Jump to content

Talk:Claire Danes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Quick fire statistics

Height: 5ft 5 1/2 in (1.66 m), Weight: 110-120 lb (50-54 kg) Hair: Dark blonde; Eyes: Grey-green

This was stuck randomly in the middle of the article. Shouldn't it be formed into a real paragraph? Does anyone agree? Fantom 21:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Likely copy and pasted from imdb.com or somewhere, a potential copyvio. zen master T 21:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Filmography as table and paragraph = redundant

What does the 1st version have that the 2nd does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranky1000 (talk • contribs) 12:28, August 7, 2007

Could you clarify? The first and second versions don't seem to make sense in context of the recent article history. --GargoyleMT 13:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

blacklist

shouldn't there be a section about her blacklist/exile from the philippines? this was not a minor thing; i think the foreign ministry got involved (and perhaps the US embassy in response, i dunno). 66.105.218.3 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I'm not very good at formatting and whatnot, but someone should definately add a picture. she's too beautiful not to be seen! --209.222.250.105 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll see if I can find something somewhere that constitutes Fair Use.--Twintone 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh man, do I agree with that statement!

67.180.44.133 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Early Life"

Has anyone read the text under "Early Life"? It varies between adolescent & just plain stupid. Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.65.119 (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay apart from the "WASPy" comment which, while sourced, seems hardly notable.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A review of the Paul Hastings website does not indicate that her brother Asa Danes works there, as indicated in the text of this article. Terminalwally (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scroll down to the last paragraph: http://www.paulhastings.com/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=732

67.180.44.133 (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Television

"My So-Called Life" was not cancelled. Claire decided to leave, so the show could not continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.126.12 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We should always avoid time sensitive wording

"Currently" indicates that she is being seen in performances "now" which is just not the case. As stated in my edit summary she is not "currently" appearing in Homeland. In fact she is There are no new episodes until next Sept. She is also going to be in the film As Cool as I Am at some point this year. If it is released next Sept then she will "currently" be in two things at the same time which is also confusing. The MoS covers this here Wikipedia:TIME#Current and here WP:REALTIME and here WP:DATED. Per the last one you might mention that the series will return in Feb but that should probably be mentioned in the article rather than the lede. MarnetteD | Talk 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this - {{as of}} - is the template that you should use if you want to be accurate with the info and it looks like it can be used in the lede so I have struck my sentence above. MarnetteD | Talk 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
a) WP:DATED says "Avoid statements that date quickly". This is not a statement that will date quickly. Television shows are on the air for years at a time. This is not day-to-day or even week-to-week. I understand the policy but don't think it is being properly applied here.
b) Even disregarding that, I fail to see how your version is an improvement. You seem to be hung up on the word 'current' but your version still describes Danes' acting in Homeland as happening in the present tense / "now". Please explain how it is less "time sensitive". And in fact, by saying "she also plays", you are implying that her past credits Romeo and Juliet, Stardust, etc. in the previous sentence are also happening right now. Now that is confusing.
I also have issues with trying to avoid collision with a film release, which is a singular event and not at all the same thing, as well as treating a TV show differently in prose based on whether or not it is 'in-season', but let's start with points a and b. --SubSeven (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The other template to use is {{When?}}. That let's other editors know that the statement needs to be more specific. --Thorwald (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Reruns are not "current" performances. If they were Danes would "currently" be in My So Called Life. The use of current indicates that she is working on that show now. Yet that rarely occurs. Work on these cable series is usually completed by the time that they air. The wording can certainly be changed but per Wikipedia:TIME#Current we are to avoid using the term. Options have been given on how to make the mention of Homeland in the lede more specific. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, My So Called Life which hasn't been in production for 20 years, totally the same thing. I will make a new edit, in an attempt to compromise with your extremely literal interpretation of a guideline. --SubSeven (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the new wording so congrats on that. As to the snark I am not sure how to interpret the MoS statement "Use of the term "current" should be avoided" in other ways. It certainly isn't "extreme." Thanks again for the improved wording. MarnetteD | Talk 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

Due to a number of unjustified articles, started with yellow press papers and later copied by numerous magazines and web-pages the rumor of being responsible for the end of the relationship of Billy Cruduup has never been verified. No pictures, no statements of the people involved do exits. In fact the opposite is the fact. A reference to an article containing no reference at all and do only provide a statement of an author who was not present at the time and at the place of the events may took place is no reference at all. At best it is hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.150.55.53 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the rumers / gossip part of who-left-whom-for-what. Gossip is gossip - not content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.240.22 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Partner or date?

Why isn't Ben Lee listed as a partner? They 'dated' for six years. I believe she retired from films in that period.

The article states Later on, she met Australian singer Ben Lee at her birthday party and they dated for almost six years, their relationship ended in 2003.[31] Danes dated actor Billy Crudup, who she met starring in the film Stage Beauty, from 2003 to 2006.

If dating Crudup makes him a 'partner', then surely Ben Lee is one too


Montalban (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

She did not "retire from films" during that period. She made plenty of films during those years.

208.57.244.9 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

where she lives now ?

well, i like to know, where claire lives now 81.193.225.94 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

She'd probably prefer that you didn't.

2601:9:A80:7CE:8077:38F:D41F:C836 (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this article about Claire Danes, or her father???

