Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pregnant -> Very pregnant

[1]. Now can we add the obvious fact that she's pregnant to the article? See also [2] NE Ent 01:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with saying that her public-figure friend stated that she is pregnant, and giving the direct-quote citation at Us.

The Daily Mail photos certainly make her look pregnant, but that's interpretive. While I'm convinced, personally, it's still my POV interpretation that she's pregnant and not just turning into Shelly Winters. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't think she looks pregnant in any of those pictures, especially the US Magazine, you can see where her belt is, and it's fitting her perfectly around the stomach without any bump. But that's just me. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see this finally got settled... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but if a confirmation by producer Kevin Feige, who she is actively working with on her current film, wasn't considered good enough, then why is a confirmation by someone she once worked with 5 years ago any better? – Smyth\^talk 11:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Smyth. That said, having a look at the recent edit in that regard, it's written carefully and not claiming she's pregnant, only that a named, on the record friend claims she is. I think we were using Feige to state definitively she was, but that's so long ago now I don't remember or feel like looking up. Personally, I think we'll be seeing a kid any time now, but that's just my POV.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I bit my tongue when I posted above, but this is exactly what I was thinking as well. Either way, I'm glad to see something has been added that works as a compromise for now. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping Miss.Indecisive (re: your change to the article). See the discussion above and archived RFC. Nymf (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong about the US Magazine, but I know that Daily Mail isn't used as a reliable source. I'm fine with the whole mention of it according to someone close to her, but can we use something a bit more reliable? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170#Celebrity sources and distinguishing tabloid (newspaper format) from tabloid journalism for more input on celebrity sources. There usually isn't anything wrong with citing Us Weekly (Us magazine) in a celebrity article, but Daily Mail is generally discouraged. Besides, as the discussion I've linked to indicates, it doesn't hurt to use a better source than Us Weekly. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that mention of her pregnancy has been removed from 'personal life' once again?? It has been made incredibly clear that she is pregnant, with several sources AND photos displaying a baby bump on US Magazine,EOnline, Hufftington Post etc.? Is everyone still denying this- she may never truly confirm the pregnancy herself? Miss.Indecisive (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So what? What difference does it make if she is labeled pregnant? This is not a gossip website, and prenancy is not an end state (WP is written from a historical perspective). She apparently doesn't want to confirm it, and once the kid is born (assuming it is true) then you will have a verifiable statement to make. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This should put an end to all the "rumours": In this Daily Mail UK source, it says, "Congratulations to Scarlett Johansson who has announced she is expecting her first child." That should mean she has confirmed her pregnancy. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see that sentence at all in the article, besides the Daily Mail is a tabloid. I should think we can come up with a better source than that. But in long scheme of things, how relevant is her pregnancy anyways. The eventual birth of a child is what will have lasting "notability" (for lack of a better term).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There are several sources besides DailyMail which have mentioned her pregnancy, yet all seem to be refuted. It is relevant- many people reading these pages want to know the most current information about these people. If pregnancy is not "relevant", then why is it that for every other article the pregnancy of the person is mentioned? Miss.Indecisive (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:V (WP:NOTTRUTH). Nymf (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

I just want to put this template

191.1.178.40 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Corvoe (speak to me) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Johansson's musical contribution to "He's Just Not That Into You" IS relavent to filmography section

I re-instated my mention in the "Notes" column of the filmography table that Scarlett Johansson sang a song on the soundtrack of "He's Just Not That Into You". Isn't that what the "Notes" column is for? Additional pertinent info about a person's contribution? RobertGustafson (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

Scarlett Johansson has Danish citizenship.

177.12.3.81 (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Although her citizenship is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  NQ  talk 06:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not link to Christmas?

In Personal Life/General, why does Hanukkah link to the article but not Christmas? 2601:4:4A80:84:B4D9:8E67:40C4:1C13 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Marriage report

I remember the struggle over not mentioning her pregnancy, since she never confirmed it herself and so the only "sources" were unattributed and anonymous rumors.

With marriage, though, there's documentary confirmation. People magazine here gives confirmation via a county clerk in Montana. Us Weekly here independently obtained confirmation from the clerk, and named the officiant. The debunking site GossipCop.com concurs. Given the paper trail, this certainly appears to meet WP:VERIFY.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor inserted it. SO, I'm cleaning it up and making sure it's properly cited. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove redundant material

Wikipedia articles, without attention to the contrary, evolve to become hodgepodges of poorly integrated material; a first signs of this, in my experience, are often the appearance of cut-and-paste text sections drawn directly from sources without editing, from within and without wikipedia (therefore, in part plagiarism), and appearances of redundant text within articles. Here the same verbatim text appears in at least two places, in search "SodaStream" in the article. One of these needs to be reduced to being a pointer, and the second left in more or less its full form. Then, the whole of the article needs to be reviewed for the same problem (and for other unedited, unsourced c-n-p contributions). Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Hi! Could someone edit the information about uncoming movies for Scarlett Johansson. Scarlett was confirmed for Captain America: Civil War in January for the Directors of the movie. Here the link: http://screenrant.com/captain-america-3-civil-war-scarlett-johansson/ Thank you! LiloB2 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 08:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

So, there were several images that were uploaded last month, granted they are from 2012 but she hasn't changed much since then. I think the current file doesn't look natural, it's way more makeup than she usually wears and it's not a great headshot.

• 
  Current
• 
  Suggestion

LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I don't care for the expression in the suggested image, it is of much better quality than the current one so I'd go for the suggestion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I know I'm not loving it either but it's better than the current lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGELOCATION

I don't care much about MOS:IMAGELOCATION with regard to this article, but I started this section so that I can discuss the matter with TriiipleThreat here instead of through WP:Dummy edits. As seen with this edit, TriiipleThreat stated, "I know typically these should alternate but I think this can fit here and is relevant to the section." And as seen with this edit, I stated, "WP:Dummy edit: Actually, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, the images typically should not alternate; they should usually be right-adjusted. The alternating style is the rogue style.", and TriiipleThreat replied, "WP:DUMMYEDIT: that's for single images, it says 'Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left'."

