Line 502: | Line 502: | ||
:'''No''' Not even sure why we are having this ridiculous debate. For those that want to include, I would like to know your standard for inclusion of rumors about a person's personal life. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
:'''No''' Not even sure why we are having this ridiculous debate. For those that want to include, I would like to know your standard for inclusion of rumors about a person's personal life. [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::It's not a rumor. The Kevin Feige Collider interview has him responding to the question of how her pregnancy has impacted the just started production of Avengers: Age of Ultron. How can anyone believe it's a "rumor" when her BOSS is confirming it... —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
::It's not a rumor. The Kevin Feige Collider interview has him responding to the question of how her pregnancy has impacted the just started production of Avengers: Age of Ultron. How can anyone believe it's a "rumor" when her BOSS is confirming it... —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::I think you need to remove yourself from this discussion. You are clearly incapable of looking at this from an objective point of view. Until proven true, it is a rumor. This is the definition of a rumor. Seriously, just wait a few damn months. What is your problem with waiting until she confirms it to be true? [[User:Arzel|Arzel]] ([[User talk:Arzel|talk]]) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:'''No''' Concur. [[WP:BLP]] is a high standard, and just because rumors are stated in reliable sources doesn't mean that an encyclopedia gives its imprimatur to highly personal rumors about living persons. We certainly don't want Wikipedia to be known as a rumor mill. |
:'''No''' Concur. [[WP:BLP]] is a high standard, and just because rumors are stated in reliable sources doesn't mean that an encyclopedia gives its imprimatur to highly personal rumors about living persons. We certainly don't want Wikipedia to be known as a rumor mill. |
Revision as of 01:33, 27 March 2014
Scarlett Johansson has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
File:Scarlett-Johansson-2004-Premiere.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Scarlett-Johansson-2004-Premiere.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
File:Scarlett Johansson WhiteHouse.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Scarlett Johansson WhiteHouse.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
Ancestry
Good link about her maternal grandmother, that she is of Russian Jewish ancestry. I think this can be added to article. http://ililarbel.weebly.com/histories.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.202.33 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Transition to adult roles image
I still think this image is better for section "Transition to adult roles" and I don't see why it's keep getting removed! It's in Commons and it suits there, while the picture currently used in that section (the cover of Girl with a Pearl Earring) isn't any of that. It's not included in Commons and I don't think it should be there - after all, this is an article about the actress, not about the movie.--Renesemee (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fine image. It should not have been removed, also the other image is non-free and had no Fair Use Rationale for use in this article, therefore could not be used under copyright regulations. I have removed it; feel free to add back your image. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really think this image should never get deleted. Why do people keep on removing it? It is a good example to show Scarlett Johansson in adult roles while she is only 18! It is my favourite image and it should stay there.--Triggercon (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)triggercon
Yes i agree that this picture should never be removed.--Forestbattle (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)forestbattle
New Image?
Cmon, the current one is really cruel ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.132.1 (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree, she's way hotter than the current pic gives her credit for! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.127.37 (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Does she resemble Jessica Alba?62.61.162.249 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Please STOP the edit war
It is completely uncalled for you to be edit warring over the infobox image. The standard in BLPs is for infobox images to be discussed before they are changed. I am demanding that you cease editing and begin discussing until we can reach a clear consensus on what to use for the image. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since you suggest that you would like the original image reinstated while we hash this out, it's been done. For anyone joining in, the two images in question are these: File:Scarlett Johansson in Kuwait 01b-tweaked.jpg and File:Scarlett Johansson 2, 2012.jpg.
- The reasons why I prefer the first are 1) she's looking at the camera 2) seems fully aware that she's being photographed and is therefore smiling 3) accurately represents what she looks like 4) the background is generally uncluttered and neutral. For these reasons, it makes a perfectly good infobox image.
- The reasons why I dislike the second image are 1) she's not looking at the camera 2) looks to be possibly be saying something or about to smile but either way, her mouth is just sort of open and not in a flattering way 3) there are many harsh shadows 4) does not significantly add to people's understanding of what she looks like because her appearance hasn't changed that drastically 5) is not that much newer (a claim was made that it should be kept because it's ~2 years newer)
- All in all, I don't see why there's a debate. The IP doesn't seem to be using objective reasons for their edits. For instance, they have said that I will go to jail for 34 years, said that she is prettier in the second image, and has demanded on my own talk page to leave the article alone. Dismas|(talk) 06:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not like the Kuwait picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.50.89 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.50.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You've made that clear but you also have not provided an objective reason why the image should be swapped out. Dismas|(talk) 07:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just a note that the IP still insists on changing the image even though they've been asked not to until there is an agreement in this discussion. Since they've ignored that request, I've just now given them a vandalism warning here. Dismas|(talk) 07:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The reason why it should be swapped out because the replacement photo shows that she is wearing a dress & it is newer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.57.214 (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.57.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- First, it shows her with bare shoulders and no indication that she's wearing anything. Second, what does it matter whether she's wearing a dress or a t-shirt or a burlap sack? Third, see my point about the newness of the image. Dismas|(talk) 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We have reached an agreement to end the lockout! Avengers premiere photos only! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.60.79 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.60.79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- My take is that the image here on this page is preferable for the infobox. It more clearly depicts her full appearance than the rightly cropped headshot, and thus provides a more encyclopedic context for who she is and what she looks like. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
But it is too old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.43.98 (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.43.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No, because the infobox image isn't required to be the most current image, just the most representative. We don't have Bette Davis in her last role in her infobox, we have a representative image of her from earlier in her career. Johansson doesn't look appreciatively different in the 2003 photo. And finally, we don't subscribe to recentism — we find the best, most representative photo, which in this instance is the 2003 photo that shows more of her and creates context. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I DO NOT LIKE THE KUWAIT PICTURE BECAUSE IT IS A BAD PLACE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.43.98 (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.43.98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I've chosen to revert the picture back to the more recent one. Firstly, is because Wikipedia prefers more recent pictures. Bette Davis is different, as she's deceased and in cases of the deceased, you use a nice picture to commemorate them. Secondly, is because the Kuwait pic seems too artificial. She looks like a doll (porcelain kind) and unnatural. With this one, it feels more real, not staged. I don't agree with IPs reasoning, but the 2012 picture is really the better option. And as for both warring parties, I think you both need to check the way you conduct yourselves, Dismas with the edit warring and IP with the rather bizarre warnings. RAP (talk) 14:13 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I dislike the Kuwait picture because it is too artificial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.46.136 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.46.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have reached a consensous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.34.165 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.34.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- This anon IP is being disruptive and clearly just playing around, and if he continues posting nonsense we can ask an admin to protect this page from anon IPs or even block him from editing for a time. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Let's agree on a picture! Kuwait or Avengers UK premiere.
The reason why i like the Avengers Premiere picture is because she looks prettier, she is wearing a dress & the background is more realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.62.199 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — 112.209.69.199 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Let's agree on a consensus!----
- Other than incessant insistence that the Kuwait photo is BAD for no clearly-articulated reason,
we seem to have reached a consensus to keep the Kuwait photo.I am not sure what our consensus is yet, but we have at least stopped the edit war. The IP-hopper is advised that his comments are not constructive and only serving to hinder the rest of us in our work to build an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)- Until a better alternative is presented (not the one that the IP/sock insists on -- that one is subpar), consensus is the WP:STATUSQUO. Nymf talk to me 18:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Other than incessant insistence that the Kuwait photo is BAD for no clearly-articulated reason,
We have reached a consensus to replace the Kuwait photo with the UK premiere of Marvel's The Avengers/Avengers Assembele.---- We seem to have reached a consensus to replace the picture!---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.43.240 (talk • contribs)
Dismas, let's reach a consensus.----— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.43.240 (talk • contribs)
- Actually, it's pretty clear that there's a consensus that you are not discussing this topic in good faith and are simply disrupting the talk page. Please stop.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I still dislike the Kuwait pic, so the Avengers premiere is my side.----
Still angry about the Kuwait pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.43.240 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Dismas,the reason why i like the image Scarlett Johansson 2,2012.jpg is because, she looks pretty, she is wearing a dress & it is newer.----— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.28.247 (talk • contribs)
I want the photo changed!---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.28.247 (talk • contribs)
I have reverted the pic, even though there is still no consensus yet.Jskylinegtr (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- What policy or guideline did you use to justify that? (I've reverted it back to the other, BTW) Dismas|(talk) 13:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's agree on a consensus! Jskylinegtr (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Dismas, I reverted it back from the Kuwait pic.Jskylinegtr (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Dismas,It was reverted again! Jskylinegtr (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I'm new to this discussion but why is there an edit war over the picture? Shouldn't the most current pic available be used? Lady Lotus (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not really. If the newer image is worse than the old one, then changing is not a good idea. Nymf talk to me 16:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The more recent image problems from my point of view are enumerated above but just to catch you up:
- She's not looking at the camera
- She has some weird 'about to say something' sort of shape to her mouth
- She hasn't significantly changed what she looks like
- Just because an image is newer does not make it better
- The lighting is bad, causes harsh shadows, etc.
- The IP's contention has mostly been A) dresses are better B) they simply don't like the current image C) Kuwait is a "bad place" and D) it's an older image. Other than the age of the image, they haven't been able to supply an objective reason for changing it. And as for the age of the image, (and I know this isn't the greatest argument to stand on) if age is so important, why don't we use the last known image of every dead Hollywood star or other notable person? We don't. Take Lucille Ball for instance. Her infobox image is from 1951. Meanwhile, there is a pic from 1989 in the article that shows her quite clearly. Since Johansson hasn't changed much at all, I don't see the point in changing the image just due to the image's age. Dismas|(talk) 16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I'm new to this discussion but why is there an edit war over the picture? Shouldn't the most current pic available be used? Lady Lotus (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok fair enough, I don't care that much about it to edit war over it, I was just curious. So instead of changing the infobox pic, could we add the one from the Avengers premiere somewhere to her article page? Or no? I don't see why not. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No matter what image you use, it won't matter, as it still will remain unjustified to the many who have eyes and brains strong enough to withstand the Hollywood hype and propaganda that promote this person as one of the world's sexiest. ××−−×× — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.235.162 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Info box image
Without the input of a pesky IP, does anyone else agree we need to replace the image in the info box? On the grounds that its recent, she's looking at the camera (dunno why this is important), it's not blurry and it's not fake. The current image is from 2010, representing who she was 3 years ago. Input and options are needed. RAP (talk) 18:41 13 April 2013 (URC)
- I agree it needs replaced on the grounds that it's an uncharacteristically ugly image and gives a distorted, non-encyclopedic description of how she generally appears onscreen and in most public appearances. A bad angle can make almost anyone look not like themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Got a replacement image in mind? Nymf talk to me 19:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the Girl with a Pearl Earring image already here does the trick. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the "Girl with a Pearl Earring" image (if we are referring to the one a couple of threads above) seems to be from a weird angle, distorting her chin. Nymf talk to me 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
This infobox pic File:Scarlett Johansson in Kuwait 01b-tweaked.jpg is changed by User:Rusted AutoParts for following 2 reasons.
