This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
He's the world's most famous dwarf, and this should be in the introduction
This guy is probably the most famous dwarf in the world, but when I mentioned that he was a dwarf in the introduction, somebody deleted it without explanation. It really needs to be mentioned - especially since his diminutive stature is important to most of his roles.
- The most recent episode of game of thrones (06x08) called this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2mDUOHU7Q 19:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Filmography
I followed the "Filmography" example that was used in the Janeane Garofalo entry. Unfortunately, most of the films listed do not have Wiki pages associated with them. My gut feeling is to keep the list there, regardless. --AStanhope 17:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He was also in "In Bruges", a smallish but key role. ChristopherCondit (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Checked the last listing "Pixels" which references a short video which does not reference any voice acting, the page it links to is about a short that came out in 2010, not 2016 like this page claims. However, a quick check on IMDB shows his involvement in a similarly titled work. Pixels on IMDB 174.2.170.128 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
year?
"Living In Oblivion" is credited as 1995 in the Filmography and 1994 in the photo's caption. I did not change this as I don't know which is more correct.
- it' 1995. fixed. --SVTCobra 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Little Person?
Dinklage has said on more than one occasion that he is a 'dwarf'. Thus, I think it would be more appropriate to call him that.
- I agree completely; "little person" is not politically correct and since the link leads to dwarfism anyway, I've changed it.
- And just to drive this point home:
- Q: You are very upfront in describing yourself as a dwarf...
- A: I don't like people being cautious and tentative and choosing their words carefully around me because I'm a dwarf. There are a lot of people in a lot worse shape than me. I'm 4'5" and it's part of who I am, just not the whole part. I guess the word to call me is my name, Pete.[1] María (críticame) 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Photo
That photo is a bit blurry. Is there a better one out there? --Drm310 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's pretty awful guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheuz (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- This great actor deserves a better photo in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.204.39 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fourthed on the in-need-of-a-better-photo bit. The one posted is rather insultingly bad. Evixir (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a common problem with wikipedia articles about famous people. Nobody wants to give up the rights to professional-quality photos, so we end up with random amateur stuff snapped at book signings or crowded public events. If somebody had the time and authority, they could probably get agents to approve good pix for wikipedia articles of most actors/singers/etc., but there are a lot more pressing needs. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fourthed on the in-need-of-a-better-photo bit. The one posted is rather insultingly bad. Evixir (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- This great actor deserves a better photo in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.204.39 (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Music Video
Is he in the music video of Short Stack's song, Sway Sway Baby? 'Cause it sure does look like him... Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wNmQBcv9vk&feature=channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margiechocoholic (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is this him in 1983? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7movKfyTBII • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
He is also in the video clip for the U2 song 'All I want is you'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.253.104 (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"Everyday Love" (Rascal Flatts)
Peter was in the Rascal Flatts Music video for "Everyday Love". He played the leader of the rival bowling team in the video, in which the band members from Rascal Flatts obviously portrayed the main bowling team. 50.138.214.165 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Current photo
I've been trying to get a good quality photo of Peter released under a CC license but I haven't had any luck.
In the meantime, I found this image: File:Peter_dinklage_2005.png. It's blurry and it's pretty old but he's looking straight at the camera which is something the current one does not have. Any opinions? --CyberGhostface (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Too blurry. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 10:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"Height"??? Seriously??
Don't you think it's nonsense to specifically report his height under the section below his photo? Why aren't we reporting his weight then, because his not super-thin or super-fat? I find it ridiculous to put that piece of information there, especially when no other thing related to his physiology is reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.31.148 (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's so ridiculous about it? His height is a distinguishing feature. Unusual details are unusual, trivial details are trivial and can be omitted, it really shouldn't be so hard to understand. If you know his weight and can reference it, go ahead and add it to the template. 178.94.14.225 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Birthplace
Article contradicts birthplace. "Early life" says Newark (with dead link) and right side of the page says Morristown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.25.229.183 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Excellent source on biographical details
- Peter Dinklage Was Smart to Say No nytimes.com March 29, 2012 . 91.39.75.215 (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on Peter Dinklage
Cyberbot II has detected links on Peter Dinklage which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://watchersonthewall.com/peter-dinklage-headed-set-game-thrones-closes-beach-filming/
- Triggered by
\bwatchersonthewall\.com\b
on the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"Personal life" section
The passage: "Dinklage continued to seek out applause as part of the drama club" could be read as a little withering or snide... Regardless of what Dinklage has said about getting a good early response, arguably the sentence in question presupposes that approval was his foremost motivation. Perhaps a member could fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.159.39 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fair point. Whilst I don't think it was necessarily meant that way, I do agree that it can be read to make him sound a bit needy or something. In view of this, I think that kind of wording could only really be used if it was in a referenced quote, not in Wikipedia's apparent voice. I've changed it to something more neutral. And please note that it doesn't need a "member" to fix it - we can all change most articles, so next time, you can have a try yourself! It's not more difficult than editing this Talk page. :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
RFC on the inclusion of his dwarfism in the lead
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Is it appropriate to mention Peter Dinklage's dwarfism in the lead[clarify], or is it sufficient to be mentioned later in the article?
