Talk:Scarlett Johansson

"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)

Sex symbol -sez who?

"As a public figure, Johansson is a Hollywood sex symbol. " -- No quote, no reference.