Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 2

Tom Waits' tribute album
Is it true that she's going to be recording an album of Waits' songs, or is that just a rumour?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 08:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * True. Is it not sourced in the article? Just google it...Amo 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, I see it now.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Says her grandmother was Jewish only
The article used to cite Scarlett Johansson as jewish only implies that her grandmother was jewish not the entire maternal side of her family. Putting Irish family back in since Sloan is an Irish surname. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.200.113 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * None of the articles cited imply it was only her grandmother. Besides, you'd need a reliable source that said her grandfather as Irish, not her mother's last name. Also, her grandfather was Jewish too (see the context she mentions him in this interview ) Mad Jack 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Early life
In the early life section, it says she's the daughter of an architect and producer and granddaughter of a director/screenwriter, that she went to Professional Children's School, but that they had "little money". This rings of PR baloney to me (lots of actors put that sort of thing out in order to prove that theor 'connections" didn't help them in any way.) I think more elaboration or a better source is needed here. ChrisStansfield 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with your thinking, what do you mean by better source? The "little money" claim, at least, is taken from an interview with Parade Magazine. BTW, she only began attending the Professional Children's School in 2002, after she had already starred in several films (including "Ghost World") so that explains that. Mad Jack 06:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess by "better source," I mean something that actually reports on news, not "Parade." :) Parade is not exactly "Hard news" if you've ever read it...and the particular columnist who did the interview is a "journalist" in the same way that the back-of-an-anonymous-interviewer's-head who appears in numerous "interviews" sent out to publicize a film in a journalist. Just my opinion, of course, but like I said, it doesn't ring true. ChrisStansfield 08:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Descent
My mother is from Sweden and her name is Johansson; she has not Danish descent. My father's name is Sloan and he is from Ireland. In a interview with Scarlett in a magazine, tell she about her mother's background; her mother has German, Dutch, Irish, Scottish, English and Austrian descent and is from Houston in Texas. Actually, her maternal grandmother's name was Dorothy van Almrooy, and van Almrooy it's Dutch. She has no Jewish ancestry. But she can Yiddish and Hebrew; because Josh Hartnett has Jewish descent. And when she dated him so converted she to Judaism. But she has no Jewish ancestry. And her father has Norwegian, Danish and Swedish background, not only Danish descent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.252.42.205 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
 * LOL. If you can source that, I'll give you a million dollars. You already get points for creativity. Mad Jack 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, her surname is definitely Swedish, and she looks extremely Swedish (blonde hair, fair skin, red cheeks, big lips...) so there has to be at least some Swedish somewhere down the line.  — Adriaan (T★C) 13:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how are those characteristics typically Swedish? Danes are also Scandinavians most Scandinavians are similar in looks. Adriaan, Let me guess you’re American right? It’s shocking how ignorant Americans are about the world not all Swedes are blonde hair and blue eyed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay! She's a Viking! I hope that is more logical! — Adriaan (T★C) 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Her parents are danish (father) and american (mother). There's plenty of danes with the swedish surname Johansson on the main-island Sjaelland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.211.217 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that typically Swedish last names end with -son while Danish (and Norwegian) end with -sen. Viggo Mortensen is the best example. It is safe to presume that one of her ancestors was a Swede and the last name survived in the Swedish form. Norum 22:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic people also have -son in their last name. Norweigans and Danes have -sen in their last name. She could be Icelandic. anon12 09:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.113.150 (talk)

Breasts
Why did someone delete my post about her breasts? This statement is notable and well-documented: Her sexiness is largely due to her fantastic breasts, which she often refers to as her "leading ladies." 24.218.25.60 16:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Open your curtains, let some daylight in, and put down that magazine. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Creepy much

LMAO Sion 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They're double D-cup. 209.29.93.161 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd love to Gitelmesomeofdat! (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted another reference to Ms. Johansson's breasts, which violate Wikipedia's standards for biographical articles such as these. 13 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamos (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Image
is that image really the best we can upload? NorthernThunder 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes, otherwise it wouldn't be there. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as this image is licensed CC, we can edit it to make it look better. At least take the extra people out. -- trlkly 00:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

why put a rubbish pic up? surely theres one where she looks hotter than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtbob7 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The current picture is awful. It needs to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdb236 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When you've taken a better photo of her, and have donated it to Wikipedia, be sure to let us know. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cant we use this picture? It's cc right? or doesn't it work that way? Mathijshenquet (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can go one better - it's already on Commons as File:Scarlett Johansson in Kuwait 02.jpg. I suspect the Flickr account took it from the same place the Commons uploader did. BTW, there's a lot of photos of Scarlett already on Commons which we can use - basically anything in Scarlett Johansson Tabercil (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But why would we want to? It's a badly composed image that makes her nose look huge and her hair look like crap. The main image currently being used is from a much better image from the same event. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Current picture makes her look like a clown, there has to be a headshot with less lipstick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.46.88 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that is a personal opinion and basically a disputed one. I think she's gorgeous in it. But more importantly, every good photo we have of her is already being used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just another opinion (and I'm sure there will be plenty more until it is changed) -- that lipstick is an abomination! It's visual pollution when trying to read the opening paragraphs. Ghastly! Vranak (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the color of the lipstick a bit to make it "stand out less." Let me know what you think. Nymf hideliho! 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think she looks like cheesecake. If it were up to me, I'd just snag one of the better images off Google and use it until the copyright holder complains -- and I seriously doubt they ever would, given that Wikipedia is not-for-profit. A paranoid, covetous individual might complain, but how many of those do you think take good pictures of Scarlett? Vranak (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot use non-free images, especially when free ones exist. That would be infringement. Nymf hideliho! 13:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I know. But it's not a crime if nobody minds. Of course there hundreds if not thousands of people who patrol looking for non-free images, in what amounts to an obsessive-compulsive disorder, so I am quite settled on the fact that it's just not worth the effort to try and resist that impulse. Still, the point is quite apparent: there are far better images of Scarlett out there! Vranak (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Atheism
People Magazine's "Chatter" column by Anne Marie Cruz (March 22, 2004 (p.126)) quotes Scarlett Johansson as saying that her parents are atheists, not Jewish. The article reads:

"Saving Miss Scarlett? Long before she won leading roles in films like Lost in Translation and Girl with a Pearl Earring, Scarlett Johansson endured her share of kooky casting agents. ‘I remember a weird audition when I was 10.  I gave this great reading, but the woman stopped me and said, “Scarlett, do you accept Jesus as your savior?” ' says Johansson, 19.  ‘I was like, don't know.  My parents are atheists.”  She said, “Oh, really?  So what does that make you?” and I said, “Um, a 10-year-old?"’

Based upon this, I had always since thought that she is an atheist, and always found her quite a bit more attractive on account of that. I think that this text from the article is also consistent with the conclusion that she is an atheist:

"When asked about her religious affiliation, Johansson has answered: 'That's a very personal question. I would rather not answer.' She has, however, specified that she celebrates a "little of both" referring to Christmas and Hanukkah.[footnote]  She has noted that she dislikes it when celebrities thank God or Jesus in their award acceptance speeches.")