TriiipleThreat, why do you think that the MOS:IMAGELOCATION rule of "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." only applies to single images? The text clearly states "images," states nothing about single images, and goes on to state, "If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing a parameter in the image coding in the form |left." The fact that it notes that multiple images can be "staggered right-and-left" does not mean that the right-adjusted aspect is not still the general rule. Flyer22 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused by this argument, and particularly why it's here. It seems that nothing is being disputed other than the wording of the MOS page, and no "actual" edits are taking place on this article. Shouldn't this discussion be on the MOS's talk page? This has nothing to do with Scarlett Johansson. Sock (tock talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree, the default location is the right and is the preferred location. The reason why "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" is to avoid image stacking on one side of the screen. The reason why the wording says "can" as opposed to "should" is to allow for editorial discretion. This is not a one-size fits all solution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock, unless TriiipleThreat is challenging the guideline, it makes more sense to have the discussion here instead of at the guideline talk page. I started it here because it concerns image placement in this article and understanding how MOS:IMAGELOCATION is supposed to work. While I am not bothered much by the left-adjusted images on this article, I would prefer that they are right-adjusted per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

TriiipleThreat, I know that these matters can be a case-by-case thing. I simply wanted to clear up your statement that the images should typically alternate, since some editors think that is what we are automatically supposed to do with images at articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional Content for Controversies Section

{{Edit semi-protected

Scarlett Johansson case opens up against French author Gregoire Delacourt. His novel La premiere chose qu'on regarde (The First Thing We Look At) incorporates a character which makes fraudulent use of Johansson's name, fame and image for commercial gain.

Johansson sued Delacourt for making false claims about her love life in the novel, and presenting her as a sex object. The character based on Johansson has two affairs, something that Johansson never experienced in her actual life. This was seen as defamatory. Johansson sought 50,000 euros, and that the book not be made into a movie. She was awarded €2500, and €2500 in legal costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marciane13 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

 Not done Celebrities have plenty of people stalking them or trying to make money from them surreptitiously. This section should contain examples of Johansson being controversial, not one of these strangers.--A21sauce (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Her last name being of Danish origin (from her father, as mentioned in the article), shouldn't it be pronounced "yohannson"? What is the source for it being pronounced "djohansson"? CielProfond (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is weird, because her last name is the Swedish spelling of that surname. The Danish spelling would be Johansen. Perhaps her distant relatives are from Sweden? Anyway, being Swedish myself, something along the lines of "yohannson" is indeed how it is pronounced. Not knowing phonetics myself, I can't update the page. Nymf (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, according to List of Swedish Americans#cite_ref-19 her great grandfather was indeed Swedish. Nymf (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

173.206.4.9 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Dear Editors, The birth place of where Scarlett Johannson was born is incorrect. She was born in Alberta, Canada. The place she grew up in is called Fort McMurray. This means she is Canadian.

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

In the beginning section it says that Scarlett grew up with "little money" in quotes. It is quoting a photo caption from a 2010 article in Glamour magazine. I would think this is false. By the time she was 18 she had been in 12 feature films. She also went to a private elementary school for acting in New York City. The tuition cost is 38k a year. I would think the idea of her having little money is far fetched. It doesn't provide and factual or reliable information. It simply quotes an obscure photo caption. Kc exactly (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This kind of change wold need some discussion. Consider asking members of Wikiproject Actors about this kind of change. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

spelling/usage

usage error, directional debut -> directorial debut. can't fix because locked. 104.51.49.171 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done: Finally fixed. --V2Blast (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements

The last sentence of the 'Endorsements' section is horrible. I have no idea what to do except to just excise it. If someone not so bloodthirsty would take a stab at it, I will hold off, but I have an itchy trigger finger today. Makes me shudder. Rags (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been bold, and made a change. If you wish to revert, please also make an improvement. Thank you. Rags (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent user of talk pages, nor am I a frequent editor of articles. I just came to the page looking for info on her controversial relationship with Sodastream to find almost all information entirely removed. That's one of the more relevant talking points related to Johansson in many settings, it seems inappropriate for it to be completely excised based only on a complaint regarding form. 24.250.23.194 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's mostly covered in the SodaStream article SodaStream#Controversy. NE Ent 20:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Small typo fix

Discography -> Other album appearances -> 2011 "I'll Be Home for Christmas" (duet) Dean Martin My Kind of Christimas: Should be "Christmas" instead of "Christimas"

Done. NE Ent 09:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Highest Grossing Actress

She has become the highest grossing actress in the world and the U.S. Is this an important point which should be added? Amanmohd2105 (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lost Bayou Ramblers - Mammoth Waltz

The album that Scarlett Johansson appeared on is titled "Mammoth Waltz" not "Mammoth Walt". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.46.18 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Name of child in infobox

Should the name of Johansson's child be included in the infobox? It seems to me that simply giving the number of children is the preferred option (per Template:Infobox person's "children" parameter:
"Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g., three or 3), or list of names if notable, ... For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable.
Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Early Life

What is the deal with the detailed background on her mom's family history? If her mother was "famous" in her own right, I could understand the detail about her family history. But the blurb: "Sloan's ancestors were Jewish immigrants from Poland and Minsk in the Russian Empire." is just ridiculous. What does that "factoid" have to do with anything? Does that hold true in the forward direction also? Because if it does, I want to insert my name and achievements into all my predecessor's Wiki pages. And I have plenty. Is there something special about a grandparent being a Jewish immigrant from Poland or Minsk that I'm not aware of? Somebody let me in on it. And NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with her "Early Life" - as the title of the section would indicate. It doesn't say: The Early Life of Scarlett's grandmother. Perhaps it should, just to be accurate. Or maybe just rename the section: "Scarlett's Family History". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Surname pronunciations

Other sources indicate she is known by two different pronunciations. Can we show both in the article, not just one? --Saledomo (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead Image Part 2

I want a new vote. That was hardly a fair consensus, considering majority of voters placed two votes. If I knew that was an option, would've named 3 as a vote as well. Rusted AutoParts 00:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead image -- newer is not always better

