Talk:Jennifer Lawrence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nude photo incident content

I just saw that the nude photo incident content was removed apparently due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a real story in the news and seems to fit in the section it was placed. Perhaps there are guidelines-based reasons for removal, such as WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS, but "Inappropriate!" is un-wiki. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be a case of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:TRIVIA, but probably doesn't belong in her "career" section. Thoughts? Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not currently in the "Career" section, it's in the "In the media" section. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it per WP:NOTNEWS. It is unclear what impact, if any, this will have on Lawrence's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, Stevie, I misread the article. Maybe if this leads to significant controversy, it could be readded. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the removal per WP:NOTNEWS, but it's always possible it will eventually be worthy of inclusion. SNUGGUMS: No problem. I make mistakes like that from time to time too, especially before my caffeine has kicked in.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Note placed at BLPN. [1] I have a feeling we'll have a lot more good faith drive-by additions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is now a major news story, with Lawrence seemingly being singled out by most outlets as the 'lead' celebrity (e.g. Nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebs posted by hackers and Nude Jennifer Lawrence photos leaked by hacker who claims to have 'private pictures of 100 A-listers') and therefore I believe it needs covering in this article, worded properly, and with BLP firmly in mind. GiantSnowman 16:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It could also be a major flash in the pan. I would advise a wait-see. Again, WP:NOTNEWS. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Stevie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thirded. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE requires that all viewpoints be presented in the article. As long as these sources are reliable, it has a place in the article with regards to BLP and due weight. Tutelary (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This, along with other things, makes me question how well you understand WP:BLP. "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist..." Not everything that makes headlines goes in a BLP. Looking at the entertainment news, I see that Halle Berry's one year anniversary is also top news. Does this "viewpoint" belong in her article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Did it cause a national media frenzy? I don't think so. This was a grave violation of her privacy and given that it's basically top news (just look at google trends), Wikipedia should reflect that. Readers will be looking for it to be presented in an encylopedic way and when they see it's omitted, they'll question on why it wasn't there in the first place. I'm not saying we should ultimately put whatever the reader wants to see in the article, but trying to ignore something this big in the name of BLP is ridiculous. Tutelary (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And every time Justin Bieber does something it ignites a international media frenzy. We don't detail every one of his indiscretions. Rather, we wait and see which ones have lasting notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that we should wait and see. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Saw this on BLPN. I agree that at the present time it sounds like typical tabloid rubbish and does not belong. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes these nude leaks get a mention on the encyclopedia and sometimes they don't. A reasonable comparison to this would be Scarlett Johansson's incident, which is mentioned, as someone was prosecuted for the leak. Given that Lawrence's attorneys have made it known that they intend to go after those responsible, and that the FBI is now involved, it's likely this bit will end up in her article at some point.LM2000 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a criminal prosecution might push it over the edge. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Article

I have created a separate article for this incident, 2014 iCloud celebrity pictures hack. I think a passing reference should be worked in personal life section (e.g. "She was one of the victims of the 2014 iCloud celebrity pictures hack"). TF90 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a good idea. The article itself is dubious and I see that it has been nominated for speedy deletion. Even if it survives, same issue. The fact that an article has been created is pretty much immaterial to the BLP issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Like Figureofnine, I say that it isn't a good idea- it basically goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I opposed the speedy deletion of the article you created, as I find it topical in 2014, and references prove its notability, therefore it shouldn't be deleted under CSD A7. However, I still am not sure if it deserves any mention here... yet. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your reason for contesting the speedy deletion was definitely the most convincing, Stevie. The first two were basically WP:ILIKEIT and WP:MERCY arguments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, SNUGGUMS. All reason were good, because you speedy deletion tag was clearly in error. The subject of the article obviously did not fall in to a category covered by CSD-A7. TF90 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though. "Just give it time" isn't very convincing (even though I know you weren't the one who said that). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The notion we should wait and see is preposterous. Whether or not the leaked photos are real, Lawrence is at the center of this spat. I've no idea why it's her, but it is. This deserves a short limited mention. Does anyone have a policy based reason we should exclude?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The first one that comes to mind is WP:NOTNEWS if one argues it shouldn't be included. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering WEIGHT, this is a major incident. No need to tar and feather her or the article, but this is well beyond "news". That being said, I'm sure the sources have only started to report on this. Some of the proposed thresholds set above are ill considered.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, plenty of reasons were laid out for exclusion. The incident may be worthy of an article itself, but whether it's important enough (yet) to be a part of this subject's biography is another matter. In short, one can argue we don't know the eventual weight of this, so for WP:BLP purposes we are being conservative. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is good reason for keeping it here - she's now instigated legal action, which surely makes this a worthy note in her entry: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/02/us-entertainment-photos-idUSKBN0GW36H20140902 Freeranging intellect (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll relent (I don't speak for others), but the content should focus mostly on that and link to the new article. Note however that if this blows over really fast, it may be liable for removal for undue weight in the future. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It was on page one of the New York Times today, specifically mentioning Lawrence, so it has definitely crossed the threshold into notable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I substituted the Times article for the "Forbes article" that was previously sourcing this. It was not an article but a self-published blog by a nonjournalist, one of many thousands that Forbes.com publishes every day. They are not reliable sources or verifiable under our standards. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

age

her age should be updated! how can you be 22 and born in 1990?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royaltiny (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The "at age 22" refers to her age when she starred in Silver Linings Playbook and when she received awards for her performance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Guinness World Record

I noticed that my edit mentioning that Jennifer Lawrence broke a Guinness World Record was removed. I think this is notable, and has a good reference from Time Magazine. Why was it removed? I'd put it back, but I want to know if there's a good reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligress (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If placed in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead section. Perhaps "in the media" or "awards". Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Add Category: BAFTA winners (people) at the bottom.  Not done it already includes "Best Supporting Actress BAFTA Award winners" we only include the most specific category - Arjayay (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Name typo

Just FYI, Ms. Lawrence is referred to as Lauren when talking about her personal life and being seen with Chris Martin ("Lauren and Chris Martin from Coldplay"). I'd change this myself, but I've only just created my account, and can't edit this article as it is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OptimusLime85 (talk • contribs)

 Done Thanks. -  NQ  talk 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014

In her Vogue and Vanity Fair interviews it is stated that Jennifer Lawrence left high school at the age of 15 after being discovered at 14. In one interview she even says she didn't "go" to high school - presumably meaning she didn't finish. Where does the stuff about graduating at 16 with a high GPA come from? She says in the Vogue interview that her grades were terrible. 132.163.47.81 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

can you link these interviews you're reading? cause the two that are already cited, 1 and 2 say she graduated 2 years early with a 3.9. Granted, the askmen one probably isn't great, but the globe isn't too bad for this Cannolis (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

We need to enter a portion in here to mention the fappening. Maybe a Online category next to film and tv? Or just in her bio for 2014. Zinge12 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The photo leaks are already mentioned in her "Personal life". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

The photo of Jennifer Lawrence topless is inappropriate and needs to be replaced ASAP. 71.236.155.169 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no such photo in the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This was caused by a vandal replacing the image on commons. An administrator has dealt with it. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo hack

I was so proud of Jennifer for her comments released today, so went here to learn more, as Wikipedia is usually a reliable source. I was outraged at the obvious hack showing a topless photo. Please get this fixed ASAP!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.11.211 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Where? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This was caused by a vandal replacing the image on commons. An administrator has dealt with it. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

The profile photo needs to be changed. I have no alternative to suggest but I feel it's inappropriate and disrespectful both to Jennifer Lawrence and those using Wikipedia. 69.9.216.26 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This was caused by a vandal replacing the image on commons. An administrator has dealt with it. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

Remove the main picture in the article titled "Lawrence at Comic-Con in July 2013." It has been unethically put up here and definitely was done without permission. This is an abuse of someone's human rights and consititutes a crime. 24.5.78.145 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This was caused by a vandal replacing the image on commons. An administrator has dealt with it. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I encountered this article about this edit at a top level Google News page (news.google.com), and thanks to the comment above found this log page of the interaction. Wnt (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

