Talk:Elaine Benes

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Seinfeld task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

Personality

How come there is no section about Elaine's personality? It's just a list of facts about her otherwise.

frickin hilarious how long this article is, especially compared to the actresses real life page:p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.253 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelism

We should try to make the articles on Cosmo Kramer, George Costanza, and Elaine Benes parallel.

Yeah. I especially like the personality flaws section of George Costanza's

For comparison, Jerry and George attended Queens College

i thought jerry went to nyu (the nyu woman interviews him in the "not that there's anything wrong with that" episode for an alumni magazine...) --24.181.228.103 02:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The paper in "The Outing" was only identified as "the NYU paper". Jerry went to Queens College (as did George), as revealed in "The Marine Biologist". --Satyricrash 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible Picture

The picture at the top of this article is one of the worst I've seen. It needs to go.

I totally agree! It looks like it is really distorted. HORRIBLE! T. White 08:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the size of the picture so that it is not so distorted. If anyone has any further objections to this picture . . . maybe we should find another one? T. White 08:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a photo here. [1] Portillo (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the picture is that it's not representative of the character. rowley (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

In the sectiong titled Inconsistencies, it lists that Elaine considered herself a pesco-vegetarian but later revealed that she likes duck and other kinds of meat. Pesco-vegetarians are those vegetarians who refrain from eating certain types of meat but who may partake of other types. This really doesn't seem like an inconsistency to me due to the fact that she may like fowl and such but may not have eaten other types of meat. I'm deleting this sentence. T. White 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this section. After reading the entire list of "so called" inconsistencies I do not see where the reasoning is behind them. If you feel that they should be included, justify the reasoning. For instance, the sentence relating to the English Patient doesn't make sense because I do not see how it is a legitimate inconsistency and also in reference to her crying at the translation of the korean ladies being inconsistent with her character - there were several times that she was notably upset. Not just this time. When she was fired by Mr. Pitt, she cried as well. T. White 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is an inconsistency because she's made comments about the rights of animals, such as when it was revealed she is a vegetarian who eats fish once in a while. Pesco-vegetarian, if she eats anything else she is NOT a vegetarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C404:116E:D1A4:A9C0:24AE:A795 (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fat vs Thin

To the person,who decided to delete almost half of the entire article without any discussion first: A lot of articles about TV characters discuss interesting trivia about their lives. Seinfeld in particular is a show that deals with a lot of trivia and maybe there could be discussion first about what you think is unnecessarily information. For example, dating is a huge part of Seinfeld, so discussing Elaine's other boyfriends as well as Jerry's girlfriends is in fact pertinent as they are part of her relationships in her life. thanks. --Mezaco 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed to bits here, here, here, here, here and here.

The fact that a show has often been referred to (courtesy of Larry David) as a "show about nothing" does not justify an article about nothing.

There are some shows that merit lists on Wikipedia. An obvious one is The List (My Name Is Earl) as it's the premise of the show. As mentioned here, List of men, women and children enchanted by Elaine Benes or List of soubriquets applied (in passing, in jest, blink and you'll miss 'em) to Elaine Benes clearly don't fall into that category.

chocolateboy 20:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elaine Benes article.

I've always known what a good article is. I thought everyone has follow the rules and improve the article. Recently the ChocolateBoy decided its a good idea that the only contribution is Elaine's boyfriends Jerry Seinfeld and David Puddy. Although I'm still new to this, hopefully everyone should keep an eye out for ChocolateBoy. I have question his "idea" of improving the article. The idea is not to be perfect with every web page but to be creative in each page. If nothing positive has come out of ChocolateBoy than answer this question? How can I be friends with you with such negative traits? I'll be thankful that no-one has to be perfect and that's the way it suppose to be. I know I shouldn't be personal but its a question of principle.

Chocolateboy, I'm hoping you can sway me with something good instead. You helped me out, I'm straighting you out.