I applaud her for her rational, intelligent mind on the subject. When she says that she and Woody Allen are "[both] Jewish", she may only be referring to the fact that her maternal grandmother is Jewish, which I understand "technically" makes her "Jewish". But I don't think it's accurate to say that the "religious affiliation" of someone who does not believe superstition is "Jewish" just because the person's mother or maternal grandmother is/was "Jewish".

kalan1123 9-1-2007  [I'm still trying to figure out signatures and tidles; sorry]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.240.151 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We aren't allowed to come to our own conclusion, see WP:NOR. --Yamla 14:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're not talking here about drawing "our own conclusions". She said at age 10 she told a casting person that her parents were atheists. I guess you're saying that her atheist parents nevertheless must have raised her in the Jewish faith just as Muslim parents usually raise their children in the Hindu faith and as Jewish parents usually raise their children as Jehovah's Witnesses? Let's face facts: 99.99% of people's brand of superstition -- "religious affiliation" -- is an accident of birth.

I assume that was the point of all the banter in the article and on this talk page about whether her parents were or were not Jewish and whether that's a religion or an ethnic group. Once again, though, here you have a quote from Ms. Johansson herself saying that her parents are atheists. kalan1123 9-1-2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.240.151 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Judaism is viewed as an ethnicity _and_ a religion by the majority of scholars. It's not like being Italian, French, Nigerian, etc.  It's more akin to being, e.g., a Parsi - meaning that the mere fact that you reject the religion doesn't disqualify you as a Jew - hence the commonplace U.S. and Western phenomenon of "secularized Jews." I'll repeat this again - your viewpoint is in the extreme minority.  Almost all scholars would consider Ms. Johansson half-Jewish (and some fully-Jewish, as her mother is a Jew).  What is with this periodic, out-of-the-blue rash of unsigned comments and modifications to this article attempting to excise all mention of the fact that she has Jewish ancestry on her mother's side?  Can we put this to rest? Narsil27 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * just a comment after reading these comments. you are an idiot narsil.. with this bullshit "your viewpoint is in the extreme minority".  well, obviously that means then that their viewpoint is wrong.. because the majority is always right.  wanker...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.188.149 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're using the term "read" rather loosely, since if you had actually read the comments on this page, you would understand that the majority/minority dichotomy I was referring to was in the realm of scholarly debate, not the "majority" of people in the the world. Here's a thought - how about you grow a pair, sign your name, and substantively contribute to Wikipedia.  As it stands, the only thing that I can imagine my response inspiring in you is another round of expletives.  Contribute, or act like a peasant in some other forum.Narsil27 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it from your comments that you think a person can be 100% atheist and still 100% Jewish based upon the vote of "a majority of scholars" (has someone taken a poll of "scholars"? hasn't recent DNA and human genome research already "de-bunked" the idea that "Judaism is ... an ethnicity" passed along maternally?  see, e.g.:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron ). OK. There are atheists of every ethnicity. But I think you mischaracterize my input. The article refers to her "religious affiliation" (not her ethnic affiliation) in mis-identifies her as Jewish. In any event, I have not modified the article; and I have not suggested it be modified in the manner you suggest. I think it's fine to mention that she has Jewish ancestry on her mother's side. But the article lacks mention of her atheism and lacks mention of, or citation to, her statements in which she says her parents were/are atheists and strongly implies that she, like her parents, is atheist (my purpose was to contribute that source, which I quoted in full above). Instead the article asserts (apparently incorrectly) that she identifies religiously as a Jew.

Turning to your ad hominem, "extreme minority"? see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew  Galileo was once in the "extreme minority" asserting that the earth was a sphere. What is true is not generally determined by majority vote. "Periodic"? "out-of-the-blue"? Should I have first given some advance notice that I was going to post something on this page so it would not have been "out of the blue"? Was there a deadline or schedule for submissions so that my contribution would not have been "periodic"? "What is with this", you ask? I thought "what is with this" was the simple accretion of knowledge and information, which is inherently "periodic" and sporadic. And when I figure out how to "sign" these posts (I guess you have me there) I'll go back and insert signatures and tidles. But you don't need my signature to go and look up People Magazine's March 22, 2004 issue and turn to page 126, so please don't try to denigrate my input by complaining it's "out-of-the-blue", "periodic" and that I have not "signed" my post. If you don't want the information, please just ignore it.

By the way, are you aware that the your own signature hypertext refers to a page which reads, "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Narsil27."? -- kalan1123 9-6-2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.240.151 (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope for your sake that you're not likening your thinnly-veiled attempt to restart the "religious practice only" debate regarding Judaism to Galileo's assertion that the Earth was a sphere. Especially in the context of a pop culture bio page.  In any event, I think the very article you site (i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew) would lend credence to my claim that few people would charaterize as Jews only those who practiced Judaism.  With respect to your cite to the Y-chromosome Adam page, I also invite you to look at the article on "Askenazi Jews,"  which discusses genetics and Judaism (including, e.g., Tay-Sachs screening, etc.).  In any event, I think you misconstrued my meaning.  I wasn't trying to get into a genetics debate, but I was merely pointing out that, according to Jewish law, a child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew even if they do not practice Judaism.  It was a religio-historical, not scientific comment.


 * You're right about my page, by the way. I'll get on that.  I was under the impression that other users could see my contributions, but I guess only I can.  Sorry. Narsil27 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are way, way off topic. Jewish law has nothing to do with Ms. Johansson's *religious affiliation*. Neither does genetics. That "few people would charaterize [sic] as Jews only those who practiced Judaism", even if such were substantiated, is irrelevant. A person's religious belief, on the one hand, and their ethnicity on the other hand, are two different things. Blurring them and equating them only muddles the discussion and only makes the article confusing and imprecise. The reader should not have to know *anything* about Jewish law or any of the other stuff to which you refer in order to simply read this article about Ms. Johansson and have a clear and accurate understanding of what her religious affiliation and her ethnicity and heritage are. Religio-ethnic-politics should not enter into it. -- kalan1123 9-6-2007 [I know; I know; unsigned once again; mea culpa; mea culpa] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.240.151 (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that readers should know anything about religious law or genetics - that is why the article itself doesn't discuss either of those topics.  I was merely clarifying my previous comments to you.