1) Not preferred version but we can't have pic from 2010 2) You can see her face.
I think both reasons are not valid to change good pic which identify the subject. I oppose the infobox image change. neo (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The 2010 pic is much better. It's ideal to have recent image if possible, of course, but not if it's blurry and unprofessionally shot. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Bone to pick: friends/Chris Evans
Alright, I've waited my week long block to type this. What's the big deal? That other IP you blocked brought up a good point: Jon Favreau lists friends, namely Vince Vaughn, Leonardo Dicaprio does. Kate Winslet too. But my question is that why is it fine to have it on their articles, but here, it's a huge problem. And there's always a million excuses; "trivia, OR, lousy content." All I'm doing is going off what the other articles on this site did and added it as. He'll, it should be considered passable due to the amount of films they did together. At least note that on the article. But, no, whenever I add it, the response I get is the equivalent of being told to go fuck myself. I'm only trying to help out. Just because I'm an IP doesn't give you the right to push me around and treat me like shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk • contribs)
- First, I have no reason to believe that the "other IP" was anyone but you. Second, the reason you were blocked was for edit-warring. Once your addition was removed, you needed to come to the talk page and seek consensus for your addition, not simply keep forcing it in.—Kww(talk) 05:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- What? I was still blocked, and where I'm at, my IP doesn't change. Also, you didn't answer my question. And I wasn't "forcing" it in. I was only following the example numerous other articles did. No, suddenly you get picky. And remove it, but not from the other articles. And what's worse, it's a sourced statement. It not just a sentence with no proof. That's my two cents, you can't do one thing on one article and not for the other, it doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- You added it in over and over in an effort to force it in. That's edit-warring. That's what got you blocked. Your argument is a variation of the one listed at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You should read that.—Kww(talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- That clearly states its an ESSAY, not a guideline. And sorry, don't hold water. If its "crap", then take it out of Dicaprio's article as well. Don't be suddenly its not allowed here, but it is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- And no reply. Obviously it seems there's no legit reason why it can't be there. It's not trivia if its on different articles, same for the lousy content excuse. It's sourced, so it's not OR. It just leads to the conclusion that you just don't want it there, and that's not your choice to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The reason it can't be in the article is because there isn't a consensus for it to be in the article. If you want it to be in the article, start trying to convince other editors that it should be. A big part of editing on Wikipedia is learning to use sound argumentation and reasoning to persuade other editors. As a first lesson in that area, you should be aware that referring to other editors as "fucking idiots", "assholes", or "retarded" is generally not very persuasive.—Kww(talk) 06:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- That clearly states its an ESSAY, not a guideline. And sorry, don't hold water. If its "crap", then take it out of Dicaprio's article as well. Don't be suddenly its not allowed here, but it is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- You added it in over and over in an effort to force it in. That's edit-warring. That's what got you blocked. Your argument is a variation of the one listed at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You should read that.—Kww(talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- What? I was still blocked, and where I'm at, my IP doesn't change. Also, you didn't answer my question. And I wasn't "forcing" it in. I was only following the example numerous other articles did. No, suddenly you get picky. And remove it, but not from the other articles. And what's worse, it's a sourced statement. It not just a sentence with no proof. That's my two cents, you can't do one thing on one article and not for the other, it doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
50 shades of gray
its been confirmed she will be in the movie 50 shades of gray! ADD IT!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.134 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt it. The director was just announced yesterday. But if you have information from reliable sources, you can add that sourced and cited information to Wikipedia articles yourself, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Awards section
I originally made a separate page for her awards page: List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson, mostly because a lot of actors pages now have a separate awards page unless it's like 10 or less. I don't find this a big deal, and rather a welcome change because it takes away all that text from her main article and takes the user to a new page specifially for this. I don't see the big deal of having a separate one, but apparently there are 2 other users that do, for whatever reason. And apparently I need consensus to keep this page open, who is against it and who is for it? Lady Lotus (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support I'm for it as well as putting her -ographies on the list page. She's a young woman and shows no sign of slowing down, so I don't see why these lists shouldn't be moved to a dedicated page. The lists will only continue to grow. Dismas|(talk) 12:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It cuts down loading times of the page (and makes it easier to browse), and as Dismas pointed out, she is showing no signs of slowing down. Nymf (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support - lots of material for an acclaimed young actor. No reason not to do it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support moving the awards and the -ographies to two separate pages. I would also note we need to trim the awards section, since it's long been standard practice under WP:INDISCRIMINATE not to include every minor regional and film-club award, such as the Phoenix, Arizona, film critics or the Chlotrudis Award. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support, I don't see why not. However every item in the list should be verified in that article and not here per WP:CIRCULAR.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for you input guys! Triiiple, I'll work on referencing the awards. Tene, I'll let you trim if you'd like? Lady Lotus (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
:Oppose, first off, never cut off a poll after one day. Secondly, her award/nomination ratio doesn't warrant a separate article considering its a copy and paste job of a table on her bio. Take Daniel Day-Lewis's awards page. This is what warrants separate article. Not a table consisting of repeating award noms from the same year. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- After 6 people tell you their legit reasons, you're still against it because it's not as extensive as Daniel Day-Lewis? You've yet to come up with a legit reason why it should stay other than you just personally not liking her, not thinking her awards matter and thinking it's too few for their own page. I honestly think youre opposing this just to be difficult. Who else tries this hard to go against somethig that is not a big deal and something that most of the users commenting agree with me? Lady Lotus (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, that is a major case of assuming bad faith. I never said I didn't like her, I never said her awards didnt matter and I'm not doing this to be difficult. Do you not like the fact that there are people in the world that disagree with you? And you just cannot assume you've won a consensus from six supports in the first hours of the poll. It's my belief that the list of awards is too small for its own separate article. If others oppose me, I won't furthur my view, I'll accept the consensus. But I won't accept being told I'm being difficult for fun. Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: perhaps those opposed to the inclusion of this section should send the article in question to WP:AFD. It might be a better venue to generate appropriate WP:CONSENSUS if you don't think that that's being achieved here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You stated, and I quote "Not a table consisting of repeating award noms from the same year", which I take as you don't think that because of that, it merits it's own page. Also, "And to be blunt, if she doesn't stop being a stiff board in her movies, she won't be getting anymore noms", which I take as you don't think she's a good actor. People disagree with me all the time on here and I don't mind, it's when they don't have a valid reason that I stand my ground. You have yet to give a legit reason other than just your opinion of the length of awards. If it were like 10 or so, I wouldn't make another article because yea it would look silly, but for it but for her, I think it's enough. I really don't understand why you're fighting this so hard when that is your only argument. It's not taking anything away from her article, and like others have said, she's going to get more. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- I made that stiff board comment as a joke. I don't not like her, but I wasn't at all using it as leverage on my point. And I gave a reason why. If it were in the same style as Daniel Day-Lewis's, then I would be fine with the whole thing. Rusted AutoParts 14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- It takes time to develop an article. Nymf (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Better? Lady Lotus (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- It takes time to develop an article. Nymf (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yay! :) Ok so...can I remove them for her main page now? Lady Lotus (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Infobox image
I do not like the new infobox image. It was added without discussion and it is poor quality: shadowy lighting, squinty expression, mic in front of face. Arguments in favor of it: it is very recent, and it is high-resolution. These are not sufficient to keep it here in the infobox (it can certainly be placed somewhere else in the article.) For consideration I suggest File:Scarlett Johansson 2, 2012.jpg as an alternative. It is only about a year old, and is also high-resolution, and a more flattering likeness of Johansson than the current one. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your alternative is too blurry and outdated. The microphone isn't obstructing her face in a face that makes it invisible. Squinty expression is nitpicking. Where is it in poor quality, it's like a professional headshot. Sometimes I think editors want head photos that simply they prefer over everything else. Rusted AutoParts 12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I personally like the new image, I think it's pretty, you can see her face well and it's a whole lot better than the one from 2008, and it's already been debated about the one from 2012, a lot of people didn't like it, thought she looked weird in it. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh god not again. There is nothing wrong with this photo, you can see her face clearly, it's recent and depicts her current appearance. Rusted AutoParts 12:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I personally like the new image, I think it's pretty, you can see her face well and it's a whole lot better than the one from 2008, and it's already been debated about the one from 2012, a lot of people didn't like it, thought she looked weird in it. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to go with the Elizium23 on this. The current Gage Skidmore infobox image doesn't show her face with a natural poised expression and, like so many of the well-meaning and hardworking Gage's images, has a microphone dominating the foreground. We're not required have to have a 2013 image, just a representative one, and her appearance hasn't changed noticeably in a good five years. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not everyone has to strike a pose for a photo, as long as you can see the face, which we can, regardless of the microphone. And though it's not mandatory, it is more preferred that, if we have one, to use the far more recent photo. And considering it's visible, nothing is obstructing her actual face, I see no reason to replace it other than two people don't like it. Rusted AutoParts 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to go with the Elizium23 on this. The current Gage Skidmore infobox image doesn't show her face with a natural poised expression and, like so many of the well-meaning and hardworking Gage's images, has a microphone dominating the foreground. We're not required have to have a 2013 image, just a representative one, and her appearance hasn't changed noticeably in a good five years. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- All due respect to my good and longtime colleagues Rusty and Lady Lotus, I'm not sure where "it is preferred" comes from, since we don't have old-lady photos of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford in the infobox. And one could conversely say, "I see no reason to keep it other than two people like it." It's honestly not a good portrait by any definition — I don't think any of us would say it captures a clear, whole image of her as well as a head shot or other studio portrait would. So I think this is certainly an issue worth discussing. Nobody here's going in and unilaterally changing it — we're just discussing. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- In no disrespect to the two women you mentioned, they are deceased. When that occurs, the photo is changed to one that represents that person the best throughout their career. The reason this photo is the one I choose is because it serves the purpose of personifying her as she currently is. It may have been 5 years but she has changed a lot physically. I'd understand if it were a blurry, unfocused one of her not smiling while walking downtown Manhattan, but this is a photo taking at a convention, where she is in photo taking appearance, and that what the photo shows. it clearly shows her smiling as well as shows her face. The background is dark because of the screen, but it doesn't affect her appearance whatsoever. The microphone would only be probmatic if it were in her face, covering her chin, mouth, etc., but it's not, it narrowly kept out of the way and her face is fully clear and visible. If we always wait for someone to submit a photo of her in a pre-positioned shot as if she were taking a school picture, then we wouldn't be able to fairly represent the actress by using outdated photos. And it's hard to be seeing one of the objecting editors stance when in a similar circumstance, they had no problems with a squinty expressioned, microphone obstructing infobox image. Rusted AutoParts 14:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then I must disqualify your stance. "It's ugly" is not at all a solid excuse. The mic hides at minimum 2% of her cheek, not at all intrusive. Her facial features are still visible. Rusted AutoParts 16:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rust, I think we might need to take a breath. "It's ugly" is simply a shorthand way of saying that it's not well-representative of the subject because it's an awkward facial expression and/or the subject is partly obscured and/or the composition could be better, etc. By any objective standard, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the best photo of her ever taken. If the primary criterion for using it is that it's the most recent, I can't say I find that a decisive factor over a better image that's a year or two older. You're speaking as if it's a rule that we have to use the latest merely adequate photo that someone posts. We really don't. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- But it is currently the better one we have. I'm looking at it right ow in full mode and there's nothing wrong with it. The minor nitpick of the microphone isn't an argument point as its not obstructing the main part of the photo: the face. Quality is good, so on and so forth. Until someone submits one that's more professional, I vote we keep this modestly professional one, as it is a good photo. Whether or not it's flattering is up to the observer, but the microphone and ugly arguments are invalid. Rusted AutoParts 16:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rust, I think we might need to take a breath. "It's ugly" is simply a shorthand way of saying that it's not well-representative of the subject because it's an awkward facial expression and/or the subject is partly obscured and/or the composition could be better, etc. By any objective standard, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the best photo of her ever taken. If the primary criterion for using it is that it's the most recent, I can't say I find that a decisive factor over a better image that's a year or two older. You're speaking as if it's a rule that we have to use the latest merely adequate photo that someone posts. We really don't. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have to say that whether it's "better" is a matter of opinion. And again, I'm not sure I'd fixate on the term "ugly" when that's simply shorthand for "squinty, unpoised expression with partial shadow on face that may not be the most standard representation of the subject" — all of which suggests there's indeed something wrong with it, if by "wrong" we mean, "Is this the best possible photo?" I'd also say that a microphone covering part of a subject's face certainly isn't an invalid consideration. I'd ask you, as a longtime colleague with whom I've worked fruitfully over the years, to please not frame others' arguments as "invalid" or that you unilaterallly are able to "disqualify" their points because they might disagree with yours. Again, no one's changing anything and it's just editors discussing if we could do better. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not labelling their opposition invalid, just the points they raise. And personally, yes, I do find it works as it serves the job of a headshot, you can see the face and it's not some quick snap photo like this one. We're not looking for perfection, just a good example of the actresses appearance, and those she may be slightly squinting, you can see her eyes, she has a great smile and more importantly you can see her face. Rusted AutoParts 17:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Good Article??
