Talk:Mara Wilson

Untitled
I removed the following text from the first line: "She will be celebrating her 20th birthday in 2 weeks." While clearly true, this is entirely redundant, as the first line already states her date of birth. Terraxos 00:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Best known
It should be mentioned about what role she is best known for. --PJ Pete

Failed Good Article nomination
This article does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. There are problems with the prose (When she was nine, while filming Matilda, her mother Suzie died from breast cancer, the film was dedicated to Suzie is a run-on) and there is a lack of sources which causes lack of verifiability. There is also an issue with the lack of information; although there is no stipulation against the size of an article, two sections of prose ("Personal life" and "Career") and a one sentence lead is not comprehensive enough for GA status. The fact that she has lately not been seen in high profile jobs may cause problems with finding additional information, but it's worth a try. I would suggest searching for more applicable info and reliable sources to plump the article up, find someone to copy-edit the article, and then only after these issues have been taken care of, try for GAN again. Best of luck! María ( habla con migo ) 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?
You need to cite your sources.. where does it say she's Jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.73.56 (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

She is Jewish. She had a very amusing (very short) interview on the red carpet for the premier of Miracle on 34th Street. The interviewer asked her in a condescending tone if she believed in Santa and she answered (without skipping a beat) "no, I'm Jewish!". It was hysterical. I tried to find the interview on Youtube but had no luck. I"m sure it's out there.


 * Don't see why this is in the introduction though! If she is of Jewish heritage, and even if she identifies as Jewish, it should be identified below... the introduction is, by standards, just for nationality, and so should read "American", not "Jewish American". EJBH (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actress?
She was an actress from 1993-2005. She hasn't been in any movies recently. Should she still be considered as an actress? Can we say that she is a "former actress" since it's been a long time since she was acting in movies? --Alchaenist (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * She is studying as an actor at Tisch, and currently performs in plays. She is still considered an actor. Transrepeated (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fansite trivia
This article is littered with trivial garbage that would be far more appropriate to a fansite than an encyclopedic biography. The root of the problem seems to be the relative lack of reliable sources. Information pulled from her blogging is likely to be trivial. In general, material written by the subject about the subject is only useful to fill in basic facts: birth date, schooling, partner and such. The rest of it should go. Any policy/guideline based discussion before I start cleaning it out? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

engenieer?
Is there such a thing as an "engenieer"? 2nd line, under "Personal Life". I think it should be "engineer" but didn't want to correct, in case it really should be "engenieer".

--Atikokan (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ShoWest award year?
"In 1998, she won the ShoWest Award for "Young Star of the Year". Her performances in those films caught the attention of Danny DeVito and led to her being cast as the titular character in Matilda."

First of all, the second sentence above is completely out of context...WHAT films? It seems like that line belongs a few paragraphs up.

Second, where it lists the awards at the bottom of the article, it says 1995 for this award, not 1998.

97.89.232.84 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wilson wrote a column for Cracked...
...several, actually. Unless an independent source has had something to say about this, it is trivial. An IP editor added the material. I reverted it, calling it trivial. This is where WP:BRD should kick in: Boldly added, Reverted, then Discuss it. Apparently not. The IP restored it, without comment. Another editor re-removed it, without comment. The IP now re-restored it. I am going to re-re-remove it so that we can discuss it. For those keeping track at home, this brings us to WP:BRBRBRD. To hopefully end the mini-edit war, I am also giving the IP a WP:3RR warning. Comments? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And now a brand new editor,, joins in. I'll start with semi-protection and a sock case. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the article is mainly talking about her (Mara Wilson), I thought it would be worthy to include it in her Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaderman (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is about Wilson. Yes, she wrote an article from Cracked. However, the article is not a significant event in her life. It is trivial. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop me if you've heard this one before...
Wilson wrote a column online...

