Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Scarlett Johansson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Wording

Thank goodness the above is moot, apparently.

I'm in agreement with Rusted and the rest ready to add this information if indeed she does confirm it in the video. But no announcement was made, as celebrities sometimes do through their publicists, and the passive-voice construction ("It was announced that...") evades attribution.

If she confirms it in the video, the most accurate and least vague way to include it is to say, "In an April 2014 interview, Johansson said, "[what she said about her pregnancy]." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's still marginal: "Congratulations!" "Thank you!" "Is everybody giving you pregnancy advice?" "(pause) Nope! (smiles, then off-camera) Not yet." [Note: "Nope" may be simply "No"; would need repeated playing to ascertain]

Would it be accurate to say, " "In an April 2014 interview, Johansson accepted congratulations on her pregnancy, which had been the subject of rumors for [weeks, a month, whatever it's been]"? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think that sounds right. If we're going to put it in, it should be a firm statement: Either "In 2014, Johansson confirmed she was pregnant with her first child", "In 2014, it was revealed Johansson was pregnant with her first child" or "In 2014, Johansson denied highly reported rumours she was pregnant with her first child" )(in which case he probably wouldn't add anyway). And I agree the exchange of words is very convoluted. Johansson could've assumed she was saying "congrats on the film" and suddenly pregnancy came up (she looked rather surprised, and it was a topic that was forbade to be discussed at that junket). Lets wait for what the others think. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's true that she didn't announce her pregnancy so much as the interviewer implied it with the Congratulations. It would be better to be cautious with the wording and I support the proposed wording, above. Vanity Fair says she has a baby on the way on the cover of their May 2014 issue, which I think was released yesterday - does anyone know if she confirms her pregnancy in the feature article? If she talks about it in that interview, we can be a bit more direct. Ca2james (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article is only available online to those who subscribe. The article will be available online in May, I think. Rusted AutoParts 00:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oy. I'm getting to hate Scarlet Johansson.

And Rusted AutoParts is right; I'd had the same misgivings when I said the exchange was marginal. "Congratulations" is not an uncommon thing to tell an actor when a movie comes out.

"it was revealed," "it was announced" ... both those phrases beg for a ^{[by whom?]} tag.

My house subscribes to Vanity Fair, so the print issue should be in any day now. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty coy bit in the interview, and leaves wiggle room. If I had to write it up, I'd say something like "Johansson tacitly acknowledged her rumored pregnancy in an interview with Parade, but did not directly confirm it." That's got too much SYNTH in it for Wikipedia prose, though, I suspect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree there too. I personally would just wait until she just says the words "Im pregnant" and add it so that there will be no doubt whatsoever. Every possible way of writing it is a bit weasely. Rusted AutoParts 00:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Per pseudocyesis just because she says she's pregnant doesn't mean she is. NE Ent 01:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much bolstering a few of the arguments made a month ago. It's still up in the air. Rusted AutoParts 01:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And since NE Ent was kind enough to correct me above, let me note that his snarky comment about the extremely rare phenomenon of pseudocyesis is a deliberately disruptive injection of irrelevance that wastes our time, i.e. a vio of [{WP:POINT]]. Same with his comment about "I like the picture where she looks pregnant," which I dismissed as a joke. But these attempts at "zinging" people he disagrees with, and who perhaps have higher standards than some as to encyclopedic content, are essentially attacks and certainly unnecessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Glamour, pregnancy and ScarJo

So, because she doesn't care that folks are discussing her pregnancy and doesn't comment on it, we don't included that, but because she disklikes "ScarJo" -- we put that in. This makes sense how??? NE Ent 11:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There was already a segment on her not liking ScarJo, and she commented on it on the magazine. How is this the same as addressing her pregnancy? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ne Ent is being a little histrionic, I'll grant you, but his/her general point has some traction. At this point we have quite simply hurtled past WP:V for the pregnancy (and did so miles back, to be honest). The argument which the block of editors opposing the addition are mostly hanging their hat on now -- that confirmation needs to come "straight from the horse's mouth" -- has no basis in any Wikipedia policy; we need only provide substantial sourcing from reliable sources, a burden which can now be met many times over. Point in fact, a direct confirmation by the actress herself is considered inferior to that of a secondary source by policy, owing to the former being primary sourcing; her own confirmation would technically be permissible in that this is a scenario that would involve no synthesis, but it's very much not the gold standard we want for citation. Therefore the parties insisting upon waiting for a Scarlett Johansson-backed statement are insisting we wait for sourcing that (under all common Wikipedia standards) is inferior to the quite suitable sourcing we already possess. A source which furthermore may never materialize; aside from knowing some of her work, I had no substantial knowledge of the actress until following the administrative discussion to this article, but in following this matter I've found some suggestion that she is not exactly the type to embrace every aspect of fandom; it's entirely possible she has no intention of making a formal statement because she does not consider it the media's business. But the pregnancy is no rumour; the closeness to the actress of some of the individuals who have now been cited solidly establish that fact; the only way it could in fact turn out to not be false is if this were a massive publicity stunt, and that would be an awfully big assumption for us to make here. It's true and it's verifiable by a mountain of trusted secondary sources. As I alluded to above, I came here initially via an ANI and though I disagreed, on the basis of policy, with those editors who wanted to temporarily keep the detail out of the article even then, I respected that they were just attempting to apply due diligence; at this point, I think many of those same editors should stop to evaluate how the verification landscape on this issue has changed since the discussion began. Because I don't feel BLP is being at all served here anymore but rather battleground entrenchment and superfluous bureaucracy. And mind you, I'm generally very averse to using the word bureaucracy (in its usual contrarion sense) to refer to Wikipedia -- as I find our mechanisms here, including their redundancies, to be quite elegant and practical and take pride in them -- but in this case, it seems to apply. The burden of policy has been met; time to let this one go and for us all to get back to more productive editing. Note: This comment not so much directed at you Lady Lotus; it's just placed here for convenience. Point in fact, I'm beginning to think your suggestion of some form of mediation might not end up being necessary in the long run. Both sides seem to be dug-in, roughly equal in number and not really willing to consider compromise solutions as appropriate to the circumstances. Snow (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This post grossly mischaracterizes the issue. No one is saying "It has to come straight from the horse's mouth." The only thing being said in this regard is that claims made by anonymous, unattributed, unnamed, shadowy alleged "sources" are rumors, not facts. "[T]he pregnancy is no rumour"? Unconfirmed anonymous claims are rumors by definition.