Given all the cruft and self-serving nonsense I removed, I assume the good article status was conferred before fans began adding entire film reviews and other nonsense, including her political opinions/beliefs. She is not an elected politician or legislator, nor is this a fansite or Variety or Facebook. Quis separabit? 00:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Esquire title
I find it in-noteworthy to highlight this, as it's an obscure magazine to the likes of Playboy and People, where the titles are much more recognized. And aside from that, this article is already rampant with overt praise for little details. Thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- RAP, as for the WP:OWN comment, in my view you seem to make many changes based mostly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any objective reasons. But let's go to the objective points...
- For those joining us and wondering what we're on about, see this diff.
- It's a small change of only 31 characters
- It's backed up by the source [2]
- It makes her appearance on the lists more noteworthy to say that she was the first woman to be on the lists twice than to just say that she was there twice.
- It answers a possible question of a reader of "Has anyone else achieved this before?"
- Less objective here but I would not call Esquire magazine "obscure". It's been around for 80 years and has a readership nearly that of GQ. It can be found in many large bookstores and even small convenience stores.
- Perhaps the article is full of praise because she's done many things that are praise worthy? If she had been arrested for DUI or gone into rehab, that would be mentioned as well but she hasn't. So, she's a good person. Why fault her article for that?
- Anyway, that's what I have. Are your only arguments that Esquire is "obscure" and that she's too good of a person? Dismas|(talk) 02:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly you haven't seen the discussion above regarding the infobox where I combated edits purely based on IDONTLIKEIT. And no need to get nasty. The problem is, if we start lamenting things like this, the assumption will be made that it would apply for everything. "Johansson is the only SNL host who appeared 7 times", "This makes Johansson the youngest to such and such". Rusted AutoParts 02:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I routinely remove references to "Hottest Women" awards, regardless of the source. It isn't really a career accomplishment for the winner, nor are they judged by any kind of objective, reproducible criteria. That said, an award from Esquire is as notable as any of them, and probably more, so I'm a bit perplexed by RAP's reasoning. In terms of notable magazines, Esquire is at the top of the heap. The idea of classifying People as more notable than Esquire makes my head spin.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dismas: Esquire is likely more erudite and witty than People (I don't know as I don't read either), but that doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. Throwing around accusations of IDONTLIKEIT without foundation is, IMHO (in my humble opinion), somewhat in bad faith. Quis separabit? 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Being ranked or awarded with this type of accolade is not includes so much because it is an "accomplishment", as because it goes to the subject's status as a sex symbol. Mentioning such things helps establish this. As for the other points, Esquire is certainly not "obscure", and mentioning that she was the first person so named is perfectly reasonable, as long as it is not given undue weight or emphasis. Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Relationships and photo combination
I don't really know how to use wikipedia or I'd do it myself, but does anyone think that maybe the photo of Johansson with Michael Caine should be moved? Because in its current location, it looks as though it's implying she was in a relationship with Caine at one point. It seems to be in the relationship section. Again, I don't know how to use wikipedia so I don't know if that's how the code actually laid it out, but from a layperson's POV that's what I'm seeing. 131.247.152.4 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- A couple of fellow editors and I looked into this, since we discovered that two guidelines are, if not quite contradictory, then open to interpretation. But it seems that decorative use of free-use images is allowed. This is from admin User:Magog the Ogre, who's very well-versed in image use: "In terms of copyright, you may indeed use free use images in a purely decorative manner. You're probably getting confused with Wikipedia:NFCC#8, which says that fair use images must serve an educational purpose beyond decoration (paraphrasing)."
- That said, I'm not sure what it adds to the article to have two highly similar images of Johansson from the same year. While decorative use is allowed, another policy says articles should have an appropriate number of images. To use an extreme example, we wouldn't have an image at every single paragraph. So how many are too many? How many does it take to clutter up an article without adding pertinent additional information? These, obviously, are questions that editors here on talk pages have to decide on a case-by-case basis. So what are everyone's thoughts on the two, in my opinion, redundant images that were removed? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sex symbol
Even as a man, I find the sex symbol section a little bit offensive. While Scarlett Johansson undoubtedly is a very attractive woman (especially to those who like the Scandinavian type), she has done less for exploiting her good looks in comparison with other actrices like e.g. Lindsay Lohan whose tatas pop out every time a paparazzi clicks a camera. While Lohan posed in photos emulating the photos of classical sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, there is no such section in her Wikipedia article and since when has this become a topic of encyclopedic significance? -- 84.159.81.96 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Critical acclaim
I used this phrase to refer the reception of Her in general, which was critically acclaimed (93% on Rotten Tomatoes, 92 on Metacritic). "Critical acclaim" is a phrase commonly used on Wikipedia, including featured articles such as Little Miss Sunshine Aquila89 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The film received critical acclaim. Te sentence is fine as is. It gets the point across. Rusted AutoParts 17:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- General reception for her other films is included in the article. Why leave this one out? Aquila89 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not left out. It's written as "well-received". It's the same thing. The use of "critical acclaim" is a bit over excessive. As well as unsourced. There are still critics who aren't critically acclaiming Johansson. Well received is better. Rusted AutoParts 17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The film was critically acclaimed. Johansson's performance was well-received. Those are two separate things. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. I'm saying both should be included. Aquila89 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rusted AutoParts, you should probably consider not edit warring yourself. Aquila89's edit is fine and well-sourced. Nymf (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The use of the word critical acclaim is overused on here, and is repetitive enough. Why is this a problem? Well received still implies she got good reviews. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to include that the film got good reviews in general, and not just Johansson's acting in particular. Aquila89 (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- The film was critically acclaimed. Johansson's performance was well-received. Those are two separate things. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. I'm saying both should be included. Aquila89 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not left out. It's written as "well-received". It's the same thing. The use of "critical acclaim" is a bit over excessive. As well as unsourced. There are still critics who aren't critically acclaiming Johansson. Well received is better. Rusted AutoParts 17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- General reception for her other films is included in the article. Why leave this one out? Aquila89 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- "The film was critically acclaimed, with Johansson's performance being well received." Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Lucy has finished shooting!
Please change the Filming to post production, her role in Lucy is Lucy & in Chef is Molly.Jusgtr (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Censorship and biased language
Apparently new and anonymous users are "pre-emptively" banned from this page, so I am unable to edit this page. Can some other editor please amend the wording "Palestinian Territories" to the neutral term "West Bank"? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.110.93 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not censorship but protection against persistent vandalism. Anyways, I have made the change. --NeilN talk to me 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Pregnant
Ok, tabloids like TMZ, People and E! may be reporting this, but since the news sources back to an unreliable "source near her", we can't take it seriously as its not directly from Johansson's mouth. Until Johansson, her agent, her publicist or even her doctor confirms it, don't add it. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, all that is needed is a reliable source, not an "official" confirmation. Remembering that WP:BLP applies here of course, it better be something like CNN, Time, Variety or a similarly reputable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, to be clear, we need solid proof that's not tabloid. All the sources you mention tie back to E!'s report. Which is just that, a report. And I don't know where you got the idea "we don't need proof", we do. This is an enclyopedia, not some gossip magazine. Rusted AutoParts 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll go by what the policies and guidelines say over what you personally want, thank you very much. I see you're still having trouble quoting people too, you might want to work on that. You're editing an encyclopaedia after all. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I can see you're making personal jabs now and that this is deteriorating slowly into a last word battle, so I'll end with: don't add gossip unless its confirmed. Not some grocery store magazine bullshit. Let me break down the three you've put up: CNN hasn't covered the report. Time associates their coverage to People, who even stated a rep (FYI, is the one who would confirm this, or Johansson) declined comment, then associating their coverage to E!, who only reported "multiple "sources" confirmed". this isnt reliable as these multiple "sources" could be providing false positives. this isnt the first time a report has been deemed false. every news outlet reported on Bryan Cranston being cast as Lex Luthor, which then turned out he wasnt even approached for the role. Theres no deadline. we can wait for proper confirmation. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll go by what the policies and guidelines say over what you personally want, thank you very much. I see you're still having trouble quoting people too, you might want to work on that. You're editing an encyclopaedia after all. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, to be clear, we need solid proof that's not tabloid. All the sources you mention tie back to E!'s report. Which is just that, a report. And I don't know where you got the idea "we don't need proof", we do. This is an enclyopedia, not some gossip magazine. Rusted AutoParts 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rusted AutoParts is absolutely correct. Anonymous "sources" with no attribution can say anything they want to tabloids. This is an encyclopedia. We're not supposed to add anything unless there is credible confirmation in reliable journalistic/academic media. There's another word for unnamed, unattributed anonymous claims: Rumors. Wikipedia does not traffic in rumormongering. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. And since we operate under no deadline, the only responsible thing to do is wait for official confirmation or for her to be reported appearing in public visibly and certifiably pregnant.
