Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

Change Scarlett Johansson is an American to Scarlett Johansson is an American-Danish Her father is Danish and she has dual American and Danish citizenship. Alrighty185 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not done. She has no ties to the country aside from the citizenship she inherited from her father. Calidum 21:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Please update the headshot of Scarlett. The picture is 11 YEARS old. Talvisotilas (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Does Wikipedia have a more recent image that you think should be used? Meters (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC for photo

There is a rough consensus to use 3 (File:Scarlett Johansson SDCC 2013 by Gage Skidmore 1.jpg) as the lead image.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (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.

---

Can we please change the lead image now? One from this decade, even? She looks completely different from 23 than 34. And fortunately there are many to choose from. Reasonable images include

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5

and before anyone gets officious about “ownership”, it’s just an opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

#1 is the current image from 2008.Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Support 5 (or another cropped version of the original), followed by 4. I feel the the existing image isn't what people think of anymore because she looks so young there. 2 looks too sultry with her mouth open and 3 has a microphone blocking her.   But I support 3 too if folks don't mind the microphone. @Trillfendi: do you mind my changes?   Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support 3 - 1 is nearly a decade old, 2 is fine, 3 is fine, 4 and 5 are both blurry and imho both are awful,

I would consider 2 and 3 to be the best images however 3 is more recent hence that one being my preference. –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support 3 - A nice professionalism to it. Rusted AutoParts 20:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• I wouldn't state that "she looks completely different from 23 than 34." If it was the case that she did, we wouldn't recognize her. As seen at Talk:Scarlett Johansson/Archive 6#Request for comment on lead image, there were valid reasons given for going with the current image. And I don't see any ownership by asking us to look at this matter again. Anyway, I'd support 3 even though her face is not fully facing the camera (as in staring into the camera). If Options 4 and 5 weren't of poor quality, I'd support either of them as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I just had to state that because on other articles there is mêlée going on practically every 2 weeks about lead images and if someone changes it and points out why the other image is bad they’re accused of “ownership”. Trillfendi (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an incorrect (pedantic) inference of what Trillfendi meant by "completely different". In my opinion, using the words casually, I think in the current image she looks like a girl and in all of the other images she looks like a woman. I think that's more representative of who she is and what readers expect to see. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And I think you're unnecessarily making something out of nothing. Spillover from Talk:Woman perhaps? I know what Trillfendi meant. But if you look at the previous image discussion, you can see that I don't think that Johansson looks drastically different from then to now. She does not look so different now that she would not be recognizable to readers coming to this article and seeing the current lead image. If I thought so, I would not have supported the image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Just so everyone knows, 2 3 and 4 where the original choices. But if anyone wants to include more there’s a wealth of them in the Commons. Trillfendi (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• 2 seems to be the best pic. Whatever the result of this discussion, each of the pics is acceptable. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Can we close this RfC by May 29th? As it states above, This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2019. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we’ve reached a good decision on photo number 3. I shall close the discussion. Trillfendi (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (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.

Lead section lacking in post-2014 material

Hey y'all, the lead has almost nothing about Johansson's post-2014 career, which seems like an oversight (especially given that she was the highest-grossing actress of 2016). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

6 images is cap. End of.

I’m not going back and forth with you.... There were way too many pictures on this page including the one hanging off the edge, and two candids so I did my duty trim it down. We don’t even need her acting school. Another editor agreed with me. The MOS for images is abundantly clear. Trillfendi (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You made a bold edit and were reverted. By WP:BRD cycle, gain consensus for your edits instead of edit-warring. Also, I'm always smiling like the bitch I am but out here, WP:No personal attacks. ;) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Where is the personal attack or are you too sensitive to understand lyrics to a hit song? Trillfendi (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm highly sensitive to songs and even more sensitive to reverts. My soul weeps. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm not seeing an excessive amount here - I would say the amount is fine. If there's an MOS that states 6 is enough then that should be presented. –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

New lead image

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.