 * Look, the basic jist of my comments is that the fact that her mother came from a Jewish family and her father is Danish are both clearly relevant to her bio. Does the article even mention that she practices any religion? If not, I don't see why your comments re: atheism wouldn't be relevant.  Put them in.  Just don't take out the fact that her mother's background is Jewish.Narsil27 13:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything added to the article should be backed by a reliable source that states what you're adding. Mad Jack 17:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many Jewish atheists and agnostics. I am one and apparently so is Scarlet Johansson. Being Jewish can be a familial/genetic, cultural/social, or religious (spiritual, supernatural) phenomenon - or any combination of them. If she says she is Jewish, then she is. And she has a Jewish grandmother. OK, enough about that. 162.84.252.224 (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Height
How tall is Scarlett? 209.29.93.161 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 5' 4" (1.63 m) http://akas.imdb.com/name/nm0424060/bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.207.11 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tom Waits' tribute release date?
The article says that it is Oct7 2007, that date has passe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Worth Waiting For (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Languages spoken
Is she a monoglot? Or does she speak e.g. Danish and or Polish? Some might find this interesting. (Maybe Danes in particular) Mulder1982 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems possible that she picked up some Danish from her father. As for Polish, almost certainly not; Polish Jews spoke Yiddish and many did not speak Polish at all. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallow's Wraith, That's not true, there were many Jews in Poland that spoke Polish your statement doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.180.169 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a danish article about her a few weeks ago in the danish tabloid, that interviewed her and specifically asked her about her danish. Perhaps she has picked up a few words here and there, but she cannot speak the language nor understand it. She loves Denmark, danish culture and its people though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.211.217 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Plastic surgery?
What does the current Us say about her possible plastic surgery? I thought she seemed more interesting "before" if true. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Critical consensus
I added this to balance and make the readers be aware of the other sides, the forecasts: amid a "critical consensus, stretching from comments on Gawker to the pages of the New York Times."nymag.com, The Genius of Scarlett Johanssonwashingtonpost.com, Scarlett Johansson Is Almost Nowhere On 'Anywhere' --Florentino floro (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Age
Is she really 23 because when she was in Home Alone 3 she was about 16 but it would of made her 11/12 at the time because that was filmed in 1997?


 * Yeh, she was certainly not 16 in HA3, she was 13. Born in '84, Home Alone 3 was in 1997. Use your math skills.  -davisl96

Bad image
Can somebody please flip the current image so that she looks to the left and not to the right? Or we can put her in the left, so she still looks into the article. At the moment, the style looks bad, because she is looking away from the article. But it's a nice picture, so just flip it to the otherside.  — Adriaan (T★C) 13:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I replaced it.  — Adriaan (T★C) 14:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we change her portrait picture in the infobox? . ..

. . . technically the image is very plastic look because of the lighting and her makeup is heavy because of it. the front on look is not natural without the normal curves and shades of the face contours. So just by looking at the portrait picture, people would not recognise her as well as the second picture where she is on the film set. The second picture is more natural and recognised and so features her much better. Therefore can I make a plea for people to find a better picture for her infobox. In a short fictionous way, she looks like a vampire waiting to bite and clearly that should be the feeling. Does someone else agrees with this? Topsaint 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsaint (talk • contribs)


 * That really is an awful picture. - LeonWhite (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlett_Johansson
From http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlett_Johansson

"hennes mor Melanie MacDuff" (her mother) "Johanssons farmor hette Birgit Johansson och var bördig Sverige och hennes farfar hette Eijner Christensen och kom från Köpenhamn" (paternal grandmother), (native of Sweden), (paternal grandfather)

Scarlett Johansson's mother, Melanie Sloan? Johansson's maternal grandmother, Dorothy? her paternal grandfather, Ejner Johansson?

Which are right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.251.207.11 (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole excerpt from the Swedish Wiki reads that "Johansson's father, Karsten Johansson is an architect and was born in Denmark and her mother, Melanie Sloan, is a producer and comes from a jewish family in Bronx. Her (maternal) grandfather comes from Glasgow in Scotland and her (maternal) grandmother comes from Brandenburg in Germany. Johansson (paternal) grandmother's name was Birgit Johansson and she was a native of Sweden and her (paternal) granfather's name was Eijner Johansson, he was from Copenhagen and was a screenwriter and a director. She was raised Jewish and identifies herself as one. But on a private note, something doesnt add up in here. The same person that asked this here, asked it there as well. Norum 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Swedish Wikipedia cited no source for these claims, so I removed them from there. In sofar as Johansson having Swedish ancestry because of her surname, that seems possible, but a reliable source should be found to confirm it. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle name mystery?
What's Scarlett's middle name? What's the "I" for? Isn't her name Scarlett Marie? (http://www.mooviees.com/14404-Scarlett-Johansson/celebrity and other sources) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.75.3 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the I. The cited source (teenfashion.about.com) does not pass muster. IMDB also lists "I" but the Lost in Translation soundtrack lists her as "Scarlett T. Johansson." We shan't show any middle name or initial without a more reliable source. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadway debut
I think you're aware of this, but just in case. Some first reviews of A View from the Bridge. -- Artoasis (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * NY Times
 * New York Magazine
 * EW
 * Washington Post

Television appearances
can someone please put her tv guest appearances like Entourage etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Same as on Angelina Jolie and Kathy Bates when you asked, not gonna happen. We don't make lists of every single television appearance that someone makes. If you want to know, go find them on IMDB. Please stop posting this request on every article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * am not talking about appearances on talk shows or on late night shows like Saturday night live .....you dont even have 1 of her appearances so at least put the effort to put in 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.227.146 (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, we don't list every time someone appears on television. Please stop posting this. Not gonna do it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms
I'm disappointed that the efforts I made to remove poorly attributed repetitive praise for the subject of the article have been thwarted. It makes the article read like something a teenage fan would have written, unfortunately. We need to tone this down, source every single adjective we keep, and improve the quality of the writing. --John (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will repeat every point I made to your talk page about this issue. There is absolutely nothing in this article that qualifies as "poorly attributed repetitive praise". Each and every single point that would fall under peacock was factually thorough sourced and covered and reflected points made by actual film critics regarding performances. The article does not read like "something a teenager fan would have written" and every single adjective that is used is thoroughly sourced. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the quality of the writing. Thus, here are points that cover each and every thing you removed.

Each and every statement you removed is backed with references that support those statements. This article retained its good article status in August 2009 following a very in-depth review and discussion regarding it. The reviewer was quite tough about demanding adequate sourcing. The statements in the lead section are a reflection of sourced content in the main body of the article. At no time are any statements contained in the article that represent editor POV and actually do reflect critical commentary that is sourced.
 * Main body of article
 * The statement "Johansson marked her transition to adult roles in a pair of 2003 films. In the much heralded Sofia Coppola film Lost in Translation" was sourced to this source which gave it an 89/100 and is termed universal acclaim.


 * The statement "Johansson found equal praise for her role as Griet in Peter Webber's Girl with a Pearl Earring." was sourced to supporting critical statements by four different high profile film critics and was supported by sourced mentions of a number of awards she won or for which she was nominated.


 * The statement "2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances." followed a section that covered some films that flopped or were less than enthusiastically received, also adequately sourced. It is sourced by critical commentary that some films during that period were not well received, but still brought Johannson praise for her own work in the films.
 * Lead
 * The statement in the lead "Johansson rose to fame with her role in 1998's The Horse Whisperer and subsequently gained critical acclaim for her breakout performance in Ghost World in 2001, for which she won the Chlotrudis Award for Best Supporting Actress." Was supported in the main article from sourced content of "Although the film was not a box office success, she received praise for her breakout role in the critically acclaimed 2001 film, Ghost World." The statement that it was a breakout role was sourced to a The Los Angeles Times review. The statement that the film was critically praised is source to both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. The sentence was not hyperbole or POV, it was sourced to solid references.


 * The statement that Lost in Translation was critically acclaimed film is also sourced in the section regarding that film.