- I can't tell you how many times these same tabs claimed Kim Kardashian, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Aniston and others were "pregnant" when they were not. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Time hardly qualifies as a "tabloid"... at least you're not pushing your own personal requirements like RAP is (and I'd strongly encourage you to re-think the "[RAP] is absolutely correct"; we have policies and guidelines here precisely to avoid having protracted discussions over sources like this). As for "unnamed, unattributed", we have a name ("Denver Nicks"), and we have attribution ("Time"). Set the clock back to September 11th, 2001. If a story breaks saying the World Trade Center was slammed by two passenger jets and collapsed, and the story was from a source that is, in all other ways, considered reliable, would you REALLY be sitting on the talk page pining away over the article author not listing his own "sources" so you can personally verify them? Mind you, that has far more gravitas than an actress being pregnant, but that's the point I'm trying to make. At worst, if we have reason to be suspicious of the claim made we use our own voice in the article to express that (rather than stating it as fact, you preface it with something like "Time Magazine claimed ..." which allows the reader to make their own decision). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't proposing any sources. I was listing general sources I felt would be reputable enough to use if they published a story saying she was pregnant. Thank you for pointing out that Time is saying she is pregnant. Reading it over, that looks to easily meet the burden of being reliable for inclusion here. As I've said elsewhere, it doesn't matter whether or not our source identifies who gave them their information (that's WP:OR to try to recreate the research our source performed before publishing their story). On Wikipedia we're looking for verifiability, not truth, and as this is a wiki we can change our articles to reflect what's verifiable (which may (and usually does) change from day to day, week to week, month to month, etc). WP:DEADLINE has more to do with not putting unsourced statements in our articles, but in this situation we have a source.
- Winding my way back to what you originally said: "Until Johansson, her agent, her publicist or even her doctor confirms it, don't add it." There is no policy, guideline or principle on Wikipedia to support your personal requirements. We have WP:V, WP:NOR, and to a lesser extent WP:RS for these situations (the first two are policies, the latter a content guideline IIRC). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its a rumour. We're not adding it. It's rather embarrassing you're comparing this to 9/11. That was a devastating and heavily covered story. This is a rumour bout a possibly pregnant actress that we have no confirmation is truly,pregnant. User:Tenebrae said it best, there's been too many time these sources reported the same thing and turned out to be wrong. Locke, this issue has three editors preventing this rumour from being added: myself, Tenebrae and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have made it clear: rumours don't get posted without stronger sources. Not sources as in the website reporting it, but the sources making these claims to the website. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- The only sources that generally matter are the secondary sources. Please stop trying to use primary sources (Scarlett Johansson, her publicist, or her doctor; those are ALL primary sources which we actually try to AVOID using on Wikipedia). Please stop trying to change site-wide policy and guideline on JUST the pages YOU edit. This is not RAP-opedia, it's Wikipedia. The community has policies and guidelines in place already. If you don't like them, there's always other sites on the internet (or you could try convincing the folks at WP:V's and WP:NOR's talk pages that they've had it wrong all these years). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its a rumour. We're not adding it. It's rather embarrassing you're comparing this to 9/11. That was a devastating and heavily covered story. This is a rumour bout a possibly pregnant actress that we have no confirmation is truly,pregnant. User:Tenebrae said it best, there's been too many time these sources reported the same thing and turned out to be wrong. Locke, this issue has three editors preventing this rumour from being added: myself, Tenebrae and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have made it clear: rumours don't get posted without stronger sources. Not sources as in the website reporting it, but the sources making these claims to the website. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I can't tell you how many times these same tabs claimed Kim Kardashian, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Aniston and others were "pregnant" when they were not. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Im done here as you're clearly fixed on just antagonizing me. I'm discouraging rumours being posted, not legitimate editing, so I'll assume bad faith on your part. And your edit warring won't change the fact this info won't be added until more concrete proof is added. This isn't someone being cast in a movie, its someone who may or may not be pregnant. We can't add it if its not true. Rusted AutoParts 14:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- We can't add it if its not true. — WP:NOTTRUTH. As regards "discouraging rumours"; you're independently raising the 'standards' of sources in defiance of policy and guideline by requiring "certification" (whatever that even means, only you know, so what good does it do anybody) before the addition of (what you call) "rumours". Frankly, once I see CNN getting on board with the news (Time is really close to getting me there) it's stopped being a "rumour" (especially if they continue to state it as a matter of fact). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't care. This information doesnt meet WP:BLP. Three editors say wait. We wait. Rusted AutoParts 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- We can't add it if its not true. — WP:NOTTRUTH. As regards "discouraging rumours"; you're independently raising the 'standards' of sources in defiance of policy and guideline by requiring "certification" (whatever that even means, only you know, so what good does it do anybody) before the addition of (what you call) "rumours". Frankly, once I see CNN getting on board with the news (Time is really close to getting me there) it's stopped being a "rumour" (especially if they continue to state it as a matter of fact). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that few editors here are professional journalists or academics. But I still have to presume those on English-language Wikipedia by and large are conversant in English. Time magazine is not saying ScarJo is pregnant. Read what it says: It's saying that People magazine is claiming this. It's not Time magzine's own reporting. Read for yourself: Here's the link: [3]. There's a big difference between Time magazine's own reporting and this frankly disappointing re-reporting of this completely unattributed claim in People that says only "People confirms" without giving any source! [4]
- And if you want further proof of the need not to believe every unattributed rumor that comes down the pike, how about the fact she was reported as pregnant in 2011 and it turned out to be false. In fact, Us Weekly had to write a story saying the claims were wrong, wrong, wrong: [5]. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- And here's an instructive article from People itself: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comically, Time says "People confirmed X" it, not that "People claimed X". Nonetheless, as I've said I'm willing to wait for additional sources. The only point I've ever argued is what those additional sources be (RAP is under the mistaken delusion that any source MUST be from the mouth of "ScarJo", her publicist, or her doctor; e.g. a primary source, exactly the kind we avoid here). I contend any reliable source would suffice (CNN actually wouldn't work, IIRC CNN and Time are owned by the same company; but another independent source such as Variety, the LA Times, etc. would cement this for me). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- A magazine quoting a doctor is not a primary source.
- Time and People are owned by the same publishing company, and CNN by the same overall parent company. And no matter how it's phrased, Time is attributing the claim to People, and People is not attributing the claim at all. And since this didn't seem to have impact, I'll say again: Magazines falsely reported she was pregnant in 2011. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: All I've got to state on this matter is that I've argued similarly, at the Amber Heard article, about not putting in a personal life claim unless it's confirmed by the person (or people) that the personal life information concerns. I don't feel that way about all personal life information, but I generally do about information concerning romantic involvement and/or dating. See this discussion and the current state of the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp articles for how the specific case I'm referring to turned out (WP:Permalinks here and here). So being correct on this type of matter, such as whether or not to report Johansson as pregnant, can be iffy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Tenebrae and RAP have pretty much covered what I would say. I'll just add that this is hardly a matter on which an encyclopedia requires immediacy, and that I'd be happy with applying to pregnancy exactly the same standard as we have for sexual preference, religion, etc -- that it must be acknowledged, expressly, by or on behalf of the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The topic was mentioned at the Captain America press junket. She still didn't confirm the pregnancy, even though she said the filming would not be delayed or fast tracked. And I honestly don't think they'd make a pregnant woman do stunt training, which she says she's doing in the quote. Rusted AutoParts 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, it seems User:Locke Cole is content with defying everyone by edit warring. He's now contact another editor he tag teams with to force his view on here. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to highlight facts that are confirmed, not reported by a magazine. Johansson, once again, has not confirmed she's pregnant, and its even been rumoured that this was all an elaborate hoax. Since we don't publish that, it's not going to be put on the article. But the same thing stands: a magazine isn't the all mighty confirmation, the person, the one who is suggested to be having the baby, is. And until then, its not going on. Locke, you are one step away from being reported to ANI for your stubbornness. Rusted AutoParts 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the introduction, but I don't think it's necessary to make crowd-rallying speeches that paint certain editors as the villain. And the criticism about contacting other editors seems a little hypocritical. Maybe tone it down a little, and we'll discuss this. There's no rush after all.
- So, requiring statements from the subject on religion and sexual preference is necessary, because they involve preferring or believing things. Unlike these things, pregnancy is physical. We don't need statements such as these for pregnancy, because it's not up to the subject to believe or prefer if she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, then she is physically pregnant. By placing the standard of confirmation from the subject on pregnancy, you could even end up in a ridiculous situation, where Johansson refuses to comment completely on her pregnancy, but ends up having a baby after very clearly showing she was pregnant. We would not be able to say that she was ever pregnant, despite the reliable sources, and colleagues of her's confirming the pregnancy.
- Also, keep in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:NOTTRUTH). Now, arguably we have that with the reliable source from Time. However, when dealing with articles about living people, it's good to take extra caution with the sources being used. And WP:BLPGOSSIP states that you should ask yourself whether the source is reliable and whether the material is being presented as true. Under these conditions the Time article still looks good.
- So, the argument for not including a statement about pregnancy, should be that the source in question is not reliable. And I see no reason to suggest that of the Time article. What's more, unlike her previous rumoured pregnancy, Johansson (or a representative of) has not denied the reports, and there are sources where colleagues have confirmed the reports.[6]
- And to clarify: It's encouraged to question the reliability of sources. But when sources (that would otherwise be considered reliable) are being discounted because they cite sources that don't hold the same level of reliability, that is a misuse of sources and is unacceptable. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Competence is required when editing here, and I'm getting the impression some people are just unable to understand our rules and guidelines when it comes to sources for BLP related issues. We have Kevin Feige, the producer of the now-filming Avengers sequel stating that he was happy about Scarlett Johansson's pregnancy. That more than meets the burden for BLP, and there's no reasonable person that would still be categorizing it as "rumor".
