Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 4

Pregnant
Ok, tabloids like TMZ, People and E! may be reporting this, but since the news sources back to an unreliable "source near her", we can't take it seriously as its not directly from Johansson's mouth. Until Johansson, her agent, her publicist or even her doctor confirms it, don't add it. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, all that is needed is a reliable source, not an "official" confirmation. Remembering that WP:BLP applies here of course, it better be something like CNN, Time, Variety or a similarly reputable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, to be clear, we need solid proof that's not tabloid. All the sources you mention tie back to E!'s report. Which is just that, a report. And I don't know where you got the idea "we don't need proof", we do. This is an enclyopedia, not some gossip magazine. Rusted AutoParts 00:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go by what the policies and guidelines say over what you personally want, thank you very much. I see you're still having trouble quoting people too, you might want to work on that. You're editing an encyclopaedia after all. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see you're making personal jabs now and that this is deteriorating slowly into a last word battle, so I'll end with: don't add gossip unless its confirmed. Not some grocery store magazine bullshit. Let me break down the three you've put up: CNN hasn't covered the report. Time associates their coverage to People, who even stated a rep (FYI, is the one who would confirm this, or Johansson) declined comment, then associating their coverage to E!, who only reported "multiple "sources" confirmed". this isnt reliable as these multiple "sources" could be providing false positives. this isnt the first time a report has been deemed false. every news outlet reported on Bryan Cranston being cast as Lex Luthor, which then turned out he wasnt even approached for the role. Theres no deadline. we can wait for proper confirmation. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Rusted AutoParts is absolutely correct. Anonymous "sources" with no attribution can say anything they want to tabloids. This is an encyclopedia. We're not supposed to add anything unless there is credible confirmation in reliable journalistic/academic media. There's another word for unnamed, unattributed anonymous claims: Rumors. Wikipedia does not traffic in rumormongering. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. And since we operate under no deadline, the only responsible thing to do is wait for official confirmation or for her to be reported appearing in public visibly and certifiably pregnant.


 * I can't tell you how many times these same tabs claimed Kim Kardashian, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Aniston and others were "pregnant" when they were not. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Time hardly qualifies as a "tabloid"... at least you're not pushing your own personal requirements like RAP is (and I'd strongly encourage you to re-think the "[RAP] is absolutely correct"; we have policies and guidelines here precisely to avoid having protracted discussions over sources like this). As for "unnamed, unattributed", we have a name ("Denver Nicks"), and we have attribution ("Time"). Set the clock back to September 11th, 2001. If a story breaks saying the World Trade Center was slammed by two passenger jets and collapsed, and the story was from a source that is, in all other ways, considered reliable, would you REALLY be sitting on the talk page pining away over the article author not listing his own "sources" so you can personally verify them? Mind you, that has far more gravitas than an actress being pregnant, but that's the point I'm trying to make. At worst, if we have reason to be suspicious of the claim made we use our own voice in the article to express that (rather than stating it as fact, you preface it with something like "Time Magazine claimed ..." which allows the reader to make their own decision). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing any sources. I was listing general sources I felt would be reputable enough to use if they published a story saying she was pregnant. Thank you for pointing out that Time is saying she is pregnant. Reading it over, that looks to easily meet the burden of being reliable for inclusion here. As I've said elsewhere, it doesn't matter whether or not our source identifies who gave them their information (that's WP:OR to try to recreate the research our source performed before publishing their story). On Wikipedia we're looking for verifiability, not truth, and as this is a wiki we can change our articles to reflect what's verifiable (which may (and usually does) change from day to day, week to week, month to month, etc). WP:DEADLINE has more to do with not putting unsourced statements in our articles, but in this situation we have a source.
 * Winding my way back to what you originally said: "Until Johansson, her agent, her publicist or even her doctor confirms it, don't add it." There is no policy, guideline or principle on Wikipedia to support your personal requirements. We have WP:V, WP:NOR, and to a lesser extent WP:RS for these situations (the first two are policies, the latter a content guideline IIRC). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a rumour. We're not adding it. It's rather embarrassing you're comparing this to 9/11. That was a devastating and heavily covered story. This is a rumour bout a possibly pregnant actress that we have no confirmation is truly,pregnant. User:Tenebrae said it best, there's been too many time these sources reported the same thing and turned out to be wrong. Locke, this issue has three editors preventing this rumour from being added: myself, Tenebrae and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have made it clear: rumours don't get posted without stronger sources. Not sources as in the website reporting it, but the sources making these claims to the website. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only sources that generally matter are the secondary sources. Please stop trying to use primary sources (Scarlett Johansson, her publicist, or her doctor; those are ALL primary sources which we actually try to AVOID using on Wikipedia). Please stop trying to change site-wide policy and guideline on JUST the pages YOU edit. This is not RAP-opedia, it's Wikipedia. The community has policies and guidelines in place already. If you don't like them, there's always other sites on the internet (or you could try convincing the folks at WP:V's and WP:NOR's talk pages that they've had it wrong all these years). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * They're not primary sources if a secondary source is quoting them. That's basic. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Im done here as you're clearly fixed on just antagonizing me. I'm discouraging rumours being posted, not legitimate editing, so I'll assume bad faith on your part. And your edit warring won't change the fact this info won't be added until more concrete proof is added. This isn't someone being cast in a movie, its someone who may or may not be pregnant. We can't add it if its not true. Rusted AutoParts 14:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't add it if its not true. &mdash; WP:NOTTRUTH. As regards "discouraging rumours"; you're independently raising the 'standards' of sources in defiance of policy and guideline by requiring "certification" (whatever that even means, only you know, so what good does it do anybody) before the addition of (what you call) "rumours". Frankly, once I see CNN getting on board with the news (Time is really close to getting me there) it's stopped being a "rumour" (especially if they continue to state it as a matter of fact). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't care. This information doesnt meet WP:BLP. Three editors say wait. We wait. Rusted AutoParts 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that few editors here are professional journalists or academics. But I still have to presume those on English-language Wikipedia by and large are conversant in English. Time magazine is not saying ScarJo is pregnant. Read what it says: It's saying that People magazine is claiming this. It's not Time magzine's own reporting. Read for yourself: Here's the link: . There's a big difference between Time magazine's own reporting and this frankly disappointing re-reporting of this completely unattributed claim in People that says only "People confirms" without giving any source!


