Talk:Cate Blanchett/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres

@Lapadite77: I cannot find any other example of a Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters having this designation added under their name in the Infobox. I can't see any reason why it should appear there on this article. This honor is already mentioned in the body text. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Saw this now, sorry. Dwpaul, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. However, there are; two I can remember right now (which are in the List of members of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres you linked) are Marion Cotillard and Meryl_Streep. Honorary titles are sourced in prose and added to the infobox under the honorific_prefix or suffix parameter. Template:Infobox person Lapadite (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Variety interview

When asked if this is her first turn as a lesbian, Blanchett curls her lips into a smile. “On film — or in real life?” she asks coyly. Pressed for details about whether she’s had past relationships with women, she responds: “Yes. Many times,” but doesn’t elaborate. Like Carol, who never “comes out” as a lesbian, Blanchett doesn’t necessarily rely on labels for sexual orientation. “I never thought about it,” she says of how she envisioned the character. “I don’t think Carol thought about it.” The actress studied the era by picking up banned erotic novels. “I read a lot of girl-on-girl books from the period,” she says.

@Sandstein: Blanchett's answer was so ambiguous, and the question was so vague, that I think this is very flimsy evidence on which to declare Blanchett an "LGBT actress" by applying this category. Note that she doesn't state that her "past relationships with women" were sexual and/or romantic, nor did the interviewer's question seem to leave out the possibility of other interpretations. She seems to have quite effectively evaded the question. I certainly don't think this would stand up to scrutiny at WP:BLP/N. I'm still inclined to remove the category, but want to give you and/or other editors an opportunity to provide any other evidence to support the label. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the guidance at WP:LGBTCAT, I have again removed the category as a potential violation of that policy and of WP:BLP, pending further discussion here. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection.  Sandstein  14:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have gone a step further and removed the statement "In a 2015 interview, Blanchett said that she had 'many times' had past relationships with women" from the article. Without context, and in the Personal life section, this creates an implication that I think we have agreed the citation does not support. I could see reinserting information about this interview, but only in the context of her discussing her role playing a woman in a lesbian relationship in Carol, and only if the ambiguity of her answer is communicated in its mention here. This much elaboration concerning the interview is probably WP:UNDUE. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; it pertains to her private life and is pretty substantially reported on (just search her name in Google News), which indicates that reliable sources find it interesting, therefore so should we. Any implications do not concern us, we only report what other reliable sources do. One line is hardly undue prominence in a huge section full of trivia such as that she lives in a "1877 sandstone mansion" or that she on one occasion wore "a pair of Fairmined earrings set with responsibly sourced diamonds".  Sandstein  18:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is interesting does not mean it should appear in a biographical article on Wikipedia; and implications we create that are not fully supported by our sources certainly do concern us, especially with regard to biographical articles, where there are specific legal concerns and standards for inclusion of information about our subjects. There may well be other cruft in this article that should not be there, but none have the implications of your edit. If need be, we can open a case at WP:BLP/N, where this kind of disagreement is discussed and generally resolved. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No objections to discussing this on a noticeboard, but the text at issue contains only notable and well-sourced facts which will be of interest to readers who want to know about this actress. Any implications, I submit, exist principally in your own mind, which we take no editorial responsibility for.  Sandstein  19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See and comment at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive222#Cate Blanchett. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the quote from the Variety interview, I've removed it. See my edit summary. This is a WP:BLP. This ambiguous implication should not be added unless the actress herself clarifies and confirms what she meant. Lapadite (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: Please participate in the the discussion at the BLP noticeboard. As a general rule, once a question is brought there the disputed content should neither be reverted nor repeated until consensus is established. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Dwpaul, I've just commented on the noticeboard. BLP info that is ambiguous and implicative like this should be removed by default regardless of what or where discussion is taking place. Lapadite (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting here as well; WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons 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, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Lapadite (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein, don't disrupt my talk again with nonsense. Thanks. Read the BLP noticeboard thread linked by Dwpaul. Lapadite (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The quote seems well sourced and may be included but with appropriate WP:WEIGHT - this isn't something dug up by a tabloid. She was well aware it was a major interview and would make waves, and she introduced the topic by asking a leading question back to the interviewer that directly proceeded asking about her relationships. Agree that this does not qualify as self identification for the purposes of WP:BLPCAT. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The interviewer introduced to the topic, and also never stated the exact questions posed: "When asked if this is her first turn as a lesbian...". The interviewer is a Variety editor and reporter who is very present during awards season. It's not about her filmography, it's a personal question, which after a "coy" likely humorous response, leads to pressing questions (as per the interviewer) culminating in a terse reply. Per the interviewer, no elaboration. No, an ambiguous comment (that may have been joking, sarcasm, annoyance, and whatnot) from an interview not about that isn't notable to include in the WP:BLP, certainly with no clarification or confirmation from the actress. We don't include any comment from an interview that may be sensationalized by media outlets. We don't include, for instance, "I tried to drink beer on pub crawls when I was at Melbourne University" from the sensationalized, widely-(mis)reported The Project interview. See discussion at discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Lapadite (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Blanchett said "in real life" which then led to the question/quote in question. She set it up to be about her personal life. If she put her foot in her mouth, she has a well oiled PR machine who can correct it for her. she doesn't need our paternalistic protection - its insulting to her to think she doesn't know what she meant to say. We shouldn't label her, or categorize her, but pretending she didn't say something is dumb. Let the reader decide what she meant. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the linked discussion. Pretending she didn't say anything is not what editors are doing. Also read over WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons 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, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Lapadite (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I think what Gaijin42 is saying is that if we persistently revert any mention of this so-called revelation, we are in effect trying to pretend it never happened. My recognition of that perception, and the fact that others keep re-adding it, is why I proposed the compromise now being discussed at WP:BLP/N (for which Gaijin42 expressed support). I think the compromise meets both the letter and the intent of the policy you quoted. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