Regarding this edit by Dullfig and this revert by Rusted AutoParts, I'm not taking sides, but I want to state that a new picture is not always better than an older picture. Although the image that Dullfig added is from 2008, Johansson doesn't look much different in that image than she does now. As for the recent image, I don't think it's a good image either and, as indicated by Dullfig, it may not look like Johansson to some people...at first glance anyway. Yes, she looks older in the recent picture and we should reflect her current age with any lead picture and not engage in ageism, but, with many new images of her seen on Google Images (see the 2015 search here and the 2016 search here), she looks just as young as she does in the picture that Dullfig added, or very close to just as young. Anyway, all of this is something to ponder. Although statements on what is the best image can be subjective, we should strive to use the best image of the subject. And, again, I'm not stating that the image that Dullfig added should be the lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We should accurately reflect the subject as is. She's got shorter hair now and a fair few of the more recent pictures we have of her are not the best. But this ones not even bad, so I don't get the problem. Rusted AutoParts 01:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Per your collaborative edit, with the friendly, "Who cares if you don't like it?" rationale, you seem to be the only one who insists on using a blurry photo simply because you like the fact that it's recent. But being recent is not a rationale for an encylopedic entry and is against guidelines. It's OK for a news story or fan blog. Your repeated reversions are essentially made without any meaningful rationale.--Light show (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the picture at all, you're just being picky and enforcing your own personal standards. It's not blurry, she's clearly visible and nothing is obstructing her face. She's looking more towards the camera, making for a better shot. And I don't care about "recentism" and if you choose to use that as a negative (it's not even a policy or guideline, so it's not enforceable here) to push your stance, if I have a choice between a newer picture that better represents the subject and an 8 year old photo that doesn't reflect her well, I'm going with the more recent picture. Rusted AutoParts 02:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the images I pointed above, how does the newer picture represent her better than the older pictures? One editor even stated that she doesn't look like herself in that recent image, and I somewhat agree. People can take bad images, you know, including ones where the photographed subjects look less like themselves. I pointed to other recent images that show Johansson looking pretty much like she looked in 2008. The current picture does not best represent how she looks now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It does, considering it was taken two months ago. "Doesn't look like herself"? Could you elaborate please? Because that to me is just foolish. Rusted AutoParts 01:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you think any recent image is the best image of someone? I repeat: "People can take bad images, you know, including ones where the photographed subjects look less like themselves." Have you never taken a bad image of yourself? Never taken an image of yourself that doesn't quite look like you? I know that I have when it comes to pictures of myself. I know that many others, including celebrities, have. As for "doesn't look like herself in that recent image", I didn't state that. I was clear to note that a different editor (Dullfig) stated that. I mentioned that I somewhat agree, and I explained why. Below, I commented: "The first image doesn't reflect how she generally looks in images and/or when she's on film. Very likely not how she actually looks in person either." I stand by that statement per having seen a number of her films and per looking at a lot different images of her before starting this section. You clearly disagree, but I think it's more so due to you somehow thinking that newer is always better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to possess a misguided and frankly sad view of people. What I'm taking away here is you don't find her attractive in the photo. Who cares? I choose to use this one because it reflects her appearance currently. Doesn't matter if you don't find her attractive in said photo. Several articles have unflattering pictures as the lead one, such as Chevy Chase and Melissa McCarthy. The thing that matters is that their current appearance is reflected accurately and as recent as possible. The photos you champion reflect Johansson as she was 4-8 years ago. They're out of date. We should use the most up to date one as possible, which we are. Who cares if she's not looking at camera, or if she's squinting a little, it reflects her most recent appearance, one in which we have access to. Rusted AutoParts 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be quite presumptuous, and I find it very likely that you have a sad view of people because of that presumptuous, bad-faith mindset of yours. If you think I'm some male lusting after Johansson, you should think again. I am female, and there is no lust involved whatsoever. Above, I stated, "Yes, she looks older in the recent picture and we should reflect her current age with any lead picture and not engage in ageism, but, with many new images of her seen on Google Images (see the 2015 search here and the 2016 search here), she looks just as young as she does in the picture that Dullfig added, or very close to just as young." That statement completely goes against your argument that I am basing my argument on how attractive I find her in whatever image. You are not thinking about what is best for our readers. If we have a lead image that doesn't reflect how most people are used to seeing a subject, and it is likely that people will not recognize the subject because of that image, that is a problem. Plain and simple! For many of our articles of public figures, we go with the best lead image, and, yes, that might include what image is the most flattering, especially if the subject is widely perceived as physically attractive. We are supposed to present the best image. Point blank. We don't simply go "Oh it's newer; so it's better." That is a completely simplistic and inaccurate way of looking at things. Who cares? Our readers do. And so should we. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That frankly is the stupidest thing I've heard. It's a picture of Scarlett Johansson on a page about Scarlett Johansson. No reader is going to be confused. "If we have a lead image that doesn't reflect how most people are used to seeing a subject, and it is likely that people will not recognize the subject because of that image, that is a problem. Plain and simple!". How do you determine that? It's subjective. Most people are used to seeing her in the Marvel movies. Should we use a picture of her with red hair? People are used to hearing Yeardley Smith's voice on The Simpsons, so should we use a picture of Lisa on her page or no picture at all?

This stance that "people won't recognize her" based off this pic is so dumb. Her appearance is going to change, that's life. Masking it by using outdated photos is incorrect. It's not ageism to reflect her changing appearance. So try again. What's your problem with the picture? Rusted AutoParts 07:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm done debating this matter with you. You are not grasping anything I've stated, and have rather twisted my statements, which is quite clear by you arguing that "It's not ageism to reflect her changing appearance." It's obviously not, and I didn't argue that it was. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not that newer is not always better, it's that newer is rarely better. The lead image should best support her notability, with how recent it is an irrelevant fact. This is not a tabloid newspaper. BTW, most of third paragraph in the lead is also irrelevant to her notability, unless she's noted for entering beauty contests. In any case, Dullfig's image is the best IMO, and is far better than the current 2016 blurry snapshot candid. --Light show (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Light show, just like with Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and a number of other celebrities, Johansson's perceived beauty and sex appeal are a part of her notability. The Public image section is clear about this. Per WP:Lead, this aspect of her notability should be summarized in the lead. Her box office success, which is also in the third paragraph, should be covered in the lead as well. That stated, the third paragraph could stop at "Johansson is considered one of Hollywood's modern sex symbols, and has frequently appeared in published lists of the sexiest women in the world. As of July 2016, she is the highest-grossing actress of all time in North America, and tenth overall, with her films making over $3.3 billion." In the lead, we don't need to name the lists she's topped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed the third paragraph. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of these images seems best for the lead?