---

I think we should replace the current lead image with this new image uploaded by Gage Skidmore on Commons. It's recent (July 2019) and is good enough to replace the old one IMO. Let me know what you think. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the current image is terrible. This one is way better. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the replacement/2019 pic is better but - not having looked at the CC-BY-SA licensure - can it possibly be cropped to be more of a close-up? Shearonink (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all May 2019 RFC participants @Trillfendi, Kolya Butternut, Rusted AutoParts, Flyer22 Reborn, and Ktrimi991:. –Davey2010^Talk 16:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed the most recent picture is much better, Maybe the image should be cropped on her face only tho?, Also apologies if it seemed OTT to revert however there's been continuous edit wars in the past over the infobox image which is why I prefer every infobox image change to have consensus first. –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That new image is a huge improvement. Let's use it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we switch to the new cropped image or we have to wait for other opinions? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed a much better image. I've changed to the cropped version. FrB.TG (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The new image is OK. I do not see any issue with the change made to the lede. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2019 (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.

WP:Synthesis of "largely due to her appearances in Marvel films"

As seen here and here, I reverted ChicagoWikiEditor twice. The first time was for the material being unsourced. The second time was for the material being WP:Synthesis. ChicagoWikiEditor's response was to revert and state, "3.5B of her 5B domestic gross and around 10B of her 14B worldwide gross from is Marvel films /sOurCeD it's called math, figure it out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Rcarter555 reverted. Thanks, Rcarter555. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-factual claim in lead

The lead section previously said:

As a public figure, Johansson is a Hollywood sex symbol.

That statement was followed by this:

<!--NOTE: This is supported by various reliable sources and is mentioned in the Public image section below. Going by the sources, and the description in the Sex symbol article, there is no need to add "considered a sex symbol" or similar in the lead; "considered a sex symbol" is weasel wording and will earn the line a "by whom" tag. Attributing the line to one author doesn't work either because various authors have said that she is a sex symbol.-->

The statement is illogical and biased, and the note is misguided. It is illogical because it implies that she is a sex symbol because she is a public figure. It is biased because being a "sex symbol" is not an objective verifiable fact. It is an opinion that people express. In exactly the same way, if you tried to write in the lead that "Scarlett Johansson is very beautiful", you would be violating the NPOV core policy in a spectacular way. Sure, lots of people have said she is beautiful. You'd have a hard time finding anyone prepared to say she is ugly. But nevertheless, it is not an objective verifiable fact and can never become one.

These aesthetic opinions must be reported as such. So I changed the text and removed the note. "Considered" or "described as" is not weasel wording and does not need a "by whom" tag. It merely needs 2-3 citations afterwards to example articles which use the phrase. Sacredsouth (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

If someone has been chosen as “Sexiest Woman Alive” twice in her career, it’s not unreasonable to say she is a sex symbol. But on here people like to link two completely mutually irrelevant clauses together by comma splicing. Personally, it’s a pet peeve and often makes for awkward reading, but this isn’t the most egregious case of it. Trillfendi (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverted per the WP:Hidden note I added which explains any argument I would have on the matter. That she is a sex symbol is factual, just as it is factual that Marilyn Monroe, who Johansson has been repeatedly compared to, was and still is a sex symbol. If we can call Monroe a sex symbol without any "considered" or "described as" wording, we can call Johansson one without such wording. And that Johansson is a sex symbol is supported by various WP:Reliable sources. It's also mentioned in the Public image section lower in the article. Going by the sources, and the description in the Sex symbol article, there is no need to add "considered a sex symbol" or similar in the lead; "considered a sex symbol" is indeed weasel wording, as is clear by the WP:Weasel wording guideline. It does indeed call one to wonder "by whom?" and will indeed earn the line a Template:By whom tag, as it has in the past. This article was promoted to WP:FA status with "considered a modern sex symbol of Hollywood" wording. And there was eventually a weasel wording/by whom issue because of it. And like the WP:Hidden note states, attributing the line to one author doesn't work because various authors have said that she is a sex symbol. So attributing it to one author would be misleading WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And the "As a public figure" aspect isn't meant to state that she is a sex symbol because she is a public figure. It's there because that last lead paragraph, with the exception of her romantic life, is about her life as a public figure. But it can be reworded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