J. Lawrence is not in Dumb and Dumber To

Dumb and Dumber To should be removed from her movie list since she is NOT in it. It says 'cameo, omitted from final cut' but there is absolutely no proof of that. On the contrary the Farrelly Brothers recently said in an interview that the cameo wasn't even shot in the first place. Since there is no real proof, this information is not only irrelevant but it also shows no respect towards the actress' decision not to be associated in any way with this movie (always if a cameo really exists). I have also noticed that sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes also made the same mistake and I've heard from them that they were going to correct it soon. IMDB has the correct list of Jennifer Lawrence movies and also the Wikipedia italian J. Lawrence page is correct. Could somebody fix this?2001:620:610:F0A:390A:FDF1:D803:463B (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Hanging Tree and Jennifer Lawrence's discography

Now that Jennifer Lawrence has a charting song worldwide, "The Hanging Tree", I suggest a discography section should be added to Jennifer Lawrence's Wikipedia page. 190.194.10.99 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Too soon with only one song. Wait until she has a further established musical career. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

PLEASE REMOVE THE NUDE IMAGE OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE IN THE SECTION '2010-12 BREAKTHROUGH' IMMEDIATELY. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE IMAGE IS THERE AFTER THIS WHOLE NUDE PIC LEAK SAGA. I AM DISGUSTED THAT ANYONE WOULD PUT THIS IMAGE UP AND TRY TO GET AWAY WITH IT AND I KNOW FROM READING JENNIFER LAWRENCE'S OWN COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE THAT SHE WOULD BE HORRIFIED.

THIS IS THE WIKI PAGE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lawrence 58.96.86.142 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC) 58.96.86.142 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Done To add to this, the image was replaced on commons and they've just blocked the user and deleted the aforementioned revisions. Restored the image. It's awful that this keeps happening, though. Tutelary (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this happened here. Note that in three tries, it lasted 11 minutes, 7 minutes, and 1 minute. According to [2] the article is getting about 20000 views a day, so I'd (with low accuracy) guess you were one of somewhere around 300 people who saw this image this way total. I started a thread at Commons:Commons:Village pump suggesting that it's time for precautions on the other images as have been taken now with these two. Probably the admins there already realize this now and didn't actually need to be told. That won't necessarily stop further efforts to change the article (Wikipedia is an open collaboration) but at least more effort will be required. Wnt (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The images on this article were fully protected about 12 hours ago (except the infobox one, which was protected a few days ago). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I protected these for 6 months and extended the infobox pic protection to 6 months. The inappropriate overwrite images have been suppressed by an oversighter as well. I'll keep a watch on her category at Commons. INeverCry 18:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This article notes Ms. Lawrence's support for the Special Olympics. As another long time volunteer with that organization, I believe it is important to note that it is the largest sports organization for those with INTELECTUAL disabilities (as noted on the Special Olympics official web site: http://www.specialolympics.org/Sections/What_We_Do/What_We_Do.aspx.) The distinction may seem minor but it is, in fact, quite significant.CharmsDad (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, CharmsDad! I've fixed the wording and added a link to intellectual disability. However, for future reference, can you make your own edit requests using {{edit semi-protected}}? It'll help your request's visibility for those who don't watch the talk page (such as myself). Thanks again! Sock (tock talk) 13:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible future projects

There's a boatload of projects that Lawrence may or may not appear in cluttering up the article. They're not in production, no release date has been set, and whether they'll even get made is uncertain. I'm moving them here for future reference:

Lawrence will star in and produce the film adaptation of Claire Bidwell Smith's memoir The Rules of Inheritance, directed by Susanne Bier. In September 2013, it was announced that Lawrence was to star in the adaptation of the novel East of Eden with director Gary Ross. The film is based on the John Steinbeck novel and was already adapted to film in 1955, starring James Dean. Additionally, she was chosen to star in Burial Rites, a film adaptation of Hannah Kent's debut novel, where she would be joined again by Gary Ross. She will also be starring in The Ends of the Earth, which is described as "a fact-based love story about a powerful oil tycoon who has everything stripped from him after he is caught in an affair." In addition, Lawrence will play Jeannette Walls in the film adaptation of Walls' best-selling memoir The Glass Castle.

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Grandparents

alright, please explain to me what is so controversial about including information on her grandparents under Early life? She's only 24-many would be interested in knowing who her grandparents are. Jennifer's middle name is Shrader, which was her grandmother's maiden name. Her paternal grandparents are deceased, but her maternal grandparents have been in the media and interviewed about Jennifer often, as you can see here [3]. To claim they are "not notable" makes no sense, this is a biography of a living person. You would think a biography would include family information and ancestry, as many other Wikipedia pages do, and many find interesting. HesioneHushabye (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

From what I've found, members outside of immediate family (parents, siblings, and children) tend not to be included unless they are notable enough on their own to have their own article. This likely is to prevent articles from being bloated with excessive detail on family. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well looking at her early life section, it's pretty empty. including info on her grandparents is harmless. Please see Wikipedia:Paper. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally not harmless, but also not encyclopedic. We don't go about adding inconsequential material to add heft to a section. We generally wait until notable material is available. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted an interview with her grandparents above, and there are others out there. Jennifer has a huge fanbase and they all are very aware of her family. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a way of showing the source-noted importance of her grandparents to the subject (Jennifer), it's WP:UNDUE weight, at best. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

lol, as if her grandparents need justification to be included on a biography of her life. HesioneHushabye (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

But they do. I'm sure Lawrence's fans would find it interesting, but unless her grandparents raised her or had some notable impact (e.g. "Grandpa Billy Bob's love of film inspired her acting aspirations", idk), what does it add for the average reader? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Is she with Chris Martin or not?

I've been seeing multiple sources from different celebrity news outlets claiming that Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Martin never split up and are currently dating. Any reason that this hasn't been updated onto the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.104.99 (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably because it hasn't been deemed a notable enough relationship to include Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And possibly because there is no reliable source for this. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's pics of them together boarding a private plane in New Jersey from the Daily Mail yesterday. Might be time to update the Personal Life section to include that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.53.205 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Her personal life is rather irrelevant when it comes to notability. If you want to add the list of her mates, it is better to use a source that is trustworthy and reliable that confirms the relationship by Lawrence herself, Martin himself, Lawrence's PR or Martin's PR. Until then, no sources that have images of them together, because sometimes it does not mean one single thing. Callmemirela (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

People Magazine is running an article saying that sources close to both Martin and Lawrence are confirming their relationship. I don't know if that's something, but, maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.53.205 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait until Lawrence and/or Martin themselves say something. Also, Daily Mail is NOT a reliable source.

Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Keywords in your message: sources close to [...] This is the definition of a source being unreliable. It is easy to lie, especially with gossip magazines, whether well-known or known for its lies. Again, find a source that indicates that Lawrence and Martin are in a relationship by Lawrence herself, Martin himself, Lawrence's PR or Martin's PR. Otherwise, it is false and improperly referenced. As Snuggums said, Daily Mail, People Magazine, etc. are not reliable sources for confirmation of a celebrity's relationship. Callmemirela (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

E! News reporter Melanie Bromley confirmed it. Time to update her relationship section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.53.205 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not every relationship is notable enough to include. Besides, you haven't even provided a URL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On this topic, is there a reason we have the "Nicholas Hoult" section in there? I'm not sure that rumors sourced to US Weekly (through IBT) and the gossip section of the NY Daily News need to be included. This seems to encourage the kind of nonsense requests above. Kuru (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've removed content about her relationship with Hoult about them that included reports. I will attempt to find better sources for the rest. Until then, content will remain until I, or someone else, find reliable sources. Callmemirela (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

While I don't like speculate as much, it is rather inevitable if Lawrence was interviewed by Vanity Fair and publicly said what she looks in a boyfriend says that her and Hoult had broken up before the interview here. Them as well claim to have broken up. I will go on and say that this source is credible, unless someone else to object? As well as this other article based on her interview with the magazine, she said, and I quote, "I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance [...]." Right off the bat it means they broke up. I will go ahead with the editing. Callmemirela (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Section break: Needing confirmation from the actors or their management regarding dating?