I'm glad you have a direct line to The Truth to be able to make the pronouncements you do: "It's true and it's verifiable by a mountain of trusted secondary sources." Really? Claims made by anonymous, unattributed, unnamed people is not the definition of "verification". And the fact that many of these same sources "confirmed" she was pregnant a couple of years ago when she wasn't appears not to dent your hubris. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you turn down your hyperbole about capitol-T truth and general animosity on this one a few notches, please? Nothing I said was the least bit inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. First, the claims were not anonymous or unattributed; the director of the multi-hundred million-dollar film she is currently working on spoke directly to the issue of how the pregnancy would affect shooting. Even prior to the most recent interview, the actress herself had danced around the issue in good humour. That particular case may not be enough to pass muster for WP:V and thus inclusion in the article, as I noted at the time, but for informal impressions, it was more than enough for me to feel comfortable in knowing the pregnancy to not be a rumour, especially taken with the rest of the evidence. So before you run-off deconstructing my commments, you might want to keep an eye as to the context and just what value (true vs. verifiable), I was speaking to. Second, your suggestion that we can casually exclude news media when they do not list their sources is not consistent with policy in a shape or form; many news stories exclude their ultimate sources and Wikipedia absorbs countless such for its articles on a daily basis; the level of scrutiny you want to apply to the internal processes of otherwise trusted sources is not called for in WP:V, WP:BLP or any other relevant policy or guideline. We're allowed to use our own common-sense discretion in cases where there is some obviously flawed process of course, but what you are describing is an arbitrary distinction of "In this case, I just don't choose to trust this or that guy" is not a workable standard for the Wikipedia process, as it would lead to incessant application of, and in-fighting about, just who is and is not trustworthy. Many of the sources provided in this case were trusted news commodities that meet every aspect of WP:RS; your personal doubts -- in a case in which you have no way of knowing how much internal vetting of the facts the given media outlets put into the story -- do not trump the general evaluations of this community on whether the magazine or other media are trustworthy. You are applying a personalized standard, not the Wikipedia standard. You mention above that you are a journalist, and, that in mind, I'd like to suggest to you that perhaps you are conflating your own journalistic standards and your disappointment with the general standards of contemporary media (which you also express above) with our own, very different, verification processes; if so, probably you are very diligent journalist with respect-worthy ideals, but in the context of Wikipedia editing these qualities are causing you to try to apply a level of review of methods and perspectives of sources which policy does not in any way empower you with or require your fellow editors to adhere to. Lastly, why did you choose to even respond to this comment in light of the fact that the issue is now resolved? Are you that married to this argument that you're looking to continue it even after it is moot and even if it means engaging an editor who was looking for a middle-ground solution to begin with? I think your comments here in general have started to veer towards a caustic, borderline uncivil tone. The issue is resolved now, let it go. Snow (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this person has against paragraph breaks, and I would urge him or her to read the essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, but someone who can't write without rambling and who creates a solid wall of text indicates a non-normative, generally troubling method of attempting to communicate doesn't strike me as someone credible.

This is compounded by such hubristic decrees and pronouncements as "The issue is resolved." Um ... look around. With so many people debating two sides of it, by definition it isn't resolved. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can find the definition of verification here. Unlike your preferred definition, the site-wide community backed policy doesn't make mention of researching the primary sources used by the secondary source we're using. In fact, such research could be considered original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia also doesn't have a rule saying we should spelle guud. No college professor would let you use re-reported sources because of the risk of serial-transmission errors. Look up the concept. If no college class would accept such a basic violation of research technique, why should an encyclopedia? Does Wikipedia have to spell out every basic rule of intelligence down to tying our shoes? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPELLCHECK. Not interested in what a college professor wants here. If you want to change our site-wide policies, WT:V is that way (if you take me up on that, you might also want to post a notice at the WP:VPP; I'd also ask you to keep in mind the banner at the top of the talk page there, which I will transclude here):

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Meanwhile, we operate by the existing policies and guidelines. We keep things very simple with our verification mechanism: we don't engage in original research, or even attempts to reconstruct primary research, we merely report what our reliable sources are telling us. You might also find WP:BEANS interesting, if you've never seen it. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You make my point for me: WP:SPELLCHECK doesn't say, "You must spell words correctly." It doesn't have to. Any responsible editor would spell words correctly. Just as any responsible editor knows that when one outlet repeats something another outlet said, it introduces the risk of serial-transmission errors. It's not a matter of what "college professors" want. It's a matter of acting responsibly. So, yes, why don't I go to WT:V and argue, "We need a policy saying editors should act responsibly. Because if we don't, editors will say, 'WELL, there's no Wikipedia policy that says we should.'" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPELLCHECK bends over backwards to tell people how to spell-check: you don't take that as effectively saying that editors should spellcheck their work? I take it as being a much lengthier, and probably more helpful to beginners, stance than a one-paragraph statement saying to spell correctly without offering up tools to help towards that goal. There is nothing irresponsible about citing our sources and including a statement indicating she's pregnant: this is what our sources tell us. Your overblown fears about "serial transmission errors" are just a form of FUD-mongering at this point to try and get other editors to ignore the fact that we have dozens of reliable sources saying she's pregnant. Dozens. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There were policy arguments on both sides which is what made this such a protracted discussion. It's also difficult to know whether or not either side would have been willing to compromise when no one suggested one. For example, given the breadth of reliable sources reporting that she was pregnant, the article could have said that she was reported to be pregnant. That's moot now that she's confirmed her pregnancy, of course. Ca2james (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Histronic? I didn't even use bold or ALL CAPS! I was thinking more wry ... Snow Rise's comments on sourcing are exactly on point. Obviously it's not important whether ~~Scar Jo~~ Johannson is pregnant in the big scheme of things, and, because there are actually other websites besides Wikipedia, I'm sure anyone who cares knows -- but if we're going to start requiring individuals on statements, we're no longer an encyclopedia, we're a press agency. If a person is convicted in court but claims their innocent, do we not include the charge? If the NY Times reports salt increases the chance of hypertension, but we don't like the research basis, do we say "it's just a rumor" and not include it? NE Ent 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read my above comment, so I'll repeat it: "No one is saying "It has to come straight from the horse's mouth." [i.e. an individual's statement] The only thing being said in this regard is that claims made by anonymous, unattributed, unnamed, shadowy alleged 'sources' are rumors, not facts. ... Unconfirmed anonymous claims are rumors by definition."

And I believe you know that a court conviction does confirm something, but only that a person has been convicted of a crime — it doesn't confirm guilt or innocence. Did you really not see that an innocent mad was freed from prison after 25 years last week? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting pregnancy a bit in the way of celebrities. This is a physical and social/personal change for them in which impacts their personal lives, careers, etc. When one reports on something like this, it's something that should be profoundly backed up, or its just a random person saying its truth, when it might not be. That's why National Enquirer will never be reliable. They publish and believe anything. Though it may not be in a guideline or a policy or a rule, it should be up to us to be more thorough in our additions to a site that chronicles life, history and the ever changing world. Rusted AutoParts 01:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, Rusted, but there is one caveat to that point worth considering. You're absolutely correct that sometimes common sense and contextual interpretation have to be applied before all else. The thing is, the very reason we have policies and guidelines is so that when editors disagree on what is the common sense solution is in a given case (as editors did here), we have a distilled and codified interpretation of broad consensus across the project (and developed over a long period of time) on exactly which approach to apply. So, as you say, we can't all just apply a policy in a cut and dry way that doesn't take the context into account, even when we all agree it makes no sense. But when we disagree about whether it makes sense, the argument which is most consistent with policy, which is itself a reflection of a larger consensus, is the one that is applied. Wikipedia can't function any other way; without this standard near every article would be deadlocked in incessant arguments about what constitutes common sense for this or that source, claim, element of weight -- ect., ect. Snow (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

