Talk:Cate Blanchett/Archive 2

American citizenship
Regarding these edits. I looked this up and it appears she is one, according to Woman's Weekly (New Zealand). Lapadite (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I see another Natalie Portman-type consensus-based WP:BLP argument coming. It was just the wrong wording, and wasn't sourced outright in the article. I'm sure something can be worked out.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  23:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Saw the Stephen Colbert interview, and Blanchett said she was an American citizen 5:07. There are several ways of noting this in the lead and/or infobox, if it should be. I'm going to post this on WP:WPBIO and WP:ACTOR for more input. Lapadite (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia listings seem to be all over the place when it comes to nationality v citizenship, and how/where to list dual citizenship. Some list nationality in the lead and then note other citizenship under personal life (Emily Blunt), some don't mention dual citizenship at all (Helen Mirren), some say "from" the country of nationality in lead, then list other citizenship under personal life (Liam Neeson), some list nationality first in lead then dual citizenship later on in lead (Nicole Kidman). At the moment it seems like most entries list the citizeship that's also considered nationality in lead and further citizenship under personal life info ... but consenus would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.233.179 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Her American citizenship is an accident of birth and otherwise irrelevant to her life. She was born, raised and gained her notability in Australia. Most of her work is as an Australian but she moves around a lot and also has significant ties to the UK. She is well-known as an Australian actress. She admits to having American citizenship but that was even a passing mention not given as being significant to her. What goes in the intro sentence of the lead per WP:BLPLEAD as context is where she gained notability, resided and what she is know as. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NEEDS EDITING
Someone has gotten onto this page and put a bunch of ridiculous idiocy throughout. Someone with more time than me needs to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.235.88.146 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ The vandalism has been reverted.  General Ization  Talk  12:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This reference does not verify text

 * 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I declare!
After carefully removing a truckload of the over-the-top puffery from this article, User:Lapadite reverted nearly all of it. A consensus of editors at MOS:WTW have agreed that certain words and phrases--while not forbidden--should certainly be watched because of the overwhelming bias they posses. One of the specific words listed as MOS:PUFFERY is the word "acclaimed", and one of the specific words listed as a weasel word is "declare".

Below is a list of the unencyclopedic phrases I reworded in this not-the-Hollywoood-Reporter article, which User:Lapadite then re-inserted:
 * "Her performance as Electra became one of her most acclaimed"
 * "the role of Ophelia in an acclaimed 1994–1995..."
 * "Blanchett received wide acclaim for her performance"
 * "Emanuel Levy of Variety declaring..."
 * "a young Elizabeth I of England in the critically acclaimed historical drama"
 * "and the critically acclaimed and financially successful film"
 * "Already an acclaimed actor, Blanchett received a host of new fans"
 * "Ben Falk of the BBC declaring her and co-star"
 * "the first film in an unfinished trilogy by acclaimed writer-director"
 * "for her highly acclaimed portrayal of Katharine Hepburn"
 * "Little Fish received great critical acclaim in Blanchett's native Australia"
 * "and the acclaimed psychological thriller"
 * "Both Blanchett's and Dench's performances were highly acclaimed"
 * "It was a critical and commercial success and Blanchett received acclaim for her performance"
 * "Meryl Streep declared, 'That performance was as naked, as raw...'"
 * "Blanchett and the production received wide acclaim"
 * "The production and Blanchett received critical acclaim"
 * "Ben Brantley declaring, 'I consider the three hours I spent on Saturday night watching...'"
 * "While less critically acclaimed than The Lord of the Rings trilogy"
 * "Her performance garnered widespread acclaim, with some critics considering it to be the finest of her career to that point (surpassing her acclaimed performance in..."
 * "The film received critical acclaim and was a box office success"
 * "Cinderella, to critical acclaim"
 * "Richard Corliss declared that 'Blanchett earns top billing'"
 * "the highly acclaimed film adaptation of"
 * "The project, and Blanchett, received critical acclaim"
 * "The production debuted in Sydney in 2015, to critical acclaim"
 * "the play's Broadway run received acclaim"
 * "The nine-part series debuted in the US on 15 April 2020, to widespread critical acclaim"

Is "great critical acclaim" better or worse than "wide acclaim"? Also, is "widespread critical acclaim" totally bigger than "widespread acclaim"? Also, does this over-the-top puffery in any way improve the article for readers?

The input of others would be appreciated! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The MoS in question does say to watch those "without attribution". If there are several reliable sources supporting the statements being said, I don't see a problem including them. Some of these are sourced and some others are not, but I wouldn't remove all of the instances. I wouldn't say it's over-the-top puffery, if it's sourced, then they are facts.
 * "Wide acclaim" > "great critical acclaim"
 * "Widespread acclaim" > "widespread critical acclaim" — Film Enthusiast ✉ 21:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit you made is just unconstructive. Like I said, it is the wrong way to go about it. Context matters, which that MOS tells you. The fact that "acclaim" (or whatever synonym is used) is cited matters. I haven't been a regular editor of this article in a while, so I can't be sure now that every single mention of critical acclaim is sourced, but from a cursory look I'd say most it has been sourced on the article since my time as a significant contributor. Instead of indiscriminately removing all mention of the word, actually check the cited sources to see if the content is verified (which is WP policy). --Lapadite (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to check the other sentences you quoted here, but here's what the cited source says for the first sentence with "acclaim" you object to ("Her performance as Electra became one of her most acclaimed at NIDA"): Her most celebrated performance at NIDA was one for which she wasn’t originally cast. [referring to Electra; read the following sentences]. Again, please check the cited sources. --Lapadite (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what I'm trying to say is, this is a terrible way to write an article. Just because the sources cited use these unencyclopedic buzzwords doesn't mean we should junk up Wikipedia with the same low-quality lingo. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Acclaim, praise, etc are not unencyclopedic words. Noting the general reception of a subject as per reliable sources is encyclopedic. If sources say an artist or project received praise (or the opposite), it's stated and sourced on WP; as all featured articles do, which also use terms like "acclaim". If you think the word "acclaim" is overused in the article, then substitute it with related words, or rephrase the sentence while reflecting what the source states. Reception informs readers of how the subject/their work has been received at different stages of their professional life, as that phrase in The New Yorker provides: "Her most celebrated performance at NIDA was one for which she wasn’t originally cast ...". Checking sources and copy editing is the answer here, not outright removing all acclaim reception.
 * As for the use of "widespread" or "great", if sources note that the acclaim was wide, widespread, universal, or unusually significant, then its use in an article is supported. And again, copy editing may help. Lapadite (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)