Callmemirela, because of this revert you made with regard to McQueen.30, I just now noticed that the information about who Lawrence has dated has been removed. You stated to McQueen.30, "Rv, nothing but reports. We know they dated, but there are no sources from the actors (or their managements) themselves. Please check the talk page." I stated similarly at the Amber Heard talk page; see this discussion. But as you can see, I lost the good fight. Since that discussion, I've noticed that Wikipedia does not mostly have editors requiring the confirmation from the actors or their management when it comes to reporting on who the actors dated. Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Majority of the articles out there about Lawrence's relationship with Hoult are just reports. Before that section was entirely removed, I added a source that mentioned Lwrence saying she was in a relationship for four years, nothing more nothing less. Although, Snugmmus (the editor who removed the section) made a point with my source that I added. It never explicitly mentions Hoult. But as any other respected editor, whether a newbie, an editor who has made more than 5K edits or an administrator, should know, when adding sources, that it fails the Wikipedia ref guidelines because it mentiones "reports", "sources close to", "according to [magazine]", "sources", etc. As I mentioned in my messages above, it is easy to lie, whether it's Globe and Mail, New York Daily, People Magazine, The Gazette, etc. When it comes to dating, it should be clear that all content should be sourced properly that explicitly mentions Lawrence, Hoult or their managements, confirming their relationship. If we don't do this, we could have a long list of tabloid content. I hope this clears things. I know that Wikipedia doesn't exactly have the habit of doing so, but I am applying it, especially since Lawrence is very well recognized. Callmemirela (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your reasons, but, per what I stated above, I doubt that your application will continue to hold up. And WP:Newbies usually know little about Wikipedia editing. When you stated that "it fails the Wikipedia ref guidelines because it mentiones 'reports', 'sources close to', 'according to [magazine]', 'sources'," what guidelines are you referring to? I am a significantly experienced Wikipedia editor, and I don't know what you are talking about in that regard...unless it's WP:BLPSOURCES and the first two policies below that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yeah. When I say guidelines, I mean to say BLPSOURCES. I just hate naming every page stating everything. I just sum it and say, "It's a Wikipedia thing." I am well aware that newbies are very inexperienced, but I was just stating no matter who you are, you should know. Anyways, back to the subject. The discussion you provided me was rather long, so I just speed read a bit. I do agree with what you wrote. Wikipedia does not work with plenty of sources stating they're dating. It needs actual confirmation by the stars themselves, their managements, or a celebrity (it happens). I stand by what I've written, because magazines or articles using magazines as sources is extremely poor sourcing or articles including what I've mentioned. Callmemirela (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with her photo...

There are so many great photos in which Jennifer Lawrence is just magnificent and the one chosen was taken on an austrian talk show during which she was ill. Can someone find a good photo of her please? Maybe at the golden globes or sag awards 2014 or one of her premieres this year...

The photos that are used on Wiki mostly come from the Wikimedia Commons, which requires that the file be uploaded under a Creative Commons licence. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To see all of the images available to use, take a look at her category on Commons. Melonkelon (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You can also use a Google-search and click on 'Images' to look for something not copyrighted. -- AstroU (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I know she is not looking directly at the camera in this one, but what do you guys think of this photo? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Way too awkward angle. There is no need to change the current one. Nymf (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I request flickr images from that user all the time, i ignored that one because it was odd and awkward..its a shame it was added to commons cause we might now see "trolls" trying to change the current image which i think is really good with the odd one.. ..--Stemoc 13:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The current image isn't great, but well... --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hunger Games

Did I just fix vandalism? The intro, as I found it, had not one word about The Hunger Games movies. Given their huge success, and her staring as the lead character, the heroine, this omission is incomprehensible. I think someone vandalized the page by removing Hunger Games from the intro. Since this is what she is famous for, it should be the first thing, which is where I put it. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's right there, in the second paragraph of the lede. I have removed your contribution as redundant. Also, it did not quite follow WP:NPOV as it had some WP:PEACOCK terms. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015

I would like to edit the Jennifer Lawrence filmography. 75.117.97.61 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done please mention a specific part of the filmography you feel should be changed, or create an account to make the changes yourself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Should Jennifer Lawrence's role as Raven / Mystique in the post-credits scene for this film be mentioned as a cameo in Filmography?