• 
  1 - (2016)
• 
  2 - (2008)
• 
  3 - (2012)
• 
  4 - (2014)
• 
  5 - (2010)

03:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2; sharper, brighter, better coloration and pose. --Light show (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• 4 or 5: sharper, brighter, better coloration and pose, and recent enough. --Light show (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• 1; more accurately depicts her as she is now. Despite what others will say, it being more recent should be viewed as a benefit, as it'll help the article be shown as frequently updated. Using an 8 year old photo won't do that. Other than that, the only argument in seeing right now is "I don't like it". And that's not a viable argument. Rusted AutoParts 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• 1; If this is the newest it seems the obvious choice. DIY Editor (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Didn't realize there were so many other options. Almost any other picture of her from the article would be better. —DIY Editor (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• 2 or 3; see the #Lead image -- newer is not always better discussion above. I fail to see how the first option is best simply because it's newer. As images I pointed to above display, there are recent images of her that show her looking pretty much like she did eight years ago. She has not drastically aged. The first image doesn't reflect how she generally looks in images and/or when she's on film. Very likely not how she actually looks in person either. That stated, using an 8-year-old picture of her will seem too outdated to readers. I suggest a different lead image, not 1 or 2. And I don't like 3. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind to 5 below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I had missed this further discussion at the bottom of this talk page and have already changed to the lead image. No disrespect intended towards the RFC process of consensus-building. Apologies all around. Feel free to revert to the previous image. Shearonink (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

...but yeah, #3 is my preferred option. Shearonink (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

3 is a decent picture, focused and clear. Are there any sort of guidelines to go by in selecting a picture other than by what appeals to each editor's sentiments? —DIY Editor (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADELEMENTS (which is a section of the MOS guideline WP:LEAD):

As with all images, but particularly the lead, the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page. Image captions are part of the article text.

So the main points are *relevant, *technically well-produced, *representative of the topic, *allow readers to figure out quickly if they have ended up at the article they wanted to read. So the question then is, which one or ones of the above images best fulfills those parameters? Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, the picture was switched out despite the discussion. So thanks for wasting my time. Rusted AutoParts 07:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey RAP, I already apologized for switching out the lead photo in the middle of an ongoing RFC. Let me repeat: I missed this RFC when I read through "Lead image -- newer is not always better". Realizing my mistake, rather than drop the photo into the article without any further posts (other than my comment-apology above), I thought I should contribute to the discussion.

Whatever the editorial consensus is, then that's the way the lead photo goes and I'm fine with that. Shearonink (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• 3 - it's the only one taken from the front, which is usually what we're looking for. Also, I see no good reason why the infobox image needs changing. Another suitable one I found: File:Scarlett Johansson in Kuwait 01b-tweaked.jpg. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is good, so I added it to the gallery.--Light show (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, the 5 image that FoCuS added is really good. I prefer that one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed 5 is a good picture, looks good at high resolution. Clear and from the front. —DIY Editor (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• 2 or maybe 5. To me they look...I don't know, more human and less photoshopped to perfection. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• 1 (if cropped) or 3, being frontal, without garish makeup, and without excessive contrast.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - 3 looks weird .... I can't say why because I'd be violating RD #2, Anyway personally I'd say none because none look right as an infobox image however I must pick one and 3 looks the best one I suppose. –Davey2010^Talk 04:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - Summoned by bot. Image 3 looks most natural, she is looking at and facing the camera, and it does not appear photoshopped. Meatsgains (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• 3 - Also summoned by bot. This is an aesthetic judgment and thus subjective, but I lean in this direction too. Coretheapple (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• 5- IMO this is the best average of all pictures given, glamorous vs ordinary person. Eagledj (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• 5 as being the best photo of the person. Avoids distracting elements and appears to be a sound image for the purpose here. Collect (talk) 13:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• 5 I choose 5 as being the better image of her. She looks very natural and is facing front. Pauciloquence (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Feedback requested for a similar question about the lead image on Marilyn Monroe. --Light show (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - 4 because it is most recent, except for 1, which should be taken off the options list because she looks stoned. Anything better from 2016? Yvarta (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

From the same photoset, if cropped I think this one is super cute and easy to see (and very recent). Yvarta (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting your image link inline and clickable so it doesn't hog up the talk page. BTW, I think she looks more stoned in that one ;) --Light show (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another feedback request, for another lead image, this one for Sharon Tate.--Light show (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
• 3 or 5 seems the best for me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good to see editors prefer to live in the past and not acknowledge she's grown older. Rusted AutoParts 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a newspaper, but a biography. Biographies like this one from 2012, are unconcerned with tabloidish recentism, but overall quality. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not about not acknowledging she's grown older - It's about what image looks best in the infobox and the colour, angle etc of the image(s). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Too bad the one voted for isn't any of that. But whatever. Rusted AutoParts 21:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

3 is the best image out of them all so I would suggest you either seek consensus for a change (which we both know wont get you very far) or you can accept the consensus and move on. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

3 wasn't the one picked. Would've preferred that one over the glossy piece of shit that's there now. Rusted AutoParts 22:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh for godsake sorry I thought 3 was the chosen one!, In that case I have no objections to you or anyone starting a new RFC. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to address any questions or concerns about this close here or on my talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN Thread

I have started a discussion at the administrators noticeboard that concerns this page. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#More_Eyes_at_Talk:Scarlett_Johansson Tazerdadog (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on lead image 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{rfc|bio}}

Last RFC was between 3 and 5 so to settle this once and for all I'm firing up another RFC however I've included all images from the prev RFC,

Which of these images seems best for the infobox?, –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• 
  1 - (2016)
• 
  2 - (2008)
• 
  3 - (2012)
• 
  4 - (2014)
• 
  5 - (2010)