"Danes' father was born in Austin, Texas, in 1944 and, after studying Biology and Civil Engineering at Brown University, received a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Photography from Rhode Island School of Design (1968), where he studied with Harry Callahan.[12] During Danes' childhood her father worked as a general contractor for 20 years, working on residential buildings in a company he ran called Overall Construction in New York.[5] He also worked as a photographer and computer consultant.[5] He is the son of Gibson Andrew Danes,[13] a former dean of the Yale School of Art and Architecture from 1958 to 1968" - I think that massive blurb speaks for itself. It's absurd. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claire Danes. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Claire Danes. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

22 years ago

The item about 1998 is removed per WP:UNDUE as it has had no effect on her career and does not get a mention in reports about her since then. MarnetteD|Talk 19:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It also has nothing to do with her personal life. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"as it has had no effect on her career and does not get a mention in reports about her since then"... The Guardian source is from 2017. Now if you want to keep deceiving and use Wikipedia for your WP:SOAPBOX then also tell that why she can't win an Oscar or any other awards that are among most prestigious awards even after being a better actress than many of her rivals who have won many of those awards? Answer: They don't want to associate themselves with her because of her racist views and ban on her from Philippines.
Like I already noted on your talk page, your unrepentant POV pushing to whitewash the subject by outright trolling is not only long term,[1][2][3][4][5][[6][7][8][9][10] but continuing to this day.[11] Given the nature of content, I urge you to stop it all together since your clear agenda pushing does not belong here. You are confusing Wikipedia for Stormfront.org. TolWol56 (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The only WP:POV is pushing this bit of WP:UNDUE non info. MarnetteD|Talk 20:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm looks like she has won plenty of awards since 1998. The only agenda is yours in acting like this has had any impact on her or her career. MarnetteD|Talk 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Still no Oscars or even Oscar nominations let alone winning some of the "most prestigious awards" which I was talking about, not the random throw away ones. The statement is correctly backed by highly reliable sources and is WP:DUE. Repeating your boring silliness won't help you especially when you are a lone POV pusher dedicated to remove the important info for last 10 years. TolWol56 (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
That is pure sophistry. Emmy's are not throw away awards. She has not appeared in that many films since the bulk of her current work is in TV. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Good you agree that there was no Oscar win or even a nomination. Your argument is just a self-defeating argument. TolWol56 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Good you agree that she won plenty of awards in the last 22 years. BTW you have not provided a shred of proof that Academy Award nominations have anything to do with comments made in 1998. This nonsensical theory is the height of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
They are far from being "most prestigious awards". You started this use of wikipedia for soapboxing, and that is why I described that you are wrong to think that this incident had no effect on her career because it has. TolWol56 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC on personal life item

The consensus is to retain the material about her standing in the Phillipines but reword and soften it as suggested by Hunter Kahn.

Cunard (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Looking for comments about the item about her standing in the Phillipines. I feel that it is WP:UNDUE as it stands. In spite of the protestations above I can't find that it has had an impact on her career. While I am for removal if others can find a way to shorten it or turn it into a footnote that might be acceptable. So these are the current option - if there are others please feel free to add them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Leave as is
  • Yes. MarnetteD has provided no sources for backing his very personal and very wrong opinion. Having yourself and your all movies banned in a significant country like Philippines can easily impact your career. Marnette D makes no sense here. In last 3 years this incident has received good coverage from The Guardian,[12] Telegraph,[13] Time,[14] which confirms that this 1998 incident is a very important part of the subject's biography. Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. TolWol56 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove
  • Keep, but reword
  • I'm personally of the opinion that it should be included. It's supported by reliable sources and since it only makes up two sentences of the article, I don't think it's being undue weight; it's not as if it's in the lead or has its own subsection something. I also don't think the "this happened 22 years ago" argument holds too much water, as this article is intended to cover Claire Danes' entire life and career. I wouldn't be opposed to softening the language a bit. Perhaps instead of "Danes was declared persona non grata and her movies were banned" it could simply say "Danes' movies were banned". And I'd personally argue "for racist remarks" should be changed to "for perceived racist remarks" or something along those lines, because I think the current wording sort of makes a subjective declaration that they were racist, which could violate WP:NPOV. — Hunter Kahn 21:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Literally a footnote in a college thesis is what we're using to establish that the comments were racist? I don't know about that one. I would expect something stronger to ascribe such a thing to someone's comments in a WP:BLP. And even this is couched with the "reportedly" wording. Yeah, this is not enough. --SubSeven (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:RS does not discriminate between a paragraph or a footnote. The source is academic and thus holds great credibility. Your best bet is to find one as credible source which would refute that these comments were racist. Other than that there is no way to remove the word 'racist'. TolWol56 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The word "offensive" actually seems a more appropriate term than "racist" based on the sources used for citations. As SubSeven points out, they are only described as racist in one footnote, and in that case they couch it with "reportedly" so it's not a very strong assertion at that. By contrast, the other sources that more specifically cite what the Manila government has actually said do not characterize them as racist, but certainly characterizes them as offensive... — Hunter Kahn 02:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see it that way. Some editor shall dispute the word 'offensive' too. Having the clear statement of what she said is a better option at this stage. My recent edit[15] solves this problem and addresses your concerns too. TolWol56 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I've struck my remove post above, I agree with Hunter Kahn's suggestion to soften it. The notion that it has had any effect on the Academy Awards is farcical on its face so it has no place in the conversation. MarnetteD|Talk 22:19, 5 February 2020 (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.

Comments about the Philippines

No source has called Danes' subsequent comments an apology. In fact, the CBS citation quotes a Manila councilor asserting that it was not an apology and she was insincere. Wikipedia has no business calling her comments an apology if no source will. Elizium23 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The first cite I checked, the one from The Guardian: "Danes later issued an apology" --SubSeven (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Danes issued apology in order to get the ban removed. "Danes apologized for her words, and said in a statement that her views only reflect poor areas in Manila, where her film "Brokedown Palace" was shot." "Danes, presumably on the advice of her PR team, swiftly issued an apology" . Your other edits such as changing "described Manila, capital of the country to have" to "interviewing with Vogue and Premiere, said that Manila" were not good as well. See Telegraph, it also says that Danes "described the country's capital Manila". TolWol56 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
One single source (which is factually incorrect, if you look at the CBS source it is based on) referring to it as an apology does not mean that we should refer to it as an apology (the CBS source clearly states it was an explanation, and that they did not consider it an apology). SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
See WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Just because apology was not accepted it doesn't mean it was not an apology. TolWol56 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the ban in the Phillipenes still in place

Sorry for starting a new section, but I think it will be easier to look at this if we separate it from the other issues.