National Enquirer will never be reliable because so many of their "stories" are provably false (or have ended up proven false). That's how we process and deal with sources here. On the other hand, so many of the sources saying Johansson is pregnant are very reliable that it defies logic to say it's a "rumor". It's not, and it hasn't been for over a month now. WP:BLP covers the requirements for biographies of living people. It was created because we found purposefully inaccurate statements in articles about living people that were also unsourced. BLP basically says "if there's a contentious statement in an article about a living person, and it's not sourced, you can remove it with impunity; no need to dance around adding {{fact}} and waiting for a non-existent source to show up". BLP does not say we have some magical higher burden, it just says we apply our existing policies more quickly and with greater urgency. But if those burdens are met (WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc), we don't stonewall waiting for some magically better source... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliable? Very reliable? How can something be "reliable" when it comes from unnamed, unattributed, anonymous sources? How can anything be "reliable" if you don't even know who's saying it? At that point all it is, is an unconfirmed claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS will help you understand what makes a reliable source. WP:V will hopefully clear up any misunderstandings you may have regarding verification of statements/content. WP:BLP broadly describes what is needed to support statements about living people in article biographies. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been here nearly nine years and have created more than 100 biographical articles. I'm perfectly aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding verification and biographies of living persons. We don't claim rumors as fact. Period. I don't think any admin would say we would.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been here just about as long as you have (probably longer, I edited anonymously prior to creating an account). Big deal, that doesn't make you right. And if you know the policies and guidelines here, why do you keep insisting on using your own standards? Adhere to the standards used here, stop bringing in your "journalistic sensibility", it's neither needed nor desired. Can you direct me to the more recent sources which claim her pregnancy is still a rumor and which don't speak about it as if it's actually happening? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I'm a little disappointed that you didn't continue our discussion above. But anyway, stop playing the "I've been editing wikipedia for nine years" card. It's irrelevant, and what's more, no one is accusing you of being inexperienced. Also, constantly sourcing your experience of what colleges do and what you do at your work, should have no bearing on the argument. The standards of work you've experienced in your personal life may be very different to those experienced by others. For example, in Australia, we don't have "colleges", so how do I know the standard that your college professors expect? This is why the policies and guidelines are in place. It's the common ground between everyone that explains how things should be done. However, you haven't found anything there to support your argument.

What you are doing, is defining the claims as unconfirmed and anonymous, and equating them to rumours because of this. So, let's look at that.

Unconfirmed: You keep saying that you're not arguing that it has to come straight from the horse's mouth, but you want it confirmed? Confirmed by who? We already have confirmation from a number of reliable sources. What you're asking for seems a little contradictory.
Anonymous: Well, I definitely wouldn't consider this a defining characteristic of a rumour. It's also my understanding that journalists do not always list their sources for ethical reasons. But it's not our concern where the reliable sources get their information. They are reliable, so we go with their judgement. To do otherwise, would be original research.

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin, what you're saying is so mind-boggling. Reporting a rumor is not confirming a fact. I don't believe anyone else here, even those ready to put the alleged pregnancy into the article, believes that reporting a rumor is the same as confirming a fact. And claims made by anonymous, unattributed, uncharacterized (i.e., "senior White House official") celebrity-gossip "sources" are indeed rumors. The fact that some of the same magazines cited anonymous "sources" for a previous "pregnancy" and were wrong should have some impact.

And, really, let's not play dumb about what "college" means. Seriously? That is is deliberately disingenuous. Any reasonably intelligent adult ought to be able to look up what "college" means in America, and what "serial transmission" means in the context of information / communication. Anyone unfamiliar with the latter concept should not be editing an encyclopedia. Any encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're having trouble responding to my argument, I'll organise my statements a little further:

First off, please answer my questions.
Secondly, I'm not saying that reporting a rumour is confirming a fact, so please refrain from using straw man arguments.
Third, it's not a rumour (by definition, and by the fact that no one recognises it as a rumour). It's not a currently circulating story. It was circulating a month ago. And it's not of uncertain or doubtful truth, because we have a number of reliable sources stating it as fact, confirmation from her boss, and now a somewhat-confirmation from her? (I haven't seen the video)

Anyway, if you're going to call it a rumour, please back up your claim. Although, that would be dificult, considering no one has come out to deny the reports, and no reliable sources are calling this a rumour.

Fourth, you keep providing a number of words to describe what you think a rumour is. I'm telling you that anonymity is not part of the definition of a rumour. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Please stop making up your own definitions, and imposing them on others.
Fifth, if "serial transmission" in the context of information/communication is such a standard concern, prove it. Where in wikipedia's policies and guidelines does it express any concern for this matter? Where in the rest of the internet does it express any concern? All I've found is a bunch of articles explaining serial transmission in the electrical context.

And all I've got to go on, is your word (from your own personal experience), saying "Anyone unfamiliar with the... concept should not be editing an encyclopedia". And I'm finding it increasingly hard to take your word seriously, when you have nothing to back it up, and a quick google search implies that serial transmission has nothing to do with this topic.

Lastly, I'm not being disingenuous. I think you just missed my point. I know what a college is. But I'm not familiar with them enough to know all of the standards that they have for particular things, especially as they may vary from college to college, and vary between your colleges and my universities.

My point is, please stop using your personal experiences (such as your college and your work) to justify your argument. Use the wikipedia policies and guidelines.

--ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ask something that may seem personal, but from the things you're saying and the time it requires to respond to them, I'd like to know if I'm speaking to a minor, in which case perhaps it's not in anyone's interest to continue communicating. I'm getting the impression you're a late teenager. If so, I don't think it's appropriate for any adults here to continue a conversation with you.

But first: Since you accuse me of "making up definitions," I'll give you two of rumor in Merriam-Webster: "talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source" — there's no discernible source here; they're all unnammed, anonymous and unattributed, or do I need to look up "discernible" for you, since you don't seem to think "anonymity" has any bearing on discerning who is saying something? — and "a statement or report current without known authority for its truth." Since your definition of "current" in your post above is wrong, I looked that up for you, too: "happening or existing now : belonging to or existing in the present time." The rumor, like this conversation, continues to exist in this present time. Do I need to look up "present time"?

I'm not going to teach you a communication or journalism course or go plodding through old textbooks in the attic, so I think the simplest way to explain serial-transmission errors is to point you to Chinese whispers. Or go here [7]; the terminology is different than the American, since it's from a New Zealand college, but it describes serial-transmission error. It's not my fault your "quick Google search" didn't find anything. Mine took three minutes. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In collaborative editing among adults, at some point the mature thing to do is recognize that the other parties are not going to change their mind, and one has to either accept being on the short end of the votes ("consensus"), solicit more input from others (RFC), or wait for more developments (e.g. childbirth). Good Wikipedians can and will just disagree about things sometimes. If one can't find new examples or analogies or lines of reasoning and becomes tempted to start discussing the other contributors, it's probably time to take a break from the discussion. NE Ent 11:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

He wanted convincing that serial-transmission error exists. I gave it to him. He wanted me to define "rumor", claiming I "made up definitions." I gave him a dictionary definition. If he's a kid wasting our time, we have a right to know that. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

privacy makes it clear you absolutely have no right whatsoover to know that. NE Ent 15:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. Frustration made me forget. I apologize to Kilroy.

It's understandably frustrating for adults have to "debate" people who don't have basic WP:COMPETENCE.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, I was going to ignore it, but I will respond by saying I am an adult. But if I wasn't, I still think continued conversation would be appropriate, since minors have the ability to be competent, and at the very least, Competence is required "does not mean we should ignore people and not try to help improve their competence." However, I am curious as to what led you to come to that conclusion. You don't have to say why, if you think it inappropriate, but I won't be offended.

I'd still like a response to the rest of my points. In particular, the first one, relating to earlier questions I posed to do with it being "unconfirmed".

Anyway, I applaud the sources you've provided in your argument. But I still question the importance of anonymity in the definition of a rumour though. It's entirely possible (and quite usual) to have a rumour with a known source, but doubtful truth.

I stand by my statment about it not being current. There aren't articles being published about her pregnancy currently. There's just passing mentions (stating as fact) in articles about other topics. As for whether or not you need to look up "present time", I'm not going to stop you.