• 3 - IMHO 3 looks the best out of the 5 (has a better angle, colour looks better). –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 I would place it for option 1 because I'd prefer to keep the image recent for those still living, but seeing as the last vote didn't agree with that, I'll cast it for 3. I'm not doing a vote for "1 or 3" because that's a bullshit consensus confuser. How can consensus be fairly reached when there are people raising their hand more than once for different options? Rusted AutoParts 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• 5 looks good at higher resolution and is clear from the front and You cannot be serious that you are simply repeating the last month-long RfC, with the same images, because you are not happy with the results. Are you going to ping all the people who expressed an opinion last time and ask them to do the exact same thing again, or should we just go ahead and count their votes? —DIY Editor (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't like bullshit consensuses. Come on, half the voters voted for two options. That's totally unfair and confuses the result. Rusted AutoParts 01:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with the close or the consensus. You had the option to include more granularity in your vote, or a more detailed analysis of the images and chose not to. If you would like to formally challenge the closure, WP:AN is thataway. However, this RFC is disruptive. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You call it disruptive, I call it a recount. You're telling me there's nothing wrong with tallying votes that include indecisive ballots? I doubt vote in the election would count if someone voted "Trump OR Clinton". Rusted AutoParts 01:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Previous tally: It's worse than disruptive. Note that in the last RFC there were 10 votes which were for either 3 or 5. Of those 10, 60% (6) voted for 5 and 40% (4) for 3. This is 3rd grade math, which makes this new RfC look immature and ridiculous.--Light show (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not immature at all. Make one choice and stick with it. When it comes to voting we shouldn't count those that are indecisive. It's really not fair. Rusted AutoParts 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If that was true, we should exclude your changed vote here. --Light show (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between voting for more than one option and changing your choice. If they changed their vote from 3 to 5, that's fine, but saying "3 OR 5" doesn't make for a firm and conclusive choice. Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is highly inappropriate and disruptive. Maybe we can ask for a speedy close on this RfC on the grounds that it's an exact repeat of the last one and that the only objection is that these two editors didn't like the results. If there is not a policy against duplicate follow-up RfCs like this there should be. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people expressing approval for multiple images and you can't dictate that they don't do it again. If someone things A and B are ok out of A, B and C that is a vote for A or B, not C. This is simple logic. Totally valid way to express an opinion and simple to apply when tallying/checking for consensus. —DIY Editor (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It makes for an unfair vote. And I take offence that I'm just being looked at doing this simply because "I didn't like the result". I vote the traditional way of picking one option. Wasn't aware people can have more than one choice. That's not the case in the real world , it shouldn't be the case here. Rusted AutoParts 01:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly logical for someone to think two out of five images are appropriate but not prefer one over the other. You don't get to dictate the form of opinions people offer in an RFC. What are you going to do, try to void the votes you don't like? Is there some difficulty seeing how easy it is for the person closing the RFC to take into account votes for multiple images? —DIY Editor (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I move to cancel this vote and wait a few months. Better to have this not become "You baby, you just didn't like the result!". I just didn't like the voting tactics. Regardless, I wish to cancel this vote. Rusted AutoParts 01:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• There was no consensus for any image - All arguements were solid and IMHO the RFC should've been relisted, FWIW I couldn't give a flying fuck what the iage is - If the community go with one then im fine with that however in this case there was no consensus on one image - I appreciate the closer has to pick solid arguements etc etc however they can also relist RFCs to achieve a better outcome, My main goal here was to stop the edit warring and seek an actual cconsensus - If that's a crime then I'm guilty as charged!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see it's now been closed - I suggest we all move on - I honestly don't see the consensus for it but hey ho shit happens, I apologise for the unintentional disruption. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not a vote. That seems to be the primary reason for the misunderstanding here. It may look like voting, but users are free to choose any option they prefer in nearly every discussion on Wikipedia. This is kind of first day stuff for Wikipedia so I'm surprised some users whose names I have seen around for a long time don't seem to get it. It is alos moarked as closed/withdrawn so I don't know what this talk about "cancelling" is even supposed to mean as that has already happened for all intents and purposes. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox - I never said it was a !vote Absolutely any editor can choose what they like and as I said at AN the wording above was entirely wrong - Point is all arguements were solid and as I said I just couldn't see any consensus for any of the 4 or 5 images just yet, Anywho there's no point arguing to death over it, Tanks for closing it anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted changes to infobox which conflict with article made by 2601:45:8003:97d0:1408:c144:e0a:874d

I reverted some changes made to the infobox by 2601:45:8003:97D0:1408:C144:E0A:874D. I also placed an info item on their talk page. - Tystnaden (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Mandy Moore Candy video

Under Early Roles it says she appeared in the video for "Candy" by Mandy Moore. The source is Fox News which is not reliable. Since she does not appear in this video I think it should be deleted. Freshmutt (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Scarlett Johansson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://deadline.com/2012/10/five-actresses-testing-for-captain-america-2-role-black-widow-might-drop-by-as-well-347013/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60jmekfJO?url=http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2003.php to http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2003.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/scarlett-johansson-flaunts-curves-new-magazine-photo-shoot-article-1.1470378
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/07/18/avengers-age-of-ultron-scarlett-johanssons-pregnancy/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0900entertainment/0050artsnews/tm_headline%3Di-would-never-mime-on-stage%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D19648489%26siteid%3D50082-name_page.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C221001%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919042753/http://www.maxim.com/girls/2010-hot-100 to http://www.maxim.com/girls/2010-hot-100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202035404/http://www.maxim.com/hot100/2014 to http://www.maxim.com/hot100/2014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bigstory.ap.org/article/scarlett-johansson-and-fiance-welcome-baby-girl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox change request

I'd like to put forward this picture to be used as the new infobox image. What do others feel? And please be more technical about any criticisms, not "she has wrinkles here" or "her smile looks false". That's just nitpicking. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Without being nitpicky, I dislike the candid nature of the shot and prefer the technical dimensions of the current image which is very similar to a studio headshot (facing and looking into camera, symmetrical, centered on head & shoulders).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I wish to try and find a more recent photograph though. I know that a picture being recent doesn't really have much weight in these discussions but the current photo is now a good 9 years old and she's physically changed a lot since that photo was taken. There are a lot of articles of people with older images, such as Rashida Jones, who I don't think has a usable image uploaded into the Wiki commons since 2009. Again I know a photo being recent has no weight, but I do firmly believe if there's a usable and decent enough picture that is a little more reflective of how they appear nowadays, we should at least consider using it. Rusted AutoParts 20:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that since the subject is an actress, the proposed picture is not appropriate due to its informal nature. The best type of photo in this case is when the subject is appearing formally, as for an awards appearance or a similar official situation. The current picture is better for the time being. - Tystnaden (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