Oppose mentioning in the lead, because, while a true, verifiable fact, it is not sufficiently relevant for the lead, per WP:UNDUE, gives an inordinate amount of prominence to the fact. --Jayron32 03:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)- Changing vote to Support. Arguments have been made which present convincing evidence that as part of a properly written lead, and if written correctly and with better phrasing than existed when this RFC was drafted, this is relevant enough to his acting career. I concur with the sentiment that the "He's an actor and dwarf" phrasing is a problem, but a properly written and formatted discussion of his dwarfism and its role in his acting career would be quite proper in this article. --Jayron32 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose mentioning in the lead as WP:UNDUE even though I think it was probably meant as identification and doubt it was meant to be undue or pejorative. I could perhaps see its inclusion in the lead if it were part of a brief explanation of its role in him becoming a prominent actor or in not hindering him from becoming a prominent actor but I am not really advocating that. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the very next sentence and is prominently discussed in detail where appropriate in the article and in a generally appropriate way. It is not as if it needs to be mentioned in the lead because it is much later in the article or is not adequately discussed. If readers do not know about his dwarfism when they come to the page, which seems unlikely, they will find out about it quickly and later in the article. Though not pejorative in my view, the mention in the lead is rather stark, and I think it is unnecessary. Donner60 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose mention in lead as undue. The source used to verify dwarfism does not mention that term until the eighth paragraph, and that's a good guide for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support as Dinklage is arguably the best actor with that particular characteristic ever, and it's an obvious part of who he is. The particular sources used are irrelevant, as any in-depth interview touches on the subject--he is physically different, and that has shaped both how he was raised, and how he has been perceived. Citing UNDUE would only be relevant if his height were something rarely mentioned, such as the religious or political values of a celebrity. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- To expand a bit, allow me to review what WP:LEAD actually says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis mine). While dwarfism need not be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the lead, or else the lead has failed to do its job in summarizing the salient points of the article. Looking at the state its in now, the lead doesn't really do a good job of it, and I think the proper, policy-based solution is to expand and rewrite the lead so it's less in-your-face about that one (admittedly major) facet, and places it as one of many facets appropriately summarized together in an expanded and DUE lead. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Jclemens. I think including it contributes to achieve the goal for the lead section. I am also convinced that it is not pejorative in any way. Trying to remove it from the lead may send the message that there is something wrong with it. I think that would be worst, specially since the subject of the BLP himself chooses to embrace it as what it is, just another human trait. I think that it is relevant for the lead section of this article, but I also agree that the lead could be improved by expanding it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Uncommitted and weak support for in lead somewhere but very strong oppose in lead sentence (as currently done). The lead can often be thought of as an abstract that summaries the whole article. If a person only reads the lead they should still have a good overview of the subject. If a person were to only read the lead without his dwarfism being mentioned, they would be missing an important characteristic of this actor; so it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, I suppose. If I were in a conversation with friends, I'd hate to be a person unaware that Dinklage has dwarfism because only I only read the lead of his article. It should definitely not be mentioned in the lead sentence, as is currently the case ("Peter Dinklage is an American actor and self-identified dwarf."). I'm haven't spent the time to see who did that and why it's managed to stick around but my first reaction is that very poor judgment has been made. Why? Dinklage is notable for being an actor, not for being a dwarf, and mentioning his dwarfism so soon reeks of undue weight and is, quite frankly, disrespectful to him and his accomplishments. I don't think anybody would find a lead sentence like "John Candy was an actor and obese man." to be a high-quality lead sentence. For what it's worth, Candy's lead does not mention his obesity, nor does Warwick Davis' lead mention his dwarfism; so not mentioning prominent physical attributes has some precedent. (It would be an interesting thing to more carefully look at how we handle physical appearance in the leads in general.) As I wrote this, I can feel my support for mention in the lead at all waning. I remain uncommitted to it. Further reflection may change my mind. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Q: You are very upfront in describing yourself as a dwarf... A: I don't like people being cautious and tentative and choosing their words carefully around me because I'm a dwarf. There are a lot of people in a lot worse shape than me. I'm 4'5" and it's part of who I am, just not the whole part. I guess the word to call me is my name, Pete. (source)