About that policy, I'd also suggest that anyone who sits for an interview with Variety about a movie in which they will soon appear has absolutely zero right to an expectation of privacy when it comes to their comments, nor any reason to think they will be protected from "harm" that may occur (to their reputation, their income, etc.) as a result of those comments. The most they can (and should be able to) expect is that they will be quoted accurately, and that's what the compromise is trying to ensure. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, for one. Not including something in an article does not mean one is disregarding its existence. We don't include every comment made or everything the media sensationalizes. The several arguments given by editors in the BLP noticeboard clearly state the reasons why it should not be included, at least until clarification from Blanchett herself. It is evidently not because we're denying she uttered the quoted words. I respectfully disagree with your last sentence (of the first paragraph); the BLP and WP:UNDUE policies are clear, and such a compromise (adding the comment) doesn't really comply with them. And that is one sentence of the BLP policy. Lapadite (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Case closed, Blanchett misquoted - (posting this from the BLP noticeboard) See this is why we take precautions and don't publish whatever the media sensationalizes. At the press conference for her film, Blanchett was asked about the Variety quote, to which she said the interviewer did not print her followup to her response - The Guardian: Blanchett, who is married with four children, said her quote had been judiciously edited for effect. “From memory, the conversation ran: ‘Have you had relationships with women?’ And I said: ‘Yes, many times. Do you mean have I had sexual relationships with women? Then the answer is no.’ But that obviously didn’t make it.” Lapadite (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

HitFix and Hollywood Reporter with full comments. Lapadite (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Also Entertainment Weekly and the Telegraph. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Cate Blanchett

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cate Blanchett which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://guru.bafta.org/cate-blanchett-life-pictures

  Triggered by \bguru\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

De-blacklisted diff: [1]. Lapadite (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Occupation

It is standard practice for WP infoboxes and leads to include the field a producer or director is in, such as film director or theatre director. That is important here, as readers may otherwise be mislead to believe a film star is also a film director. Blanchett and her husband became co-CEOs and artistic directors of the Sydney Theatre Company. The article does not mention them being producers there. Blanchett has no producer credit on the film Little Fish. None on Stateless either. Assuming she will in the future is WP:CRYSTAL. One credit as one of nine executive producers on Carol does not merit listing an individual as a producer in the infobox or the lead of an encyclopedia article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The role of artistic director and CEO of a theater company entails producing theater. Blanchett and her husband co-produced Little Fish; she is developing and co-producing Stateless; is an executive producer on Carol; and also produced the short Bangers. Again, that is all sourced in the article. Moreover, a quick Google search for producer: [2], [3]. So, both theater and film. I've specified theater director in the infobox. Lapadite (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A Google search for producer, the term you want to promote, is not a proper method for determining an occupation to be included in an article lead or infobox. WP goes by a film's credits. The subject of this article chose not to take a producer credit on Little Fish or Stateless, as shown by your own sources reporting others as the producers. And neither an artistic director nor CEO should be called a producer in an encyclopedia if they did not take such a credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Producer information is sourced in the article. When you read the information, you'll notice Cate Blanchett and her husband have a production company. Also, there can be more than one producer for films, TV, and theater productions. Lapadite (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Incredible how you're willing to stretch things. For purposes of an encyclopedia, we don't add producer credits where none exist because someone has a production company. And we don't add them where sources clearly don't show them because there can be more than one producer for films, TV, and theater productions. You should read WP:SYNTH. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"we don't add producer credits where none exist" - Oh boy. Ok, I'll try to be clearer. Blanchett and/or Blanchett's production company has sourced producer credits, such as Little Fish, Bangers and Stateless; See the Bangers source, for example: "Producer: Cate Blanchett Andrew Upton". Her owning an active production company makes her a producer. She produced theater when she ran/was artistic director of the Sydney Theatre Company (also in the documentary In the Company of Actors). She has executive producer credit on Carol. Reliable sources call her a producer; clearly, because of producing credits. Not sure why you're emphatically disagreeing with what sources state. I'll even throw in IMDb if that cinches it for you. See, nothing vague or obscure, or offensive or controversial. Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The majority of such websites describe her with one word: actress. So if website descriptions are what you want to go by, only that one word should be used in the lead. Having a production company does not mean one is credited as a producer. Again, you should read WP:SYNTH. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"So if website descriptions are what you want to go by" ... Gothicfilm, I'll resume this discussion (if it can go any further) when you decide to listen. Otherwise, feel free to get more input at a relevant noticeboard or Wikiproject. Lapadite (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just driving by and saw the commotion. At first it seemed that Lapadite was right, since she has a producer credit for Bangers. But after a few minutes it's obvious that Gothicfilm is right, and his/her claim that it's synth is way too mild. I'd say that listing her "occupation" as producer on the same level as actor is wrong and highly misleading.