Scandal

I removed the reference to hacked photos. It smacks of undue weight in this biography. It has nothing to do with creating the subject's notability. Biographies are to be written conservatively with respect for the subject's privacy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's a notable event, although yes it possibly had undue weight. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I will let a discussion proceed to determine what should be included if anything. Looking through the archives, this hasn't been discussed recently. Please keep it out until we get a fresh consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe mentioning about it is necessary due to the significant coverage of the event; however, it doesn't have to be an extremely detailed overview. We have 2014 celebrity photo hack for that. Noting that she was affected by the hack would be sufficient. -- Chamith (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to have a short sentence stating that she was a victim of this incident and link it. Anybody who wants details can read that article and get the full story in context. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, I disagree with your removal of this material. Given the widespread media attention it received and that Lawrence directly commented on it, it should be included. And what was there was the right amount of material; I disagree with cutting any of it. It was not a WP:BLP violation at all, and threatening to block editors if they revert you on it is poor conduct. I will alert the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be covered, by a single sentence probably. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I alerted the aforementioned pages here, here and here. What I like about the addition that Jehochman removed is that it notes what happened, is clear that the images were never meant to be public (despite some people who think that these leaks are done intentionally by celebrities), and that it cited Lawrence's feelings on the matter, an excerpt from her Vanity Fair interview. It is a small paragraph on the topic, and is very much WP:Due. This is why I disagree with a one-sentence addition. Not to mention that, per what MOS:Paragraphs states, I dislike one-sentence paragraphs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I was simply suggesting it could be covered briefly, not that it should be in a single-sentence paragraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I see, but my point is that it was already covered briefly. The aforementioned paragraph is small. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you just said, but I think it's all about the fact it was already covered. We don't need to expand on all of these tabloid exposures. Would Britannica? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear that the aforementioned paragraph is fine and is encyclopedic (in fact, I was very clear with my "20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)" post above); if I somehow wasn't, that is exactly what I meant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: There had been a typo in my comment before I fixed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that she was a crime victim could be noted, with a link to the article about the crime. It is fully explained there. No reason to provide same full explanation here. It would give this tiny little piece of her life excessive attention. I doubt she would like this, and the whole idea of BLP is that we are sensitive to the subjects of Wikipedia articles. "Lawrence was among hundreds of victims in the 2014 celebrity photo hack." That's all we need say about it. This sentence can be added to any of the relevant paragraphs. There's a whole lot more to her life than this. It shouldn't get more attention than it is proportionally due. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you, per my "20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)" comment above and per WP:Summary style. The way you are supposedly enforcing WP:BLP here makes no sense to me; and I state that as someone who commonly enforces WP:BLP. Lawrence specifically commented on this photo leak mess because she wanted people to know how she feels about it; stating that she wouldn't like us including her commentary on it is at odds with the fact that the commentary exists, and is pure speculation. In my opinion, you should be reverted. And if you block someone for reverting you, that person should be immediately unblocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Flyer22; it needs to be covered. Although it is contentious, it is anything but poorly-sourced, and therefore does not qualify for the kind of WP:BLP enforcement you are suggesting. It just makes no sense. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with Flyer22. It might be possible to tighten it up a tad, but in truth I don't have a problem with what was there before. I don't believe there is a WP:WEIGHT issue because it was widely reported at the time. Yes, we have an article to cover the hack itself but this paragraph covers Lawrence's own reaction to it, her perspective. Looking at that section it is probably the least trivial thing in it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be covered, but let's keep it brief. We aren't a tabloid. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both Flyer and Jehochman. It can be on the BLP (I don't necessarily think it needs to be), but a concise statement on what it was, what happened, and her most relevant response to it (I think the quote should be trimmed). Further info is contained in the linked celebrity hack article. A tentative suggestion based on the prior version of the article: "In August 2014, Lawrence was a subject* of the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Nude photographs of Lawrence were leaked online, obtained from her iCloud account by a hacker.[80] Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime" and a "sexual violation", telling Vanity Fair, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense."[81]". *Not sure if editors would want to use "victim"; an alternative could be "target". So, something concise like that. Lapadite (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that; it's just the right amount of detail, although I like including the part I added about any member of her family or friends who might have also looked at the pictures; she was pulling no punches. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with this proposal. Too much content for a very minor piece of the subject's life. I agree to maximum one sentence with a link to the relevant article. Anybody who wants more detail can click. Her commentary is already in the target article. I am pretty sure she wishes that this never happened. We should not indulge those who continue to host these images online in order to make money from advertising placed on the pages. She was a victim of a hacking attack. That's enough. We don't need to delve into the salacious details here. Our goal should be to maximize the dignity of the subject. This incident is tabloid rubbish and does not required detailed analysis and commentary. Jehochman ^Talk 21:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the gist of WP:DUE is not about importance, but coverage. That is, it is not for editors to decide how much space to give a certain story based on our impression of the impact or relevance to the topic, but rather that we should accurately represent the level of coverage by WP:RS. More coverage equals more weight. This episode in Lawrence's life is extremely well-known and widely covered. There are tons of WP:RS writing about it that we can point to in order to justify weight of coverage in this article. I think that attempting to minimize it to a microscopic level is unfair to readers and unfair to Lawrence, when the vast majority of this article is glowing praise and positive press, whereas she is a public figure who has led a public life with its concomitant share of negative and unflattering episodes. WP:BLP isn't about protecting our idols from unflattering stories, not when those stories are well-sourced and well-documented in the public record. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, how is that proposal too much detail? It briefly describes exactly what happened, and briefly relays Lawrence's relevant feelings on the matter; like Betty Logan stated above, "Yes, we have an article to cover the hack itself but this paragraph covers Lawrence's own reaction to it, her perspective. Looking at that section it is probably the least trivial thing in it." I've been clear that your rationale on this matter makes no sense to me. And WP:Consensus is now for inclusion. If we have to take the matter to a WP:RfC to decide on just what wording should be included because you want us to barely state anything about Lawrence being a victim of the photo leaks in the place where it's most relevant -- the Jennifer Lawrence Wikipedia article -- then I suppose that's what we will have to do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we don't mention it at all. She's not notable as a crime victim. She's notable as an actress. This is a tabloid sideshow that should get probably less than 1% of the words in this article. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Neglecting to cover a hugely significant incident in a notable person's life, an incident that the notable person commented on in a very significant way, is not how good Wikipedia articles are written. We shouldn't leave readers to find out about this matter by stumbling upon the 2014 celebrity photo hack article. Elizium23 is on-target with the "21:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(ed) I feel like we're getting more personal than on the road of reaching consensus. I would like to say I completely agree with Flyer22 Reborn. Jennifer was unfortunately apart of a big scandal that hit 2015 and it unfortunately got a lot of people's attention. Whether it's a tabloid media circus or not, she was apart of it and even commented on it. That is highly notable. Secondly, Joechman (sp?), you make it seem as if your opinion is more valuable. I'm sorry, but that is what I sense. And I also agree that enforcing blocks if we revert you is poor conduct. Reverting you on that edit doesn't define it as vandalism. I support the mention of the hack. The way it was was perfectly fine. All we had was, if I remember, 3 three sentences. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Folks, BLP cannot be overridden by the local consensus of half a dozen editors. My concern is that we are taking the biography of an accomplished actress, and using it to advertise the fact that her sensitive data was hacked and released for all to see. We should not add to her problem. This drew a lot of tabloid attention in 2014. Is it something people will remember 10, or 20, years from now? Notability is permanent. We should write the article with a long view, not with excessive emphasis on recent and salacious events. As for blocks, I'm not going to block anybody who reviews or joins a substantial discussion and then makes a thoughtful edit based on that discussion. That warning was for drive by reverts where no consideration to the discussion was given. Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The way you are enforcing WP:BLP in this case is incorrect; we've already been over this above. This is not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS violation matter. Furthermore, the 2014 celebrity photo hack is not simply tabloid fodder, which is exactly why we have a Wikipedia article on it. It also received respectable media attention, and, considering what it's about, that respectable media attention was valid; that media attention entails Lawrence feeling so strongly about the photo leak that it led her to seek legal action and to call the photo leak "a sex crime" and "a sexual violation", and to add, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame." It was important enough to her, and it is important enough for this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer here. We shouldn't go into salacious details, but nor should we ignore the incident, the coverage of which seemed to feature Lawrence disproportionately. The two sentences above seem reasonable to me. We state it happened, we give Lawrence's view on it, we move on to other items. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask Jehochman which section of WP:BLP he intends to use to block violators. I cannot find a section which allows us to suppress well-sourced negative information about celebrities. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of the prose as this is not BLP violating material. It was well sourced (more can be provided after even a tiny googling if necessary) and does not constitute 'negative' infomation about the subject. Where someone is a victim of a crime, rarely is saying they are a victim a negative judgement on them. The small paragraph constituted very little of the article so undue weight arguments are frankly ludicrous. Given that she has given interviews on this and spoken publically about it (the People interview was over a year later and it was still the first topic discussed), its not surprising there are plenty of sources available. Jehochman if you continue to issue threats I will take you to straight to Arbcom for misuse of tools while involved in a content dispute. Gain consensus to remove it and desist from threatening other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the material, as per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which prescribes that negative contentious material should not be restored without consensus on the article talk page that it is appropriate, properly weighted, etc. It is sensible and policy-mandated that we discuss and reach consensus on suitability before such material is included in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As its not a BLP violation issue the above is irrelevant. Secondly see above. Consensus is clear its to be included in a brief form. Its currently about as brief as you can get. Nor is the information negative. It shouldnt even be considered contentious given the wealth of available sources that have discussed it, as well as the subjects own interviews on the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that this matter has been taken to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive233#Jennifer Lawrence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. NorthBySouthBaranof cut the material further; per what I've stated above, I don't agree with it being cut that short, but it's better than Jehochman's suggestions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

In the already long course of this subject's life (which is likely to be a lot lot longer), this doesn't merit more than a sentence with a link to the full article. In any other encyclopedia, they probably wouldn't mention it at all. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I prefer no mention, but would accept a short sentence linking to the article about the crime. Some folks want three sentences. Some prefer a single sentence. I think the rough consensus is for a single sentence. According to http://countwordsworth.com/, the article has 104 sentences. I really think 3 sentences about this tiny bit of her life is too much. Even one sentence is a lot, but it's the least we can do if we want to include the fact. If everybody gets behind that, we can make the change. Otherwise, we can keep talking. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It would not be a BLP violation to state that she was one of the victims of (a photo hacking scandal), and she stated that she considered the hackers had committed a "sex crime" in releasing the photographs. (cited properly) as being a NPOV statement of fact. When the material gets essentially coverage in all the normal reliable sources, and does not reflect poorly on her in any event, we can treat it as the reliable sources treat it (and scrupulously avoiding any source of "celebrity gossip" as intrinsically poor). As for "sentence count" - that is a weak argument, the tone of the mention is far more critical, indeed. Collect (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As I stated at the BLP noticeboard, I think that saying "Lawrence was a victim of the hack" is a much bigger BLP violation because it doesn't include her own take on the incident. She was quite explicit in that she has nothing to be ashamed of in the matter. Treating it as if it is shameful is worse. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. There would be a link to the article about that hack. That article already includes full context, including her response. The biography article is 104 sentences. You are suggesting that we make this incident 3 sentences, or about 1/30th of the article content. Ms.Lawrence is highly notable and has been covered in many articles. I very much doubt that 1/30th of the coverage revolves around this incident. She is 25 years old. I don't think this incident represents 1/30th of her life story. So, what you are suggesting is a violation of WP:UNDUE, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text..." Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

