Talk:Halle Berry/Archive 1

Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

She is expected get her "star" on the Hollywood Boulevard Walk of Fame in Hollywood, California sometime in 2004.

Did she? I can't find her on http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/ MrWeeble 14:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

She stated in an interview a while ago that she was waiting until she has a big movie out before she accepts it. Inductees can take up to 5 years to get it Dowew 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

1966 or 1968?

1966 and 1968 are both commonly given as Berry's year of birth on the Internet. Google gives 5,870 hits for halle.berry born 1966 -1968 and 9,830 hits for halle.berry born 1968 -1966. Of the pages that mention both dates, most give 1968 as Halle's year of birth, with 1966 as year her elder sister Heidi was born.

1968 is the date given by Encyclopaedia Britannica, the New York Times, and MSN. Credible sites giving the 1966 date include CBS and IMDB.

Overall, it looks like 1968 more probably the correct date, but the article should mention the strange lack of unanimity. Pterodactyler 05:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to ages and models/actresses, usually the older age is the correct one. The IMDb age is more likely, if there was more compelling evidence for 1968, they would have changed it there. As for something more concrete than just which websites say what, Bedford High School says that she graduated in 1984, which would mean she was born in 1966. If her sister (Heidi)'s last name is Berry, then Heidi was born Oct 6, 1964.--Fallout boy 09:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It's 1966. She confirmed that she is turning 40 this year [1]

african american or bi-racial?

halle berry should not be refferd to as african american , her mother is white and she is bi-racial , that is not the same as african american , african american means both parents are african american , if somone has one african american parent , and one white , that does not make them african american also , they are bi-racial

~~

Where did you get the idea that both mother and father have to be african american in order to be considered an African American? If that is the case, then the overwhelming majority of African American in this country are bi-racial. How would you classify Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass. Both of them either had a white father. Also, Dorothy Dandridge was bi-racial as well, but is considered an African American by herself and everyone else.

But, this is why she is considered an African American. First, and most important, she (Halle Berry) has always referred to herself as an African American in nearly every interview she has given. Also, her white mother raised her as an African American. Furthermore, in nearly all of her films, she plays an African American, except in slave movies where she plays a mulatto African American. So, whats good for Booker T Washington, Frederick Douglass, and Dorothy Dandridge is also good for all African American, including Halle Berry.

~~

It's a shame that people such as Halle Berry don't embrace both sides of their heritage; both black and white. Instead of uniting us, this continues to divide us. I embrace all aspects of my heritage but first and foremost, I'm American. 67.141.72.139 20:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

~~

Well, I happend to agree with you, I am also beyond sick of the Black/White crap. I'm also bi-racial. And, I embrace both my African-American and White side of my family. But, in this world, primarily in the USA, I have yet to met a person who excepts me as a White or bi-racial person. I am branded as African American. Which is okay with me, because I love it! 65.134.208.17

If this is so why do you use these outdated terms like African-American in the same breath as White. Why don't you see African-American and European-American, or Black-American and White-American...or how about just American???

Yeah I think that that new "lineage" thing, works good enough for me. The Fascist Chicken 20:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

~~

I can't remember on the 2000 census if it listed a spot for Bi-racial. If not, they need to do that and that will be a first step in healing the racial divide. Although, I know there are many more steps to take but I am sick of the black/white schism also. It may be our ultimate downfall. By just listing African-American on this article's page, it denies her white heritage also. 65.198.140.92 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If she wasn't as hot as she is you wouldn't care what she called herself. Most Black people are mixed to some degree, but no ones gunning to call us all multracial.

Figure this one out: Most all humans are mixed to some degree, or you have imbreeding...

If she identified as Caucasian, there would be a big uproar and I know that the article would not state that she is Caucasian just because she says so. NPOV Shakam 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC) --Vehgah 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)--65.188.253.47 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moritani akira 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry refers to herself as African-American. Are you going to argue with Halle Berry? PennyGWoods 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. She is not the first person of multi-racial descent to self-identify herself solely as being of one race. Take for instance, Mariah Carey who, while always willing to tell people her makeup, also is on record as saying (paraphrasing) that although she has Irish blood in her, it's not as if she is going to go down to the pub on St. Patrick's Day and start shouting about it. Halle's mother is white, and her father is black. On that basis, she is bi-racial. But she self-identifies as black (or African-American), she says that she was raised that way, and that is that. As long as she doesn't start claiming a heritage that she clearly doesn't belong to, I think she can call herself anything she wants. -- Jalabi99 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So by this logic, if Oprah says tommorow she decided she is Chinese, or President Clinton decides he is African American; we just put that down?? Brilliant...

actually, halle has mentioned that she is biracial, and her mother didn't tell her that she was black, she told her that she was biracial, but everyone would see her as black. and besided, what a person identifies with doesn't change their genes. half of halle berry's genes are white, and the same amount are black. so, let's refer her that way. also, on her website, it lists her backgroud as "african american and english." Colorfulharp233 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

She considers herself African-American so that's what she needs to be classified as. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations?

It's in the racial identification section. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

not quite so, my friend. [2]. she is veiwed as black, and doesn't have a problem with it, but she identifies with both. i think. --Colorfulharp233 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think what you identify with really counts. What if you have someone who is 90 Mexican and has 10 percent japanese blood in them and refers to themselves as Ethiopian because they really relate to the culture? Or what if that person refered to themselves as japanese who has very little japanese ethnicity and doesnt look japanese or speak japanese but likes the culture? I think it is more important to go direct by blood line so in this case I would refer to halle as bi racial. Also, this could be problematic for many blacks as it is said that a wide majority of blacks in america have some white blood in them (due to thier ancestors being raped by whites) so in this case almost any african american can claim to be bi-racial. --Scapone 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but the admixture of other blood is diluted in most of them. But this is not the case with Halle Berry, Barack Obama, Craig David, Shemar Moore, etc. I do agree with you though, it doesn't matter what a person classifies themself, because it doesn't make it true. If she classified herself as white, I could almost guarantee it wouldn't be accepted in the article that blatantly. Shakam 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then add a section about her racial identification and her comments on what she considers herself and any controversies about it. But other than that, I just don't feel like her race needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. And if a section on it is to be added, we need to follow WP:BLP and WP:NOT and flesh it out instead of just placing a quote in the article. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When I have some free time I'll try to draft a possible sub-section. Someone else can start it if they like and we can see what happens. Shakam 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

HALLE BERRY AND HER ROMANTIC LIFE AS OF 2006 & HER ACTUAL BIRTH DATE

First off, I have spoken to Halle Berry and the year, in which she was born, is 1966. She turns 40 this year on August 14.

Secondly, many have made more of Halle Berry's association with Gabriel Aubry more than it really was and some are still trying to make it look as though these two are still associating. Halle Berry is actually in love with another Canadian man, named Stuart. He is 5'7", too. I know Stuart and he has spoken to Halle. A person, who has been harrassing Stuart, framed him and made him look bad to Halle. Halle did not know the truth about Stuart for 6 weeks. During this time, Halle Berry was confused about Stuart's feelings for her and she nearly had a real 'fling' with Gabriel Aubry. According to Halle Berry, Gabriel and she did not really do anything. When she saw Gabriel at the Perfect Strangers party, to which he just showed up, she was confused and depressed about the situation concerning Stuart and she got friendlier than she would have, had she known the truth about Stuart. This will become verifiable soon.

I am trying to help Halle Berry and Stuart.

Akira Moritani

Moritani akira 07:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You spoke to Halle Berry? Excuse me if I don't believe you, WP:AGF aside. Mike H. That's hot 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And there's WP:NOR to consider too. --Chris (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I spoke to Halle Berry directly on about February 12 or 13, 2006. She is a really nice and very sweet person. More on this later, if I am permitted to. Otherwise, everyone shall know just by the visual impact of seeing her with Stuart.

Moritani akira 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not you spoke with her, it's that that is original research, something that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you had an interview with her that was later published, that would be a different story. --Chris (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do I feel that this particular "no original research" slam is partly motivated by jealousy (he talked to Halle, and you didn't)? ;) Yo, Moritani, hook up a brother with her digits, yo! -- Jalabi99 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Berry has undoubtedly been filmed innumerable times, during her relatively long career, fully clothed. Is there any reason she must be portrayed half-nude here, especially insofar as she is not an obscure person who has never been seen by average movie fans in such a state? Thanks. --198.59.190.204 00:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't censor. Actually, given that she is known for her beauty as much as anything else, I think it's appropriate. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant when you consider that this picture is not used to discuss the film it was taken from, and is therefore not covered by fair use. The pictures used on this article have been removed countless times; can anyone find a picture of her that is not from a movie, like a PR photo or something? --Chris (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. Again, look at Katie Holmes. Featured article. Batman picture right up front. I think we need to cool down on picture fascism. Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this error occurs lots of time in Wikipedia doesn't make it right. The {{film-screenshot}} template says cleary that the image can be used solely "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". Are we going to change that? The same misconception always occurs with {{Magazinecover}}.

The Katie Holmes image is a {{promophoto}}, that may (in some cases) be used to "the person, product, event, or subject in question". --Abu Badali 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's now a freely-licensed image in this article: Image:Halle Berry,San Diego Comic-Con 2003.jpg. Jkelly 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is great news. Misusing a 'fair use' image is just the lazy man's path. Removing such images from the articles always end up with great peolple finding usable picture to replace them. Kudos to the photographer (for taking the picture and for realising under a free license) and to the uploader. --Abu Badali 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The image of Halle Berry is un-encyclopedic. Just because she is beautiful is not an excuse to post a naked image of her. I vote for an image change right away. --Vince 04:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The image currently on the article is a public domain image from the Fleet week, and has been there since about June 5, 2006. This discussion is from May. Gimmetrow 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, some anons are obsessed with putting a nude picture of Halle in the article. Why I don't know. If the only pictures of her were nude pictures, I can see. But she's one of the most photographed humans in the world. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

her mother's ancestry

the article states that her mother is of "English ancestry", but i was under the impression that her mother was born (and raised?) in Liverpool. In which case she would be English (and who knows of what "ancestry"...). It's not incredibly important, but if she was born in england, then i think it's worth changing it. Amo 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a common mistake that her mother was born in England - it was her grandma.[3] Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added a link to a recent interview she did with the BBC, in which she clearly stated that her mother is "blonde-haired, blue-eyed", and from Liverpool. That should settle the issue, I think. -- Jalabi99 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

was she in playboy?

Unsourced quote

"Her personality, as described by a co-worker, was expressed in these terms..."I can hardly believe how sweet and nice she had been to everyone. People who weren't half as beautiful as she did not display the kind of inner beauty she exhibited."" Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone source this section?

"*There is also some objection from certain X-Men fans, upset that Halle's light complection and only slightly above average height onscreen make her unfit to star as the X-Men character Storm. Storm is written as being a 5'11" half African American half Kenyan. Some fans have requested that someone else such as Angela Bassett or Nona Gaye replace her in the role." Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It can sourced, but I'm not sure that message boards and film critics count as "sources". I was the one who originally brought up the Halle/Storm controversy, but it's been so mangled and POVed that I don't even recognize it anymore. What I was pointing out was the notable differences in height, age, skin tone, etc., while mentioning that hardly any of the X-Men in the movies were "right" for their roles and the entire movies series was written out of order, and so on. The poster who deleted that portion (User:ToGoodToGiveAName), felt the need to delete it w/o stating why. Aw, poor widdle angry fanboy.

There IS a big controversy about Halle (who is half white) playing Storm (who was 1/2 Kenyan and 1/2 black). The argument is that Halle was chosen merely because she is the top black actress in Hollywood, despite looking nothing like the character (not even a little bit). Seeing that racial politics in Hollywood is a pretty big deal - especially in terms of black actresses and their absence from the silver screen - I don't see why bringing up the facts without taking any particular side would constitute as POV. It's not just a "fanboy" issue or a "God she sucks" issue. It's much deeper than that, especially since Storm is easily the most recognizable black superhero, and one of the most prominent female characters in Marvel comics.

As for Bassett and Gaye, they simply seem to be fan favorites (again, message boards) - Bassett since the beginning of time; Gaye since her Matrix performances. Nothing particularly noteworthy. PennyGWoods 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but what you put in there is commentary. We need to make it more encyclopedic and not sound like a fan essay, which is what it reads like. And it is POV in spots. Many consider Berry to be curvaceous, so making a statement that she is petite would be a POV. I'll edit it a bit. It's too long too. We don't need 3 paragraphs on this. It should match the rest of the section. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed it quite a bit. I removed the part about criticism of the director of X-Men. If someone can come up with a citation for that, great. Otherwise, it's not needed. PennyGWoods, you said that the only source we could use for some of this stuff are fan sites or movie review sites. Then. We shouldn't mention it. verifiaibility and citing sources is very important. If it's not cited, then it's generally considered unusable for our purposes. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how you claim I wrote a "fan essay" but can't seem to tell me which side I'm on. That makes me chuckle. Nonetheless, while I couldn't care less about your opinion, I have no problem with the edit.

Furthermore, I don't think I was the person who brought up Bassett/Gaye (I may have; don't remember), and I certainly didn't add it back when I did the martial revert. In fact, I specifically noted that those additions were merely fan opinion and nothing more. PennyGWoods 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. I said it reads like a fan essay. I didn't say you wrote a fan essay. And even if I said you did, it's not required that I say what "side" you are on. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You would've, had you been able to...which you can't, since...y'know. NPOV. Strange how you toss up all those Wiki policy tags when they never seem to apply. PennyGWoods 07:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd call saying you don't care what I think being incivil. And putting up unsourced material would be a violation of both WP:CITE and Verifiability. They all apply. I'm an admin with 25,000 edits. I'm not making this stuff up, Penny. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you're the queen of bloody England. If there is unsourced material, point it out to me and let's get it corrected. If there's not, you're just rambling for kicks and showing off your status. Now, which one is it? PennyGWoods 07:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already removed the most blatantly unsourced material. I'd like to see a citation for her saying that she's reduced to playing a comic book character. What was there was a citation from a movie review. Not really appropriate. Has to be something else out there. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(typing very slowly) Halle Berry herself had to come out and correct this rumor in an interview, which was linked to. RUMORS tend to start on places like message boards and word of mouth. The reason why there is no direct link to any reputable sources is because...still with me?...it was a rumor. Yet it was a big enough rumor for Halle to have to defend. PennyGWoods 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you are so condescending with me but I kind of wish you'd stop. It's incivil as heck. And it doesn't matter if it's a rumor or not. You should be able to find an article from a good source that mentions the rumor. That's good enough. Hopefully it's not the same article as the one where she denies the rumor, but if it is, so be it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, you're the one taking potshots at me and trolling on my user page. This would stop if you'd cut it out, but then you couldn't flash your shiny admin badge, could you? So go into your admin panel and all of its shiny buttons and just ban me instead, because that's the only way you're going to get me to NOT take your crap. Of course, you could also just...y'know...leave me the hell alone, but that would take common sense.

And just to help you out, it's "uncivil", not "incivil". (You're welcome.) PennyGWoods 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)PennyGWoods 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a source that mentions the source of this rumor or whatever, go ahead. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• typing even slower* THERE IS NO EFFING SOURCE. How many sources can you find to RUMORS? However, there is PROOF that the rumor bothered Halle so much that she chose to speak out on it, hence the linked interview in the article. You think Halle Berry would make that up herself? If you want a better source than an interview straight from Halle Berry, find it yourself. Google works just as well on your computer as it does mine. PennyGWoods 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you two need to cool the hell off! This is not only very unhelpful and hostile, but is way off topic. This is supposed to be a discussion section about the third X-Men film and not your petty squabbling and insults to one another. Please get back on topic! Vgamer101 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction it's about Halle Berry and how she relates to the movie. My bad! Vgamer101 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Monster's Ball

Is there a reason why Monster's Ball isn't mentioned in the "Hollywood Career" section? Also, the note about the movie in the "Controversy" section seems to imply that she won the Academy award because she appeared nude in the movie. At the least the wording is clumsy.