(Johnnyauau2000 06:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Characteristics

The reason I added that 'cause compare to George, Jerry and Kramer, I don't know anything about Elaine. I would appreciate if they know how to shape up the important things in Elaine's different sides. It would be also helpful if you try not to rule out too many possibilities that would've been useful later on if anyone has a feeling that something is still missing. A bonus if they add at least 1 cite or in plain English, a website reference. Please? Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are hairstyle changes noteworthy

Is the description of hairstyle changes in the "Characteristics" section noteworthy to the article? To answer your question, yes because if you only talk about how she act, you only look at it from one side. Even in Kramer's article, there's nothing wrong about adding fashion and hairstyle to the character. It's now 2008 and I do get the sense of political correctness in this time of day. If hairstyle was an issue, than it would've been banned to not to mention any sign of hair and it will leave editors wandering "What's missing in this article?". You must remember the audience you are aiming for. Not for your personal pleasure. If you want to talk to me or Gprince007, you can talk directly in "my talk" or go to WikiProject Seinfeld, sign yourself and put it on the discussion page. I've already had edit wars and if you push to cut out anymore info, especially important info that'll help in the future, than you better have a good reason why you want to do that. Little issues like this shouldn't be a big deal under any circumstances no matter how correct you are. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer's and George's hairstyles are part of their character. The description of Elaine's hairstyle is just that--a description of how she wore her hair; it adds nothing to the character. In fact, the description makes reference to dialogue about her hair in just four episodes out of 180--hardly worth mentioning.

If you want to keep the hairstyle section in, at least rewrite it so it makes actual sense. Here is how the section reads now:

Her hairstyle went through changes over the years, though for the majority of the series whether the style was long, with curls or with waves. Notable deviations from this were mentioned in the season 8 episode "The Soul Mate", in which Elaine refers to the straightened hairstyle she suddenly had in the final two episodes ("The Wait Out" and "The Invitations") of season 7, and then decides to go to an extremely short hairstyle by the end of the episode, only to regret the decision when it is met with apprehension by Jerry. Her hairstyle returned to longer than shoulder length by season 8 "The Summer of George" to season 9 "The Betrayal" as well as "The Strike" in which her hair is affected by steam. In "The Movie", George describes Elaine as "pretty," but having a "big wall of hair" and a "face like a frying pan".

I would suggest making the following changes:

Her hairstyle went through changes over the years, though for the majority of the series the style was long with curls or waves. Notable deviations from this were mentioned in the season 8 episode The Soul Mate, in which Elaine refers to the straightened hairstyle she suddenly wears. In the final two episodes of season 7 (The Wait Out and The Invitations), Elaine wears an extremely short hairstyle only to regret the change when it is met with apprehension by Jerry. Her hairstyle returned to shoulder length by season 8 in The Summer of George. In the Season 9 episode The Strike, Elaine's hair is damaged when affected by steam.

Sottolacqua (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC comment. Yes, where a characters hairstyle becomes a plot point (or influences real-world fashion trends) it is notable. The text could just focus on the notable deviations. --Davémon (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to be mean in my last comment undoing Johnnyauau2000's revision but given that even mentioning her hair at all is pushing the bounds, I don't think that the status of her hair as messy or well-kept in certain episodes really has much to do with giving a user of this encyclopedia a good idea of the character. Specific info about her hair is better for fansites. I love the show and character, and love the little details from it, but it just doesn't read right to me as a Wikipedia article. Matches10 (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a few more things to clear up.

If anyone is done with the hair issue I like to move on. I'm curious about Newman having a crush on Elaine. I don't think just having one line satisfy me. If you have like evidence or suggestions please put it in since I'm being open minded about it. The other issue I found that is the least talked about is Elaine being one of the boys. I always wonder "What does that mean? Is she always hanging out with girls or is she comfortable being playful around boys?" If she is one of the boys, how can you tell? Like the first one, I like to have anything that can help me with my curiousity. Lastly, how do I put those ideas into this article? I'll be glad if anyone is reading my message.

You can answer me anytime in my talk and hopefully they won't make a big deal over it. By the way, what's a maternity leave? Let me know. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine not Jewish

Wasn't there an episode where Kramer is running a Jewish dating service? If I recall correctly, he hands a flier to Elaine, who tells him she's not interested because "I'm not Jewish." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.118.1 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and Kramer replies that neither is he, but he loves the food, IIRC. There also was one episode where George explicitly claimed she was a shiksa, if my memory not fails. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Inspiration