- As I've said before, this is Wikipedia, and the policies and guidelines here are what editors follow. Not "exceptions" set up on just the article talk page by the article regulars. If we allowed that, what's the point in having global policies and guidelines that are supported by the entire community? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, competency is needed. Kevin Fiege isn't Scarlett Johansson. He spoke in the sense he was planning as if it could be true. You're not listening when we say: you need official confirmation to add this BLP info. In this case we do need an official statement. Yes, there's no denial, there's also no confirmation. It cancels itself out. So in the way of avoiding rumours, or people concocting elaborate hoaxes, we don't post it. Credibility is more desired than jumping to post the first report. And that's exactly what this is, a report. Numerous outlets are using words like allegedly" or "rumoured", so its still in doubt. As an encyclopedia, we wait until its legit. Rusted AutoParts 04:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you look for it in Google, you'll see that most of them (especially the more-reliable ones) prefix the story with "reportedly". Where BLP is concerned, caution is required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Did you watch the video at the Collider source? The one where Kevin Feige, the producer on the now-filming sequel to Avengers, said he was happy when he learned she was pregnant? The bit about having to "move chess pieces on a board" with regard to how it impacted production of the film? My proposed wording even tries to describe the situation as it exists now (note my use of the word "reported" which mirrors the reliable sources we have available to us). It stopped being rumor and gossip when someone as high up as Feige effectively confirmed it by saying nothing was changed in production by "it". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its not confirmation. Good god. Feige isn't the one who can confirm this. He "learned", she didn't "tell" him, which means she might notve told him. As a head of a major production, he must be ready for anything, and this is just bracing. "Reportedly" doesn't fly here, which is why it's not of the article. We provide fact, not unconfirmed rumours. No deadline, so we can wait until something more solid comes. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- One of the funnier things I ran across was a photo alleging to show her "baby bump"... and there isn't one. Better sourcing is needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its not confirmation. Good god. Feige isn't the one who can confirm this. He "learned", she didn't "tell" him, which means she might notve told him. As a head of a major production, he must be ready for anything, and this is just bracing. "Reportedly" doesn't fly here, which is why it's not of the article. We provide fact, not unconfirmed rumours. No deadline, so we can wait until something more solid comes. Rusted AutoParts 05:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Did you watch the video at the Collider source? The one where Kevin Feige, the producer on the now-filming sequel to Avengers, said he was happy when he learned she was pregnant? The bit about having to "move chess pieces on a board" with regard to how it impacted production of the film? My proposed wording even tries to describe the situation as it exists now (note my use of the word "reported" which mirrors the reliable sources we have available to us). It stopped being rumor and gossip when someone as high up as Feige effectively confirmed it by saying nothing was changed in production by "it". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you look for it in Google, you'll see that most of them (especially the more-reliable ones) prefix the story with "reportedly". Where BLP is concerned, caution is required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, competency is needed. Kevin Fiege isn't Scarlett Johansson. He spoke in the sense he was planning as if it could be true. You're not listening when we say: you need official confirmation to add this BLP info. In this case we do need an official statement. Yes, there's no denial, there's also no confirmation. It cancels itself out. So in the way of avoiding rumours, or people concocting elaborate hoaxes, we don't post it. Credibility is more desired than jumping to post the first report. And that's exactly what this is, a report. Numerous outlets are using words like allegedly" or "rumoured", so its still in doubt. As an encyclopedia, we wait until its legit. Rusted AutoParts 04:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this would be a news story only. --Light show (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- First off, as for being like a newspaper and "jumping to post the first report", we're clearly not doing that as this has been going on for a month now.
- Now, Rusted AutoParts, did you read anything that I wrote? It's very hard to have a civilised discussion, when you're not responding to any of my points (which are mostly to do with wikipedia's guidelines), and when you're simply providing blanket statements such as "you need official confirmation to add this", without any evidence or reasoning to back it up. Please try again. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, why am I getting singled out? You and Locke's platform in discussion pretty much seems to just be "Rusted AutoParts is wrong and that's all that matters", not at all caring about whether or not you're actually right. It's evident Locke is still burned up by the Age of Ultron spat, lets keep focused and stop targeting me. Rusted AutoParts 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I apologise if you feel bullied by this situation, but if you feel as though you're being singled out, it's because I'm trying to discuss this with you (and anyone else who is willing, actually). But I singled you out for a number of reasons:
- You were heavily involved in the Age of Ultron discussion, and seem to be spearheading the defense on this one.
- You were the only person (aside from Locke Cole) that had made comments before mine, to respond after my first comment.
- And of the other three comments, one was recommending caution, another was an off-hand comment about a photo, and the third was to do with the newspaper idea, which I adressed. There wasn't a lot else I could single out.
- You referenced something that I said when you said "yes, there's no denial, there's also no confirmation", but didn't respond to anything else I said. Which makes it look like you're not listening to my argument, and I'm not being heard.
- I'm not as concerned about being right or wrong as you might think. If you can provide a sound, well-reasoned argument (that's not just saying that we need confirmation - tell me why it's necessary, tell me where wikipedia says it's required, etc.) against the inclusion of a comment on Johansson's pregnancy, then this would be much easier, and I'd be quite happy to agree with you. But this hasn't happened yet. I suggest you go back to my original comment (in which I tried to make as well-reasoned an argument as I could) and respond to my thoughts there. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I apologise if you feel bullied by this situation, but if you feel as though you're being singled out, it's because I'm trying to discuss this with you (and anyone else who is willing, actually). But I singled you out for a number of reasons:
- Ok, why am I getting singled out? You and Locke's platform in discussion pretty much seems to just be "Rusted AutoParts is wrong and that's all that matters", not at all caring about whether or not you're actually right. It's evident Locke is still burned up by the Age of Ultron spat, lets keep focused and stop targeting me. Rusted AutoParts 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Baseball Bugs, all the sources say "reportedly" and all the photos of her with a "baby bump", what baby bump, she doesnt even look pregnant. What is the harm on waiting until she does have a noticeable bump because at that point you wont need an official statement from anyone. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's another source People. (Incidentally, if you're going to be doing original research based on photos, many (most?) women will show in the face before there is noticeable change in the abdomen.) NE Ent 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewing the comments above, it seems to me that while there's no doubt she's pregnant consensus is not to include the information until she or a rep explicitly confirms it; given it doesn't affect her notability I don't see any problem leaving the information out. NE Ent 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- *sigh* This is seriously stupid. A consensus of editors who don't understand site policy and are making up their own rules as they go along are holding up the inclusion of what is (honestly) a benign factoid because they're not convinced it's true. That's my take-away. And that's why I went to AN/I with RAP, because competence is required, and he isn't displaying any with his line of reasoning. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. No source is offering encyclopedic confirmation — it's all based on anonymous claims, i.e. RUMORS. Are we forgetting this is not the first time anonymous sources claimed she was pregnant? Here, read this from People itself: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". Until there's confirmation, an encyclopedia — which has higher standards than daily / weekly journalism — does not claim something as definitive, inarguable fact. There is no deadline. Our job is to be right, not first. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTTRUTH. Nobodies saying we're trying to be first, that goes against our role as an encyclopedia (and would seem to say we're doing original research). I've read that linked article once before, and it's interesting... except this time we have dozens of sources, many of them VERY reliable, and not of the "daily, weekly" variety you're implying is all that's published it so far. Then you have that Kevin Feige interview where he's asked how her pregnancy impacted production. BTW: What the hell is "encyclopedic confirmation", and where did you find that in WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS (or choose another policy or guideline, I know I've never seen that term). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's an inarguable fact that E! and People have confirmed she's pregnant. Just like everything else, we provide value to readers not because we "encyclopedically confirm" anything, but because we cite our sources of information to allow the reader to evaluate the veracity of the statements presented. In fact, the two examples rumor, confirmed show the apples and oranges difference; the former was online chatter, which Johansson's rep explicitly denied, while the latter is a journalistic assertion that the rep is not denying. NE Ent 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. No source is offering encyclopedic confirmation — it's all based on anonymous claims, i.e. RUMORS. Are we forgetting this is not the first time anonymous sources claimed she was pregnant? Here, read this from People itself: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". Until there's confirmation, an encyclopedia — which has higher standards than daily / weekly journalism — does not claim something as definitive, inarguable fact. There is no deadline. Our job is to be right, not first. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE. We don't post someone's death unless its confirmed. We don't post someone's pregnancy unless its confirmed. Kevin Feige, People, E!, they aren't the ones who get to confirm this. They can be used as sources once its confirmed, but since Johansson or her rep haven't spoken about it, it's still hearsay. We don't post hearsay as this isn't a tabloid outlet. Wikipedia is a series of documents on things that've occurred throughout time. We don't post every UFO sighting, every celebrity date night. We post factual content. Rusted AutoParts 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nice straw man. Where in all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do you see where it says pregnancies must be "confirmed"? Where is this protocol laid out? What policy or guideline says this?
Or are you going to admit you're making it up as you go because you can't cite a policy or guideline that says anything remotely close to what you're demanding?—Locke Cole • t • c 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)- Once again with the attacks. You aren't even talking about the issue anymore, you merely want to get at me. It's editors like you that just take the point out of Wikipedia. Post anything said by tabloids cause they confirmed it. And considering the sights reliability is now in question in terms of medicine, it just makes it more necessary to have rock solid proof, not articles that persistently used "she's reportedly" or "it's rumoured". BTW, [8]. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- RAP opened the door to personalizing the discussion with And I don't know where you got the idea "we don't need proof", we do. This is an encyclopedia, not some gossip magazine. (third post in this thread), so they have little ground for complaint. Ya'll (RAP, LC) would both do better to comment on content, not contributors WP:TPG. NE Ent 19:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- More straw man responses. I'm not suggesting we use a tabloid, I've never suggested that. The "sights" reliability (I think you meant credibility here) is not in question if the statement saying she's "reportedly pregnant" is a verifiable source ("verifiable" means you can click a reference link and see a story by a reliable source saying what our article says). As far as verifiability not guaranteeing inclusion (your "BTW" link), that's with regards to notability. An actress like this whose performances are tied implicitly to her appearance makes (in my view) a pregnancy very relevant.
- I ask again: Where in a Wikipedia policy or guideline does it say a source must be "confirmed"? Where is this protocol laid out? On what policy/guideline do you make this demand? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not a demand. Here's the sentence:
- "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."