Fixed. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

MONSTER'S BALL IS PURE PORN! She should have left it out and put in a different section under HOLLYWOOD PORN. Monster's Ball is the reason why Halle Berry has a huge BACKLASH. Halle Berry has a backlash and has lost fans/potential ticket buyers because of Monster's Ball; just as the Dixie Chicks have a backlash because of Natalie's comment about George Bush. Mel Gibson has a backlash because of his comments about Jewish people. Michael Jackson has a backlash because of his child molestation trial. Jane Fonda has a backlash because of the Vietnam War. The list goes on and on and BACKLASHs against performers is not new and Halle Berry is not the first or last performer to be BOYCOTTED. Perhaps in a more innocent time in Hollywood, performers could get away with just being pretty and hiding the sordid details of their life and not offending movie viewers. That time has gone and past. Other black performers have also suffered a backlash, including Stepin Fetchit and Amos and Andy for portraying the shuffle/coons roles that made black people look like ignorant fools. Halle Berry is at the top of the list of Black Performers who have SOLD OUT virtures to make money. In her case it was porn, sex and nudity in Monster's Ball, in the 1930's is was the black performers who had no choice but to play a coon or maid because that was the way Hollywood wanted to portray black people. Now Hollywood and the Music Video industry want to portray black women as WHORES or in the case of Halle Berry -- SLAVE PUSSY for white men, because as we all know sex and violence sell.

Too many black people lost respect for Halle Berry because she didn't ask to have the sex scenes removed. Angela Bassett and N'Bushe both asked to have the sex scenes removed. The movie didn't have to have the sex scenes, but Halle Berry insisted on it. The movie reinforced the negative stereotype about black women merely being disposable sex objects for white men, like during slavery (SLAVE PUSSY) -- or as common whores.

Halle Berry choses to IGNORE her backlash, which is so stupid. I don't know if that is her real decision or if her publicist or handlers made that call. Chosing to ignore the backlash makes her look ARROGANT & dumb. Does she really think that potential ticket buyers don't know about her porn role in Monster's Ball? Does she ever get on the internet and read all the bad comments about the movie? She must think that ONLY black women are complaining about the movie and she is so wrong. A majority of the complaints I read were from WHITE MEN. White men are the most sought after target market group, because here in America white men earn the most money. She may have thought that if she made a movie about slave pussy that included sex and nudity that she will appeal to white men. WRONG! I read so many complaints from white men who call her a slave concubine and many who said they went to see the movie because she was nominated for an Oscar. Many went with their wives and said they were so embarrassed because it turned out to be a porn movie. They had to apologize to their wives for taking to see Monster's Ball. I've also read about so many people who LEFT THE THEATER when the porn section started. Now if you are at a bachelor's party or if a group of men go, of course, they don't mind the porn, sex and nudity. And if the porn market is her target market, then way to go Halle Berry. But on th other hand, look at all the people WHO DON'T want to see porn or see her naked having sex. Monster's Ball makes them fear that she will do the same in her next movie. That they will go to the theater to see her, but then she just ends up naked having sex with a white man. And of course, it will be her having sex with a WHITE MAN or her dating a white man (i.e. James Bond, Catwoman, Perfect Strangers, etc.), because BLACK SELLOUTS avoid a black man/black woman relationship in their movies (i.e. Will Smith).

She can ignore the BACKLASH all she wants, but what she can't ignore is her BOX OFFICE SALES. Her box office sales are okay if she is a movie like X-Men, because she is not the lead and people will see it regardless. But look at her box office sales for movies when she is the lead. They don't do so well because she makes bad movies and quite frankly -- CAN'T ACT. She is pretty and looks pretty naked and can FUCK GOOD, but SEX and ACTING are two different things.

If someone with high acting standing like LENA HORNE was the first black to win a lead Oscar, her BOX OFFICE SALES would go through the roof, because we know that she can really act and that she not's going to ambush us with sex and nudity for lack of acting. But with Halle Berry lead movies, people go to see them at first and then word of mouth gets out that it is a STINKER -- i.e. Catwoman, Perfect Strangers, etc.

The BACKLASH contributes directly to the money an actor or singer makes on Box Office or word of mouth about their movie or new CD. When your box office sales stink, then the amount you can command per picture lowers, now she is down to 14 million, but as she keeps putting out stinkers that will go lower and lower. She is not alone, the Dixie Chicks, Mel Gibson and others are going through the same thing for similar reasons.

But at least they don't IGNORE their backlash. Mel Gibson did apologize and Michael Jackson moved away. But not Halle, she simply IGNORES the backlash for Monster's Ball as though it doesn't exist. My daughter suggested a long time ago that she needs to APOLOGIZE for Monster' Ball. At least she should acknowledge that the backlash exists and the reasons why.

Monster's Ball is actually a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. The meaning of Civil Rights means EQUALITY. That means that whites and blacks are being treated equally. Some people are simple enough to think that she got an award just as the white actresses are. But the problem is that the first white woman to win did not have a porn role with sex and nudity. It took over 50 years and over 50 white actresses doing mostly G roles winning Oscars. But to give the first award to a black for porn is simply RACIST! If the Oscars hadn't been racist from the get-go by not giving awards to black actresses who REALLY COULD ACT AND DESERVED IT (Lena Horne, etc.), instead of not giving them an award because of racism; and then finally giving an award to black actress for PORN, then Halle Berry wouldn't have a BACKLASH. ShalimaraliShalimarali 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these very serious and libelous allegations? JasonPresyl 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I added a note that Hugh Jackman, who played Wolverine in the movies, is nearly a foot taller than his character and this hardly seems to draw controversy. Let me know if you have any objections.

--Amynewyork4248 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's ok. I'm still leery of that whole section just because it starts to veer into rumor territory which I'm always uneasy about. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really like the section either, but I think deleting the whole thing may raise an unneccesary hailstorm.

--Amynewyork4248 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

pfff

why don't famous peopol ,simply edit ther won articles and send a disent photo?

Pretty. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be called an autobiography, and they are greedy bastards who leave their parents behind. --75.21.141.181 14:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed much of the Controversy section

I pared down the section on the X-Men movies because it was generally unsourced and a detailed description of why comics fans took issue with Berry isn't at all necessary for an encyclopedia article on her. I'm not even sure if that much content would be fitting for the articles on the X-Men movies themselves, honestly. I removed the paragraph on her comments regarding racial equality because the entire quote was unsourced and there was no indication of who regarded what she as controvercial or why. It struck me as fairly bland and uncontrovercial considering the issue she was discussing. Croctotheface 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the nudity section because it was also unsourced and I fail to see the controversy, which is not explained. I reworked the sentence on Berry's feelings on playing Storm because there was an unsourced "quote" from her that, when I searched Google for it, only returned Wikipedia, mirrors, and maybe a half dozen forum posts, which seemed to get it from here as well. I wouldn't mind a citation from a REPUTABLE source that takes the opposite side from the hollywood.com page, but I'm not willing to go search it out. Croctotheface 09:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy POV

Berry received much criticism from some African American's for her having received an Academy Award for her performance in Monster's Ball. Some claimed she had demeaned African American's by portraying a black woman having sex with a redneck racist. Berry paid little attention to the criticism, as did most critics. Given the success of Monster's Ball, the majority of the public seemed to have ignored the criticism also.

Waaaaaay too butt-kissy and weasel-wordish. The whole section is. The "controversy" has been completely eliminated and whitewashed, and that's ridiculous. Needs work. MagentaThompson 05:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And I think it's way overblown and given too much space in the article as it is. This is not a fan site. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire paragraph quoting Angela Basset in controversy should be deleted. It consists mainly of a quote from Angela Basset that could easily be taken out of context and could be about anything, much less about Halle Berry winning the oscar which is what the paragraph starts off about. If it's supposed to be about Halle's controversial oscar win, shouldn't there be more citation than just her winning less critic's awards than Sissy Spacek and a vague quote from Angela Basset about the permanence of film?

The criticsm is well-deserved! Black women have had to fight to change the image of disposable sex objects since slavery for 200 years. And then someone has a bright idea of capitalizing on the whole white master/black slave concubine theme. As though black people are so SIMPLE and STUPID that we won't realize that the first black women to win a lead Oscar, won for a porn role that included nudity and sex. By comparison the first white woman to win (Janet Gaynor) had no sex and nudity in her role. By comparison, there are no Oscars given to any white actress for having a comparable sex scene with a black man like in Monster's Ball and probably never will be, at least not for another 100 years. Monster's Ball was an insult to every black actress (Lena Horne, Cicely Tyson, Diana Ross, etc.) who made DECENT roles but didn't win due to racism. Leave to the Oscars to award the first black with a role that mirrors slavery meaning superior white man/master with subordinate black female/slave. Boycotts are in order for this film. Racism is still alive in this country and Monter's Ball is proof that when it comes to blacks, the standards have been lowered to base sex and nudity, something that any animal or human can do that does not require real ACTING talent. The real shame is that the NAACP dropped their boycott of the Oscars and did not work to BAN this film like they did Song of the South. I'm not proud of a black person for winning any prize, just for the sake of winning. They need to win on the same standards -- or else it's just SELLING OUT like Stephin Fetchit, Amos & Andy est. The High Standards of Acting should apply to all actors, black or not. Too many blacks go along with the okie doke and accept any LOW form of entertainment that insults (look at rap videos for an example). The first white woman to win an Oscar, Janet Gaynor can show her film to her children and white girls can look up to her as a role model. But can Halle Berry show this film to her children and as black mothers do we really want to have a slave concubine role as a role model for black girls as the first black to win an Oscar. I think not. With Russell Simmon's announcement to delete cuss words from music videos as least we have a start to bring back high standard for black women on film. Don Imus and many others have earned a right to call black women hoes, simply based on what's out there in the media today. Look at the first black women to win a lead Oscar, look at most black music videos or listen to the songs. It's up to Black women to boycott and protest the continuing WHORIFICATION of black women that is certainly justified in movies like Monster's Ball.Shalimarali 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted section on Storm

This article is on Halle Berry. It is not about how tall Storm is in the comics. It is not about the relative heights of Storm, Berry, Wolverine, and Hugh Jackman. There's no need for Storm fanboy crticism to take up so much space in the article, especially as there isn't a source that shows that Berry's height or accent were even controvercial. As far as the "reduced to playing a comic book character" quote, I googled it when I initially pared down the section, and the only hits I got for the quoted phrase were Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia, and one or two other sites that were discussing the matter based on the Wikipedia article. If there's no SOURCE, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Croctotheface 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with ya. I've been battling people over the controversy section (it's been a slow burn) for several months now. Just simply state the controversy and leave it at that. And yes, if it doesn't have a source, it shouldn't be here. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back. It's always the same Halle fawners who want to ignore these things. But the fact is that a short, half-white woman playing a tall, fully African woman IS quite the issue. It's more about racial politics than anything else. The fact that nearly all the X-Men were so bastardized but Halle was the one raked over the flames is clear proof of that. It is not a mere "fans thought she wasn't quite Storm" issue. It is not a "fanboy" thing.

As for sources, the sheer laziness of some people is appalling. Just because you don't feel like looking doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact that Halle Berry had to clear the issue up herself is more than enough proof. It's been said before: the reason why you can't find the quote in question is because...still with me?...HALLE BERRY NEVER SAID IT. SHE NEVER SAID SHE WAS REDUCED TO PLAYING A COMIC BOOK CHARACTER. But she had to turn around and tell the press that because some people said she did, even swearing the saw it on (talk show of your choice). That's already been sourced in this article. What, exactly, is the conflict?

We have fanboys here, all right, but they're not the comic crowd. MagentaThompson 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee look, it's User:PennyGWoods again! You got blocked several months ago for personal attacks and other violations of policy and I'm 100% certain that this is you again since you speak in the exact same tone and you are readding the exact same material. And you are going to blocked just like Penny was. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I semi protected the talk and article pages. It'll just be for a day or so. I know it's unusual to SP the talk page but we don't need death threats here. And she's done this before. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And now she's threatening to revert the second the page is unprotected. Sigh. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love unhinged editors. Not that it'll make any difference, but I'm probably more of a comics fan than a Halle Berry fan. I came across this page (I think) when I was watching a _Die Another Day_ on cable. Regardless, I fail to see why a Halle Berry biographical article should include the idea that her height is somehow "controvercial." Maybe all of that information would be relevant to a section of the X-Men movie article dealing with differences between the comics and the movies. It would still need to be sourced. Croctotheface 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I pared down the recent edits expanding the section. If we're going to include the "reduced to playing a comic book character" business, then it needs to be called a rumor. The previous version gave the impression that she probably said it and it was her word against the fans'. I also removed the height and racial background/skin tone business. It's just not relevant to an article on Halle Berry. Again, it might be relevant to an article on differences between the X-Men as depicted in the films vs. the comics, which we could then link to from here. Croctotheface 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the section should be called "rumors and controversy". The part that was included that was later removed stated that Berry "allegedly" made a statement, and that she denied that she ever said it.

::The problem with this whole section is that one-two people seem to be able to dictate what the entire section is going to say. Anything that is added gets removed. If that's the case, then why make it able to be edited, since Wikipedia apparently already knows what they want it to say? Croctotheface states that height/racial part is "not relevant", but that's one use's opinion. Seeing that this edit war has been going on for a while, there are people who do not agree, and I'm one of those people. I don't see why we can't work to a general consensus, rather than saying "Nuh-UH! It's not relevant because I say so! Locked! Banned! Reverted!" HannahGrace 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind. The more I read through the edits and the ban logs, the more I see that I don't want any part of this project. I'll roll back my edits.

HannahGrace 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"I'm going to take my toys and go home!". Don't do that. If you want a change, discuss it calmly, including why you think it belongs. The reason why we kept reverting Penny's edits is because what she was putting in wasn't sourced properly according to the Biography of Living People guidelines. Otherwise, every time the text has been added, it's sounded like fansite fodder and nothing more. We don't need a full pragraph on this. 2-3 sentences suffice. Just need a brief summary. I mean, I don't see how the section on the X-men should possibly be longer or as long as the section on the hit and run accident. It's important to comic book fans and movie fans, yes, but that's limited. With the hit and run accident, Berry made national headlines. But don't just say "screw this" and leave. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And btw, Penny was reverted and blocked because of her attacks on others, not what she said about the article. I mean, she's referring to me as a racist (and female despite the fact that my name and picture were in full view when she was blocked the first time) when there is absolutely 0 evidence of that anywhere. The locking and banning and reverting were due to her behavior. The current reverting is due to what I said above. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I'm not Penny. You're not going to poke and prod at me and get me to blow up like you did that other user. You better believe I'm taking my toys and going home. As long as people like you are King of the Schoolyard, there's no other option. It's especially funny, seeing that you do the exact same thing. How many of Penny's posts have you deleted, especially when s/he asks for proof that she threatened you? That's why I'm walking away. Go ahead, tag me as a sockpuppet, or ban me, or delete my posts. But you have a serious superiority complex, and I don't want to be bothered with you at all. HannahGrace 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. I never said you were Penny. In fact, I was assuming you weren't or else I wouldn't have spent time writing my post. I was assuming good faith and I suggest that you do the same. And I"m still assuming good faith. I don't see any evidence that you are Penny. Her posts since her blocking have been reverted (by others as well as me) because she's a banned user trying to get around the ban by using sockpuppets. That's against policy and it's revertable. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. HannahGrace 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth year

I changed it to 1966 or 68 since the sources I've seen can't agree and Berry has never confirmed nor denied the birth year. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Try scrolling up a bit on this page. She confirmed 1966 on an Oprah appearance earlier this year. Here are a few more where she confirms 1966: [4] [5] --Fallout boy 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page is unprotected

I actually only kept it protected for a couple of hours. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection of the page

The page was semi protected due to PennyGWoods and her socks. Only an admin (such as myself) can remove the protection. So removing the tag doesn't do anything. I'm going to keep it protected for another 2-3 days just to make sure that Penny isn't going to hit us again, especially since she threatened to revert as soon as the article is unprotected. And by the way Santorummm, a banned user editing a page is considered by most to be vandalism. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need evidence as to why this page needs to be protected for awhile, look here. Penny just posted that to this very talk page but it was reverted because she's a banned user. So. I know it's an inconvenience, but it has to be done. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And another one. Time to SP the talk page for a spell. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And reprotected. My goodness gracious this is a joy. Oi. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sissy Spacek and the Oscar

Wouldn't you say that Nicole Kidman was the main competition that year? I remember a lot more buzz about Kidman than Spacek.Basel88 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Matthew Barnard Show Movie

"The Matthew Barnard Show Movie" is listed among her credits. I can find no information on the web to support that this is an actual show or movie. This seems to be vandalism since dozens of big stars are listed as being on a show that doesn't seem to exist.

hearing?