From the article version saying it is still active we have:

From the article version saying it is not active we have:

There are really just two conflicting sources mentioned and neither are great, especially for a BLP. The guardian is slightly better, but even it shows no actual investigation and at best we can say according to Ben Child the ban was still in place in 2017, which is not great. Aircorn (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact that movies starring her are being screened and distributed in Manila/Philippines seems relevant? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The ban could still be in place even though the movies make it in. Aircorn (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I was talking about the ban on her films. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This should be enough:
"Danes described Manila as a "ghastly and weird city", and her time staying in a five-star hotel while shooting on a tropical island as "just so hard" in interviews with Vogue. Danes issued a half-hearted apology that was clearly drafted by 20th Century Fox's PR team, and Estrada didn't buy it. A government spokesman stated: "We know if an apology is true or not... We will lift the ban only if we are satisfied." That was in 1999, and the ban appears to remain in place, although Terminator 3 did sneak on to screens in 2003. Danes also remains banned from entering the Philippines." From Chris Newbould, The National, 2018[16]
We can trust this source given the sufficient details it offered with proper details and research. Chris Newbould is also cited by scholarly publications,[17][18] BBC,[19] and others. TolWol56 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that there is enough doubt that we cannot say the ban has been lifted. How about we say The restriction involved a permanent ban..., which seems to be agreed and the we don't have to worry about the "as of ..." and "as far as we can tell" concessions. Aircorn (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the "We know if an apology is true or not... We will lift the ban only if we are satisfied." was from October 1998, it is in the CBS piece. "Danes also remains banned from entering the Philippines." is contentious, and again, based off the same CBS piece we already decided did not say she was ever banned by the president, nor from the Philippines, nor did any other source specifically about the event from the time period. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This source has no relation with 20 year old CBS. But yes the ban, both from movies and entry was never lifted. TolWol56 (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The source you shared is literally quoting the CBS piece. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not quoting CBS but the person who made the statement. If the person is being correctly quoted by multiple outlets then it means that we are not seeing any discrepancies about the quote. Your theory that "CBS said one thing, someone else also said same thing = latter was copying CBS" actually makes no sense. TolWol56 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the last thing I'm saying that isn't specifically about the content: quotation attribution belongs both to the person who said or wrote it, but also to the publication in which it is published. This isn't a "theory", this is the field I work in, and this is how source attribution works. Hope that clears up how it relates to the CBS source. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems that it was easily possible that the source gathered the information without looking at CBS, let alone finding any comparison. You shouldn't be making comparisons between just any source based on your own unique way of comparison, especially when you are undermining the credibility. You need the actual evidence for that. We have a guideline (WP:IRS) and it needs to be done accordingly. TolWol56 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The point was that it was from 1998, not 1999, and that his words were misconstrued to say that she was banned from the entire country. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
One source can make a mistake but many others can't. Same can be said for another point of view. This is why our our article correctly states both countrywide or citywide ban as a possibility. TolWol56 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, the point is that the CBS article, which is where the comments from the president came from, does not say it was a country-wide ban, and is from 1998, not 1999. I'm talking about facts, nothing more.
The point I'm trying to make is that readers should not be misled into believing they cannot consume content starring Danes in the region when they can. I think @Aircorn's solution of stating that part of the declaration was a prohibition on her films in the region does a fine job of stating what occurred, without adding the layer of confusion around why her films and tv shows can be watched and purchased there or adding a source that not all of the editors trust to be an accurate reason as to why. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Kim Atienza, who drafted the resolution in 1998 said she is welcome in the region. [20] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And my point is that it is irrelevant to even drag CBS here. Now that it has been established that the ban is in place, then it is necessary to mention that Danes apologized for the comments but the officials refused to lift the ban. TolWol56 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not been established that there is currently a prohibition on her films or television shows. People who live there say that they have seen her movies in the theatre since at least 2003 and watch Homeland. Entertainment Weekly reported she sent an official letter of apology in 1999. According to Biographical author Jennifer Ambrose, she issued multiple additional apologies in 1999, including in an interview with In Style and another in Flaunt. Ambrose, Jennifer (2000). Claire Danes. Toronto, Ont.: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-55490-402-0. OCLC 302364960. All of these apologies come after the 1998 reference to her original statement not being accepted as an apology, which was originally quoted in CBS, proving it came before these other apologies which may have been the reason her work is allowed to air in the region.
I don't think I can devote any more mental space to this. I'm willing to exclude that she made later apologies, the Entertainment Weekly source, and that her films are presently shown in the region if the prohibition is only mentioned in past tense as a part of the declaration, like Aircorn suggested to find consensus. These are the details I would accept, or similar sentiment: In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila. The resolution also prohibited distribution of her films in the region. Danes, who was 19 at the time, had been in the city filming Brokedown Palace and made "derogatory" comments about Manila in interviews. Danes later apologized for those remarks.
I think it's better without the quote, as TolWol56 feels using both Vogue and Premiere is quotefarming, and feels the Premiere quote is too long. Sources have misquoted her repeatedly, so if we use any of the Premiere quote, it needs to abide by WP:PMC by coming from the magazine article itself, and likely a footnote should mention that it's bene misquoted in a number of sources.
I am willing to concede mentioning her age, though Aircorn and I both agree it's helpful context.
Sources:
- "Manila Bans Claire Danes' Movies". Associated Press. September 29, 1998.
- "Not So Great, Danes". Wired. September 30, 1998.
- Snow, Shauna (October 2, 1998). "Arts and entertainment reports from The Times, national and international news services and the nation's press". Los Angeles Times. (tertiary, but explicitly states her age. Alternatively, the Premiere magazine article also explicitly mentions her age.)
Notes:
- Recent tertiary sources have mixed reports whether she and her films was banned in Manila or the Philippines
- Sources report that her films have been distributed in the region since at least 2003