- Not a demand. Here's the sentence:
- Once again with the attacks. You aren't even talking about the issue anymore, you merely want to get at me. It's editors like you that just take the point out of Wikipedia. Post anything said by tabloids cause they confirmed it. And considering the sights reliability is now in question in terms of medicine, it just makes it more necessary to have rock solid proof, not articles that persistently used "she's reportedly" or "it's rumoured". BTW, [8]. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- How does that only apply to notability? It applies to everything, including valid sources. Just because People is reporting the pregnancy, it doesn't mean it gets included. It's a report. There's no bump, there's no proof, the best thing to do is to leave it off. Rusted AutoParts 19:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Locke, what's your rush? You act like we have to immediately add this information to her page when you have many editors saying just wait. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- No rush, but what are we waiting for? Is she going to be getting more pregnant? The "many editors saying just wait" are all doing so on grounds not covered by policy or guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't get included (as of now) because the consensus here it is doesn't, not because Wikipedia "requires proof." That could change. (I don't think it will, since any who cares already knows she's pregnant, and most folks -- including me -- don't care one way or the other.) But the way to make that happen is to respectfully engage and reason with other editors, not assert policy that doesn't exist (as LC has pointed out multiple times.) NE Ent 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Locke, what's your rush? You act like we have to immediately add this information to her page when you have many editors saying just wait. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted [...]" – so you're saying that a statement indicating Scarlett Johansson is pregnant in the article does not improve it? Does this mean even once a "certified" and "confirmed" source that meets your stringent personal requirements (not backed by policy or guideline on Wikipedia) is found, we shouldn't include it? I mean, after all, if it doesn't improve the article now, why would it improve the article later? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh my gosh. This discussion is ridiculous. There's not a lot of listening, and responding to arguments that have been made, which is necessary for a discussion to move anywhere. In my first comment on this page, I summarised why the information should be placed in the article. If anyone thinks the information should not be placed in the article, please respond to that. By ignoring my argument, you are not only being rude, but also very unhelpful in terms of moving this discussion anywhere.
Now, although I'd still like that response, I'll respond to a few things that have been said in my absence:
- The WP:DEADLINE and "no rush" claim has been made again. Yes, it's true, there's no rush; there's no deadline; we don't have to be first. Noone is disputing that. That's why this discussion has been happening for a month.
- The "our job is to be right" claim has been made. According to WP:NOTTRUTH, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". And we have a number of verifiable sources stating in a matter-of-fact way that she is pregnant.
- A distinction between the rumour from 2011, and the reports in 2014 has been made. This is true, as the former is clearly being discussed as a rumour: [9]. And the latter is stated in a matter-of-fact way from a number of reliable sources.
- A claim that we don't post someone's pregnancy unless it is confirmed by the subject in question, being related to not posting about someone's death has been made. Let me ask you this: if the person is dead, how are they supposed to confirm that they are dead?
- The "this isn't a tabloid" comment has been made a number of times. We heard it. We're not trying to be a tabloid. We're being encyclopedic, by encouraging the use of notable and verifiable information.
- WP:COMMONSENSE has been mentioned. Finally, a wikipedia guideline that helps your argument - although it does seem like you were using it to tell us to use common sense, which is generally considered to be uncivil. Nevertheless, if common sense is your argument, that means you acknowledge that not including the information regarding pregnancy is against the rules. Which explains why you've been having trouble citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in support of your argument (because they don't support it). That's fine though, but let's look at this carefully. So, we've acknowledged that what you want to do is breaking the rules. Is that because the rules are wrong? And if the rules aren't wrong (which I suspect is the case), are you sure that not including this information is with common sense, and improves the encyclopedia? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- The "not truth" argument is misleading. It implies that truth is not important. It IS important, especially where BLP's are concerned. It's just not sufficient. A fact has to be verified from reliable sources. Guess what the word "verify" means: "to make true". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confident that excluding an anonymously sourced pregnancy report that's unconfirmed by or on behalf of the article subject/putative prospective parent is more compatible with our policies and guidelines than including it would be.
- "We must get the article right" is express language from WP:BLP. WP:NOTTRUTH says that "You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true". In any event, WP:BLP imposes more restrictive standards than WP:V.
- The "death" analogy is an obvious strawman. Nobody makes the argument you're rejecting (although there are one or two imprecisely phrased comments that could be flayed into that interpretation). The formulation I prefer is "by or on behalf of" the article subject, though even that is imperfect. The fact that we don't have a perfect phrase encapsulization of BLP isn't an excuse for evading its principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLP does call for more caution with sources. But that caution is still to stem from verifiability, as that is the threshold for inclusion. And the sources for Johansson’s pregnancy meet very cautious verifiability standards.
- No, the “death” analogy was in response to RAP’s comment, “We don't post someone's death unless its confirmed. We don't post someone's pregnancy unless its confirmed. Kevin Feige, People, E!, they aren't the ones who get to confirm this.” RAP implied that someone’s death should be confirmed in the same way that someone’s pregnancy should be, and implied that that confirmation should be from the subject. Nowhere in wikipedia’s policies and guidelines does it state that this information needs to be confirmed “by the subject”, or “by or on behalf of the subject”. And there’s nowhere in BLP that suggests that these formulations are in line with its principles. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- The references are not anonymous. This one [10] is written by Alyssa Toomey, and this one [11] is written by Michele Corriston. NE Ent 23:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think Hullaballoo meant the sources saying this to E and People. Rusted AutoParts 23:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. The reports may be bylined, but the sources for the reports were anonymous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- The used of unnamed sources is a common if controversial topic; certainly there's no Wikipedia policy to exclude reliable sources based on that -- there was a Watergate article long before Mark Felt was identified as Deep Throat. What standards a news organization requires before printing something is their decision, not ours. NE Ent 01:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- The way Wikipedia regards [{WP:RS]], it's based on the particular thing being reported: Even e a normally reliable source, such as People, may not meet Wikipedia's standard in certain cases. Unnamed sources, barring extraordinary circumstances, is one such red flag. Many, many times, celebrities have been called pregnant (or divorced, etc.) by anonymous, unnamed sources that have been flat-out wrong. That's because in the vast majority of cases, a "report" based on anonymous unnamed sources is generally called by another name: rumor.
- The used of unnamed sources is a common if controversial topic; certainly there's no Wikipedia policy to exclude reliable sources based on that -- there was a Watergate article long before Mark Felt was identified as Deep Throat. What standards a news organization requires before printing something is their decision, not ours. NE Ent 01:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. The reports may be bylined, but the sources for the reports were anonymous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- And once again, an encyclopedia has a higher standard than journalism. Journalism, as is often said, is "the first draft of history." An encyclopedia — not just Wikipedia but any encyclopedia — by definition is supposed to be the final, trusted, most reliable word on a subject. And several longtime, highly experienced editors all feel this way, as one notes below. There is no need to rush anything into an encyclopedia. Is her pregnancy true? My instinct says yes. But my instincts don't matter and in any case, we're not after truth: We're after verifiability. And anonymous sourcing doesn't verify anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a diff / link of People and E! confirming a pregnancy under their own imprint that turned out not to be true. NE Ent 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Better, perhaps you could provide us with verification that such publications' use of anonymous sources in similar situations (without on-the-record confirmation for an extended period of time) has later been corroborated at a high rate of accuracy. It's up to you to demonstrate that BLP's direction to "be wary" of reports "that attribute material to anonymous sources" shouldn't control. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a diff / link of People and E! confirming a pregnancy under their own imprint that turned out not to be true. NE Ent 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- And once again, an encyclopedia has a higher standard than journalism. Journalism, as is often said, is "the first draft of history." An encyclopedia — not just Wikipedia but any encyclopedia — by definition is supposed to be the final, trusted, most reliable word on a subject. And several longtime, highly experienced editors all feel this way, as one notes below. There is no need to rush anything into an encyclopedia. Is her pregnancy true? My instinct says yes. But my instincts don't matter and in any case, we're not after truth: We're after verifiability. And anonymous sourcing doesn't verify anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a very tricky subject to deal with. As stated, all celebrities endure pregnancy rumours. Today, Mila Kunis joined the group [12]. And as before, People is stating its a report. Rusted AutoParts 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
Wow, with all due respect to Ms. Johansson, there's an awful lot of acrimony here, relative to the importance of the content being debated. That being said, I do think one side has the better of this in terms of policy. Pillar policy WP:V prevails in this context, and we have long-standing, unambiguous, and overwhelmingly applied community consensus on these situations as expressed in WP:NOTTRUTH. It is true that WP:BLP strongly urges discretion when it comes to such matters, but there is nothing anywhere in its text which prohibits controversial claims, so long as there is appropriate sourcing -- and in this case, a valid secondary sources from media that are broadly trusted on Wikipedia are available. With respect to those who want to scrutinize the internal verification process of those magazines on a case-specific basis, that is outside our purview and not consistent with how sourcing typically works on Wikipedia. But honestly guys, this is not exactly a difficult situation to parse and come to a compromise on which serves the reader best. Since multiple secondary sources do report this story --and, regardless of the reservations certain editors have about their journalistic procedure, they are trusted top-tier sources in their news industry-- and we go with the sources, not our own perspectives and doubts, the solution seems self-evident: we note that these sources have reported that the actress is pregnant, but have not provided the identity of their sources. This accurately represents the facts as concern the reporting without actually validating that the claim of the pregnancy is verifiable fact in itself. Surely the average Wikipedia user is capable of determining for themselves whether they trust Time, People, or E! to fact-check appropriately or veer toward the sensationalistic and its not our place to make that call for them; our job here is to present what the sources say, and in taking this approach we will have hedged our bets and taken a middle-ground approach that, most importantly, allows us to hew as close as possible to the principle of verifiability as it is detailed in our policies. Regardless, I think most (not all) of the editors involved above need to pause and reflect on the battleground mentality taking hold here. Surely this subject doesn't demand such high emotion--especially given it is likely to be resolved, one way or another, in very short order--and the fact that people are becoming so strident is the result of the process of making the arguments themselves. It's a phenomena we are all familiar with here and which no (or very few) passionate editors avoid entirely, but stop to consider the topic you are applying it to, aye? You can find less high-strung discussions on contentious matters of pregnancy on Talk:Jesus and Talk:Abortion! Snow (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Consider the sources google search produces. La Times, USA Today, Abcnews, Huffington Post, Time, Mirror (? don't know if that's a good source), International Business Times, Daily Mail, UPI, CBS News, Glamour, Elle, Vanity Fair. It is our job to concisely report what reliable sources say, not second guess them. NE Ent 10:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree completely with Snow. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding The Huffington Post: Even it uses the phrase "rumors [emphasis added] of her upcoming pregnancy" and adds this: "CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story stated that Johansson had announced her pregnancy, but she herself has not yet made a formal announcement." Even HuffPo is trying to be careful about not stating something explicitly that is not yet a concrete fact. If even HuffPo is being careful not to say definitively she's pregnant, then Wikipedia certainly should be as careful.