I'll admit, I didn't read the whole paper from New Zealand, but from the gist of it, their examination was inconclusive, and was moreso to do with informal networks anyway. I understand that Chinese whispers is a thing, but you're yet to show the relevance it has to journalism and "re-reporting", and also to the standards of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, you're accusing a reliable source of not fact-checking or similar, when you accuse their report as unreliable due to being a "re-report". Since you have know way of knowing, and since many of these sources are considered very reliable, that's a very bold accusation.

Out of curiosity, can you find anything for me that calls it a "serial-transmission error"? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I'm tired of going around in circles with someone talking about a professional field that, from their own statements, they clearly know very little about. I'm done supplying you with cites: Do your own homework. I'll only add that in general, and not directing this at anyone personally but at all editors reading this, that any educated adult who has ever done a paper / report / thesis for any respectable college / university / institute of higher learning knows you don't cite secondhand re-reporting when the original report is available. Aside from any other reason, including serial-transmission errors, why would anybody? Senseless. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

True. Wikipedia is none of respectable college / university / institute of higher learning. Educated adults admitted to / employed by those place are known, vetted quantities. Folks doing the paper / report / thesis are recompensed directly or indirectly, and part of that task is critical evaluation of primary sources.Wikipedia a website written by semi-anonymous amateurs of unknown education, our policy, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, specifically states: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. ... When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. (emphasis mine). The arguments that Johannson pregnancy reports are "rumors" is interpretation of the content published by the sources that are generally considered reliable. NE Ent 17:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sakes. "Secondary sources" does not mean "re-reporting." A newspaper relating the contents of a court document is secondary sourcing of a primary source. Time saying, "People says such and such" is re-reporting, not secondary sourcing.

And once again, we can't do an end-run and say, "It's OK to report rumors because they were in a reliable source." If that were the case, biographical articles would be filled with rumors. The last thing WP:BLP wants is rumors. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And since when are students "compensated" for writing papers? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree we we can't report rumours and that we have to be especially careful due to BLP, there comes a point when a rumour becomes widely known enough that it could be added to the article even without confirmation by the person affected. I think we're at that point with respect to her pregnancy. Even though she hasn't explicitly confirmed that she is pregnant and we have no idea who has reported it to the media, her pregnancy is being widely reported as fact. If her pregnancy is notable enough to be included in the article, we could add something like "As of April 2014, Johansson is reported to be pregnant with her first child." There are certainly a ton of references that support that statement and it's factually true. If she confirms her pregnancy, that could then be noted. Ca2james (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you think I feel? I've written out some well reasoned points, and you're not even acknowledging them. That also might have something to do with why we're going around in circles. And I already did some homework. Nothing relevant comes up in the first 10 pages of a google search for "serial transmission errors". And the source you offer up, doesn't conclusively say anything, and doesn't call it a "serial transmission error". Why should anyone believe you that this is such a standard issue, that allows you to keep to throwing WP:COMPETENCE towards me? I think you'd benefit from giving that essay another read as well, because it clearly states that we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article." This is essentially what you are doing.

Please stop implying that I am incompetent and senseless. If I am indeed incompetent, educate me: Respond to my points, and provide well-reasoned, well-sourced arguments. And if I'm not incompetent, which I suspect is more likely, engage in discussion with me: Respond to my points, and provide well-reasoned, well-sourced arguments. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to educate you. It is your responsibility to develop research skills. And yet, I've tried. I had no trouble finding an academic paper about serial transmission errors, and if the fact that it's also a computer term that overwhelms searches for it as an academic term, the phenomenon is so widely acknowledged and evident it's even the basis of a common game. Why not, instead of throwing up a wall when an obviously articulate and educated person is suggesting something, stop and consider just from a purely logical perspective that when a story gets passed around from one person to another that details can change. Does one really need to read an academic paper, as I supplied, to realize this?

To respond to Ca2james: There is no reason for an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the most trustworthy and credible source of information, to report a rumor. First, we're not news. Second, there is no deadline. Using the weasel word "reportedly" to evade our responsibility to be factual — why would an encyclopedia do that? What on earth is the upside of that? She was reported to be pregnant before and it wasn't true.

And as more editors than simply myself have pointed out, there is no consensus to add something that is contentious under WP:BLP, which we all know has a strict and high standard. Is there an RfC for this, or was that just for adding a tag? If there's not an RfC for this — I've lost track — why not start one? That's the proper procedure. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

#RfC:_Johansson.27s_pregnancy. NE Ent 23:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You think I'm throwing up a wall? Take a look at what you just wrote. You're disagreeing with me, but providing nothing to support your stance. I'm trying to have a discussion to get this sorted out, but it appears that you do not wish to discuss. Not only are you refusing to respond maturely, you're also refusing to acknowledge some of my arguments. And by doing so, we've been dragged into an argument about the argument. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Something I really wish you'd bring to your respective talk pages. Rusted AutoParts 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

OK, the issue came in today. While the cover says in small type "a baby on the way," the accompanying article and interview was conducted, the writer says, six weeks before "the tabloids and gossip sites flash pictures of her sleek silhouette bulging with what could only be a baby bump." That language is equivocal as it gets: "what could only be" is a hedge-your-bets phrase and not a definitive statement ... and it's attributed to "tabloids and gossip sites" — which is what all the respectable magazines copy-catted, without doing any reporting themselves. (And the last time she was reported pregnant, she had a "baby bump" that turned out to be "the way a sweatshirt's shadows fell" or whatever it was the tabloids said then.)

It's unclear what pictures the writer is talking about, since, as discussed here, she appears to look no different in the one or two 'baby bump" pictures than she normally does. In any case, the article's bet-hedging language is far from confirmation. We'll all know soon enough. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So nowhere in the magazine is the pregnancy brought up in the actual interview? Not only does that once again bring this issue no further to getting resolved, but they wasted cover space regurgitating the same old thing: says it in a confirming way with no context or reliable backup. Johansson is pretty much my most hated person at the moment. Rusted AutoParts 02:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Presumably they put things on the cover to sell magazines and make money. What will resolve this, of course, is not the continued rehashing of arguments that aren't going to change anyone's mind, but the close of the RFC. (Or new developments in sourcing, of course). NE Ent 03:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Johansson's pregnancy

No consensus. – Smyth\^talk 07:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Johansson's pregnancy be added before an official statement is made LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No Not even sure why we are having this ridiculous debate. For those that want to include, I would like to know your standard for inclusion of rumors about a person's personal life. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rumor. The Kevin Feige Collider interview has him responding to the question of how her pregnancy has impacted the just started production of Avengers: Age of Ultron. How can anyone believe it's a "rumor" when her BOSS is confirming it... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to remove yourself from this discussion. You are clearly incapable of looking at this from an objective point of view. Until proven true, it is a rumor. This is the definition of a rumor. Seriously, just wait a few damn months. What is your problem with waiting until she confirms it to be true? Arzel (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to remove yourself from this discussion. — No, I don't think so. I'm quite objective, actually. There are literally DOZENS of sources that don't use the word "rumored". They say it matter-of-factly. There's the interview cited in various sources of Kevin Feige by Collider.com where he answers the question of how her pregnancy has impacted production of a now-filming movie not with "She's not pregnant", but "Congratulations" and "I had to shift things [around]" (Kevin Feige is her boss, a producer on the movie). Just because someone doesn't "confirm" their pregnancy (or whatever else you want to think of) doesn't make it not true when you have other sources saying they've got confirmation or (in the case of this interview) you have someone that works with them regularly basically saying she is. Especially in this case where there's no denial. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If she is basically saying that she is, then why is she not actually saying that she is? Maybe she is not, maybe she has some other medical condition, maybe this, maybe that. Fact is you don't know and she hasn't confirmed it one way or the other. Simply wait a little while and it will be clear. You do realize that in the 1st trimester of pregnancy the probability of a miscarriage is quite high. Most women simply do not want to announce until this probability is reduced. So go live your own life, stop worrying about hers. Arzel (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Have to go with Locke Cole on his objection to I think you need to remove yourself from this discussion. I believe Arzel — who like Locke is commenting in good faith — could have made his point without the first two sentences personalizing it. Locke was good enough to strike his own uncivil statement, so, y'know, fair is fair.

