Talk:Aubrey Plaza

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

super hot[edit]

that she is, but isnt that an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.110.161 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply recent vandalism. It's been removed. Elizium23 (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fappening pictures[edit]

should they be mentionend? the fappening does have an article of its own and with the media coverage the event is definitly noteworthy but should there be any reference to it in the article? on one side, she never made a comment about the authenticity of the pictures (to my knowledge at least) but there is strong evidence in the pictures themselves, not to mention the fact that despite usually sending multiple messages a day via twitter, she didnt send a single one in over a week. sure, she didnt confirm anything, but she didnt deny it either and stayed completely silent following the leak. what do you think? --92.193.100.5 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can find a number of reliable sources DP76764 (Talk) 17:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there has since been a number of major news outlets mentioning this, however I think the key might be gauge how other articles related to so-called "Fappening" victims are treated. So far the only individual to widely address the images in media is Jennifer Lawrence, while a few others have either shrugged it off or made brief statements and then moved on. The question is, while the leak is notable, having been covered in major media worldwide, is individual "involvement" notable enough? Same goes for the follow up "Snappening" leak. The leak is notable, but is individual involement? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aubrey Plaza. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation[edit]

Although Plaza does state that she is attracted to men and women, the source listed doesn't actually state her calling herself bisexual. The LGBT categories at the bottom of the article are fine, but the bisexual categories aren't quite valid unless she flat-out states that she is bisexual. There are a lot of people who appear to swing both ways but still choose not to label themselves; for more information, read this. (Incidentally, other entertainers who fall into this category include Jackie Cruz and Asa Akira.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OCEGRS her sexual orientation does not have a significant bearing on her career, so I would remove those categories. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Can someone remove the biographical information? Ren5631 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ren5631: Now that we've edit protected the article to stop the IPs and you from doing exactly that without explanation, it would seem logical that we might want a reason why. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft[edit]

I first learnt of Aubrey Plaza via World of Warcraft advertising alongside Mr T, William Shatner, Chuck Norris, van Damme, et al. Is her endorsement worth mentioning? 49.180.142.155 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's self-statement of identity[edit]

199.119.235.148/199.7.157.29 removed the material as "rambling".[1]

I reverted feeling that the material is relevant and that addressing "rambling" should be more selective.

199.119.235.148/199.7.157.29 restored their edit, saying it was "somebody"'s and giving a rambling explanation too long to fit in the edit summary.[2]

You boldly edited the article. I reverted. The next step is to discuss the issue, not restore it claiming to be another person. This is the Bold-revert-discuss cycle.

The brief quote goes to public discussion of the subjects sexuality and identity. Yes, it is a direct quote: Wikipedia demands that we use self identification.

Did I remove some other material? Probably. I'm not looking it up as it is not relevant to whether or not this should be included. (After this is resolved, I'll take a look at the past relationships currently in there.) - SummerPhDv2.0 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transient Ischemic Attack[edit]

I propose the removal of the line "She has never fully recovered." in the "Early life and education" section pertaining to her transient ischemic attack. It is unclear whether the comment refers to the stroke she had when she was 20, or if it refers to the transient ischemic attack that happened on "Parks and Recreation". Transient ischemic attacks by definition fully resolve (hence, transient). The article used as a citation (https://delawaretoday.com/life-style/aubrey-plaza-of-nbcs-parks-and-recreation-wilmington-native-is-building-a-buzz-in-hollywood/) for this line reports "She has no residual effects, and doctors don’t really know what caused the stroke." It seems like the statement in question is documented to be untrue.

In the third source (the Kevin Nealon video), she says that she has had some pauses in her speech since the stroke when she was 20, but that most people don't know that the pauses are related to that event. At a minimum, we should rephrase the statement to describe the residual speech issue versus letting the reader guess as to the extent of the residual effects. Larry Hockett (Talk) 20:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I reviewed the Kevin Nealon video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XpTJqNbNIk), and she discusses the stroke at 12:20. She states "I had a stroke at 20, and ever since then words just come to me differently." Although this can be construed as never recovering, Kevin Nealon asks about her symptoms (at 13:39) "How long did that last?" and she responds "A couple days, but I'm fine now." I agree with you that there is probably a better way to characterize this than saying "She has never fully recovered", and even just the removal of the sentence would be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.213.11 (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source which details exactly when she had a mini-stroke?[edit]

I've looked through the sources already attached and changed the article to get closer to what was said, which was she had a mini-stroke a couple of years after the original, but I can't find an actual date anywhere, a reasonable guess could be made to improve the article, but it would be unsourced. Can somebody see if this has been said anywhere? Isben88 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What type of TIA/CVA was it? What evidence is there that she had one?[edit]

ER doc here. Strokes (and TIAs) are fairly uncommon in young people. The article doesn't state what happened (carotid dissection vs embolic vs ICH vs ischemic), where she was evaluated, etc. 99.99.65.141 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't state what happened because the cited reference doesn't state what happened. The ref says she was evaluated at "a hospital in Queens". Geniac (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Me by GQ[edit]

Hi editors, GQ's YouTube channel has posted a video bit with Plaza where she creates social media accounts and interacts with fans. It depicts her creating User:ActuallyAubreyPlaza and she appears to add to her biography article here. The user has no visible edits, so it was probably an unpublished edit or simulation. However, she also verifies a few facts in her personal life, so we could add the video as a self-referential source! Elizium23 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So disappointed the edit wasn't on her page. I mean, it's literally the most verifiable way to make an edit that can be sourced.
(I just finished watching the video in question... worth it! Aubrey is a national treasure) E40 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True the edit that Aubrey made is not on the current page version, but it is in the page history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aubrey_Plaza&oldid=1137169437
I'm not a regular wikipedia editor... Why would the edit be removed? Not a leading question, just looking to understand the principle. Is it because the edit was insignificant and likely transient? Is there wiggle room that a different moderator may have left it in? Tlunsf (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate quote is quite useless[edit]

Y'all, I don't think the quote from her interview with The Advocate is useful, or adds much to one's understanding of Plaza:

In a 2016 interview with The Advocate, she stated: "Girls are into me—that's no secret. Hey, I'm into them, too. I fall in love with girls and guys. I can't help it."

