Talk:Peter Dinklage

Found a clear mistake underneath Peter Dinklage's picture

I would change it myself, but this is listed as a "good article". Right now, it lists his height as 5'9". But both sources (http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2004/03/12/peter_dinklage_the_station_agent_interview.shtml and https://web.archive.org/web/20140813023823/https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Station-actor-draws-big-attention-Peter-2553746.php) list his height as 4'5". Elsewhere in the article, it says 4'5" is his height. Clearly this is a mistake! 2604:2D80:5504:F100:70D4:4A50:DB38:3A46 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Disney

There are a few things wrong with the added 'controversy' section

• "controversy" sections are discouraged. Far better to include the content either within the rest of the article, where appropriate, or name the section neutrally.
• the Daily Mail and "The Alteran" are not reliable sources. This is particularly important with content that is criticizing someone.
• Italian sources are unhelpful to most readers on the English language Wikipedia. Can English ones be found?
• The added text appears to include original research and speculation about what Dinklage "apparently" doesn't understand. Where is this in the sources?
• The text notes what unidentified "people and fans" said. Who are these people? Unattributed their opinion is not notable.

Please don't re-add this content until these issues are addressed. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This section has been re-added with more original research, WP:SOAPBOX material and potential WP:BLP violations by a second anonymous IP address account with no previous edits. Dinklage made one spontaneous comment on a podcast and now it deserves an entire section on his Wikipedia page because he stated that miners live in a cave rather than work there? WP:UNDUE Kire1975 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the additions are by the same IP editor, who does not have a static IP. As noted, they have still not addressed most of the issues I noted above. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite the section, even modified it and removed the source considered deprecated on English Wikipedia's list but despite this it keeps getting removed, completely. What can I do? This is the last version before being eliminated, and as you can see there's no speculation or non-neutral sounding tone nor sources on the current "deprecated" list (and Alteran is not among those, so I don't understand what makes it unreliable and how could I know nor why instead of removing all the content you didn't remove just that source, along with the following added), just facts:

"Following actor Peter Dinklage's criticism of the "stereotypical depiction of dwarfs", Disney announced that the live-action film adaptation of the animated film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs will replace the titular Dwarf characters with "magical creatures" and that the dwarf actors would be discarded in favor of a voice cast for the aforementioned characters. A thing to be noticed is the difference between humans in real life suffering from dwarfism and Dwarfs as mythical and fantastical creatures from European fantasy, folklore and mythology like in the case of both the film and the fairytale Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and other fantasy and epic-fantasy works. Dinklage even wrongly stated that Snow White's Dwarves live in a "cavern" instead of a cottage in the forest. This move has been criticized by people and fans who accused Dinklage (and later Disney) of "woke" hypocrisy and virtue signalling, criticizing his words and the resulting Disney's response for being severely harmful to the "little people community," including potential actors for the roles of the Dwarfs who blamed and denounced Dinklage as a "selfish...trying to get roles away" and not representing said community."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.80.46 (talk)

References

• Assertion of "woke criticism" or "virtue signaling" from random comic book blogs hardly shows NPOV. Even then, this section hardly adds anything to the article that the two sentences under the /*Dwarfism*/ subsection hasn't already covered. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Those "assertions" are simply words and accusations from the people, fans and dwarf actors who criticized Dinklage and you can't call the sources "random" just because you don't agree or because they report what other official sources reported. If you think the sources aren't reliable (and I don't see why, and not only because they're not in the "deprecated" list of English Wikipedia and I don't see why they should be), just remove them and not everything else. I simply report what people said and how they reacted, that's why the commas. And it's not material to be added in the "Dwarfism" section, it takes a separate and distinct section. And speaking about the dwarf actors (and this is the most important part and it's very unfair denying to report their own voice in this topic) and commas, the phrases between commas are simply their own statements and words exacty how they were said, there's no assumption or speculation here, only reporting facts and exact words for what they are or were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.68.49.60 (talk)

• The Alteran article that is the primary source of these "quotes" about wokeness etc. is WP:USERGENERATED. The IP user was warned about this and chose to include it in the new submission anyway. FYI. Kire1975 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't recall The Alteran is a deprecated source (and give me a reason why should be) and certainly it's not even the only one that quotes that among the others. I know Daily Mail is one of the deprecated ones, that's why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.185.222 (talk)

• Please sign and indent your comments for readability. You can use : to indent, * to bullet point, and four ~ to sign your name. Thanks. Furthermore, a deprecated source is a type of source that is highly discouraged, if not blacklisted. A source that isn't deprecated doesn't mean that it's reliable. In this case, just because <insert internet blog> wrote about a certain topic doesn't mean that it is good enough to warrant inclusion nor suggest that it is neutral or reliable. (See WP:USERGENERATED or WP:RS for further details) — BriefEdits (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• How do I know a source is objectively reliable, and how do I know it's not considered reliable and deleted because of a bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.46.89.30 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• This IP user's persistent questions are not in good faith. If this continues, might I suggest one or more of the remedies on WP:SEALION? Kire1975 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• What do you mean "not in good faith"? I try to understand and to do better. If I ask if I'm running into possible potential bias and I notice some incoherence because I don't want to risk to be limited or restricted then I'm not in good faith and not simply a concerned user or editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.128.46 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Asking persistent questions about Wikipedia policies while ignoring the Wikipedia Policy pages - WP:USERGENERATED, WP:RS, WP:SEALION, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE. WP:OR - that have already been provided for answers might be bad faith. See also WP:POLICY, WP:CPP, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF. Kire1975 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to spell out a few things about the section you keep adding. Much of this has already been explained.