 * And if you want further proof of the need not to believe every unattributed rumor that comes down the pike, how about the fact she was reported as pregnant in 2011 and it turned out to be false. In fact, Us Weekly had to write a story saying the claims were wrong, wrong, wrong: . --Tenebrae (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And here's an instructive article from People itself: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comically, Time says "People confirmed X" it, not that "People claimed X". Nonetheless, as I've said I'm willing to wait for additional sources. The only point I've ever argued is what those additional sources be (RAP is under the mistaken delusion that any source MUST be from the mouth of "ScarJo", her publicist, or her doctor; e.g. a primary source, exactly the kind we avoid here). I contend any reliable source would suffice (CNN actually wouldn't work, IIRC CNN and Time are owned by the same company; but another independent source such as Variety, the LA Times, etc. would cement this for me). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A magazine quoting a doctor is not a primary source.
 * Time and People are owned by the same publishing company, and CNN by the same overall parent company. And no matter how it's phrased, Time is attributing the claim to People, and People is not attributing the claim at all. And since this didn't seem to have impact, I'll say again: Magazines falsely reported she was pregnant in 2011. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: All I've got to state on this matter is that I've argued similarly, at the Amber Heard article, about not putting in a personal life claim unless it's confirmed by the person (or people) that the personal life information concerns. I don't feel that way about all personal life information, but I generally do about information concerning romantic involvement and/or dating. See this discussion and the current state of the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp articles for how the specific case I'm referring to turned out (WP:Permalinks here and here). So being correct on this type of matter, such as whether or not to report Johansson as pregnant, can be iffy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae and RAP have pretty much covered what I would say. I'll just add that this is hardly a matter on which an encyclopedia requires immediacy, and that I'd be happy with applying to pregnancy exactly the same standard as we have for sexual preference, religion, etc -- that it must be acknowledged, expressly, by or on behalf of the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The topic was mentioned at the Captain America press junket. She still didn't confirm the pregnancy, even though she said the filming would not be delayed or fast tracked. And I honestly don't think they'd make a pregnant woman do stunt training, which she says she's doing in the quote. Rusted AutoParts 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it seems User:Locke Cole is content with defying everyone by edit warring. He's now contact another editor he tag teams with to force his view on here. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to highlight facts that are confirmed, not reported by a magazine. Johansson, once again, has not confirmed she's pregnant, and its even been rumoured that this was all an elaborate hoax. Since we don't publish that, it's not going to be put on the article. But the same thing stands: a magazine isn't the all mighty confirmation, the person, the one who is suggested to be having the baby, is. And until then, its not going on. Locke, you are one step away from being reported to ANI for your stubbornness. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the introduction, but I don't think it's necessary to make crowd-rallying speeches that paint certain editors as the villain. And the criticism about contacting other editors seems a little hypocritical. Maybe tone it down a little, and we'll discuss this. There's no rush after all.
 * So, requiring statements from the subject on religion and sexual preference is necessary, because they involve preferring or believing things. Unlike these things, pregnancy is physical. We don't need statements such as these for pregnancy, because it's not up to the subject to believe or prefer if she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, then she is physically pregnant. By placing the standard of confirmation from the subject on pregnancy, you could even end up in a ridiculous situation, where Johansson refuses to comment completely on her pregnancy, but ends up having a baby after very clearly showing she was pregnant. We would not be able to say that she was ever pregnant, despite the reliable sources, and colleagues of her's confirming the pregnancy.
 * Also, keep in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:NOTTRUTH). Now, arguably we have that with the reliable source from Time. However, when dealing with articles about living people, it's good to take extra caution with the sources being used. And WP:BLPGOSSIP states that you should ask yourself whether the source is reliable and whether the material is being presented as true. Under these conditions the Time article still looks good.
 * So, the argument for not including a statement about pregnancy, should be that the source in question is not reliable. And I see no reason to suggest that of the Time article. What's more, unlike her previous rumoured pregnancy, Johansson (or a representative of) has not denied the reports, and there are sources where colleagues have confirmed the reports.
 * And to clarify: It's encouraged to question the reliability of sources. But when sources (that would otherwise be considered reliable) are being discounted because they cite sources that don't hold the same level of reliability, that is a misuse of sources and is unacceptable. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Competence is required when editing here, and I'm getting the impression some people are just unable to understand our rules and guidelines when it comes to sources for BLP related issues. We have Kevin Feige, the producer of the now-filming Avengers sequel stating that he was happy about Scarlett Johansson's pregnancy. That more than meets the burden for BLP, and there's no reasonable person that would still be categorizing it as "rumor".
 * As I've said before, this is Wikipedia, and the policies and guidelines here are what editors follow. Not "exceptions" set up on just the article talk page by the article regulars. If we allowed that, what's the point in having global policies and guidelines that are supported by the entire community? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, competency is needed. Kevin Fiege isn't Scarlett Johansson. He spoke in the sense he was planning as if it could be true. You're not listening when we say: you need official confirmation to add this BLP info. In this case we do need an official statement. Yes, there's no denial, there's also no confirmation. It cancels itself out. So in the way of avoiding rumours, or people concocting elaborate hoaxes, we don't post it. Credibility is more desired than jumping to post the first report. And that's exactly what this is, a report. Numerous outlets are using words like ''allegedly" or "rumoured", so its still in doubt. As an encyclopedia, we wait until its legit. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 04:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look for it in Google, you'll see that most of them (especially the more-reliable ones) prefix the story with "reportedly". Where BLP is concerned, caution is required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you watch the video at the Collider source? The one where Kevin Feige, the producer on the now-filming sequel to Avengers, said he was happy when he learned she was pregnant? The bit about having to "move chess pieces on a board" with regard to how it impacted production of the film? My proposed wording even tries to describe the situation as it exists now (note my use of the word "reported" which mirrors the reliable sources we have available to us). It stopped being rumor and gossip when someone as high up as Feige effectively confirmed it by saying nothing was changed in production by "it". —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not confirmation. Good god. Feige isn't the one who can confirm this. He "learned", she didn't "tell" him, which means she might notve told him. As a head of a major production, he must be ready for anything, and this is just bracing. "Reportedly" doesn't fly here, which is why it's not of the article. We provide fact, not unconfirmed rumours. No deadline, so we can wait until something more solid comes. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 05:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the funnier things I ran across was a photo alleging to show her "baby bump"... and there isn't one. Better sourcing is needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this would be a news story only. --Light show (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, as for being like a newspaper and "jumping to post the first report", we're clearly not doing that as this has been going on for a month now.
 * Now, Rusted AutoParts, did you read anything that I wrote? It's very hard to have a civilised discussion, when you're not responding to any of my points (which are mostly to do with wikipedia's guidelines), and when you're simply providing blanket statements such as "you need official confirmation to add this", without any evidence or reasoning to back it up. Please try again. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, why am I getting singled out? You and Locke's platform in discussion pretty much seems to just be "Rusted AutoParts is wrong and that's all that matters", not at all caring about whether or not you're actually right. It's evident Locke is still burned up by the Age of Ultron spat, lets keep focused and stop targeting me. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologise if you feel bullied by this situation, but if you feel as though you're being singled out, it's because I'm trying to discuss this with you (and anyone else who is willing, actually). But I singled you out for a number of reasons:
 * You were heavily involved in the Age of Ultron discussion, and seem to be spearheading the defense on this one.
 * You were the only person (aside from Locke Cole) that had made comments before mine, to respond after my first comment.
 * And of the other three comments, one was recommending caution, another was an off-hand comment about a photo, and the third was to do with the newspaper idea, which I adressed. There wasn't a lot else I could single out.
 * You referenced something that I said when you said "yes, there's no denial, there's also no confirmation", but didn't respond to anything else I said. Which makes it look like you're not listening to my argument, and I'm not being heard.
 * I'm not as concerned about being right or wrong as you might think. If you can provide a sound, well-reasoned argument (that's not just saying that we need confirmation - tell me why it's necessary, tell me where wikipedia says it's required, etc.) against the inclusion of a comment on Johansson's pregnancy, then this would be much easier, and I'd be quite happy to agree with you. But this hasn't happened yet. I suggest you go back to my original comment (in which I tried to make as well-reasoned an argument as I could) and respond to my thoughts there. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's sufficient reporting to add the fact she's being reported as pregnant to the article (e.g. ) NE Ent 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Baseball Bugs, all the sources say "reportedly" and all the photos of her with a "baby bump", what baby bump, she doesnt even look pregnant. What is the harm on waiting until she does have a noticeable bump because at that point you wont need an official statement from anyone. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">TALK 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What sources say is what we go on per WP:RS. Whether Wikipedia volunteers perceive a "bump" is what we don't go on, per WP:OR. Anyone, no is claiming she's pregnant because of a bump, E!'s stating multiple sources have said she's pregnant. NE Ent 14:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source People. (Incidentally, if you're going to be doing original research based on photos, many (most?) women will show in the face before there is noticeable change in the abdomen.) NE Ent 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the comments above, it seems to me that while there's no doubt she's pregnant consensus is not to include the information until she or a rep explicitly confirms it; given it doesn't affect her notability I don't see any problem leaving the information out. NE Ent 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * *sigh* This is seriously stupid. A consensus of editors who don't understand site policy and are making up their own rules as they go along are holding up the inclusion of what is (honestly) a benign factoid because they're not convinced it's true. That's my take-away. And that's why I went to AN/I with RAP, because competence is required, and he isn't displaying any with his line of reasoning. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. No source is offering encyclopedic confirmation &mdash; it's all based on anonymous claims, i.e. RUMORS. Are we forgetting this is not the first time anonymous sources claimed she was pregnant? Here, read this from People itself: "Scarlett Johansson: How a Pregnancy Rumor Can Start". Until there's confirmation, an encyclopedia &mdash; which has higher standards than daily / weekly journalism &mdash; does not claim something as definitive, inarguable fact. There is no deadline. Our job is to be right, not first. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTRUTH. Nobodies saying we're trying to be first, that goes against our role as an encyclopedia (and would seem to say we're doing original research). I've read that linked article once before, and it's interesting... except this time we have dozens of sources, many of them VERY reliable, and not of the "daily, weekly" variety you're implying is all that's published it so far. Then you have that Kevin Feige interview where he's asked how her pregnancy impacted production. BTW: What the hell is "encyclopedic confirmation", and where did you find that in WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS (or choose another policy or guideline, I know I've never seen that term). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an inarguable fact that E! and People have confirmed she's pregnant. Just like everything else, we provide value to readers not because we "encyclopedically confirm" anything, but because we cite our sources of information to allow the reader to evaluate the veracity of the statements presented. In fact, the two examples rumor, confirmed show the apples and oranges difference; the former was online chatter, which Johansson's rep explicitly denied, while the latter is a journalistic assertion that the rep is not denying. NE Ent 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE. We don't post someone's death unless its confirmed. We don't post someone's pregnancy unless its confirmed. Kevin Feige, People, E!, they aren't the ones who get to confirm this. They can be used as sources once its confirmed, but since Johansson or her rep haven't spoken about it, it's still hearsay. We don't post hearsay as this isn't a tabloid outlet. Wikipedia is a series of documents on things that've occurred throughout time. We don't post every UFO sighting, every celebrity date night. We post factual content. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man. Where in all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do you see where it says pregnancies must be "confirmed"? Where is this protocol laid out? What policy or guideline says this? Or are you going to admit you're making it up as you go because you can't cite a policy or guideline that says anything remotely close to what you're demanding? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again with the attacks. You aren't even talking about the issue anymore, you merely want to get at me. It's editors like you that just take the point out of Wikipedia. Post anything said by tabloids cause they confirmed it. And considering the sights reliability is now in question in terms of medicine, it just makes it more necessary to have rock solid proof, not articles that persistently used "she's reportedly" or "it's rumoured". BTW, . <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * RAP opened the door to personalizing the discussion with And I don't know where you got the idea "we don't need proof", we do. This is an encyclopedia, not some gossip magazine. (third post in this thread), so they have little ground for complaint. Ya'll (RAP, LC) would both do better to comment on content, not contributors WP:TPG. NE Ent 19:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More straw man responses. I'm not suggesting we use a tabloid, I've never suggested that. The "sights" reliability (I think you meant credibility here) is not in question if the statement saying she's "reportedly pregnant" is a verifiable source ("verifiable" means you can click a reference link and see a story by a reliable source saying what our article says). As far as verifiability not guaranteeing inclusion (your "BTW" link), that's with regards to notability. An actress like this whose performances are tied implicitly to her appearance makes (in my view) a pregnancy very relevant.
 * I ask again: Where in a Wikipedia policy or guideline does it say a source must be "confirmed"? Where is this protocol laid out? On what policy/guideline do you make this demand? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a demand. Here's the sentence:
 * "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."