So perhaps the rest of the article does not go into enough depth. I'm not saying that the phone hack is 3% of her life story, but to demand that every event be proportional is ridiculous. You say 3 sentences out of 104 is too many, well looking at the article a few lines is quite a small part, so no I don't see it as particularly problematic. You seem to have decided on your opinion from the outset, and are trying to force others to accommodate you through your use of WP:CAPITALLETTERS. Pretending the incident did not occur, or saying it did occur but not including Lawrence's response, is doing her a greater disservice than including it. You seem to be implying that the incident is somehow shameful, and that is the problem, not its inclusion here. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, you are the one who is not making any sense, and various editors have stated as much. You should accept it and move on. We will not be cutting this bit any further and we will not be removing it. If anything, we will be adding to it. If you cannot accept that, a WP:RfC surely will, and I highly doubt that WP:Consensus resulting from it will be any different than the one currently on this talk page (which involves editors from different pages; remember, I notified the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this discussion, and now editors from the WP:BLP noticeboard are weighing in). Removing "nude photographs," "iCloud account by a hacker" and/or Lawrence's comment on the matter does nothing to help protect her, given that this incident is widely known and that we have a Wikipedia article on it. What we have included in this Jennifer Lawrence Wikipedia article is not salacious detail, as you call it, except maybe to young teenage boys, or men who seriously need to "get laid." The article currently doesn't give the context of the images that Lawrence is talking about, which is that they are nude images of her that she did not publicly approve. We need to remove "nude photographs," really? We need to make readers go to the 2014 celebrity photo hack article, which simply states "many containing nudity," for that detail? Seriously? Doing that is bad Wikipedia writing, and so I again point you to WP:Summary style. In my opinion, it is quite disrespectful to Lawrence to silence her view on the matter in this article. Trying to silence the fact that she considers anyone who has viewed those images as perpetrating a sexual offense is more typical of the men who know they viewed those images and hate Lawrence's commentary on it. None of this is trivial. This was not a trivial moment in her life, by all accounts documented (including her own words on it and that she sought legal action for it). This is an encyclopedia, and we should act like it's one. Neglecting to cover a hugely significant incident in a notable person's life, an incident that the notable person commented on in a very significant way, or being vague about that incident, is not acting like it is one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to say that this was a "hugely significant incident"? I also don't appreciate the multiple personal attacks contained in your statement, to the effect that anybody who disagrees with you "need[s] to 'get laid'" or is one of "the men who know they viewed those images and hate Lawrence's commentary on it". It's all rubbish. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources; they are quite clear about how significant this incident was in her life. So are her own words. And as for WP:Personal attacks, I made no personal attack on you with regard to the "not salacious detail" or "Trying to silence the fact" commentary; I was making a point that removing her commentary makes not a bit of sense for Wikipedia, and I noted the people who usually have a problem with that comment. I was stating that I see no reason for us to have a problem with it, unlike those people. I know better than to throw such a personal attack at you; the last thing I need is another administrator wrongly or justifiably blocking me. You know, the way you've indicated that you would wrongly block editors on this "scandal" matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

BLPs should be edited conservatively particularly with regard to privacy, and WP:weight, recentism and WP:onus (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion), so Jehochman is right in that regard. Mentioning being the victim of a notable photo hack, covered by high-quality sources, is not a BLP violation however, and Flyer et al. have also made sound arguments. It appears there's consensus to mention the photo hack, but nothing beyond that yet. What to include should be agreed upon. I don't agree with the excerpted quote presented in the article; it looks tabloid-ish (e.g, a click-bait headline). Like Collect said, it's more a matter of tone than how many sentences there are. I like Collect's concise, neutral suggestion. If we want to include more than a mention of her being a victim of the photo hack, I propose: "Lawrence was one of the victims of the 2014 photo hack scandal. Private photographs, many containing nudity, were obtained from celebrity iCloud accounts by hackers and posted online. Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime", telling Vanity Fair, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense."" Or the "telling Vanity Fair part" could go. Lapadite (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "telling Vanity Fair" is wasting words. I think that bringing up the issue of nudity or a sex crime is definitely click-bait. It is something that will make a certain segment of the audience go looking for the photos. Lawrence only commented because the issue was being reported in the press and she wanted to rebut as best she could. I suspect she would be happier if we didn't mention "sex" or "nudity" in her biography. It is sufficient, I think, to say that she was a victim of the photo hack, without characterizing the photos. Anybody wanting more detail can click through to the photo hack article. That article has its own problems, but fortunately we don't have to deal with them here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Since some editors feel that Jehochman thinks his word holds more weight than anyone else's here, and he edited the quote further to seemingly challenge my "18:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)" post where I stated, "We will not be cutting this bit any further and we will not be removing it.", the only solution is to put the matter to a vote. He's already rejected your first proposal, Lapadite77, and I doubt he'd approve of your latest proposal. I'm fine with either of your proposals, but I'd prefer that we not include "scandal." I also don't think we need to include "called the leak a 'sex crime' and a 'sexual violation'," since Lawrence's quote makes it clear that she considers the matter a sexual offense. And I'd rather state "her iCloud account" instead of "celebrity iCloud accounts" to keep the material focused on her. You stated that you don't like including the excerpted quote, yet you included it in your proposals. Do you mean the "cower with shame" bit? Either way, I don't see how including Lawrence's commentary gives a tabloidish feel. Below, I will offer options for the wording, so that people can vote. If needed, I will turn it into a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "cower with shame". I agree on the use of "scandal" (misremembered the article name). I'd like to note that the proposals aren't definitive or the only ones to consider. If editors don't entirely agree with any please propose an alternative. I don't disagree with a mere mention of the photo hack, and I don't take issue with a mention of the hack and her most relevant/direct response so I support all proposals that do so concisely and in a neutral tone. Lapadite (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

How best to include the material?

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've gone ahead and turned this poll into a WP:RfC. The WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include regarding Lawrence's ties to the 2014 celebrity photo hack. For more information regarding the dispute, see the discussion above on the article talk page. I will alert the WP:BLP, WP:Biography and WP:Film pages to this poll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Support first proposal

"Lawrence was among hundreds of victims in the 2014 celebrity photo hack."

• First choice. Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This is Jehochman's proposal (see the "21:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)" comment), but he insisted that I can't note it as his in the heading because, well... yeah. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously. We're not to right great wrongs or to be a soapbox for certain celebs, this is a succinct description of what happened, the linked article is fine for further explanation. More within the subject's article would be undue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Including it without her response is worse than not including it at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  Because if you leave it as "she was a victim", that's all she was. But in reality, she expressed a thoughtful view and refused to be ashamed of it at all. I found it very admirable. Saying she was a victim without anything further does her a disservice and is exactly what BLP is meant to avoid IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  Everyone was a victim, so that's why we link to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  My point is that, unlike pretty much everyone else affected, Lawrence was not a passive actor in it. The "appropriate" response to having nude photos of yourself posted is, according to the world at large, to be shamed. Lawrence did not do that, and that should be noted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Jehochman and The Rambling Man. The above statement should of course be appropriately cited. This event and her response are available and sourced on the event article. Per UNDUE, IMHO, this BLP needs no more information; she was merely one of hundreds of victims to a crime. Thanks for the thread on ANI which drew my eye to this discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support This whole event is tabloid fodder that will be forgotten within a year, and furthermore, quoting her does not add any substance to the article. Her stock "this sucks" remarks are banal and repeating them only serves to add to the WP:UNDUE aspects of this whole incident. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too cryptic. If this is worth mentioning at all, and it seems like it is, it's worth an additional sentence or two giving context. To mention it without context is telling/reminding some readers that nude photos exist on the Internet, but nothing else. Downplaying it is superficially sensible, but ultimately it's a lot more tabloid-like and trashy to talk about it without that context. She was the victim of a significant crime, so briefly including what the crime was, and her reaction, is both appropriate weight and more respectful. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  Exactly. Without context of her response, this is just saying you can find naked photos on google. Giving a sentence of explanation not only allows people to know what happened without having to read an entire other article (contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in the rules against a very brief explanation of a bluelinked event), it allows Lawrence's side of the story to be shown. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too vague. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose vague suggestion made early on in the discussion above. This is an encyclopedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Victim" is so condescending, particularly given the courage and strength of Lawrence's response. She's anything but a victim. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry to disagree with you, but you're reading much too much into "victim". Someone who has had a crime perpetrated against them is, ipso facto, a victim of that crime, that's the meaning of the word, and we shouldn't stop using it because we read weakness into it. The President of the United States can be the victim of a crime, or the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, or Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, or Christiane Amanpour, and if those powerful people can be called "victims" but an ordinary person cannot, then it becomes our non-usage of the most obviously available word which says "the person who experienced this crime is weak and not powerful, and for that reason I'm not going to call them a 'victim'". We become who defines them as weak by not using the word. BMK (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Unless evidence can be provided as described in a section below of a transformative effect on her. BMK (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above - Way too vague IMHO. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Too vague. Needs a bit more context to stand on its own. A brief explanation of what the hack was should suffice for a minimum proposal. Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, "Lawrence was among hundreds of victims who had their private images stolen and leaked online in the 2014 celebrity photo hack"? It's not a huge change from the proposed text but it adds a bit more context. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per BMK. This article should focus on the actress. Concerns about "vagueness" are mitigated by the very clear article title (and it's easy-to-click wikilink). SteveStrummer (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTPAPER. There is no reason to intentionally trim down content just because it is long. Try to think from this point of view: if this were a featured article, how would this be written in the article? sst✈ 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lawrence's response is widely commented on in reliable sources and noteworthy, and you've given no good reason for deleting it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - of all the choices of this trivial matter, this is the only one that is not silly undue weight. The actual photo-hack article has all the details we need. All this deserves, if anything, is a passing mention and a link. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This alternative is short, sweet, and to the point. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE and read like a tabloid. Meatsgains (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Lapadite77's first proposal