Hello, I would like to add (again) in the beginning of the page, here - "is an American actress, model and singer" before the word "American" the word "Jewish", I did it myself this month and someone decidedit was vandalism and removed this ..., if it is not customary in the English Wikipedia to denote a person's religion I will accept it, But if there's no problem with it, I'd love it to be written. Yossi10zahvi (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:BLPLEAD "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2017

I suggest editing the 2013-present section, by adding the recepetion of Johansson's movies and her performances, based on box-office data and professional critics' reviews Edjo444 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Including criticism regarding Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)

As seen here and here, I have twice reverted Andru nl on removal of the whitewashing criticism Johansson received for Ghost in the Shell (2017 film). First, Andru nl claimed that the source is unreliable; I stated that The Guardian passes WP:Reliable sources. Then Andru nl claimed that the material is unrelated. It obviously is not. The whitewashing criticism is significant, which is why it's covered in-depth in the main article. I noted that we include reception to actors' films in their articles. We should also briefly note the general reception to the film (that reception was mixed) and any positives, but that doesn't mean that negatives should not be briefly mentioned as well.

Thoughts? I'll contact WP:Film about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to document the controversial nature of her casting here. We include other stuff like awards, and the ultimate purpose of a page like this is to document her career. The Guardian is a reliable source albeit one that I have found is usually selective about the facts and highly biased. Personally I would not use it as sourcing in a race debate but in this particular case it does not seem to be unduly misrepresenting the controversy. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

While it might be worth to mention it, I would keep it very brief per WP:WEIGHT. As an actor, I doubt she played much of role in the decision making process surrounding the controversy. The filmmakers are the ones who most likely are responsible.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Betty Logan and TriiipleThreat, with this edit (followup edit here), I added that the film received mixed reviews and cut the petition part; I don't think that the petition part needs to be mentioned on this page. And probably not on the main page...if it's not notable enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a fair discussion to the edit. I acknowledge the conclusion an will not edit the article anymore. Although it still needs to be corrected, as the movie is released. I still of an opinion that the whitewashing accusations belong more on the film article; awards are publically announced and reviewed by the established industry expert panel, the opinions and rumors are not. Studios are making movies to earn money; it's their choice who to cast for max profit; even their choices might be disliked by some, it is a business after all. Having whitewashing on this page implies that she was a supporter of it and complicit; i doubt she was, as an actor's job to portray the character as best as possible. We dont call an actor that played Hitler, a nazi? Although undoubtly there will be a group of people that will, and they might even start a "petition", since it only costs a couple of clicks on certain websites. Ps. I was referring to huffpost as unreliable source, not Guardian. But the essence of the edit removed both links. Andru nl (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Andru nl, thank you for explaining your views. I don't think that the text implies that Johansson was in the wrong in some way, but I can understand you viewing it that way. Arguments against the whitewashing accusation are made in the main article, and Johansson's response to the criticism is also there. We could include her response here, but, after the film was released, that also received criticism (as noted in the main article). So I'm not sure about going into detail on the matter here. And I know that, per above, TriiipleThreat would be against it. The HuffPost is sometimes acceptable as a source on Wikipedia, and the HuffPost source is still in the article, but it's being used for the petition aspect, which I removed. So we could also remove the HuffPost source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest changes

FrB.TG, I just want to state that you've been doing a great job on the article. But I'm sure you already know that, LOL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. I think it just needs some more work. Now I just need to make sure that the public image section is comprehensive enough. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and SNUGGUMS: I am  Done with the article now. I just want to ask if "model" should be included in Johansson's occupations. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

She is mainly known as an actress; so I would state "no." But I see that "singer" is also there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and SNUGGUMS:So if she isn't a model WTH is going on with all her endorsements? Is this the new way? When an actress reaches a certain level of notoriety they no longer model, they endorse? It's cheap and elitist and I think you know it doesn't serve Wikipedia. Also if we are going to go with "no." edit all S.J. categories containing "Model" obviously must be removed immediately. Wlmg (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Including "model" in infobox is debatable, but certainly not prominent enough for opening sentence when the general public doesn't really know her as such. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 10 October 2017‎

Wlmg, I didn't state that she isn't a model. I stated "She is mainly known as an actress." We don't overstuff the infobox with side occupations. I recently dealt with a WP:Sock doing just that. Ellen DeGeneres has modeled and has endorsements as well, but there is no need to list "model" in the lead of her article or infobox. Appearing in advertising campaigns for Calvin Klein and so on, as Johansson has, is not the same thing as having a serious modeling career Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That stated, I think that "model" belongs in the infobox more than "singer," and I don't strongly oppose "model" being added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

FA nomination

FrB.TG, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates stating that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it.", I usually object to a new editor of an article going through with the nomination before consulting the regular editors, but, given your substantive changes to the article since September 2017, you are a major contributor to the article. In terms of article building, you've certainly done more for it than I have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's me! I usually pick up an article, do research on it and expand it in under (sometimes longer) a month and submit it for GA/FA. Coming to the FAC, I would warmly welcome any contributions from you; you can be as much involved you want to be in the FAC. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Johansson and her Broadway award

In the FAC, Wehwalt suggested that there is no need to mention that Johansson received criticism for her Broadway award. Because of this, FrB.TG made this edit. If Johansson hadn't responded to the matter, and if there were not social commentary on established actors taking on Broadway roles, as seen here and here, I wouldn't see why it needs to be mentioned either. But that's not the case. I've brought the matter here for discussion because it doesn't seem that the FAC allows much room for debate unless it's the nominator challenging the reviewers' requests. Thoughts? Also pinging the following editors who have participated in the review: Nikkimaria, Moisejp, Aoba47, and Brianboulton. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a note: Wehwalt cleared up a matter in the FAC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I have now added it back and also Johansson's response to it. Thanks for the THR source, which IMO is much stronger than US Weekly. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The Hollywood Reporter source doesn't explicitly note that she received backlash; it simply quotes her response to the backlash and points to BroadwayWorld.com. Its BroadwayWorld.com link doesn't take readers to the exclusive interview, though. That's why I didn't want to simply link to the Hollywood Reporter source. But I guess it's fine to just include that source until someone complains about it not being explicit enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scarlett Johansson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/878425-avengers-4-filming-has-begun
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418000031/http://www.dnainfo.com/20120313/manhattan/scarlett-johansson-host-another-fundraiser-for-scott-stringer to http://www.dnainfo.com/20120313/manhattan/scarlett-johansson-host-another-fundraiser-for-scott-stringer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term nickname