 * How does that only apply to notability? It applies to everything, including valid sources. Just because People is reporting the pregnancy, it doesn't mean it gets included. It's a report. There's no bump, there's no proof, the best thing to do is to leave it off. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Locke, what's your rush? You act like we have to immediately add this information to her page when you have many editors saying just wait. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">TALK 21:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No rush, but what are we waiting for? Is she going to be getting more pregnant? The "many editors saying just wait" are all doing so on grounds not covered by policy or guideline. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get included (as of now) because the consensus here it is doesn't, not because Wikipedia "requires proof." That could change. (I don't think it will, since any who cares already knows she's pregnant, and most folks -- including me -- don't care one way or the other.) But the way to make that happen is to respectfully engage and reason with other editors, not assert policy that doesn't exist (as LC has pointed out multiple times.) NE Ent 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted [...]" – so you're saying that a statement indicating Scarlett Johansson is pregnant in the article does not improve it? Does this mean even once a "certified" and "confirmed" source that meets your stringent personal requirements (not backed by policy or guideline on Wikipedia) is found, we shouldn't include it? I mean, after all, if it doesn't improve the article now, why would it improve the article later? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. This discussion is ridiculous. There's not a lot of listening, and responding to arguments that have been made, which is necessary for a discussion to move anywhere. In my first comment on this page, I summarised why the information should be placed in the article. If anyone thinks the information should not be placed in the article, please respond to that. By ignoring my argument, you are not only being rude, but also very unhelpful in terms of moving this discussion anywhere.

Now, although I'd still like that response, I'll respond to a few things that have been said in my absence:
 * The WP:DEADLINE and "no rush" claim has been made again. Yes, it's true, there's no rush; there's no deadline; we don't have to be first. Noone is disputing that. That's why this discussion has been happening for a month.
 * The "our job is to be right" claim has been made. According to WP:NOTTRUTH, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". And we have a number of verifiable sources stating in a matter-of-fact way that she is pregnant.
 * A distinction between the rumour from 2011, and the reports in 2014 has been made. This is true, as the former is clearly being discussed as a rumour: . And the latter is stated in a matter-of-fact way from a number of reliable sources.
 * A claim that we don't post someone's pregnancy unless it is confirmed by the subject in question, being related to not posting about someone's death has been made. Let me ask you this: if the person is dead, how are they supposed to confirm that they are dead?
 * The "this isn't a tabloid" comment has been made a number of times. We heard it. We're not trying to be a tabloid. We're being encyclopedic, by encouraging the use of notable and verifiable information.
 * WP:COMMONSENSE has been mentioned. Finally, a wikipedia guideline that helps your argument - although it does seem like you were using it to tell us to use common sense, which is generally considered to be uncivil. Nevertheless, if common sense is your argument, that means you acknowledge that not including the information regarding pregnancy is against the rules. Which explains why you've been having trouble citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in support of your argument (because they don't support it). That's fine though, but let's look at this carefully. So, we've acknowledged that what you want to do is breaking the rules. Is that because the rules are wrong? And if the rules aren't wrong (which I suspect is the case), are you sure that not including this information is with common sense, and improves the encyclopedia? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "not truth" argument is misleading. It implies that truth is not important. It IS important, especially where BLP's are concerned. It's just not sufficient. A fact has to be verified from reliable sources. Guess what the word "verify" means: "to make true". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that excluding an anonymously sourced pregnancy report that's unconfirmed by or on behalf of the article subject/putative prospective parent is more compatible with our policies and guidelines than including it would be.


 * "We must get the article right" is express language from WP:BLP. WP:NOTTRUTH says that "You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true". In any event, WP:BLP imposes more restrictive standards than WP:V.
 * The "death" analogy is an obvious strawman. Nobody makes the argument you're rejecting (although there are one or two imprecisely phrased comments that could be flayed into that interpretation). The formulation I prefer is "by or on behalf of" the article subject, though even that is imperfect. The fact that we don't have a perfect phrase encapsulization of BLP isn't an excuse for evading its principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP does call for more caution with sources. But that caution is still to stem from verifiability, as that is the threshold for inclusion. And the sources for Johansson’s pregnancy meet very cautious verifiability standards.
 * No, the “death” analogy was in response to RAP’s comment, “We don't post someone's death unless its confirmed. We don't post someone's pregnancy unless its confirmed. Kevin Feige, People, E!, they aren't the ones who get to confirm this.” RAP implied that someone’s death should be confirmed in the same way that someone’s pregnancy should be, and implied that that confirmation should be from the subject. Nowhere in wikipedia’s policies and guidelines does it state that this information needs to be confirmed “by the subject”, or “by or on behalf of the subject”. And there’s nowhere in BLP that suggests that these formulations are in line with its principles. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The references are not anonymous. This one is written by Alyssa Toomey, and this one  is written by Michele Corriston. NE Ent 23:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Hullaballoo meant the sources saying this to E and People. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 23:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The reports may be bylined, but the sources for the reports were anonymous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The used of unnamed sources is a common if controversial topic; certainly there's no Wikipedia policy to exclude reliable sources based on that -- there was a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watergate_scandal&oldid=9033096 Watergate article] long before Mark Felt was identified as Deep Throat. What standards a news organization requires before printing something is their decision, not ours. NE Ent 01:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The way Wikipedia regards [{WP:RS]], it's based on the particular thing being reported: Even e a normally reliable source, such as People, may not meet Wikipedia's standard in certain cases. Unnamed sources, barring extraordinary circumstances, is one such red flag. Many, many times, celebrities have been called pregnant (or divorced, etc.) by anonymous, unnamed sources that have been flat-out wrong. That's because in the vast majority of cases, a "report" based on anonymous unnamed sources is generally called by another name: rumor.