"In August 2014, Lawrence was a subject* of the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Nude photographs of Lawrence were leaked online, obtained from her iCloud account by a hacker.[80] Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime" and a "sexual violation", telling Vanity Fair, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense."[81]

• Support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Support if the whole nude photographs was not included. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose too much undue weight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose excessive explication of minor issue in the biography. The linked article already has all this info. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More information than necessary. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support: Might be TMI, but just linking to the other article is insufficient. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:WEIGHT. BMK (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too much info. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. An alternative to this proposal: "In 2014, Lawrence was a subject* of the iCloud celebrity photo hack. Private photographs of Lawrence were obtained from her iCloud account by hackers and posted online.[80] Lawrence called the leak a "sexual offense".[81] *"target" or "victim" were also suggested. Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I can support this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Lapadite77's second proposal

"Lawrence was one of the victims of the 2014 photo hack scandal. Private photographs, many containing nudity, were obtained from celebrity iCloud accounts by hackers and posted online. Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime", telling Vanity Fair, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense." Or the "telling Vanity Fair part" could go.

• Oppose too much undue weight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose excessive explication of minor issue in the biography. The linked article already has all this info. Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More information than necessary. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't like calling her a "victim", implies helplessness and weakness. Montanabw^(talk) 00:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose again, per WP:WEIGHT. BMK (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too much info. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. An alternative to this proposal: "Lawrence was one of the victims of the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Private photographs, a number* containing nudity, were obtained from celebrity iCloud accounts by hackers and posted online. Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime", adding that anyone who looked at the images perpetuated a sexual offense." *alt: "some"; or excise "containing nudity". Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I can support this but wonder if "many" is accurate, and whether we can come up with something better than "victim". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Flyer22 Reborn's first proposal

"In August 2014, Lawrence was a subject of the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Private photographs, a number containing nudity, were obtained from her iCloud account by hackers and posted online.[80] Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, she called the leak a "sex crime", stating, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense."[81] We can safely drop the "Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public" part, even though it adds a smoother flow. And we can drop the "a sex crime" part as redundancy. And I obviously don't mind including the "You should cower with shame." part as the last sentence of the quote.

• Oppose too much undue weight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose excessive explication of minor issue in the biography. The linked article already has all this info. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way more information than necessary. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Too wordy, other proposals better. Montanabw^(talk) 00:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, even more so, per WP:WEIGHT BMK (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too much info. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I'd add "cower with shame." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Flyer22 Reborn's second proposal

"In August 2014, Lawrence was a subject of the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Private photographs, a number containing nudity, were obtained from her iCloud account by hackers and posted online.[80] In response, she stated, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense."[81] I think this proposal sounds better ending with "You should cower with shame."

• Support Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose too much undue weight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose excessive explication of minor issue in the biography. The linked article already has all this info. Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More information than necessary. BusterD (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support at least to the extent of including Lawrence's strong language in the quote above. Appropriate that her own voice be heard. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support for the version in this comment - Overall, better than the last, but should not include hyperbolic "cower with shame" remark, which is more embarrassing to the subject than anything else (one cowers with fear, not with shame), and I would cut "from her iCloud account" which is extraneous information. So: "In August 2014, Lawrence was subjected to the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Private photographs, some with nudity, were obtained by hackers and posted online.[80] In response, she stated, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense." My support is only for this in the body of the article, not in the lede. BMK (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too much info. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Support without "cower with shame" bit. Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Contains the pertinent facts and Lawrence's general feelings on the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as first choice for body. Again, WP:NOTPAPER. sst✈ 18:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Add "cower with shame." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A former version of the material

Permanent link: "Lawrence was a victim of the 2014 celebrity photo hack. In response she said, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame."

• Oppose. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: Insufficient context and using that "victim" word again. Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for the "cower with shame" misstatement. "Victim" is appropriate here, as she was indeed the victime of a breach of her privacy. BMK (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree it's insufficient context, and oppose inclusion of "cower with shame". Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support mattbuck's proposal

In August 2014, Lawrence was one of the victims of the iCloud celebrity photo hack. Several nude photos were posted online.[80] Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime" and a "sexual violation".[81]

• Support as proposer. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose undue weight to something trivial that has its own article to cover all this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. More information than necessary. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Support. I find myself swayed by argument that a small amount of context is useful in this case; of the options presented this is the tightest, best constructed and my preference. I do not think this incident merits mention in the lede as of this datestamp. BusterD (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  BusterD, you seem to think everything is "more information than necessary". We are in the business of providing information here on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting we go into detail about the hack beyond "nude pictures were leaked as part of a hack, Lawrence said X about it". This way it states the fact, it gives Lawrence's view on it, and then moves on to whatever comes next in the article. That's not "too much" information, it's barely any information at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  I think in this particular case, virtually everything is more information than necessary. The subject herself definitely meets GNG, but not every tabloid aspect of her life needs coverage to create a B-class or better article. As a longtime contributor here and an avid lifelong reader of encyclopedias, I find it difficult to justify inclusion of anything more than a bare mention and link to the event, an event well-documented and sourced in its own notable subject pagespace. Miss Lawrence's involvement in and response to the event is more than adequately documented at the event article. I believe personalizing a BLP with tabloid material is just as poor a choice as personalizing a talkpage discussion intended to render an impartial best choice on a BLP page. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This seems about as brief as possible while still giving appropriate context. When someone is the victim of a significant crime covered by many major sources (no, not just tabloids), summarizing that briefly is entirely due and appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Not WP:Undue weight in the least, per my and others' above arguments. This is an encyclopedia. Mattbuck, thanks for the suggestion; I also thought about proposing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support reasonably concise without leaving out any major details Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: It's probably the second best phrasing "one of the victims" is better than "a victim" - emphasizes responsibility borne by the hackers, though "subjected to" would be better. I also kind of like the full direct quote from Lawrence as to her views of those who view the images. Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  I agree victim isn't a perfect word, but it's hard to come up with anything better. Whatever phrasing is used, it should ideally convey the following:

  1. It was done without Lawrence's blessing;
  2. Lawrence was not the only one affected;
  3. It was outside Lawrence's control, that it was a crime.

  Saying "subjected to" is inferior to my mind. I can be subjected to Maid in Manhattan, but I could still walk away. Victim implies that they had no choice in the matter. "Subjected to" also implies that something was done to Lawrence, which wasn't the case. It was about her, rather than involving her. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  Personally it's the second sentence I'm not entirely happy with, it feels a bit forced, but hard to see how to improve it without going into excess detail. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it the "emphasizing" part you take issue with? I strongly agree with Montanabw about including Lawrence's quote, the one where Lawrence states, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense." This shows that she's not only speaking about the hackers but also about the general public. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the "Several nude photos were posted online" bit. Now clearly it doesn't make much sense without it, but it's a fragment. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Now that you mention it... I don't like that line either; this is because the sentence seems to be about the leak in general instead of Lawrence, and there were more than "several" as far as all the people's private pictures go. I'd prefer it state "Several nude photos of her were posted online." or "A number of nude photos were posted online." But this can be done after your proposal is implemented; your proposal is clearly the consensus version so far. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support but only in body, not in lede. BMK (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as it's short and to the point, All the info is on the Celeb hack article so there's no need to have a huge paragraph on it here, Short & sweet's better imho. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Is "several" supported by source? There's redundancy using both "sex crime" and "sexual violation". Support if one is removed. I'd remove "August" as the month is irrelevant. Lapadite (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  There certainly was more than one image of Lawrence leaked, and IIRC she refers to them in the plural. The month can be used if we need to state X then Y then Z, but not wedded to it. I think that having both "sex crime" and "sexual violation" helps the flow. The exact quote is "It is a sex crime. It is a sexual violation." -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that Lapadite77 means there were more than several (whether talking about the pictures of all the people included or Lawrence herself); if you look at Lapadite77's second proposal above, you can see that "many" is used instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how many photos there were, and it seems unlikely we can get a reliable source for such a thing. I'm not too happy with the second sentence, it needs some work, but several doesn't seem an unreasonable description for the nudes. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

