Talk:Scarlett Johansson

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scarlett Johansson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

Scarlett Johansson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 19, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
August 9, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 23, 2017	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 28, 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish Women Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 83 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019 and 2021.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Disney lawsuit + OpenAI controversy

These two events are interconnected with much press coverage, here's just the latest source.

We should not cover the lawsuit in one section (buried in her Career) and the OpenAI controversy in a completely different section (her public image). This denies the reader the connections and similarities that were drawn.

Which section we focus on isn't super-important to me, just that it's one and the same. Ideally we mention the cases during the chronological walk through her career, and point to this other section for more detail and context.

CapnZapp (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeping tendencies

There is a definite trend to just shoot down contributions with a single click on the undo button and a terse edit comment that does nothing to help explain what is wrong and how to improve the contribution.

Frequent contributors to this page would do well to distinguish between their reflexive reverts of actual vandalism and how they treat contributors that have an actual improvement to bring, because as is, the work climate on this article is impossible.

Wikipedia is not intended to be like this where gatekeepers spend 5 seconds to shoot down contributions that took multiple minutes to research, with zero thought given on how this contributor should actually proceed. I don't mind being reverted - if I'm being given insight into how to proceed. Case in point: sorry, this sentence is incredibly poorly written, and I don't feel like trying to re-write the edit at the moment that lead to [1]. Thank you, Vincent.

I've been hit with edit comments like this that's not much of a commentary, and this is an FA or this Removing as it is unnecessary and I see frequent examples directed against others as well. There is no spirit of cooperation whatsoever present in any of them. No expectation of an actual collaboration. No effort made to explain how the contribution could be made acceptable. I love the "this is an FA" bit because it is peak unconstructiveness - it says absolutely nothing except "I don't like it, but I realize that's a weak argument so I will instead state something obvious and indisputable."

Y'all prefer to send a very clear message and that message is: "stay the fuck away, this is our article."

CapnZapp (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’d enjoy trying to improve the Red Dead Redemption 2 article if you think this one is bad. Seasider53 (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a larger issue than Scarlet Johansson, but yeah. As Wikipedia has aged, I'd guess a number of the editors have too, along with editors' "get off the lawn" tendencies :-) and I'm sure I've been guilty of this. Pointing to FA status is no reason to discount a contribution as being useful - WP isn't set in stone, I hope. I expect there's room for improvement even in older, FA articles. CAVincent (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp, if you're going to comment about my edit, mention my name, will you? That's common courtesy, and that whole "stay the fuck away"--what is that supposed to be? It's hardly courteous. Also, this is not my article: I reverted your edit, and I reverted one other editor years ago. This is my first edit to the talk page. I was not involved in the FA. And yes, "this is an FA" is actually a really good argument, and that would have been a good reason to reject this--not just for the "journalistic" prose ("it was revealed that" should be left for K-pop articles), but also for the bare URLs you put in there: FAs shouldn't have that. John, one of the FA reviewers, is no longer here, but Wehwalt is; they may have an opinion, as an editor with more FAs to their name than anyone I know. I think that the offhand comment she made, without much context or precision, is not worth including here; you could have started that discussion, rather than proclaiming me as a gatekeeper telling people to fuck off. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the diff Drmies posted, I'm inclined to think that the fact of the settlement is enough detail, that we don't need her commentary. This article is getting rather long, and isn't going to get any shorter with a good portion of her career still before her, presumably. Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, it's a pretty amazing career, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]