- according to a Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) legal opinion, persona non grata declarations are often made through resolutions by the local legislature rather than ordinances and is merely made to express a sentiment; which effectively meant that such declarations are non-binding. (sources in persona non grata (Philippines))
TolWol56, are you willing to come to a consensus? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
That's like saying that UK does not have closed borders because thousands of people have illegally made it to London every year.
Keep this kind of irrelevant WP:OR argument out.
Nobody is going to consider a lone 23 years old poorly written paragraph from defunct EW that only includes ban on movies, not entry ban and offers no necessary details. The Guardian, The National (it noted Terminator 3 was released but ban stays), and other recent sources written by better experts are the ones who pass WP:RS and also WP:RSAGE. TolWol56 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
No one is doing WP:OR. ...ban appears to remain in place... does not indicate that the "ban stays". It indicates, like with all of the other sources, that they could not definitively say whether there was an existing prohibition on her films, but that Terminator 3 was screened in the region, which is what I think we should mention in a footnote. It's very clear by the list I made that I was only talking about the films prohibition. I understand you don't care for the Entertainment Weekly source, which is why I said above I've agreed that it doesn't need to be included. That doesn't address the fact that we cannot definitively say there is a prohibition on her films, per WP:NOTFALSE. The sources have MOS:WTW we would never utilize to indicate that something is verified, regardless of whether or not it is a WP:RS. "Far as we can tell" and "appears to" indicate that the sources were not able to determine whether or not there was a ban in place, they merely think so.
Secondly, we've already reached a consensus that the sources closest to the subject do not indicate that there was anything more than a persona non grata (Philippines) declaration as a resolution voted on by the Manila city council, which included a prohibition on her films until she publicly apologized in a manner that the city council felt was satisfactory. More sources that mention an entry ban say it was Manila than the country of the Philippines that she was banned from. The sources you are mentioning are not better because they are recent, see WP:RECENT, especially since they are WP:TERTIARY.
Please work with Aircorn and I on a consensus, instead of just arguing.
Points that need consensus:
  • Whether her age should be included.
Aircorn and I agree this is useful context. That being said, it can be gleaned from her birthday and the year of the event, so I'd concede on it.
  • Whether or not a quote should be included
Aircorn suggested we do not need a quote. I initially felt like the quote was necessary, but actually found I preferred it without. Because the Premiere magazine quote has been misquoted, I don't think we should include it. If we do, as I said above, we need to use the actual quote from the magazine, and include a footnote that it's been misquoted elsewhere.
According to her biography, the comments about the people with missing limbs were specifically about the people they saw imprisoned in the psychiatric hospital, and that line in particular has been the subject of having the meaning altered.
Aircorn suggested we use the Vogue quote instead. I think it would be better to use the Premiere magazine one or not to use one at all.
  • Whether or not the entry ban and the contention over it should go inline or in a footnote.
I think it should go in a footnote, not inline. The reason for this is because the sources closest to the subject only mention the persona non grata and hyperbole from the president. The vast majority of sources, including all of the WP:SECONDARY and most of the tertiary sources, recent and from the late 90's which discuss an entry ban say it was of the city. Her biography states that the only ban that was ever in place was of her films, and the only film that the ban ever affected was the screening of Brokedown Palace.
  • Whether or not we should notate some sources claim the ban "appears" to still be in place.
I do not think it should be included for the reasons above. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok I have read the above. I think we all need to stop for a while. This has been posted on one of the most watched noticeboards in Wikipedia (ANI has over 5000), it has gone from 8 pageviews on the 21st to an average of 74 in the last five days[21] and so far the conversation is dominated by you two with over 50 edits to this page each.[22] The position of each of you is clear and unlikely to change. It is time to see if anyone else wants to comment, and they won't if it just continues to be an argument between two editors. If no one else does in the next few days I would suggest we just do an RFC with the two versions and let the community decide. Aircorn (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    This is a lot, and I'm not sure I've taken it all in. I will add as general points though that, firstly, looking at the filmography section, many of the films since Terminator 3 might not make it to the Philippines without a ban (I haven't looked into whether they have or haven't). Secondly, there is (understandable) confusion/conflation in the Guardian source and perhaps elsewhere between Manila and the wider Metro Manila, which may impact on how sources should be interpreted. CMD (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Chipmunkdavis: I've opened an RFC below this section if you're interested in providing input. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I had commented on ANI and will also comment here since I got pinged yesterday by SquareInARoundHole there. I agree that this conversation needs to be stopped now and I don't recommend another RfC because RfCs are good for modifying a single sentence or usage of terms, that are going through an actual dispute. They are not for discussing a whole paragraph where one user is not understanding that they are in fact treating the one side to be largely innocent and defensible and treat another side to be oversensitive and arrogant and clearly removing a good degree of culpability from the subject as visible from SIARH's preferred version. I can recommend taking this to WP:DRN only if the dispute is serious which I don't think it is, however, I maintain that RfC will waste everyone's time. GenuineArt (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
    I think this is a perfect example for a when a RFC can work. If two editors can't agree and are being inflexible then it actually saves time given that it provides an easier forum for others to comments without being drowned out. Just present the two version and see which one gets consensus. Aircorn (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
If only 2 users are disagreeing then there is WP:3O. But that option is no longer useful since more than 3 users have commented here. If anyone assumes that it has failed, then WP:DRN would be better because RfCs are better used for asking simple questions or resolving dispute over particular terms. An RfC happened here as well,[23] and I don't think that this time it will go that well because the recent text walls are so aggressive that I think many of the messages above are in fact larger than the entire RfC that happened earlier. Such conduct will only drive participants away from the RfC than encourage them to contribute. In general, DRN is more recommended for this situation because DRN volunteers are allowed to demand brief responses to the questions they will ask in relation to the dispute and they are better at examining the dispute. GenuineArt (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of people with opinions in the BLPN thread, I think an RFC will work fine. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aircorn & @GenuineArt I've opened an RFC below this section and notified participants in the BLPN discussion of it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments about the Philippines (2)