 * Describing The Nanny Diaries as a critical flop was supported in the article body with sourced content regarding critical reactions and also to box office results.


 * The statement in the lead that "She received positive reviews for her appearance in He's Just Not That into You (2009)" is sourced in the main article with quotes from referenced critical reviews that said: "The San Francisco Chronicle review noted that the film "never soars, but it never flags" yet lauds Johansson, saying "she has become a deft comic actress."[91] The Los Angeles Times calls the film an "anti-romantic romantic comedy" and cites the scenario in which Johansson appears with Jennifer Connelly and Bradley Cooper as having "more meat than others", making it "one of the best."[92] The Baltimore Sun criticized the film, saying it "stumbles somewhat when it tries to get serious", but praised Johansson for "proving she doesn't need Woody Allen to be funny."[93]".

Thus I was puzzled by the removal of GA review vetted and solidly sourced statements that describe critical reactions to Johannson's performances with an edit summary of "ce, npov". Nothing has been added to these statements since the GA review and are decidedly not POV statements added by editors here, but instead are wholly supported to statements that supported each and every statement. This is all sourced content. I completely disagree with your addition of the peacock template and the assertions you have made about the content of this article. Those characterizations are actually what are POV, since it is your opinion, not supported by thorough sourcing. Personally, I'm quite offended that the hours and hours of work that went into retaining this article's GA status is so easily and summarily dismissed. {Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear John, You will need to make specific points in regards to your complaints. I don't understand your point in truth. Give us a few problematic constructions and we can have a coheranet discussion. Just throwing a template on a page and making broad talk page points does not really help us improve the article. The main author is quite attentive to this article and would I am sure be willing to work through issues on a WP:PR or simply an itemized list of issues here on the talk page either of which could be observed by concerned editors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I have taken a cursory look at this article since my GA review 9 months ago and this still seems like a quality article to me.


 * Pardon me for popping in Wildhartlivie, and I do understand your being perplexed, but if I understand what John states (and no doubt he'll let me know if I got it wrong), his concern is that rather than we editors reading the outside sourced claims and then offering a conclusion (reasonable or not) based upon those outside claims, it is better to simply include those accolades or claims as attributed quotations which are then and quite naturally themselves sourced back to those making the claim... thus letting the reader read those claims for themselves and thus draw their own conclusions. By way of example... rather than offering that "The project was critcally acclaimed[ref][ref][ref]"....  it would better to state "The project received critical acclaim in source 'XX', which offered "THEIR ACCLAIM HERE"[ref] source 'YY', which wrote "THEIR ACCLAIM HERE"[ref] and source 'ZZ', which stated "THEIR ACCLAIM HERE"[ref]" so as to let everything have its proper attribution.  Most specially where BLPs are concerned, if something sounds like peacock, it must be seen that it specifically comes as a quotation from its source, and not be even hinted that it is editorial POV.  I feel confident that with some tweaks to how the sourced information is presented, John would have no problem with it being returned.  I believe his concern is for maintaining a NPOV, and assuring readers that any perceived peacock terms are not from Wikipedia, but from the sources themselves.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is misguided advice. WP is suppose to be a tertiary source which summarizes secondary sources. It is not a repository for secondary source quotations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the correct advice and will solve the problem. See WP:PEA for a clear example. The description of "repository" is a straw man argument. Less hyperbole, please, Tony!  Ty  04:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again. No actionable objections for the editor. I am just trying to help, but I do not see examples of the problem.  If you give this editor actionable issues, you can be fairly sure that a good effort will be made to address them.  That is my point here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have somehow missed the post above... I quote the actionable issues from it below.  Ty  15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Except rather than write, "The project received critical acclaim in source 'XX', which offered "THEIR ACCLAIM HERE"[ref] etc," it would be better to simply say, "Source 'XX' said "THEIR ACCLAIM HERE"[ref] etc,"  Ty  15:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a point worth discussing here. My problem is with editors who feel the content should be removed entirely. I think there was room for improvement, but I think removing the information was not helpful. It should have been refined and should be readded in refined format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MichaelQSchmidt has summed the problem up reasonably well. We should, as "a tertiary source which summarizes secondary sources" merely report and summarize who said what, and not attempt to synthesize it into general statements or value judgments. Not only does the way the article is currently written breach WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, it also looks amateurish and fanzinish. It is interesting and perhaps predictable that those who thought this was a GA-quality article still think it to be so; I, however, do not agree. I am open to discussing the improvements here, but improvements there must be. I will pop the tag back now; please don't remove it until there is a substantive discussion here and requisite improvements to the article have been made. Thanks. --John (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a major disagreement. There are several dispute mechanisms. The most constructive resolution would be for this article to have a WP:PR or individual WP:GAR where complainants enumerate actionable items to address.  However, there has been no evidence that the complainants really want to point to ways to improve the article.  A second dispute resolution would be to involve a larger audience through a WP:GAR community assessment if you insist on spamming templates without showing a willingness to enumerating any actionable complaints.  Ms. Johansson's page is highly visible with a regular audience of 8-10K viewers per day and a ramp up in her audience is visible (http://stats.grok.se/en/201004/Scarlett_Johansson ) as the publicity for Iron Man 2 impacts her viewership.  I have removed peacock because of the oncoming onslaught of viewership.  We are all at attention and can work to improve the article without it having a tag on it.  Please identify a method of resolution that you would prefer.  Again to summarize:
 * 1) Identify actionable items for resolution at individual WP:GAR or WP:PR
 * 2) Put this article up for community WP:GAR and we can discuss it's needs for attention there.
 * Tagging this article serves no purpose because we are all at attention and it detracts from the project at a time of high visibility. Let's work to improve the article one way or another.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