 * And once again, an encyclopedia has a higher standard than journalism. Journalism, as is often said, is "the first draft of history." An encyclopedia &mdash; not just Wikipedia but any encyclopedia &mdash; by definition is supposed to be the final, trusted, most reliable word on a subject. And several longtime, highly experienced editors all feel this way, as one notes below. There is no need to rush anything into an encyclopedia. Is her pregnancy true? My instinct says yes. But my instincts don't matter and in any case, we're not after truth: We're after verifiability. And anonymous sourcing doesn't verify anything. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff / link of People and E! confirming a pregnancy under their own imprint that turned out not to be true. NE Ent 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Better, perhaps you could provide us with verification that such publications' use of anonymous sources in similar situations (without on-the-record confirmation for an extended period of time) has later been corroborated at a high rate of accuracy. It's up to you to demonstrate that BLP's direction to "be wary" of reports "that attribute material to anonymous sources" shouldn't control. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a very tricky subject to deal with. As stated, all celebrities endure pregnancy rumours. Today, Mila Kunis joined the group. And as before, People is stating its a report. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 03:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Wow, with all due respect to Ms. Johansson, there's an awful lot of acrimony here, relative to the importance of the content being debated. That being said, I do think one side has the better of this in terms of policy. Pillar policy WP:V prevails in this context, and we have long-standing, unambiguous, and overwhelmingly applied community consensus on these situations as expressed in WP:NOTTRUTH. It is true that WP:BLP strongly urges discretion when it comes to such matters, but there is nothing anywhere in its text which prohibits controversial claims, so long as there is appropriate sourcing -- and in this case, a valid secondary sources from media that are broadly trusted on Wikipedia are available. With respect to those who want to scrutinize the internal verification process of those magazines on a case-specific basis, that is outside our purview and not consistent with how sourcing typically works on Wikipedia. But honestly guys, this is not exactly a difficult situation to parse and come to a compromise on which serves the reader best. Since multiple secondary sources do report this story --and, regardless of the reservations certain editors have about their journalistic procedure, they are trusted top-tier sources in their news industry-- and we go with the sources, not our own perspectives and doubts, the solution seems self-evident: we note that these sources have reported that the actress is pregnant, but have not provided the identity of their sources. This accurately represents the facts as concern the reporting without actually validating that the claim of the pregnancy is verifiable fact in itself. Surely the average Wikipedia user is capable of determining for themselves whether they trust Time, People, or E! to fact-check appropriately or veer toward the sensationalistic and its not our place to make that call for them; our job here is to present what the sources say, and in taking this approach we will have hedged our bets and taken a middle-ground approach that, most importantly, allows us to hew as close as possible to the principle of verifiability as it is detailed in our policies. Regardless, I think most (not all) of the editors involved above need to pause and reflect on the battleground mentality taking hold here. Surely this subject doesn't demand such high emotion--especially given it is likely to be resolved, one way or another, in very short order--and the fact that people are becoming so strident is the result of the process of making the arguments themselves. It's a phenomena we are all familiar with here and which no (or very few) passionate editors avoid entirely, but stop to consider the topic you are applying it to, aye? You can find less high-strung discussions on contentious matters of pregnancy on Talk:Jesus and Talk:Abortion! Snow (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider the sources [//www.google.com/search?q=scarlett+johansson+pregnant google search] produces. La Times, USA Today, Abcnews, Huffington Post, Time, Mirror (? don't know if that's a good source), International Business Times, Daily Mail, UPI, CBS News, Glamour, Elle, Vanity Fair. It is our job to concisely report what reliable sources say, not second guess them. NE Ent 10:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See also her own words to Huffington Post . NE Ent 11:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Snow. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding The Huffington Post: Even it uses the phrase "rumors [emphasis added] of her upcoming pregnancy" and adds this: "CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story stated that Johansson had announced her pregnancy, but she herself has not yet made a formal announcement." Even HuffPo is trying to be careful about not stating something explicitly that is not yet a concrete fact. If even HuffPo is being careful not to say definitively she's pregnant, then Wikipedia certainly should be as careful.


 * And I disagree with Snow because he conveniently ignores the fact that all that Time, People, etc. are reporting is the rumor that she is pregnant &mdash; citing nothing but unnamed, anonymous, purported "sources." An encyclopedia does not include every unconfirmed celebrity-pregnancy rumor that comes down the pike. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae is right. The ONLY thing there is a reliable source for is the existence of a rumor. Rumors are quite properly never included in BLP articles unless there is an exceptionally good reason to do so. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 15:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Time aren't reporting a rumour. The headline of the Time article is "Scarlett Johansson is expecting". Not, "Scarlett Johansson is rumoured to be expecting". The matter-of-fact tone continues throughout the article --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that they are reporting second-hand gossip is clear throughout the article. They make no claim to have done any fact-checking of their own. I'm disappointed that Time even has a celebrity gossip section, but it just goes to show that the reliability of a source has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. You can't just say the magic words "Time" or "NYT" and expect editors to suspend using their own judgement. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 22:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur with Smyth: Even a cursory reading of the Time item shows that it attributes the claim to People. Any first-year journalism student knows the difference between reporting and re-reporting. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Any first-year journalism student should know that sometimes it's ethical for the journalist's sources to remain anonymous. We're not first-year journalism students though. We're wikipedia. And if we consider Time a reliable source, then as Snow said: "regardless of the reservations certain editors have about their journalistic procedure, they are trusted top-tier sources in their news industry-- and we go with the sources, not our own perspectives and doubts". If you do go with your own perspectives or doubts, that is original research. And original research is something that is not just allowed, but also expected for the journalists writing these articles. However, it is not allowed for us: WP:OR. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * NOR is a policy about article content, not about decisionmaking about article content. Decisions about the reliability of sources always have an element of OR to them, because there just aren't independent reliable sources which say "Source X meets Wikipedia's reliability standards." (And, pushing your argument to the absurd, identifying something as original research is, of course, original research.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, well said. But I am referring specifically towards us already considering Time to be a reliable source, and then some editors choosing to ignore it based on other, un-sourced reasons (not to do with the reliability of Time), as being original research. And the main reason for bringing it up, was to clear the confusion that some editors have, thinking that NOR applies to the journalists writing the sources we use. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If Time says People is the source, then Time cannot be considered the source. Then if People says E! is the source, then People isn't the source either. So it comes down to whether E! is a valid source or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're hyper-analyzing. The point is, Time is willing to stake its reputation on the claim, even if it only provides People (and by extension, E!) as a source in their article. If you're saying Time is not a reliable source, then now is the time (hah!) to provide some examples of Time putting out stories that are later proven false or retracted. And remember, given the volume of stories they post, I'd consider one or two to be an anomaly, not a pattern demonstrating unreliability. There's a pretty clear distinction between original research and identifying a reliable source.


 * Idea: When you're starting to question where an article author got their information, you're basically trying to reproduce their original research. Take atom smashing as an example: I doubt many would question the veracity of a published article from reputable scientists on the topic (certainly nobody would be calling for backyard atom smashing experiments to reproduce their research). Likewise, a reporter citing People or E! is also putting forward their opinion that the stories are very likely true (otherwise why risk the shame in being wrong). If we're concerned enough (as some clearly are) that there's some possibility the sources are wrong, we note that in the tone we use in our article (don't state is as fact, use language such as "reported by ..." to provide clues to the reader). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He's actually not overanalyzing. I know I can't prove this but since it's not an unusual claim and since my eight years of edits i think show a certain professional level, let me just say that I've been a journalist for major mainstream publications for over 35 years. Wikipedia is a hobby I love. And we call what Time is doing here (and what many publications do; it's perfectly ethical as long as they attribute the original source) re-reporting or, more colloquially. copy-catting. No one at Time will vouch for anything more than, "We're accurately reporting that People said this." It's a way of filling space without actually risking your own reputation. (I said it was ethical; I didn't say it wasn't corner-cutting; it certainly doesn't represent the highest standards of journalism.)