With this edit (followup fix here), I changed the text to the following: "As a public figure, Johansson is a prominent brand endorser and supports various charities. She has been described as a Hollywood sex symbol by various media outlets." The "As a public figure" wording, which is used for a couple or few other FA celebrity articles, goes better with the "is a prominent brand endorser and supports various charities" aspect directly after it. The "described as" piece matches the wording in the Public image section. And "by various media outlets" wording with regard to attractiveness is used for a couple or few other FA celebrity articles. In a section of the Leonardo DiCaprio article, we currently state "several media outlets." But I see the "is a sex symbol" thing as different because, like the Sex symbol article tells us, a sex symbol "is a famous person or fictional character widely regarded to be very sexually attractive." So going by that definition, Johansson is a sex symbol. Period. And that definition states "widely regarded" for us. I see calling someone a sex symbol per the WP:Due weight of the literature (mainly media sources for celebrities) on that person as not much different than calling someone a pop icon, a gay icon or a teen idol. We usually call people all those latter things without "considered" or "described as" wording. A person either is or isn't a sex symbol, a pop icon, a gay icon or a teen idol. Anyway, the current lead wording should be a decent compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: Sacredsouth is now indefinitely blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

But I'm leaving the changed text as is for now, as to hopefully avoid more issues with noting the sex symbol aspect in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

Addidng category "Danish people of Polish-Jewish descent" at the bottom is irrelevant and should be removed. Skareme (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I think the article clarifies this in the early life section. Are you saying that she is not one of these ? DBigXrayᗙ 12:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Scarlett johansson Black dress wallpaper

Scarlett Ingrid Johansson is an American star. Johansson began performing during childhood after her mother started taking her to trials. She made her expert acting debut at the age of eight in the off-Broadway production of “Sophistry” with Ethan Hawke.

She is the world’s highest-paid actress and She leads this year’s ranking with $40.5 million in pretax earnings between June 1, 2017, and June 1, 2018, making her acting’s top-earning female lead.rece, has made multiple appearances in the Forbes Celebrity 100, and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Here we are giving Scarlett Johansson the best photos. Superheroes never die” As we watched avengers endgame. We felt a little upset knowing that Tony stark, Natasha, Vision, steve rogers not going to come back. We all are searching about Black widow movie release date But one disadvantage, in particular, is likely to sting, specifically for a particular subset of fans: that of Black Widow also known as Natasha Romanoff.

Scarlett Johansson Black Dress Wallpaper Here you will get a bunch of Scarlett Johansson Black Dress Wallpaper. Scarlett Johansson also is known as the black widow looks pretty in a black dress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikash755 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

I would change Marriage Story from comedy drama to just drama 72.229.176.191 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done FrB.TG (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Evidence for Potential New Section to Scarlett Johansson's Filmography (Music Videos)

This is the music video for Justin Timberlake's "What Goes Around", which she appears in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOrnUquxtwA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklister3000 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

190.237.37.11 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I am an expert editor and have studied the bibliography of various important people including Scarlett Johansson, may I have the opportunity to write some info please?

You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y" citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Her nationality is danish American which means she is danish and she said it herself she is 5’2 in height 2601:940:C300:F120:ACA4:C416:586B:15D6 (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Scarlett Johansson Danish-American and Height(5’2) 2601:940:C300:F120:435:DAFE:14A6:F810 (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Height: Irrelevant; Danish-American: no source provided. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we include in her infobox that her grandfather was Ejner Johansson?

Or is having it in her Early Life section enough? I ask because he isn't really notable and I before my edit he was only in the Early Life section. Factfanatic1 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

Staubach0 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to request an edit for Scarlett Johnasson change to Scarlett Ingrid Jost (nee Johansson)

I couldn't find sources showing that she had taken his name when she married. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing role & award

In 2001, Scarlett Johansson starred in "An American Rhapsody" by Éva Gárdos, winning her the Young Artist Award for Best Performance in a Feature Film - Leading Young Actress (tied with Emma Watson). Very odd that this important movie is omitted - please add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkleinschmidt (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

She is now 36, not 35. Jhunter92 (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction

The beginning should read "Scarlett Ingrid Johansson (/dʒoʊˈhænsən/; born November 22, 1984) is an American actress, voice actress, and singer." Not only "Scarlett Ingrid Johansson (/dʒoʊˈhænsən/; born November 22, 1984) is an American actress and singer."

--72.68.0.219 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Scarlett's just American as far the lede is concerned.

Per WP:BIOLEAD, Scarlett is just American in the lede. As mentioned in her early life section, she was born and raised in America, began her career in America, has spent most of her career in the US/Hollywood productions, and unless a recent, reliable source can be provided, Johansson still resides in America, reportedly buying a house in New York in October 2018. Her having Danish citizenship is covered in her article but not relevant to her notability.