I don't think that mentioning her co-producing a 9-minute film warrants even being in the lead, since it undermines the summary of her career up to now. She's acted in over 50 films over a 25 year period. To therefore add her input into Bangers as an "occupation" is ridiculous. And being a CEO or "executive producer" (aka "a key investor,") or co-owner of a production company shouldn't be an occupation. The best we should do is add "co-producer" in the Notes column of Bangers, which it seems is the only film that WP shows her co-producing. But on the other hand, since I myself was once in the background of a movie being filmed, where the director told me I could stay if I acted natural and didn't look into the camera, I may add "actor" to my resume. --Light show (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Blanchett has one credit as one of nine executive producers on Carol and is one of two producers on the nine-minute short film Bangers. That's it. Claiming more producer credits because of a production company that was not the main company on a film is WP:SYNTH at best. This does not seem to merit listing an individual as a producer in the infobox or the lead of an encyclopedia article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was sidestepping the WP:SYNTH misattribution, but i'll address that now: WP:OR refers to "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist " [emphasis mine], which is evidently not the case; WP:SYNTH is "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." [emphasis mine], which is evidently not the case; You both haven't skipped over the comments that reliable sources explicitly call her a producer and reliable sources credit her/her company as a producer, right? There's a difference "between summarizing the information from sources and extrapolating new information from sources." SYNTH is not an advocacy tool, it's not presumed, and it's not a catch-all. So maybe we can drop the silly WP:SYNTH claim (and hopefully hyperbole and irrelevant analogy) and understand that this is a disagreement over whether or not what reliable sources explicitly say and the present number of credits she/her production company has warrants adding it to her occupation. If consensus (for which there needs to be more input) is that owning an active production company, several producer credits and reliable sources calling her a producer doesn't warrant mentioning "producer" in the lead/infobox then so be it. Light show, owning an active production company - being a CEO or CFO and financing or co-financing people's projects - isn't an occupation? Or running a theater company isn't an occupation? What kind of WP:SYNTH. Yes, producer credit(s) should be added to the notes column, i've added it. Lapadite (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

One executive producer credit on a film and one as a producer on a short is not "several" producer credits. Her time at the Sydney Theatre Company is covered by her title as "artistic director", the credit she actually took. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction, artistic director and CEO (that's sourced in the article btw). Lapadite (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Most interviews and articles I've seen only mention artistic director, but it's not relevant to this, as producer is a different credit then both of them. - 20:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