And, while I reiterate I agree with Locke that the Feige statement seems perfectly pertinent and usable, I would just say that just because a source doesn't call something a rumor doesn't mean something isn't a rumor. That's kind of a technical point, but worth stating for the sake of clarity. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No Concur. WP:BLP is a high standard, and just because rumors are stated in reliable sources doesn't mean that an encyclopedia gives its imprimatur to highly personal rumors about living persons. We certainly don't want Wikipedia to be known as a rumor mill.

That said, please read my suggestion above at 14:18, 26 March 2014 . --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No BLP issues heavily outweigh sources. A story can be reported by a very highly regarded outlet, but it doesn't make the report a valid BLP source. With BLP, we must be very careful. And as a long standing tradition, we don't report rumours as an encyclopedia. There's no deadline, when there's something more concrete, like the person who is supposedly pregnant talking about it, yeah. But anonymous insiders and sources sourcing sources who used said insiders I feel don't cut it. Rusted AutoParts 16:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. -~~The situation~~ My understanding has changed since my comments a few days ago. We are no longer talking about an unattributed rumor. With the producer's statement we now have a named source who there is every reason to believe. I am happy with the phrasing suggested by Tenebrae at 14:18, 26 March. – Smyth\^talk 16:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. These are not rumours. It is verifiable information, as represented by a number of reliable sources, stating it as fact, not as a rumour. Not including the information is a violation of WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.

Also, I think the opening question is not entirely neutral. The other alternative that carries equal weight would be, "Should Johansson's pregnancy be added after it has been confirmed by reliable sources?" Of course I'm not suggesting this alternative; I'm just making a point. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, hold on. Each of us is entitled to his or her opinion. But it is factually inaccurate to say the unattributed reports are not rumors. (Not talking about Feige statement here, but the rest of it.) Anything stated by anonymous, unnamed, unattributed purported "sources" is a rumor. And by the way, not reporting rumors does not violate any policy/guideline. I don't think you'd find a single admin saying we're required to report anonymous, unnamed, unattributed celebrity gossip. - --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UT --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, we're entitled to our own opinions. But it's also factually inaccurate to say the reports are not "verifiable information, as represented by a number of reliable sources, stating it as fact". That's what we look for when including information in Wikipedia. Also note, I've provided an alternate compromise with my edit above at 17:16, 26 March 2014. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, yes to either approach (the Tenebrae idea above, or simply stating it outright using "reported" in our language). We have dozens of reliable sources that support this, some more recently using a Kevin Feige interview where he pretty clearly says she's pregnant. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes (qualified) With dozens of major news media outlets now reporting the story, the story itself has now been raised to the level of notability allowing it's inclusion on this project, if nothing else, and this is clearly the article to do it in. This assuming assuming the pregnancy itself is a notable concept (which I take for granted it would be by the editors of this article). In light of this interview, I am having a hard time understanding why some editors still suspect this to be a rumor. The director of the film Ms. Johannson is currently involved in is asked directly how the pregnancy is effecting production and he answers that question very matter-of-factly. The only way this could be a rumor at this point is if he was misled about the pregnancy or is himself a part of some effort to misled others. Those scenarios seem....unlikely. Regardless, at this point there is no substantive argument anywhere in policy that can override WP:V; with this latest wave of sourcing, that bar has now been definitively passed, indeed hurtled. When I commented the first time, I felt one side had interpreted policy more closely than the other, but I certainly understood the reservations of the side advising patience. At this point, I have to ask, with sincere respect to the editors involved - are you sure that you haven't let the light battleground mentality that dominated this discussion cause you to become entrenched in your position and view the sources more skeptically than you normal would have if you had just now come upon them in their current state? Because I don't think, even in cases of BLP, that I know many editors who would read the recent interviews and reports, consider the very broad reporting from some of the highest-profile and high calibre news outlets in existence, and still declare this fact improperly sourced. Again, even taking in every word that WP:BLP has to say on this matter (and I just reread it to make sure nothing has changed), this seems pretty cut and dry to me. On a side note though, I still think the language should reflect that these are "wide reports not yet confirmed by the actress", or something in that vein. Snow (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "not yet" runs afoul of WP:DATED. If anything, we'd need to say "unconfirmed claim" or "reported rumor" — and should an encyclopedia be repeating rumors?

As regards WP:V, we're missing a point here: The number of places copy-catting are many, but that number doesn't matter since it comes down to how many sources making the claim are the original sources? Just because a hundred places repeat a rumor doesn't mean anything under WP:V other than that they verify that a rumor is being reported.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"If anything, we'd need to say 'unconfirmed claim' or 'reported rumor'"

I don't see any problem with that, though to be honest, I'm not sure if you were talking entirely hypothetically there with continued complete opposition to the claim on principle or if you are discussing middle-ground options.

"and should an encyclopedia be repeating rumors?"

Sure, if the rumor itself is notable in it's own right. BLP allows for that. Let's keep in mind we are not talking about something controversial or defamatory here. And also that the very reason we have BLP in the first place is that the WMF has counseled (and common sense itself suggests) that such articles can have a significant impact upon the persons in question. But this story is already being broadcast across the spectrum of entertainment industry news --the actress knows about it, clearly, having fielded questions on it in interviews, without any sign of frustration-- so the only purpose we are serving by omitting the existence of that story here is to have a noteworthy gap in our coverage. I just don't see the point -- not under policy and not under principles of common sense. All of that is rather a hypothetical though, because.....it's not a rumor, is it? The person in charge of the multi-hundred-million dollar film she is working on now has commented at length about how the pregnancy will impact that project. That's just not a rumor, that's a confirmation (on film, mind you), from a person with direct knowledge of the situation, within the context of a reliable media source. Nowhere in BLP, or any other policy, does it say we cannot establish a point about a living person unless they themselves confirm it. At some point we have to make the judgement call, because people can continue to insists its a rumor as long as they like (that's a subjective label). If policy worked on the basis that so long as someone insisted it was a rumor, we couldn't add it, nothing the least bit controversial would ever go up on BLP articles. And if the point at which people close to the subject of the article confirm the fact, and it is accepted by the bulk of the news industry concerned with the fact is not also the point at which we stop calling it a rumor, what exactly is? Again, short of it coming directly from her, which is clearly not required by policy. Snow (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you about the Feige quote: It's on the record, attributed, pertinent and involves that for which the subject is notable, her work. I've no problem with it.