Upon doing a fact check, this article is mainly based on the Guardian source, which incorrectly states that Danes has been banned from the Philippines, along with her films, which citizens of the country who do not live in Manila have reported that they have access to and have for the entire time. Finding the original source (the CBS article, along with the interviews in Vogue and Premiere) and another several sources discussing the matter, I rewrote the section to accurately reflect that the city counsel banned Danes from Manila, along with banning the distribution of her films. Another editor is determined to leave the paragraph intact, and not only is the claim that she is banned from the entire country wrong, but her actual statements (including the one which the principal author of the ban stated was not an apology, and did not contain an apology), are misrepresented on Wikipedia, and while none of the articles do that. When the sources are more accurate and neutral than the encyclopedia, we are doing something very wrong. Unfortunately, this same editor has now determined to engage in an edit war, rather than verify the sources and edit what they feel is not accurately describing the events. I am not white, yet this user continues to insist I am "whitewashing" the events. The events as written are incorrect, and therefore violate WP:BLP and must either be corrected or removed, so I attempted to correct it, as it is fairly widely covered.

See this diff: Diff 1089040444 for an accurate telling of the events.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Coming from the editor who believes that only "white" person can engage in whitewashing.[24]
Anyway, we have got Guardian,[25] Fraser University thesis,[26] and Times News,[27] that say Claire Danes remains banned from the Philippines. Most of the news outlets happen to report only initial happening and fail to follow up on the event. But Guardian, Times News, etc. are not like that. That's why you would need a really credible source to actually refute this information.
Rest of your edit was clearly crafted to justify the remarks made by her against the Philippines and you even cited a minority city councilor who defended remarks of Danes.
We need to focus only on the ban, why it happened, and what was the result, instead of offering too many details. This is why the current version is better than your WP:BLOATED version. TolWol56 (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Adding context is not justification. It is an important part of encyclopedic writing. Furthermore, I have a copy of the magazine, and using multiple sources to add in all of her quotes (which were improperly combined into one statement), is proper. You have pointed to the previous RFC as a basis for what you've written, but the question was about whether or not mentioning the event at all was WP:UNDUE, and the consensus was that it should be reworded based on the existing source material. There were no questions about whether or not it passed a fact check. It did not. It is not our job to assign Danes's intentions. It is our job to accurately describe persons and events surrounding them in an encyclopedic manner. And yes, asserting that someone who is not white correcting misinformation and improving WP:NPOV issues in a WP:BLP is offensive. There was no removal of her guilt in the matter. She said the things, she was banned from Manila until she issues a genuine public apology that the city council deems is sincere. She offered explanation for her comments, which I included, but she did not apologize for them, which the city council agreed did not constitute as an apology, nor did the CBS source refer to it as such.
Furthermore, as stated, the source the Guardian piece is based on is the CBS source. I question whether or not you followed through any of the external links in that article, which clearly state the president said she should be banned from the country, but it was the Manila city council which banned her and her films from the city of Manila. The Fester University thesis cites the same CBS article which the Guardian piece is based on to say she was banned from the country. Times News is about a different actor, and the article itself is from Associated Press, so I'm not sure why a poor aggregate source would be used (which also incorrectly states the ban was at the hands of the President and occurred in 1999), let alone as a basis of fact. The Associated Press reported that she was banned from Manila. There are dozens of articles about this incident itself, which clearly state that it was the city council which banned her from Manila.
- ‘Homeland’ star Claire Danes was banned from Manila in the Philippines
- CLAIRE DANES IS persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films
- MANILA OFFICIALS BAN FILMS THAT FEATURE CLAIRE DANES
- The Manila city council is to discuss a resolution next Tuesday to ban her movies there, following comments by the actress in two American magazines.
- The proud members of the Manila city council could take no more. In a 23-to-3 vote, they agreed to ban all movies in which Danes appears.
- Manila is considering a ban on all movies featuring Hollywood actress Claire Danes because of remarks she made about the city to U.S. magazines.
- After the publication of two interviews in which 19-year-old Claire Danes said unkind things about Manila, the city council voted 23-3 this week to ban her movies, "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Rainmaker" among them.
Additionally, it is the Bureau of Immigration (Philippines) which issues country-wide bans in the Philippines, not the city council of Manila. Example: Alec Baldwin is banned from the Philippines.
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not getting what you meant from "And yes, asserting that someone who is not white correcting misinformation and improving WP:NPOV issues in a WP:BLP is offensive".
"If a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council."[28]
That said, your ramblings are not going to change these facts.
Your best bet is to show that if this subject or any other foreigner who has been decalred "persona non grata" in the Philippines could still enter the country even after being subjected to "persona non grata". TolWol56 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I urge you to be respectful. Persona non grata is not necessarily "unwelcome in the entire country". The source does not clarify if the city can issue country-wide bans, and from research, it seems that multiple LGUs in the Philippines have issued declarations of persona non grata against the same party, and it is city-specific, which the vast majority of reliable sources about Danes also refer to the ban as being in Manila (as listed above).
Manila City Council passes resolution declaring militant group ‘Panday Sining’ as persona non grata in the nation’s capital. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
"Panday Sining" is a Filipino group. The subject here is Claire Danes, and you are asked to prove if any foreigner who has been declared "persona non grata" still happened to enter the Philippines. Mind the word "entering the country" in the quotation I noted. TolWol56 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself states: "Persona non grata, in the context of Philippine local governance, refers individuals or groups declared as unwelcome in a particular locality... In the context of local governance in the Philippines, local government units (LGUs, including municipalities, cities, and provinces) could declare a person persona non grata... The declaration would imply that a person is barred from entering the jurisdiction of a particular locality."
I do not need to "prove" that a foreigner could enter the country if a city has issued a persona non grata declaration. The Filipino government has made it clear that the declarations are largely unenforceable and more for sentiment.[29]
The entry as written is factually incorrect, and poorly sourced. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