She's also been on the cover of probably a hundred major magazines, modeling fashions on Elle, Vogue, Bazaar, Vanity Fair, Cover, and countless others, with multiple times for each. Her occupation as a fashion model would also need to be included, although she may not appreciate WP diluting her career that way. The issue is what primary occupations she is most notable for, and those should be put in the infobox and opening sentences, with secondary activities placed in the body, which is where they are now. She's also an active philanthropist[4], so we might need to add that also. --Light show (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Virtually every actor has been featured on magazines. Being styled on the cover of magazines is not an occupation. Right, most notable for acting and producing and directing theater. But let's wait for more input. Lapadite (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If I paint one fence, that doesn't make me a painter. Having two or three producer credits does not make you a producer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There it is – I was waiting for someone to say something like that. I agree with Lugnuts on this one. Look, you can get all the sources you like, but shouldn't common sense prevail here? I'm not stating this because I don't understand anything that you guys are saying – I just think that having two or three credits does not amount to being credited as a full-time producer, at least not to the extent of someone like Vin Diesel, for example. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, like playing an musical instrument doesn't make one a musician, designing clothes doesn't make one a fashion designer, directing films doesn't make one a director, writing a screenplay doesn't make one a screenwriter, having a production company and producing doesn't make one a producer; unless, apparently, one has played the instrument to an arbitrary degree of intensity, designed an arbitrary number of clothes, directed an arbitrary number of films, have an arbitrary number of producing credits, or act in an arbitrary number of plays or films to be considered an "actor", etc. Anyway, I'm going by what reliable sources explicitly state; evidently, this is a subjective issue over how many credits is enough to warrant lead/infobox mention. Josh Hutcherson, for instance, is an FA that includes producer with few credits. Pinging a few WP:FILM regulars for a larger consensus here; @Erik, Betty Logan, Flyer22, DarthBotto, Favre1fan93, and TriiipleThreat: Lapadite (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean, sure, something could appear in the lead along the lines of "Blanchett has also [done this]...", as an example. Just based on what I've seen, though, I just don't know if it warrants "actress, producer". I don't know, it could just be me. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Some editors oppose it, so it's not just you. I personally think being called a producer by RSs and having a production company w/ more than one producing credit warrants mention in the lead/infobox, as the overview of a Bio should mention all noteworthy occupations; for instance, in the Bio of a musical artist who sings, writes, plays instruments, and also acts, we note they are a singer, songwriter, instrumentalist (or musician), and actor/actress. MOS:BLPLEAD #4 says, "The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played". But maybe consensus here is that one or two (or however many) more producing credits should warrant mention in the lead/infobox. As for your suggestion, I'd personally prefer summarizing her producing role by stating "producer" in the intro, as another position held. But I'll add executive producer to the mention of Carol in the lead. Pinging a few more regular editors that participate in WP:ACTOR; @MarnetteD, SNUGGUMS, and NinjaRobotPirate:. Lapadite (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Only producing a few films might warrant an infobox listing but not a lead mention. Several films produced would be worth including "producer" in lead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Ok, so let's establish what number "several" is, for the lead. Say, four minimum? Lapadite (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I wouldn't count executive producer as being part of an occupation, since it only requires writing a check. And I'd question whether being a co-producer of a 9-minute short should even be mentioned in the lead, and maybe not even in the body. It's too insignificant to be shown on an equal level with her occupation as an "actor." --Light show (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I define "several" as between 5 and 11. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

When I write an article, I usually just go by whatever seems most relevant. If I know of a person as a director, but I find that they were the cinematographer or editor in some low-budget film released before their directorial debut, I usually just skip over that in the lead. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to why they're notable. However, if someone produces films on the side, I guess that would be worth noting. I don't know. I don't usually think about this so much. The articles on Don Johnson and Bruce Willis both seem pretty inclusive about their respective careers. So maybe include it? I don't have very strong opinions on this matter. I would probably defer to those who do. I don't really like writing leads, and most of the ones that I've written are quite minimalist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between executive producer and producer and she's done only, what, one of each, with the producer credit being for a short film years ago? As Cate Blanchett is not known as being a producer, I would remove the mention of it in the lead and possibly from the infobox, as well. That is my input that was requested. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 03:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Her production company was a credited producer on another film (Little Fish), and there's the theater producing during the Sydney Theater Company run (disagreed on above). MOS:BLPLEAD suggests stating occupations or positions held does not really depend on how many credits or works. Like I said above, if an actor has also produced, or directed, then they're an actor and producer, or actor and director; if they've authored a book, they're an actor and author. Angelina Jolie, another FA, states filmmaker, and she has directed two films. SNUGGUMS, given that several is "two or more but not many", and other articles list occupations for which few credits exists, I'm inclined to have an arbitrary minimum at 3 or 4, if one were to be recommended. I still note that we'd be dismissing WP:V/Reliable sources (and MOS:BLPLEAD) supporting "producer" in favor of subjective, editor interpretation. Lapadite (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie has directed more than two films, and she received a lot of media coverage as a director. She also has producer credit on over half a dozen films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:BLPLEAD, "Incidental and non-notable roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." Otherwise it would dilute her notable activities. --Light show (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Right before that it says, "The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph." Having a production company, financing/co-financing projects (however large or small) is a notable position/role. Her being most known for acting is noted by "actress" being stated before "producer"; the intro does not say "is an Australian producer, and actress". "Incidental and non-notable roles", which producing isn't, would be listing "style icon, philanthropist, humanitarian, artist, performer" etc. How exactly does stating "producer" (supported by RSs in the body) dilute her being a famous and awarded actress? And what is the argument toward FAs using the same logic, and we somehow applying a different one here? This is a needless, overextended subjective discussion, while WP:V/WP:RS and FAs support the status quo. Lapadite (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you wanted our input? It seems like you disagree with everything we've said. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The reason this discussion has become overextended is because one user, Lapadite, keeps repeating the same argument against everyone (but one) who comments here, because everyone (but one) supports removing "producer" as an occupation (with that one not taking a position). Her limited producer role has now been added to the filmography and to the second paragraph of the lead, making it even more undue in the opening sentence. No one has supported Lapadite's position. It should be pointed out the lead only had "actress" as an occupation until Lapadite expanded it 12 days ago. He clearly has no WP:CONSENSUS for including producer. This has gone on long enough. I've taken it out. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