The "common sense" argument is more problematic. Do I, personally, believe the rumor probably is true? Yes. So do you. "Common sense" tells us that. Yet 1) "Common-sense" conclusions have been known to be wrong; Johansson has been reported pregnant before and it wasn't true. 2) Your and my "common-sense" conclusions are simply another way of saying "personal POV." And 3) It all comes down to the use of unnamed, anonymous, unattributed purported "sources." If we accept such poor sourcing as verifiable fact here, then why not everywhere? And that's the larger issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I worded it the way I did because that was the gist of what I was getting from most of the comments was: People wanting a WP:RS with something straight from her mouth or a close associates mouth vs just adding a general WP:RS that doesn't have the word 'rumored' in it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, is the RfC supposed to be for outside editors that haven't commented on the situation already to voice an opinion? We clearly know where everyone else stands given the previous and still on going discussion above. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Should be for all editors. I'd have preferred if the existing participants had waited for some outside input prior to !voting~~, but.. I guess we need to ensure the "no" crowd gets the first word in.~~ —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You may want to temper or strike that comment. I have made no comments on this issue until this RfC was created. If anything, I was the first and only outside opinion on the matter. Arzel (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Locke, your remark "to ensure the "no" crowd gets the first word in" was uncalled for. Any editor was free to comment at any time. Who exactly was "ensuring" otherwise? Nobody is colluding here, nobody's getting together on their talk pages and ganging up on you. That was another uncivil remark, and there's no need for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. All involved and interested editors are encouraged to respond to an RfC. Often the purpose of an RfC is to clarify the question being debated and unsettle editors who may have become stuck in one mode of thought or another to work towards consensus, be it by framing the matter in a new light that shifts opinions or generating a new approach that serves more perspectives. This in addition to the obvious value of soliciting further outside comment. So long as no one, new or old to the debate, is discouraged from participating, everyone should speak up. On a separate point, I don't find anything wrong at all with how the RfC's question was phrased. I find it cuts to the quick and hinges on the sticking point of those who still have reservations. Snow (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason I questioned the wording, is because you provided one of the arguments the "No" side has been within the question: "before an official statement is made". I think it's giving people who haven't read the discussion above a bias, before they even become involved. So, to neutralise it, I would either remove that part, or add an argument from the "Yes" side, such as "it has been confirmed by reliable sources". --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion and am an outside voice. The wording is neutral. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from omitting all the existing sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is all that is needed for not including this rumor. If it is true she will confirm it sooner or later. Arzel (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not following your argument. Unless I missed something, that article doesn't seem to make a claim one way or the other. Even if it did, I don't see how one source would settle the matter definitively unless it was a clear denunciation on the part of Johannson herself. Snow (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it backwards. We don't assume something is true simply because someone has not specifically denied it is true. Fact is, she has NOT confirmed the rumor. If you have a problem with this being the definition of rumor then take it up with Websters. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We're not assuming it's true because noone's denied it. We're assuming it's verifiable, because there are reliable sources that state that it is true. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The only thing verifiable is that some are saying spreading the rumor that she is pregnant. There is a difference between verifying a fact and verifying that someone said something. If the fact is not verified it is a rumor. We don't trade in gossip and rumors. I am not sure why you have such a problem with this. Arzel (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I don't care much about inclusion one way or the other, but I would like to point out that confirmation by the actress is not required. While some people try to twist WP:BLP into something that requires us to portray people in the manner that they or their press agents would prefer, that is neither the intent or the wording of the policy. If reliable sources say she's pregnant, that makes the material eligible for inclusion. Whether it's included or not is an editorial decision, not a WP:BLP-driven decision.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The only people saying she's pregnant are shadowy, anonymous, unnamed individuals, some of whom will say anything if you pay them — checkbook journalism is standard among tabloids. Those aren't reliable sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where our sources get their information so long as our sources are reliable. What you're describing is effectively "I can't find out how they found out she was pregnant, so I'm against including it", and that's a form of original research. Watergate was used earlier in this discussion as an example where a "shadowy, anonymous, unnamed individual" was cited in a story that was suitable for inclusion in encyclopedias. This situation is no different (well, other than the gravitas of the situation; clearly an actress being pregnant isn't of the same caliber as the political shenanigans that went on during Watergate). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, just for clarity's sake: As regards Watergate, it's important to point out that Woodward & Bernstein weren't quoting Deep Throat / Mark Feit or publishing his direct claims, as the celebrity press is doing with these anonymous sources. They were using him as a lead toward information that they independent confirmed and documented with paper-trail materials and separate, attributed interviews. That's way different. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not how we handle BLP's. WP is not a place to promote rumors. What I am seeing is a desire for WP to be little more than a gossip column and comments likes yours do not help the situation. If it is true it will be known soon enough. Arzel (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rumor. If it was a rumor I would agree with you 100%. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Non-encyclopedic, whether true or not. She's not some Queen of a country where such private details are worthy of note outside of tabloid world's check-out counter or a daytime gossip show. IMO, this kind of debate typifies our addiction to Pop culture and the media circus, with a total disrespect for people's privacy. I agree with Ewan McGregor: all these publications based on people’s private life. It’s disgusting. It’s nobody’s business. As actors, we put ourselves on the screen and that should be enough, that’s exposing enough, without people routing around your dustbins looking for stuff. They’re making millions off people spying and following you around. It’s disgraceful. --Light show (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's relevant (encyclopedic) because she's an actress whose physical appearance is one of her defining traits. A pregnancy would clearly affect that in a major way, as well as possibly affect her career. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Pregnancy had only a minor effect on Madonna when she was filming Evita. This isn't like some long-term illness. The mere "possibility" that it might affect her career for a short while does not "clearly" make it a "major" topic outside of daytime TV. --Light show (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is something that's wrong with our culture. But the job of wikipedia editors isn't to change that culture, it's to represent it in an encyclopedic manner. Pregnancy, or having children, is generally considered a big deal, so it's definitely relevant. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Pregnancy is still considered a very private and personal matter. Since I just mentioned Madonna, I'll add that she also considered her pregnancy a private matter, as she told Oprah: O.K. diary, April 17th "Well the world knows" yup that's when it had all been announced "The world knows and I felt like my insides had been ripped open." . . . I have to say. Yeah I mean I accept it when I walk outside, when I go outside my gate, when I go into the world, you know go shopping, go to premiers, what-ever. I don't like it but I accept it. Umm... but when I'm in my house and being filmed when I'm standing at the door to get the newspaper and I'm being filmed, I feel umm.. incredibly violated because I feel like there has to be one place in the world where I have my privacy. --Light show (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Uninvolved editor here. I agree that if she is in fact pregnant, it's a notable event and should eventually be included in the article but I think it's premature to do so now before the actress herself has confirmed it. In my mind, until the mother has confirmed her pregnancy any reports of pregnancy are a rumour, no matter how many reliable sources publish that rumour as if it were true and no matter what her current boss might say about it. Even if that weren't the case, the fact that publishing a false claim could do harm to her under BLP (for example - what if she miscarries, or what if she's not actually pregnant?), and the fact that there is no deadline and nothing is lost by waiting to include the information, means that it would be best to waiting until she has officially confirmed her pregnancy to publish it. Ca2james (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect, that's not policy consistent nor a particularly intuitive approach. Verification, even as regards BLP, has never been required to come from the subject of the claim itself, and for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that the subject may never choose to talk about the issue. Suppose Ms. Johannson turns up at a press event clearly looking four months pregnant and all the press talks about it; using that principle, we would still not be allowed to include it here. Or, for a deeper treatment of the complications of such an approach, let's consider the following, completely hypothetical, scenario. Suppose there was a female social or political figure who espoused deeply conservative ideology and who had attacked pre-marital sex. Now suppose she, being unwed herself, is said to be pregnant and further that members of her family and her staff have broken silence and confirmed it. She's a prominent figure and the news is filled with reports on the matter. Using the above principle, we would still not be able to add that information to her article. Now that's a very different scenario from the one we are dealing with here, I think you'll agree, but in so agreeing, we would be applying our own standards to what is useful information to a given subject, which is not really what we ought to be doing inside the article itself; in that regard, we should focus our content on what our sources say and emphasize, which policy asks us, as uninvolved editors, not to do. That is, it's not really our place to decide if it's more relevant that an actress is pregnant as opposed to a political figure. Bringing this back around to the central point, we have verification principle that require us to go with material that adequately cited via trusted sources, not the subject itself because we have to be able to operate in circumstances often too complex to ever expect such confirmation and we must apply that principle not as we see fit, but as the sources weigh it's relevance as a relfection of broader perception, not our own ideas of what constitutes relevant news for a given individual. Snow (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that my views that confirmation should come from the mother first and that reliable sources are publishing what is in effect a rumour are my own thoughts and are not based in policy. That's why my final statement rested on a policy argument (BLP) and an essay (no deadline). I should have created a clearer separation between my non-policy comments and my actual policy objections. I hope I have clarified that now. Ca2james (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm, yes, I see now your point now. Snow (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment depends which sources are claiming pregnancy and the basis each source has. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. If we're going to be including personal life stuff -- like we do in many bio pieces -- it should be subject to the usual standards for sourcing, which do not require a primary subject to confirm an particular item. NE Ent 22:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes - when reliable sources WP:RS - including the very reliable metro daily newspaper the Cleveland Plain Dealer, USA Today and even the Daily Mail - unambiguously report her as pregnant, this fact should then be included in the article. And I say this as an uninvolved editor w/ no previous contributions to this particular subject, but great respect for and familiarity with WP:BLP. Cheers. Az x2 19:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect, the Cleveland Plain Dealer is repeating the USA Today article, which is in turn repeating stories by E! Online, People, and US Weekly. The latter two report the unnamed sources say she's pregnant and that E! broke the story first; E! reports that unnamed sources say she's pregnant. This article In the Daily Mail claims she is pregnant but doesn't say where it got that information. When the best reliable sources are only repeating anonymously-sourced information from tabloids, is that information encyclopaedic? Ca2james (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. Reliable sources parroting anonymous, unconfirmed, unattributed claims are only stating rumors, not facts. Encyclopedias deal in facts. And "it's a fact there's a rumor" is not an excuse to for an encyclopedia to publish rumors. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Daily Mail is a tabloid that has been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. Having an unnamed source reduces credibility, so Us Weekly, People, and E! are ruled out. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The exact reason I advocate holding off was demonstrated recently when outlets reported on Chris Evans "retirement" from acting. Variety reported it. People reported it. Time reported it. And then it turned out to be false. I said it before, just because something's being reported, it doesn't mean they can guarantee it. Rusted AutoParts 11:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So, I read all those. Unless Evans is saying they misquoted him, he said those words. Is it possible he's backing away from that, realizing it might hurt his career? Very likely. A lot more likely than a Variety reporter fabricating statements and risking a lawsuit for his employer. Comically, if this same situation occurred here (according to your earlier "requirements" above), we'd have Scarlett Johansson saying she was excited for the baby, that she was well along now, and all that good stuff. Only to turn around a few days later and say it was taken out of context. In the interim, it would have been in the article, because now we had it "from the horse' mouth" (paraphrasing your earlier demands regarding sources).