See what is WP:OR. Your own synthesis and conclusions are irrelevant. What matters is the quote from Esquire Mag Philippines article[30] and it refutes your faulty research. But if you still insist then first prove if any foreigner who has been declared "persona non grata" still happened to enter the Philippines. If you dont want then just stick to sources. It is not possible that several mainstream reliable sources falsely reported about the ban from the Philippines and got away with it.TolWol56 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you know what original research is. You are cherry-picking to try to prove your understanding, and as I pointed out. The Guardian piece and the thesis are both based on the CBS piece from 1998, which refutes what you’ve written. Your other source is low quality, has two obvious errors, and is about another actor. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If nothing else - it should say what is factual. The city council of Manila voted 23-3 on a resolution naming Claire Danes a persona non grata. The sources need to be updated, though, as the ones you have are not nearly as credible and reliable as the ones listed above. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I am quoting what sources say, unlike you who is engaging in faulty research.
"The Guardian piece and the these" are not "based on the CBS piece from 1998". Those sources don't cite CBS.
This source by Kingsport Times-News is not "about another actor" only, but clearly notes that "In 1999, then-President Joseph Estrada banned Hollywood actress Claire Danes, who shot the movie “Brokedown Palace” in Manila, from entering the country". TolWol56 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This source is again the exact same source as Times News, which again, is about Dan Brown, the author (I mistakenly said actor previously), both are an Associated Press aggregate that has since been removed from AP (unsure why), but also it appears it was removed from most of their aggregators. It incorrectly cites 1999 (the event was in 1998), and that she was banned by the president.
And yes, the Guardian piece is based on the CBS piece. "Then-president Joseph Estrada, himself a former movie star, called for Danes to be banned from the country," links to the CBS piece.
I am going to rewrite this again with proper sourcing. Please utilize the talk page, and stop referring to the RFC about whether or not it should be mentioned. I am not questioning its inclusion. What is written is poorly sourced and does not pass a fact check. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I have reworked the paragraph again. I have replaced all of the sources with high quality sources, and more accurately reflected what the sources say. Instead of stating she has been banned from the city or the country, I've added a footnote which mentions that while the vast majority of sources say she was banned in Manila, that a few sources claim it's a country-wide ban, along with some helpful context about personal non gratas in the Philippines. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
AP is not obliged to upload every article. Do you have the link to the AP article that existed before on their website but was later removed like you claim?
You are allowed to rewrite the article, but don't touch this particular paragraph in question unless you have any good consensus (which you don't). This is why I mentioned RfC because the wording was decided after the RfC and it cannot be unilaterally changed. TolWol56 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, that RFC does not unilaterally stop other editors from improving the description of the event. It stops other editors from removing the event (consensus was that it is WP:DUE) and describing Danes's comments as "racist" (consensus was that characterizing the comments as racist violated WP:NPOV because it is subjective). You are edit warring to maintain your own understanding of what occurred, with your preferred wording and your preferred, cherrypicked sources. I am questioning both the sourcing and accuracy of what is written. Please stop referring to my attempts to fix this paragraph to meet Wikipedia's standards as "ramblings".
This is accurate, and uses MUCH better sources, including the source which two of your sources are based. The note adds information that addresses your concern that you believe the declaration is country-wide, despite the majority of sources saying she is a persona non grata in Manila. There is no reason for you to revert this back to the one that is incorrect.
On September 29, 1998,[1] Danes was declared a persona non grata by the city council of Manila, the capital of the Philippines.[a] Danes, who was 19 at the time,[2] had been in the city filming Brokedown Palace, much of which was filmed in impoverished areas of the city, such as a dilapidated psychiatric hospital, and made derogatory comments about Manila in interviews with Vogue and Premiere magazines. She referred to the city as "ghastly and weird",[1] and said "[Manila] just f***ing smelled like cockroaches", "There’s no sewage system and the people do not have anything", "[We saw] people with like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth", and "Rats were everywhere."[3][1] The council members voted 23-3 in favor of the resolution, which also prohibits distribution of her films and continues indefinitely until Danes issues a public apology.[1] Danes offered a statement following wide-spread public scrutiny of her comments, saying that her comments were only meant to reflect the "darker" areas visited during filming, not her attitudes toward the people, which she said were "nothing but warm, friendly and supportive." The resolution's principal author, Councilor Kim Atienza, said that it was an "excuse made by Hollywood press officers and not a genuine apology". Filipino President Joseph Estrada supported the city council's adoption of the resolution, saying "She should not be allowed to come here. She should not even be allowed to set foot here."[4][1]
[a]: Most sources report that Danes is unwelcome only in the city of Manila, but some state that she has been banned from the entire country of the Philippines. In the Philippines, persona non grata declarations generally ban foreign citizens from entering the country. In the context of local governance, local government units (LGUs, including municipalities, cities, and provinces) may draft persona non grata resolutions, barring the person or group from entering the jurisdiction of a particular locality. [43][44] According to a Department of the Interior and Local Government legal opinion, persona non grata declarations are effectively non-binding and more about expressing a sentiment.[45]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "Manila Bans Claire Danes' Movies". Associated Press. 29 September 1998. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  2. ^ Snow, Shauna (1998-10-02). "Arts and entertainment reports from The Times, national and international news services and the nation's press". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
  3. ^ "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. 1 October 1998. p. 62.
  4. ^ "Manila Is Mad At Claire Danes". CBS. 1 October 1998. Retrieved 2022-05-24.
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Aggregated sources through the AP network use the original publisher in the byline. This byline belongs to AP, meaning it was originally published by AP before aggregation. It no longer appears in AP, and is missing from the vast majority of its network. I have not suggested a reason as to why, but none of the remaining sources are better than the ones listed above, and given the article contains two other pieces of misinformation about this event and is actually an article about Dan Brown, its inclusion appears to serve the purpose of making what you've written appear to be accurate, despite the fact that it is not. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Only because two sources share a same sentence, it doesn't mean that either is copying another. As for AP, if you can't backup your claims then you should avoid throwing them around.
You must read WP:BLOATED and WP:UNDUE and avoid this WP:QUOTEFARM. TolWol56 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
According to Entertainment Weekly, she sent a letter of apology to the city council in 1999 and they lifted the resolution. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting it. It only talks about movies, not the entry ban. It provides single sentence and fails to provide necessary details. This hasn't been reported elsewhere. We can't hope since Entertainment Weekly is defunct. TolWol56 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to follow up - EW is not defunct. The physical magazine is no longer in production, but the website still publishes news centered around the entertainment industry. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Now per consensus at BLPN I have added the both possibilities with note. Dont modify it.