DarthBotto, do you mind commenting on the points I raised, such as why are we applying a different logic here than in the FA examples? That's what discussion is for, discussing the merits of arguments presented, not counting votes. Gothicfilm, "limited" producing positing is your pov/WP:OR, contrary to what WP:RS state - which is what I've going by, not your reiterated view. She/her company has now 4 known producing credits (not counting upcoming project Stateless), and practice in FAs doesn't support the view you're pushing here. There's no undue issue there either, another misattribution like the ironic cry of WP:SYNTH. Producing credits are added to filmography table notes because that's how it's done. I've no problem removing the producing credit next to Carol in the lead (which was an alternative suggestion from 4TheWynne). Deadline: also a producing partner on Truth'. In light of reliable sources, and FAs, you're still standing by "no producer"? When these points are directly addressed discussion can move forward. For instance, if we want to establish a minimum number of credits, then start proposing one; don't waste time pointing fingers at someone disagreeing. Lapadite (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie has directed three or four films, and she received a lot of media coverage as a director. She also has producer credit on over half a dozen films. Blanchett has one credit as the seventh of nine executive producers on Carol, and is one of two producers on the nine-minute short film Bangers. That's it. This does not merit listing an individual as a producer in the infobox or the lead of an encyclopedia article. I fully support having those two credits in the filmography table, and mentioning it - but not over emphasizing it - in the article body, but claiming additional producer credits because of a production company that was not the main company on a film is not valid. Six editors here have taken that position. No one has supported Lapadite's position. And when Lapadite repeats the same thing over and over, it's no longer a discussion. The purpose here is not to go on endlessly, because only one person keeps demanding his same argument get responded to every time he repeats it. The time has come for "producer" to be removed from the lead and infobox. If Lapadite wants to continue posting here and pinging people to continue responding to him, he's free to do so, but he needs WP:CONSENSUS to restore "producer" to the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's actually you (the OP) and Light Show previously reiterating vague arguments, and two other editors (Lugnuts, DarthBotto) strictly agreed on no lead or infobox mention, not 6. Moreover, discussion isn't a vote count. Ok, Angelina Jolie, per the content in her article, is credited as producer on two films (In the Land and Unbroken), and executive producer on two others. Not very different from this case, except a couple of those films received a lot of publicity (though correct me if I'm wrong on which other films she produced). What of Josh Hutcherson, executive producer on three films? Gothicfilm, Blanchett/her company, as I noted below, has 4 known producing credits, not 2. It doesn't matter if it/she is the sole producer or producing with another company or person. It doesn't discredit someone's producing role if they co-produce/are a producing partner (one is otherwise equally discrediting the other party). So, it's about receiving significant media coverage and/or a (unset) minimum number of credits. Like I said, we should state concrete reasons, not just throw anything against the wall and see what sticks. @SNUGGUMS, NinjaRobotPirate, and 4TheWynne:, thoughts on either or both of these criteria? How would one determine what "significant" coverage is? Would a film produced/co-produced by the subject or their company need to have Oscar buzz perhaps? Lapadite (talk)

Angelina Jolie has received a lot of media coverage as a director. Blanchett has not received a lot of media coverage as a producer. A half dozen or more times you have repeated the same unsourced claim a production company (that was not the main company on a film) should count as a producer credit. It doesn't. I don't need to prove a negative. You need to prove a positive. One is counted as a producer if they have producer credit. Not because they have a production company that got an "in association with" credit. Some production companies of note have their own articles. This one doesn't. Josh Hutcherson should not be listed as a producer, and I'll be addressing that shortly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The consensus and common sense is to exclude an occupation as a producer. In light of the fact that her new film Truth, in which she plays a producer, opens today, there might be other reasons for someone pushing this new occupation on her bio. I'll remove it pending consensus to give her a new occupation. It would also be nice to know if anyone has a COI. --Light show (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Once again, someone pushing this view fails to Assume good faith and fails to address the discussion points. Not that it's your concern, but if you know my edit history, you know I edit mostly BLPs, film articles, and music articles, and I'm a primary editor here ergo I know a lot of this subject. I'm also generally a strong supporter of deferring to what RSs say, not editors' pov, as well as serving the reader. The Deadline article was posted today, therefore news today. Removing it while discussion is still open is disruptive and against WP:BRD, Light show, and you've a history of edit warring and edit warring against consensus. Familiarize with how consensus works: Wikipedia:Consensus. Care to directly address the discussion points just raised? Lapadite (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

After you address mine. And which would be a better use of your time than digging for dirt to discredit other editors, especially considering your familiarity with AGF, which you just violated. --Light show (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"After you address mine" - sure, address what that I haven't already? Lapadite (talk)

How about setting up a neutrally-worded RfC? It doesn't seem like there's much hope of resolution without one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Mother's maiden name