There are many American actresses/actors with dual citizenship but only get listed as being "American" in the lede, like Kirsten Dunst who like Scarlett has dual citizenship to another country (Germany in her case), but aside from that, is just American, being born and raised there, currently living there and being most notable in the US/American productions. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

According to a Guardian article from 2008, Johansson holds both passports. Why should we hide this fact from our readers or even deny her the Danish citizenship--based on a subjective sentiment that someone does not deserve to be called a real Dane if they have made their career elsewhere? She is still a dual citizen. 194.62.169.86 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia's policies. MOS:CONTEXTBIO and MOS:BIOLEAD. This is the reason why people like Kirsten Dunst, Avril Lavigne, and Julianne Moore do not have "German-American" or "French-Canadian" or "British-American" respectively in their ledes, because their dual citizenship isn't important to their notability. Johansson was born, raised and resides in the U.S. America is also where she's most notable. Her citizenship is mentioned in her article, but beyond that, doesn't belong in her lede. I don't even think she's ever lived/resided in Denmark either. The sources I've seen state she resides/owns homes in New York and California. During her marriage to her now second ex-husband, she divided her time between America and France (as mentioned in her article), but nothing about Denmark, and I believe she no longer resides in Paris following her divorce. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Incirlik Air Base, Afghanistan.

The location of Incirlik Air Base is Adana, Turkey not Afghanistan 86.13.174.21 (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK _Talk 06:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

Personal Life (edit)

In July 2021, it was reported that Scarlett Johansson is pregnant with her second child and Jost’s first.

https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a36953008/scarlett-johansson-pregnant-second-baby-colin-jost/ Lesoho (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Instead of rumors, wait for some sort of official confirmation. Trillfendi (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

Her 1995 role as 11 year-old Katie Armstrong in Just Cause in which she gives Sean Connery a koala-bear hug is the first inkling of her potential superstar status. John D STAUNTON (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alduin2000 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

I suggesting finding a different photo of her, this one seems very unattractive. I tried finding a particular photo but there are so many options out there. 98.168.37.142 (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: If you do find one that fits our image use policy feel free to reopen the request Cannolis (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Request: Remove the wikilink markup (double square brackets) for Romain Dauriac in the "Personal life" section.

Justification: This is a misuse of the wikilink markup, and instead of leading the reader to further information on the subject, it constitutes a futile cycle, and wastes reader time. (The wikilink just uselessly brings the reader back to the same section, and this individual's name therein.) It thus should be removed. Bad form. Cheers.2601:246:C700:558:F0A0:39B6:4F45:4599 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Article status change request

The article status should change to allow non-logging individuals to edit, so that serious verifiability issues such as the last can be quickly and efficiently addressed.

The appearance of one misused end of sentence citation (see above)—where, at very least, only half of the indicated sentence content was covered by the citation—suggests a general need for a review of the correspondence of the article text to the citations appearing. In my long editorial experience, the presence of a single mistake of that sort often indicates that that sort of misuse of a source is not localised, but instead is a general characteristic of the article.

No individual with a real life and right mind would perform such a review of the citations, restricted by the need to post every individual mistake found as I did for the last citation issue found. If you want help with citation checking and editing, lift the editing restriction. Otherwise, the article will likely remain with its issues intact, status quo.

Finally, two points. First, it has been the policy of this work, since its earliest days, days that some of us experienced, that the site should be editable by non-logging individuals. We all, Jimmy included, championed this view from the beginning. Please do not further move this place from that original ideal, by replying to this Talk section with the retort, "Just log in". Some who come here cannot. Others for reasons of security or principle will not. Our intention, from the beginning, was to allow all to act according to conviction and conscience.

Second, an alternative to lifting the editing restriction is to place a {{cite check|date=December 2021}} tag at the top of the article. This at very least should be done, so that logging editors begin a systematic check of the whole article, for further mistakes of the sort reported above. The article and the title BLP subject deserves at least that respect. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:F0A0:39B6:4F45:4599 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please read both requests before choosing how to act.

Request 1: Move citation [258] (number as of this date- and time-stamp), to the Table of contents of an edition of Vanity Fair, in the "Personal life" section, from the end of the sentence to after the opening phrase ending with "...Tom Ford,", and then end the sentence with a tag.