 * Now in some cases, re-reporting is unavoidable: For example, most publications don't have a genetics expert on staff, so for stories about genetics breakthroughs a newspaper or magazine will report that such-and-such study was reported at such-and-such academic journal ... and then, optimally, interview independent sources to get a fuller perspective.


 * In comparison to that, even the best publications get lackadaisical when it comes to celebrity news or, as in this case, celebrity gossip. But just because the press &mdash; the first draft of history &mdash; doesn't have the highest standards sometimes doesn't excuse an encyclopedia for doing likewise. We're not on deadline. We're supposed to wait to have irrefutable, solid, concrete information, as best as humanly possible, before something goes into a encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the final word. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When they put "reportedly" in front of it, they're actually not staking their reputation on anything, in fact they're disclaiming responsibility if it turns out to be incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Couldn't have said it more succinctly myself. Literally! : )  --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course you're right. But that misses the point: they're clearly comfortable enough with the news that they're willing to publish it anyways. And here's yet another source (which was reverted in just two minutes, good job, your edit war trigger finger isn't missing a beat!) that says it's a done deal: The Independent. Half tempted to re-add it to the article with all two dozen sources cited to see if someone is actually silly enough to remove it as unsourced... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct no one should edit other editors' posts. And it is equally correct to say that personalizing this and making an accusatory edit-war comment violates civility guidelines. Since this has been overall a dispassionate discussion, I would ask that if you're going to insist, as you should, on guidelines being followed that, for the good of this conversation's overall tone, you remove or at least temper that phrase. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Their source appears to be the Huffington Post. Is that considered a valid source? Last I knew, it wasn't. But that might have changed. Also note that they're trying to claim she's got a "baby bump", when there isn't one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The bit about the Huffington Post is actually where she danced around the question. They refer to a video interview on Collider (which, oddly they don't link to, but here's that) where her "boss" Kevin Feige effectively confirms it ("But when asked by Collider whether her pregnancy would affect the progress of Avengers: Age of Ultron, he just came flat out and told them. "Well my first reaction was I was very happy for her and very excited for her, and my second reaction was we've gotta move some pieces on the chess board around schedule-wise."). Which he does say in the video for all to see/hear. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact remains, whether they reported it, or re-reported it, that they (a reliable source) posted the article, willing to stake their reputation on it.
 * Time, being a reliable source could have other unmentioned sources, that support their claim. The fact that they mention that People reported this shouldn't matter. Because Time is a reliable source, we go with their judgement, rather than our own.
 * And their judgement is that Johansson is "reportedly pregnant", and this is the compromise we wish to place in the article. If some editors are concerned with writing in the article what's "true", isn't this statement "true" anyway? Not that it matters, because we are supposed to write what is verifiable. And this is certainly verifiable.
 * By suggesting to leave that information out of the article, you're suggesting to go against WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:BLP, and WP:RS (and maybe some others).
 * Tenebrae, I understand you've been on wikipedia for a while, and your contribution to discussions I've been involved with has been extremely helpful and greatly appreciated. But I urge you to consider the compromise being offered, and look at this through the eyes of a wikipedia editor, rather than a journalist. And that "irrefutable, solid, concrete information, as best as humanly possible", according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is a verifiable source (or in this case, a number of verifiable sources), not confirmation from the subject themselves. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, at the end of the day, no matter how many verifiable sources you find, it's still a report. It's still a rumour. And we simply do not deal in rumours. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we don't deal in rumours. We deal in reliable sources. The kind of reliable sources that are reporting this information. Like it or not, that's the way that wikipedia works. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also thinking perhaps it's time for a WP:RFC or WP:DR, if someone wants to put that in motion. I'll be fairly busy for the next few days. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would agree, just to get this whole thing settled. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">TALK 13:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Responding to ProfessorKilroy, whose kind words about my attempts to help are appreciates: Yes, reliable sources are reporting (or re-reporting) this information. But in this case, that information is nothing but a rumor. And while I always appreciate compromise, in this instance I would find "reportedly" to be a hedge-betting weasel-word to get us out of responsibility for stating a rumor.


 * However: Feige's on-the-record statement strikes me as something attributable, and something for which a named individual with knowledge of the situation is taking responsibility. I wouldn't be averse to some one-sentence + quote addition along the lines of, "Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige, working with her on Avengers: Age of Ultron, responded to rumors of her pregnancy affecting production by stating, 'Well my first reaction was I was very happy for her and very excited for her, and my second reaction was we've gotta move some pieces on the chess board around schedule-wise.'" What does everyone think? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With Feige, he's at the end of the day a businessman. When something could possibly jeopardize his business (pregnancy, actor death), the first thing one would do is devise a plan. Here, it sounds like he's talking about what's he's heard. Same thing occurred with Jon Favreau. He said she'd make a good mom, but he also said he wasn't told directly by her. So I feel as if he's only bracing himself for a possible outcome. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, when you see the full quote it's clear that he's talking about a schedule rearrangement which has already happened. His statements are clearly based on definite knowledge. In most jobs it would be unprofessional for your boss to be prying into something like this, but as an actress in a major film I'm sure the industry would consider it unprofessional for her not to tell him the truth at a reasonably early stage. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 16:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that wording is a very roundabout way of explaining what's going on here. And it isn't that much to do with Johansson herself. And also, I would remove the part where you called it a rumour. Because it's not a rumour. It's clearly verifiable information. We have a number of reliable sources such as Time, stating that "Johansson is Pregnant", and she is "expecting her first child".
 * I'm re-suggesting Snow's compromise statement, as it seems very reasonable (but also is verifiable, and isn't it also true?): "[sources] have reported that the actress is pregnant, but have not provided the identity of their sources". Is there anything wrong with this statement? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know why the straightforward Feige suggestion I offered doesn't suit you, but the fact is &mdash; and I'm speaking as a professional journalist; I don't suppose you're a real professor &mdash; that Time itself reported nothing, and that all that the original sources are reporting is a rumor. Anything that's not confirmed by the source or through independent confirm is a rumor. And anonymous, unnamed, unattributed purported "sources" are not confirmation of anything.


 * And, honestly, if someone is not a professional journalist or a professor of journalism, I find it really inappropriate that anyone keeps making a statement that someone in the profession is telling you simply is not true. All that is being reported is a rumor. And celebrity-gossip rumors have proven to be false many, many times in the past. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I told you why the Fiege suggestion doesn't work. I literally don't know why the compromise statement I provided doesn't suit you, because you haven't said anything about it.


 * And you cannot play the "I'm a journalist - I know this stuff" card. I might as well say that I'm a professor of journalism, so I find it inappropriate that you disagree with me. I'm not, but it sounds like you're invested in this from a journalist's point of view. I encourage you to take a step back, and look at this from a Wikipedia editor's point of view. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * After nearly nine years here, I'm quite familiar with a Wikipedia editor's point of view &mdash; which is that an encyclopedia has higher standards than a newspaper or magazine.


 * I believe I've already responded to the idea of a "compromise" using the weasel-word "reportedly."


 * I stand by everything I've said. And I'm really surprised and appalled by the tabloid mentality I'm seeing here, with this paparazzi-like rush to get every rumor in as if we were a fansite or a supermarket rag.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Those higher standards an encyclopedia has, is completely centered around using reliable sources. Using the newspapers and magazines available (well, the reliable ones), and presenting the relevant information in an encyclopedic manner.


 * I could be wrong, but that part where you said reportedly was a "weasel-word" was the only response to the compromise offered ("[sources] have reported that the actress is pregnant, but have not provided the identity of their sources"). It says reported because it's a report. It's not a weasel word. It's a neutral statement, that says it exactly how it is. We have reports of Johansson's pregnancy, but those reports have unknown sources.