BTW, "a changing world" is precisely why Wikipedia exists. The encyclopedias of old were on paper, and were a snapshot in time to what we understood and knew about the world we lived in at that time. The nice thing about Wikipedia, and why it is so prosperous, is that it changes with the times. To your Evans example, I say: so what? The article says he's retiring for three days. It's verifiable, it's sourced, and it came from his own mouth. If he changes his mind a few days later and recants: you just edit the article and state things as they are understood to be. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Locke, I was only adding it down here too so the editors who weren't involved up above at "Arbitrary section break 2" could either disagree or agree with the sentiment. Rusted AutoParts 14:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Uninvolved editor. I'm honestly struggling to see how this is arguable. There is absolutely no harm in waiting a bit to add the pregnancy, or the false reports of it. The fact of the matter is, until she confirms it, denies it, or actually has the baby, we can't know if it's true. If it's not, it's worth adding that many falsely reported it. If it is, then we add it. Done. Just be patient, folks. There's no fire. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need to know if it's true, only if it's verifiable. We have over a dozen sources saying she's pregnant, including interviews with her boss and herself. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No And this is a policy issue, not just a preference issue. The RFC question is ambiguous (add what about her pregnancy? State as fact that she is pregnant?, State that xxxx says that she is?) But either way wp:BLP sets a high standard for inclusion which it appears has not been met. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, the RFC wording leaves a ton to be desired... The proposed language to be used in the article was "[sources] report she is pregnant" (paraphrasing here, it was worded nicer than that, but still used our voice to indicate it was a report, and not something coming from the actress herself). As regards WP:BLP, unless I missed something it only prescribes that we verify sources and use care when making statements in biographies of living people. It doesn't require "confirmation" from the living person of something being true before including it (I can only imagine how Wikipedia would look if that were the case, there would never be any negative statements about living people). FWIW, there's over a dozen sources reporting this, and there's also an interview with her boss where he congratulates her and says she'll be a good mother. And then there's the WSJ, which interviewed her and said she was pregnant in their title (and she discussed needing to find a balance between family and work). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interview was conducted way before these rumours began swirling. And she does not in any way state she's pregnant. Rusted AutoParts 15:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I like caution in BLPs and am not in favor of ~~not~~ including items reported only by entertainment sources etc. However, ScarJo's pregnancy has been reported in the ~~http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/scarlett-johansson-insulting-nickname-scarjo-article-1.174939 NY Daily News~~, Vanity Fair etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops! sorry about the NYDN link. Here's corrected URL's and quotes. Scarlett Johansson, now pregnant and engaged,--Vanity Fair headline and Scarlett Johansson pregnancy--NY Daily News headline. It's clearly mainstream news. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

With the NY link, it stills uses the word "reportedly", and with Vanity Fair, the full article isn't available yet, so the context of the pregnancy isn't explored. Should it be by April 10, or whenever the full thing becomes available, perhaps it contains the official word we've been looking for. Rusted AutoParts 18:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the NY link uses the word "reportedly" in regards to Scarlett filming the Avengers sequel, not in regards to her now-confirmed pregnancy. And there's absolutely no ambiguity with the Vanity Fair link -- it plainly states that Scarlett is pregnant: "Scarlett Johansson, now pregnant and engaged". She's pregnant. Drpickem (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That in no way is what determines it. Reportedly is used in context of the pregnancy. It's still ambiguous. Rusted AutoParts 20:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, your link is to a picture of a football player. Secondly, within the context of the Vanity Fair article, there's still no confirmation on the person who's pregnant's part. Rusted AutoParts 17:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you have to love the way Glamour hedges the way it mentions the rumor: "It's a moment that will echo in my mind a few days later, when the Internet is ablaze with news that she and Dauriac are reportedly expecting their first child." [8] Hey, it's not us saying this, no, it's that Internet! And even the Internet is only saying there are unconfirmed "reports". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This is almost futile. An announcement is probably forthcoming. According to USA Today, she is pregnant according to "reports."[9] Until the media treats it as a given fact, there is no point in including it (without saying "apparently pregnant" or "reportedly pregnant"). --Precision123 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and I appreciate the care being shown. For a bit of perspective, UPI had "confirmed" Amanda Bynes was schizophrenic. And according to her attorney today in People, that "confirmed" claim was just a false rumor: Amanda Bynes Knocks Down Schizophrenia Rumors: "For the record, Amanda does not have schizophrenia, nor has she ever been diagnosed with it."