Justification: Use of an end of sentence citation in this way is a violation of WP:VERIFY and other WP guidelines/policies. Its appearance there suggests that the cited source covers the material of the entire sentence. It does not. In that "Personal life" section, the statement:

She posed... alongside actress Keira Knightley and fully clothed fashion designer Tom Ford, who jumped in last minute on the day of the shoot to replace Rachel McAdams after she walked out.

is accompanied by the citation reading:

"Table of Contents, March 2006". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on November 28, 2010. Retrieved November 28, 2010."

Examination of this citation link shows that it only supports the opening phrase, ending with Tom Ford's mention, and does not support:

• that the title subject was added to the project "at the last minute",
• that she replaced Rachel Adams, or
• that Adams "walked out".

None of these purported historical facts are currently supported. Hence, the move of the citation to follow what it can support, and the addition of the tag for the unsupported material is a necessary editorial change.

Request 2 (extension/variation of Request 1): Completely remove end of sentence citation [258] (number as of this date- and time-stamp), to the Table of contents of an edition of Vanity Fair, in the "Personal life" section, and replace it with a tag.

Justification: This variant edit is suggested because, strictly speaking, this citation is a poor one, even for the opening phrase of the sentence. What should appear is a citation to a secondary source for a news report, regarding the magazine cover shoot. Instead, the Vanity Fair source is a primary source, from which the earlier editor performed prohibited WP:OR using that primary source. (The source does not state how these three individuals posed, it presents them posing, and the editor performs WP:OR in interpreting/describing the picture to the reader.) Per WP standards for good BLP sourcing, the WP:OR could be eliminated by removing this poor source altogether. The best solution to the overall sourcing problem for this sentence would be to reject the source altogether—perhaps hiding it (<!-- markup) so so that it can later be readded as a supplemental source to the original publication—and put in its place instead, a tag convering the whole of the sentence. Overall bad form. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:F0A0:39B6:4F45:4599 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this issue. While this claim is true, I have completely removed "who jumped in last minute on the day of the shoot to replace Rachel McAdams after she walked out" since it has nothing to do with Johannson. I am responsible for writing a good part of this article (not including this one). I don't remember in what depth I checked the sources not added by me when I wrote other parts of the article around seven years ago, but I'll check those sources (again?) when I have more time. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Filmography

Why is there no Filmography on this page, or even a link? 194.75.135.190 (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

There is - the link to 'Scarlett Johansson on Stage and Screen' article underneath the 'Acting Career' heading. I agree it isn't very obvious. Sbishop (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022

Born: Scarlett (Sarah) Ingrid Johansson 2001:48F8:4059:1158:A039:2592:22B0:60D5 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

Concerning the Manny & Lo bit, I suggest adding Mary Kay Place since she is the other big star besides her and Aleksa Palladino, please. 2603:8000:2F00:F1EC:AE86:2307:E957:D12C (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2023

want to edit this page Anonymous8780836110 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to either say what edits you wish to see so that they can be confirmed by a user with edit rights, or better, fulfil the requirements to become an auto-confirmed user yourself. Sbishop (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. – robertsky (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request by SoA

Under the "Early Life" section of this article I spotted this sentence:

Johannson also has an older half-brother named Christian from her father's first marriage, and holds dual American and Danish citizenship."

This bolded part must be changed to Johansson, the correct last name.

Regards, Scourge of Arceus (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch, thanks. CAVincent (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit to add in the Music Career section

Under the Music Career section where it states that "in 2012 sang on a J. Ralph track entitled "Before My Time" for the end credits of the climate documentary Chasing Ice (2012)", it may be important to note that the song was nominated for Best Original Song at the Academy Awards (Oscars). While the Johansson herself was not nominated, I think it is a notable achievement as the performer of the song. 2407:D000:F:2F86:358A:6587:6FA3:72D5 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reads like a PR statement

“ Labeled a sex symbol, Johansson has been referred to as one of the world's most attractive women by various media outlets. She is a prominent brand endorser and supports several charitable causes.”

If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia this entry does not cut it. 2601:643:8D80:9D10:29DE:5242:987D:1051 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not exactly a secret that this article's subject is pretty. I doubt she gets more money on a film role because of Wikipedia mentioning this. What is the objection here? CAVincent (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

The reference to Scarlett Johansson refusing to work with OpenAI, and then OpenAI releasing an audio assistant that sounds eerily like her should reference NPR, which broke that news, not the New York Times, which followed up on NPR's reporting. The Times credits NPR in its article. Here is the original NPR story: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-voice-that-was-compared-to-scarlett-johansson-in-the-movie-her 209.144.103.186 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)