All Hallow's Wraith, mind explaining changing the source for the maiden name, when the original (Inside the Actors Studio interview) here is a primary source? Lapadite (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett never mentioned her mother's maiden name on Inside the Actors Studio. Her mother's maiden name is "Gamble", which the Playbill source confirms. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the episode, All Hallow's Wraith; James Lipton mentioned the maiden name after mentioning her father's surname, and Blanchett confirmed it. Playbill may say "Gamble", but Blanchett is a primary source. Lapadite (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't say her maiden name was "Wayback". When Blanchett says her mother is Australian, he asks "Way back?", and she replies, "Way back, of convict descent". He was asking if her mother's family has lived in Australia for a long time. You can watch it again here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How is "Wayback" merely a reference to coming from Australia? The context indicates it's the name. He asks about her father's surname/origin and straight after he asks about her mother's - Lipton: "Blanchett sounds like a french name, is it in fact?"; Blanchett: "My father was American..."; "Lipton: "What was your mother, she was Australian"; Blanchett: "Yeah"; Lipton: "Wayback"; Blanchett: "Wayback, of convict descent I think". If your interpretation is different, we should get more input. Notifying recent editors of this article, @JJMC89, Carniolus, Oli300, HappyWaldo, Dwpaul, Gogo Dodo, and 4TheWynne:. At 2:52 in this video. Lapadite (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Australia was founded as a penal colony. If someone is descended from convicts in Australia, then they could say their Australian heritage goes "way back" (back many generations). - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but i'm talking about the context in the interview. To me, they're not saying her Australian heritage goes "way back", she's saying the surname is "Wayback, of convict descent" (after the comments on "Blanchett" possibly being a French name and her father coming from the U.S). Or perhaps we should just leave it at "June" - several sources just state "June": [5], [6], [7]. 4TheWynne, no rush. Lapadite (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for notifying me. I'm at school right now, but I'll have a look at it later and try and talk as soon as I can. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say way back is a reference to time. As in her ancestors go way back to when Australia was established as a penal colony. Lipton: "What was your mother, she was Australian?"; Blanchett: "Yeah."; Lipton: "Way back?"; Blanchett: "Way back, of convict descent I think". — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity about Blanchett's response in the Inside the Actors Studio interview, as there obviously is, the Biography of living persons policy requires that we err on the side of not including the information in the article on the basis of this source. Find another source that resolves the ambiguity, or leave the content out. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I stand by my interpretation, but given the ambiguity, I'd say the article should just mention "June" (no surname). As I noted above, several sources state only the mother's first name. Lapadite (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long – OK, so I've just had a look at it, and my response here might be a bit outdated, but I honestly think that this isn't substantial enough to say that Blanchett was confirming her mother's maiden name as 'Wayback'. I think that it's too tough to make a call on whether she was saying "'Wayback'" or "Way back". I haven't done any real research or anything on this particular issue, however, so I might keep out of this one. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The article should mention her mother's maiden name, which is "Gamble" (Blanchett's maternal grandfather was Horace Thomas Gamble). Lapadite is simply wrong, and probably by now realizes that they're wrong, so either admit that you are, or don't, but this is nonsensical and a waste of everyone's time. James Lipton didn't even ask for Blanchett's mother's first name, so the idea that he was talking about her last name is comical. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

He didn't ask for the father's first name either. All Hallow's Wraith, you've only offered original research. Why are you asserting that it is "Gamble", and where is the source for Horace Thomas Gamble? It's not nonsensical; this is a BLP, and, as Dwpaul noted, we can't have information that is ambiguous and might be wrong. Unless you can provide a reliable source for her maternal grandfather's surname, the article should only state "June". I cited three reliable sources that only mention "June". Her mother's maiden name is not really important info anyway. Lapadite (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@JJMC89, Carniolus, Oli300, HappyWaldo, Dwpaul, 4TheWynne, and All Hallow's Wraith: So this official Cannes video of the Carol film premiere shows "June Blanchett" on the reserved seat in the theater: [8]. Given this and the aforementioned sources that only state "June", I think it's best to leave it as "June"; or "June Blanchett" if this video were to be cited (or Getty Images, lol.) Lapadite (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hollywood.com also says June Blanchett. Lapadite (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not seriously discussing "Wayback" again? The idea that Cate Blanchett's mother's maiden name is "Wayback" should not be brought up by anyone again ever under any circumstances. I think all rules of civility can and should be ignored in this situation. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith, did you read the two comments right above yours, one of which pinged you? No mention of "Wayback". Lapadite (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

June Wayback Blanchett, esquire

• June Wayback Blanchett, the daughter of Wendy and Phil Wayback.
• BTW, first of all, parents' names are listed on just about every article of a major figure in Wikipedia (when verified with a reliable source, like this one).
• Second, I find it remarkable that Lapadite77 had no problem with adding Blanchett's mother's name back when he believed it to be "June Wayback". But when his error was corrected he's decided we can't list the actual name. Thank you. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image

Which photo should be used in the lead:

