Jump to content

Talk:Black Swan dance double controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this important enough to have its own article?

[edit]

I don't think so. Far more important controversies surroinding films (the alleged anti-Semitism in The Passion of the Christ, the debate over the autorship of Citizen Kane's screenplay, Cannibal Holocaust, where the director was arrested and accused of killing his actors) do not have their own pages. I think this should be merged with the page about the film.Aquila89 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. This article fulfills the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability, particularly:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
There has been significant coverage of this event, too much to fit into a merge with the film article. There is no reason to merge. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also re: other articles, please note Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - please note:
"That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith." -Classicfilms (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just felt that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Several opinion pieces I've read about the matter stated that it has ultimately no significance, since Portman recieved acclaim for her acting, not dancing. No legal action will be taken. I think making a separate article about it makes the whole controversy seem more important than it is. Yes, it was covered by the media, but the media covers a lot of unimportant gossip about celebrities. But that's just my opinion, and you're more experienced than I am. Aquila89 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I understand your point and actually I agree with you to a certain extent. However, it is not the place of a Wikipedian to decide based upon opinion pieces whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion, and this controversy is now a part of the film's history so there will be an expectation that it is fully covered. As part of our WP:NPOV policy, all voices must be given equal ground and a merge might actually serve to go against that. That being said, I think it is perfectly fair to create a new section that includes some of the criticism you mention above as long as the sources fit WP guidelines. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It feels kind of hypocritical to me to write a section to the article which explains why the whole matter shouldn't be talked about. If you don't think that something should be talked about, you don't talk about it. That's what Portman does, basically. Aquila89 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's up to you. Remember that when editing articles for the Wikipedia, to keep Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in mind. The WP is an encyclopedia and thus objectivity on the subject and WP:NPOV are both important aspects. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and agree that a separate article on this gives the perceived "controversy" WP:UNDUE weight. There are only a couple of sources that address the issue of supposed "controversy" directly and in detail while, at the same time, qualifying as WP:RS. The rest of the article seems to be expanding on opinion pieces and blogs and overly long direct quotes. This article can easily be fitted as a neat and concise section within the film's article without losing any essence. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the quotes are way too long.
While I already formed an opinion against Miss Lane on this matter, I don't have any reason to believe that Sara Lanes advocater are an unsignificant minority.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/02/natalie-portman-ethics-part-ii-the-body-double/
http://www.dancemagazine.com/blogs/admin-admin/3790
http://www.jerrilynnreeves.com/?p=2332
whether their reasons for their support for Miss Lane are dubious should be left up to the reader.

Of course there are also articles that support rather Natalie Portman http://www.chinokino.com/2011/03/credit-where-credit-is-due-natalie.html 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3n70r (talk • contribs) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE weight refers to a section within an article that seems out of balance with the rest of the article - not to an entire article, particularly one which is written within the WP:NPOV guidelines. In order to comply with WP:NPOV, all voices need to be heard and thus this article complies as it is with WP policies. Thus keeping it as its own article avoids WP:UNDUE (ie a merge would risk WP:UNDUE). Please review Wikipedia:Five pillars - this article is in compliance with all of WP policies. There is nothing in the Wikipedia which qualifies an article by the number of sources. An opinion piece would be an article written by a third party which offers a subjective POV on the topic. All sections listed here refer to people involved and thus would not qualify as opinion pieces but as qualified sources. Also re: support for one person or another in this story puts an editor in risk of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Also, if you feel the quotes are too long, then cut them down. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree that neutrality would be violated in any way if select material from this article is merged with the film article. But I may be wrong so I think more third and fourth opinions would be welcome here. I've left a message for the WT:FILM community asking for additional input. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure,that's fine. The issue with using "select material from this article" and merging it with the main would be with the selection itself which would be a subjective interpretation. And it will grow as more editors add to it which will then risk WP:UNDUE for the main article. On the other hand, a full article maintains WP:NPOV and allows editors to add without the undue issue. Though I'm open to what other editors have to say.-Classicfilms (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question the appropriateness of a separate article discussing one controversy from one film in general, especially if there aren't ultimately any legal ramifications. I'm concerned that this may be a matter of recentism rather than long-term notability. Will people be discussing this ten years from now? Doniago (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair questions. "Recentism" is a tough one because it is a difficult term to define. The WP is filled with articles which document events which recently happened and yet do not fall under the term "recentism." It isn't our place to get into WP:CRYSTAL but the level of discussion does match Wikipedia:Notability with or without a legal case. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me - plenty of real-world note to meet WP:GNG. Aquila89 - maybe you'd like to take it to AfD? Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I started this argument here to see if a request of deletion would've enough support, and it seems to me that it wouldn't. Aquila89 (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This material, even adequately abridged, would be too much for the main movie article. I "kinda liked" the movie, but I did find the article worth reading and appreciated pretty much every citation. (Kudos to the original author.) Aquila89, regarding The Passion of Christ, Citizen Kane, and Cannibal Holocaust not having pages: just because they are lacking pages does not diminish the validity for THIS article. If they are as significant as you say (and I'd agree they probably are), then someone like YOU should go CREATE THOSE PAGES. By the way, the controversy over that cult film is so integral to the history of that movie, IMO it should remain in the main article. But with this Oscar Winning film, this controversy is only the tippy-top of the iceberg and is good to be out of the main article with a link pointing towards it. Bricktopus (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was that even more important controversies don't deserve their own articles, so this one especially doesn't. So I certainly will not create articles that in my opinion shouldn't be created. Aquila89 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

[edit]

I vote we delete this article, it is nothing more than "drama" for something unworthy of being talked to. Stunt doubles and dance doubles are a common thing. They are payd to be a double and should not pretend to anything more than their wages.79.112.108.161 (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What a silly moot point. No one is pretending anything, this is clearly a troll argument. A dancer who actually performed all the routines in the movie was deprived of the recognition she deserved, that's the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.172.208.182 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second That

[edit]

I realize it's not a demoacracy, but having stumbled across this page my first thought was "Really? This 'controversy' warrants its own article?". I could argue that its existence in and of itself is NPOV in that it lends credence to the existence of a significant controvery where one doesn't exist (except perhaps in the mind of the double). I suggest it be folded back in a paragraph in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.183.28 (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same initial thought... Kzero22 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third That

[edit]

Yea, no way this deserves its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.105.121 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second your third. This article is an expansion of a section found in the Black Swan movie article. It does not in and of itself merit its own article. Its significance to the events surrounding the movie are rather small and, in my opinion, can and probably should be included there as a paragraph or two, with sources cited for those interested in reading the primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.172.103 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- this ain't notable

[edit]

I find that this article contributes little or nothing to what has already been stated about the "controversy" in the movie's article. Honestly, does there need to be an article on everything? 2601:1:C100:306:E9:39B0:2A33:8F3E (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reviewing Wikipedia:Deletion policy. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Swan dance double controversy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Black Swan dance double controversy. 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:

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) 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Swan_dance_double_controversy&oldid=1243249195"