- And I disagree with Snow because he conveniently ignores the fact that all that Time, People, etc. are reporting is the rumor that she is pregnant — citing nothing but unnamed, anonymous, purported "sources." An encyclopedia does not include every unconfirmed celebrity-pregnancy rumor that comes down the pike. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Time aren't reporting a rumour. The headline of the Time article is "Scarlett Johansson is expecting". Not, "Scarlett Johansson is rumoured to be expecting". The matter-of-fact tone continues throughout the article --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that they are reporting second-hand gossip is clear throughout the article. They make no claim to have done any fact-checking of their own. I'm disappointed that Time even has a celebrity gossip section, but it just goes to show that the reliability of a source has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. You can't just say the magic words "Time" or "NYT" and expect editors to suspend using their own judgement. – Smyth\talk 22:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Any first-year journalism student should know that sometimes it's ethical for the journalist's sources to remain anonymous. We're not first-year journalism students though. We're wikipedia. And if we consider Time a reliable source, then as Snow said: "regardless of the reservations certain editors have about their journalistic procedure, they are trusted top-tier sources in their news industry-- and we go with the sources, not our own perspectives and doubts". If you do go with your own perspectives or doubts, that is original research. And original research is something that is not just allowed, but also expected for the journalists writing these articles. However, it is not allowed for us: WP:OR. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- NOR is a policy about article content, not about decisionmaking about article content. Decisions about the reliability of sources always have an element of OR to them, because there just aren't independent reliable sources which say "Source X meets Wikipedia's reliability standards." (And, pushing your argument to the absurd, identifying something as original research is, of course, original research.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hahaha, well said. But I am referring specifically towards us already considering Time to be a reliable source, and then some editors choosing to ignore it based on other, un-sourced reasons (not to do with the reliability of Time), as being original research. And the main reason for bringing it up, was to clear the confusion that some editors have, thinking that NOR applies to the journalists writing the sources we use. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- If Time says People is the source, then Time cannot be considered the source. Then if People says E! is the source, then People isn't the source either. So it comes down to whether E! is a valid source or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hahaha, well said. But I am referring specifically towards us already considering Time to be a reliable source, and then some editors choosing to ignore it based on other, un-sourced reasons (not to do with the reliability of Time), as being original research. And the main reason for bringing it up, was to clear the confusion that some editors have, thinking that NOR applies to the journalists writing the sources we use. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're hyper-analyzing. The point is, Time is willing to stake its reputation on the claim, even if it only provides People (and by extension, E!) as a source in their article. If you're saying Time is not a reliable source, then now is the time (hah!) to provide some examples of Time putting out stories that are later proven false or retracted. And remember, given the volume of stories they post, I'd consider one or two to be an anomaly, not a pattern demonstrating unreliability. There's a pretty clear distinction between original research and identifying a reliable source.
- Idea: When you're starting to question where an article author got their information, you're basically trying to reproduce their original research. Take atom smashing as an example: I doubt many would question the veracity of a published article from reputable scientists on the topic (certainly nobody would be calling for backyard atom smashing experiments to reproduce their research). Likewise, a reporter citing People or E! is also putting forward their opinion that the stories are very likely true (otherwise why risk the shame in being wrong). If we're concerned enough (as some clearly are) that there's some possibility the sources are wrong, we note that in the tone we use in our article (don't state is as fact, use language such as "reported by ..." to provide clues to the reader). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- He's actually not overanalyzing. I know I can't prove this but since it's not an unusual claim and since my eight years of edits i think show a certain professional level, let me just say that I've been a journalist for major mainstream publications for over 35 years. Wikipedia is a hobby I love. And we call what Time is doing here (and what many publications do; it's perfectly ethical as long as they attribute the original source) re-reporting or, more colloquially. copy-catting. No one at Time will vouch for anything more than, "We're accurately reporting that People said this." It's a way of filling space without actually risking your own reputation. (I said it was ethical; I didn't say it wasn't corner-cutting; it certainly doesn't represent the highest standards of journalism.)
- Now in some cases, re-reporting is unavoidable: For example, most publications don't have a genetics expert on staff, so for stories about genetics breakthroughs a newspaper or magazine will report that such-and-such study was reported at such-and-such academic journal ... and then, optimally, interview independent sources to get a fuller perspective.
- In comparison to that, even the best publications get lackadaisical when it comes to celebrity news or, as in this case, celebrity gossip. But just because the press — the first draft of history — doesn't have the highest standards sometimes doesn't excuse an encyclopedia for doing likewise. We're not on deadline. We're supposed to wait to have irrefutable, solid, concrete information, as best as humanly possible, before something goes into a encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the final word. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- When they put "reportedly" in front of it, they're actually not staking their reputation on anything, in fact they're disclaiming responsibility if it turns out to be incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Couldn't have said it more succinctly myself. Literally! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course you're right. But that misses the point: they're clearly comfortable enough with the news that they're willing to publish it anyways. And here's yet another source (which was reverted in just two minutes, good job Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), your edit war trigger finger isn't missing a beat!) that says it's a done deal: The Independent. Half tempted to re-add it to the article with all two dozen sources cited to see if someone is actually silly enough to remove it as unsourced... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're correct no one should edit other editors' posts. And it is equally correct to say that personalizing this and making an accusatory edit-war comment violates civility guidelines. Since this has been overall a dispassionate discussion, I would ask that if you're going to insist, as you should, on guidelines being followed that, for the good of this conversation's overall tone, you remove or at least temper that phrase. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Their source appears to be the Huffington Post. Is that considered a valid source? Last I knew, it wasn't. But that might have changed. Also note that they're trying to claim she's got a "baby bump", when there isn't one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The bit about the Huffington Post is actually where she danced around the question. They refer to a video interview on Collider (which, oddly they don't link to, but here's that) where her "boss" Kevin Feige effectively confirms it ("But when asked by Collider whether her pregnancy would affect the progress of Avengers: Age of Ultron, he just came flat out and told them. "Well my first reaction was I was very happy for her and very excited for her, and my second reaction was we've gotta move some pieces on the chess board around schedule-wise."). Which he does say in the video for all to see/hear. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The fact remains, whether they reported it, or re-reported it, that they (a reliable source) posted the article, willing to stake their reputation on it.
- Time, being a reliable source could have other unmentioned sources, that support their claim. The fact that they mention that People reported this shouldn't matter. Because Time is a reliable source, we go with their judgement, rather than our own.
- And their judgement is that Johansson is "reportedly pregnant", and this is the compromise we wish to place in the article. If some editors are concerned with writing in the article what's "true", isn't this statement "true" anyway? Not that it matters, because we are supposed to write what is verifiable. And this is certainly verifiable.
- By suggesting to leave that information out of the article, you're suggesting to go against WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:BLP, and WP:RS (and maybe some others).
- Tenebrae, I understand you've been on wikipedia for a while, and your contribution to discussions I've been involved with has been extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. But I urge you to consider the compromise being offered, and look at this through the eyes of a wikipedia editor, rather than a journalist. And that "irrefutable, solid, concrete information, as best as humanly possible", according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is a verifiable source (or in this case, a number of verifiable sources), not confirmation from the subject themselves. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, at the end of the day, no matter how many verifiable sources you find, it's still a report. It's still a rumour. And we simply do not deal in rumours. Rusted AutoParts 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, we don't deal in rumours. We deal in reliable sources. The kind of reliable sources that are reporting this information. Like it or not, that's the way that wikipedia works. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also thinking perhaps it's time for a WP:RFC or WP:DR, if someone wants to put that in motion. I'll be fairly busy for the next few days. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree, just to get this whole thing settled. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Responding to ProfessorKilroy, whose kind words about my attempts to help are appreciates: Yes, reliable sources are reporting (or re-reporting) this information. But in this case, that information is nothing but a rumor. And while I always appreciate compromise, in this instance I would find "reportedly" to be a hedge-betting weasel-word to get us out of responsibility for stating a rumor.
- However: Feige's on-the-record statement strikes me as something attributable, and something for which a named individual with knowledge of the situation is taking responsibility. I wouldn't be averse to some one-sentence + quote addition along the lines of, "Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, working with her on Avengers: Age of Ultron, responded to rumors of her pregnancy affecting production by stating, 'Well my first reaction was I was very happy for her and very excited for her, and my second reaction was we've gotta move some pieces on the chess board around schedule-wise.'" What does everyone think? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- With Feige, he's at the end of the day a businessman. When something could possibly jeopardize his business (pregnancy, actor death), the first thing one would do is devise a plan. Here, it sounds like he's talking about what's he's heard. Same thing occurred with Jon Favreau. He said she'd make a good mom, but he also said he wasn't told directly by her. So I feel as if he's only bracing himself for a possible outcome. Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, when you see the full quote it's clear that he's talking about a schedule rearrangement which has already happened. His statements are clearly based on definite knowledge. In most jobs it would be unprofessional for your boss to be prying into something like this, but as an actress in a major film I'm sure the industry would consider it unprofessional for her not to tell him the truth at a reasonably early stage. – Smyth\talk 16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- With Feige, he's at the end of the day a businessman. When something could possibly jeopardize his business (pregnancy, actor death), the first thing one would do is devise a plan. Here, it sounds like he's talking about what's he's heard. Same thing occurred with Jon Favreau. He said she'd make a good mom, but he also said he wasn't told directly by her. So I feel as if he's only bracing himself for a possible outcome. Rusted AutoParts 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- However: Feige's on-the-record statement strikes me as something attributable, and something for which a named individual with knowledge of the situation is taking responsibility. I wouldn't be averse to some one-sentence + quote addition along the lines of, "Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, working with her on Avengers: Age of Ultron, responded to rumors of her pregnancy affecting production by stating, 'Well my first reaction was I was very happy for her and very excited for her, and my second reaction was we've gotta move some pieces on the chess board around schedule-wise.'" What does everyone think? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think that wording is a very roundabout way of explaining what's going on here. And it isn't that much to do with Johansson herself. And also, I would remove the part where you called it a rumour. Because it's not a rumour. It's clearly verifiable information. We have a number of reliable sources such as Time, stating that "Johansson is Pregnant", and she is "expecting her first child".
- I'm re-suggesting Snow's compromise statement, as it seems very reasonable (but also is verifiable, and isn't it also true?): "[sources] have reported that the actress is pregnant, but have not provided the identity of their sources". Is there anything wrong with this statement? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know why the straightforward Feige suggestion I offered doesn't suit you, but the fact is — and I'm speaking as a professional journalist; I don't suppose you're a real professor — that Time itself reported nothing, and that all that the original sources are reporting is a rumor. Anything that's not confirmed by the source or through independent confirm is a rumor. And anonymous, unnamed, unattributed purported "sources" are not confirmation of anything.