All quite typical for a WP:ACTOR-article. John, your edit resulted in a WP:WRONG-style version because it doesn't meet the WP:OWNer's standards. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND  Mike  Allen  04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack Merridew, I think your edits improve the article, although you made them while this discussion was ongoing. Even when you're (IMO) right, your approach is not.  You could have made your point without yet another barb aimed at an editor and/or group of editors that you disapprove of.    The concept of ownership is not just a matter of an editor or group of editors refusing to allow changes to something they hold dear. It's just as much about an editor or editors being so sure of the rightness of their opinion/s that they act to overrule or disregard the dissenters.  "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article."  That sentence applies equally to everyone.  Your editing of this article was not collaborative and you had "no right to act as though [you are] the owner of" this article. It's not even a question of "being bold" because you knew that it was being discussed.  Your edit achieves a result that I support and approve of but I don't think my opinion or yours are any more valid than the opinions of the other editors who have commented here.    Another editor said "We have a major disagreement" which indicated the need for discussion but rather than discuss the situation you went ahead and made the edit you believe needed to be made.  How is that better than the perceived attitude you are so outspoken against, and how is it collaborative? Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree and it's more than tiring to see Jack Merridew show up to make these sorts of statements. Was that not something he was expected to stop when his sock block was lifted? Stalking editors and trying to cast the' editor in a negative light. Sheesh. But still it happens. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag at the top of the article There may be issues that can and should be addressed through editing and, where appropriate, talkpage discussion. We don't need this prominent a negative tag on a BLP page, with the associated possibility that new readers will mistake the allegation of "peacocking" as directed toward the subject of the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the laugh, NYB, that's easily the funniest reason I've ever seen for removing an article improvement tag. And enormous thanks to Jack Merridew for improving the article by (re)purging some of the breathless praise, which means the tag has done its job and can safely be removed anyway. I'm not sure if the GAR idea is needed or would be a benefit; if GAR is frequented by the same folks who passed this article as GA status with the schoolboy writing in place, I wouldn't see the point. Feel free to take it to this step if you think it will do any good though. And yes, there does seem to be a bit of a WP:OWN problem here. --John (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing the diffs, I think the article reads better now.  Words and phrases about "critical acclaim" were overused, and there are enough comments woven through the article related to specific films and performances to give a good sense of how Johansson is perceived.   I don't understand how "Johansson rose to fame.." is acceptable as "fame" is a matter of opinion and without context.  Perhaps it was just overlooked.  As the people most likely to see this discussion are the editors who have contributed to this article, ridiculing the writing as "schoolboy" or "teenage" is not likely to rally any effort to improve the article within the group of editors most interested in it.  When you've moved on to other articles, they'll still be here and they won't be looking at your comments for inspiration. Rossrs (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Rossrs. The level of vitriol in this discussion is disturbing. Although recent changes may improve the article, it did not read like a "breathless" "schoolboy" wrote it before, and I know that editors I respect are keeping tabs on it. --CAVincent (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
QUESTION FOR JOHN AND TY: User:John's edit and the edits by the WP:SOCK took out the following substantive phrases:
 * From the WP:LEAD (which are properly attributed elsewhere)
 * gained critical acclaim for her breakout performance
 * critically acclaimed
 * the critical flop
 * received positive reviews
 * Elsewhere with proper citations
 * Johansson marked her transition to adult roles in a pair of 2003 films. In the much heralded
 * found equal praise for her role as
 * 2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances.

My question to you is do you understand WP:PEACOCK to refer to "Words . . . used without attribution. . . [that is not] plainly summarizing verifiable information" The content that you removed was attributed and was summarizing verifiable information. Why is PEA even relevant? Furthermore, a look at some of the most recently passed featured content such as Brad Pitt, which passed WP:FA five weeks ago uses the same style.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed any content or edited the article in any way. Just take one quote from above: "found equal praise for her role as". That is not only WP:PEA but WP:WEASEL. Who praised her? What exactly did they praise about her role? To say A said "B", and C said "D" is much more accurate and informative.  Ty  14:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that they praised her "for her role as X", which was probably praiseworthy. Do we need to bog down the reader in the details of why each role was praiseworthy? It seems that it is informative to say role X was critically praised with a proper citation, which is not against the guideline of WP:PEA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Praised" is a value judgement, not a summation of incontrovertible fact. What exactly constitutes "praised"? Was there no reservation or toning in the reviews etc? What exactly did the reviews praise - her looks, her dialogue, her characterisation? Much better, per WP:PEA, and more informative to quote exactly what was said by the reviews. "Bog down the reader" is a curious judgement on providing specific information about the roles, unless they were all identikit performances.  Ty  15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The question wasn't directed at me, but just an observation. In this version the lead contains "rose to fame", "gained critical acclaim", "her critically acclaimed performance", "garnered critical acclaim", "the critical flop", "a resurgence of critical reception" (whatever that means) and "positive reviews".    The word "critical" even appears twice in one sentence.   I don't think it falls under WP:PEACOCK because, as you note, it's attributed elsewhere, but it's still very repetitive and focusses on praise and more praise to the point that it loses relevance.


