This is an archive of past discussions about Scarlett Johansson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
File:Scarlett-Johansson-2004-Premiere.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Scarlett-Johansson-2004-Premiere.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
File:Scarlett Johansson WhiteHouse.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Scarlett Johansson WhiteHouse.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
I still think this image is better for section "Transition to adult roles" and I don't see why it's keep getting removed! It's in Commons and it suits there, while the picture currently used in that section (the cover of Girl with a Pearl Earring) isn't any of that. It's not included in Commons and I don't think it should be there - after all, this is an article about the actress, not about the movie.--Renesemee (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a fine image. It should not have been removed, also the other image is non-free and had no Fair Use Rationale for use in this article, therefore could not be used under copyright regulations. I have removed it; feel free to add back your image. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I really think this image should never get deleted. Why do people keep on removing it? It is a good example to show Scarlett Johansson in adult roles while she is only 18! It is my favourite image and it should stay there.--Triggercon (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)triggercon
Without the input of a pesky IP, does anyone else agree we need to replace the image in the info box? On the grounds that its recent, she's looking at the camera (dunno why this is important), it's not blurry and it's not fake. The current image is from 2010, representing who she was 3 years ago. Input and options are needed. RAP (talk) 18:41 13 April 2013 (URC)
I agree it needs replaced on the grounds that it's an uncharacteristically ugly image and gives a distorted, non-encyclopedic description of how she generally appears onscreen and in most public appearances. A bad angle can make almost anyone look not like themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Its from 2003, its a little dated. I'm hoping someone uploads a pic of her at The Avengers premiere or something. One of these:[1]RAP (talk) 1:33 14 April 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "Girl with a Pearl Earring" image (if we are referring to the one a couple of threads above) seems to be from a weird angle, distorting her chin. Nymftalk to me16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
1) Not preferred version but we can't have pic from 2010
2) You can see her face.
I think both reasons are not valid to change good pic which identify the subject. I oppose the infobox image change. neo (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The 2010 pic is much better. It's ideal to have recent image if possible, of course, but not if it's blurry and unprofessionally shot. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)20:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not staying. I'm not gonna revert again, but we are locating a much, much better picture. One that is from this year or last year, one that represents her in recent times. 2010 was three years ago. It's not recent. RAP (talk) 20:27 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I've waited my week long block to type this. What's the big deal? That other IP you blocked brought up a good point: Jon Favreau lists friends, namely Vince Vaughn, Leonardo Dicaprio does. Kate Winslet too. But my question is that why is it fine to have it on their articles, but here, it's a huge problem. And there's always a million excuses; "trivia, OR, lousy content." All I'm doing is going off what the other articles on this site did and added it as. He'll, it should be considered passable due to the amount of films they did together. At least note that on the article. But, no, whenever I add it, the response I get is the equivalent of being told to go fuck myself. I'm only trying to help out. Just because I'm an IP doesn't give you the right to push me around and treat me like shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk • contribs)
First, I have no reason to believe that the "other IP" was anyone but you. Second, the reason you were blocked was for edit-warring. Once your addition was removed, you needed to come to the talk page and seek consensus for your addition, not simply keep forcing it in.—Kww(talk) 05:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What? I was still blocked, and where I'm at, my IP doesn't change. Also, you didn't answer my question. And I wasn't "forcing" it in. I was only following the example numerous other articles did. No, suddenly you get picky. And remove it, but not from the other articles. And what's worse, it's a sourced statement. It not just a sentence with no proof. That's my two cents, you can't do one thing on one article and not for the other, it doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You added it in over and over in an effort to force it in. That's edit-warring. That's what got you blocked. Your argument is a variation of the one listed at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You should read that.—Kww(talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That clearly states its an ESSAY, not a guideline. And sorry, don't hold water. If its "crap", then take it out of Dicaprio's article as well. Don't be suddenly its not allowed here, but it is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
And no reply. Obviously it seems there's no legit reason why it can't be there. It's not trivia if its on different articles, same for the lousy content excuse. It's sourced, so it's not OR. It just leads to the conclusion that you just don't want it there, and that's not your choice to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.213.49 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason it can't be in the article is because there isn't a consensus for it to be in the article. If you want it to be in the article, start trying to convince other editors that it should be. A big part of editing on Wikipedia is learning to use sound argumentation and reasoning to persuade other editors. As a first lesson in that area, you should be aware that referring to other editors as "fucking idiots", "assholes", or "retarded" is generally not very persuasive.—Kww(talk) 06:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. The director was just announced yesterday. But if you have information from reliable sources, you can add that sourced and cited information to Wikipedia articles yourself, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It is completely uncalled for you to be edit warring over the infobox image. The standard in BLPs is for infobox images to be discussed before they are changed. I am demanding that you cease editing and begin discussing until we can reach a clear consensus on what to use for the image. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The reasons why I prefer the first are 1) she's looking at the camera 2) seems fully aware that she's being photographed and is therefore smiling 3) accurately represents what she looks like 4) the background is generally uncluttered and neutral. For these reasons, it makes a perfectly good infobox image.