- And, honestly, if someone is not a professional journalist or a professor of journalism, I find it really inappropriate that anyone keeps making a statement that someone in the profession is telling you simply is not true. All that is being reported is a rumor. And celebrity-gossip rumors have proven to be false many, many times in the past. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I told you why the Fiege suggestion doesn't work. I literally don't know why the compromise statement I provided doesn't suit you, because you haven't said anything about it.
- And you cannot play the "I'm a journalist - I know this stuff" card. I might as well say that I'm a professor of journalism, so I find it inappropriate that you disagree with me. I'm not, but it sounds like you're invested in this from a journalist's point of view. I encourage you to take a step back, and look at this from a Wikipedia editor's point of view. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- After nearly nine years here, I'm quite familiar with a Wikipedia editor's point of view — which is that an encyclopedia has higher standards than a newspaper or magazine.
- I believe I've already responded to the idea of a "compromise" using the weasel-word "reportedly."
Surname pronunciation
As noted by Empire's Hollywood Pronunciation Guide:
Johansson's surname "gives people the most trouble" when it comes to pronunciation.
So please add pronunciation respelling to this article's introduction. You can follow either WP:PRK or WP:IPAE, as you prefer; I am not familiar with either syntax, so I am making this request in the hope that it attracts the attention of an editor who knows one or the other. Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.92 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Johansson's pregnancy
Should Johansson's pregnancy be added before an official statement is made LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- No Not even sure why we are having this ridiculous debate. For those that want to include, I would like to know your standard for inclusion of rumors about a person's personal life. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a rumor. The Kevin Feige Collider interview has him responding to the question of how her pregnancy has impacted the just started production of Avengers: Age of Ultron. How can anyone believe it's a "rumor" when her BOSS is confirming it... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you need to remove yourself from this discussion. You are clearly incapable of looking at this from an objective point of view. Until proven true, it is a rumor. This is the definition of a rumor. Seriously, just wait a few damn months. What is your problem with waiting until she confirms it to be true? Arzel (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a rumor. The Kevin Feige Collider interview has him responding to the question of how her pregnancy has impacted the just started production of Avengers: Age of Ultron. How can anyone believe it's a "rumor" when her BOSS is confirming it... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- No Concur. WP:BLP is a high standard, and just because rumors are stated in reliable sources doesn't mean that an encyclopedia gives its imprimatur to highly personal rumors about living persons. We certainly don't want Wikipedia to be known as a rumor mill.
- No BLP issues heavily outweigh sources. A story can be reported by a very highly regarded outlet, but it doesn't make the report a valid BLP source. With BLP, we must be very careful. And as a long standing tradition, we don't report rumours as an encyclopedia. There's no deadline, when there's something more concrete, like the person who is supposedly pregnant talking about it, yeah. But anonymous insiders and sources sourcing sources who used said insiders I feel don't cut it. Rusted AutoParts 16:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. -
The situationMy understanding has changed since my comments a few days ago. We are no longer talking about an unattributed rumor. With the producer's statement we now have a named source who there is every reason to believe. I am happy with the phrasing suggested by Tenebrae at 14:18, 26 March. – Smyth\talk 16:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. These are not rumours. It is verifiable information, as represented by a number of reliable sources, stating it as fact, not as a rumour. Not including the information is a violation of WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.
- Also, I think the opening question is not entirely neutral. The other alternative that carries equal weight would be, "Should Johansson's pregnancy be added after it has been confirmed by reliable sources?" Of course I'm not suggesting this alternative; I'm just making a point. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, hold on. Each of us is entitled to his or her opinion. But it is factually inaccurate to say the unattributed reports are not rumors. (Not talking about Feige statement here, but the rest of it.) Anything stated by anonymous, unnamed, unattributed purported "sources" is a rumor. And by the way, not reporting rumors does not violate any policy/guideline. I don't think you'd find a single admin saying we're required to report anonymous, unnamed, unattributed celebrity gossip. - --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UT --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, we're entitled to our own opinions. But it's also factually inaccurate to say the reports are not "verifiable information, as represented by a number of reliable sources, stating it as fact". That's what we look for when including information in Wikipedia. Also note, I've provided an alternate compromise with my edit above at 17:16, 26 March 2014. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, hold on. Each of us is entitled to his or her opinion. But it is factually inaccurate to say the unattributed reports are not rumors. (Not talking about Feige statement here, but the rest of it.) Anything stated by anonymous, unnamed, unattributed purported "sources" is a rumor. And by the way, not reporting rumors does not violate any policy/guideline. I don't think you'd find a single admin saying we're required to report anonymous, unnamed, unattributed celebrity gossip. - --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UT --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Actually, yes to either approach (the Tenebrae idea above, or simply stating it outright using "reported" in our language). We have dozens of reliable sources that support this, some more recently using a Kevin Feige interview where he pretty clearly says she's pregnant. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes (qualified) With dozens of major news media outlets now reporting the story, the story itself has now been raised to the level of notability allowing it's inclusion on this project, if nothing else, and this is clearly the article to do it in. This assuming assuming the pregnancy itself is a notable concept (which I take for granted it would be by the editors of this article). In light of this interview, I am having a hard time understanding why some editors still suspect this to be a rumor. The director of the film Ms. Johannson is currently involved in is asked directly how the pregnancy is effecting production and he answers that question very matter-of-factly. The only way this could be a rumor at this point is if he was misled about the pregnancy or is himself a part of some effort to misled others. Those scenarios seem....unlikely. Regardless, at this point there is no substantive argument anywhere in policy that can override WP:V; with this latest wave of sourcing, that bar has now been definitively passed, indeed hurtled. When I commented the first time, I felt one side had interpreted policy more closely than the other, but I certainly understood the reservations of the side advising patience. At this point, I have to ask, with sincere respect to the editors involved - are you sure that you haven't let the light battleground mentality that dominated this discussion cause you to become entrenched in your position and view the sources more skeptically than you normal would have if you had just now come upon them in their current state? Because I don't think, even in cases of BLP, that I know many editors who would read the recent interviews and reports, consider the very broad reporting from some of the highest-profile and high calibre news outlets in existence, and still declare this fact improperly sourced. Again, even taking in every word that WP:BLP has to say on this matter (and I just reread it to make sure nothing has changed), this seems pretty cut and dry to me. On a side note though, I still think the language should reflect that these are "wide reports not yet confirmed by the actress", or something in that vein. Snow (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The phrase "N=not yet" runs afoul of WP:DATED. If anything, we'd need to say "unconfirmed claim" or "reported rumor" — and should an encyclopedia be repeating rumors?
- As regards WP:V, we're missing a point here: The number of places copy-catting are many, but that number doesn't matter since it comes down to how many sources making the claim are the original sources? Just because a hundred places repeat a rumor doesn't mean anything under WP:V other than that they verify that a rumor is being reported.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- "If anything, we'd need to say 'unconfirmed claim' or 'reported rumor'"
- I don't see any problem with that, though to be honest, I'm not sure if you were talking entirely hypothetically there with continued complete opposition to the claim on principle or if you are discussing middle-ground options.
- "and should an encyclopedia be repeating rumors?"
- Sure, if the rumor itself is notable in it's own right. BLP allows for that. Let's keep in mind we are not talking about something controversial or defamatory here. And also that the very reason we have BLP in the first place is that the WMF has counseled (and common sense itself suggests) that such articles can have a significant impact upon the persons in question. But this story is already being broadcast across the spectrum of entertainment industry news --the actress knows about it, clearly, having fielded questions on it in interviews, without any sign of frustration-- so the only purpose we are serving by omitting the existence of that story here is to have a noteworthy gap in our coverage. I just don't see the point -- not under policy and not under principles of common sense. All of that is rather a hypothetical though, because.....it's not a rumor, is it? The person in charge of the multi-hundred-million dollar film she is working on now has commented at length about how the pregnancy will impact that project. That's just not a rumor, that's a confirmation (on film, mind you), from a person with direct knowledge of the situation, within the context of a reliable media source. Nowhere in BLP, or any other policy, does it say we cannot establish a point about a living person unless they themselves confirm it. At some point we have to make the judgement call, because people can continue to insists its a rumor as long as they like (that's a subjective label). If policy worked on the basis that so long as someone insisted it was a rumor, we couldn't add it, nothing the least bit controversial would ever go up on BLP articles. And if the point at which people close to the subject of the article confirm the fact, and it is accepted by the bulk of the news industry concerned with the fact is not also the point at which we stop calling it a rumor, what exactly is? Again, short of it coming directly from her, which is clearly not required by policy. Snow (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Comment I worded it the way I did because that was the gist of what I was getting from most of the comments was: People wanting a WP:RS with something straight from her mouth or a close associates mouth vs just adding a general WP:RS that doesn't have the word 'rumored' in it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, is the RfC supposed to be for outside editors that haven't commented on the situation already to voice an opinion? We clearly know where everyone else stands given the previous and still on going discussion above. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Should be for all editors. I'd have preferred if the existing participants had waited for some outside input prior to !voting
, but.. I guess we need to ensure the "no" crowd gets the first word in.—Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Should be for all editors. I'd have preferred if the existing participants had waited for some outside input prior to !voting
- Locke, your remark "to ensure the "no" crowd gets the first word in" was uncalled for. Any editor was free to comment at any time. Who exactly was "ensuring" otherwise? Nobody is colluding here, nobody's getting together on their talk pages and ganging up on you. That was another uncivil remark, and there's no need for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, not at all. All involved and interested editors are encouraged to respond to an RfC. Often the purpose of an RfC is to clarify the question being debated and unsettle editors who may have become stuck in one mode of thought or another to work towards consensus, be it by framing the matter in a new light that shifts opinions or generating a new approach that serves more perspectives. This in addition to the obvious value of soliciting further outside comment. So long as no one, new or old to the debate, is discouraged from participating, everyone should speak up. On a separate point, I don't find anything wrong at all with how the RfC's question was phrased. I find it cuts to the quick and hinges on the sticking point of those who still have reservations. Snow (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The reason I questioned the wording, is because you provided one of the arguments the "No" side has been within the question: "before an official statement is made". I think it's giving people who haven't read the discussion above a bias, before they even become involved. So, to neutralise it, I would either remove that part, or add an argument from the "Yes" side, such as "it has been confirmed by reliable sources". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I read the discussion and am an outside voice. The wording is neutral. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from omitting all the existing sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I read the discussion and am an outside voice. The wording is neutral. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)