- --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support as like it or not it is a quite recognizable aspect of the subject, but the current "he is an actor and a dwarf"" line is simplistic and vapid. Rewrite with more high-brow prose, preferably referencing it by its proper name, Achondroplasia. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support it's so blindly obvious! It's part of who he is. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is an argument without a real argument (and is like the "contradiction" level on the pyramid on your user page). Dinklage has brown hair and he has two feet. None of those things deserve mention in the lead but a "two-footed brown haired actor is who is is" too. There are subtleties here so I reject the solution being "blindly obvious". Jason Quinn (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support But only because his height has been an integral part (not the totality) for some of his acting roles (Living in Oblivion, Game of Thrones etc). Both of them pretty much required a dwarf, and he was the best (short) actor for the job. If height was not relevant in any of his acting roles I would lean towards not including it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support; of course it should be! Albeit per Tarc's comments above, it needs to be appropriately written. Not doing so would equate to saying Babe Ruth was just an American sportsperson. Dwarfism is part of the reason he's notable, and as such is indispensable in the lede. Political correctness seems to be getting the best of us these days. I'm sure he'd accept Wikipedia discussed one of his primary attributes as such. After all, dwarfism is not a negative attribute, and none of us seems to be implying it is. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support, basically per FocusAndLearn. The lede needs to be a summary of the article. The article spends a non-negligible portion discussing his dwarfism, so should the lead. --GRuban (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Once again, the rule of notability trumps all else. From all the sources available, Dinklage is known first as an actor and then as a short person/dwarf. He is not, for example, some activist for dwarf causes or someone who became famous because he is a dwarf. All the sources acknowledge his excellence in his chosen profession, acting. Therefore, he is to be introduced as an actor - and not as someone who is fat, or short, or thin, or dark-skinned, etc. His physical characteristics should, of course, be detailed in the main boyd of the text. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: As pointed out by Jclemens and according to MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is, of course, well known and correct - and does not affect the position I support. The lead section should be about what he's known for, essentially and primarily. If he was, for example, famous for being a chef, then this too would be mentioned. Drinklage is famous for being an actor. And this is what the lead sentence should reflect. Notability is key. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- You're missing the very important "s" at the end of "most important points". Yes, it is true that he is more notable as an actor than as a short actor; if the lead were only going to have the single most important point, we would leave out the height. But it doesn't say that. And it is hard to dispute that his height is among the most important points about him. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also, Gnome keeps bringing up Notability, but I don't think he's actually read the Wikipedia page at WP:N. To quote that exact page he keeps citing, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". For someone who is claiming below that the weight of his argument is so strong as to overcome a 3-1 vote differential, he's doing a pretty terrible job of actually making good, policy-based arguments. Citing a policy or guideline page to support the exact opposite point one is trying to make sort-of nullifies one's own vote... --Jayron32 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I have read and believe have understood very well what WP:N is all about. The subject of the entry is known (notable) for being an actor first and foremost. What I would suggest, if I may, is that we begin to include WP:BLP in our criteria for judgement. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- WP:N still doesn't mean we can't say he was a dwarf. All WP:N deals with is whether or not an article can exist. Bring it up in this context shows a direct lack of understanding on your part. Any post-hoc excuse you make does not make your prior citing of WP:N to change article content go away. You still did it. --Jayron32 11:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- And to be honest, without a poll saying different, I doubt most of the western world would know who he is without Game of Thrones. (I'm pretty sure the internet is only aware of his name because of the theme tune being sung with the words 'Peter Dinklage' over and over...) He acted before GoT, but while critically acclaimed, not exactly a household name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot know what exactly you mean by the term "the western world" but Dinklage need not be a "household name" to satisfy the criteria for notability. For what it's worth, Dinklage had already played in the British hit comedy Death at a Funeral and the American mega-production X-Men: Days of Future Past. But, yes, famously (and irrelevantly), Dinklage became a "household name" through Thrones. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Death at a funeral certainly has his height as an integral part of the role - its even more exaggerated in the US remake. My point was that it is certainly arguable that he is known as a 'actor' before 'short actor' when a number of his more visible and high profile roles involve his height. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot know what exactly you mean by the term "the western world" but Dinklage need not be a "household name" to satisfy the criteria for notability. For what it's worth, Dinklage had already played in the British hit comedy Death at a Funeral and the American mega-production X-Men: Days of Future Past. But, yes, famously (and irrelevantly), Dinklage became a "household name" through Thrones. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I have read and believe have understood very well what WP:N is all about. The subject of the entry is known (notable) for being an actor first and foremost. What I would suggest, if I may, is that we begin to include WP:BLP in our criteria for judgement. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is, of course, well known and correct - and does not affect the position I support. The lead section should be about what he's known for, essentially and primarily. If he was, for example, famous for being a chef, then this too would be mentioned. Drinklage is famous for being an actor. And this is what the lead sentence should reflect. Notability is key. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: As pointed out by Jclemens and according to MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:UNDUE. We don't start off a tall person's bio with, "Joe is tall." It's certainly relevant but can be managed in background section. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose is mostly my opinion. Although MOS:BLPLEAD says, "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." But, bio articles that I've seen don't even do that. It may be considered notable that a person is a homosexual or of a certain ethnicity, etc., but that doesn't mean it should be in the lead (at least not in the first paragraph). I think a guideline to go by is: would it be included in the person's brief obituary? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- A good obituary would contrast his small stature with his big heart and/or talent. People love that sort of thing and expect it. An obituary that doesn't mention it would be seen as treating it as something shameful, not to be mentioned, which is quite contrary to Mr. Dinklage's expressed wishes. -- Jibal (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per the "Little Person" section above, he prefers to be called "Pete." Mr. Dinklage is probably his father. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
- A good obituary would contrast his small stature with his big heart and/or talent. People love that sort of thing and expect it. An obituary that doesn't mention it would be seen as treating it as something shameful, not to be mentioned, which is quite contrary to Mr. Dinklage's expressed wishes. -- Jibal (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support for reasons given very fully by Jclemens. The lead should summarise the article, though wording needs to be sensitive. I'm sorry, but this actor's height is as much a defining characteristic as Paul Robeson's bass voice. It is not comparable to an actor's sexuality or a musician's blindness (as some suggest below), neither of which define them professionally, and as long as the issue is not handled insensitively, then it should be covered clearly in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support for reasons given by Jclemens and others. The arguments opposed are badly flawed. Every source includes mention that Mr. Dinklage is a dwarf; unlike his hair color and other attributes, it is clearly a very important fact for people. It's certainly an important fact for him. To omit it requires a willful act of obscuring information. -- Jibal (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
How to handle in lead?
It looks like there will be consensus to mention it in the lead. How? I'm a rare unicorn who has never actually watched Game of Thrones or seen any of Dinklage's work, so I may not be the best person to do it. But just to suggest something, the following is IDEA A. The exact wording is unimportant at this point. My idea is to add a small paragraph to the bottom of the lead, similar to
- Peter Hayden Dinklage (/ˈdɪŋklɪdʒ/ DINGK-lij,[2] born June 11, 1969) is an American actor. Since his breakout role in The Station Agent (2003), he has appeared in numerous films and has voiced a character in a video game.
- Since 2011, Dinklage has played Tyrion Lannister in the HBO series Game of Thrones. He won an Emmy and a Golden Globe Award for Supporting Actor in 2011, as well as consecutive Primetime Emmy nominations for the role from 2012 to 2015.
- Dinklage was born and self-identifies as a dwarf[cite] (achondroplasic)[cite] and stands 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m)[cite] tall. Some sentence here about roles where his dwarfism was important.