• Firstly, I've already explained that "Controversy" sections are not good practice.
• "A thing to be noticed" - this is editorializing.
• "the difference between humans in real life suffering from dwarfism and Dwarfs as mythical and fantastical creatures from European fantasy, folklore and mythology like in the case of both the film and the fairytale Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and other fantasy and epic-fantasy works." Where is the source for this comparison? It looks very like original research.
• "This move has been criticized by people and fans" - What people? What fans? What makes the opinion of these people notable? Wikipedia is not interested in unattributed opinions.
• The references you are using are best placed directly after what they are being used to cite. Using six references in a cluster at the end of the section is not helpful.
• "The Alteran" is user generated material and an anonymous opinion piece. It is not a reliable source.
• If the Daily Mail is not an acceptable source, then a sources that use the Daily Mail as a source, as Bounding Into Comics and The Ateran does, are no better.

There might be a case for inclusion here, but not in the manner or wording you are using. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• The people (including dwarf/little people) and fans on social media/Internet plus the articles written to prove the reaction? Wasn't that obvious? And I'd like to know what's the case (wording/manner) that would make sources like "Bounding Into Comics" acceptable to be included, because I always considered it a reliable source for what concerns media and pop-culture (and I still think it is). What's the problematic manner/wording I'm using that makes it unacceptable specifically? I can't go with guessing, I need you to be more specific and clear, considering that I'm risking here. I know "Daily Mail" is not acceptable and it's even deprecated, I specified it before more than once, that's why I omitted it in the successive edits (though you could have tell me previously the specific reason why "The Alteran" is not a reliable source, and now I know). And it's true the obvious difference between the dwarfs/little people in real life and the Dwarfs in fantasy, it's a basic fact and a reason between the controversy created, that also ties with the bizzarre "cave"/"cavern" statement, there's nothing wrong specifying it, nothing "original", it's even important to highlight it, considering also that someone else did that already (is the starting phrase "A thing to be noticed" problematic? Fine, I'll try and find another way in alternative). I thought everything was settled. I thought I respected all the conditions to create the section (that I really want to create because it's a very important topic that can't be ignored). I thought everything was settled. I thought I respected all the conditions to create the section (that I really want to create because it's a very important topic that can't be ignored. Maybe I can put it as a voice or paragraph in the "Personal life" section, though I still think writing it as a distinct and proper section is the right way). Why is all this so difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.44.95.125 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Your first two questions have been asked and answered. Everything's already been perfectly clear. Regarding your allegation "you could have tell me previously the specific reason why "The Alteran" is not a reliable source," you were told here and here but you continued to add it three days later here. Your request in the edit summary to "let me know I'm wrong. Thanks again" is nice and polite but completely unnecessary since you were already made aware. This is called Civil POV pushing. See WP:CPP.
• Thank you for self-undoing the message you left on my talk page. My answers are "no, this is not a joke", if you think you received consensus and respected the conditions that were given to you, please state your reasons. Finally, yes I did read your edit summaries before deleting the controversy section that you re-added here. I suggest you do the same for our edits.
• Finally, why is all this so difficult? Nobody's forcing you to continue this WP:BATTLE. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, I already knew the reason "The Alteran" is not good, I explained before that I undersrood, so you probably didn't even read my previous message. And I still don't understand why there's an edit war in the first place, I'm not doing anything bad and try my best to do what I do and must be made within the respect of policies. I never had to fight like this for a "controversy" section about a celebrity, it's like you're doing everything in your power to keep me from putting this topic about Peter Dinklage's actions and the severe damage he's done to dwarf people who even publicly spoke out against him and that people around the world are still talking about (even other Wikipedias in other languages reported this fact). There shouldn't be even a edit war. That's the main reason of my insistence, and that's what I feared when I previously talked in this talk page about running into possible biases. I always try to satisfy your requests and ojections when I rewrite the piece within the respect of rules and policies, but everytime it got deleted and a new problem is presented that was not presented before and so on. Why can't you simply let me do what I believe it's right to do and should be done and then you correct where you think it really needs to be corrected without necessarily deleting everything and then talk about what can be improved or left deleted? Oh, by the way, I still didn't receive remaining responses regarding the very last message I left on this talk page before this last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.39.109 (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, the consensus by most editors is that your edit does not pass the bar necessary to include it in the article. I'm really not sure how removing some inline sources without fundamentally rewriting whatever you're trying to include as consensus to keep the contested edit in the first place. Claiming that <a thing that happened> as enough to merit its own inclusion (e.g. inaccuracy with cave stuff, dwarf actors complaining) without WP:RS is just WP:OR, especially with controversial subjects. Here's a hypothetical for you. What if <Notable