...several, actually. Unless an independent source has had something to say about this, it is trivial. An IP editor added the material. I reverted it, calling it trivial. This is where WP:BRD should kick in: Boldly added, Reverted, then Discuss it. Apparently not. The IP restored it, without comment.... What comes next? - Sum mer PhD, v2.0 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefkasp (talk • contribs)
 * If you guessed "discussion on the talk page", move back two spaces and miss one turn. If you guessed "edit warring, personal attacks and page protection", advance to the talk page and discuss the issue.
 * Hugs and kisses,
 * Sum mer PhD, v2.0 01:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefkasp (talk • contribs)
 * Page protected again. We should be good until Wilson writes to a friend on Facebook and another sock of Krang Thesius is compelled to share this vital nugget of info here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"I, uh, learned something about myself."
We could sit here for several days guessing what she discovered about herself. Maybe we'd be right, maybe not. That said, this article (and this talk page) are subject to WP:BLP. Editors adding their speculative interpretation will be reverted and, as needed, blocked. If that isn't enough, we can protect the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now we have a source with self-identification. The way it was added needs some fine tuning. I see no relevance (and no indication) that the tweet was in response to anything other than someone else's tweet.
 * The specific wording, "I said I *used* to identify as mostly straight. I've embraced the Bi/Queer label lately", is not as blunt as the text added. Recognizing the variations in identity, we really shouldn't be "boiling down", simplifying or summarizing the statement. I propose something as close to the statement as possible: As of 2016, Wilson "(embraces) the Bi/Queer label". Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The specific wording, "I said I *used* to identify as mostly straight. I've embraced the Bi/Queer label lately", is not as blunt as the text added. Recognizing the variations in identity, we really shouldn't be "boiling down", simplifying or summarizing the statement. I propose something as close to the statement as possible: As of 2016, Wilson "(embraces) the Bi/Queer label". Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper
An IP hopper in the 2602:306:cf91:4110:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx range has edit warred to add unsourced and incorrect information to the article, as well as creating inappropriate inline external links. This continued despite repeated warnings to stop. Sundayclose (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That IP is back as 2602:306:cf91:4110:ed8d:9b80:9c52:6edb. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Making some of the same edits is 108.249.20.17, including uncited personal-life claims in violation of WP:BLP and disallowed references cites to IMDb. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Outspokenly Liberal
I saw at the bottom of the article that Mara is an "outspoken liberal" If you look at her Twitter, she's WAY to the left of liberals even here in America. I'd suggest replacing liberal with leftist. 108.26.228.153 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. We need a reliable source to support that label. Sundayclose (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro is more often described as conservative
I see there's a current back and forth in the article between Mara Wilson cousin Ben Shapiro being described as a right wing commentator and being described as a conservative commentator. Since he is far more often described as conservative rather than right wing by neutral sources; is described as conservative rather than right wing in his own Wikipedia article; and since neither of the two sources currently used to support the statement in question describe him as right wing; it would seem obvious that he shouldn't be described as right wing in Wikipedia's voice. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please get consensus for this change. We don't simply take your word for it that "he is far more often described as conservative" or that "it would seem obvious". The implicit consensus is "right wing", so there needs to be consensus to change it. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Trying to gain consensus is why I'm posting here rather than simply making another back-and-forth change in the article. I see that the Shapiro trivia was first added in the fall of 2019 and said nothing about the guy's political ideology, instead describing him factually as a "commentator, author, and public speaker". That was the untouched standing implicit consensus for several months until April 8, 2020 when Dyaluk08 first described Shapiro as "conservative" then changed the description to the more controversial "right wing" in the same series of edits. Dyaluk did this without gaining explicit consensus and without any additional sourcing, as neither of the two still existing sources to the specific factoid actually describe Shapiro as "right wing". Apparently it was good enough for Dyaluk to know that somewhere some (reliable?) sources do. It took about two weeks for someone to change the description back to "conservative", not an especially long time for an article that gets limited traffic. A couple days after that YOU, i.e. Sundyclose, without comment, changed it back to "right wing." Since then there have been numerous back-and-forths. So the idea that the description of Shapiro as "right-wing" has enjoyed some longstanding consensus among editors is absurd. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. And thanks for seeking consensus instead of continuing the reverts. Sundayclose (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On further review this whole Mara Wilson versus her conservative/right wing pundit cousin bit doesn't pass muster. Not only are the sources lousy ones ... Wilson's TWITTER MESSAGES and Shapiro's own radio program, not bona fide news sources, but the whole thing smacks of WP:Coatrack, an indirect way getting in a jab at Shapiro. It may also violate WP:Synthesis. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Coatrack refers to an entire article. One sentence in an article doesn't make it a coatrack. But I can accept that the sources are weak for any description of Shapiro, whether it's right-wing or conservative. I'm OK with not using either term (simply "commentator" or "political commentator"). And if we do that, we also need to remove "outspoken liberal" as a description of Mara Wilson. Sundayclose (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, a "coatrack" is any sized part of an article that is used for a purpose outside the reasonable scope of the article's subject; however, your suggestion is fine with me. Let's get rid of both descriptions. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait about a week, and then if there's no opposition we change it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. 70.181.40.210 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * —the short description at Ben Shapiro describes him as a "conservative political commentator, writer and podcast host" and the lede describes him as a "conservative political commentator, media host, and attorney". What is the rationale for removing the term "conservative"? Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The rationale is the consensus above, which no one objected to. There was a long-standing battle about how to describe his political ideology in the article until this discussion. This is the Mara Wilson article, not the Ben Shapiro article. Feel free to seek a new consensus for the Mara Wilson article. Sundayclose (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —why are you describing him as "right-wing"? Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for a while, which I was simply restoring. As noted in the consensus above, however, it was decided that description of his political ideology does not belong in the Mara Wilson article. Please read that discussion. But, again, feel free to seek a new consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —you are content to call him "right-wing" but not "conservative". The article calls him "conservative" in the lede and in the short description. You do not appear to be opposed to "right-wing" but for some as yet unexplained reason you oppose the term "conservative". Is there any reason "right-wing" would be acceptable but not "conservative"? Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not calling him anything. As I said, my earlier edit was simply restoring the implicit consensus; that doesn't mean I agree or disagree with it. I'm simply pointing out the consensus above. I assume you understand WP:CON. If I personally called him a conservative or a Martian that wouldn't change the consensus because that consensus is to not use a description of his ideology. And as I have said now for the third time, feel free to seek a new consensus. Is there anything stopping you from doing that? Please stop trying to provoke an argument. Sundayclose (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * —you say I find 70.181.40.210 saying "So the idea that the description of Shapiro as "right-wing" has enjoyed some longstanding consensus among editors is absurd...Since he is far more often described as conservative rather than right wing by neutral sources; is described as conservative rather than right wing in his own Wikipedia article; and since neither of the two sources currently used to support the statement in question describe him as right wing; it would seem obvious that he shouldn't be described as right wing in Wikipedia's voice." Bus stop (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at your edit history for the last several months. You have a strong modus operandi of endlessly brow-beating editors in discussions, and you've been called out on it several times. In this particular case it is pointless brow-beating because I have neither agreed nor disagreed with you. If you really wanted to change the above consensus it probably would be quite easy to do without any involvement from me. But you would prefer to harass someone instead of going through a very simple process to get the article changed, and I am quite certain you'll continue to try to provoke an argument here with at least one more comment. But I'm not taking the fucking bait. I've expressed myself clearly enough for a fourth-grader to understand. You and I are finished here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