2014; Current one, added & preferred by Krimuk90

2015; photo used before current one was added

2013

Or another? Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a non-issue. Why can't we allow the recently added 2014 pic? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Voting on an image is not an "issue". An editor recently removed the 2015 image to add the 2014, another editor (myself) disagreed with the change; as there have been several changes to the infobox image in the past couple of months, a vote is proposed on which image editors think is best for the lead. We'll see If more than two people, out of 300 watching the article, vote. Lapadite (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cate Blanchett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130807051249/http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/ to http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cate Blanchett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705181635/http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/a-class-act-how-cate-blanchett-saved-stc to http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/a-class-act-how-cate-blanchett-saved-stc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615021946/http://old.solar-aid.org/about/2008/05/cate-blanchett-talks-about-sol.html to http://old.solar-aid.org/about/2008/05/cate-blanchett-talks-about-sol.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"worked with hayao miyazaki"

I guess this is kind of a nitpick, but it is really inaccurate to say that Cate Blanchett "worked with Hayao Miyazaki." She was hired by an american voice director to do a voice for an American version of the movie which Hayao Miyazaki has probably never even seen, let alone worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.7.97 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cate Blanchett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132032/http://www.locatetv.com/tv/police-rescue/season-3/1805746 to http://www.locatetv.com/tv/police-rescue/season-3/1805746
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227162238/http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/29-things-we-learned-from-the-hot-fuzz-commentary.php to http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/29-things-we-learned-from-the-hot-fuzz-commentary.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161027143554/http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/73rd-festival/line-up/off-sel/venezia73/voyage-of-time.html to http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/73rd-festival/line-up/off-sel/venezia73/voyage-of-time.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922185816/http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/media-release/who-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does to http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/media-release/who-earth-cares-cate-blanchett-does

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

any "in the order of" should be "of the order of" 2605:E000:9149:A600:AD5C:6551:85D8:948D (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done (Specifically "Companion of the Order of Australia".) General Ization ^Talk 20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

The second paragraph in the lead is improperly italicized from the link to Electra. Bbadjosh (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism post metoo movement

See RfC close below.

Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Dear @Lapadite77: I believe the following is important enough to be included here :-

" Her feminism was questioned in media in 2018, months after Me Too movement, because of her naming her son after Roman Polanski and having unapologetic stand on working with Woody Allen."

Please help me understand the reasons against including this. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Saurabhbhardiya: In short, because this is just typical, passing celebrity criticism from some outlets. A few people criticizing a celebrity for an implication the celebrity made about their son's name isn't encyclopedic content. Plus, she's just one of many celebrities who received criticism for being in a Woody Allen film. It's nothing notable for her life or career. I had cited WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONUS. WP:DUE may also apply. WP:BLP also states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") 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, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article". If you really want to include it, I suggest opening a WP:Request for comment in a subsection here; other editors will weigh in with their opinion and a consensus should be reached. Lapadite (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: Created the RfC as suggested. You put me through lots of policy read :) . Anyway here is my viewpoint on this:-

1. Naming One's son after a famous person is significant. It shows One admires that person.

2. She might be one of many who are criticised for working with Woody Allen but that does not reduce the significance of criticism. Also many celebrities who were criticized (or not) have apologized , regretted or have decided to not work with him again (Natalie Portman /Michael Cain etc.).

3. It seems notable for her life, If it was not she (and many others) would not have been questioned about it repeatedly (in 2014 then 2018). After Me Too movement Polanski and Allen have become Litmus test for celebrities for their stand on change of status quo.

4. BLP Issues

1. No privacy Issue/ all public statement

2. It's related to sexual assaults on minors and One's opinion about convicted/absconding/alleged perpetrators so I do not find it titillating.

5. If this seems significant then WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE should be taken care of. Anyway RfC has been started(WP:ONUS).

I had mentioned WP:BALANCE during my edit. Article already has Ms. Blanchett's views on feminism showing her as supporting women. (Even if article did not have that) When several media outlets criticize her on something as important as this,it should be included.

Not in this particular case but in general, just saying that it should not be a glorification page of a celebrity where significance of criticisms would be reduced and praises would be highlighted. Fan Sites serve that purpose. Celebrities have power to reach to lots of people & "with great power..." :D .

Again that was lots of work for free @Lapadite77:. I think we should move the discussion to RfC. Or please agree and save me the trouble.

References

RfC on criticism after "me too movement"

The consensus is against including information about Cate Blanchett's being criticised for her statements about Woody Allen and Polanski per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP.

Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the fact that Cate Blanchett was criticised for her statements about Woody Allen & Polanski be included in the article ? Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Please specify what the RfC is about. It's not a "stand" (Blanchett has never spoken for or against either person), it's about her frivolous mention of Roman Polanski when talking about the potential origin of her son's name, Roman; and any criticism for her being one many celebrities who did a film with Allen. Lapadite (talk)

changed "stand" to "statements". Mentioning the disputed statement below to clarify RfC

I thought the following is important enough to be included in the article:-

" Her feminism was questioned in media in 2018, months after Me Too movement, because of her naming her son after Roman Polanski and having unapologetic stand on working with Woody Allen."

Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Per the above-stated specification of the RfC, no. [My comment from above discussion (with an addition at the end)] In short, because this is just typical, passing celebrity criticism from some outlets. A few people criticizing a celebrity for an implication the celebrity made about their son's name isn't encyclopedic content. Plus, she's just one of many celebrities who received criticism for being in a Woody Allen film. It's nothing notable for her life or career. I had cited WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONUS. WP:DUE may also apply. WP:BLP also states: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") 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, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article". The cited tabloid-like sensationalist headline that Blanchett named her son after Roman Polanski isn't accurate as she didn't explicitly, seriously state this in the cited interview with Jimmy Kimmel (video should be viewed for interpretation). There is a potential BLP issue here with claiming this the article or citing a source that sensationally claims that in its title. Lapadite (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

[Comments from earlier discussion (with additions at the end)] Here is my viewpoint on this:-

1. Naming One's son after a famous person is significant. It shows One admires that person.

2. She might be one of many who are criticised for working with Woody Allen but that does not reduce the significance of criticism. Also many celebrities who were criticized (or not) have apologized , regretted or have decided to not work with him again (Natalie Portman /Michael Cain etc.).

3. It seems notable for her life, If it was not she (and many others) would not have been questioned about it repeatedly (in 2014 then 2018). After Me Too movement Polanski and Allen have become Litmus test for celebrities for their stand on change of status quo.

4. BLP Issues

1. No privacy Issue/ all public statement

2. It's related to sexual assaults on minors and One's opinion about convicted/absconding/alleged perpetrators so I do not find it titillating.

5. If this seems significant then WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE should be taken care of. Anyway RfC has been started(WP:ONUS).

I had mentioned WP:BALANCE during my edit. Article already has Ms. Blanchett's views on feminism showing her as supporting women. When several media outlets criticize her on something as important as this,it should be included.

6. Her statement on kimmel on how she came up with the names for her children was “Roman, I don’t know... Polanski. But it’s also the French word for book.”

It does not look good in any way(eg. "Osama I don’t know... Bin Laden. But it’s also the Arabic word for lion." ). Anyway she was criticized for it in several media sites.

7. It will come down to- If her criticism on her statements, with respect to alleged sexual assaulter of minors, in multiple sources, and for years(2014,2018) is important enough to be included in the article or not?. Or Wiki should only be used for glorification. If an issue is mentioned in the tabloid it does not automatically becomes unimportant. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• No should not be included as it is tabloid gossipy unencyclopedic content. She had nothing to do with the actual crimes and that's what matters, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• No as being, at most, tangential opinion absolutely unrelated to her actual deeds. A splendid example of the "celebrity gossip-itis" plague going around. Collect (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. I'm a bit bothered that a couple of the previous oppose !votes lean on arguments that are not really predicated firmly in policy (one person's idea of "gossip" may nevertheless be perfectly acceptable and appropriate for inclusion in a BLP). Nevertheless, I join the emerging consensus; as a WP:WEIGHT matter, this just does not to my mind qualify as due information for this article. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• NO - lacks WEIGHT in external coverage, is just a momentary item of the day unless further actions occur to resurface it. Really seems OFFTOPIC not biographical life story major event or major personal choice, more a BLPGOSSIP tidbit. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. The text is apparently original research (which sources state that her "feminism was questioned"?) and unverifiable mind-reading (how do we know her stance on Allen was "unapologetic"?). And the overall quality of sourcing (tabloids, op-eds, "lifestyle" sections of news outlets, etc.) fails to establish due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In fact, most of these sources are not from 2018 at all, and so are irrelevant to any "criticism" from that year. The only sources that demonstrate any relevant criticism are the New Zealand Herald piece mentioning Dylan Farrow's comments, along with the Sydney Morning Herald op-ed (a primary source). Much more thorough, secondary sourcing would be needed to satisfy BLP policy and NPOV, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Consensus/ End of Discussion: Majority rules. I am unconvinced but It will not be included. removed RfC tag. Thanks @Snow Rise: and others. Tagging @Lapadite77:. I found WP:RFCEND confusing to follow, but I think this is it.Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Saurabhbhardiya: Yep, in cases with clear, non-contentious consensus you just remove the rfc template. Lapadite (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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

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.

Kaboria in filmography

Please comment on this topic on the talk page of the filmography article: Talk:Cate Blanchett on screen and stage#Kaboria in filmography. Lapadite (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

About this reversion

That doesn't make sense to me. She isn't commonly described as a producer. Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Do a Google search and/or read the article body. She and her production company has been and continues to be a producer on multiple projects. She has also received nominations and awards as a producer. --Lapadite (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky: Could you please share your thoughts? Thanks! Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

she has a number of credits as a producer now that i think its fine to describe her as such --FMSky (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)