 * And there's no need to use such sensationalistic language to express your point. We're not using a tabloid mentality, we're using an encyclopedic one, sourcing information. We're not paparazzi-like, as we're not photographers trying to get a glimpse of Johansson's "baby bump". We're not rushing, we're discussing, and have been for some time. We're not trying to get every rumour in here, we're dealing with one thing, not multiple things, and I've already explained that it's not a rumour. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Unconfirmed anonymous, unattributed claims are rumors. By definition. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we have confirmation from a reliable source that would be cited in the article (as opposed to an anonymous, unattributed one).


 * And it's not our concern whether sources get their information from anonymous or unattributed places or not. Sometimes, the ethical thing to do is to keep the information unattributed. If we trust that Time is a reliable source, then we trust that their information is reliable. We don't second-guess sources, claiming that they are only reporting rumours.


 * And confirmed by who? Who makes that decision? Where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it state, that we need any more confirmation than that of reliable sources? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, Time wasn't reporting its own story &mdash; it was re-reporting the People story. Responsible citation &mdash; whether it's a college paper or Wikipedia &mdash; requires citing the original source of a story, so whether it appears in Time does not matter &mdash; we'd have to cite People. So stop mentioning Time &mdash; anything other than the original source is irrelevant.


 * And, no, just because a reliable source reports a rumor doesn't mean Wikipedia includes a rumor. If that were true, Wikipedia would be filled with rumors. Do you really want that? An encyclopedia states facts &mdash; not rumors. My God, are you really saying we need a Wikipedia policy or guideline to state that "an encyclopedia presents facts and not rumors"?? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break #2
Really? Where do the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say that "responsible citation... requires citing the original source of a story"?

The fact that Time reported it, means just that: Time reported it. Whether or not it was "re-reported", is irrelevant. They may have had additional information to back up the claim, but that is irrelevant also. Because they are the reliable source, we go with their judgement. Rather than making our own.

Are there any reliable sources that are questioning the pregnancy, or claiming that the reports are false? Because if not, then you have no reason to second-guess a reliable source such as Time on this matter; you have no justification for calling it a rumour, and therefore no reason for not including this information. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're not a professional journalist, so you're simply giving uninformed opinion. Time is re-reporting &mdash; take a class or read up on journalism basics online. Basic research standards require citing the original source of a story; are you really unfamiliar with the game of telephone, in which details tend to change through serialized transmission? Take a class or read about academic referencing. Wikipedia doesn't have a rule for every single thing, because basic competence is assumed. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Three things: First – You're not a professional journalist, so you're simply giving uninformed opinion. &rarr; You don't know this, it's personalizing the issue, and probably most importantly, it's irrelevant even if true. Second, we're Wikipedia, not a newspaper. We don't need to be journalists here, because we're not working in news, and we're volunteers. Third, we have policies we use to gauge content for inclusion: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Pretty please, with sugar on top, stop pushing personal standards that aren't policy here. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My point is that an encyclopedia's standards are higher than journalism's. That's been true ever since there were encyclopedias. And this is something that is still only a rumor according to journalistic standards, let alone an encyclopedia's. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not higher: different. That's evidenced by WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:V. A journalist usually seeks out the truth, we only seek out information that is verifiable. And that's just one example of the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, as far as I'm concerned, you're not a professional journalist either, and are simply giving your own opinion. It doesn't matter, whether or not Time is "re-reporting". What does wikipedia have to say about "re-reporting"? Nothing. There are no Wikipedia guidelines or policies that support your argument. And I doubt it's a matter of "basic competence".


 * But on that topic, according to WP:CIR, "'Competence is required' does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say 'You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article'". Or in your case, "you're not a professional journalist, so you're simply giving uninformed opinion".


 * However, the argument for the Time article may be irrelevant, if the Wall Street Journal article below is good. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone is going around saying, "The sky is green," then, yeah, I think it's a matter of uninformed opinion and competence. "Re-reporting" is not the same as "reporting." You can say otherwise all you want, but then you're saying something demonstrably untrue. Wikipedia doesn't have a rule saying, "Don't say the sky is green." Just because Wikipedia doesn't have a rule for every thought in the English language doesn't mean you can go around saying, "The sky is green! The sky is green! You can't tell me not to say that because what does Wikipedia have to say about 'green skies'? Nothing." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough, the sky article claims that it is blue, despite the lack of any statement by the sky itself confirming that, which seems to be the standard being argued here. NE Ent 03:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "re-reporting" situation is a bit different to the sky example, seeing as your example is about a specific untrue statement. Wikipedia has many guidelines for using sources, and none of them suggest that a source needs to be an original source. If the source did need to be original, I would consider that to be a notable enough thing that should be explained in the policies and guidelines (well, at the very least, more notable than explaining that you shouldn't type "the sky is green" in articles). If you think that sources need to be original, perhaps you should bring that up at WP:V or WP:RS.


 * But looking at your example, you're right in saying that Wikipedia doesn't say not to say the sky is green. But it does have policies and guidelines relating to the inclusion of notable, and verifiable information. So, although you could argue that you can add the information because Wikipedia doesn't say "don't say the sky is green", there are a number of policies and guidelines that it would be in violation of. Such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE: You can't add the information just because the words exist, as you suggested. Or WP:V, and WP:RS: I'm fairly sure you won't find reliable sources saying the sky is green. And would instead find many to the contrary, saying the sky is actually blue. Or WP:NOR, etc.


 * In this situation, however, I'm citing a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which support my argument.
 * WP:NOTTRUTH: "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth"; "'Verifiability' was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them"
 * WP:RS, and WP:V: these provide guidelines for verifiable sources, of which the Time article meets. Let alone the numerous other sources that have been provided, (along with the idea that no reliable sources are disputing the claim) In fact, the Time article meets the requirements set out in WP:BLP also, which does call for a higher standard, but not official confirmation.
 * WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." This is essentially what you are doing by stating that the reliable sources are incorrect. It is original research, since there are no reliable sources to support your claim.


 * You, on the other hand, are simply stating that competence is required, but are calling for official confirmation and sources that aren't "re-reporting" - both of which are not requirements on wikipedia. And as far as I'm concerned, "re-reporting" is a made up term, by someone who may or may not be a journalist. Wikipedia isn't concerned with "re-reporting", just with verifiability, neutrality, and notability. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Nothing in Wikipedia policies and guidelines suggests that we include rumors rather than facts, and your argument that "it's a fact there are rumors" is an invalid end-run. Second, you're missing the point when you say Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against re-reporting. Basic research 101 says you don't cite a re-report instead of the original report because of the risk of serial-transmission errors. If no good college professor would accept secondhand re-reported claims I don't see how you expect an encyclopedia to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I never said "it's a fact there are rumours". Secondly, WP:NEWSORG says "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate." But more importantly, it's not a rumour. And to suggest that it is, would be original research. We have multiple reliable sources stating it as fact (they don't say anything about rumours, only that it is confirmed), and no reliable sources even questioning it, let alone refuting it.


 * Also, wikipedia isn't concerned with "re-reporting". Like I said earlier, "Wikipedia has many guidelines for using sources, and none of them suggest that a source needs to be an original source. If the source did need to be original, I would consider that to be a notable enough thing that should be explained in the policies and guidelines (well, at the very least, more notable than explaining that you shouldn't type "the sky is green" in articles). If you think that sources need to be original, perhaps you should bring that up at WP:V or WP:RS." Wikipedia also isn't concerned with your opinion on what basic research 101 is. I suggest that you stop providing statements like "this is... still only a rumour", or "you don't cite a re-report" without any evidence to back your argument up. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Anonymous, unattributed claims are rumors. What do you think a rumor is if not that?


 * Wikipedia is concerned about competent, responsible editing. An editor who isn't aware of the simple, inarguable, well-established fact that re-reporting runs the risk of serial-transmission errors shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We have confirmation, that we are attributing to reliable sources. This is not something in doubt. Numerous reliable sources are stating it as fact, and you have no reason to believe (or convince other editors) that it is anything but that.


 * Again, you're throwing around words with nothing to back it up. Whether "re-reporting" is simple or not is subjective. It's not well-established, as you haven't established anything, nor is it established anywhere in wikipedia. And because of this, it's not inarguable also. Give me evidence.


 * Also, there's no need to make this personal. Please steer away from making implications that I shouldn't be editing wikipedia. That would generally be considered uncivil. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. Anonymous, unattributed claims are rumors. What do you think a rumor is if not that?