—you are saying The implicit consensus is "right wing". Not true, as evidenced below. Numerous editors favor "conservative" over "right-wing". And the Ben Shapiro article uses "conservative". You say There was a long-standing battle about how to describe his political ideology in the article until this discussion. The evidence for that battle can be seen below. You say This is the Mara Wilson article, not the Ben Shapiro article. Yes, it is the Mara Wilson article, but it is still an encyclopedia. We provide information. You say description of his political ideology does not belong in the Mara Wilson article. You are repeatedly adding "right-wing". Wouldn't "right-wing" constitute description of his political ideology? Now you are reverting me. The language I have inserted is simply the language found at the Ben Shapiro article—both in the lede and in the "short description". Below are the numerous times you have reverted other editors to remove "conservative" and insert "right-wing":

00:36, 24 April 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

00:10, 29 May 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

00:15, 5 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

01:30, 9 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

02:00, 9 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

02:04, 12 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

23:08, 13 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

15:41, 16 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

15:03, 17 June 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

00:23, 1 July 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

20:35, 1 July 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

20:55, 2 July 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

21:27, 15 July 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

14:53, 20 July 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

02:04, 24 July 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

16:52, 15 August 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

01:45, 19 August 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

16:38, 21 August 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

17:27, 21 August 2020 (User:Sundayclose changes "conservative" to "right-wing")

Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

rough work
I added two short paragraphs about the recent NYTimes op-ed Ms Wilson wrote, triggered by the recent documentary Framing Britney Spears. I didn't see how many other news sites commented on her op-ed. I am going to list some of them here... Geo Swan (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)





























WP:SYN
An editor has repeatedly added a statement about Wilson that "her recollection was not correct". This editor is synthesizing their own conclusion from two different sources, neither of which explicitly states that Wilson's recollection is not correct. This edit must be cited to a source that explicitly states that, or there must be a consensus on this talk page for the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC).

