Talk:Scarlett Johansson

Disney lawsuit + OpenAI controversy
These two events are interconnected with much press coverage, here's just the latest source.

We should not cover the lawsuit in one section (buried in her Career) and the OpenAI controversy in a completely different section (her public image). This denies the reader the connections and similarities that were drawn.

Which section we focus on isn't super-important to me, just that it's one and the same. Ideally we mention the cases during the chronological walk through her career, and point to this other section for more detail and context.

CapnZapp (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Gatekeeping tendencies
There is a definite trend to just shoot down contributions with a single click on the undo button and a terse edit comment that does nothing to help explain what is wrong and how to improve the contribution.

Frequent contributors to this page would do well to distinguish between their reflexive reverts of actual vandalism and how they treat contributors that have an actual improvement to bring, because as is, the work climate on this article is impossible.

Wikipedia is not intended to be like this where gatekeepers spend 5 seconds to shoot down contributions that took multiple minutes to research, with zero thought given on how this contributor should actually proceed. I don't mind being reverted - if I'm being given insight into how to proceed. Case in point: sorry, this sentence is incredibly poorly written, and I don't feel like trying to re-write the edit at the moment that lead to. Thank you, Vincent.

I've been hit with edit comments like this that's not much of a commentary, and this is an FA or this Removing as it is unnecessary and I see frequent examples directed against others as well. There is no spirit of cooperation whatsoever present in any of them. No expectation of an actual collaboration. No effort made to explain how the contribution could be made acceptable. I love the "this is an FA" bit because it is peak unconstructiveness - it says absolutely nothing except "I don't like it, but I realize that's a weak argument so I will instead state something obvious and indisputable."

Y'all prefer to send a very clear message and that message is: "stay the fuck away, this is our article."

CapnZapp (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You’d enjoy trying to improve the Red Dead Redemption 2 article if you think this one is bad. Seasider53 (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a larger issue than Scarlet Johansson, but yeah. As Wikipedia has aged, I'd guess a number of the editors have too, along with editors' "get off the lawn" tendencies :-)  and I'm sure I've been guilty of this. Pointing to FA status is no reason to discount a contribution as being useful - WP isn't set in stone, I hope. I expect there's room for improvement even in older, FA articles. CAVincent (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * CapnZapp, if you're going to comment about my edit, mention my name, will you? That's common courtesy, and that whole "stay the fuck away"--what is that supposed to be? It's hardly courteous. Also, this is not my article: I reverted your edit, and I reverted one other editor years ago. This is my first edit to the talk page. I was not involved in the FA. And yes, "this is an FA" is actually a really good argument, and that would have been a good reason to reject this--not just for the "journalistic" prose ("it was revealed that" should be left for K-pop articles), but also for the bare URLs you put in there: FAs shouldn't have that., one of the FA reviewers, is no longer here, but is; they may have an opinion, as an editor with more FAs to their name than anyone I know. I think that the offhand comment she made, without much context or precision, is not worth including here; you could have started that discussion, rather than proclaiming me as a gatekeeper telling people to fuck off. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diff Drmies posted, I'm inclined to think that the fact of the settlement is enough detail, that we don't need her commentary. This article is getting rather long, and isn't going to get any shorter with a good portion of her career still before her, presumably. Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, it's a pretty amazing career, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)