My issue with "several" is what I stated above. I don't mind "several" if we are referring to Lawrence. But if we are referring to all the people who had their private images leaked, "several" is insufficient to me because it's commonly understood to mean a few or a little more than a few. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we need to make clear that that sentence is understood to refer to Lawrence specifically. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Since, as noted a little below in this subsection, your proposal is currently in the article, I'm glad you clarified the "several" matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per BMK. Don't mind losing "August", as suggested by Lapadite — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This gives enough context to understand what happened and describes her reaction. Since her reaction was covered in multiple reliable sources, it's clearly not undue emphasis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this looks to be the best suggestion. Mentions that she was the victim, and gives her response. Brief and to the point, no possible accusation of UNDUE can be levelled here. Agree that it should be in the body only and NOT the lede. GiantSnowman 10:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support What gave the scandal life was the fact that Jennifer Lawrence was one of the people who was caught up in it. So I feel we do need to at least acknowledge here that she was a part of it as one of the victims of the hacks. As long as we provide a link to the article on the hack, we can and should keep this as short as possible. This hits all the salient points across without going into any unneeded details. Tabercil (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as my second choice. This is a reasonable compromise version, but I do feel it compromises a bit too much. Either Lawrence's response to the hack has due weight or it does not. If it does have due weight then why are we only including half of it? I feel that her views about people viewing the images and "perpetuating a sexual offense" are essential to her viewpoint and clarify her stance on the issue. It means she is not just taking issue with the hackers but also with the people who download the images. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  You have a point there, and I certainly wouldn't object to adding a note about people who viewed the photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• 'Support - for body of article. -- Moxy (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as first choice for lead and second choice for body. Reasonably covers the main points while being compact. sst✈ 18:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Since this version seems to have overwhelming support, I have implemented it in the article. Discussion can continue and if a different consensus emerges it can be updated again. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would have been better to wait until the WP:RfC closes, meaning after a neutral outside editor weighed the arguments and closed the discussion; that's how WP:RfCs work. Right now, the proposal titled as the current version of the article in the WP:RfC is no longer current. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Our goal is to improve the article, and this proposal is far ahead of the others and has the highest level of support. Whenever the discussion winds down, somebody can determine if there's a better one with more support. Meanwhile, we don't let perfect become the enemy of good. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the ways you go about discussion, including RfCs, but I'm not going to heavily protest the change you made (especially since I support this proposal). I will, however, reiterate that it is not how RfCs are usually done. We don't keep updating the article based on what we think is the consensus version until the RfC closes, which also renders a close mostly useless. We usually don't bypass the process. So regarding this? No, there was nothing wrong with the heading; this is because, like I stated above, it was made in anticipation of the RfC closing and whatever consensus version being implemented afterward. Above, in this section, editors, including Mattbuck, clearly are not even in full agreement on Mattbuck's proposal; we are still working it out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Flyer22. Discussions have not ended yet. The RfC is still open. To prematurely make changes just because "this proposal is far ahead of the others and has the highest level of support" is wrong. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. Some people just want to argue for the joy of arguing. Do what you want; I am completely fed up at this point by the mistreated and the endless attacks. I'll go edit some other article. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support seems like I'm too late for the discussion. Given that this proposal already has been implemented I don't think my !support would make any difference. Nonetheless I support this version per above comments. -- Chamith (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but add "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame". She wasn't just taking aim at the hackers and hosters, but at the voyeurs too, and that seems to be the most noteworthy aspect of her response - yet we leave it out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I think this version is the best. The first proposed version is too vague, not giving enough detail. The following versions give too much detail, detail that does not need to be included in the article. This version is the better choice, simple, straight to the point, and not too detailed. In addition, there is no way that this version could be WP:UNDUE. I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but I support this version. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support extensive coverage

I was just reading [4], which describes the pivotal role of the leak and Lawrence's response to it in making her "our greatest celebrity". Maybe it's not the best of sources but it speaks the truth -- people badly needed to see someone willing to stick up for themselves rather than being ashamed of imagining there is such a thing as a private conversation, and that mattered for her, specifically, as a person, long term. So I support not only what the longer formulations here have, but further development of the topic as appropriate. It is, frankly, one of the top things she's known for. The people here brandishing "undue weight" as a euphemism for "censor what we don't like" out of some sense of chivalry ought to be ashamed of themselves, because none of us knows the real effect of anything long term, positive or negative. We can only have faith that an accurate dissemination of truthful data will have the best long term outcome. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can come up with good sources to tell the story that this hack and her reaction greatly increased her fame, that would be interesting. If she becomes a leader of the movement against cyber-bullying, and hacking, that would justify expanded coverage. I'm not sure I see this yet, but I am open to being convinced if you have more sources. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Having read the article now :-) I see what you are saying. This is dated 12.31.2015, so very fresh. I think we need to wait a bit and see if we can corroborate it with other articles, to see whether this is the prevailing view, or just one writer's opinion. If it is the prevailing view, the story then becomes, Jennifer Lawrence was one of the most notable celebrities affected by the iCloud photo leak. In response, she spoke out..., greatly increasing her fame and popularity. The "increasing her fame and popularity" are what would make this incident worth more than a passing mention, if it affects the trajectory of her career. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is basically what other folks have been saying all along. It isn't so much how it affects the trajectory of her career, it's her courage and leadership on the issue. It isn't that it's making her more or less famous, it's illustrative of her character. That's why it matters. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Can you identify sources that connect the dots? If this incident had a greater meaning, we need to explain it for clueless wonders like me who don't follow entertainment and celebrity news. I agree with including more content if we explain why it's relevant. Jehochman ^Talk 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ditto to what Jehochman said. Judging from my search of relevant news stories and my own interpretation of this article, it seems that the recent attention is almost wholly centered on her essay on the wage gap rather than her comments on the photo leak incident. But then again, I have been known to be oblivious to celebrity acts of "glamorous badassery". Elspamo4 (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If the evidence of this is indeed available, that the hack was a transformative event for Lawrence (whether or not it impacted her fame is not, I believe, relevant), then such an expansion (in the body of the article) would be acceptable, but the evidence would have to be really good, from clear-cut reliable sources, not blogs or forums or tweets (except perhaps from her) or Facebook pages (except, again, for hers) - I would want to see newspapers, news and general interest magazines (not celebrity rags), stuff like that. BMK (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This is the best approach, and I feel those who are trying to condense the information down into obscurity are very misguided. Everyking (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can live without it being in the lede, unless the lede is frequently updated; but I also agree that it is a mistake to "condense the information down into obscurity." It is important to show that she stands up to sex crimes in an era where other individuals would just eliminate the privacy of any celebrity as fair game. And I'd say that Vanity Fair is a major, reliable source. Montanabw^(talk) 08:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevant content about the impact of her response to the hack and pay discrepancy (I find it really hard to take anything else in that article seriously) is presently one writer's opinion. Surely if several RSs directly discuss this impact it would be notable to include on the BLP. Lapadite (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the equal pay and any other relevant issues should be added to such explanation, if good sources are found. Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support in theory, but write a draft first. Adding an "Impact" section to the article to cover such content would be ideal. sst✈ 18:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support per SSTflyer. I agree that the scandal should be included but not with a giant paragraph. However, if this were to be included, I would only agree if there was a draft written first. My idea of extensive coverage is obviously different from yours. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Undue Weight" bloat to this trivial matter. It's covered in the photo-hack article and that should be more than adequate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2016 (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.