 * In the current version here it's been reduced in the lead to "rose to fame", "garnered critical acclaim" and "a resurgence of critical reception".  I'm not sure how these instances (especially the grammatically odd third one) survived when the rest were removed.  "2008 brought an upturn in critical reception for Johansson's performances" - that's written very awkwardly.  Rossrs (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ty, you hit the nail on the head. Rossrs, maybe now you can see where my criticisms of the writing quality came from, even if I expressed it rather inelegantly. There is much more terrible writing waiting to come out of this article as you point out. If nobody else wants to do it then I can. If this is a GA then I am a Dutchman's wooden shoe. Let's work together to make it better, and leave bickering and ownership issues behind us. --John (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe now I can see? John, I saw it.  I agreed with you.  My agreement may have been obscured by my lengthier comment about your inelegant expression, but it was there. Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't let the issue of writing quality be used as a mask to delete sourced material. If a film critic uses adjectives, however flowered they may be, to describe Johansson's performance, and the critic's words are sourced, then that is acceptable for inclusion in the article.  Removing them would seem like POV pushing and would suggest the editor who is removing them just doesn't like Scarlett Johansson.  Also, keep this in mind: . Malke 2010  16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've completely misunderstood the argument, which is that the critics' words should be included and at the moment they are not. They have not been removed, because they were never there in the first place.  Ty  17:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * John, can you please respond to the following since we have gotten off topic. I will make it a fill in the blank. I feel that the statement "received positive reviews" should be removed entirely from the article rather than WP:PRESERVEd in at least some modified form for the following reason:  .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for some sort of explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man again, Tony! That's not what he said. See below.  Ty  01:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one's saying it shouldn't be preserved in some form: quite the contrary. It should be preserved in an accurate form by quoting some of the text of these reviews, so the reader can make up their own mind about them, without their import being predigested.  Ty  17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may not be saying that the content should be removed, but John has stated it here and on his talk page that now that the content has been removed all is resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, here is one of the many instances that has stated that the content should be entirely removed as an improvement to the article. I am a WP:PRESERVEationist and vehemently disagree with the Deletionist arguements that the content should be removed entirely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, he didn't say it "should be entirely removed as an improvement to the article". He said, "here is my original edit, which removed material that failed WP:PEACOCK. User:Wildhartlivie restored the offending material ... Another user then re-removed the peacock terms, so, as I say, the matter is now resolved." This did indeed resolve the issue of PEACOCK, but was not a bar to reintroducing suitable content in, as you put it, "some modified form" (which conformed to guidelines) to make the appropriate points in the article.  Ty  01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ty, I am unclear why you keep referring to WP:PEA for content that I believe you agree is properly sourced in terms of WP:V & WP:RS. It would be better to say content should be modified for more professional perception or something.  PEA has absolutely nothing to do with properly sourced content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection is that the content is not properly sourced. There are not secondary sources that have assessed the reviews and come to conclusions such as "gained critical acclaim", "critically acclaimed performance", "garnered critical acclaim", "the critical flop", and "a resurgence of critical reception". It is a wikipedia editor who has come to this assessment, i.e. WP:OR. If you look at Damien_Hirst, you will see that his show received "one of the most unanimously negative responses to any exhibition in living memory". This is the assessment of a secondary source, not a wikipedia editor. It is in quotation marks and it is referenced to the source, where you will find those exact words.  Ty  17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a clear misunderstanding of what a secondary source and what a tertiary source is. The sources cited were secondary sources.  We don't look to tertiary sources like other encyclopedias for their synthesis of these secondary sources.  We make them ourselves here at WP.  The objective of WP is to summarize secondary sources and WHEN NECESSARY quote them if a summary is not adequate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're blinding me with science, then a film review is a secondary source about the film, but a primary source about itself. Per WP:PRIMARY: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In other words, you can summarise the content of such sources, in terms of what they say specifically about the acting or the films e.g. that X's performance was particularly dramatic, but you can't summarise the nature of the criticism, e.g. whether it was positive or negative, because that would be primary source analysis.  Ty  01:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If Roger Ebert says the film was a thrilling, turbulent emotional roller coaster. He would be a secondary source about the movie (which is the subject of the WP article). Yes he is a primary source about his own movie enjoyment, but we don't care about that and it is irrelevant because his bio article is not at issue.  As a secondary source, WP can and should summarize his thoughts on the movie (not about his own movie enjoyment). A WP article could then say. The movie was considered exciting by some reviewers as a tertiary source summarizing the secondary source. The primary source that would be relevant would be details from watching the film that might be incorporated into the article.  In regards to the article the relevant Primary source is the movie and the relevant secondary source is the reviewer.  We needn't quote every review by every reviewer because they are secondary sources.  If we describe a car chase from the Primary source, we can incorporate details from the primary that are factual, (i.e., A red Porche chased a blue Viper), we can also say this was an exciting chase (an interpretive claim of analysis) if Ebert says so.  With regard to Johansson, all reviewers are secondary sources and a reasonable interpretation is all that is required by WP.  No reviewer is a primary source about Johansson in a Johansson article.  They would be primary sources in their own articles about whether they enjoy Johansson performance.  If reviewer X says she feels Johansson is one of the best young actresses or her performance in YY was among the 10 best of the year, in a Johansson article this is a secondary claim.  In the reviewers own bio about her 10 favorite performances this is a primary claim.  However, it is a primary claim of fact and not interpretation and would not need attribution. If reviewer spoke glowingly about Johansson using superlatives that are among the best that reviewer offers, we could interpret that the reviewer spoke highly of Johansson in the Johansson article as a secondary source, but may need a secondary source to say what the reviewers opinions are in his/her own bio in which his commentary is a primary source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But, if Roger Ebert said that, wouldn't we be better to say "Roger Ebert said..."? Why would we gloss that as "some reviewers"? We need to attribute praise (or criticism of course), and we may not synthesize that into "some reviewers" or suchlike terms. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You could certainly argue that it is preferable in the case of Roger Ebert for a movie review to attribute it to him. However, it is not necessary to attribute every quote by a secondary source such as a movie review. Selectively, yes, it is good to do.  But it is not necessary for every quote. In some cases just saying Actor x received critical praise is O.K.  Look at the last WP:GA to pass for Penelope Cruz.  Look at one of the last, if not the last, actor FA Brad Pitt.  These are just examples, but it is not necessary to quote every review for inclusion in an article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand this as well. I think removing a lot of the "critical acclaim" comments improved the writing by reducing repetition and redundancy, but I'm struggling to understand how to apply that principle in all situations.   If a particular performance has been discussed on a wide scale, and the comments are mainly one type of positive or one type of negative, how do we use those comments without cherry picking?   Will an editor who thinks Roger Ebert is an ass prefer to choose a different critic to cite?  Or do we end up with Roger Ebert popping up everywhere because his reviews are so accessible?   Looking away from Scarlett for a moment, what about someone with a longer history, for example Marlon Brando. (And I'll get in first and say that I see numerous flaws in that article, which is why it comes quickly to mind.)  His performance in On the Waterfront (among others) has been discussed for over 50 years and is seen as both a milestone in his career and in film history.  How do we select from a large number of comments made over a long period of time and summarize them into something that is accurate without synthesising or paraphrasing them?  I agree with the concept in principle and largely in practice too, and I agree that it's important to be specific where it's both possible and practical.  I think in the body of the article it's much easier to substantiate and attribute any claims with more depth and context, but how then to summarize the overall message into the lead where we must maintain a balance between accurately reflecting the article, and remaining brief and focussed?   Rossrs (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better in that case not to attempt to summarize the sources in the lede at all but just to mention the achievements (ie which films the actor played in). The lede is supposed to be a summary anyway and perhaps the place for a discussion of who thought what about it belongs in the main body of the article. --John (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with just mentioning achievements in the WP:LEAD as long as achievements includes nominations and awards. Then, properly formulating a summarized synthesis of secondary sources in the main body would further understanding.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with John's comment, and I agree that achievements be included as long as they are notable/relevant and are not given undue weight. Rossrs (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there debate somewhere about the filmography?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Looking for WT:ACTOR? Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Critical quote example
This is the type of comment that I think is a problem. From the "transition to adult roles" section, regarding Lost in Translation. "In praising the work of Johansson and Murray, film critic Roger Ebert described the film as "sweet and sad at the same time as it is sardonic and funny".   The quote given is not about Johansson.  Of course Johansson contributes to making the film sweet, sad, sardonic and funny, and that can be safely assumed, but we shouldn't assume.  When you read the full review, much as he likes Johansson and the film, he seems to give most credit to Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola.  The only word he uses to specifically describe Johansson's performance (and even then it's along with Murray's) is "wonderful".   So that's what we should say.  I'm going to reword that, but I'll refer back to this comment.  Rossrs (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Alt text for the images in this article
The current alt text for the images in this article is in question.

When adding alt text to an image, you should think of asking yourself these questions.


 * Why is this non-text content here?
 * What information is it presenting?
 * What purpose does it fulfill?
 * If I could not use the non-text content, what words would I use to convey the same function and/or information? Chicken  monkey  06:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And why would you say it is in question? Because a new editor came in, removed one instance of alt text entirely with no explanation whatsoever and then came back and cut it an alarming amount? It is not at all helpful to a visually impaired reader to find "Michael Caine and Scarlett Johansson on a stage in front of a dark curtain" instead of the much more helpful and visually descriptive ""A older man with gray hair, wearing glasses and dressed in a black suit and matching lavender shirt and tie stands on a stage in front of a dark curtain. A young woman with blonde hair pulled away from her face, wearing a sleeveless purple designer dress and high heels stands next to him, her right hand holding his left arm. Both are holding cordless microphones. There is blue backlighting that reflects off of the floor". Which one conveys a visual picture? One should consider that naming the parties is less helpful than describing them. The extant alt text is what was present when the article passed WP:GA status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it is question because it is. WP:ALT advises that alt text should be short. It also advises that editors take into consideration what the image is meant to convey. I'll answer the four questions that WP:ALT links to, and that I have transferred here.


 * Why is this non-text content here?
 * The infobox photo is meant to show her appearance. The alt text should describe what she looks like.
 * The second and third images seem to be there just because they look nice. In other words, they probably aren't needed.
 * The fourth image, I assume is meant to show her personal life. It should describe what she is doing.


 * What information is it presenting?
 * As I stated.


 * What purpose does it fulfill?
 * As I stated.