I know when doing just a simple google search (probably not at all valid sources, but I'm not exactly looking right now) that Halle Berry has an 80% hearing loss in one ear? If sources can be found I think this merits inclusion into the article (actually I'm puzzled as to why it's not already in there). Quite honestly I'm swamped IRL or I'd look it up and do it, but since I can't I thought I would at least mention it on the talk page. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard that she's deaf in one ear.I read that it was because of being beaten by an ex boyfriend? I think this would warrant being included more than the stuff about what x-men fans think of her.

this is also mentioned on wesley snipes page

Marriage to Justice

The line that reads: Her first marriage in 1992 to pro baseball player David Justice ended in a 1996 divorce due to alleged infidelity and incompatibility." needs to be changed. There was no alleged infidelity. While several bio sites cite infidelity as the cause of the breakup of their marriage, neither parties have said that was the case. The only notion supporting this is found, among other places, in the February 5-11 1997 USA Today Baseball Weekly, which notes:

"The news broke in late February - just days after he was questioned by Riviera Beach, Fla., police when they saw him parked in an area that a police spokesman said was "know for drugs and prostitution". No charges were filed."

He was in a parked car, alone, with no one else nearby. Hardly an indictment. The event is recalled in the May 13, 1996 issue of People magazine, where Justice was asked whether he had ever cheated on his wife, and answered:

"Absolutely not." Says Berry: "If anything was going on, I didn't know anything about it."

As for the abuse item, in the same article Berry states that a person "well-known in Hollywood hit her" and she lost a significant amount of her hearing permanently as a result. She refuses to name this attacker, but around the time she was dating actor Wesley Snipes and actor Christopher Williams. This was in 1991, prior to her relationship with Justice.

142.177.126.225 23:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Blaze

I just made this change myself after four weeks with no objections. All of the information in the revision is accurate, but please let me know if there are any problems. 207.107.246.142 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Blaze

The Self-Identification as African-American section

Well it's not great, but it's workable. I'd really rather that it be less of a "here's a quote" type thing but we can tweak it. Like I said, it's workable. Good job, Shakam. --Woohookitty^(meow) 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you, I must say you're one of the most optimistic people I've seen on Wikipedia so far. Well, you or someone else can tweak it a little bit and we'll see how it turns out. Shakam 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Well the thing is, it is something that should be in there somewhere. Her race is discussed alot, fairly or no. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

self- contradicting on race

according to the self-identification section she is biracial and identifies as such, while she is categorized as only african-american. she should be categorized as biracial. it's unfair and unfactual that only one side of her heritage is represented. Joeyramoney 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoax album

Not without some more reliable sources, thanks. We are not here to propagate memes or hoaxes. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have this, along with this Rolling Stone Rock Daily blurb, and this New Zealand Herald story. It'd be nice to get a confirmation in whatever issue of Ebony this was in, but sourcing doesn't seem to be the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

...and then I find this. So I dunno. i think the best move is for an actual Wikipedia editor to find a copy of Ebony and at least confirm that part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's my thing. Amazon doesn't have it. I know that we can't use them as a reference, but generally, if they don't have it for sale, it doesn't exist. Especially in this case where we have an A list celebrity releasing a CD. It should be all over the place on amazon and other sites. It isn't. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Just in the matter of historic significance - an edits by User:Ciii (User talk:Ciii) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes type 1 or type 2?

Early on in the article, it states that she has type 2 diabetes. Towards the end of the article, it states that she has type 1. Which is it? 69.12.240.184 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC) She has type 1. The linked article is wrong. A google search shows the consensus is she has type 1, with a few news articles claiming type 2, probably all from the same incorrect press release. I'm going to change this article now and provide a new reference.--Eirinn 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of her character in The Flintstones

Yes in imdb, one page has Rosetta. Another has Sharon. On this page and this page and this page and finally this page has it as Rosetta. And I am sure there are others. These were just from the first page of a google search I did. I think we should be safe and just do "Miss Stone". --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood.com, yahoo movies, moviegoods.com don't strike me as overly reliable in comparision to BBC and this character name seems to have a story behind it. I suppose someone could just reference the DVD for the correct name, no? Gimmetrow 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. I also found tvguide. And her own website references the imdb list. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is incorrect, and not even consistent. Their quotes page uses Sharon. A correction on IMDB has been submitted. Part of the inconsistancy was that both names were used until late in production. The final name ended up being Sharon Stone. It's as easy to confirm as a trip to Blockbuster. Also, any review listed on RottenTomatoes.com that actually names the character uses Sharon and not Rosetta. ---Caligulathegod 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the proof. Here's a screen capture with caption. Here's also a Google video link for the one reference in the film to her name.Caligulathegod 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Snipes/Christopher Somebody

So is there no one with definitive information about Halle Berry alleged total loss of hearing in one ear due to a physical attack from then-boyfriend Wesley Snipes in the early nineties?

And the R&B singer that started it all by naming Wesley as the one who did it?--146.145.75.106 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New External Link

I would like to contribute this website to Halle's External Links. It's a method to rank her celebrity status, or how popular she is. The site does not seem to be selling anything, and there's no advertising on it...I don't consider posting this site to be spam. What do you guys think? Can I post this site? The way I see it is, we're all Halle fans because she became famous....her sustained popularity will win over new fans.

http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry

Alderkline 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with this link...I think her popularity is a big part of her "notability"Tycom 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. I don't think it meets WP:EL in the least. Nothing is given on the site as to how these rankings are reached. To me it looks like a fan made site. Which. Is fine, but not really appropriate. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, but I'm surprised that you feel this way. It looks like some other links here are fan-made sites, why should this site be treated differently? I'm new to wikipedia, but I feel like I should have a fair chance to contribute to articles; I understand that this is the foundation of wiki. I did read WP:EL. Thank you for the link. I would like to quote these lines, and respond to how they would apply to this site:

"Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked."

No copyright laws seem to be violated.

"Is it accessible to the reader?"

Yes, the site is in plain language and easy to access.

"Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?"

Yes, the site seems to be a mathematical measure of Halle's popularity. Mrs. Berry is notable because she is a famous actress. This site measures her ability to reach fans and audiences alike, and ultimately contribute to popular culture. This is her notability, and the encyclopedic validity of this link.

"Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?"

Yes, the link works and is hosted by Yahoo...a reputable and sustainable company.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

The site says that the index is generated from several sources. The site is being "rebuilt" right now. The last time I saw it, there was an explanation on how the number is calculated. The author states that this will be reposted soon. Since this is a dynamic index that changes quite often, it can't be integrated into the wiki article itself.

"Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such."

The site is quite small in size and not complex.

Links normally to be avoided

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

The index can't be integrated into the article.

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources."

An explanation of how the index is calculated will be posted, according to the site.

"Links mainly intended to promote a website."

I don't see an overt promotion of any product or service

"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources."

There's nothing for sale on the site.

"Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."

There's no advertising on the site.

"Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."

The site is free.

"Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser."

I tried the site on IE and Firefox.

"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required."

I see nothing like that.

"Links to search engine and aggregated results pages."

No

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."

No

"Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."

No

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

I'm not sure what this means.

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked."

This site is very specific in ranking Halle's "notability" to pop culture.

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

I am not the owner of this site.

"A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, please contact a sysop on the meta-wiki; they can put in a Wikimedia-wide text filter. Sysops should block unauthorised bots on sight."

I would not know how to write a spambot!

"Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them."

It's a free site.

"English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia."

It's in English!

"Do not use URL redirection sites in external links"

I don't think the site does this.

"It is acceptable to link to pages rendered in normal HTML or plain text."

I think it's pretty plain.

"On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

The site offers no point of view. Just a calculated value or index.

I hope after reading this, you will see how this link is relevant and does meet most of the guidelines of WP:EL. I don't this it's fair to say that is does not meet EL "at the least". I think that's a little offensive. I hope you can assume good faith, as that seem to be a big thing in this community. Please allow the link to be added. I took the trouble of making my case, since you felt it was not a relevant link. Also, I would like to know that wiki is not controlled by a few selected administrators, but by society as a whole. Thank you for your consideration!Alderkline 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a refreshing approach - asking if a link is appropriate. If only this happened more often. I think the problem with the suggested link is that it's not particularly informative about the subject of this article. What exactly does this page tell us about Halle Berry? And is this number itself notable? Gimmetrow 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I was trying to say, this article is just as much about Halle Berry’s rise from humble beginnings to A-list Oscar winner, and a contributor to the arts and popular culture—than it is about her current work. Her popularity is her notability; this number is notable because it is a representation of that. This index is an objective measure of just how far she has risen in the entertainment realm. In fact, I would say that this number is MORE objective than some of the statements on the article itself! Granted, I do appreciate that the site does not explain its methodology at the moment, and it seems to be going through some changes. I will continue to monitor this link and repost it when it seems to be more stable. I only ask that the authorities on Wikipedia be fair in applying their powers. I laid out my argument as best as I could, and clearly showed how this could qualify under EL. I hope the wiki community hasn’t lost its spirit of making the articles accessible to all. I do also appreciate that some level of control is required on certain sites to prevent spamming, but I think I’ve demonstrated that I am not a spammer. Please let me know if I can repost this link when the site appears more complete.Alderkline 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some compelling arguments have been made here. I don't think it would be right of us to deny this link.Tycom 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with the suggested link is that it's not particularly informative about the subject of this article. What exactly does this page tell us about Halle Berry? And is this number itself notable? Gimmetrow 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, this page tells us about Halle Berry's success in the form of a ranking. How could we not say that her popularity is the result of her success? Her success is the reason she has a Wiki article in the first place. Is the number itself notable? I would like to wait to see the site's explanation on coming up with this index before the link is allowed.Tycom 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If a page reported statistics, such as sales and attendance figures, it would be informative. A non-notable combination of these is not informative. Gimmetrow 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You used the term "notable" and "non-notable" a few times. Sorry for not understanding, but what do you mean exactly in this context when referring to the number itselfTycom 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the number described and reported by multiple third party sources, and is it used or considered useful within some field? Compare the passer rating or the Gini coefficient. Gimmetrow 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for you comments. I would like to say at this time that WP:EL makes no mention that linked site must be notable, or used by third parties. It would not be fair to say that all links on Wiki are notable. I think that's the standard for article references. Well, I hope the decision to delete this link will be reversed. I believe it has met all the requirements for EL. Please, I ask you to reconsider. Let me know if there are any objections to reposting the link once the site is "rebuilt", as they say. I only ask to be treated like everyone else.Alderkline 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question to ask. If I put up a new website and gave Halle Berry a ranking with absolutely nothing given that shows how I came up with it, could I put it up as a link? That's what we're looking at here. External links must be informative about the article and must have some sort of factual basis. This one doesn't. It's as if someone just made up numbers and put it up on a web page. Once the site is rebuilt and there is some indication as to what the numbers mean and where they come from, then I say include it. Until then, it's almost a random number. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If I put up a site with some random formula of my own choosing, it would not merit inclusion whether or not there is a FAQ page describing the formula. My random made-up formula is not informative. If it is based on actual statistics, the statistics are informative, and a page with those statistics might be worth linking per EL, if it doesn't overlap with other external links, etc. If some experts start using my formula because they consider it useful, and my formula gets written about in multiple third-party sources, then my formula might even be mentioned in articles. Compare passer rating and Gini coefficient. Gimmetrow 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand that. Btw Alderkline, we work on consensus. And in the end, you are my equal and everyone else's equal. Generally, the rule of thumb is that putting x up is ok until someone objects. :) And then it's up to the consensus. There is no "rank". And you are being treated just like anyone else. In fact, I'm impressed that you opened this to debate. Many users would've just reverted me and not discussed it. Unfortunately, discussion isn't always the norm around here even when it should be. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. I was just reading some of my comments. To be honest, I am a little embarrassed by the tone of some of my remarks. I should assume good faith. I hope I was not too personal in my remarks, I did not mean to offend anyone. I will continue to monitor the site. When it becomes more useful, I will repost it...with a note on this Talk page before I do that. How is that? Thanks again. I am really impressed with wikipedia so far!Alderkline 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, it looks like the page has been updated. If there are no objections, I will add the following to the external link list: http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry

Thanks everyoneAlderkline 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't object.Tycom 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, April fools. I get it. So will you be adding an external link to the Darwin page saying that his historical importance rating is 62.53? I just hope these links get deleted after today, since they provide no information, say absolutely nothing whatsoever about Darwin, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Gimmetrow 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a joke. Being the target of the paparazzi, and a celebrity's exposure is a big part of their career. Darwin's historical importance is determined entirely by the merit of his work. In other words, Paris Hilton may not be an exceptional actress or singer, but she consistently ranks high on a site like this. I don’t mean to get melodramatic, but it could be argued that a few of the other external links on Halle Berry do not meet the guidelines of EL. I think this websites does. I will add the link again, I hope you will not delete it. Thanks again for you inputsAlderkline 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

According to my formula, Paris Hilton has a "pop culture rating" of 340.17. If I put up a site saying this, do you honestly think such a link should be included in an encyclopedia article on Paris Hilton, even though this tells you absolutely nothing whatsoever about her? Halle Berry has a "pop culture rating" of 272.96, by the way. Do my pages get linked here too? Note, I will not disclose how I determined this number, nor what statistics it is based on, but it includes things like forum posts and recent news articles. Gimmetrow 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should appreciate that some websites can't disclose their methods in great detail, that's the nature of many websites. May I ask you what the encyclopedic benefit of a fan forum is? There are a few such external links on Halle Berry right now. Why do fan discussions about Halle Berry meet the requirements of EL, and what do they tell us about her? Would you not agree that a website that measures internet fan activity, including forum activity, to be more encyclopedic? I respect your opinions, but in reading your arguments I feel like you should be compelled to delete the forum external links before consider deleting this site I added. Nonetheless, thank you for not deleting it. In keeping with the sprit of wikipedia and the guidelines of EL, I think that’s the right thing to do. Alderkline 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question - should a page giving *my* rating code also exist on pages? Gimmetrow 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be redundant. As long as this website applies its "proprietary" formula to each celebrity, meaning the same algorithm is executed for each person, then the ranking is valid. Paris Hilton *will* rank higher than Halle Berry because of higher internet and news activity. The number itself is not important, the rank is. Please let me know why linking a fan forum is encyclopedic and how it meets the requirements of EL. Thank you.Alderkline 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