The reasons why I dislike the second image are 1) she's not looking at the camera 2) looks to be possibly be saying something or about to smile but either way, her mouth is just sort of open and not in a flattering way 3) there are many harsh shadows 4) does not significantly add to people's understanding of what she looks like because her appearance hasn't changed that drastically 5) is not that much newer (a claim was made that it should be kept because it's ~2 years newer)
Just a note that the IP still insists on changing the image even though they've been asked not to until there is an agreement in this discussion. Since they've ignored that request, I've just now given them a vandalism warning here. Dismas|(talk)07:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
First, it shows her with bare shoulders and no indication that she's wearing anything. Second, what does it matter whether she's wearing a dress or a t-shirt or a burlap sack? Third, see my point about the newness of the image. Dismas|(talk)23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
My take is that the image here on this page is preferable for the infobox. It more clearly depicts her full appearance than the rightly cropped headshot, and thus provides a more encyclopedic context for who she is and what she looks like. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
No, because the infobox image isn't required to be the most current image, just the most representative. We don't have Bette Davis in her last role in her infobox, we have a representative image of her from earlier in her career. Johansson doesn't look appreciatively different in the 2003 photo. And finally, we don't subscribe to recentism — we find the best, most representative photo, which in this instance is the 2003 photo that shows more of her and creates context. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've chosen to revert the picture back to the more recent one. Firstly, is because Wikipedia prefers more recent pictures. Bette Davis is different, as she's deceased and in cases of the deceased, you use a nice picture to commemorate them. Secondly, is because the Kuwait pic seems too artificial. She looks like a doll (porcelain kind) and unnatural. With this one, it feels more real, not staged. I don't agree with IPs reasoning, but the 2012 picture is really the better option. And as for both warring parties, I think you both need to check the way you conduct yourselves, Dismas with the edit warring and IP with the rather bizarre warnings. RAP (talk) 14:13 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This anon IP is being disruptive and clearly just playing around, and if he continues posting nonsense we can ask an admin to protect this page from anon IPs or even block him from editing for a time. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Let's agree on a picture! Kuwait or Avengers UK premiere.
Other than incessant insistence that the Kuwait photo is BAD for no clearly-articulated reason, we seem to have reached a consensus to keep the Kuwait photo. I am not sure what our consensus is yet, but we have at least stopped the edit war. The IP-hopper is advised that his comments are not constructive and only serving to hinder the rest of us in our work to build an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We have reached a consensus to replace the Kuwait photo with the UK premiere of Marvel's The Avengers/Avengers Assembele.----
We seem to have reached a consensus to replace the picture!---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.43.240 (talk • contribs)
Actually, it's pretty clear that there's a consensus that you are not discussing this topic in good faith and are simply disrupting the talk page. Please stop.—Kww(talk) 05:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I still dislike the Kuwait pic, so the Avengers premiere is my side.----
Dismas,the reason why i like the image Scarlett Johansson 2,2012.jpg is because, she looks pretty, she is wearing a dress & it is newer.----— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.28.247 (talk • contribs)
Ok I'm new to this discussion but why is there an edit war over the picture? Shouldn't the most current pic available be used? Lady Lotus (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The more recent image problems from my point of view are enumerated above but just to catch you up:
She's not looking at the camera
She has some weird 'about to say something' sort of shape to her mouth
She hasn't significantly changed what she looks like
Just because an image is newer does not make it better
The lighting is bad, causes harsh shadows, etc.