To be specific I am opposed to your mention of: 1) her age, 2) what she was filming and how, 3) the remarks were "derogatory", 4) quote farming, 5) misrepresentation of EW.

You are supposed to stop edit warring and gain consensus first.

Once you read WP:BLOATED and WP:UNDUE and WP:QUOTEFARM, you will understand this.

It makes no sense in providing so many details that this paragraph has become the largest paragraph of the entire article.

TolWol56 (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Contributing to this page is not "edit warring". Your repeated reversions of my contributions are edit warring.
The EW piece is not being misrepresented. It clearly says the issues between Danes and Manila are cleared up, AND that her movies are permitted again, which was a part of a single Persona non grata declaration.
The quotes provided were individual sentences in the article in Premiere. Your sourcing is poor, and puts the quotes together as a single statement that not only removes words without ellipses, completely alters the meaning of what she said. The fact that she was filming is necessary context for her comments, which is in every single source about this event, including the original sources the quotes are from in Vogue and Premiere and her statement about what she said. This information gives context to assist with a neutral POV.
You need to abide by Wikipedia's rules. You are status quo stonewalling, instead of treating edits in a manner that assumes good faith and reworking as necessary instead of violating the WP:3RR and edit warring. You cannot instruct other editors not to modify articles that are free to edit. I am not vandalizing the article. My edits are constructive, and in fact, are enormous improvements to sourcing and adhere to Wikipedia's standards. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
When you are frequently adding your disputed edits without gaining consensus then it is fine to call it 'edit warring'. See WP:BRD.
I don't think you have read the guidelines I cited because your messages fail to address any of them.
There is no reason to make this paragraph the largest paragraph of the entire article. I don't see a reason why we need to put all possible quotations related to this event when the necessary context has been already provided. It is not a "neutral POV" but you are giving more weight to the quotations from Danes. I am opposed to any quotations but one quote is enough as agreed on the RfC.
I never accused of you vandalism. TolWol56 (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The quote you are using is not what was actually said, so it doesn't matter that you believe it's a single quote. It's not. It's several sentences smashed into one inaccurate quote. I have the magazine on my lap, and provided multiple better quality sources that accurately reflect what is actually in the article. You have repeatedly ignored my issues with what is written. I reverted one single time based on the fact that what you reverted to was inaccurate and poorly sourced. I have adjusted and tried to contribute and work with you. You have not allowed me to do so, and then tried to bar me from contributing at all. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
AP News: But he said the actress went "overboard'" in a recent interview with Premiere magazine by saying Manila "smelled of cockroaches, with rats all over and that there is no sewerage system and the people do not have anything _ no arms, no legs, no eyes."
Knowing that this was the quote that really caused the ban, there is clearly no need for any other quotations because they become automatically less important in the series of this event so far. TolWol56 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have the actual magazine. The article is written by Christine Spines, the article is titled "Claire and present danger", and it's in the October 1998 issue of Premiere magazine. The quote is on p. 66. This is what it says: The shoot was plagued with malaria and hepatitis outbreaks, and had to be shut down for several sick days. "It was just so hard," Danes says, now comfortably ensconced at a Beverly Hills lunch joint, where she's gobbling up a plate of extra-rare ahi. "The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. We shot in a real [psychiatric] hospital, so takes would be interrupted by wailing women--like, 'Cut! Screaming person.' Rats were everywhere."
Like I said, not every source accurately represents what she says, that AP entry included. This one is the closest to what's in the magazine. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
So here are two quotations: 1) "smelled of cockroaches, with rats all over, and that there is no sewage system, and the people do not have anything – no arms, no legs, no eyes," 2) "place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth."
I don't see any contradiction between the both. AP News probably re-worded the quotation in order to avoid infringing copyrights but they are not misrepresenting Danes anywhere. TolWol56 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
See WP:PMC.
While we cannot do anything about misquotes in quality sources, we are supposed to verify quotes are accurate. This particular quote has several different versions across a number of high quality sources, and many of them, AP included, change not only the wording itself, but alter the meaning.
"the people do not have anything – no arms, no legs, no eyes." says the people of Manila have nothing, not even body parts, while the actual quote, "[We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth." says that Danes and the crew saw people with missing body parts.
It may be worth it to mention that this quote has been misquoted in a number of different ways, by a number of different reliable sources, but if we are going to use the quote, it needs to be her actual words.
Also, because of the quote being used, per MOS:QUOTE, context of the quote is needed to maintain WP:NPOV, especially because both in the Premiere interview and the sources which are actually about this event clarify context about the psychiatric hospital and other impoverished areas of Manila for Brokedown Palace filming.
We are doing something wrong when sources are more neutral than the encyclopedia describing them. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
"we are supposed to verify quotes are accurate", yes and AP's quotes are perfectly reworded. There is no reason to remove them and replace with quotations that are overly detailed per WP:UNDUE. TolWol56 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Coming from the ANI thread. You both need to slow down and let others comment. The version by SquareInARoundHole is clearly undue. The version by TolWol56 needs to be tweeked. Lets get something in the middle. My advice is to trim or even better remove the excessive quoting, move the conflicting information to a note and explain it there (already done so easy enough to add to it), remove excessive detail and most importantly stop talking to each other about anything not related to the article. Aircorn (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila. The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines and prohibition on distribution of her films in the region. Danes, who was 19 at the time, had been in the city filming and made derogatory comments about Manila in interviews. Danes later apologized for those remarks.
    Ok what about this version. I would add another note at the end saying that there is conflicting information on whether she is still banned, but not mention it in text until we can reach an agreement on that. There may be scope to include a small quote, but the length of them adds majorly to the undue and even then it seems there is disagreement on the accuracy of what was said, so maybe just uyse "ghastly and weird" and/or "smelled of cockroaches".
    Justifications for the above vs SIARH - No need for the exact date as that is not overly important to the event, no need to say Manilla is the capital of Philippines as that is common knowledge, don't need to detail the film, quotes mentioned above (and don't use F***ing it is not necessary and I doubt she said it with three asterisk anyway), and finally no need to say the date and who reported something unless there is doubt about it.
    Justification sor the above vs Tol - city council is more specific, it is useful to add her age as she was young at the time, and if there is doubt about the lifitng of the ban better to detail that in a note. The quoting is covered above. Aircorn (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila. The resolution also prohibited distribution of her films in the region, which has since been lifted. Danes, who was 19 at the time, had been in the city filming Brokedown Palace and made derogatory comments about Manila in interviews. Danes later apologized for those remarks.
    I think it's better without the quote, too, and resolves the issue with needing to use the magazine as a source and mention misquotations across sources
    - "Manila Bans Claire Danes' Movies". Associated Press. September 29, 1998.
    - "Not So Great, Danes". Wired. September 30, 1998.
    - Snow, Shauna (October 2, 1998). "Arts and entertainment reports from The Times, national and international news services and the nation's press". Los Angeles Times.
    - Wolk, Josh (September 7, 1999). "Will Steven Spielberg take over Stanley Kubrick's last project?". Entertainment Weekly. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I also think it's not necessary to put inline that she was restricted from entry to resolve the question of where she was restricted city-wide or country-wide, especially after reading that persona non grata's issued by LGUs in the Philippines are considered sentimental and non-binding. Linking to what that means seems like a safer way to be factual. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for this. It looks like the major disagreement here is on whether the ban is still in place. Aircorn (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It is just irrelevant WP:OR unless it is being said in relation to this ban. I have described to so called 'disagreement' below. TolWol56 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
"who was 19 at the time" is irrelevant, not needed.
"made derogatory comments" is subjective, not needed.
The most relevant quotation that resulted in the ban is necessary instead of those 2 above sentences.
"Danes later apologized for those remarks" should also include "Danes later apologized for those remarks but the Filipino authorities refused to lift the ban." TolWol56 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aircorn: There is no dispute about the ban being in place. See the Guardian source on main article which say ban is still in place. TolWol56 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian article is not a good source, as was also mentioned by another editor in WP:BLPN.
...which as far as we can tell, remains in place. is not stating a fact.
Per Entertainment Weekly:
Claire Danes has apologized for those not-so-nice comments she made this year about Manila, and now all is swell between her and the Philippines. ... Her movies were banned, but they’ve been brought back now that she sent the city council an official letter of apology. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
If all sources, except a half-baked paragraph (lacking year, source of information, etc.) from defunct EW discovered from 1999 say something else then it changes nothing at all. The Guardian is an excellent source and it hadn't been discarded for BLP. Stop misrepresenting the BLPN thread. TolWol56 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
From the BLPN thread: The guardian is a poor source because it is not about the subject, but only mentions the subject in passing, as an example. This is not secondary but tertiary source material, because they're just quoting sources from the original reports. Sources that only mention something in passing but are not about the subject are lousy sources, and I wouldn't use them. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Tol. I do think the age is relevant as she was young when making the comments. If she was in her 30s then it wouldn't matter. That is a minor issue though. I don't see summarising what was said as "derogatory" being subjective. The previous RFC recommended "offensive" which is also fine. Again I don't think this is a major issue. I prefer not to quote, but there is scope to add something if others agree. So it seems the major issue to solve is whether the ban is still in place. Aircorn (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That sounds a bit ageism type of argument that young people happen to mistake - which is not true. Yes, one RfC participant said that "offensive" can be used but later agreed when I told that it is all subjective and we should allow readers to decide. The ban is clearly in place as stated by high quality sources. I could find three in less than 1 minute:
  • "With the exception of celebrities like Claire Danes, Teri Hatcher, and Alec Baldwin whom we all know too well are banned from the Philippines"Esquire 2017
  • "In response, her 1999 legal drama "Brokedown Palace," which was filmed in the Bangok, Thailand, and the Philippines, was forever excluded by President Joseph Estrada. Estrada took his decision one step further and banned all of Danes films, and Danes herself, from the Phillippines permanently."NY Daily News, 2015
  • "But local politicians were unimpressed and refused to lift the ban refused to lift the ban – which as far as we can tell, remains in place" Guardian, 2017
I think the "disagreement" will become major only if 100 sources are contradicting the other 100 and some of them directly called the dispute. But there is only one half-baked defunct EW paragraph from 1999 with no necessary details at all and it only talks about movies. I don't see a dispute since far more reliable and recent sources maintain the ban on entry and movies exists. TolWol56 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Danes later issued an apology, saying that “because of the subject matter of our film Brokedown Palace, the cast was exposed to the darker and more impoverished places of Manila”. But local politicians were unimpressed and refused to lift the ban – which as far as we can tell, remains in place. - Guardian piece is talking about her initial response, does not mention a 1999 apology to the council.
Multiple sources seem to corroborate Filipino citizens reports that they are able to buy and watch Danes's films presently in Manila.
- 1
- 2
- 3 SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
From the articles That was 15 years ago, and it doesn't appear they ever formally lifted the ban., possibly due to a government oversight and the ban appears to remain in place so in fact it is providing further evidence that the ban is still active Aircorn (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I think "doesn't appear", "appears", and "possibly due" aren't great to say that there is a ban. Only showing evidence that her films are evidently shown and distributed in the region, which is what residents report. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