External links are *supplementary reading* to an encyclopedia article. A large fansite that is informative and factual makes reasonable supplementary reading. Fan forums alone are generally not useful supplementary reading. A page with a meaningless number is a meaningless page, and is not supplementary reading. If you are serious, you're not getting my point about made up ratings - my example is not ranking celebrity exposure, I'm rating pop culture influence, which is different. In this formula Anna Nicole Smith only gets 318.42, so it's a different ranking. If your argument about this razzipapa rating were true, then why should it not equally apply to any other made up rating? Gimmetrow 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading the website, I don't believe the rating is made up, per se. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's made up in the sense that the formula and the number are arbitrary (or at least appear so, since the formula is not actually disclosed). I see nothing to make it any different than the numbers I've given, which were calculated by a fomula based on generally-available statistics. Gimmetrow 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, consensus is the cornerstone of wikipedia. If you feel that this website ranking "pop culture influence", should it ever exist, to be useful then feel free to post it here for discussion. In the meantime, three of the four members discussing razzipapa do not believe it should be deleted, or at least think it shows enough merit to be included. Please reinstate the link immediately. Also, fan or discussion forums are listed on WP:EL as links that should be avoided.Alderkline 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to create a page with my arbitrary "pop culture influence"; I created the idea to illustrate a point here. It provides no information about Halle Berry, is not supplementary reading, and is not notable in itself. Neither is the razzi link. Gimmetrow 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm following this discussion with interest, I've got to say that the number that the website generates is problematic (web hits are manipulable, to cite just one example), and I can't really see how a link to this number actually enhances the entry. (Especially since it takes some clicking to find out what the number means, how it's derived, and the context in which it makes sense.)--Galliaz 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I was away from this discussion for a while, but I've just read through the whole thing. In my opinion, this link has no business on the article. When I search for razzipapa using either Yahoo or Google, I get absolutely zero reputable English language links. This link provides absolutely no value to the article and does not meet WP:EL. I have no belief that this link is remotely factual and there is no assurance that it meets WP:RS. This link should be removed. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize it was back. See also Talk:Jessica Simpson#New External Link. Gimmetrow 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can it be removed? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight, I ask you to reconsider my arguments regarding this link. Thank you.Alderkline 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I read your comments very carefully as well as the other comments and the relevant guidelines before I made my statement. I believe that my interpretation is correct and stand by my statement above. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The index is compiled using data from many recognized and reputable websites and other sources. I strongly believe the site complies with the guidelines of WP:EL, and I think I've demonstrated that affect. Nonetheless, if the link is removed I will not repost it. Thank you for your inputs.Alderkline 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the discussion. Unfortunately, this website is just nor verifiable. Without disclosure or some other reputable reference, this appears to be nothing more than a smokescreen. I'm going to go ahead and remove the link now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Hudson (African American) also won an Academy Award.

So Halle Berry is the first African American to have won the award, and not the only one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.210.200 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Jennifer Hudson won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; Halle Berry is indeed the only African American woman to win the Best Actress award.--Galliaz 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Goddess of the Sun

There is another film where Halle Berry will have a major role, Goddess of the Sun[6], as Egyptian Queen Nefertiti. Not much has been published about this film. The film is being made by Kermit Blackwood. Kermit Blackwood (Wikipedia accounts are User:Pinudjem, User:Amoun-Pinudjem and Milad A.P. Sourial) has not made many films, but he is such an amazing guy. He was the one who had suggested that the Green Peafowl is actually a complex of several distinct species. Frankyboy5 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Halle Berry's genealogy states her mother Judith Hawkins was NOT British born but was according to FACTS born in Ohio in the year 1939. Her maternal grandmother was British born only as her father was born in Ohio also. Her family tree can be found on genealogy.com with factual documentation. 24.25.172.80 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)marjorier@nc.rr.com

Holly Bailey

There is a "Holly Bailey", Newsweek, & msnbc. Today, Chris Matthews said "Halle Be----,... Holly Bailey!,..."

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation in citation 17 about the threats to her unborn baby.

Citation 17 links to an article that claims Halle Berry has a 'white father and an Afro-American mother' -- her mother was English and her father was African-American. Perhaps articles that have such a poor standard of research shouldn't be used as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.113.229 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

There was/is a dispute over the fair use images in the recent FA Cillian Murphy. In light of that, I would like to review the two fair use screenshots recently added to this article. Are they necessary? I tend to think no, since the article was fine for ages without them. There are actor FAs without a single fair use image: Angelina Jolie and Katie Holmes. If an article on an actor uses a screenshot, I think the screenshot needs to be distinctive in a way difficult to describe in words; it should involve unusual costuming or makeup, or show some stuntwork, or be the first or defining role. The X-Men shot might work due to the costuming, but still we should be reluctant to use fair use images. Gimmetrow 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But even her entry in Die Another Day is distinctive. Isn't it? Vikrant 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I'm not so convinced, but in any event I see at least two featured articles without any fair use images. While it might be nice to have one or two screenshots, they don't appear that necessary. Gimmetrow 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There were plenty of free images here. I've removed the unfree ones, I think they fail the WP:FUC anyway.--Doc^g 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

removals

Just to explain what I've removed and why:

1. Non-free images - these are unjustifiable, particularly since we've got two excellent free images
2. "Aubry, who lived ... presumably open to being an adoptive parent as well" - pure speculation per WP:BLP
3. "After initially denying rumors that she was pregnant..." links 404'd for me. Can be replaced if/when citations are good.
4. http://www.hollywoodchamber.net - 404d
5. The accident thing, I removed by mistake. However, is it really encyclopaedic that someone got a driving violation? I suppose that's debatable - replace it if you disagree.

--Doc^g 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I readded the pregnancy thing. The MSNBC works for me as of right now. The second ABC4 cite was dead and archive.org did not have a replacement. Agreed with Aubry and images. I am iffy about the accident thing as well. However, hit-and-run is a felony and she is a notable person not known for committing such acts. I leave it up to someone else to put it back in. spryde | talk 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious - what part of WP:BLP requires you to immediately remove without notice a complete reference with author/title but a broken url, and without apparently even trying to find a working url? Gimmetrow 19:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't think I mentioned BLP in this regard, but any statement that starts with "denying rumors that she was pregnant" is best removed for a few minutes until we are sure.--Doc^g 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I was asking in regard to the star referenced to hollywoodchamber.net. It was trivial to find the correct URL because the citation was adequate. Then, for some inexplicable reason, it was removed a second time. At the very minimum I would have expected the URL to be commented out so someone else could find the appropriate url if you were unable after a few minutes of trying. Almost no editors look through history for removed citations, so removing it entirely is bad. As for the pregnancy section, one of the cites was MSNBC and it worked fine. Gimmetrow 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed material with the intention of coming back to it - others however fixed it first.--Doc^g 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

• The Emmy and a Golden Globe are neither cited in the lead nor in the main body. When one does a uncited WP:LEAD, it is under the assumption that the important claims are all cited in the main body. I see the info in citations elsewhere such as the Geneology ref, but If I only wanted to find out about her Emmy and GG and did not read refs in other sections I would be lost so recite here. Use the name= parameter in ref tags to do so if you can.
•  Done Vikrant 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I see you have cited the lead. Can you also cite the subject in the main body of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Similarly, "She is one of the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood" needs a ref.
  •  Done Vikrant 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Ibid.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Berry has served many years as the face of Revlon cosmetics and was recently named the face of Versace." need refs. Can you say how many years?
  •  Done Vikrant 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That looks like a 2000 source for Revlon. If you could find anything saying if she is still a spokesperson an NY Times search shows her from 1996 to 2002 in articles. I don't know if she is still a spokesperson. Googling "Halle Berry" face of Versace yields a lot of stuff. Can you give us more info with a citation.
      •  Done Till 2004, I have found pages. Vikrant 14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• The Monster's Ball paragraph could use a citation or two. I would add one after "National Board of Review and the Screen Actors Guild prizes", one after "Academy Award for Best Actress" and one after "Best Actress Academy Award". Of course make sure each is unspaced following a punctuation mark.
•  Done Vikrant 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• move the first ref to after the punctuation.
  •  Done Vikrant 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would prefer separately linkable "Cleveland, Ohio." You might try {{city-state}} both in the template and the text.
  •  Done Vikrant 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • What about the template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • N Looks like a huge mess to me. Anyway all the places have been linked. Vikrant 16:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I am not sure what you mean about the spacing, but the {{city-state}} needs to be in the infobox template. I just added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Do you have sources for Miss Ohio USA and Miss Teen All-American claims.
  •  Done Vikrant 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Why aren't Emmy and a Golden Globe in Film Awards and nominations when Introducing Dorothy Dandridge (Winner) is included for other less prominent awards.
  •  Done Vikrant 11:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    • O.K. but clean up the spacing in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done Vikrant 16:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
        • I meant this] when I was discussing the spacing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• The source you use for the parents divorce has some interesting things omitted from this article about Berry's relationship with her father and who her father was.
  •  Done Vikrant 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• I would go with {{reflist|2}}
  •  Done Vikrant 15:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No you didn't.
      • Oh! but done it now. Vikrant 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Can you convert all citations to {{cite web}} format.
  • GREAT!!!!!!!!
• I added a {{Failed verification}} tag that you need to work on
  •  Done Vikrant 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• What is the source for the sister info.
  • Removed. Vikrant 15:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Use the proper Bedford High School link and add a proper ref to this para.
•  Done But no ref found. Vikrant 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a start of the review more coming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. You may feel many of these citations are unnecessary. If so let me know specific ones and we can discuss.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I have sat on this overnight. In general the text needs to be reworked into larger paragraphs or subsectioned. The flow is very choppy as it is. E.g., in Hollywood career, the first three paragraphs all go together under early roles. The next three or four could go together as success and stardom. In addition, the WP:LEAD should be more extensive. I think if you are diligent these changes could all be completed in a week. So I am going to put this on hold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The only real disappointment in your progress is the WP:LEAD. It stil does not mention her relationships. I guess an article of this length should have at least one sentence in the lead for each of the main sections. This would assuage my fear that nothing is in the lead about her relationships.
  •  Done All three are now stated. Vikrant 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
  •  Done Vikrant 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]
  •  Done Vikrant 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, didn't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to give you another 7 days or until you notify me to review the article again, whichever comes first. You have made great progress. I am encouraged. Additional needs.

• Citation in first para of acting career.
  •  Done Though no source was found for the Charlies Angels line. Vikrant 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Look at the {{persondata}} suggestion I left in the automated review.
  •  Done Vikrant 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If you get a chance fill in DOB and POB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done Vikrant 11:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Can you wikilink the media section at all.
  •  Done Vikrant 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This article has come a long way and is an encyclopedic overview.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I would still like to see a few more facts cited such as Benet's daughter and fabulous 40-something celebrities.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   You can still improve the article. If she extends her production side role this should be noted. Also, a featured article would need a fourth paragraph in the lead documenting her public incidents such as her accident, her nose comment, her suicide thoughts. The current last para might be expanded with a mention of her finally approaching motherhood herself after thoughts of adoption and such. Add well cited facts as her career continues in whatever direction it may go. I also think a featured article might note her on stage incident with Adam Brody as one of her more memorable public moments. Some might say I am being negligent not demanding its inclusion right now and I encourage its addition ASAP with a proper citation. The text remains a bit choppy in terms of too many small paragraphs. I have made some minor changes to the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3d paragraph in intro

I don't see why the intro needs to set aside the fact of her parent's divorce and her own two divorces in the lead-in: this info appears later in the entry, and this separate paragraph implies that divorce is an especially notable entity in HB's life. What's more, it's placement in the intro implies that the entry is directing the reader to conclude that HB's life has been, in some unspecified way, shaped by divorces, something that an encyclopedia cannot do. Perhaps a priest or psychoanalyst can do this, but I don't think a wikipedia entry should.--Galliaz (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the emphasis isn't ideal; removing most of it for now. Some other celeb articles have paragraphs about their relationships, eg Katie Holmes, but the emphasis is on the media attention. Gimmetrow 06:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Niehter Katie Holmes nor Angelina Jolie nor Eric Bana satisfy WP:LEAD requirements. This one should. Vikrant 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant Phadkay (talk • contribs)

Storm Origins?

Hallo, everyone,

I noticed there is a movie mentioned in Berry's filmography called "Storm Origins". I did some googling, but couldn't find anything. Has anyone a reference for this? Otherwise, I suggest we delete it, as it seems like wishful thinking to me. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad Main Image

Why can't we use this image Image:HalleB.jpg as the lead pic instead of that horrible, grainy image? I mean, Halle Berry is recognized as one of the most beautiful women on earth, so why can't we show off more of her skin and figure? Just a thought. 75.41.169.26 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:70.135.8.116. Gimmetrow 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Coming to this article for information about her recent childbirth, I feel inclined to answer. We can use the image, just not as the main image, since that would violate Fair Use requirements. While I consent that Berry is a very beautiful woman, I don't think that's grounds enough to use that image of her as the lead. It can go further down the page near the relevant text, though, of course. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the fair use rationale for the use of that image in this article, so I think it'll do just fine. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Daughter

So is her daughter white?--J intela (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

well if halle is mixed race (black/white) then the baby is also mixed race as well, isn't she ! as well as the racial backround of the babies father, what i think you mean is, is the baby light skinned? which we don't know as pictures haven't bein sence of her yet.Veggiegirl (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mother's birthplace

I corrected Berry's mother's birthplace to Ohio. I was already inclined to trust the "family trees" that list her mother as being born in Ohio (i.e. [7]), but Berry herself stated that her mother was born in Ohio during her appearance on Inside the Actors Studio. She also said that her mother's parents and grandparents were from London, which evidently contradicts her previous statement that her mother is a "Liverpudlian" (and the fact that her maternal grandfather was from Ohio, not London), but so it goes... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding above text, it is nonesense to state Halle Berry's mother was born in Ohio, it is well known her mother is from Liverpool and this has been the same for Mike Myers (of Shrek) both actors are aware of their parents hometown and their pride of coming from Liverpool. Dmcm2008 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Berry herself states that her mother was born in Ohio, and you counter with it being "well known" that she was born in England. OK. Anyway, I removed her mother's birthplace from the article. Since Berry has stated that her mother was born in Ohio and on a different occasion that her mother was born in Liverpool, it's clear something's up here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nahla Ariela Aubry