SNUGGUMS, regarding this, I figured that you might have an issue with "nickname" since you removed it before. You have stated that use of the term nickname "is misleading as that would imply it's something she actually ever went by" and that it "incorrectly implies it's something she uses herself." But that is not automatically true. As made clear in the lead of the Nickname article, "A nickname is a substitute for the proper name of a familiar person, place, or thing, for affection or ridicule." Furthermore, because I knew that you might object to use of the term, I made it clear with new wording that it is a nickname that the media and fans have given her. It is already clear that she disapproves of the nickname, but the sources are clear that it's a nickname. Clarifying that "ScarJo" is a nickname is clearer than just stating that people call her that. Otherwise, it can leave readers wondering why people call her that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I can also list reliable sources here on the talk page making it clear that a nickname is not always a name that a person actually used. Sometimes it is simply a name that a family member, friend or acquaintance has given a person without that person ever approving of it or going by it. In the case of celebrities, the media and fans are included on that list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What I object to is the impression it gives the average English reader even if one does note it's what media and fans have referred to her as; it could suggest she at one point was fine with being called that and/or went by "ScarJo" before later denouncing it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I don't think it is likely to be inferred that she was ever okay with the nickname. We note very clearly that the media and fans gave her the nickname and that she dislikes it. The only way one could infer that she at one point liked it is if they think that a nickname is automatically something one approves of and goes by. We know this is not the case. For example, we know that people are given disparaging nicknames. If Johansson ever liked the nickname, we would state so. Like if Jennifer Lopez ever started to hate the nickname "J.Lo," which she publicly went by, and insisted that the media and fans no longer call her that. I think stating that Johansson dislikes the nickname and finds it lazy, flippant and insulting is very clear that she never liked it. I don't think we need to state "but has never liked it" or similar. And, again, I think not mentioning "nickname" can leave some readers wondering why she is called that, even though we are in the age of portmanteau.

FrB.TG, your thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The risk of people inferring a past approval isn't worth taking given how often non-Wikipedians (as well as probably other editors than myself) think of it as an approved/self-used referral, and is why I say the term is being misused in this instance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, I do not see how anyone will think that use of the term nickname indicates past approval in this case. I don't see that it is being misused in this case. I wouldn't mind changing "but dislikes it" to "but has never liked it," though. Even though we don't have a source stating that she has never liked it, it is clear from her comments that she never has. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The "but dislikes it" part should eliminate any assumption that the actress also goes by it, as she wouldn't call herself that if she dislikes it. FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, Johansson was also asked about the nickname in early 2017 (and the interviewer used the term nickname), and she again said she does not like it and referred to it as lazy. She also joked about it. It's seen with this The Insider video (starting at 1:45). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ancestry

Chem-is-try7, regarding this and this, you need to discuss it if you want it included. Don't WP:Edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn please stop reverting and better see the show and her opinion about her, quote "upper crust", family. Chem-is-try7 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Chem-is-try7, you have been reverted by two different editors on this matter. I reverted you once. You need to make your case here on the talk page for why we should go into the ancestry/heritage detail you are going in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Then this wasn't your business to revert it, let the others do. There is nothing much to discuss here, on the contrary you must support why did you erase the common practice of referring a nobleman ancestor name e.g Benedict Cumberbatch is related to King Richard III or to erase the link to her grandfathers wiki page. Moreover, in the PBS "Finding you roots" she was very fond of her descent from Swedish nobility and had a feeling of "upper crust" heritage. Hence, you where kindly asked to revert your edit. If you don't revert to the previous version I must report you for your 7 edits in a day. Chem-is-try7 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. We don't need to mention some nebulous connection to a non-notable noble from the 1400s. Meters (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been explained to Chem-is-try7 on Chem-is-try7's talk page that my edits were not all reverts. There was no WP:3RR violation on my part. I can make seven edits to an article in a day without reprimand if they are not problematic. Also, Chem-is-try7, there is no butting out on Wikipedia articles. Our edits are there for everyone to see and challenge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent editing

Newzild, you might want to discuss some of these changes first. This article very recently just went under a WP:FA nomination. Things you are changing were thoroughly discussed. And per WP:STEWARDSHIP, particular care should be taken with featured articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The change that you reverted was to clarify that she is not actually the highest-grossing North American actress of all time once the figures are adjusted for inflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs)

Newzild, I didn't revert you, but we often don't include "adjusted for inflation" stuff. Even in our Wikipedia film articles, "adjusted for inflation" is often left out unless it's in the List of highest-grossing films article. On a side note, remember to sign your posts when talking on the article talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Saying that she's the highest-grossing actress implies that her films have brought in more money than any other actress, when this is not true. Leaving out "adjusted for inflation" might be the norm in other articles, but it is still useful information for a reader who might come away with the impression that she's earned more than, for example, Elizabeth Taylor, when the latter's films might have had a bigger impact. I've just added "in nominal dollar terms" to the sentence to make this clear as succinctly as possible without mentioning other actresses. Hopefully this meets with approval. Newzild (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018

She is not American, but a Danish-American. Please change it. It is ignorant only to assume that she is only American. Gustav22 (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see previous discussions and MOSBIO Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Controvery" section?

