 2023 entitled ‘Expansion with Sarah Paulson’ (in the minute 19:38——19:48).[1] Hepburn2222 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please don't use Spotify as a source. Try to find a reliable source that states what you want to add in the article. ‍ Relativity 02:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://open.spotify.com/episode/6FaOh3qmdW7tH7Ybbs0sbV?si=pNnH-yY2Q8yxC8GRGuxrAA
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Paulson&oldid=1218722973"