The IP's contention has mostly been A) dresses are better B) they simply don't like the current image C) Kuwait is a "bad place" and D) it's an older image. Other than the age of the image, they haven't been able to supply an objective reason for changing it. And as for the age of the image, (and I know this isn't the greatest argument to stand on) if age is so important, why don't we use the last known image of every dead Hollywood star or other notable person? We don't. Take Lucille Ball for instance. Her infobox image is from 1951. Meanwhile, there is a pic from 1989 in the article that shows her quite clearly. Since Johansson hasn't changed much at all, I don't see the point in changing the image just due to the image's age. Dismas|(talk)16:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok fair enough, I don't care that much about it to edit war over it, I was just curious. So instead of changing the infobox pic, could we add the one from the Avengers premiere somewhere to her article page? Or no? I don't see why not. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
No matter what image you use, it won't matter, as it still will remain unjustified to the many who have eyes and brains strong enough to withstand the Hollywood hype and propaganda that promote this person as one of the world's sexiest. ××−−×× — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.235.162 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Awards section
I originally made a separate page for her awards page: List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson, mostly because a lot of actors pages now have a separate awards page unless it's like 10 or less. I don't find this a big deal, and rather a welcome change because it takes away all that text from her main article and takes the user to a new page specifially for this. I don't see the big deal of having a separate one, but apparently there are 2 other users that do, for whatever reason. And apparently I need consensus to keep this page open, who is against it and who is for it? Lady Lotus (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Support I'm for it as well as putting her -ographies on the list page. She's a young woman and shows no sign of slowing down, so I don't see why these lists shouldn't be moved to a dedicated page. The lists will only continue to grow. Dismas|(talk)12:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. It cuts down loading times of the page (and makes it easier to browse), and as Dismas pointed out, she is showing no signs of slowing down. Nymf (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Support moving the awards and the -ographies to two separate pages. I would also note we need to trim the awards section, since it's long been standard practice under WP:INDISCRIMINATE not to include every minor regional and film-club award, such as the Phoenix, Arizona, film critics or the Chlotrudis Award. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
:Oppose, first off, never cut off a poll after one day. Secondly, her award/nomination ratio doesn't warrant a separate article considering its a copy and paste job of a table on her bio. Take Daniel Day-Lewis's awards page. This is what warrants separate article. Not a table consisting of repeating award noms from the same year. Rusted AutoParts21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
After 6 people tell you their legit reasons, you're still against it because it's not as extensive as Daniel Day-Lewis? You've yet to come up with a legit reason why it should stay other than you just personally not liking her, not thinking her awards matter and thinking it's too few for their own page. I honestly think youre opposing this just to be difficult. Who else tries this hard to go against somethig that is not a big deal and something that most of the users commenting agree with me? Lady Lotus (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that is a major case of assuming bad faith. I never said I didn't like her, I never said her awards didnt matter and I'm not doing this to be difficult. Do you not like the fact that there are people in the world that disagree with you? And you just cannot assume you've won a consensus from six supports in the first hours of the poll. It's my belief that the list of awards is too small for its own separate article. If others oppose me, I won't furthur my view, I'll accept the consensus. But I won't accept being told I'm being difficult for fun. Rusted AutoParts00:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: perhaps those opposed to the inclusion of this section should send the article in question to WP:AFD. It might be a better venue to generate appropriate WP:CONSENSUS if you don't think that that's being achieved here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You stated, and I quote "Not a table consisting of repeating award noms from the same year", which I take as you don't think that because of that, it merits it's own page. Also, "And to be blunt, if she doesn't stop being a stiff board in her movies, she won't be getting anymore noms", which I take as you don't think she's a good actor. People disagree with me all the time on here and I don't mind, it's when they don't have a valid reason that I stand my ground. You have yet to give a legit reason other than just your opinion of the length of awards. If it were like 10 or so, I wouldn't make another article because yea it would look silly, but for it but for her, I think it's enough. I really don't understand why you're fighting this so hard when that is your only argument. It's not taking anything away from her article, and like others have said, she's going to get more. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I made that stiff board comment as a joke. I don't not like her, but I wasn't at all using it as leverage on my point. And I gave a reason why. If it were in the same style as Daniel Day-Lewis's, then I would be fine with the whole thing. Rusted AutoParts14:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not like the new infobox image. It was added without discussion and it is poor quality: shadowy lighting, squinty expression, mic in front of face. Arguments in favor of it: it is very recent, and it is high-resolution. These are not sufficient to keep it here in the infobox (it can certainly be placed somewhere else in the article.) For consideration I suggest File:Scarlett Johansson 2, 2012.jpg as an alternative. It is only about a year old, and is also high-resolution, and a more flattering likeness of Johansson than the current one. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Your alternative is too blurry and outdated. The microphone isn't obstructing her face in a face that makes it invisible. Squinty expression is nitpicking. Where is it in poor quality, it's like a professional headshot. Sometimes I think editors want head photos that simply they prefer over everything else. Rusted AutoParts12:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I personally like the new image, I think it's pretty, you can see her face well and it's a whole lot better than the one from 2008, and it's already been debated about the one from 2012, a lot of people didn't like it, thought she looked weird in it. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to go with the Elizium23 on this. The current Gage Skidmore infobox image doesn't show her face with a natural poised expression and, like so many of the well-meaning and hardworking Gage's images, has a microphone dominating the foreground. We're not required have to have a 2013 image, just a representative one, and her appearance hasn't changed noticeably in a good five years. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Not everyone has to strike a pose for a photo, as long as you can see the face, which we can, regardless of the microphone. And though it's not mandatory, it is more preferred that, if we have one, to use the far more recent photo. And considering it's visible, nothing is obstructing her actual face, I see no reason to replace it other than two people don't like it. Rusted AutoParts14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
All due respect to my good and longtime colleagues Rusty and Lady Lotus, I'm not sure where "it is preferred" comes from, since we don't have old-lady photos of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford in the infobox. And one could conversely say, "I see no reason to keep it other than two people like it." It's honestly not a good portrait by any definition — I don't think any of us would say it captures a clear, whole image of her as well as a head shot or other studio portrait would. So I think this is certainly an issue worth discussing. Nobody here's going in and unilaterally changing it — we're just discussing. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
In no disrespect to the two women you mentioned, they are deceased. When that occurs, the photo is changed to one that represents that person the best throughout their career. The reason this photo is the one I choose is because it serves the purpose of personifying her as she currently is. It may have been 5 years but she has changed a lot physically. I'd understand if it were a blurry, unfocused one of her not smiling while walking downtown Manhattan, but this is a photo taking at a convention, where she is in photo taking appearance, and that what the photo shows. it clearly shows her smiling as well as shows her face. The background is dark because of the screen, but it doesn't affect her appearance whatsoever. The microphone would only be probmatic if it were in her face, covering her chin, mouth, etc., but it's not, it narrowly kept out of the way and her face is fully clear and visible. If we always wait for someone to submit a photo of her in a pre-positioned shot as if she were taking a school picture, then we wouldn't be able to fairly represent the actress by using outdated photos. And it's hard to be seeing one of the objecting editors stance when in a similar circumstance, they had no problems with a squinty expressioned, microphone obstructing infobox image. Rusted AutoParts14:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Completely untrue regarding Emma Stone. I have responded on your user talk page. The microphone in the Johansson picture is large, in the foreground, hiding part of her chin, and very intrusive to the composition. It is an ugly picture! Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Then I must disqualify your stance. "It's ugly" is not at all a solid excuse. The mic hides at minimum 2% of her cheek, not at all intrusive. Her facial features are still visible. Rusted AutoParts16:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Rust, I think we might need to take a breath. "It's ugly" is simply a shorthand way of saying that it's not well-representative of the subject because it's an awkward facial expression and/or the subject is partly obscured and/or the composition could be better, etc. By any objective standard, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the best photo of her ever taken. If the primary criterion for using it is that it's the most recent, I can't say I find that a decisive factor over a better image that's a year or two older. You're speaking as if it's a rule that we have to use the latest merely adequate photo that someone posts. We really don't. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
But it is currently the better one we have. I'm looking at it right ow in full mode and there's nothing wrong with it. The minor nitpick of the microphone isn't an argument point as its not obstructing the main part of the photo: the face. Quality is good, so on and so forth. Until someone submits one that's more professional, I vote we keep this modestly professional one, as it is a good photo. Whether or not it's flattering is up to the observer, but the microphone and ugly arguments are invalid. Rusted AutoParts16:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to say that whether it's "better" is a matter of opinion. And again, I'm not sure I'd fixate on the term "ugly" when that's simply shorthand for "squinty, unpoised expression with partial shadow on face that may not be the most standard representation of the subject" — all of which suggests there's indeed something wrong with it, if by "wrong" we mean, "Is this the best possible photo?" I'd also say that a microphone covering part of a subject's face certainly isn't an invalid consideration. I'd ask you, as a longtime colleague with whom I've worked fruitfully over the years, to please not frame others' arguments as "invalid" or that you unilaterallly are able to "disqualify" their points because they might disagree with yours. Again, no one's changing anything and it's just editors discussing if we could do better. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not labelling their opposition invalid, just the points they raise. And personally, yes, I do find it works as it serves the job of a headshot, you can see the face and it's not some quick snap photo like this one. We're not looking for perfection, just a good example of the actresses appearance, and those she may be slightly squinting, you can see her eyes, she has a great smile and more importantly you can see her face. Rusted AutoParts17:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Good Article??
Given all the cruft and self-serving nonsense I removed, I assume the good article status was conferred before fans began adding entire film reviews and other nonsense, including her political opinions/beliefs. She is not an elected politician or legislator, nor is this a fansite or Variety or Facebook. Quis separabit?00:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Esquire title
I find it in-noteworthy to highlight this, as it's an obscure magazine to the likes of Playboy and People, where the titles are much more recognized. And aside from that, this article is already rampant with overt praise for little details. Thoughts? Rusted AutoParts02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
RAP, as for the WP:OWN comment, in my view you seem to make many changes based mostly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any objective reasons. But let's go to the objective points...
For those joining us and wondering what we're on about, see this diff.
It makes her appearance on the lists more noteworthy to say that she was the first woman to be on the lists twice than to just say that she was there twice.
It answers a possible question of a reader of "Has anyone else achieved this before?"
Less objective here but I would not call Esquire magazine "obscure". It's been around for 80 years and has a readership nearly that of GQ. It can be found in many large bookstores and even small convenience stores.
Perhaps the article is full of praise because she's done many things that are praise worthy? If she had been arrested for DUI or gone into rehab, that would be mentioned as well but she hasn't. So, she's a good person. Why fault her article for that?