1) It seems unlikely that Halle Berry named her daughter after the Northern Alberta Health Libraries Association. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Cape Code Times was cited for the info, but without a link. I wanted to add a link, so I looked through the archives of the Cape Cod Times but could not find the cited article. Without that article, the info is uncited, so I removed it. 2) As for the baby weight sentence, the cited source, www.nowmagazine.co.uk, bills itself as being about "celebrity gossip, news, fashion and beauty secrets + daily horoscopes". It does not seem a reliable source. Further, information about Berry's weight right after pregnancy is unencyclopedic, unless it has an impact on her career. 3) As for the information about the nurseries, I improved the cite for that by adding a link. Ariadne55 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

revisit of mothers birthplace

An editor had removed the text and citation of Halle Berry's mother being originally from Liverpool, England. This is an issue for some it appears but the evidence is there that that her mother is Liverpool born, it has been widely acknowledged and citations in two British newspapers appear to be overlooked by editors insisting she is not Liverpool born. Dmcm2008 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC). Once again, the same user is removing the fact Judith Ann Hawkins is of British origin, Liverpool born. There is no overwhelming proof at present either way but the citations from two top British newspapers are there to see, mother left Liverpool over 40 years ago at time one of the articles was dated. Dmcm2008 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: All Hallow's Raith - To show I am fair, I have had a look at your first citation there is a pic of Halle Berry can you tell me where the article or video is to show what you say? And I was aware of the Geiniology page but this isn't a perfect world it is can be 'presumed' that her mother was born in Ohio as there would be no evidence to disprove. Why do you think I have added citations of two top British newspapers both say her mother is from Liverpool and furthermore why would they say she is from Liverpool if it were not true? & why say her mother left over 40 years ago (at the time) which would indicate she left in her early twenties and then met Mr Berry and had children?. Dmcm2008 (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers make mistakes. There appears to be a downloadable version of the Actors Studio episode here - [8]. I really can not add much to this conversation other than repeat that if there are two conflicting versions of her mother's birthplace, I don't see any reason not to just leave it out from the article, since it isn't that important. No one is denying that her mother is of English origin and of roots from Liverpool, this is stated in the article right now. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I will do more research before coming back to this. But I ask why would it be stated that Ms Berry's mother is from Liverpool when if you say, this is not true? And it is not the case that it isn't that important. If as you say her mother is from Ohio then it makes a mockery of so many journalists etc in the UK reporting her mother as from Liverpool. I disagree it should be removed.Dmcm2008 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would Berry state that her mother was born in Ohio, if it wasn't true? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought rewording this statement with the newspaper references would make this information about mothers bithplace in Liverpool be acceptable, unfortunately this is not the case Dmcm2008 (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Her birthdate

On MSN it is clearly stated she was born in 1968 not 66. Since MSN is about as reliable as you can get with information. Can anybody find more reliable sources stating that she was born in 1968? that's all.Mcelite (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the footnote on the year of birth. She made it clear it's 1966. Gimmetrow 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Quebec

She just bought a house there with her boyfriend. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=31854 . --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian psychiatric nurse?

maybe this can be reworded? Statesboropow (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Miss USA footage

You may want to check the external links at Cindy Williams (journalist). They might be useful here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

movies

On Filmography you can see 'Strictly Business, but that is a article about the album not: Strictly Business (film). Kamila 064 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Franchement alalala???

umm..what is this??? it's really confusing...is it some sort of irreversable vandalism? it's not going away when i try to remove it. Pinkpupp62 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Flintstones Character

The name of Berry's character in the Flintstones movie was Rosetta Stone not Sharon Stone. Someone should correct that. 68.144.146.241 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Halle_Berry/Archive_1#Name_of_her_character_in_The_Flintstones. Gimmetrow 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hit and run incidents

In 2006 fox news stated that halle berry was charged with two misdemeanors for separate hit and run incidents:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wg_Jg8hVlg4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greedo3000 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived remark restored for context.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

First and Only African-American actress to win an Oscar?

I do believe the distinction also goes to Charlize Theron, being an African-American woman to win an Oscar. Charlize is actually FROM Africa (check her own page on this site), making her the true definition of an African-American.

And if anyone wants to say that Halle Berry should be acknowledged as the only African American because her skin is darker, I'd like to remind everyone that Halle is of mixed racial background. Her mother is caucasian and her father negro. If that qualifies her as "African" then the definition of African is very loose. Theron is a born and raised African, and therefore should be acknowledged as another African-American to win an Oscar. No knock on Halle. I love her. She's my favorite "black" actress. This is more a criticism of the asinine nature of political correctness and the ridiculous term "African-American". If race is going to be related to a person's continent/country of origin, and not their actual biological race, then Theron is being discriminated against because her skin is white. She is a white African, whilst Berry is an American of mixed ethnicity (whose ancestry can be traced to Africa). Theron has a more direct connection to Africa, so why is she not considered "African American"?

Wikipedia. GET IT RIGHT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.32.53 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually think you could have made the same point without indulging in the show of indignation and preaching about your viewpoint on political correctness. Theron's own article, to which you refer, describes her as South African-American. Meanwhile, in any case, Berry is still the first African-American to win a Best Actress Oscar, Theron didn't win until 2 years later. However, Berry fits both criteria based on Wikipedia's own article, African American. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Six toes

Is it true that she has 6 toes in her feet??? That is reported sometimes in press

And where would that be? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hit and run

I don't think anyone would dispute that the incidents are attributed to sources, or that they warrant mention. The question is how strongly should the subject be dealt with and how much emphasis should be placed upon it. The subject is already covered in the article. It has to be looked at within the overall context of Berry's life and Berry's career. Having its own section and giving such a degree of detail makes it appear as more significant than it actually was. Berry's career has not been particularly damaged by the event, the publicity surrounding the case hasn't continued, it wasn't a major scandal, it was sorted out privately..... There are a few points to consider. Firstly WP:BLP. I don't see a problem with the brief discussion of these events because it's appropriately sourced. WP:UNDUE - I do see a problem here because it focusses on the events as being among the most significant aspects of Berry's biography, and this is not the case. WP:HARM - I do see a problem here also. If we place undue emphasis on something negative simply because we can find sources to support it, potentially we do harm. If you then go back to WP:BLP, the harm element becomes a problem. It needs to be kept in context. I'm not saying avoid it completely, but the previous version gave sufficient mention for anyone wanting to know about the subject. The "public"'s right to know does not negate the policies that we have in place to protect living people and ultimately to protect Wikipedia. Sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution, and I think this is one of those times. Please, before adding this again, I would invite anyone to state their case, and explain why the addition of this information is more important than the policies, guidelines and general processes that I've referred to above. Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, it is helpful to know where you are coming from in order to find middle ground. A few points: I am not adverse to the idea of giving the issue an appropriate amount of attention. However, the information that was previously in the article only mentions one hit-and-run accident. You'll notice remarks at the top of this discussion page regarding the second hit and run accident --- it was in fact this remark that motivated my research. I wanted to know if there was in fact another incident, and I assumed that the person who posted the comment on this discussion page wanted clarification as well. Surely, we two can't be the only people confused about the topic. I would suggest that instead of just deleting my edits, please incorporate the facts in such a way that keeps the relevant information but does not smear Halle Berry's reputation. After all, I spent a good amount of time searching out and sourcing my edits --- it is a little frustrating for me when you just come in and erase all of the information I have presented.130.13.182.116 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also frustrating when you thank me for my comments and mention finding a middle ground and then completely disregard my comments and the middle ground that you have referred to. There are two editors than do not support the inclusion of this information in the format that you've supplied, so it's not appropriate for you to simply paste back the entire section. If the inclusion of material is disputed - as it has been - it should be discussed and resolved at the talk page before it's added back to the article. If you want to reword it so that it covers both incidents, that's fine. It's not acceptable to have an entire section headed "hit and run" as it gives undue emphasis, and the level of detail is not appropriate. The fact that you've done a lot of research makes your frustration understandable but it doesn't make your reversion correct. I'll leave it as is to allow time for other editors to comment. I would suggest it be incorporated into the section of the article where it previously existed - not in its own section- and that it be abbreviated as follows. I particularly feel that the allegations are of a "she-said - she-said" variety and that Raythata is too strongly represented. We should stick to Raythata's actions and leave her opinion out. (The information is not meant to be exhaustive and anyone wanting more can go to the source material to read the fuller version)

Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents. The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene. Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm, and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident. Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run. She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation. Raythatha filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court. Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash. Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident, and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face. Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed. Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver in this accident as well. Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's fine to say it happened, but when we start adding fleshed-out sections that give more detail, including naming of a non-notable person who was injured and received some non-specific settlement, I believe we are giving it far too much weight in context of the rest of the article. It was a misdemeanor, it was not a felony and beyond the claim, prior to receiving a settlement, from the person injured that there was "permanent disability", there is nothing to indicate that the incident went beyond the time that it happened. There certainly is no corroboration that there was any permanent disability and for us to imply such is irresponsible. The most well-sourced content in the world can still be written in a biased manner and I feel that adding this section is such. It is in the article, that is sufficient. Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid presenting content in a way that invites libel.

It is also inappropriate to revert something in the midst of a discussion on how and where it should be presented. This does not warrant a separate section, that is one of the more salient issues with undue weight. I don't have an issue with what Rossrs has posted above as a revision, with the exception of perhaps naming the person injured. I am absolutely certain it can and should be contained within a paragraph in the personal life section and not as a stand alone section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't thought of it, but User:Wildhartlivie is right. We don't need to name the other person and she is otherwise not notable. She should be "the driver" and the information, which is only relevant to Berry, stays focussed on Berry. Also, I believe "accident" is not a correct term as "accidents" are caused by people's actions. The term is being used less frequently by police etc. "Incident" is more correct. I've reworded it again, below, and I think this is more where we should be heading with reporting these events. Rossrs (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Berry has been involved in two separate hit and run accidents incidents. The more widely publicized incident occurred on February 23, 2000, when she ran a red light, in a rented Chevy Blazer crashed into a car driven by Hetal Raythatha, and fled the scene. Raythatha was treated for a broken right arm, and publicly stated that she was left permanently disabled from the accident. Berry later surrendered to police and was given a reduced charge of misdemeanor hit and run. She pled no contest, paid a fine and was placed on three years' probation. RaythathaThe driver of the other car filed a civil lawsuit against Berry for negligence that was later settled out of court. Raythatha alleged that Berry fled the scene because she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Berry's publicist countered that the police did not have any evidence that drugs or alcohol were involved, and that in fact Berry fled the scene to seek treatment for a head injury that resulted from the crash. Berry has maintained that she has no recollection of the accident,incident and only recalls arriving at her home with blood on her face. Police reported that Berry was the driver in a similar hit and run accident incident three years earlier, in which no charges were filed. Berry reportedly worked out a settlement with the other driver. in this accident as well. Rossrs (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with these edits, even though I think it shows a bit of bias as well. As long as the information is there so that people can find out what happened, that is fine. There's no reason that this sequence of editing couldn't have been done on the main page --- this is what should have happened instead of someone just coming in and deleting all of my hard work. If you read the Focus on content section of the dispute resolution page, you'll find the following passage: "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, IMPROVE IT IF YOU CAN. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, DON'T JUST DELETE IT." These guidelines are there for a reason. Show me someone who wouldn't be irritated by having their work thrown away.130.13.182.116 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to as bias. It states the facts without repeating unfounded allegations by the other party which tend to imply that Berry was under the influence although the same articles state that this was not the case. It is irresponsible to repeat allegations that are unfounded. In any case, WP:BLP and WP:HARM take precedent over other policies regarding editing and the actions taken in this situation were done with regard to that. It would be one thing if something that was removed permanently, but nothing is gone on Wikipedia, it still exists in the history. The series of edits occurred because experienced editors saw major issues with presentation of content in regard to WP:BLP and removing questionably skewed content based on that supersedes WP:FOC and other such policies. As for the name of the other person involved, WP:BLP also addresses presumption of privacy, which in this case, would warrant removing the name of the non-notable person involved. This is basic stuff and should be adhered to. I have no problem with the section as edited by Rossrs above, and it should go in the personal life section without its own section heading. By the way, someone else has added an unreferenced statement that the incident became fodder for comedians, and that should be removed since it isn't cited. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by bias, but if you have a concern with it, all you have to do is say so. I've acknowledged your irritation. I don't think WP:FOC was important in the first instance, because both of the editors that objected to the inclusion of this information objected to it in its entirety and believed that the existing information sufficed, so it wasn't necessary to reword it. It's says "improve it if you can" - I didn't think it needed improvement, but I've offered this rewrite as a compromise. Now please stop complaining about how much time you've put into researching this, as I've spent just as much time discussing this with you. You're irritated. I get it. The information is retained in the history so it's not lost, but don't forget "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." which applies to every edit you or I or anyone else makes. "Edited mercilessly" can also mean "completely deleted". In any case, I'll take your "no problem with these edits" comment in good faith, and apply this to the article. (The fodder for comedians isn't that relevant. I'm sure Jay Leno and David Letterman etc will make quips about any current news story but only for as long as it remains topical, which is rarely long. If it entered the vernacular it may be different. It's not sourced or given within any context, so it just doesn't fit. ) Rossrs (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care if you want to admit it, but you shouldn't have just blindly deleted the edits. You can keep talking, but that's the truth, and I don't really have anything more to say about it. As far as the bias issue goes, it doesn't really matter to me. For example, I don't think calling something an 'incident' instead of an 'accident' is going to change anyone's mind about what happened. No one is that stupid. I do, however, want to commend both of you for working out a compromise with me. I know that neither of you wanted this content included, so it says something about your integrity as editors that you were willing to allow some version of these facts to appear in the article. Thanks for that.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what this added that wasn't already there, except the mention of the civil settlement (which is now there). The 2000 accident is significant to the biography because it led to one of her marriages - and that significance is sourced. I don't have a really strong objection to a brief mention at the end of that paragraph saying she was previously involved in a different accident, but it doesn't seem anywhere near as significant as the 2000 one. Gimmetrow 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

These incidents should be placed in a context in the biography. Wikipedia is (or should be) past the time when even the better articles were disordered lists of any factoid anyone could think of. The comedian line is 1) relevant to the significance of the event, and 2) contrary to Wildhart and Rossrs, sourced. Gimmetrow 02:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I will back up Gimmetrow about the incident being fodder for comedians. I've seen an episode of 'Family Guy' where they have Halle smash into another car and then run off on foot.130.13.182.116 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the comedian's fodder comment is untrue, I recall that it was used, but I do fail to see where it's sourced. I'm not thrilled with adding heavily to this article, but the point has been made, and is valid, that there were two separate hit and run incidents. Efforts were being made to acknowledge that and while it is certainly proper to retain the statement that Berry credited Benet with helping her through that, removing the paragraph removes mention of the second incident. I give up, apparently omissions of fact in good articles shouldn't be rectified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above, I appreciate that you've put so much into discussing this and that's the whole purpose of these talk pages and discussion. We disagree over whether the information should have simply been removed, and if we disagree, we disagree. We don't have to agree, so I'm with you in letting that go now. "Accident" / "incident" is semantics. It's neither here nor there but "incident" is a valid term. You're right though. Nobody is stupid enough to change their opinion of events because of the word used, and that was not my intent. Incident is neutral. "Accident" by definition assumes it was nobody's fault. It's semantics. I can see that the "fodder for comedians" is sourced. I missed that because the source is at the end of the next sentence, not the one discussing the "fodder", but OK, it's sourced. Considering that this is/was being discussed, I'm perplexed by Gimmetrow's reversion especially as it does not change the context. Unless it's the bit about Benet supporting Berry. I don't see this as a disordered list of factoids, something that I'm generally opposed to also. Maybe I shouldn't have changed the bit about Benet, but even so, we're back to revert rather than improve and it's not appropriate, given the depth of discussion this has been taken place today. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Berry's quote about feeling "really good about the resolution". That's superfluous at best. Rossrs (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's exactly "the bit about Benet" because that's why this accident is significant to her life. If it were just some accident, I don't think it would matter. Compare the 2006 Mel Gibson DUI incident, which was widely reported and resulted in legislation. Hypothetically, if he had also been stopped and warned for drunk driving in 1998, but that was not widely reported not had any more significance to his life, would it need to be included here? "Omissions of fact" sounds rather negative, but we routinely select some facts and exclude others when writing. Due weight means minor items don't usually get much detail. Gimmetrow 03:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that removing the comment about Benet was not good judgement on my part. I don't see Benet as the connecting factor that makes the episode significant to Berry, but I do see Benet as important and obviously this was a major event during their marriage. I don't disagree with the article as it currently stands, because this is essentially the version I favoured at the beginning. "Due weight" is one of the main points that Wildhartlivie and I were both commenting on, so I agree with you there also. Aside from the Benet reference, I don't see it as majorly different to what I changed it to. I still see no point in recording that Berry felt "really good about the resolution" because it's vague and lacking substance and it doesn't say anything about Berry except that she is able to be polite and noncomittal. Unless I'm missing something. Would you object to it being removed? Rossrs (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do object to it being removed. It was a brief line that went to her state of mind and the significance of the event in her life. I think those few words add more than does expanding "a civil lawsuit was settled out of court" to "the other driver filed civil lawsuit, which was later settled out of court". Gimmetrow 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I do have to wonder after all the fuss made yesterday over changes that were made following discussion by three other editors to one small section in this article, why nothing whatsoever has been said about changes that were made today to that section, which include a link to a YouTube posting of a copyrighted television broadcast. I'm certainly not going to change it because our discussion and attempt to work this informatino in was essentially overruled and removed, but presently, the content contains the improper YouTube link and punctuation errors. Hopefully someone will repair these issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"International Success"