Not quite there yet

Presently, we say

In August 2014, Lawrence was one of the victims of the celebrity photo hack. Several nude photos were posted online.[80] Emphasizing that the images were never meant to be public, Lawrence called the leak a "sex crime" and a "sexual violation".[81]

Lots of people were victims and lots of them said stuff about it. Lawrence's comments seem to have had a more significant impact than any others, and we don't yet make that clear. We should, and we should be able to make that point in one or two sentences. Not sure of the language yet. Just thinking out loud. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, nice to see you here. In the #Support mattbuck's proposal and #Support extensive coverage sections above, your sentiments are echoed. What I don't like about the current text is that it makes it seem like Lawrence only focused on the hackers...when, clearly, she took issue with anyone viewing the pictures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The bit I remember most is her, "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you're perpetuating a sexual offense. You should cower with shame. Even people who I know and love say, 'Oh, yeah, I looked at the pictures.' I don't want to get mad, but at the same time I'm thinking, I didn't tell you that you could look at my naked body."[5] It was that sentiment, not just labelling it a sex crime, that moved me the most - and we don't even cover that aspect. (I think User:Montanabw said something similar above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, in the "Support mattbuck's proposal" section, Betty Logan stated similarly; I really like Betty Logan's point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said anything here that hasn't been said above. Flyer, do you mind if I just delete this subsection, and save others' reading time? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to object if you want to, but leaving the section here is likely to make it clearer to the closer of this RfC that there is strong support for adding a piece noting that Lawrence took issue with anyone other than her intimate partner (Nicholas Hoult) viewing the images. For the record, that partner also spoke out on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

OK. Let's leave it, then, if you think it helps. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, it was not just the hack. Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

For those still not satisfied with the current wording, there is another proposal. We could add "and took issue with anyone viewing the images." onto the "Lawrence called the leak a 'sex crime' and a 'sexual violation'." wording. So I'm going to go ahead and ping the main ones (other than myself) who felt that the current wording is not there yet: Mattbuck, Callmemirela, Betty Logan, Wnt, Everyking, SSTflyer, Montanabw and Anthonyhcole. Maybe Lapadite77 has an opinion on it as well.

And as for closing the discussion, which was recently an issue, maybe I JethroBT, who is a good, neutral closer, would be willing to do so? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That addition is an improvement, but I prefer

...and said those who looked at the pictures were " perpetuating a sexual offense."

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

For my "23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)" post, I also meant to ping Only in death. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's OK with folks, I can start to look this discussion and any consensus from these options at the end of the month (when the usual 30 days has passed); if many of you would like me to close it earlier, let me know. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I JethroBT. Thank you. I don't see a need to wait. But if you need extra time, feel free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you in advance, Jethro. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dramedy?

Dramedy? Are you kidding me? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia. How about comedy-drama or dramatic-comedy, depending on which emphasis you prefer, or rephrase to something else entirely but why oh why use such an ugly neologism right up in the introduction? Why sacrifice clarity for such an awkward word? The article body doesn't even use that horrid description. I'd have rephrased it already if the article wasn't locked. The article for the film Joy (film) calls it a semi-biographical drama film, and does not use the ugly neoligism either. The article body calls it a drama, although the film was nominated for several awards as a comedy. Please someone rephrase the intro to avoid the unnecessary neologism. English is my first language, but for many people reading Wikipedia that is not the case. As we are writing for a very wide audience it behoves us all to use clear and concise English and avoid unnecessary awkward neologisms. -- 109.77.244.7 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I replaced it with "comedy-drama" for now Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish there was less of this ugliness added in the first place ("encylopedia anyone can edit"), and I wish there were more articles that instead of being locked completely were at least set to allow flagged/approved edits ("encyclopedia anyone can edit") but thanks for fixing it. -- 109.77.244.7 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oscar nomination

Information about Lawrence's fourth Oscar nomination was deleted by User:SNUGGUMS, with the justification that "mere nominations aren't particularly noteworthy compared to actual wins". I find this absurd. Oscar nominations are obviously noteworthy. The Academy Award is the most important award in American cinema. Even if someone is just a nominee, mainstream news sources will report on it and it will be used in trailers, posters and other advertising. It adds prestige to the name of an actor - being nominated is already a honor, and it is understood as such. I'd go as far to say that an Oscar nomination is more important than or just as important as a Golden Globe win. There's a very clear consensus about this on Wikipedia. Every article on actors who were nominated lists all of their nominations, including featured and good articles. Aquila89 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I second this. A nomination is just as important as wins. Being nominated for an Oscar is considered acclaimed work. This is about Jennifer's life in acting, including nominations. To just revert because Snuggmums (sp?) thinks nominations are inferior to wins is not policy-based and rather an opinion and, personally, stupid. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is NOT "absurd" or "stupid" per my comments here. It's overkill for this article when List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence already exists. Pending and lost nominations are better for that rather than here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be an overkill to list every award and nomination. It's not an overkill to list Oscar nominations. It seems to be your fixed idea that wins are always more important than nominations; I disagree. An Oscar nomination will bring more attention and prestige to an actor than a win from the Screen Actors Guild. Aquila89 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do say that wins are more prominent than nominations no matter what the ceremony or category is. The Oscars are not exempt from that stance regardless of how prominent they are. At the very least, I say that lead sections should only focus on what someone has won more than what they were nominated for, and a nomination isn't as lead-worthy as her win for Silver Linings Playbook. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Yes, I do say that wins are more prominent than nominations no matter what the ceremony or category is." This is a ludicrous statement. An Oscar nomination is clearly more notable than a win from the Central Ohio Film Critics Association.

"At the very least, I say that lead sections should only focus on what someone has won" I didn't put the nomination in the lead, if you don't want it there, I have no issue with that. Aquila89 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved all nomination info to article body. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Aquila89 (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

i agree with Aquila89's reasoning here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite important to note in the lead that she has received 4 Oscar nominations. IMO it can be quite easily done without making it too tedious to read. For example, instead of saying "Lawrence further gave critically acclaimed performances in Russell's comedy-dramas American Hustle (2013) and Joy (2015)." we can say that "Lawrence received two more Oscar nominations for her performances in Russell's comedy-dramas American Hustle (2013) and Joy (2015)." --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that wins are more lead-worthy than noms, and talking about noms in the lead makes it overly focused on accolades. Being "tedious" to read isn't the concern. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that given how prestigious it is to receive an Oscar nomination, I think it'll be more interesting to read the lead if we knew which films she was nominated for. You know, unless it's Meryl Streep, and we can't possibly list all her nominations in the lead. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we definitely couldn't list all of Meryl Streep's nominations in her lead. If pending or lost nominations are mentioned in an article at all, I say they're better for article body since a win is more prominent than a mere nomination (regardless of how prestigious the Oscars are). Like I said before, the lead otherwise becomes too focused on accolades. This is not List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence. That page's lead would be a better place to note them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead summarizes notable information. Academy Award nominations are one of the most notable industry highlights. Oscar recognition (nominations and wins) is, after profits, the most sought after and most covered aspect of the film industry (including all of awards season). Oscar nominations influence marketing, release strategies, and future production and financing decisions. They are widely covered, controversies arise out of them (e.g., diversity issues), all kinds of records are noted. Receiving an Oscar nomination is very important for an actor or filmmaker's career. I second that omitting Oscar nominations in an encyclopedia's lead is absurd; how is something so emblematic of the film industry and of a professional's notability in the industry considered not important enough for the lead? Has this notion become WP policy, a guideline or even a local consensus justifying their removal? The way nominations are presented in the lead depends on how many nominations and/or wins the subject has had of course. For someone like Meryl Streep, noting the number of nominations and any records is sufficient, which is what her article does. Jennifer Lawrence is/was one of the youngest to receive a nomination for Winter's Bone, for instance (and her nomination certainly impacted her career); to omit that initial success - success isn't just being in a blockbuster - because it's subjectively less important than her recent win is doing a disservice to the subject, the encyclopedia, and readers. Any media article, journal, book, encyclopedia (such as Britannica) does include and should include such notable information. Lapadite (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not "absurd" or a "disservice" at all regardless of how prestigious the organization might be. "Influence marketing, release strategies"..... this is not a site for promotion, so that point is moot regardless of what other organizations say about a subject. The point of just including wins is to prevent overfocus on accolades. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not other organizations, what film journalists have written. My point also being that Oscar nominations are equally noteworthy for films and filmmakers. Is your belief that 10 Oscar nominations for a film, or even "just" a Best Picture or Best Director nomination, isn't notable enough for a lead? Because I just don't see the logic and stress that it goes against conventional wisdom. Lapadite (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not lead-worthy compared to actual Oscar wins. It would be better for the lead of List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence than this article's lead. Again, this is to prevent overfocus on accolades in the bio, though pages dedicated to accolades someone or something has received is a different story since they're specifically dedicated to the matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)