Same issues as proposal above. The quote is far too long. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Council never lifted the ban so the last sentence is misleading. TolWol56 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
That is not a quote farm. I actually think it's better not to include the quote at all, but if we are going to, it needs to be what she actually said, and if there are omissions, they need to be omitted with ellipses that do not change the meaning of what she said.
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. ... Rats were everywhere."
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. ... [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. ... Rats were everywhere."
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there."
"The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. ... Rats were everywhere."
Her films are presently distributed in Manila, so yes, the prohibition has ended. Terminator 3 was played in Manila theaters in 2003. The source is accurate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The quote is far too long. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Council never lifted the ban so the last sentence is misleading. Like I am saying above that you can read WP:EXCEPTIONAL since this single source is contradicting every single source which say that the council refused the lift the ban and many have said after defunct EW's 1999 half-baked paragraph (that lacks any necessary details) that the ban is still in the place.
You need to forget about anything related to the resolution being lifted unless you find good number of reliable sources.
Her films are presently distributed in Manila, so yes, the prohibition has ended. Terminator 3 was played in Manila theaters in 2003 is called WP:OR unless multiple reliable sources say "Danes' movies are distributed in Manila/Philippines now, for a name Terminator 3 was released." TolWol56 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claire_Danes/Archive_1&oldid=1222159832"