is this really necessary? the only blockbusters she's made in that section are the james bond film and 2 of the x-men movies. i don't think that really needs to be there. her career has not changed much since 2001.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Success is not measured by "blockbusters" alone, but by many factors not including box office, such as exposure, reviews and accolades. It's far more appropriate to broach such a question on the talk page prior to removing a section heading, especially when the article is a good article and the removal lumps an entire career into one long section. If you have a different section title in mind, then please do suggest it, but please don't just remove section headings and post your comment afterwards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the section, just the title. Is it REALLY necessary to put "international success" because if you consider winning a Worst Actress Razzie for catwoman and also getting bad reviews for movies like gothica and perfect stranger, plus box office decline, what is international success? Just what distinguishes her career pre-2001 and post-2001? it didn't really change.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed a section, I said quite clearly tha you removed a section title, which rendered the career section into one overblown section. We don't put any emphasis on Golden Raspberry awards and do not generally include them in biographies as they often have little meaning regarding success and quality, but are fairly bad natured and stem from more than just "bad reviews". As I said, if you have a better section title in mind, then by all means suggest it, but WP:GA criteria isn't exactly supportive of a huge block of content in one paragraph to cover a career. Still there is a difference between success and box office and some bad reviews. International success can encompass obtaining roles in high profile films that get a large amount of international coverage, far beyond a dollars and cents total. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not break it up into sections, see Angelina Jolie's page for example.Jamesbondfan007 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Pleasant Irony

There is nothing ironic about playing somebody who was nominated for an oscar and then winning an oscar.

It would be ironic perhaps if she played a terrible actress in that movie who nevertheless dreamed of winning on oscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.53.149 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to describe it as a "coincidence" that she had previously portrayed someone who had been nominated for an Oscar? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

Caucasian "race" vs. "American"

Ref.: [9].
Editor The Universe Is Cool, please discuss why you think it is necessary to change the Wikilink from "Caucasion race" to "Caucasian American"?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS. Please be mindful of the 3RR policy.

That puzzles me too, Paine. The reference is in regard to the race of Berry's mother, not her nationality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I left a Talkback, so hopefully we can discuss this. I think you're right, though, plus the "race" article seems so much more detailed, whereas I get the impression that the "American" article is a bit POV, but that's another story.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be "Caucasian American" because:

• the article states that her father is African American, so I think the article titled "Caucasian American" (a redirect of the article "White American") is the best to describe her mother.

• knowing that Halle Berry's mother was American (and Caucasian), the article "Caucasian American" is a better fit.

Why is it that people seem to disagree with me most of the time? It doesn't happen exclusively on this website either. It ticks me off! The Universe Is Cool (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

The difference here is the definition. African American is clearly about ethnic background and the term Caucasian American has a much wider definition, and is based at least partly on nationality, but notice it also includes a group which does not encompass Berry's background, specifically Hispanics. However, Caucasian race is directly about ethnicity. The point being discussed is ethnicity, not nationality. That's why your changes keep being reverted - they don't encompass ethnicity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first reason, editor The Universe Is Cool, is POV, and as editor Wildhartlivie points out, neutrality is achieved in this case by keeping the link to "Caucasian race". The pipe for the link is simply "Caucasian", and when one thinks of the adjective "Caucasian", one does not first think about Americans, but rather, one thinks about "race", isn't this true?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian is a race, not an ethnicity. Polish, Italian, German, Irish, Hungarian are examples of ethnic groups within the Caucasian race. Asian is a race -- Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Mongol, etc., are examples of ethnic groups within the Asian race.

Hispanic is an ethnic group, not a race. Hispanics can be Caucasian or black or brown or (in theory) Asian in terms of their genetics and racial appearance because what they have in common is a language and a culture that traces back in part to Spain -- not a blood quantum.

Not all Caucasians are American (citizens or residents of the United States) and not all Americans are Caucasians. Similarly, not all black people (or whatever term you prefer) are citizens or residents of the United States; there are probably at least as many different ethnicities within the world population of black people as there are within the world population of Caucasians. Does that make the currently accepted term African-American the description of a racial group or an ethnic group or both?

I believe that logic indicates that Halle Berry is racially one-half Caucasian (assuming that her father had no Caucasian ancestors) but her ethnicity on her mother's side would be determined by the Caucasian ethnic group her mother belonged to -- English, Irish, German or whatever.

Caucasian is a race, not an ethnic group (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

"Race" is concept that is interchangeable with "ethnicity": it's just an ethnic group that is typically identified by physical characteristsics. There's no more need to identify someone as "Caucasian American" than there is as "African-American".—Kww(talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest culture is the most important factor. Many "coloured" people identify with American or even Western culture. However, some identify with a "coloured" sub-group. --Philcha (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

citation style

This article currently does not use any citation templates, it uses <ref></ref>-tags with ordinary wiki-markup in them.

• Should it be shifted to use citation templates?
• To use list-defined references?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, yes — Jack Merridew 05:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• No, there is never any need to use citation templates. It's just as fast to write things out by hand, because you have to add the information by hand to the template anyway. The only thing templates do is add clutter, slow down load time, and some of them introduce citation styles that don't exist outside WP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  How about list-defined references? They're all about de-cluttering the prose. There are also tools, such as WP:Reflinks, WP:Checklinks, and User:Citation bot (user operable;) that facilitate the maintenance of things. It's a big site and we should use tools to help with tasks. Jack Merridew 05:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Some people find them a nuisance. What is the difficulty with writing: <ref>Smith, John. ''Name of Book'', Routledge, p. 1.</ref> Or for an article: <ref>Carroll, Roy. "Colombian jet crash 'miracle' as all but one survive", The Guardian, August 17, 2010.</ref>

  The reason list-defined refs were developed is to get round the clutter caused by in-text templates. But if you don't use the templates in the first place, there's very little clutter to begin with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  How many editors, esp. new editors, don't use these tools? That has to be considered also to make editing easier for everyone, not just those who know to use tools, never mind which tools to use. This really needs to be considered esp. if tools are that important, or am I reading this wrong? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  @SV; It's not about difficulty, it's about the paucity of information, and lack of structure to that style. You omitted the isbn, but if the ref was in a template, a tool could pick-out the named parameters, look it up, and add that, and more; correct something else. That sort of ref is pure nineteenth century paper paradigm; time to level-up; we're not paper, and it's the third millennium. Jack Merridew 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to template. Templates are always always better--they make it far easier to make changes later, they help separate information that needs to be visible (to readers) from what is not, and they're easier to make. The only logical reason I can see for not using templates is if they slow down load times; do you have any evidence that there is a significant increase, even for a low-speed connection? But....Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Any 'time' concerns are about page generation time on the server, not download times; templates don't produce significantly different page sizes. The solution to that is more and faster servers, and improvements to MediaWiki itself. Jack Merridew 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  They do slow down load times. See some technical explanations here, and some examples here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Only for editors, and only for articles that should be split, anyway. All that's a server issue; buy more and faster ones, work on MediaWiki. But don't compromise the referencing of articles by reducing their structure or information. Jack Merridew 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• No to list defined references, if by that you mean not listing the references in the (hidden) text, but only in the references section. Doing that makes it extremely difficult to edit the page--it means if I want to, remove both a reference and the text supported by it (say, for example, if the reference isn't actually reliable), then I either have to make 2 consecutive edits, or edit the entire page rather than just editing the sub-pages.Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Placing the refs in the reference section makes a world of sense; the mechanism that evolved to have full references inline is an artifact of the route MediaWiki evolved as a piece of software. Look to real books; footnotes appear as an unobtrusive number or character in the prose and the body of it is at the foot of the page, the end of the chapter, or at the back of the book. Collecting them together is an appropriate progressive step. FWIW, I edit whole pages much of the time. Jack Merridew 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  They're a nuisance when you're doing section-editing, and it's often necessary to do that with longer articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  They're not a nuisance, they're about better organization of things, de-cluttering the article body. RexxS said something hereabouts regarding the joy of having the refs in another tab; try it. It works fine. Jack Merridew 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to both as it help standardizing and maintaining the Wikipedia. If loading times are an issue, an idea would be to switch to {{vcite web}}. See Talk:Brad Pitt#Page loading efficiency and style for tests using this template. It is 37% smaller and loads twice as fast as {{cite web}}. Nymf _hideliho! 11:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  We should not be selecting a citation style for irrelevant reasons; I see the Vancouver style as light on information and do not much like it; I believe the templates are not nearly so robust as the standard ones ({{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}). I view the italics and specific punctuation as mostly noise; the important thing is the information and structuring it appropriately; that's the key thing templates do, they provide structure to the information and that enables a world of goodness. It makes the information machine-readable, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to both; yes absolutely, soon as possible to list-defined refs. The amount of clutter that inline references cause is a nuisance whether citation templates are used or references are entered manually - they're still a large chunk of distraction and needs moving out of the text.  pablo 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral but leaning towards no I can see the arguements on both sides of this issue. Some of the changes I feel are because of POV IMHO. I like it when the the references are easy to access to verify what is being said campared to the way it's done say at the artcicle Ted Bundy which requires a lot of extra work to verify something. The temlate for tables are always in disagreement it seems. I have to admit though that SlimVirgin's references tend to make me lean more in her direction about this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to both. I find the cite template easier to use, especially with the group of editing tools available, and I prefer that they standardize the format. I also think that listing the citations makes the text of the article "cleaner" and easier to read and edit rather than wading through a mass of clutter. Segregating the list of references also makes them easier to read, and easy to see if they're correct/complete or need fixing. It's probably an inconveniece to have to either edit the full article, rather than section, or to make a second edit to the reference section, but I see it as a minor inconvenience and worth the effort. Rossrs (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. I don't think cite templates are appropriate in this article, and I found the "list-defined references" confusing. Cite templates are tools, and have their uses, but they also have drawbacks, especially in flexibility. Few citation templates can handle every possible case. Some above claim cite templates are "easier to use" and "always better". That's their opinion. I'm not entirely convinced about all the details concerning load times, but clearly there are other editors with different opinions on the "always better" and "easier to use" system. If some editors can convert an article to the system they find "easier to use", invoking IAR to support their perceived "improvements", then likewise other editors could do the same with their preferred system. The language in WP:CITE exists to prevent sets of editors of opposing opinions zipping around Wikipedia changing articles back and forth to their favoured system. It is my view that that behaviour would be (and is) disruptive to Wiki as a whole. The assertions that templates "standardize" format seems to be stated in the context of the entire Wiki, but there are at least three major families of citation templates on Wiki that are not consistent with each other:
  • {{cite web}}: Jimbo (2001-01-15). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2010-08-17. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • {{citation}}: Jimbo (2001-01-15), "Wikipedia", MediaWiki, retrieved 2010-08-17 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • {{vcite web}}: Jimbo. Wikipedia; 2001-01-15 [Retrieved 2010-08-17].
• Notice the last one doesn't even recognize one of the "standard" fields. So much for ease of use. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Isn't the lack of consistency (which, by the way, is easily fixed) in those 3 templates a moot point in this discussion, since bare references will let people style them as they see fit, completely disregarding any sort of standardization? Nymf _hideliho! 14:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By "bare references", do you mean anything without a template? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. Nymf _hideliho! 17:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support citation templates. There are tools that make it easy to produce citations using the templates - in fact these are the easiest way for new editors to produce citations! --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral about list defined references. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, Neutral. In my experience citation templates produce more consistent output, are easier to maintain, and support the automation of certain tasks. The speed issues are essentially moot - they only affect logged-in users, not the vast majority which is served pre-rendered HTML from the Squid cache. And if template expansion is a server side problem, that's an argument for a better implementation, not for inconveniencing humans. I see both advantages and disadvantages to list-defined cites - I have a slight preference for inline, but don't really care enough to insist on one or the other. Why don't we have a Wiki-wide BibTeX-style reference DB, anyways? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged-in users are our editors. You're saying the slow load times only affect editors, so it doesn't really matter. Thanks! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged-in users are a very small part of the user base. And anonymous users can be and are editors, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But there are hundreds of thousands of users with accounts who are likely to log in to edit. And with lots of templates in an article, loading is slow, and diffs and preview often slow to the point of unsustainable. That means articles with templates are often poorly edited, poorly written. Look no further than the CC articles. Always templates, always bad writing (that I have seen), but lots of editors with them on their watchlists. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Load time apart, here's an example I gave elsewhere of how difficult it can be to copy edit with in-text templates, because you can't see where one sentence ends and another begins:

Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the three most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction ([[hemolysis]]),<ref name="pmid5782651">{{cite journal |last1=Goldstein |first1=JR |last2=Mengel |first2=CE |title=Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying levels of hyperoxia |journal= Aerospace Medicine |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=12–13 |year=1969 |pmid=5782651}}</ref><ref name="pmid4403030">{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=EC |last2=Adams |first2=JD |last3=Williams |first3=WT |last4=Duncan |first4=DM |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=223 |issue=2 |pages=431–7 |year=1972 |pmid=4403030}}</ref> damage to liver ([[hepatic]]),<ref name="pmid5885427">{{cite journal |last1=Schaffner |first1=Fenton |last2=Felig |first2=Philip |title=Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen |journal= Journal of Cell Biology |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=505–17 |year=1965 |pmid=5885427 |pmc=2106769 |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf |format=PDF |doi= 10.1083/jcb.27.3.505}}</ref> heart ([[myocardial]]),<ref name="pmid5046798">{{cite journal |last1=Caulfield |first1=JB |last2=Shelton |first2=RW |last3=Burke |first3=JF |title=Cytotoxic effects of oxygen on striated muscle |journal=Archives of Pathology |volume=94 |issue=2 |pages=127–32 |year=1972 |pmid=5046798}}</ref> [[endocrine system|endocrine]] glands ([[adrenal gland|adrenal]], [[gonad]]s, and [[thyroid]]),<ref name="pmid13228600">{{cite journal |last1=Bean |first1=JW |last2=Johnson |first2=PC |title=Adrenocortical response to single and repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure |journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=179 |issue=3 |pages=410–4 |year=1954 |pmid=13228600}}</ref><ref name="pmid13889254">{{cite journal |last1=Edstrom |first1=JE |last2=Rockert |first2=H |title=The effect of oxygen at high pressure on the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and endocrine cells |journal=Acta Physiologica Scandinavica |volume=55 |pages=255–63 |year=1962 |pmid=13889254 |doi=10.1111/j.1748-1716.1962.tb02438.x}}</ref><ref name="Gersh">{{cite journal |last1=Gersh |first1=I |last2=Wagner |first2=CE |title=Metabolic factors in oxygen poisoning |journal=American Journal of Physiology |year=1945 |volume=144 |issue=2 |pages=270–7}}</ref> or kidneys ([[renal]]),<ref name="pmid5155150">{{cite journal |last1=Hess |first1=RT |last2=Menzel |first2=DB |title=Effect of dietary antioxidant level and oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules |journal=Aerospace Medicine |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=646–9 |year=1971 |pmid=5155150}}</ref> and general damage to [[cell (biology)|cells]].<ref name="Brubakk-358-360" /><ref name="pmid4613232">{{cite journal |last=Clark |first=John M |title=The toxicity of oxygen |journal=American Review of Respiratory Disease |volume=110 |issue=6 Pt 2 |pages=40–50 |year=1974 |pmid=4613232}}</ref>