Clearly you haven't seen the discussion above regarding the infobox where I combated edits purely based on IDONTLIKEIT. And no need to get nasty. The problem is, if we start lamenting things like this, the assumption will be made that it would apply for everything. "Johansson is the only SNL host who appeared 7 times", "This makes Johansson the youngest to such and such". Rusted AutoParts02:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I routinely remove references to "Hottest Women" awards, regardless of the source. It isn't really a career accomplishment for the winner, nor are they judged by any kind of objective, reproducible criteria. That said, an award from Esquire is as notable as any of them, and probably more, so I'm a bit perplexed by RAP's reasoning. In terms of notable magazines, Esquire is at the top of the heap. The idea of classifying People as more notable than Esquire makes my head spin.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Dismas: Esquire is likely more erudite and witty than People (I don't know as I don't read either), but that doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. Throwing around accusations of IDONTLIKEIT without foundation is, IMHO (in my humble opinion), somewhat in bad faith. Quis separabit?17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Being ranked or awarded with this type of accolade is not includes so much because it is an "accomplishment", as because it goes to the subject's status as a sex symbol. Mentioning such things helps establish this. As for the other points, Esquire is certainly not "obscure", and mentioning that she was the first person so named is perfectly reasonable, as long as it is not given undue weight or emphasis. Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Relationships and photo combination
I don't really know how to use wikipedia or I'd do it myself, but does anyone think that maybe the photo of Johansson with Michael Caine should be moved? Because in its current location, it looks as though it's implying she was in a relationship with Caine at one point. It seems to be in the relationship section. Again, I don't know how to use wikipedia so I don't know if that's how the code actually laid it out, but from a layperson's POV that's what I'm seeing. 131.247.152.4 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A couple of fellow editors and I looked into this, since we discovered that two guidelines are, if not quite contradictory, then open to interpretation. But it seems that decorative use of free-use images is allowed. This is from admin User:Magog the Ogre, who's very well-versed in image use: "In terms of copyright, you may indeed use free use images in a purely decorative manner. You're probably getting confused with Wikipedia:NFCC#8, which says that fair use images must serve an educational purpose beyond decoration (paraphrasing)."
That said, I'm not sure what it adds to the article to have two highly similar images of Johansson from the same year. While decorative use is allowed, another policy says articles should have an appropriate number of images. To use an extreme example, we wouldn't have an image at every single paragraph. So how many are too many? How many does it take to clutter up an article without adding pertinent additional information? These, obviously, are questions that editors here on talk pages have to decide on a case-by-case basis. So what are everyone's thoughts on the two, in my opinion, redundant images that were removed? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sex symbol
Even as a man, I find the sex symbol section a little bit offensive. While Scarlett Johansson undoubtedly is a very attractive woman (especially to those who like the Scandinavian type), she has done less for exploiting her good looks in comparison with other actrices like e.g. Lindsay Lohan whose tatas pop out every time a paparazzi clicks a camera. While Lohan posed in photos emulating the photos of classical sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, there is no such section in her Wikipedia article and since when has this become a topic of encyclopedic significance? -- 84.159.81.96 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Critical acclaim
I used this phrase to refer the reception of Her in general, which was critically acclaimed (93% on Rotten Tomatoes, 92 on Metacritic). "Critical acclaim" is a phrase commonly used on Wikipedia, including featured articles such as Little Miss SunshineAquila89 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not left out. It's written as "well-received". It's the same thing. The use of "critical acclaim" is a bit over excessive. As well as unsourced. There are still critics who aren't critically acclaiming Johansson. Well received is better. Rusted AutoParts17:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The film was critically acclaimed. Johansson's performance was well-received. Those are two separate things. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other. I'm saying both should be included. Aquila89 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Rusted AutoParts, you should probably consider not edit warring yourself. Aquila89's edit is fine and well-sourced. Nymf (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The use of the word critical acclaim is overused on here, and is repetitive enough. Why is this a problem? Well received still implies she got good reviews. Rusted AutoParts18:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently new and anonymous users are "pre-emptively" banned from this page, so I am unable to edit this page. Can some other editor please amend the wording "Palestinian Territories" to the neutral term "West Bank"? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.110.93 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