The statements marked [cite] would need to be cited (preferably in the text later in the article. If you have an idea, suggest it below (as IDEA B, etc.) Jason Quinn (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment We are far from a consensus. Moreover, most votes in support of the notion offer cyclical arguments ("he is a dwarf") or none at all ("it's obvious he's a dwarf"). You are invited to re-think what is it that makes this person primarily and basically notable: if he was not an actor, he would not make Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 8 support/3 oppose/1 on the edge is actually VERY CLOSE to consensus. --Jayron32 11:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on what we understand by the term "consensus". The Wikipedia definition details the variations for a possible consensus decision. -The Gnome (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- The only people who ever mention that "consensus doesn't mean vote counting" are people who are losing 3-to-1 in the vote. Yes, the weight of an argument in terms of its strength with regard to evidence and reason are important, but it is only EVER brought up by someone who a) is losing a vote by a ridiculous margin and b) who discounts the rationales on the opposing side merely because they don't like them. While other factors are taken into play, decision making by consensus must, by necessity take into account the overall vote totals. It's not a "50% +1 and you win" vote, but saying that also doesn't mean the vote totals should be ignored. --Jayron32 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion that it is, practically speaking, "only losers" who quibble about the term "consensus". Note that I did not say anything remotely like what you are trying to put in my mouth - or my typing fingers. I never disputed the validity of "vote counting". I simply wrote, and the text is still here, that there are many ways to reach consensus and, what's most important, I pointed out what, for me, are some very weak arguments in favor of "Support", i.e. that there is a qualitatively weak support. That was intended for the people in Wikipedia who decide on RfC's. I may be mistaken in this affair, as I have been mistaken in the past and will continue to be in the future, but I strongly desire that my position is always reflected accurately. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can't detect any difference between your notion of consensus and simply agreeing with you. And in my view, the arguments in favor are strong and yours are extremely weak and poorly argued, with inapt analogies and misuse of of Wikipedia policy. As has been pointed out to you, notability is only relevant to whether an article is to be included; it is explicitly not relevant to content. Fact: there is a clear consensus. -- Jibal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion that it is, practically speaking, "only losers" who quibble about the term "consensus". Note that I did not say anything remotely like what you are trying to put in my mouth - or my typing fingers. I never disputed the validity of "vote counting". I simply wrote, and the text is still here, that there are many ways to reach consensus and, what's most important, I pointed out what, for me, are some very weak arguments in favor of "Support", i.e. that there is a qualitatively weak support. That was intended for the people in Wikipedia who decide on RfC's. I may be mistaken in this affair, as I have been mistaken in the past and will continue to be in the future, but I strongly desire that my position is always reflected accurately. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- The only people who ever mention that "consensus doesn't mean vote counting" are people who are losing 3-to-1 in the vote. Yes, the weight of an argument in terms of its strength with regard to evidence and reason are important, but it is only EVER brought up by someone who a) is losing a vote by a ridiculous margin and b) who discounts the rationales on the opposing side merely because they don't like them. While other factors are taken into play, decision making by consensus must, by necessity take into account the overall vote totals. It's not a "50% +1 and you win" vote, but saying that also doesn't mean the vote totals should be ignored. --Jayron32 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- It depends on what we understand by the term "consensus". The Wikipedia definition details the variations for a possible consensus decision. -The Gnome (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- 8 support/3 oppose/1 on the edge is actually VERY CLOSE to consensus. --Jayron32 11:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- When this section was started, the tally was actually 9-to-2 supporting mention in the lead until you showed up after a pause of two days with no support/oppose comments to make it 9-to-3. Saying we are "far from a consensus" is pure hyperbole; there is a super majority so far. In fact, given how hard it is to herd cats on Wikipedia on a topic like this, a 3-to-1 ratio is almost like approaching some form of pragmatic unanimity. You "invite me to re-think" notability, pointing out that he's notable for being an actor. Um, please read my comment because I wrote the very same thing. Regardless, this whole section is intended to plan a course of action if consensus is achieved. That's perfectly reasonable given the discussion so far. Please comment on the given idea or list your own. This is not the place to debate if consensus has been achieved. That can be done elsewhere and in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- On the other hand he would not have got his most well-known role if he was not a dwarf. Were he six foot he would not have been cast as the Imp. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment applies to practically all actors because they are first chosen on the basis of their physical attributes. For example, we cast a male for the lead male role; we cast a tall, handsome male for the role of the vain, tall, handsome character; we cast a fat, black girl for the role of the funny, fat, black girl; and so on. Yet we do not lead the entry for George Clooney with "handsome". If Clooney had different physical traits, he most certainly would have been cast in different parts, if at all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Handsome is, first, subjective - lots of people would consider others far more handsome than Clooney - while height is objective, it can be measured. More important, being handsome is not really all that distinctive or notable among Hollywood leading men. They're almost all handsome; it's almost a job requirement. As someone writes, we might as well write that he has two eyes or two feet. Darn few of them are dwarfs. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I tried to give obvious counter-examples but, if you insist, we can restrict ourselves to objectively extant physical traits, such as "tall", "fat", "thin", "with Down syndrome," etc. How many Wikipedia BLP entries do we have that list in their intro or the lead sentence such descriptions? -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- As for Down Syndrome, there's only one relatively famous America actor with it that I know, that's Chris Burke (actor), and his article mentions it in the lead sentence (which I think is poor form there too). I already gave a couple other examples above (I even mentioned the very questions you're raising are worth investigating already.) I suspect any general guideline regarding physical traits would boil down to "do it when it makes sense". Instead of de-focusing the topic of this section, could you please start a new third-level heading for this (worthwhile) topic? Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- "[The] article [on Chris Burke] mentions [that he has Down's Syndrome] in the lead sentence which I think is poor form": Precisely. -The Gnome (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- As for Down Syndrome, there's only one relatively famous America actor with it that I know, that's Chris Burke (actor), and his article mentions it in the lead sentence (which I think is poor form there too). I already gave a couple other examples above (I even mentioned the very questions you're raising are worth investigating already.) I suspect any general guideline regarding physical traits would boil down to "do it when it makes sense". Instead of de-focusing the topic of this section, could you please start a new third-level heading for this (worthwhile) topic? Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I tried to give obvious counter-examples but, if you insist, we can restrict ourselves to objectively extant physical traits, such as "tall", "fat", "thin", "with Down syndrome," etc. How many Wikipedia BLP entries do we have that list in their intro or the lead sentence such descriptions? -The Gnome (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Handsome is, first, subjective - lots of people would consider others far more handsome than Clooney - while height is objective, it can be measured. More important, being handsome is not really all that distinctive or notable among Hollywood leading men. They're almost all handsome; it's almost a job requirement. As someone writes, we might as well write that he has two eyes or two feet. Darn few of them are dwarfs. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your comment applies to practically all actors because they are first chosen on the basis of their physical attributes. For example, we cast a male for the lead male role; we cast a tall, handsome male for the role of the vain, tall, handsome character; we cast a fat, black girl for the role of the funny, fat, black girl; and so on. Yet we do not lead the entry for George Clooney with "handsome". If Clooney had different physical traits, he most certainly would have been cast in different parts, if at all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I support IDEA A.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I also support IDEA A. Dinklage by all accounts celebrates his dwarfism, so mentioning it up front does not come across to me as pejorative. However, I beleive it should be its own sentence at the end of the lead paragraph.Pistongrinder (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've seen no indication that he celebrates it. He does, however, accept it, and is up front and direct about it. -- Jibal (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Another vote in support of IDEA A. Dinklage's dwarfism isn't something shameful that needs to be hidden away in the body of the article. (Also, re Jason Quinn's comment above, Chris Burke is not the only notable actor with Down syndrome; there's also Jamie Brewer and Andrea Fay Friedman, off the top of my head.) —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support proposal denoted as "Idea A". -The Gnome (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support proposal IDEA A. Fair enough that it should be mentioned (although not necessarily in the lead), but the current wording (which I see was edited as I am typing this!) put(s) way too much emphasis on it by stating: PD is an American actor and dwarf. That's like saying Jim Parsons is a gay actor or Stevie Wonder is a blind musician. True but irrelevant - or at least not deserving of such a prominent mention in the lead. dllu (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I support IDEA A. -- Jibal (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
mistake on accident
Hi guys, I was putting more info about peter, and I accidentally pressed the whole reference button, can someone fix it? Thank you Jvanornum2019 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed - by reverting. The info you were putting in is already there, two or three sentences above where you placed it, no reason to repeat. --GRuban (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thank you, I didn't see that one before Jvanornum2019 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Dinklage. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goveg.com/f-peterdinklage.asp
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Dinklage/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll pick this one up to review; expect to complete review by the end of the week. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments:
- I did some copyediting and also replaced some sources that are not appropriate for an article about a living person.