I don't think it's fair to leave articles like this. And if anything it's even worse with the vertical templates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an example of an article giving the same level of information without using templates? Not to mention that this really looks like a case for list-defined references:

Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the
effects on the three most susceptible organs will be the primary
concern. It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction
([[hemolysis]]),<ref name="pmid5782651"/><ref name="pmid4403030"/>
damage to liver ([[hepatic]]),<ref name="pmid5885427"/> heart
([[myocardial]]),<ref name="pmid5046798"/> [[endocrine
system|endocrine]] glands ([[adrenal gland|adrenal]], [[gonad]]s, and
[[thyroid]]),<ref name="pmid13228600"/><ref name="pmid13889254"/><ref
name="Gersh"/> or kidneys ([[renal]]),<ref name="pmid5155150"/> and
general damage to [[cell (biology)|cells]].<ref name="Brubakk-358-360"
/><ref name="pmid4613232"> 

{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="pmid5782651">{{cite journal |last1=Goldstein |first1=JR
|last2=Mengel |first2=CE |title=Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying
levels of hyperoxia |journal= Aerospace Medicine |volume=40 |issue=1
|pages=12\u201313 |year=1969 |pmid=5782651}}</ref> 

<ref name="pmid4403030">{{cite journal |last1=Larkin |first1=EC
|last2=Adams |first2=JD |last3=Williams |first3=WT |last4=Duncan
|first4=DM |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia
|journal=American Journal of Physiology |volume=223 |issue=2
|pages=431\u20137 |year=1972 |pmid=4403030}}</ref> 

<ref name="pmid5885427">{{cite journal |last1=Schaffner |first1=Fenton
|last2=Felig |first2=Philip |title=Changes in hepatic structure in rats
produced by breathing pure oxygen |journal= Journal of Cell Biology
|volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=505\u201317 |year=1965 |pmid=5885427
|pmc=2106769 |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf
|format=PDF |doi= 10.1083/jcb.27.3.505}}</ref> 

<ref name="pmid5046798">{{cite journal |last1=Caulfield |first1=JB
|last2=Shelton |first2=RW |last3=Burke |first3=JF |title=Cytotoxic
effects of oxygen on striated muscle |journal=Archives of Pathology
|volume=94 |issue=2 |pages=127\u201332 |year=1972 |pmid=5046798}}</ref> 

<ref name="pmid13228600">{{cite journal |last1=Bean |first1=JW
|last2=Johnson |first2=PC |title=Adrenocortical response to single and
repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure |journal=American Journal
of Physiology |volume=179 |issue=3 |pages=410\u20134 |year=1954
|pmid=13228600}}</ref> 

<ref name="pmid13889254">{{cite journal |last1=Edstrom |first1=JE
|last2=Rockert |first2=H |title=The effect of oxygen at high pressure on
the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and
endocrine cells |journal=Acta Physiologica Scandinavica |volume=55
|pages=255\u201363 |year=1962 |pmid=13889254
|doi=10.1111/j.1748-1716.1962.tb02438.x}}</ref> 

<ref name="Gersh">{{cite journal |last1=Gersh |first1=I |last2=Wagner
|first2=CE |title=Metabolic factors in oxygen poisoning
|journal=American Journal of Physiology |year=1945 |volume=144 |issue=2
|pages=270\u20137}}</ref> or kidneys ([[renal]]), 

<ref name="pmid5155150">{{cite journal |last1=Hess |first1=RT
|last2=Menzel |first2=DB |title=Effect of dietary antioxidant level and
oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules
|journal=Aerospace Medicine |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=646\u20139
|year=1971 |pmid=5155150}}</ref> 

<ref name="pmid4613232">{{cite journal |last=Clark |first=John M
|title=The toxicity of oxygen |journal=American Review of Respiratory
Disease |volume=110 |issue=6 Pt 2 |pages=40\u201350 |year=1974
|pmid=4613232}}</ref> 
}}

Not pretty, but not a catastrophe, and likely better than any inline scheme giving a similar level of information. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's awful either way. Without templates of any kind, there would be much less clutter. The templates confer absolutely no benefit but lots of drawbacks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you dodged the question. Do you have any example of a similarly well-referenced article (i.e. with full bibliographic data, page numbers, URLs where available, with about 10 refs for a two-sentence paragraph...) with hand-written inline citations? Of course the templates offer benefit - they allow e.g. me to simply copy and paste Google Scholar BibTeX exports into the corresponding template fields, and know that they will come out right. Maybe you know how to format issue, number, and volume by hand - I cannot remember that, and thanks to the wonderful invention of programmable electronic machines I don't have to. I can just enter the contents, and let the computer do the formatting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You still have to add the words by hand, and that's the bulk of the job. Any similarly referenced article (I don't see that as well-referenced, but over-referenced with ref tags in the middle of sentences) will be cluttered, yes. But templates add extra words, so they only ever make clutter worse. You overlook the writing and reading aspects to WP, Stephan, and I think that's because you're a scientist. I'm a writer. When articles aren't well-written people don't want to read them. We can copy and paste Google Scholar BibTeX what-nots to our hearts' content, it won't make the articles a pleasure to read. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would you think I'm a scientist, but not a writer? In fact, why do you think I could be one, but not the other? The result of my research is a pill that someone swallows to understand it? See [10] - and that's only my professional scientific output. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim, with Stephan's example above there is clearly far less clutter in the actual text than there would be with inline references, templated or hand-crafted. The 'clutter' is handily tucked away in the references section.  pablo 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get this discussion sidetracked into a debate over reference standards, but most of the problems discussed here would be resolved by converting it all to shortened refs. It can be done with varying degrees of detail (hell, you could even add Google Books links to every single note if you felt like it), but it comes with a lot of benefits. If you settle for something like <ref>Surname (year)[,maybe ''Title'' for extra clarity], page number</ref> and leave all the specification on everything from the specific issue of the publication to publisher in a dedicated bibliography, there's a lot of to be gained, even if it creates some degree of redundancy. And it just happens to come with the nifty benefit of providing a practical overview of the number and types of sources used in any given article.

But still, there's no question about it, adding cite templates to an already burdened raw code version of an article seems only to confirm that the templates are unnecessary to begin with.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephan is right, here. This is a question of style and it is wrong to let MediaWiki's technical limits push-back at how we structure referencing; we want better referencing across the board. Articles like Israel are too large anyway; I previewed it, and it's 66 pages. That's edging into book-territory. It should be split-up for other reasons, which solves the template expansion issue. Recall '32kb'? That too small, of course, but huge 'articles' have a host of issues their size causes. Full template use and the LDR format using a vertical arrangement of the template parameters go a long way toward reducing the clutter-factor in the prose *and* in the references themselves. Liberal use of white space (which includes newlines) is key to making the references maintainable. See the ref section of this oldid (I mean in the edit box;). The inline form of referencing is a mere artifact of how MediaWiki evolved as a piece of software. It used to be that the definition *had* to come first. The code was improved and now they can be in any order. And LDR was developed to get them out of the prose entirely. This is the direction the developers are moving things. Everyone enabled the WP:RefToolbar gadget in preferences? It should be on by default. And it will be, just sit tight.

refTools, adds a "cite" button to the editing toolbar for quick and easy addition of commonly used citation templates.

This is what new editors find; this is the future, a tide coming in. There's more coming, too.

Efforts to mess with articles in regressive ways in response to empirical observations by non-software people are disruptive to the project. We have a nice section on the issue:

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil" ^{Donald Knuth}

Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize that you're getting a bit... uhm... evangelical about this?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

break

• Ambivalent on templates; Strong support on LDR. As the author of that abortion that Slim quotes above, I can say emphatically that had LDRs been available when I worked on that article, I'd have half the grey hairs that I currently own. Slim makes the case for LDR better than I could hope to. It is simplicity itself for me now to have two windows open side-by-side, one for the section I'm editing and one for the refs. The prose in the wikitext is now much more readable in the articles I'm working on, and by adopting a standard style for naming references (<ref name="AuthorYear" /> where possible), I can go back and re-edit the text and see where I was working from at a glance. The separation of text and reference means I have to do a double copy-paste if I'm importing into other articles, but I'd have more work to do if I were only using named refs, since I often have to go hunting for the full citation somewhere in the article (and no, it's not always at the first occurrence). LDR is a godsend for content editors. As for templates, I've spent several hours today examining the prior discussions (this and others), and I'm convinced that there actually is a problem that templates slow the server delivery when editing. On the other hand, I'm convinced that templates improve an article in almost all respects. Without a solution to the server response problem, I'm torn between the two arguments. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Computers are cheap and are getting cheaper. Humans are valuable, and hopefully get more so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  There's no deadline, so we can fix oxygen toxicity. There are a few thousand very active editors, but there are millions of readers. They are our 'clients', we're building this for them. MediaWiki will continue to improve, and so will our referencing. Plain text references are a relic of the early stages of the wiki; the future started arriving some time ago.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates do not per se improve referencing - it doesn't make you "add" any more information. Indeed, when you modified this article, you didn't add any info not already there, that I could tell. And if you wanted to add information to the reference, there is no reason you couldn't do that with wikitext. Did it ever occur to you that Wikitext references are the future, and will replace all the outmoded, outdated, inefficient, cumbersome templating systems? (Point is that your view of "improvements" are in the eye of the beholder.) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a huge huge improvement. To call out a specific, I'd added issn = 0307-1235 and oclc = 49632006 to the The Daily Telegraph references. The core improvements were to the readability and maintainability of the references, and I brought organization and structure to the references themselves by templating them; that's what templates *do*. Tools can then reliably parse them. You're an editor with WP:OWNership issues regarding this article. Point being, that you're wrong, and holding this article back. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Watch NPA. Your "huge improvement" diff is very difficult to read. I looked through diffs for quite a while and couldn't find much of significance added. I did, however, notice that you added "dead link" tags to at least one cite that already had it. You also changed numerous stylistic things that had no need of changing, and which have absolutely nothing to do with cite templates or "LDR". One might ask - why? When you point at others, you have a couple fingers pointing back at yourself. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As you're aware, the "huge improvement" was a revert of your revert of me. I had made my improvements in a series of edits that are clearer to read individually:

• fix-up CCTV ref
• fix-up 2 BBC refs
• fix-up 2 Telegraph refs
• fix-up 3 Telegraph refs, note some dead links
• fix-up 3 Telegraph refs
• -typo, noted another dead link
• Tagging 7 dead links using Checklinks; see? lots of issues in here that need attention

The dupe-dead link taggings are Checklinks not seeing the tags placed by DASHBot; that can be sorted by contacting the owners of the tools. I made number of minor clean-up of proper quotation, replaced some odd apostrophes that were likely scraped off whatever site and typically originate in some word processor. I changed some of the named references to better names, too: 'sharon' to "BBC-Ripe4Success", for example, which I view as a better form. On others I added names and typically will use something of the form: name="Davies2001-06-26". Here's a typical changed cite:

<ref>Hugh Davies (February 7, 2001). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1310430/Halle-Berry-earns-extra-andpound357%2C000-for-topless-scene.html "Halle Berry earns extra £357,000 for topless scene"]. The Telegraph. Accessed 2008-04-29.</ref>

<ref name="Davies2001-06-26">
{{cite news
| title = Halle Berry earns extra £357,000 for topless scene
| last = Davies
| first = Hugh
| date = 2001-06-26
| work = [[The Daily Telegraph]]
| publisher = [[Telegraph Media Group|TMG]]
| location = [[London, UK|London]]
| issn = 0307-1235
| oclc = 49632006
| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1310430/Halle-Berry-earns-extra-357000-for-topless-scene.html
| accessdate = 2010-08-12
}}
</ref>

I added cite details such as 'Telegraph Media Group', the issn and the oclc. I corrected the publication date.^link The information is now in a structured form that is easy to read and understand, to people, and to software. This information can be read by tools that can look things up in other databases and add further details. This is what User:Citation bot does; 109444 times, so far.. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I couldn't find much of significance added; I didn't say there was nothing. Nevertheless, changing the name of a bunch of named ref makes it difficult for other editors. You also coupled a number of changes that have nothing to do with templates. For instance, you changed the order of the names (a visible, stylistic issue that templates don't necessitate changing), and changed the style of the date of publication. The current citation style distinguishes publication and accessed dates, which can help readers. You also made a bunch of changes to whitespace, which, coupled with moving citations around, make the diff rather jumbled to interpret. Gimmetoo (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The significance is in the added structure. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support conversion to templated citations. LDR doesn't strike me as being such a big deal, and I have no objection to mixing them. Technically, there's nothing that keeps someone from adding a citation in the normal place to an article with LDR, and, while I think that should eventually get folded to the list, I see no need to rush in doing so.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I've noticed with LDR is that you can't just remove a citation, or you get the big red warning. You have to scroll down to find it in the references section too. If you're doing section editing, you can't do that. And editors not familiar with it won't know to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The complications with section editing are my reason for ambivalence about LDR. Sometime LDR is the only thing that can rescue an unreadable mess, and other times it's just an annoyance.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why anyone would object simply to writing <ref name=Smith1>Smith, John. ''Name of Book''. Routledge, 2010, p. 1.</ref> And thereafter <ref name=Smith1/> Minimum clutter, easy to add and remove, no templates, no slowing down of load time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's actually <ref name="pmid5885427">Schaffner, Fenton and Philip Felig (1965) [http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/27/3/505.pdf Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen], Journal of Cell Biology 27(3):505-17</ref>, and I'm still missing PMID, PMC, DOI and format. And how many editors do you think will format that consistently? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't always that; in fact it usually isn't. This page is about Halle Berry. And the templates don't format consistently anyway. There are lots of them and they're a mess, plus they can be changed centrally by anyone, so they're not stable. Bottom line, Stephan, is that there are very few well-written articles that are full of templates. There are some at FA, but they're not the rule. The rule is the more templates, the worse the writing. Look at the CC articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