 * And once again, just because Wikipedia doesn't have a rule for something doesn't mean that we don't do a normal, standard level of research. Does Wikipedia really need a rule saying, "You have to have at least a high-school senior's level of ability in doing research"? Because anyone who doesn't know that re-reporting introduces the risk of serial-transmission errors is not competent enough to be an editor here or anywhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, if you expect people to answer your questions, it might be a good idea to start answering their's. But to answer your question, I disagree with your definition of a rumour, although I did refute it as if it was the definition. But I would describe a rumour as "A currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth". Of which this is not. It's not currently circulating, as we've been sitting on this for over a month. And it's not of uncertain or doubtful truth, as we have it from a number of reliable sources, stating it as fact, not as rumour. And although that should be enough, we also have confirmation from her boss, Fiege. There should be no doubt or uncertainty here.


 * Also, what's a standard level of research? Not only is high-school senior a different concept in different countries, but so is their level of ability. And perhaps, some standards of research as well. Point is, this is why Wikipedia has many detailed guidelines pertaining to reliable sources, and what does and does not count. Many parts of these guidelines would be considered simple and obvious (or of your high-school senior's level of ability), yet there is no mention, or even hint, that sources need to be the very original source, when we both (if it is indeed necessary) consider it to be a major factor. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything unconfirmed is "of uncertain or doubtful truth." If it were certain, it'd be confirmed.


 * Your last sentence has very convoluted writing and it's unclear what you're saying. You appear to be saying Wikipedia doesn't have a policy requiring original sources, as opposed to re-reporting, which as anyone with a basic knowledge of research knows can introduce serial-transmission errors. (Please look up that term, since you don't seem to be addressing it.) I would reply that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that we not misspell words. That doesn't mean it's OK to misspell words. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We have the confirmation and certainty that wikipedia requires: that of reliable sources. I googled your "serial-transmission errors", and nothing that seemed relevant came up, unless you're using the phrase as an analogy. And as for your spelling example, a number of the guidelines state that we use English. And then there are also these, if you're still unsure: WP:SPELLING, WP:SPELL, WP:ENGLISH.


 * It seems you got the gist of what I said before, but I'll rephrase: If it is indeed necessary for the sources to be the very original source, then I think we would both consider that to be a major factor in editing wikipedia articles. So, if that's the case, why is it not in the policies and guidelines? You say it is not in the policies and guidelines because it is simple and standard. I disagree, and I'm asking "whose standard?", as what you consider standard may not actually be standard, which is why we have actual wikipedia standards in the policies and guidelines (of which you seem to ignore). And there are far more simple things than this, that are outlined in these guidelines. The plain fact is, wikipedia does not require confirmation from the subject, and it does not require sources to not cite other sources. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * People and Time's website are subsidiaries for their more notable outlet: their magazine. Meaning whatever hot topic they publish on their site will make an appearance in the magazine. Both of them didn't publish the news in the magazine, meaning they question it enough to not run a front page article about it for their more notable outlet.<i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More original research. Here's my take: they haven't ran it in print yet because there's no "tell-tale photo" to show with it (and I'm assuming you're even correct that it hasn't made it to print, it may very well have). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not using this as any form of argument for my stance, but I'm merely stating that People didn't run an article in their magazine about it (not even a "Passages" mention). I know as I'm a long time subscriber. And this new issue featured the news of Mila Kunis's pregnancy (which didn't have a picture depicting her "bump"). It's just food for thought, really. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 16:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal state unequivocally that she's pregnant: NE Ent 15:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's no objection to the WSJ source in the next few hours, I'll be adding the bit about her being pregnant to the article using this source. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The WSJ article does not "state unequivocally that she's pregnant." It says, "A couple of months after we meet, reports will arrive that Johansson and Dauriac are expecting a child." Saying "reports will arrive" is just the opposite, in fact, of stating anything unequivocally. In fact, "reports will arrive" is about as equivocal as it gets.