Whether or not this rumor turns out to be true isn't the issue. The issue is showing care with any anonymous, unattributed "report." Some are true, some are not, and no one can't tell which is which until afterward. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No caution should always be taken with BLPs and for something like a pregnancy we should wait for an official announcement, not rumours (even well sourced ones). 01:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small grammar correction

"She and her brother, Hunter, attended" - Hunter should not be set off by commas since Scarlett Johansson has more than one brother.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c0b3:b0c0:e102:9576:e271:894d (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 April 2014‎(UTC)

This is talking about a specific brother, though. Rusted AutoParts 11:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It was adjusted to "She and her twin brother attended" on April 23, 2014. Shearonink (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Surname pronunciation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As noted by Empire's Hollywood Pronunciation Guide:

http://www.empireonline.com/features/hollywood-pronunciation-guide/default.asp?name=12

http://www.empireonline.com/features/hollywood-pronunciation-guide/sounds/12.mp3

Johansson's surname "gives people the most trouble" when it comes to pronunciation.

So please add pronunciation respelling to this article's introduction. You can follow either WP:PRK or WP:IPAE, as you prefer; I am not familiar with either syntax, so I am making this request in the hope that it attracts the attention of an editor who knows one or the other. Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.92 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. My preference would be to use PRK, but per WP:PRON it can't be used without the IPA as well, so I've added both.

Done. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was very surprised to read that the surname is pronounced /dʒoʊˈhænsən/. I don't watch TV so I suppose I've never heard her name said before but the article later says she has Danish origins. Wouldn't /joʊˈhænsən/ (i.e. pronounced like the y in yoyo) be more typically Danish? Is it normal for Americans to alter the pronunciation of their surnames? Are there any videos showing this pronounciation which don't come from a pronunciation guide?--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 22:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Letterman interview NE Ent 23:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 19:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Meta RFC on dispute tag

Consensus appears to be against having a dispute tag added to the page. Number 5 7 13:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a dispute tag (such as {{POV-section}}) be added to the page to note for readers and editors that there is an ongoing dispute which remains unresolved on this talk page?

Yes; apparently there's some desire for a consensus to acknowledge that there's an unresolved dispute directly above before we can add a disputed tag to the page to encourage additional input. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, and I disagree strongly with the idea that you need a consensus to tag something as obvious as an ongoing dispute, but here I am, asking for support to add {{POV-section}} to the "Personal life" section of the article so we can encourage more input and hopefully get past the original dispute. (I tagged this as policy since it's a site-wide issue in as much as apparently we now need a consensus just to agree that there's even a problem...). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No There's nothing disputed or POV in the actual material that is there. The non-neutrality tag is inappropriate. As per my edit summary, I wasn't suggesting the editor not apply a tag if he felt one were necessary — but that this is imply the wrong tag. And by the way, here's a lovely bit of frothing at the mouth he left on my talk page:" Remove another valid dispute tag again and I won't even bother coming to your talk page, we'll go straight to AN/I. Don't bother responding, I don't care what you have to say. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)" Wonderful threat. Do whatever you please. And I hope other editors see this is the mentality of those who want to turn celebrities' articles into non-encyclopedic fan-pages reporting every anonymous rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And as I see I wasn't the only one who felt the POV tag was inappropriate. And that an admin removed it for now and, very responsibly in my opinion, has protected the page for a couple of days. And, finally, that Locke Cole is uncivil in general, not just with me. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No admin removed anything. Nice try though. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An omission of this sort is, in it's own way, pushing a point of view. That is the POV dispute. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No The discussion was mentioned via hidden message within the edit text of the section, should anyone try to add it. The POV is inappropriate, and feels more pointy than anything as its clear Locke Cole is becoming increasingly uncivil. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- A hidden message which only an editor would see if they tried to edit the page, and then only that specific section. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No As of a few days ago, "Johansson was diplomatic as she neither confirmed nor denied" being pregnant. And while the status of someone's mental and physical health is important to them, it's usually trivia and not encyclopedic to most readers, unless it directly supports their full biography. So I personally don't even see a valid "dispute." She herself has not confirmed this private matter, so it's still just a rumor, and not a POV issue. Let the tabloids profit from privacy-invading headlines. --Light show (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- All irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was: is there a dispute worth noting in the article? Save the rest of that for the actual dispute, above. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No. The tag is not intended for use on content disputes of this straightforward sort. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Really? Where's it say that? And why would a "straightforward" dispute not need to be clearly pointed out? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Per Tenebrae, the POV of the current content in the section is not in dispute. Therefore the POV tag doesn't apply to the section and it should not be used. Looking over the other dispute tags, I don't see any that apply to this situation. In terms of notifying editors that there is an ongoing dispute as to whether certain content should be included at this time, the hidden text and previous (and still active) RfC do that job. Ca2james (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No, no point in advertising how silly Wikipedia is; since essentially the entire pop media and some of main stream media have already reported the pregnancy, I'm sure anyone who really cares knows already. NE Ent 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There is definitely an ongoing POV dispute here, so I don't see why not. But I'm not sold on it either. I don't think the fact that it's about information that isn't being allowed in the article is a reason not to put it there. But if this is unnecessary in terms of notifying editors about the dispute because we already have that covered, then that might be a reason not to do it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Hey Locke Cole, I thought it was very considerate of you to ask for others' input before tagging the section, but I have to disagree as well, since this seems like a straightforward content dispute and not related to a question of serious failure of neutrality. Great to see such passion though, and a willingness to engage w/ others. Try not to take things personally though, b/c for sure we'll know in less than 9mos whether or not she was preggo. Ciao. Az x2 04:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No per Azx2 and I just don't find it necessary. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Wouldn't {{Missing information}} or {{Dispute about}} templates be more appropriate? Indeed, that might be a valid solution to our impasse here - place a template along the lines of: {{Missing information|There is a debate as to whether reports of Scarlett Johansson being pregnant should be included here}}. That would serve to keep the article up-to-date with the general media without staking a claim as to the fact's veracity. We would get further perspectives here and any of those interested in the pregnancy and the discussion surrounding it would be further informed on the matter and could draw their own conclusions. Win-win-win-win. Anyway, I do tend to agree that the POV tag is not strictly speaking ideal here. On the other hand, I don't think any editor could make a good-faith edit removing a general dispute tag, as this is exactly the sort of situation they are designed to address. Snow (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes to having a tag, just not a POV tag (that would be if the references were holding opposite views, not editors). I don't understand that tendency there's in edit wars to remove dispute tags. Their purpose is not to notify readers of some disputed facts, but of the ongoing discussion itself. We're supposed to develop our content in the open, so all comments are welcome and readers should be invited to join in.

Since the above opposition is specifically against a POV tag, and this second RFC would end after the first one (so it wouldn't help readers to find about it), I'm boldly adding a different tag that doesn't mention the pregnancy. Diego (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

infobox residence

We should include her residence in the infobox box, since it's already in the article. NE Ent 20:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary? I don't think so. I feel adding any details on her location is intrusive. And as a result of this, I'm not caught up in another "edit war" discussion, wasting others and my own time. Rusted AutoParts 21:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If location of a living person can be established with reliable sources, It cannot be removed without proper criterion. - Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I too don't want to edit war about this but I think it would be ok to have it in her infobox. An infobox is after all a summary of things in the article. Users might find it useful to see that she lives in Paris now. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Shane Cyrus and Lady Lotus. It's not like someone looked up a White Pages link, she openly said it in an interview on a very widely watched talk show. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)