And what the hell has happened to Time magazine? It published (and has since updated, though it hasn't removed) this story about North Korea based on re-reporting a story based on anonymous "sources" — and which the Associated Press says here appears to be false and based on what it politely calls "thinly sourced reports." I'm not joking or making light when I saw I grieve for my profession. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't just Time; I saw that reported by a number of normally reputable sources. But I have a hard time being too terribly critical of them; as regards North Korea, I think there is a propensity at this point to believe any crazy story, at least as regards the cult of personality surrounding its political leadership. And it is after-all, the most notoriously difficult nation to fact-check stories for, owing to its isolationist nature and near-complete foreign-media blackout. Head on over to Talk:Kim Jong-Un sometime to see how wikipedians have had to grapple with this limited and confused state of sourcing. We still do not have a picture of the subject up on that article because it has proven impossible to secure one that is free-use. It may be the single most high profile BLP on En.wp without one. Snow (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's true ... it's not just Time whose standards are slipping. But I have to say, I'm not at the level of a Time staff writer and even I thought that story was fishy from the very moment I saw it. I'd have taken time to look into who was reporting it and who its sources were, and if it were my beat I'd have called my own sources for perspective before writing anything. And maybe that's still how the print side of the magazine works — I know that at some publications I write for, the online "news desk" is more concerned with getting stuff up fast than getting stuff right. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This is comedy gold. "We refuse to acknowledge that there's even a dispute, har har!". Please, go away, you're embarrassing yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c19:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You need to be much more WP:CIVIL than you're acting. There's a perfectly fine hidden message that informs people of the discussion. You're lucky you haven't been blocked yet. Rusted AutoParts19:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would I be blocked? Have I said something untrue or uncivil? Honestly, I haven't. And since apparently even acknowledging that there's an ongoing POV dispute is impossible for you people, what do you want me to do? Pound sand? —Locke Cole • t • c20:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Locke Cole: you are right on the verge of getting blocked for disruption. Please civilly seek consensus for the tag or otherwise drop the stick. Many thanks. SpartazHumbug!20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You're kidding. Now we need a consensus just to acknowledge there's a dispute? That RFC up north that's currently deadlocked and the endless discussion above that isn't proof? Please, just block me and get it over with. —Locke Cole • t • c20:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If you can't get a consensus that there is a POV dispute then surely you have to accept that the consensus is against you. Like it or not, it is highly disruptive to keep arguing the toss. SpartazHumbug!20:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Er... actually I don't have to accept that, because it's not true. The RFC is running about even right now, which is very much "no consensus", not "consensus against xxxx". In so far as the tag is concerned, it categorizes this page into a category editors can browse to weigh in on disputes. It's a method of alerting the community to a dispute that needs additional input (beyond the RFC). I disagree with your assertion that a tag like that needs some kind of consensus before it can be added: clearly there is a dispute, to say otherwise is to side with insanity. —Locke Cole • t • c20:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Until the RFC closes there is no outcome to be disputed. You should be patient and little stunts like this just look pointy. SpartazHumbug!20:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but {{POV-section}} is explicit in stating it is for use with current disputes, not resolved disputes. After all, what's the point in tagging something as disputed after it's been sorted out on the talk page? Seems counterproductive to tell people to comment on a dispute that's resolved... —Locke Cole • t • c20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus to add the suspected pregnancy. You want to add a tag referencing that and don't see a disconnect between that and the current consensus. SpartazHumbug!20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Conversely, there was no consensus to remove the statement either, but through edit warring it got removed. It goes both ways. The tag isn't saying anything about the pregnancy, it's saying there's an ongoing dispute, which there is. I think it's unwise to require consensus to even acknowledge that there's a disagreement... —Locke Cole • t • c02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The burden of proof on reasonably disputed BLP content rests with the editor(s) who wish to retain it in the article involved. Saying "there was no consensus to remove it" is just meaningless handwaving. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, isn't {{POV-section|date=April 2014}} only to be applied when there is an ongoing dispute b/c a section is "reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view, [with] The neutral point of view...determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public"? So...I have difficulty understanding where the case is for using such tag here, as the dispute is not one arising from a lack of balance. I agree there is an "ongoing dispute", but it's not over NPOV - a requirement for use of {{POV-section|date=April 2014}}. Anyway, cheers. Azx219:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
New infobox image
So I updated the infobox with this image from her at the Captain America 2 press comference, it's natural looking, she doesn't have a ton of make up on, and it's a better headshot. But NightScream reverted it saying its grainy and is "NOT a better photo", while I disagree because I think this photo is a poor representation of her, it's a weird angle, she has a lot of make up on and kind of a weird look on her face. So I'd like to get consensus on what image should be in there.