 * While she talks about family afterward, that reads &mdash; and I'm sure she's being very careful about she says &mdash; as if someone were talking about a theoretical family someday. She certainly doesn't confirm anything. For all we know, she's taking the rumors and leveraging them for publicity's sake. I'm not saying I personally believe that, but I am saying that the way she worded that passage, she's can be talking about a specific upcoming life change OR a future possibility. It reads either way, and that's not confirmation.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the pregnancy and engagement are temporary, how do we guarantee it will be updated? Most news cites used in WP deal with events that have already happened. But the guideline about such time-sensitive news reporting is unclear, although it says that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." BTW, the article is not really a formal news announcement, but a casual mention in the headline only. --Light show (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is still an ongoing debate. You can't just add it because another source arises. The content itself is still under debate. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 11:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I can, this is a wiki. And I can add it precisely because a better source is available. The content itself was never under debate, only the alleged unreliability of the sources (which I doubt any sane person would start questioning the WSJ; but I was nice enough to state my intention and give a period for folks to argue that the source still isn't reliable). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. We were never just discussing the sources, it also included the content. And that does not get added until there's consensus. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 11:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your original objection above was strictly on the sources. You don't need a consensus to edit an article (WP:BOLD). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's unless the content isn't already under debate. It's still being discussed, you simply can't defy the discussion going on here because WSJ has joined the ranks of sources not providing where they got their "confirmation". <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not "defying" anything if I'm being bold with a new source. You can't start an RFC on sources and then stonewall when another, more reliable source, appears. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know fine well there's a hidden message there requesting the content not be added until consensus is reached (you know, the hidden message you kept deleting?) <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That hidden message does not supersede site policy, which is why it was getting removed repeatedly. Even if it's still there, WP:BOLD doesn't magically go away... —Locke Cole • t • c 15:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Boldly defying an ongoing discussion, where other people, not just me, disagree in adding it. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CIR. The discussion doesn't even list all the sources available, let alone the WSJ one that NE Ent just provided. The comments there are all prior to that being revealed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, pulling the competence card again? Look, it's flying in the face of a current debate, where it's being questioned, and therefore adding it defies that. Just because another source pops up, it doesn't change the fact it's still being discussed. If you add it, it's gonna come off. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The exact reason I advocate holding off was demonstrated recently when outlets reported on Chris Evans "retirement" from acting. Variety reported it. People reported it. Time reported it. And then it turned out to be false. I said it before, just because something's being reported, it doesn't mean they can guarantee it. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 11:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I read all those. Unless Evans is saying they misquoted him, he said those words. Is it possible he's backing away from that, realizing it might hurt his career? Very likely. A lot more likely than a Variety reporter fabricating statements and risking a lawsuit for his employer. Comically, if this same situation occurred here (according to your earlier "requirements" above), we'd have Scarlett Johansson saying she was excited for the baby, that she was well along now, and all that good stuff. Only to turn around a few days later and say it was taken out of context. In the interim, it would have been in the article, because now we had it "from the horse' mouth" (paraphrasing your earlier demands regarding sources).
 * BTW, "a changing world" is precisely why Wikipedia exists. The encyclopedias of old were on paper, and were a snapshot in time to what we understood and knew about the world we lived in at that time. The nice thing about Wikipedia, and why it is so prosperous, is that it changes with the times. To your Evans example, I say: so what? The article says he's retiring for three days. It's verifiable, it's sourced, and it came from his own mouth. If he changes his mind a few days later and recants: you just edit the article and state things as they are understood to be. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? This proves my point. These sources ran with wrong info (and it is wrong info, he's not changing his mind, he's clearly stating he was misquoted, meaning, the sourcs got it wrong). And misquoting is another way of false information easily being accept as fact and ran as a story. This elevates the Johansson issue much higher now as it clearly demonstrates how sources like People and Time can be wrong. And changing with the times doesn't mean Wikipedia should throw integrity to the wind. And I feel the site's integrity is being jeopardized here. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the integrity of the site is in jeopardy here, but only because it is refusing to add verifiable, sourced information which (unlike your Evans example which was refuted only days later) has been in the wind for a month now. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It still proves that People and Time published incorrect information. Meaning, if the Evans retirement was false, there's a possibility the Johansson pregnancy is too. That's where the integrity of Wikipedia is jeopardized. We could very well be allowing a rumour to be published into an article. Jon Favreau, Kevin Feige and Anthony Mackie can all say "she'll be a great mom", but they've conceded she hasn't informed them yet. To the magazine or website realm, its a fact, in a common sense real world realm, its still a rumour. It's been in the wind, yes, but its credibility has yet to be backed up. It's reported she's five months pregnant, yet when you compare her at one of the four premieres of Winter Soldier, and a picture of a five month pregnant woman, they don't match. The five month woman is showing, Johansson is not. And the moment we accept this as something to submit into the article, it'll be a standard everyone will hold to everything. I can add two actors are having an affair simply because People ran an article referencing its possibility. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Er... People and Time published quotes from an interview he gave to Variety. And I'll note again that in the Huffington Post story he didn't deny he said those things, he only said he wasn't retiring. You're reading into it more than he says, which is WP:OR. I could give you multiple plausible theories for why he did what he did, but they'd all be my own WP:OR. As to your analysis of photos and such, that's your original research again. We have verifiable sources, we can stick to what they say. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's his quote in an interview with GMA (here's the link, it starts at 1:17). In it, he says, and I quote:
 * "Yeah, you know you say one thing in an interview, I said that I, I, I directed last year, I really responded to it, I really enjoyed it, I'd love to focus a little bit more on that-"
 * Interviewer: "Suddenly you're not an actor anymore"
 * Evans: "Then retiring! Hanging up the shoes I guess! By no means am I planning on retiring, it's kind of a silly statement, uh but, but I certainly am going to try and focus a bit more on acting (I'm sure he meant to say directing) at this point".
 * In that context, he is stating he was misquoted. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 14:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet he didn't say that... I hate speculation. I truly do. Which is why I've avoided it during this short exchange, but here, let me join you in speculating: he said every word quoted by Variety. You'll note he didn't say he was retiring (he didn't use the "r" word). He just said he wanted to focus on directing instead of acting. That's a reasonable thing to say. In fairness to the reporters at Variety/People/Time, he wasn't very ambiguous with his words though, and it's easy to see how they got "retiring" from what he said. Now my speculation: he knows he's under contract for three more movies, and like any smart person he doesn't want to preemptively close the door to extending that contract (which is what "retiring" would likely do, especially considering Feige has made comments saying he plans on treating all these characters like James Bond: just re-cast them when an actor is done instead of rebooting them). So now he goes and says it was taken too far (but doesn't say he was misquoted), and effectively backs away from his prior statements. I think that situation is far more likely than a reporter making up quotes. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems this entire thread is based on the assumption that WP can act as a newspaper, with the only question being which news source is reliable enough to cite from. However, the guidelines state that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion," even if this wasn't just a temporary situation. --Light show (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur with Light show. We're not a newspaper, and a digital encyclopedia's ability to correct itself doesn't mean it's OK to put in rumors and misimpressions and give them the patina of encyclopedic fact until we find out they're wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidelines means we don't put in what she had for lunch yesterday, not significant life events. When reliable sources indicated the Hubble constant was 70, we indicate that; now that more recent data indicates its a bit lower, when put in the new value. As long as source say she's pregnant, we should say she's pregnant. If then they say she isn't, then we change. We don't not add something per WP:TRUTH.
 * Re:  As long as source say she's pregnant, we should say she's pregnant. Why? WP is a non-profit encyclopedia, whereas 99% of those reliable sources are for profit, ad-dependant businesses, that often get viewers by sensationalizing or exposing otherwise trivial and private celebrity facts. Why let big-dog WP get wagged by reporters who rely on digging up celebrity scoops? --Light show (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming number of sources Wikipedia uses -- books, periodicals -- are for profit. We should neither be dog wagged by blog / tabloid rumor nor should we ostrich ourselves by sticking our head in the sand saying "Didn't hear that!" when numerous sources are saying the same thing. For yet another source, listen to the beginning of the Letterman interview, where he makes a joke out of not discussing it. NE Ent 11:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no context to it, he could easily be referring to her role in the film, hence "if I had a nickel for every movie I've ruined". Besides, this is way before the rumours began swirling. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's source is Elle Magazine. NE Ent 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And? It's still another source making an unverified claim. And the pregnancy isn't even the focus of the article. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the way sources work here. We don't get to "verify" them, that would be original research on our part which we're strictly not allowed to do. I'm also unaware of something needing to be the focus of an article (or source) to be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you point me to the policy that says that? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about the actress getting naked for her latest film, with the pregnancy barely a cliff note. And there doesn't need to be a policy to use WP:COMMONSENSE when you're adding in a detail such as pregnancy to use a source that directly discusses it. And which is verified. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 12:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And on top of all that, we can't use the excuse that because a reliable source reports a rumor that it's OK to report a rumor. Rumors are not facts. And WP:BLP is very clear that before saying anything definitive about a person, it should be, like, y'know, a reliably reported fact. "It's a fact that it's a rumor" is an end-run around policy.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the source does it use the word "rumor" (or a variation thereof, such as "rumored")? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the source do they say they obtained their intel (or a variation thereof; such as "confirmed")? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 04:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the burden. The burden is WP:NOTTRUTH, a subset of WP:V. Again, you're engaging in WP:OR by assuming they don't have a source. You're speculating that it must be a rumor because they choose not to list, in stunning detail and clarity, who told them this. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This situation is akin to refusing to add a new element to the periodic table because you can't go out to your garage and reproduce the methods used to discover the element for yourself. Luckily, that's not the way we do things here, and shockingly, new elements are added as discovered based on the word (shudder) of our sources, not just what armchair scientists on here think. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This situation is probably more akin to that chemist, while doing her work, also learning that she was pregnant. The new element discovery would be news, not the pregnancy. --Light show (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jeanne Wolfe, Parade Magazine. "Pregnant." Not "rumored," "maybe," "according to anonymous sources" ... just pregnant. NY Daily News "is pregnant." (Incidentally, she doesn't mind folks discussing her pregnancy but do not call her "ScarJo" ) NE Ent 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, point? It's still them making an unverified claim, running it as fact to boost sales/site views. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 11:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wolfe says "may be pregnant," not "is pregnant". Daily News does say "is pregnant" as an aside in a capsule about an action movie, without giving a source; without sourcing or original reporting, it's simply repeating a rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"Baby on the way" Vanity Fair cover. NY Daily news NE Ent 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You do realize that the NY Daily News story is in the GOSSIP column? Seriously, what can't you people just wait until she says something?  None of this matters in the long term.  This has got to be one of the stupidest and lamest arguments I have ever seen on WP.  Arzel (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So that it doesn't go unheard, Tenebrae and I have had an ongoing discussion above (under the "Arbitrary Section Break #2" header, in that first "paragraph" - what do you call that, before the text goes back to the normal left-aligned state?). Anyway, I encourage you all to read through that, and maybe weigh in on it if you can.

This discussion seems to have split up into a back-and-forth between two editors, a whole splurge of sources that are being looked at briefly, an RFC based on a question that I think isn't entirely neutral, and disputes about the dispute itself. It's going nowhere, and has been going nowhere for quite some time now. So, I encourage everyone to take a step back and look through people's arguments with an open mind(including their own), and re-evaluate the situation. Take a few deep breaths, look at how you've been acting or discussing, and re-evaluate that too. Hopefully we'll all learn something, and be able to move this discussion forwards. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The uncertainty is over. She's confirmed it here: http://parade.condenast.com/275904/jeannewolf/scarlett-johansson-on-captain-america-costar-chris-evans-hes-just-as-goofy-as-hes-always-been/


 * Adding it to the article. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 22:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness. And thank you for keeping an eye out for the source, Auto. Snow (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Although she doesn't actually say that she's pregnant, she does seem to confirm it in the video (if not the article itself). Thanks for finding this source. Ca2james (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , you do realize that's the same source I posted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScarlett_Johansson&diff=603276591&oldid=603273577 4 days ago]? NE Ent 01:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at it four days ago, and the video was not there at the time. Not sure if its credit you seek, but the context of it is being disputed currently. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 01:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. NE Ent 11:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)