Hi! Please review the original Globe and Mail article that Mara refers to in her New York Times article: 1) the Globe story says "She said, apologizing for sounding like a spoiled brat." Mara used the term spoiled brat; not the reporter. 2) the wiki entry says that the NY Times piece said "when a reporter called her a "spoiled brat"; the NY Times piece actually says "The article went on to describe me as a “spoiled brat” who was now “at midlife.”  The wiki references are simply inaccurate to say the reporter or the original Globe and Mail article called her a "spoiled brat". Her NY Times piece said the original Globe and Mail article described her as a spoiled brat, which is not true. She described herself that way. That is why I edited to say her recollection is not correct because the citations prove it. To resolve the edit remove the reference to the reporter. It could say this: "She described her disappointment after she honestly stated that she wanted the day off on her 13th birthday instead of granting interviews." Harrisgrb (talk) 10:41am, 16 January 2022 (UTC).


 * What we must have (and you have refused to understand) is a reliable source that specifically states that her recollection is not correct. You can't extract information from multiple sources and synthesize your own conclusion. You have been told that repeatedly. WP:SYN is a policy, and if you continue to violate it by edit warring, you can lose your editing privileges. Give us the source that states Wilson's recollection is not correct, or move on. By the way, new comments go below the previous comment, not beside it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Sundayclose completely. I honestly don't know why this is such an issue. Its literally only a couple lines in the whole article. Harrisgrb, can't you just let it go? Historyday01 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the truth matters, and so does a reporter's reputation. Harrisgrb (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, but reliable sources are needed, not any sort of synthesis of conclusions on what you believe the sources say. Historyday01 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Globe and Mail is a reliable source and the original story recounts the original conversation not Mara's recollection of it. I contacted the reporter who has a tape of the interview where Mara says "I was planning on telling that to other interviewers but I realized I sound like a spoiled brat." Do you require the audio file?  If you cannot discern the difference, and impact, of a reporter calling an interviewee a "spoiled brat" versus the interviewee describing herself in such as way, who do we appeal to?  As a former journalist, it violates all journalistic principles to make such as judgement during an interview with that person. Harrisgrb (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Reading over the current text of the Mara Wilson article on here, it makes clear that the term "spoiled brat" was NOT said by Mara, but by the reporter. So, I still don't understand the issue... And I think the term should be used as she mentions it in her 2021 op-ed, writing "The article went on to describe me as a “spoiled brat” who was now “at midlife.” It described the dark paths child stars like me often went down. It embraced what I now refer to as “The Narrative,” the idea that anyone who grew up in the public eye will meet some tragic end." The Globe and Mail article also makes clear that the reporter said this, not her: "Well, let's think. Today's my 13th birthday. I'm I-don't-know-how-many miles away from home. Three thousand?" she said, apologizing for sounding like a spoiled brat." You can say you contacted the reporter, and that's fine, but we use reliable sources on here, not someone saying they listened to an audio tape of an interview. Historyday01 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the source article of the Globe and Mail? Because this wiki entry is wrong. The Globe article is the source for this issue and Mara referred to this article in her op-ed; and her recollection is wrong. I can attach the audio so you can hear the evidence. Harrisgrb (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Globe article says: "Well, let's think. Today's my 13th birthday. I'm I-don't-know-how-many miles away from home. Three thousand?" she said, apologizing for sounding like a spoiled brat.  It is clear that Mara said she sounded like a spoiled brat because she apologized for it.  It is not in quotes because the reporter paraphrased it so she didn't have to include the whole sentence on tape:  "I was planning on telling that to other interviewers but I realized I sound like a spoiled brat." Harrisgrb (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, we rely on reliable sources here and I feel that the existing sources summarize the subject fine. Its almost like you have an axe to grind on this subject... Historyday01 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the wiki article uses the Globe and Mail article AND her op-ed... Mara considered it be enough of an issue to mention it in her op-ed. Historyday01 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)