The article lists three sources of inspriation for the character; Leifer, Yates and McNabb. The lead only mentions Leifer, though she is excluded from the info box and the section on Real life inspriation says suggestions that the character was based on her were refuted. I didn't know about McNabb but if it is in the Bio then okay, there are sources out there which refer to Yates as the inspiration, and i would assume some for Leifer as well. I would think all three shaped the character but given that the whole thing isn't clear and poorly cited and that its hard to assess the extent to which each inspired the character, maybe listing inspiration in info box or the lead should be avoided and discussion confined to the one section of the article. It currently comes across as greatly confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.29.49 (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not signing the last comment.... In the interests of being bold, i am going to make the changes i suggested.... they can always be reverted if someone feels there is strong reason to or if the issue is sorted out in a verifiable way.115.128.29.49 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jail

One of the biggest, more important events in her life and the jail thing is regulated to the Puddy section. Poor, poor quality. Lots42 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft

I am sorry if I seemed rude at all tagging the article, but I find that editing articles like this myself is often quite unfulfilling, as reverts from those who added the cruftiness are quite common. However, it has been legitimately requested that, since I tagged the article, I explain why. I get annoyed at "tag-bys" myself, and admit that I should not have assumed my thoughts were obvious, so here are my concerns:

The characteristics section should be condensed, and not give an episode-by-episode account.
Most of the other sections, including "family", "background and education", "employment", "romantic relationships", "enemies", etc. should be consolidated and cut down. The large amount of in-universe information in the article seems more appropriate on a fan site than in an encyclopedia.
Things like "nicknames" and "pet peeves" are more fancruft lists than useful information
This has nothing to do with fancrfut, but I think the influence and reception of the character must be huge, and I would like to see that section greatly expanded.

I hope this helps. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I have a clearer picture of his concerns because when I first see fancruft, I really don't know what it means and it makes me think that it's the Chocolateboy routine again. It's true I'm overprotective but because of Chocolateboy many attempts to delete a major section, I'm not going to let it happen again. Scapler's concerns will be addressed in a more co-operative manner as a first condition and why I mentioned Chocolateboy, you've already seen it on this page and I do prefer that he learns his mistake not to delete everything unless he wants to start fresh again and all the other editors work would've gone to waste. You'll understand that every editor is different and would also prefer to edit the article their way whether they're either ambitious or passive or both. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different Citation

I saw that this page was flagged as in need of editing, and for a project in my graduate editing class, we're trying our hand at making some changes to wikipedia pages. So, as a "Seinfeld" fan, I decided to try Elaine's page.

I certainly don't want to lessen the merit of all of the information on the page, but I think some of the above commentary is correct: even as a fan of the show, I don't think all of this information is necessary in this type of source. For me, the information is bogged down by all of the references to events from specific shows. What if some of this were edited out and then pertinent facts were cited at the ends of sentences (with the connected episode denoted at the bottom)?

I'm going to make these changes to the "Elaine's debut", "Real life inspiration", "Characteristics", "Family", and "Background and Education" sections. If these won't work, feel free to revert! I'm just hoping to offer an alternative that will maintain the integrity of the information while allowing the page to still be useful for people who aren't necessarily fans (and may be looking for a quick reference). Sbrown33 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrown33 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children?

Since when does Elaine have a child called Isabelle? No, seriously, I mean that. What episode does it appear in? I only question it because it isn't mentioned anywhere else on the article. Knotrice (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BOLD I took out reference in the box section about this "child." Like much information in the main article, there is no source cited for this claim.Chagallophile (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This claim was added since and I have trimmed again. While I usually flinch at long articles about fictional TV characters, primarily because they rely on Wikipedia articles as sources, this claim does not even offer that. The character of Ms. Benes might have had a child on some other show, but a belief that one saw something on TV cannot be a source here.Chagallophile (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox/Catholic

I just saw an episode last night where, about to run into Jerry's flea-fumigated apartment, she makes the sign of the cross over herself--she crosses herself from right to left in the Orthodox style. There is some dispute in the section about her family background whether she is Orthodox or Catholic, I thought maybe I would add this to the evidence ;-) Florestanová (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elaine Benes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess

This article, which is 18 years old and 81 paragraphs long, contains four (4) footnotes. One of the footnotes cites a Seinfeld episode, another provides a list of the show's cast and characters, and another cites a book with no page number. The article has been tagged since 2013 because of this and other issues, including its excess detail. I have just placed an "original research" tag on it because of the huge amount of unsourced material, much of which includes observations about the character of Elaine that appear to come from editors. How does this happen? Does anyone intend to provide sources for all of this text that has been added over a period of nearly two decades? 74.67.6.88 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]