Eh, I wasn't a big fan of the huge makeup image that was there. Seems overdone. But I also agree that the image that replaced it was out of focus/blurry (it seemed fine reduced down in the infobox, but became problematic once you went to the image itself). With that out of the way, I went to the Flickr site of the photo author where there are a ton of additional images licensed CC-BY which makes them compatible with Wikipedia image use requirements (and actually makes them eligible for inclusion at Commons). I found a few images which I think are acceptable (at least once you crop them as needed) and aren't out of focus/in motion/blurry:
The one on the top right looks good and natural, although some sharpening and added contrast could help a lot. The other could go in the article body. --Light show (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if the pic could be sharpened up with some contrast that would make it better as I didn't feel it was too grainy/blurry to begin with. It's not so blurry you dont know who it is. However, I do like the 3rd one that Locke found. LADY LOTUS • TALK17:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
She looks a bit yellow. Not an expert in this department, but if you'd topped the contrast a tiny bit, I think we'd be set. Any higher, we'd be going into Instagram territory. Rusted AutoParts22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
How's this one? It's not on commons, but if you want, feel free to copy and past and I'll delete the En/WP version. --Light show (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind copying and uploading it to Commons, if others are OK with it? Then I'll delete the old En/WP file. --Light show (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Georges images (César image) as users who only seem to have take one picture of a person and also one that looks like a high quality image and yet is a smaller size and lacks EXIF data isn't someone whose images I think we should consider..and also , i cropped another image from the Captain America conference, the only picture where Scarlett was looking at the camera (File:ScarJo - Captain America 2 (cropped).jpg), as you can see, that is what "grainy" looks like..if anyone can fix that, i think it would be better image to use..we already have so many ridiculous images of celebrities already...and please "avoid" Comic-Con images...reading social networking sites, it seems like celebrities are pissed that their images are poor but moreso that they have to attend comic-con to get a good picture of them added..lol..--Stemoc (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the ScarJo - Captain America 2 (cropped) one is too grainy, grainier than the one I originally posted. If everyone can agree on the one that Light show added, I think that works quiet well, has good lighting and contrast and to me it's not grainy. LADY LOTUS • TALK11:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Since we still seem to be working on this: I rather like #2 above. She's looking into the page, which is preferable to off it, and the lighting seems fine. The retouched version at right seems a bit blurry at full size, and the lighting seems a little harsh. Either photo seems more natural than the highly made-up one there currently, though I've no major objection to that extant one. Just my two cents, and no more from me on this topic.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I reduced the noise in the last picture, to remove some of the graininess. As far as placement is concerned, I don't really care other than we shouldn't cramp the article with too many images. Generally, one picture per section is fine. I went ahead and removed the newest image from 2008-Present section but feel free to replace the existing image with the new one if you like as I don't care as long as there is just one. We don't need both.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Side note
Can I just a moment and remark about how disturbingly obsessive people are about Johansson's profile picture? Constantly these pictures get scrutinized by trivial things, whilst every other article doesn't suffer from this effect. I think this ties nicely in with the recently articles about people drooling over describing her. It's just weird. As for the picture itself, as I said, the Cesar Awards one is artificial looking. She looks like a doll more than a human. I advocate the Winter Soldier press conference picture. If not that, then the Comic Con one. Rusted AutoParts15:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoa - who exactly are you criticizing as being "obsessive" and isn't to do so assuming "bad faith" and ascribing unbalanced and inappropriate motivations to your fellow contributors, User:Rusted AutoParts? Azx219:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Im not directly targeting anyone, and I don't mean to demonstrate bad faith. I'm just perplexed with the utter scrutiny each picture that passes through here endures. For example, the Comic Con 2013 picture was repeatedly replaced due to "grainy, water bottle and microphone in way", yet a similar picture was used on Chris Evans without any complaints. This wouldn't be exactly probmatic if not for the fact this has occurred quite alot. Rusted AutoParts19:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, User:Rusted AutoParts. Thanks for clarifying. I always thought editors should just discuss via talk page proposed image changes if there's not super-obvious clear cause to swap out a pic. Though idk about the value in citing possibly poor image selection in another article to justify use of a similar picture somewhere else, if there's a "better" image available. But quality is subjective, beyond the guidelines in the MOS for images for BLPs. Anyway thanks for your response. Cheers. Azx219:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I like the new image as it more accurately reflects how Johansson looks now that's she's pregnant. NE Ent21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}