Shouldn't there be one? I (a layman) can think of three incidents off the top of my head: whitewashing in Akira, representing a trans person in an upcoming film, and of course the SodaStream controversy. These incidents are mentioned in the wiki, but surely they deserve their own spot given their number and their significance as issues on their own right, separate from the related works themselves. Other thespians have separate "Controversies" sections, she should be no different. Brosefzai (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Akira? Don't you mean Ghost in the Shell?--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Brosefzai and Harmony944 (I'm Part-Spider), see Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Including criticism regarding Ghost in the Shell (2017 film). We should only include a little in this article on the Ghost in the Shell matter, which is what we currently do. The in-depth detail is in the film's article. Also see the WP:Criticism essay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Harmony944, yes, Ghost in the Shell Hi talk, I'm not just referring to Ghost in the Shell, but rather the number of several issues relating to her. Their 'togetherness' is a thing that ought to be identified and highlighted in it's own right. If it's good enough for other actors, it's good enough for her Brosefzai (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All the controversies she was embroiled in had to do with her films. It makes sense when they are part of career section. Other actor articles are not good examples, at least the ones I have read. Also, WP:OTHERCRAP. FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead image

Sangdeboeuf, regarding this, what made you ignore the WP:Hidden note pointing to the Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image discussion about the lead image and asking you to discuss first? As you can see by looking at that discussion, which lead image to use was hotly debated. The one you recently chose did not win out. I do not think this is a decision to made by one editor over what others have stated, which is why we had an RfC on it and I reverted you. If needed, we can have another RfC. But one editor's choice should no be prioritized above WP:Consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A new RFC IMO would be pointless. Regardless of any better quality images being available people will still just choose the shitty one we have right now. Rusted AutoParts 22:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we all know how you felt, which was the main reason we had that RfC. You know, so that it wouldn't be up to one person. By "hotly debated," I mean the discussion before that RfC and the AN thread and the second RfC, which was closed as unnecessary, right below that AN thread. If edit warring over the lead image starts again, another RfC would indeed suffice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t plan on defying the set consensus. Rusted AutoParts 22:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Per the RfC closer, there was only a "weak" consensus for the current image. Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate; in the case of relatively young living people, we should probably use a photo from the most recent decade at least. FYI, hidden text shouldn't be used to enforce local consensus; see WP:HIDDEN: "Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I'm open to a new RfC. I'm stating that this is something that should be discussed because it has been contentious. And I am aware that "hidden text shouldn't be used to enforce local consensus." I helped tweak that section of that page, and I've kept that page in mind when adding hidden notes after extensive discussion, such as with this one at the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article (where the hidden note still shows itself as being very much needed). WP:HIDDEN also states, "When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit." The Scarlett Johansson hidden note, which uses the word "please," is worded appropriately. It can be changed to use "please consider," like the Star Wars: The Last Jedi one. The Star Wars: The Last Jedi one also gives "to help avoid or settle disputes" as reasons to consult the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As for using a recent image and accurately representing what Johansson looks like today (an aspect that was argued in the aforementioned RfC), I don't see that the current lead image is such a drastic difference that no one would recognize her from that image, or such a drastic contrast that we are significantly misleading readers. I don't see how the image you chose, which is also an image that editors were essentially divided on in the RfC, looks more like Johansson than the current one. But again, we can do another RfC on the matter, and the image you chose almost won out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Nitpicky image removals

"Images should not face offscreen"? You mean you're choosing one out of half a dozen images on the page alone to say "No that's wrong"? Don't change the order of images out of the chronological order they were placed in. If you're going to replace an image, find one that maintains chronology.--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 20:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Chronology is not a part of the MOS, but facing is. Regardless all of the images were never in chronological order in the first place, considering the last image in the article is from 2009. Besides the image in question is in a separate section from the "Acting career" section and covers the years 2001-2014 according to the text, so it is not out of place.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Identity Status

Since it's true that Johansson has Danish citizenship, would it not be appropriate to also call her Danish since a Dane is usually someone who has Danish citizenship? --Scarslayer01 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Seems that other pages of dual nationals list both nationalities in the opening line.Palaeozoic99 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being late but to add on to the discussion. I remember I added Danish to her nationality and it got removed so I was very confused. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Kirsten Dunst and Olivia Wilde also have citizenship in a country other than the U.S., but they weren't raised and don't live there, so the intro just says American. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC

While I understand and see what you mean, they are still nationals of the other countries. In theory, it should not matter were one lives or is raised, a citizen is a citzen. Regardless if they were born there or not, raised there or not, and in most cases, even if they have fluency in the national language or not. Also with what I said earlier, Danes are people who either have Danish ethnicity or nationality, Johansson (in wikipedia standards) could be appropriately considered a Danish person since she possesses Danish nationality. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No one involved in the 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis is listed as anything other than "Australian," even though they have dual citizenship, and even had to resign because of it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, so that would mean they are dual nationals which pretty much validates my point. Why would the government view them as just "Australian" even though they did background checks to see if they had foreign citizenships. Which still goes on to me saying as to why these individuals are being labelled with one nationality when they actually have two (legally). Not sure if you were trying to rebuttal my argument or agree with me. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice last sentence. The point is that none of those politicians are listed as anything but "Australian" in their opening Wikipedia sentence. So it's just not Wikipedia custom to do otherwise. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am done with this argument and I appreciate you giving your feedback to my argument. Not sure if you claiming I had a nice sentence was either sarcasm or you actually being serious. Anyways, thanks for the insite. :) --Scarslayer01 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Scarlett Johannsson has other movies.

The movie Scoop, from 2006, was a very funny and epic film that Woody Allen also starred in. On Wikipedia, it is not one of her notable films, it was only a YEAR after Match Point and the whole heading says Woody Allen movies but it is not listed and it notes other films. (Not with that director) For me, as a fan, I need to see organized information, listed and worked on to access a quick-list as well. I am being asked if I would like to donate to Wikipedia. I’m not sure how to approach this. It’s very interesting that she played a very major role and the results of those movies but sometimes just not leaving things out would be appreciated. Rachelromo (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sex symbol -sez who?

"As a public figure, Johansson is a Hollywood sex symbol. " -- No quote, no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.188 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Says various WP:Reliable sources. It is a significant part of her public image, and is covered in her Public image section, where it is reliably sourced. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not necessarily need citations if the material is sourced lower. And that she is a sex symbol is no surprise to anyone, given how much she has been sexualized and that she has commented on it. Not a controversial statement in the least. Same goes for Marilyn Monroe, who Johansson has been repeatedly compared to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I see. So there are two unchallenged facts in the universe that don't require citations: (1) The Earth is flat. (2) Johansson is a sex symbol. Thank you for making my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.188 (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We generally don’t provide references in the first (lead) section, as it’s a repetition of information of the article. See the section "Public image" - about two paragraphs discuss her sex symbol status backed up by (surprise surprise) reliable sources. FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

They should include that she is said to be “a sexpot”. I just said it so I think they should quote me as an avid film buff and I like to critique movie personalities. Seriously though, that is something that is SO intriguing about the actress, herself, she is not idolized as a “sex” symbol, but her youthful energy and her awareness makes her fans clamoring for more. Rachelromo (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)