 * If I could not use the non-text content, what words would I use to convey the same function and/or information?
 * Infobox image: Scarlett Johansson with her blond hair pulled into a ponytail, wearing red lipstick, and wearing a gold necklace and earrings.
 * Fourth image: Scarlett Johansson stands with a man on a stage. (the caption should then be "Johansson, with Michael Caine, at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert 2008.").


 * I only meant to begin a discussion, as opposed to the article being edited back and forth. Chicken  monkey  07:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't particularly say that someone coming in to completely cut one instance of the text with no rationale or edit summary whatsoever was an instance of questioning it. If it were a brand new editor, I think most other editors would have called it reverting vandalism. You haven't begun an instance of editing back and forth. The alt text at present is sufficiently descriptive to evoke a mental image and I'd suggest that it is unhelpful to name the woman in the images since it is the Scarlett Johannson article and the captions do that already. The alt text shouldn't serve to repeat what is in the image caption, so just saying that Johannson is standing with a man, named in the caption as Michael Caine, doesn't evoke anything. The second and third images are of her in settings that are pertinent to her career. I'm not excited by the image at the Hasty Pudding Awards, but the image on set is interesting and illustrative. I'm not aware of a drive to reduce text that was acceptable at the time of the GA and also acceptable at the recent crap fest that went on here. Being visually impaired, I'm aware of the accessibility assistance of an adequately descriptive alt text. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am questioning it. You may suggest that it is "unhelpful to name the woman in the images", but WP:ALT disagrees: look at the "Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference. Blair and Bush agree on a strategy for peace in the Middle-East on 12 November 2004." example. It is okay to repeat the name(s) of the people in the image if that is what is meant to be conveyed by the image. Also, WP:ALT says "Do not identify the subject of the image as just "a man" or "a child" unless the image was chosen to illustrate any man or any child. To achieve this, it may sometimes be necessary to repeat the name of the subject in the alt text and the caption." The point of the image with Michael Caine is what she is doing (i.e. standing on a stage with a man), the caption should name him because that is why the caption is there. The fact that you are visually impaired means your opinion carries more weight on this subject than the average editor, but that discussion should be had at WP:ALT, or whatever the appropriate venue would be. As of now, the article should adhere to WP:ALT. Chicken  monkey  08:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet your example above for the 4th image does say "Scarlett Johansson stands with a man on a stage." And the point of the image is that they are presenting something at a function which is described in the caption as at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert 2008, which is in no way conveyed by "Michael Caine and Scarlett Johansson on a stage in front of a dark curtain." The original issue here was the vast cutting of the alt text, which took pertinent information from the reader. This alt text adhered to the criteria when it was written and again, cutting the visual descriptions lessen the impact and usefulness of the text. If the names need to be inserted, so be it, but to change it to "Scarlett Johannson wearing a silver tiara" is somewhat insulting to the reader. There is nothing that I read that said "don't describe anything". Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what she's doing in the image: standing with a man on a stage. That's what the image conveys. The caption also does its job. The original issue was that the editor made a good faith edit and you felt it was incorrect. Now the issue is that the alt text is being questioned, by that editor and me. What do you mean by "this alt text adhered to the criteria when it was written"? Are you suggesting it doesn't matter that consensus has apparently changed since this text was written? Again, you may feel "cutting the visual descriptions lessens the impact and usefulness of the text", but I don't think WP:ALT agrees with you. Again, I pull from the Tony Blair/George W. Bush example at WP:ALT:
 * "The picture is used to show they met in person and jointly announced the strategy at a press conference, greeting each other with a handshake. The alt text can't just say 'Two men shaking hands' as that's not why the picture was chosen. So it needs to identify the men even if that repeats the caption a little. The alt text shouldn't say this was at the East Room of the White House, because that information is not present in the photo, goes beyond basic identification purposes, and wouldn't then be presented to sighted readers. That both leaders are dressed identically is information contained in the photo that probably isn't relevant to the article and so isn't worth adding to the alt text."


 * It depends on the image in question. For instance, the infobox image is meant to show her appearance; so the alt text should describe her appearance. The 4th image is meant to show that she did something; so, it should describe what she's doing. Chicken  monkey  08:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't see that the criteria has changed all that much to drastically alter what is already here. What I also mean is that it is 5 in the morning and I can't wrap my head around any more of this tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure when/if the criteria changed since the alt text written here was written. I am sure that I don't believe the current alt text complies with WP:ALT as it is right now. I can certainly understand (and agree with) calling it a night. Chicken  monkey  09:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If I am understanding the conversation above correctly, which I may not be doing, I'm still going to make a suggestion which can be used or not used. I can see where describing the pictures is useful to those with seeing impairments but I can also see that naming those in the image is also useful.  So why don't you both come here with suggestions for alt wording for the images and come to a consensus for what should be put in the images?  This really isn't a big deal.  Put the name of the people in the images and describe what they are doing but keep it brief.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That was my intention. That's why I placed the four questions here. I had hoped those who watch this article would have a discussion on the alt text. I have given my suggestions for what I think the alt text should be and would be interested to read what others think the alt text should be. Chicken  monkey  17:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The reverting
The table is being reverted to a sortable table that has no consensus yet editors are reverting to it per their POV. The other way does have a consensus at WP:ACTOR for the template with the color. My last revert suggested User:Chowbok to stop reverting and to join the discussion that is going on at the village pump. Instead of doing this he reverted with sarcastic edit summary. I do believe that changing the tables like this while a discussion is ongoing is rude to say the least. Chowbok hasn't been part of any of the discussions and only reverted because of battle with another editor. I'm done with this. What is going on is wrong, discussions should take place like some of us have been doing. And for the record, this article made it to GA status with the template as it was. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected for a day so you can all thrash out this important issue of the colour of the top bar of a table on talk pages instead of via edit wars. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fences and Windows. Malke 2010 15:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because something made GA does not mean it shouldn't ever be changed again. That's a ridiculous argument.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No what's ridiculous is your reasons for reverting in the first place. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a staged provocation by WHL. The filmography for Scarlett Johansson has been sortable for more than a month and she chose this moment to edit war over it. It's been discussed at WT:ACTOR, and like everything not to her liking, the thread has been tied in knots by her and her fellow club members. My view is that something useful, like sorting, is moar important than their blue. George Cukor seems to have survived as sortable, for now... Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And again I ask you to remove the personal attack. We are not club members and you've been asked before to stop this.  We are members of a project called WP:ACTOR which, in case you forgot, you are a member of too.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not talking about WP:ACTOR. He's talking about WHL's legions of sock- and meat-puppets.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, bullshit to most of this. There is a clear consensus to use the template. Jack strips it out. I recalled this crapfest when I was assembling evidence per a request at AN/I regarding Jack's conduct. I see his conduct doesn't improve here in any way. And now he's joined by former SkagitRiverQueen affiliate, the overtly hostile, tendentious Chowbok. Please remove your attacks, Chowbok. Either file a sockpuppet case or shut the hell up with those sorts of posts. It is incivil and an overt personal attack. In fact, I DARE you to open a sock case. This is not the first time you've made such accusations and been told to either file a case or shut it up. Throwing around specious claims about other editors is not acceptable. And Jack, stop being tendentious yourself. Your reverts are pointy and lack the foundation of consensus for the style you've inserted. And stop denigrating the actor project. Your conduct is appalling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can everyone please calm down? All you're arguing about is the colour and sortability of a filmography table, hardly a topic deserving of raised blood pressure, insults, edit warring and sockpuppetry/accusations of such. Stick to the strictest possible interpretations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, please. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "How dare you suggest I have a gang of meat- and sock-puppets?! You take that back or I'll report you to AN/I, and Chronie, Rossrs, Pinkadelica, and LaVidaLoca will back me up too!"&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  15:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough already. Please just stop!  This arguing back and forth is getting nowhere.  Just ignore each other already.  Chowbok, sarcasm noted though.  Please put the stick down and back away as suggested above from User:Fences and windows.  thank you, -- Crohnie Gal [[User talk:Crohnie|