- For the "citations to reliable sources" criterion:
Three dead links listed here should be addressed.
Footnote 5 uses FilmReference.com which is not recommended as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 93#filmreference.com and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources)
The sentence "He grew up in Mendham Township, New Jersey, and is of German, English, and Irish descent" is supported with two questionable sources: "Neil Young's Film Lounge" and familysearch.org. The former looks like someone's personal fan site; if there is anything to indicate editorial oversight, I've missed it. The latter is reliable, but runs afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY.
- I removed the latter source. I can't seem to find a reliable source that mentions where grew up or his descent. Should I just remove that part? or is this(http://www.uselessdaily.com/movies/peter-dinklage-trivia-22-fun-facts-about-the-actor/#.WDNAWH2FlhY) a good source? - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is a BLP, I would say remove if there is no better source. "Useless Daily" seems to be some sort of corporate venture, but shows more signs of clickbait aggregation than of editorial review and fact-checking. (You are of course welcome to ask at WP:RSN for a second opinion.) --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the latter source. I can't seem to find a reliable source that mentions where grew up or his descent. Should I just remove that part? or is this(http://www.uselessdaily.com/movies/peter-dinklage-trivia-22-fun-facts-about-the-actor/#.WDNAWH2FlhY) a good source? - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Footnote 28 does not appear to contain the "Hollywood nonsense" phrase that is given in quotes.
For the "broad in its coverage" criterion: The section on Filmography and accolades should have a summary, even if it is only a single paragraph, not just links to the related articles. This is particularly important because some awards are mentioned in the lead section that are not otherwise mentioned in the body of the article.
- @RL0919: The awards mentioned in the lead section are in the body itself. Does that section really need a summary?. Because I have been looking at other Good articles. like for example: Leonardo DiCaprio#Filmography and accolades. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct about the awards; my mistake on that. But the section should still have a summary. I can't speak to every GA review -- one of the problems of the GA process is that single reviewers produces a degree of inconsistency. Since the "Career" section gives a lot of filmography specifics, one option might be to link the "screen and stage" article as the main article under "Career". Then change the final section back to "Awards and nominations", using a variation of the two-sentence lead from the awards article as the summary. --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- @RL0919: The awards mentioned in the lead section are in the body itself. Does that section really need a summary?. Because I have been looking at other Good articles. like for example: Leonardo DiCaprio#Filmography and accolades. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Overall the article is pretty good and is only missing on a couple of the GA criteria. I'm assuming the points above could be addressed within a seven-day hold period, but let me know if you think that will be a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- All issues above are addressed, so congratulations on your latest GA. --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Unexplained revert
User:AffeL: If you refuse to talk about it on your talk page, then we can do it publically here. Explain why you made this revert.—and your edit comment "why on earth not?" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Because it looks better that way.. - AffeL (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- What kind of an answer is that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- What kind of question is that? - AffeL (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably you have some background with CT such that you think replies that are indistinguishable from trolling are appropriate. However, your edit was not helpful and it would be better to acknowledge that or say nothing. @CT: I'm not stalking you—this page has been on my watchlist since the RfC above with my 2015 comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- For those wondering. I have reverted the vandal edit made by User:Curly "JFC" Turkey, fixing the issues made. - AffeL (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, we now have incontovertible evidence that you're trolling. Luckily, someone has fixed your garbage. Perhaps we should examine AffeL's edit history carefully—this editor seems to have a history of this sort of disruption. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- For those wondering. I have reverted the vandal edit made by User:Curly "JFC" Turkey, fixing the issues made. - AffeL (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably you have some background with CT such that you think replies that are indistinguishable from trolling are appropriate. However, your edit was not helpful and it would be better to acknowledge that or say nothing. @CT: I'm not stalking you—this page has been on my watchlist since the RfC above with my 2015 comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- What kind of question is that? - AffeL (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- What kind of an answer is that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)