Person> does something and a <Random person> complains about it but nobody covers the complaint. Does it merit inclusion by virtue of its own existence? (see WP:ENN). The original problems were that you 1. chose bad sources and 2. wrote non-neutrally. Unless you fix that, odds are that we can not, as a community, move forward with your edit. BriefEdits (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying my best, believe me. Now I have an idea, I'm going to list all the things we decided are not appropriated and then maybe we'll finally settle this disagreement. Let's begin. First, sources "Daily Mail", "The Alteran" and "Giant Freaking Robot" are deprecated/unrealiable/random according to English Wikipedia, "Bounding Into Comics" is still unclear and it depends on the context it is put as they told me. Second, these are the acceptable added sources or at least the ones that haven't been called out yet: "New York Times", "NPR", "Newsweek", "Movieplayer" (foreign), "News24" (foreign). Third, it's not acceptable to start a phrase with "a thing to be noticed". Fourth, instead of "Controversy" how about "Snow White controversy"? I think this could satisfy everyone. What do you think? Is what I listed right or there's something I missed or wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.36.4.237 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and no. Your current assessment of the sourcing makes sense, but I would suggest against a "Controversy" section per WP:UNDUE. It wouldn't make sense to make a big ol' section when it's not well covered and isn't really indicative of the subject, especially when it's about a "controversy". At this point, I don't see anything that would add to the article that the paragraph under "Dwarfism" doesn't have already. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• "I feel like you're still not understanding what we're saying." NO, I don't know what you are saying and I'm getting very tired! Plus, you are the only one here who's giving me problems and continues to object and revert my edits! At this point I have to think this is personal! And I'm also pretty sure the "problem" was something that didn't require or justify the erasure of EVERYTHING I wrote! I explained what I changed and why, I tried again to satisfy you, with patience and politeness, so I really don't know what do you want from me!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.105.124 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm simply not sure if you have reviewed any of the links that we have provided to you. At this point, I'd just suggest that you stop editing on this page entirely because they're simply not productive. You take the one or two acknowledgements of your basic understanding of policy as a green light to add the same (or near similar) block of information without consensus. The only defense I've seen from you is "that I really want to create because it's a very important topic that can't be ignored". At this point, I'm privy to agree with @Kire1975: and seek one of the remedies from WP:SEALION. — BriefEdits (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• BriefEdits is not the "only one" objecting and reverting your edits. Kire1975 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• I said the only one because he is the one I'm arguing or discussing the most frequently with now, in fact I thought I didn't have any problem anymore with you Kire1975. And no, don't tell me I'm not considering anything you said, I removed all the problematic sources you listed and replaced them with others more reliable or added new to better validate phrases, facts and quotes, always slightly modified phrases and quotes to better reflect the sources and always tried to write them the most neutral way as possible within my possibilities, tried to compromise (especially for the title, and at this point it's clear it's useless to compromise for that), everything I wrote erased just for a few sources or even a phrase that could have been easily edited without reverting everything. How couldn't I be thinking I'm being fooled around and being victim of some sort of bias and not take this thing personally at this point? Why am I having all these difficulties to modify a person's/celebrity's article I never faced before like there's something special about this one? Why should I stop? I know I'm right and this discussion is getting really ridiculous and senseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.86.170 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed on ANI [[1]]. Kire1975 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC) The page is semi-protected for a month now. Kire1975 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

The semi-protection has been over for a week and we've got a Civil POV pusher doing similar stuff with an IP account already. No way to tell if it's the same editor. FYI. Kire1975 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Another one. Kire1975 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there's another civil pov pusher IP account. Kire1975 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the response from Disney has been written in form of a quote I think the statement from Peter Dinklage should be wrote as a quote too. Don't understand what's wrong with that, how could be considered this problematic or "vandalism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.169.119 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for finally bringing this to the talk page. Since you are an IP user, I have been unable to discuss this with you. Putting quotation marks around words doesn't make something a quote. It needs to be accurate, WP:VERifiable and WP:DUE. Try to avoid WP:ORIGINAL research. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk)

birth place

Can someone please cite the Britannica article in the birthplace infobox? Thetreehuggingjersey (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BRITANNICA: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Encyclopædia Britannica is a WP:TERTIARY source. Most editors prefer reliable WP:SECONDARY sources.

WP:Interviews may sometimes be the best or clearest sources, especially for biographical or personal information. He says in his own voice in the citation provided that he was born in the Jersey Shore. That is quite far away from Morristown.

Kire1975 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)