There is no further contextual information given: That's it, someone just cut and pasted in a quote - and the quote itself is quite ambiguous. There is such a thing as platonic love, after all. So, it actually does not tell us very much about her sexuality. Now, in the same interview she says she had a crush on Natasha Lyonne, and she's been open about perhaps less-than-platonic attractions to Elizabeth Olsen and Kristen Stewart. There certainly is a widespread belief/assumption that Plaza is bisexual, however, Wikipedia does not (and should not) traffic in assumptions. The The Advocate interview is interesting, but the statements Plaza gives are kind of weasily: one could infer a lot. All of this is to say that I don't think this deserves mention in the Personal Life section, at least not in its current form. Does anyone have more definitive information? Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Witch book series[edit]

Should the Christmas Witch book series be mentioned, like in a bibliography section? Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing from the desk the United States President[edit]

"During a 2012 shooting of an episode of Parks and Recreation at the White House, she met then-Vice President Joe Biden and stole his notes about her from his desk." is a pretty audacious assertion - without a footnote. Should wild stories unsupported by footnotes be in this article? Could this be an assertion that someone or even Aubrey Plaza herself added to the article - as a joke? MusaVeneziana(talk) 12:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on previous article revisions, it appears that it was cited to this interview in The New Yorker. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public image section?[edit]

I believe this article deserves a "Public Image" section: Any time Aubrey Plaza is mentioned in the media, her persona or public image is discussed and dissected. This happens almost incessently. It's gotten to the point where her persona, sense of humor, and the way the public views her is (arguably) of more interest to the general public than her acting roles. I respect her acting ability, but I think for many (perhaps most) people she is still the "wacky, unpredictable" girl/woman who is chaotic on talk shows. It seems to me that this deserves to be mentioned, perhaps in a substantial manner. Thoughts? Anyone willing to help? Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain more when you say her "public image is discussed and dissected". The One I Left (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See:

Persona[edit]

Quote from The Cut: "The first thing Aubrey Plaza says when she pulls up in the parking lot of the Vermont Canyon tennis courts is “I don’t really know how to play tennis. Do you?” The first thing I do in response is to laugh in her face, because this must be a joke. It’s a hot, nosebleed-dry Los Angeles day; there’s no cloud cover or trees to protect us from the sun, and the asphalt courts are heating up like a kiln. The only acceptable place for a human is somewhere air-conditioned, but one of us had proposed a rousing game of tennis and — hint, hint — it wasn’t me. When Plaza — queen of the deadpan delivery, patron saint of the sharp-tongued — claims she doesn’t know how to play tennis after suggesting we play tennis, my instant and totally unfair response is to assume she’s setting me up and will soon be mocking me for sweating profusely,..." 


Talk Shows

--- There's much more, as her unique persona and comedy are a huge aspect of her popularity. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure I agree to include. Seems like fluff. She's become a more serious actress, shedding her previous comedic persona from Parks and Recreation see the HBO series The White Lotus and off-Broadway Danny and the Deep Blue Sea.The One I Left (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I do follow her pretty closely, so I see where your coming from. I may even agree. But I do think the way the public perceives her is still very much tied up in the stuff above. So, if not in a public image section, then maybe elsewhere in the article? For instance,Helena Bonham Carter: “She is best known for her eccentric fashion and dark aesthetic and for often playing quirky women”. Or Winona Ryder, who’s article’s lede notes her early career being defined by “quirky” roles before a professional expansion. Inspector Semenych (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems more appropriate, to have a line referencing her quirky roles before professional career expansion. The One I Left (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activism and Public Controversies[edit]

The actress is known for her public appearances and involvement in controversial issues. In 2023, Plaza was part of an advertising campaign that sparked wide-ranging discussions about the use of plant-based milk alternatives. In the advertisement, released in late April, Plaza parodied as a co-founder of "Wood Milk," the common plant-based milk products made from oats, almonds, soybeans, or coconuts.

The advertisement, commissioned by the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), a quasi-governmental organization of the dairy industry, stirred controversy by claiming that only cow's milk was "real" and that plant-based milk alternatives like "Wood Milk" had no nutritional benefits. This depiction faced criticism from groups like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), advocating for plant-based eating.

The controversy peaked when PCRM filed a complaint with the USDA Inspector General's office, alleging that the advertisement violated federal regulations prohibiting the disparagement of agricultural products. This dispute sparked a broad discussion about the ethical and health implications of milk consumption, as well as the impact of the food industry on the environment and society.

Plaza, who has been involved in various social and environmental issues, was both praised and criticized for her participation in the advertising campaign and her subsequent reactions. Despite the heated debate, the advertisement raised important questions about food production and consumer ethical responsibility. Plaza herself has publicly addressed these issues, further fueling the ongoing discussion.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20240221182855/https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/5/5/23709822/milk-dairy-plant-based-meat-soy-almond-fake-processed Jessen Adams (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is already noted in the article. TBH, I don't see this as a major controversy, just something overblown on social media. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aubrey_Plaza&oldid=1217539544"