{ec} The big red warning is useful. It means you've eliminated that source entirely from the text and need to remove the defined reference. Without LDR, a similar thing will happen if you remove a full citation that you've reused later as a named ref, so there's no difference there. When you cite the same source multiple times in an article, you use named references anyway; LDR just means you know exactly where the full citation is kept (in References where it belongs). I'd never object to you writing the short reference you give, but personally I'd always prefer to use <ref name="Smith2010" /> throughout the text – even less clutter than the minimum! Editors not familiar can still use any style they can manage; LDR doesn't exclude them. --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes it hard for people to do section editing, and hard for people who don't have multiple windows open, who might be editing with small screens, and so on. It's a bar to editing. It may not be a big one, but it is one. I've been editing for six years and even I find them a complex nuisance, so someone new is going to be even more confused. My argument is always to keep citation style as simple as possible consistent with no clutter, because it's not just us we're doing it for, it's for the next editor who arrives on the page. So it's like making sure we leave the public convenience clean when we leave it, and don't hide the toilet paper. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It actually makes it easier for many people to do section editing, because you always know where the full cite is for each named reference, and there's less clutter in the text. I agree that that having two windows open makes it a doddle, but even folks on smaller monitors can use tabs on the browser and switch. That's a small price to pay for having less clutter and better organised referencing. I've been working with computers for 40 years, and I never fail to be amazed at how resistant existing users are to changing "the way we're used to", while newcomers find it easy to pick up. I still think keeping "citation style as simple as possible consistent with no clutter" is the very definition of LDR. I chuckled at your analogy, but would reply by saying that LDR is making sure the toilet roll holder is in the same place in each cubicle, and not screwed to the wall above the cistern in half of them :D Regards --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I see LDR as always knowing there's toilet paper in the cupboard, but never having it in the cubicle where you need it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just hang a copy of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue on a nail in that stall; it's the appropriate material for the period your preferred cite-style dates from. I'll admit that even using modern citation mechanisms, the content of some of the cites may be shite, but if it's in a properly structured form, some bot may roll by, analyze the cite (a 'sniff' test;) and tag it as such. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTTOILETPAPER?  pablo 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it and read the comments above, the more I think that LDR might be better. In a certain sense, if people are using in-line ref names (which they should be any time the same reference is cited more than once), then you still have the same section-editing problem that SlimVirgin talks about above. In fact, it can even be worse, because it isn't always obvious--that is, if you remove a reference from one section, you still have to save the change (previews won't help since you can't see reflists in previews), then look and see if you broke the references anywhere else in the article. Even now, when I'm working primarily on references, I work on the document as a whole, just so I can see previews. The one thing I am worried about is situations where the last citation to a particular reference is removed, and we're left with a reference in the LDR that isn't cited anywhere in the text; it would be nice if that were automatically checked for in some way (although, that's in part just my opinion, in that I think anything that isn't directly cited shouldn't be in references but in some other section, like "Further Reading). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is better ;) If you edit-out the last invocation of a LDR, it's highlighted in big-bold-red. If your intent is to remove it, this will remind you. You have the option of commenting it out, if it is expected to be used, again. And see {{sfn}}; you don't even need to use names; use the author's name and pub year. It's sweet. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to chime in with a no to both, especially citation templates. My reasoning is very close to that of Slim. The practical benefits are minimal when it comes to templates and they always seem to require all kinds of fixes, like LDR. And it goes without saying that Gimmetoo's argument is very relevant. In reality, this is really a kind of style issue, except that those who support templates and LDR tend not to understand why technical complexity could ever confound anyone. Peter ^Isotalo 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Just as a matter of interest, why is anyone even considering adding citation templates to this? There are 85 footnotes, clearly written so far I can tell. If you replace those with 85 templates you're going to slow down load time a fair bit without having gained anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm pretty neutral on this. That said, I think consistency is important. No matter what practice we go with, all articles should reflect that decision. If the choice is made that cite templates are the way to go, all articles should be converted, for consistency sake. I realize this discussion is currently aimed at this one article, but this is a decision that will/should be made across-the-board.  Chickenmonkey  23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Well, we do not have consistency now - some articles have raw links, some have hand-written references (named and unnamed), some have inline-definitions, and some have LDR. Oh, and plenty have no sources at all ;-). Seriously, we cannot decide for all of Wikipedia here, or, probably, anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, yes, I understand that. I should have clarified; I was attempting to answer SlimVirgin's question, "why is anyone even considering adding citation templates to this?" The answer, I would think, is aimed toward consistency.  Chickenmonkey  23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  It's about bringing structure to references; naming the specific elements so that tools can properly work with them. Did you see Ralph's reply to you on my talk? It's about a specific proposal. You've already commented on that page. For the single-click take on it, see here and then poke about further. It sorts all the load-time concerns. It allows the specification of the cite style just once on the page for all the refs; or better, in your user prefs. It works both with LDR and inline, and It brings the same structure to refs as templates, too. This is the future and whatever nits there are need sorting and then this needs deploying. Migrating to this from templates will be straightforward, as tools will emerge to do most of the work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes to both for all the reasons given above, and to make the data available as machine-readable metadata. SlimVirgin's "The templates confer absolutely no benefit " assertion is factually incorrect. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. This is an RfC nominally for the citation style of a single article which has evolved in a citation style that the RfC initiator doesn't like. If the RfC is really about this article, then it is necessary for those arguing for a change to positively and convincingly demonstrate that this article needs changing. So far, I don't see that any of those arguing for templates, etc. have actually done that. The arguments must be in reference to this article, not citation templates. Consistency of the Wiki is an interesting argument, but it's an argument that has been rejected on Wiki time and time again, and from all available evidence it is still rejected, let alone that templating is just one of many ways that one could achieve consistency, if one wanted. It is especially ridiculous when this RfC concerns a single article and not the whole Wiki. If you want to make that argument, then you need to have an RfC not on this article, but on whether Wiki should or should not have a unified consistent style for citations and what that style should be and how it should be achieved. I think you know exactly what would happen if you asked that question in general, and not in the context of an individual article where certain editors have already WP:CANVASsed for their view. Remember, in cases where a style dispute cannot be resolved on individual articles, the well-established, and presumably "consensus", way to resolve it is to stick with the established style. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  I look at it a No article left behind approach. Except, of course, the ones that should be deleted, which is not a concern, here. Jack Merridew 01:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  Did it ever occur to you that templates might be only a temporary measure, and even in those articles which currently have them, they should ultimately be replaced by much more efficient and flexible wikitext? Why are you seeking to install a regressive system on this article? (The point is to illustrate that your alleged "improvements" are very much in the eye of the beholder, as it goes with any arbitrary style.) Gimmetoo (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  That's both pointy, and childish parroting. Jack Merridew 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, Gimme. At some point templates will quite probably start to be replaced by a more sophisticated implementation. And I have no doubt that there will be a "Gimme99" around at the time telling us that there's no point in doing that because the new implementation will one day be replaced by something even newer. There will always be something newer around the corner, but that's not really a good reason not to start upgrading now. You may choose to believe me or not, but whatever replaces template refs will be much easier to upgrade to if those references already have templates. That's because a template is a data structure; it imposes an order on the data that can be used to present the data in whatever style is desired. The extra "clutter" in a template is our means of identifying what each bit of information represents. Any "more efficient and flexible wikitext" is going to rely on markup to indicate the function of each part of the reference, and it's going to be much easier to upgrade to a better implementation from references that already have such markup (templates in the present case) than it is for manually coded references. Having said that, I can't ignore Slim's point that the current implementation of templates takes a disproportionate amount of server time to parse whenever the squid cache can't be used (e.g. editing). That is a hurdle that will have to be overcome if we are to progress to more sophisticated means of handling our data; we're not there yet. --RexxS (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to AOL that point: I have similar discussions with people over {{singlechart}}, the bastard step-child of the citation templates. Templated citations/chart references/infoboxes/etc. are machine readable. They are easily parsed and modified by bots. If changes need to be made to the citation format, they can be done by editing the citation template, and if changes need to be made to the citation call, they can be assisted, checked, verified, or done by bots. Manual citations cannot be handled that way.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Gimmetoo, your comments are illogical. All of the generic benefits of citation templates will apply here, if they are used in this article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  The pushier the attitude against dissenting voices, the more we'll get the impression that this is a fairly subjective issue. Right now the discussion seems to have stalled, so how about we give it a rest until someone comes with fresh perspectives? Peter ^Isotalo 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sure, Andy, "all the advantages" of cite templates would apply if used in a particular article. Likewise, so would all the disadvantages. (I assume you agree there are, indeed, disadvantages?) Since no template is universally superior to other templates or to regular wikitext, the reasons any particular form is used depends on issues particular to the article. This article has evolved for years without using cite templates, which prima facie shows that this article doesn't need them. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposed changes; both citation templates and list-defined references have well-discussed problems, neither are required or always desirable, nor should they be. List-defined references separate the ref from the text, and citation templates chunk up the text in editing mode; these problems have been well discussed on Wiki many times, and citation style should not be changed unless consensus is gained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, no The templates give semantics to the references, and I typically find them easier to maintain. If Jack wants to do the work of changing them here, more power to him. I disagree with list-defined references, except in cases like the one quoted above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support both - The sign of a good, professional publication is consistency of style. I am not so foolish to think that we can make every article on Wikipedia exactly the same stylistically by this time tomorrow, however we should be continually striving for stylistic consistency across the encyclopedia as a whole. Reference styles are one part of that consistency. We do have the reference templates and we ought to be using them whenever possible. If there are problems with them, those problems ought to be adressed rather than letting them just sit out there, used in some articles and not in others. Consistent aesthetic is a crucial element of good design in ANY medium, be it web page design or fruit bowl design. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This has very little to do with aesthetics since no one would be able to tell whether a note was template-generated or not without looking at the code. Peter ^Isotalo 20:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

    It has much to do with aesthetics. If this site were only written by a few people and the rest of the world could only read, then the underlying code would be mostly irrelevant so long as it displayed consistently. The problem is, however, this is a site that encourages as many people as possible to edit pages. So, the consistency, readability and functionality of the underlying code is important. When people wish to edit, they do not want to see 5 or 6 different variations of writing references with WP:OWNers fighting each other over which way it ought to be. In order to objectively create the best possible encyclopedia we can, we need consistency and standardization across the project. When I took my first steps toward editing here some time ago, as an IP, I knew nothing about formatting references and usually just dumped URLs into articles. This works and is easy, but is it particularly useful? The same goes for creating a reference anywhere here. We ought to determine the right way to do it and then strive to do it the right way. After I registered and then installed the referencing gadget (the name of which escapes me at the moment), I immediately saw the usefulness of the various reference template types. Giving a newbie or someone who is just not used to referencing a template to work from, whether by copying and pasting from other articles or by using a gadget, makes learning the referencing style much easier for them and helps them get it right the first time. There is an aesthetic to the underlying code and it goes hand-in-hand with consistency, standardization, education and creating the best encyclopedia we can. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    • This is really more a discussion about whether to use a given amount of code, not the type of code per se. Besides, this is not something that should be done one huge article discussion at a time. Why not try to suggest a unified standard at WP:CITE or WP:NOTES? Peter ^Isotalo 06:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The result of this discussion could very well be used as an example to gain consensus elsewhere. I would rather wait and see how this discussion ends before I attempt to propose wiki-wide referencing standardization. Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Except this discussion has nothing to do with standardization of reference formats. Even users who like and support use of templates can't agree on any one standard. That's why we have so many different reference templates.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are 4 built into the cite tool, for different kinds of sources (web, news, book, journal), that are consistent and cover most cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Four? Have you looked at Category:Citation templates lately? There are a lot more than four. What you're referring to is actually a specific reference standard. Does this mean that this RfC is actually all about enforcing a universal standard, or has no one thought about the existence of all those other templates?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are four BUILT IN to the referencing tool, meaning the gadget. They follow a specific pattern. I do not know about the others because I have only ever used the ones that appear in the gadget. You seem to be playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or something similar and I can't understand why you are so determined to negate my input here. I voted support for both, I know what the issue is about and I know what I voted for! Consensus is built one piece at a time, not by instant all-encompassing proposals which are pretty much guaranteed to fail without any previous consensus to refer to and build a case on. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're used to the gadget templates and you haven't had much contact with the other templates. It's easy to miss some of the details in a rather unwieldy debate. But now that you know they exist, don't you think it puts the whole issue in a new light?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of a guideline like CITE is to document consensus on the 'pedia, not to dictate it. That very guideline suggests that consensus should be sought to determine the style/format of references to be used in any particular article, and that is exactly what is being done here. The first question is "Should templates be used?" If any firm consensus emerges, then there is a case for considering the implications for CITE or NOTES; but until we've debated the issues in a 'test case', we're not in an informed position to ask for them to be reflected in a guideline. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support both. The chances of me ever doing it this way on my own are slim (since i'm useless on the technical side). But it is an improvement, and consistent standards and best practice across the website are very good things. If an editor were to come along and improve this sort of stuff in an article i'd worked on, i'd be delighted. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• You'd be far from delighted, Bali, if someone added 100 citation templates to an article you'd written so that you had difficulty getting it to load, or look at diffs and preview. The point of the prohibition in WP:CITE against adding templates without consensus is precisely to make sure that kind of situation doesn't arise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but doesn't WP:CITE explicitly state that, if there is consensus on the article's talk page, the citation style can be changed? And isn't that exactly what Jack Merridew is trying to do here?Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

He was trying to do it over objections, which CITE is clear shouldn't happen. But CITE is also clear (or was when I last looked) that templates shouldn't be added to existing styles, because there's no need to add them if the references are already in place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is referring to my seeking consensus to shift to templates and LDR here, on the talk page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose both changes; no compelling case is made why the existing, equally preferred style without citation templates is less appropriate here. Given the wiki-level consensus that both styles are equally acceptable generally speaking, the burden is on the person proposing a change to demonstrate that the particular article in question is an exception to normal conditions. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wider issues

From the comments above, it is clear that this is about wider issues than the method used in this single article, which are not going to b e resolved here; and that consensus here is not going to be reached in the near future. Rather than expending more effort here, what is needed is a centralised discussion, with a view to determining a project-wide consensus.

In my view that that should encompass the creation of a single citation template (or family for web/ print/ news etc.) with machine-parsable metadata (COinS) emitted, and the output format determined by a switch or, preferably, a user preference. Any such new template should obviously also resolve concerns about processing times et al. The existing templates should all then be deprecated and replaced.

While I believe that the answer to the original question, above, is yes/ yes (as I have already !voted), I'd be content to leave otherwise, in the short term, while the wider issue is resolved. Can we all agree to that as an interim measure, close this discussion, and focus on these wider issues, in a more suitable location? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from this discussion, and from every previous discussion like it, that there's opposition to imposing citation templates on the project, or any other single citation style or method. WP:CITE is deliberately written to offer choice, and to make clear that editors must not change from one style to another without consensus, because every discussion that Wikipedians have about this shows they don't want to have particular styles and methods forced on them. Someone did start a centralized discussion about it not long ago, but it just petered out. I'll try to remember where it was, in case you want to restart it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the discussion I linked to in my last reply to you, above? Jack Merridew 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. but not here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Andy, see the post above and the links and demo. You'll like it; it's what you describe. Slim, you'll like it, it's *fast*. I see the need for long term resolution to these issues. That could take a long time. Meanwhile, we edit articles daily, and this one's being held back; Uma, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh FFS, SV! You've been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works. It's clear that there is no consensus. Ergo, consensus needs to be determined. This is not the place to do it; but once we have done so, perhaps we can stop having these localised, unproductive and repetitive arguments? I've even suggested leaving your preferred version as the status quo while we do so; and made clear that I'm not proposing "imposing ... a single citation style". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Jack Merridew#Citation templates; the bit from RexxS. It's about a specific proposal. You've already commented on that page. For the single-click take on it, see here and then poke about further. It sorts all the load-time concerns. It allows the specification of the cite style just once on the page for all the refs; or better, in your user prefs. It works both with LDR and inline, and It brings the same structure to refs as templates, too. This is the future and whatever nits there are need sorting and then this needs deploying. Migrating to this from templates will be straightforward, as tools will emerge to do most of the work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of; I support that proposal and have reopened discussion and commented there. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The main page was at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion, but it would need some reviving. A better place might be WT:CITE because that's where people hang out who are interested in citations. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. As the suggestion to replace citation templates with enhanced tags has no implementation on Wikipedia at present, I think further centralised discussion would be more appropriate. There's no point in going to CITE with a proposal that doesn't exist yet :) – but I have left a note at WT:CITE to encourage the regulars there to comment. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Rexx. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)