Talk ]] 16:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're as responsible for this argument as anybody. I love how it's okay for you and your friends to make arguments and attack editors, but when others do it, it's intolerable. And I'll point out that this argument had ended until your bosom buddy there restarted it with the helpful "This is all bullshit". But of course you'll never fault her for that, or anything.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just another in a long series of bad faith accusations by Chowbok. This is all bullshit, Chowbok, and your history of posting personal attacks against me is easily document. Now, as Crohnie suggested, just back away slowly from the stick. Now as you've been asked, please remove your personal attacks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the protection expired and I immediately went and pseudo-reverted, *again*. the whole world is watching. ;) Jack Merridew 00:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jack. If edit warring resumes or incivility and personal attacks continue here or at talk pages between participants in this dispute, I will start issuing blocks. This has gone far enough. Moonriddengirl is facilitating an RfC, so please focus on that and the formatting dispute, not on each other. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but Jack shouldn't have reverted again after removing the protection. That was a  a pointy edit.  Why are you letting that stand as is?  I don't understand. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have misunderstood, but was Jack not reverting away from his preferred version? Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No he reverted back to the same edit he makes here. Hope that helps, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  14:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're confused. Open the links I gave above; there is a difference between what you say I did, and what I actually did. Here is the difference between the two things I was doing:  |class=sortable . I hope that helps. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 15:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I wrong that sortable is your preferred version? If not I'll gladly apologize for being wrong about that.  Still I thought at ani it was said that no more changes should be done until at least the ani closed and preferable not until after the RFC that is just starting up.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As the dispute is over whether there should be specialised wikitable templates or not, and whether different colours should be used or not, I don't think quibbling over whether the table is sortable or not matters much here. Why would anyone object to a table being sortable? Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Using sortability does require the the tables not use rowspan for things such as 'year'. All the rowspans are quite frequently causing table corruption because most editors don't understand most markup. We should be deprecating such use of rowspan as an impediment to ease of editing, as well as as an impediment to sortability. If sortability and rowspans are mixed, the results are quite dramatic. Try previewing the addition of  |class=sortable  to some other article that's using this template and rowspans. Jack Merridew 15:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. Yes, I believe sortability is useful; useful is good, preferred. What's the problem you see, currently? nb: if you revert me, I won't object ;) Jack Merridew 15:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First, no way am I reverting you but thanks. The problem I have is that this is being discussed at multiple locations. First an rfc is going to be set up about the color and then my understanding is that if the sortable stuff is still controversial, one will be set up for that. That you were revert multiple times about this says there is a controversy about it's use so maybe instead of just editing it back in like you did, maybe starting a new section about it to try for a consensus would be a better way to handle it. You say "I believe sortability is useful; useful is good, preferred by who? All I sse on this article that it isn't preferred.  So, get a consensus is the way to handle this, no?  With you reverting back with a little change, aren't you continuing the edit war that got this article protected to begin with?  I just want to see more talking from everyone involved in this and less arguing, baiting, assuming bad faith and personal attacks.  I don't think that's too much to ask for.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've rather been assuming that most of the rancor here is rooted in displeasure with the suggestion that the colour, via the template or not, is a gratuitous ornament. Until Dispenser dipped an oar in, the template did not allow the passing-in of invocation-specific classes and styles, and my invocation of <tt>class="sortable"</tt> entailed the removal of the template, and thus the colour that's currently in the style attributes there.
 * This was intended as a compromise: both. If this is unacceptable, click here ; I won't revert you.
 * Yours is, I believe, the first suggestion that we need to conduct an RfC on sortability. I prefer it; F&W asked a good question; why not? nb: Wt:ACTOR, which I've not read, recently.
 * See WP:TAGTEAM, specifically the section on Consensus-blocking:
 * Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article. Tag team members will often revert changes, even if they are made based on talkpage consensus, and instead insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen on the talk page. This plays into a tag team's tendentious, disruptive editing style and preserves a preferred version of an article. When discussion is attempted, tag team members will often respond with circular argumentation and a continual ignoring of points made by those they oppose. Even if voices from the wider community come in to show a differing community consensus, tag-teamers may refuse to "let the matter drop" at article talkpages. When the community's attention has been diverted to other matters, tag teams may continue to bring up the same matters again and again, to try and create the appearance of a new consensus.
 * It seems to me, that WHL and about a half-dozen others, including yourself, are blocking consensus. Endless talk, circular discussion, and most of the articles remaining unaddressed due to the obstruction. The real issue in this whole four month long mess is not the colour, or sortability, or encapsulating an implementation detail in a template, or the thousands of articles snotted-up with bad code, it is that you folks want to control everything about all of this without interference from others. That's not kewl. It is antithetical to the nature of this project.
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok maybe I'm a bit slow but I have been given reasons when I do decide to say something about all of this. Yet,  like above I get called names, get accused of being a meat puppet (see my talk page), tag teaming, blocking concensus and more.  I have been trying to get peace across all of this and what do I get instead, accusations.  I am not blocking anything.  I am not a meat puppet nor am I a tag team player or any other name you can drag out that is derogatory.  You have editors who agree with you so why is it that editors who happen to agree with WHL has to be one of the names we are called?  We do afterall participate in the Actor project.  Jack it's old and uncivil what you just said.  I give up, knock yourself out.  You like it so I guess that means the rest of us should sit on our hands and follow you because you are right, right?  Wrong!  We have as much right to give reasons as you do.  Fences and windows if you don't see this an attack of editors than I don't know what else to say.  I tried politely to talk things out only to get this above.  Look at my talk page as one example of being called a meat puppet.  WP:ACTOR has these same things being spouted.  I've read where you've said stay calm, well I was calm until now.  I'm outta here.  Have fun, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson Jewish?
Why do you not want me to post the info about Scarlett Johansson being Jewish? I honestly don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.224.46 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it every article about someone that has even a hint of a jewish background has people continually editing it with people saying that the subject of the article is of jewish decent? Honestly, no one gives a shit if Scarlett Johansson is of jewish decent and I'd be willing to bet that most don't care what religion she practices in her private life either. Except for one group of people continually editing articles to include people's "jewish" heritage. Wonder who that is?

SNL
shes been on snl 3 times ...put it in her list allready!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.224.126 (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)